Westminster Hall Sitting of 4 May 2004

Preamble
[MR. KEVIN HUGHES in the Chair]

Occupied Territories
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
9.30 am
David Winnick: The debate is undoubtedly topical. The rejection by Likud members this weekend of the plans drawn up by Prime Minister Sharon should not lead us to believe that those plans were in any way right; it merely shows the deeply held views of a very right-wing party that wants to hang on to all the occupied territories, and the lobbying by the settlers, who obviously have much influence in the Likud party.
I requested this debate because of deep concern about Israel's intentions for the occupied post-1967 territories. The plan, as we know, was to evacuate the Gaza strip but to remain in occupation in nearly all the rest of the Palestinian land. That concern was deepened by President Bush's endorsement of the plan. The very fact that the most powerful nation—the one country that has such influence with Israel—was willing, through its leadership, to endorse the plan causes great concern. I am not at all surprised that 50 diplomats from the United States have made known their dismay at what has occurred. In my view, they speak more for the United States than President Bush does on this matter.
As for the west bank, just four settlements, with a population of 517, were to be evacuated. That would have left 134 settlements with a population numbering some 200,000—and that is apart, of course, from Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the Golan. Moreover, many of the settlements were begun or much expanded in recent years. Let us not forget for one moment that they are all illegal under international law.
It is difficult to see it, but what was intended for Gaza was a first step towards the road map, leading to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. Of course, various Prime Ministers viewed the plan as a step to be welcomed, because it would have led to the viable and sovereign Palestinian state that was intended. However, let us be clear that it has never been the intention of Prime Minister Sharon, and certainly not of the Likud party, to allow any such state.
During his campaign to be elected Prime Minister in February 2001, Sharon made it perfectly clear that he did not intend to pursue a final peace deal with Palestinians that would give them their own state. He is not the leader of Likud for nothing. His aim, as commentators have said, was to pursue a series of deals to contain the bloodshed, as far as Israel was concerned, and to establish calm. As for calm, it can hardly be forgotten that, in his election campaign, Sharon took the most provocative action possible in going to the Temple Mount. We know what followed. That action was no accident; it was deliberate, and he knew what he was doing.
374WH
We should not forget—I have no intention of doing so, and when Sharon was elected, I raised the matter at Prime Minister's Question Time—that when Sharon was Minister of Defence he bore indirect responsibility for the massacre of Palestinian refugees in September 1982. Had he not given permission to the Lebanese Christian sect—the massacre was carried out by Christians—it is very unlikely that any such massacre could have occurred. Moreover, let us not forget that, when that massacre occurred, more than 400,000 Israelis demonstrated. If ever there were a demonstration along the lines of "not in our name", that was it. Nor must we forget that the commission that looked into Sharon's conduct as Minister of Defence concluded that he was not fit to hold that office.
The road map lays out various phases. Phase 1 was meant to freeze all settlements and to dismantle settlement outposts constructed since 2001. That was to lead in 2004–05 towards a permanent status settlement, including agreements between the Israelis and the Palestinians on borders, Jerusalem and the vexed, difficult and sensitive matters of refugees and other related issues. I emphasise that that would mean direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, with countries in the international community that are involved directly having an overview and doing their best to bring about a final agreement.
As the Minister will tell us, the Quartet is meeting today in New York. I hope that it will reach the same conclusions as the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. It is a coincidence that the last debate that occurred here on Thursday was on the same subject that we are discussing today. It concerned the report of the International Development Committee. At least one hon. Member who is present today took part in that discussion and I heard at least half the debate myself.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for referring to our debate on Thursday, in which I took part. Does he share my great disappointment that on an issue of such magnitude—of importance not only to Israelis and Palestinians, but to the peace of the world—we are confined to short debates in Westminster Hall and not allowed a full debate in the main Chamber in Government time?
David Winnick: I agree with the hon. Lady about that, even if I do not agree with her about every aspect of the issue. I hope that we will have a debate in the Chamber as soon as possible, as that would be appropriate.
James Purnell: I agree. We should have such a debate. I have been listening carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments. He does not disagree with the substance of what is being proposed, but thinks that it does not go far enough in respect of withdrawal from the west bank and other matters. Given Likud's rejection of the plan over the weekend, does he agree that there is now an opportunity for Israel to develop proposals that go further—perhaps on a cross-party basis—so that the road map can be put back on track?
David Winnick: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. However, if I were optimistic that General Sharon and

375WH
the Likud party would go along with such a proposal, I would have a different view than I have at the moment. I do not believe that what was put forward by the Israeli Government and endorsed by President Bush was meant to lead to a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, which I hope is the policy of the British Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. I said that Sharon and the Likud party do not want to go along that route; Sharon would argue that he was not elected to create a viable—I emphasise "viable"—and sovereign Palestinian state. What was intended was not a first step, no matter what gloss was put on it by President Bush. It was to a large extent a step towards evacuating the Gaza strip and leaving it at that. The fact that the Likud party rejected that policy again illustrates the sort of the political party involved and the intense lobbying of the settlers.
The plight and poverty of Palestinians in the occupied territories was the subject of a previous debate here. Among other things, the International Development Committee report stated that the rate of malnutrition in Gaza and in parts of the west bank was as bad as anywhere in sub-Saharan Africa. The unemployment rate among the Palestinians is around 60 to 70 per cent. Just imagine what it must be like to have such mass unemployment, and the devastating effect that that is bound to have on families. We should not forget that, day in and day out, the Palestinians are subject to 24-hour curfews and denied freedom of movement, and that their lives are controlled in every conceivable way, even when they try to take close relatives to hospital, which, as the report points out, presents tremendous difficulties.
It does not take a great deal of imagination to imagine ourselves subject to such occupation and the restrictions and controls that I have mentioned. In those circumstances, is it any wonder that there is such a feeling of despair and dismay among Palestinians, including among those who reject violence, as we all do, and who put their faith in a political solution and who try to persuade other Palestinians that violence is not the way? What are they likely to say after President Bush's endorsement of Sharon's plans? Then there is the security fence, which Israel says is for its own security. However, 90 per cent. of it is being built on Palestinian land—not Israeli land, but Palestinian land.
Sometimes there is misunderstanding in debates such as these. Let me say where I stand on Israel. I came to the conclusion at a rather tender age in 1948—this shows my age, I suppose—that a Jewish state was justified, given what had happened to the Jews for some 2,000 years, and not just during the last war. They had been demonised, persecuted, tortured and mass murdered. Undoubtedly, that led in many respects to the basis on which the Nazis were able to carry out their terrifying crimes against humanity. Jewish people—men, women, children, even babes in arms—were exterminated in the camps on the Russian front and in other places. As a non-Zionist, I came to the conclusion that a Jewish state was justified in those circumstances.
Linda Perham: I am glad that my hon. Friend has taken time to talk about the suffering of the Jewish people and his support for the
376WH
foundation of the state of Israel. Does he not agree that it is the very need for security that leads the Israeli Government to take the actions that they have and to resort to building a fence? Jewish people in Israel also have fears about suicide bombers.
David Winnick: I am coming to suicide bombers. My hon. Friend should not forget that the one issue, above all else, that Sharon campaigned on three years ago was that he would bring security to the people of Israel. More people have died in Israel as a result of his being Prime Minister. I would go further and say that the policies that he advocates and pursues have caused the deaths of many Palestinians—men, women and children, fellow human beings—who have as much right to live as anyone else, whether we are Jews or not. It could be argued that a number of Jews have died in Israel as a result of Sharon's very provocative policies.
If it is right for the Jews to have a state of their own, surely it is equally right and justified for the Palestinians to have a sovereign, viable state, because they have paid the price for the creation of Israel. They could argue that it was Europe's crimes, not those of Palestinians or Arabs, that were involved, but they have paid the price. Those of us who take the view that Israel has a right to exist in its pre-1967 borders and a right to defend itself nevertheless have even more responsibility to see to it that justice comes to the Palestinians. They should not be denied a proper, viable, state of their own; it should not be made up of bits and pieces, which would be rather meaningless. If Israel is a viable and sovereign state, the same should apply to Palestine; it should be no less sovereign than Israel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) mentioned suicide bombing, which I deplore and consider a particularly abhorrent form of violence. I deplore other forms of terrorist violence and I am not going to stand here and be a party to, or argue in favour of, any form of terrorist violence. I think that I am on record as opposing terrorism in Northern Ireland, and the rest speaks for itself. If I were to say, "but", that would not lead to any justification of such violence. However, we must bear in mind our colonial history.
For example, 118 years ago last month, the first Irish home rule Bill was defeated in the House of Commons despite all Gladstone's eloquence. That was the signal for some people in Ireland to come to the conclusion that violence was the only way to achieve their aims and for all that followed up until the first world war. If one closes the door to constitutional settlements and gives the feeling that there is no hope in the political process—as occurred with Britain in its colonial history in Ireland and in other places, and as is happening in Israel now—that encourages the people of violence. It encourages, as it must do, Islamic Jihad and Hamas, who reject any negotiated agreement with Israel—or at least they say they do. We do not know what would happen in other circumstances.
It is said that there are many volunteers to become suicide bombers. That might well be so, but I read a recent article about the first female suicide bomber and it did not show quite the picture that some would lead us to believe; she had been marginalised in Palestinian society and decided that that would be the way out. Nevertheless, the fact remains that suicide bombing is, obviously, to be deplored.

377WH
I started by saying that I had the greatest doubts and reservations about what Prime Minister Sharon, endorsed by President Bush, intended to do. We read in today's newspapers that, to win approval, he might even dilute those plans further. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) said, I hope that there will be a debate in the main Chamber. I hope that today's debate will lead to renewed demands from the democracies. certainly, from Britain, other European countries and also the United States—I referred to the letter from the former diplomats—for a total change of policy on Israel.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North and others talk about security for Israel; the best and most effective security for that state is to bring about a viable and sovereign Palestinian state as soon as possible, not in the distant future. I am glad that the Minister is nodding. We need a change of policy, and I hope that we will put sufficient pressure on the United States, because it is one the country that can bring that about and that can ensure that what we all want, whatever differences we may have, will come about not in the distant future, but very shortly.
9.48 am
Richard Burden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate and on the passion with which he spoke. He referred to his commitment to the state of Israel and how he had come to the conclusion about the need for it. It seems that that commitment informs the passion with which he argued for a just solution in that part of the world.
What my hon. Friend said about Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan over the last few days provided a welcome perspective. There is going to be a tendency—perhaps, in some quarters, there already is—to portray those who campaigned against the Sharon plan as unreasonable and hard-line. I do not deny that they are, but that might lead to a tendency to portray the Sharon plan as reasonable. As Conal Urquhart perceptively said of Sharon in The Guardian yesterday:
"Following yesterday's defeat, he is likely to strike the pose of a statesman, claiming that he was elected to represent national interests not factional ones."
Nobody is going to argue that if Israel is offering to pull its settlers out of Gaza and to withdraw its forces from Gaza, it should not do so. If there is such an opportunity, it should be seized. We should insist that any withdrawal should be properly negotiated with the Palestinian Authority. The United Kingdom, the European Union and—I would argue—the United States too should assist the Palestinian Authority in the takeover. If Israel withdrew from Gaza, we should insist that the settlements and the infrastructure should not be trashed in the same way as has followed military withdrawals from parts of Gaza. such as the village of Beit Hanoun, in the past. We also need to insist that any withdrawal is real: the Palestinians should have a real ability to trade, they should have access to sea and to air, and they should be able to rebuild their airport in Gaza.
Gaza was not the only part of Sharon's plan: it came with strings attached. The strings are very clear in the west bank, which is equally as illegally occupied as Gaza. The strings said that the six settlement blocs on
378WH
the west bank would remain, not for negotiation, but in Ariel Sharon's words, "for eternity." Extra funding for settlements in the west bank has been announced by the Government of Israel and the wall continues to be built—not on Israeli land or down the border, but deep inside Palestinian territory. There is a real danger that, over the coming days and weeks, those concerns will be lost in the debate over Likud's rejection of the Sharon plan.
Sharon is now saying that the plan may be modified. Rather than becoming what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has described as an opportunity from which we can move forward, we might see a scenario developing in which as far as the Israeli Government—and perhaps the United States as well—are concerned, the Sharon plan is seen as a maximum from which negotiations are made downwards. That is not only wrong under international law, but a road to nowhere. It means that the dream of a viable Palestinian state, which, as my hon. Friend said, is absolutely crucial to a just peace in the middle east, will be all but impossible.
The problem with the Sharon plan and with President Bush's endorsement of it is that the Palestinians were entirely left out of the process. It is almost as if all that is needed is for the different factions in Israel to negotiate peace with each other, or perhaps for Israel to negotiate peace with the United States. The Palestinians have only a walk-on part in the whole affair, and that is why there has been such anger at the one-sidedness of President Bush's response to the plan.
We merely need to look at President Bush's statement and at the number of times that different things are referred to in it. I have had a quick look through, so the figures may not be entirely accurate but I think that they are roughly correct. He refers to peace 10 times in the statement; he refers to the two-state solution seven times; he refers to democracy and the state building of Palestine five times. Those things are good. He refers to security for both Palestinians and Israelis four times; he refers to security simply for Israelis seven times. He refers to security for Palestinians twice, and on both occasions the security for Palestinians is the security that they have to impose to fight terrorism and to maintain order in their own territories. There is nothing about security from Israel. He refers to terror or terrorism 15 times, all of which are in references to the Palestinians. He refers once to an obligation to cease armed activity, but that is imposed only on the Palestinians. He refers four times to settlements, or, as he puts it, population centres, and talks about the need to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza. There is one reference to withdrawing from "certain" settlements in the west bank, and another reference to making "progress" towards a freeze on settlements, including removing "unauthorised" outposts. One must wonder what the United States considers an authorised outpost in the west bank. There is nothing about the poverty, the destruction of homes, the razing of agricultural land, the destruction of shops or the land confiscations that the Select Committee on International Development so graphically described. Nor is there anything about the problems of access to health care, to water or to education that the Palestinians experience daily. That is going on to this day.
Mike Gapes: My hon. Friend referred to the divisions among the Israelis and the fact that they could not agree. Does he accept that one reason why we have not made progress with the road map is that there is a substantial body on the Palestinian side, led by at least one organisation, that rejects Israel's right to exist, and that there will always be great difficulty so long as Hamas is as strong as it is in the Palestinian Authority, particularly in Gaza? Does he at least accept that the fault in this process is not all on one side?
Richard Burden: I have never argued that the fault is always on one side, but my hon. Friend should take note of what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North said—namely, that if Sharon wants to encourage moderate and reasonable voices among the Palestinians, he is going about it in entirely the wrong way. He is actually strengthening voices on the other side.
I fully accept a two-state solution. Security for Israel is vital to a just settlement, but let us have some perspective. If we are saying that there are Palestinian forces that reject in principle the right of Israel to exist and to exist as a state, and that the peace process is blocked, which in many ways it is, why do not we say the same thing about forces in Israel that reject in principle the right of a Palestinian state to exist? Those forces in Israel are not fringe elements; they are in the Government. If we are to move on, we must move beyond excuses and ask how we can construct the right settlement for that part of the world. I do not dispute the suffering of the Israelis; it is real, and one feels it as one walks into any shopping centre in West Jerusalem or elsewhere. When Israeli children go to school on a bus or a teenage son or daughter goes to a disco, their parents wonder whether they will come back. That fear is real, and we must recognise it.
We saw another example of the suffering of Israelis the other day. Settlers should not be in the west bank, but no one could fail to be affected by seeing a mother gunned down with her children. Nothing justifies such actions, but we need to work out a solution if we are to end them rather than simply protesting about and condemning them. Avraham Burg, the former Speaker of the Knesset, put it very well last year when he said that Israel can choose democracy or it can choose occupation; it cannot have both.
We must face the fact that the west bank comes with 2.3 million people, and we should remember that Sharon's plan to deal with that problem of 2.3 million people is twofold. However, if Israel hangs on to that land with its 2.3 million people, and given that 20 per cent. of Israel's own population is non-Jewish, before too long there will be a non-Jewish majority in the historical land of Palestine, or, as extreme Zionists say, in the biblical land of Israel.
Sharon's response to that is part ethnic cleansing—ensuring that it is impossible for people to live in the area because of the impact of the wall and the use of such things as the planning laws in and around Jerusalem, which have, in effect, judaised large parts of the outskirts of Jerusalem—and part hustling Palestinians into what
380WH
can be described only as Bantustans in the west bank and Gaza. The borders of the west bank and Gaza and access to water are all controlled by Israel. That is unacceptable. It is a recipe for further bloodshed. The only other option is to ensure, as Burg says, a complete withdrawal from the west bank and Gaza, and a viable Palestinian state. That is exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North suggested.
Time is running out. Before too long, the settlements and the Israeli presence in the west bank will be irreversible. As Jeff Halper, the respected Israeli academic and commentator, said, it will not be much longer before Palestinians will start saying, "The future is for us to demand equal rights with Jews in the whole area." As he says, that will be the end of two things: one is Palestinian nationalism, the other Zionism. If we wish to see security for Israel as a Jewish state, the only way of achieving that is to have a viable and independent Palestinian state.
James Purnell: I fully agree that the destination has to be a viable two-state solution on a negotiated basis. In the short term, given the distrust between the two countries, I should be interested to know what my hon. Friend would do if he were in charge. Would his ideal solution be to move towards a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza or does he think there should be the possibility of a negotiated solution? Given that there is now an opportunity to look at these plans—the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick)—how would he encourage the Israeli Government or the Israeli nation to move forward on this?
Richard Burden: I must not go on for too much longer because I know that many other hon. Members want to speak. I was going to come on to what we should do. A negotiated settlement is there for the taking. Voices on the Palestinian side, such as the Palestinian Authority, have said that they want to negotiate. They recognised the state of Israel years ago. However, Israel must—the Quartet has a major role in facilitating this and I hope that it takes it on board today—get the road map back on track and insist that any viable settlement is based on international law and UN resolutions. That means that the Palestinians must end violence, and so must the Israelis. It means the withdrawal from settlements; it means the creation of a viable Palestinian state; and it means that Israel needs to reconsider the construction of a wall inside Palestinian territory.
There are voices in Israel who are talking about this too. We do them no service by muting their voices and going down the one-way cul de sac into which Sharon is leading the state of Israel, backed, unfortunately, by the United States. The road map is not the gift of the USA; it is the property of the international community. Britain has a real responsibility to ensure, with the Quartet, that the road map is put back on track.
Our Prime Minister has played a major role in trying to shift American policy on this issue. I applaud and welcome that. However, in response to Bush's statement, for example, it is not enough for us not to say the things that Bush said about endorsing Sharon. It is

381WH
not enough not to say things. We need to say what we mean far more clearly. We want to see a viable Palestinian state. full withdrawal and respect for UN resolutions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kevin Hughes (in the Chair): May I remind hon. Members that it is normal for the winding-up speeches to start at approximately 10.30 am? Three Members are indicating that they would like to speak. I leave it them to work out the maths.
10.3 am
Hywel Williams: I take note of your point, Mr. Hughes, and I shall be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I regret that it has been given this slot early on a Tuesday morning. I echo the calls made for a proper debate to be held in the main Chamber in Government time.
I recognise that some hon. Members have a long-standing, detailed and diligent interest in this matter. Plaid Cymru's position is quite clear and it is worth restating briefly. We support the establishment of an independent and viable Palestinian state as a vital part of the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We also recognise the legitimate right of the Palestinians to self-determination and, importantly, Israel's right to live securely within borders that are recognised. As a Welsh nationalist, that is also my ambition for my country.
I fear that Israel's actions over many years and, particularly during the present intifada, are not defensive anti-terrorist measures, but rather a means to prevent the establishment of a viable Palestinian Authority. Israel's actions succeed only in bringing about a further escalation of violence and terrorism. That might appease the warmongers on both sides in the short term, but it is futile in the end. As the Bishop of Exeter says in his foreward to the excellent Christian Aid report, "Losing ground: Israel, poverty and the Palestinians":
"The Palestinian-Israeli situation today shows the futility of violence, where endless repression and resistance feed off each other. From this cycle of repression and violence, conflict and provocation. comes the bitter fruits of poverty."
That report documents in detail the stark poverty in which millions of Palestinians live, with 60 to 70 per cent. living on less than$2 a day The report also identifies clearly the key structures creating that poverty.
I hardly need rehearse the detail of those points with the hon. Members who are present. However, it is worth noting some key features, such as the loss of land. Gradual encroachment since the six day war has led to 82.8 per cent. of Palestinian land being under Israeli military control, while the growth of settlements has led to almost 42 per cent. of the west bank being controlled by Israeli settlements and regional and municipal councils. The number of settlers has doubled to 200,000 since the Oslo peace process, excluding those in East Jerusalem.
The report also details Israeli control of water, which limits Palestinian irrigation for agriculture and personal consumption. It contains a telling quote from a farmer from near Ramallah:
382WH
"Often our water is not running and we have little to drink. Over the road, we see the sprinklers on the lawns of the Israeli settlements."
That is inhuman and unacceptable. The report also details the effects of closure and curfew, with checkpoints and roadblocks, which make travel all but impossible and inflict psychological and economic damage. Lastly, and importantly, the report notes the lack of strong self-government and the failure of the Palestinian Authority to develop accountable institutions—a balanced report, I think.
No one imagines that progress from such a tragic situation will be simple. However, the steps that must be taken are clear, at least to us in Plaid Cymru and to many other hon. Members. Israeli forces should be withdrawn to positions held prior to the current intifada to allow humanitarian work to be carried out. There should be a full and negotiated withdrawal from the west bank and the Gaza strip, and a deployment of a UN peacekeeping force. There also needs to be a massive programme of reconstruction and rebuilding in the Palestinian territories. We in Plaid Cymru call on the European Union, as the largest donor to the Palestinian Authority, to take the lead in this and to ensure that the new infrastructure meets the modern needs of the people in the Palestinian territories.
Israel must observe the UN resolutions to end illegal settlements in Palestine, not just withdraw from the Gaza strip on a unilateral basis. The west bank cannot be set aside as a separate and non-negotiable issue, and the Palestinians certainly cannot be excluded from the debate. Finally, Israel must halt the building over Palestinian territory of the separation wall, which does not respect the 1967 borders and only contributes to the climate of fear and distrust and to the further destruction of life for divided Palestinian communities.
My party opposed the war in Iraq, but the majority of hon. Members supported it, many on the basis of their expectations that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would receive the urgent attention of the United States and the United Kingdom Governments. I think that we are all bitterly disappointed, not only with the inattention of our Government, but with our apparent acquiescence with the Sharon Government's latest ploy and President Bush's endorsement of it. Let there be no mistake: strong and immediate action by the UK Government is the very least that we require to establish a proper settlement.
10.9 am
Mike Gapes: I would like to take the Chamber back 11 years to the occasion on which the Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat shook hands in front of President Clinton. The Oslo process culminated in an agreement. In 1993, many of us had real hopes that, on the basis of that agreement, we would see a viable Palestinian state within three, four or five years and that Israel would be recognised by all its Arab neighbours and have secure borders. Those hopes have been cruelly dashed. I want to highlight some of the reasons why they have been dashed and how difficult the current situation is.
First, in 1995, extremist Israelis plotted to undermine the agreement and murdered Prime Minister Rabin. I was due to visit Israel that year with a joint Labour

383WH
Friends of Israel and Labour Middle East Council delegation led by the party's then foreign affairs spokesman, Derek Fatchett, and with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) representing the two Labour party pressure groups, which were working together in support of the Oslo process. The visit was postponed because of the assassination.
Finally, in December 1995, we met Mr Peres, the acting Prime Minister. At that time the country was in mourning, and Mr Peres did what he thought was the decent thing by postponing the general election until the middle of 1996. What happened then? Palestinian extremists carried out terrorist bombings in Tel Aviv, and Benjamin Netanyahu and Likud won the election.
The whole process had been put back. Great efforts were made by President Clinton, and Netanyahu eventually—and reluctantly—came forward with the Wye Plantation agreement, which involved some Israeli withdrawals from places such as Hebron and Jericho. However, the reality was that that was grudging rather than wholehearted.
Another breakthrough offered further hope. There was a change of Government in Israel; Mr. Barak was elected. He came forward with radical proposals for withdrawals and a two-state solution. In 2000, the Camp David negotiations took place, and the two sides were very close to an agreement, but the Palestinians could not endorse it. Then, Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount and the second intifada broke out. Some people claim that that was planned in July, and others say that it was spontaneous. However, regardless of the arguments, it happened.
That intifada is ongoing. I was in East Jerusalem during the first intifada in 1991. All the shops were shut, and the situation was very tense. However, the second intifada has been far more serious in its economic consequences for the Palestinian people and in its raising of the tension between the two sides. This intifada has become very violent, and has led to the current impasse.
Barak lost the election in 2001, despite going further even than at Camp David with the Taba proposals. There was no agreement on them. We can debate the reasons why: some relate to the west bank, others to different matters.
It is sad that every time there has been a proposal and we have got close to an agreement during the past decade, we end up having a great setback after that proposal has been rejected. Subsequent proposals, such as those that Sharon has just announced, are therefore far less significant than what Barak put on the table, or what was proposed at Camp David or the original Oslo process.
Sharon's own party has just voted by 59.5 per cent. to 31 per cent. to reject the current proposals. Many qualifications can be made, such as that the turnout was only 35 per cent. However, the reality is that the leader of the most right-wing Government that Israel has ever had is prepared to take things forward, albeit in a limited, inadequate way, and his plan is rejected by his own party. That is an indication of how violence and conflict breed polarisation, rejectionism and extremism.
384WH
The same is happening on the Palestinian side. Hamas, which was a very small organisation, is now regarded as one of the dominant groups in Gaza and is much stronger than it was a decade ago.
I have always been a supporter of a two-state solution, but I see no immediate prospect of achieving one or, indeed, any solution in the current circumstances, unless there is some real, radical thinking about how we go forward.
David Winnick: My hon. Friend describes how the Likud membership has reacted, partly as a result of the violence and the rest of it. Would it not be right to say, however, that both sides use God without the slightest hesitation and that Likud members work on the basis that God gave the occupied territories of Judea and Samaria to Abraham and that, regardless of any violence by the other side, the land of greater Israel belongs to the Israelis and that none of it should, under any circumstances, be taken away from them? On the other side, the suicide bombers and the rest are the first to use God as an excuse. None of that gives any encouragement to non-believers such as me.
Mike Gapes: I am not Jewish and I cannot understand the history of the Jewish people in the way that my hon. Friend can. I simply say, however, that opinion polls show that the majority of Israelis—as opposed to the majority of Likud members—support the proposed withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the west bank and that, despite everything, they still believe in the concept of land for peace.
In that situation, the international community needs to find ways of moving the process back towards the road map, and I believe that that is what the Prime Minister was saying, although he has been misrepresented in publications such as The Independent, which one would expect to misrepresent a Labour Prime Minister—that is certainly what such publications always do on the middle east.
If there are obstacles in the road, one can either remove them or go round them. At present, progress on the road map is blocked because of a lack of trust on both sides, and we have already referred to the internal divisions on the Israeli and Palestinian sides. If one cannot secure a multinational agreement, one sometimes has to take independent or unilateral steps to move things forward and create new possibilities. The Prime Minister was right to take that position, but he has been completely and deliberately misunderstood by the 52 former diplomats.
In passing, I draw hon. Members' attention to the front page of today's edition of The Guardian, which has an interesting story about corruption in Saudi Arabia and about BAE Systems' expenditure in certain countries. I would be interested to know what Sir Andrew Green, as our former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, did to highlight corruption or women's rights or to push for democracy in the region when he was there. It seems some people have another agenda and have not really understood the importance of what we are trying to do internationally to take things forward.
This country is in a position to influence, to a limited extent, the prospects for peace in the middle east, but no one should have any illusions about the fact that we do

385WH
not have the ability or the influence to impose a solution in the present situation. Even if it wished to, the United States, with all its economic, military and political power, could not impose a solution on the region. All we can do—Britain through its influence in the European Union and America through its influence with Israel—is try to shift the debate forward. Through the European Union, we must support the Palestinian institutions, especially their security authorities, to enable them to control the situation effectively and stop terrorist attacks from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other rejectionists. At the same time, we must continue our work towards transparency and the effective and efficient expenditure of resources to the Palestinian people.
Finally, we should do all that we can to work through the Quartet. Today's meeting in New York is important, but we must recognise that we should encourage Israelis not to be despondent after the Likud vote and to support those in Israel who understand the need to move forward and generate momentum, including those in the peace camp and the opposition labour party. We are faced with the prospect of despair and no movement. Forward steps must be taken. We need initial limited withdrawals followed by an all-encompassing comprehensive agreement that will ultimately lead to the establishment of the viable Palestinian state and the secure state of Israel—both recognised internationally—which the 1993 Oslo agreement was supposed to bring about.
10.21 am
Mr. Colin Breed: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing this debate and echo the comments made by many hon. Members that we must have a full debate at the earliest opportunity in the main Chamber in Government time.
The question that anyone listening to this morning's debate will ask is, will the Palestinians ever be released from their misery? From my experiences of visiting the area, I will highlight a few of the causes of that misery. Some are easy to understand; they are said to be for security purposes only, but have an enormous effect on the lives of Palestinians. There are 662 checkpoints, controlling people's daily lives in an area that is not huge. We see horrific pictures of teenagers and young people being shot at for throwing stones. Water supplies are redirected, for all the right reasons I am assured. Olive groves and the associated economy are destroyed. There are extra-judicial assassinations. Many hon. Members and I have seen the demolition of homes. What kind of a world order allows such actions to continue?
In some respects, the problems represent a moral dilemma for many people. On the one side, we see state-of-the-art weapons supplied by the United States for security purposes. However, when people on the other side attempt to defend themselves with sticks and stones, they are deemed to be terrorists and shot. There are continuing and growing howls of protest from people all around the world. I agree that time is running out; for many years there has been nothing but escalation. However, I believe that the Quartet, which meets later today, has an opportunity to act. We do not need more
386WH
words or commitments that condemn and make all the right noises, but do not lead to any plan of action or feeling that action will be taken.
Every now and again, there are major atrocities, but even they are forgotten. The name of the town of Jenin has become synonymous with an act that was condemned by everyone. We had thought that that might be a watershed, but it has been forgotten into history and there have been more incursions, lives lost, and people maimed and injured. Our response to the situation has been to condemn it, to regret it and to say that it has horrified us, but what have we done? Since Oslo, there have been the Wye River memorandum and the Mitchell report; many discussions have taken place here and in the United States and many commitments have been made, but there has been no firm action.
In March 2002, the Arab League had its own peace initiative, which was greatly praised by us and by the US, and we thought that there would be some progress. Alas, nothing happened. Then came the road map, which promised to
"end the terror and violence, normalize Palestinian life and build Palestinian Institutions by 2003."
A second international conference was supposed to be convened by the Quartet by 2002. I do not think that there has been a first one yet. Inaction has been the hallmark of recent years. In February, the Palestinians took their case against the security fence—or wall or cage. whatever one calls it according to one's viewpoint—to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In a landmark hearing that, for the first time, brought Israeli crimes before an international tribunal, the chief of the Palestinian delegation said:
"This wall is not about security, it is about entrenching the occupation and the de facto annexation of large areas of Palestinian land".
Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman not accept that Israel has a problem with security? He has spoken at length about the suffering of the Palestinians, but he must accept that the people of Israel need the opportunity to live in peace. They are constantly terrorised by Palestinian suicide bombings and other terrorist activities, and have a right to defend themselves. If Opposition Members are concerned about the time available for debate, perhaps they would care to call a debate in their time.
Mr. Breed: Clearly, there are those who have called for debates, and I hope that we shall have such opportunities.
Finally, can the Minister answer a brief question about the tribunal decision? It seems that the British Government, who had long supported the tribunal and had been critics of the wall, have chosen to join hands with the US and Israel in a stance against the jurisdiction of the international court. Can he explain the Government's position on that decision? In recent times, Israel's security needs, the positioning of the wall, its effect on the Palestinian people and the likelihood that it will lead to a peaceful situation have been subject to much debate. I hope that he is able to explain the Government's stance.
10.29 am
Mr. Michael Moore: I am delighted to be able to participate in this short debate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. In doing so, I highlight the fact that I am a member and co-treasurer of the Liberal Democrat middle east council.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick). Like other participants in the debate, he spoke with great passion, but steered clear of being emotive. The debate has been stronger for that.
The wretched violence in the middle east continues. The latest estimates since the most recent uprising began suggest that nearly 3,000 Palestinians and nearly 1,000 Israelis have died. Pictures of the car in which an Israeli mother and her four daughters died are the latest in an appalling gallery of images of atrocities on both sides, which sicken the outside world. From a casual glance, it seems that there is little prospect of the region escaping the apparently never-ending spiral of violence.
There is a broad consensus about the need for a two-state solution to the situation, involving the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state and the recognition of Israel's right to exist within secure borders. There is no debate about that in this country these days. The Prime Minister has spoken passionately about the need for peace and an end to violence. It is just over a year since the Government fatefully linked the middle east peace process with the decision to go to war in Iraq. At about that time, the road map was finally published, but since then we appear to have entered an international political vacuum. Last week's riposte to the Government by former senior diplomats highlighted just how serious things have become.
In response to all that, Prime Minister Sharon of Israel stepped in to fill the breach by promoting the illegal wall and the disengagement plan, with its limited proposals to withdraw from Gaza. Instead of a negotiated settlement, Israel offers an unacceptable unilateralist position, which fails to deal with settlements in the west bank, denies Palestinians the prospect of returning to their homes, and ignores the need to return to pre-1967 borders. Perhaps we should be glad that Likud rejected the plan. but that would be to ignore the fact that even the limited positive progress on offer in Gaza was too much for the hard-liners in the Prime Minister's party.
The division in the Palestinian communities also contributes to the desperate situation. The Israelis are right to seek security for their citizens; it is appalling how many of them have died as a result of suicide bombings. They are right to highlight the inability of the Palestinian authorities to control the groups that promote violence from the west bank and the Gaza strip, but that cannot justify the extra-judicial assassination of two Hamas leaders in recent weeks or the threat to kill Mr. Arafat.
As long as the economic plight of the Palestinians continues, and is exacerbated by the restrictions and humiliations of everyday life, the Palestinian authorities will struggle to make progress. They need hope.
The impression has gained ground that everyone has been sitting around waiting for the United States to take the lead on the road map. The timetable now makes
388WH
rather surreal reading. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) just highlighted. we should have nearly finished by now. Phase 1, which sought the end of terror and violence, the normalising of Palestinian life and the building of Palestinian institutions, should have been completed last May. The transition phase was scheduled for completion by last December. Phase 3. the movement to permanent status agreement and a full-time end to conflict, was due to be under way now. Instead, we are left arguing whether the disengagement plan is consistent with the process at all.
A meeting of the Quartet is taking place today in New York—and then what? It is surely time for the Government to make good their pledge to the people of Israel and the Palestinians. With their partners in the European Union, the Government need to demonstrate to both sides that there is no other serious prospect for peace than the road map. With our allies in the United States, we need to be resolute and prepare all parties to be firm and even-handed with both sides in the dispute. At present, the Quartet does not give the impression that it takes itself seriously. Until it does, we can expect very little progress and the agony will continue.
10.35 am
Mr. Gary Streeter: I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on securing the debate. I also agree with those who have said that the issue is one of the most important with which the House of Commons will ever have to grapple. Perhaps it is time for a full and proper debate on the Floor of the House.
The contribution from the hon. Gentleman demonstrated his experience and knowledge of the subject, and the speeches and interventions in this high-quality debate have shown that arguments continue on all sides. The subject ignites the passions of us all.
As to party politics, there is nothing between us on this difficult subject. We all want the same thing: a peaceful, long-term resolution. Those of us who travel widely in the Gulf and who have had dealings with people from backgrounds of all kinds in and around the war on terror recognise that it is not just for the sake of the Palestinians or the Israelis, but for a lasting peace in the middle east, and perhaps a long-term resolution to the war on terror, that we need a resolution to the Israel-Palestine problem. It is a stain on the map of the world and a catalyst for all kinds of reaction and over-reaction. It is a focal point and we are right to focus on it.
As is often said, it is not as though the solution to the difficulty is unknown. We all, I think, agree that there should be a two-state solution with a secure and strong Israel side by side with a secure, strong and viable Palestinian state—with agreement over borders, starting from the 1967 boundaries and negotiating on them; with agreement on right of return; and with agreement on shared arrangements over Jerusalem, and so on. That is a clear framework for resolution, which is perhaps unusual in a dispute of this kind. We need the parties to sit down again and work their way towards it.
The road map that was launched with such fanfare and optimism 12 months ago seems, sadly, to have been completely destroyed by an increase in violence—suicide bombings and the swift and robust responses to

389WH
them. They have put paid to talks for the time being. I visited Israel in January and it was clear even then that the Israeli Government had lost patience with negotiations. They believed that there was no partner for peace, and a plan was emerging for some kind of unilateral disengagement, although at that stage the details were not known. They have become clearer since.
While I was there, I sensed on the Israeli side the fear of suicide bombings; there was real fear about going past a bus or sitting in a restaurant— and let us consider the plight of parents when their children go off to discos. On the other hand, there was real poverty, anguish and hopelessness in the Palestinian community. On visiting the country, I was aware of a sense of despair and thought that there must be more that we can do to resolve the issue.
Given what has been happening since January, we should remind ourselves that there is a broad base of political support in Israel for the kind of road map solutions that we have long supported. Will the Minister confirm today that—whether or not we now put another version of the disengagement plan on track—it can be only a start to a long-term resolution? We cannot impose a solution from the outside: an agreement on the final status issues must ultimately negotiated by all the parties, the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our part is to get them to the table again to discuss and agree on those issues.
As has been said on many occasions over the weekend, we now have complete confusion over the Sharon plan, and where there is confusion and a vacuum something will rush in to fill it. Our job is to ensure that what rushes in to fill the vacuum is the international community with some fresh initiative. Does the Minister have a view on what part the killing of the 34-year-old mother and her four daughters played in the vote by Likud members? Is it not the case that no small groups—whether Palestinians or right-wing Israelis—should have a veto on the settlement? Is it not a sobering thought that the unilateral disengagement plan, about which many of us have profound reservations, was defeated in the vote not because it was too tough on the Palestinians, but because it gave away too much?
I want to put a number of questions to the Minister for him to answer in his winding-up speech, but first I shall read an extract of an e-mail from a Jewish friend who has relatives in Israel. He says:
"I repeat—the army is the last place on earth my brother in law wants his kids to be. They have no choice—because the leadership of those around do not want to live side by side and in peace. If they did—my second nephew will not be joining the army in the Summer—he could and should be heading off to university."
Is it not the case that the vast majority of Israelis want peace and want a negotiated settlement? Does the Minister also agree with the Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Ala, who said that the result of the poll at the weekend
"should act as an incentive to resume negotiations about Palestinian statehood"?
I should like the Minister, in his winding-up speech, to deal with five issues. First, what is the role of the Quartet? We have heard about the meeting today in New York. Was the Quartet consulted before the US
390WH
endorsement of the Sharon peace plan? Was the UK consulted? Have we not learned the lesson of the Iraqi war—that we must take the international community with us? Is it not true that only pressure from the international community can bring both sides of this long-running dispute together? What is the Quartet's role in that process, and what message has the UK sent to the meeting today?
Secondly, on a viable Palestinian state, what do the UK Government understand by the word "viable"? We heard earlier that the Sharon plan did not include much withdrawal from the west bank. How small a state do the Government believe would not be viable? What do they say about the links between Gaza and the west bank? To what extent do the UK Government believe that we must take into account the new realities on the ground, as President Bush said, and with which the Prime Minister seemed to agree? What is our view of those new realities?
Thirdly, what does the Minister say is necessary to get back to the road map, and what is the UK Government's role in that? Given that, whether we like it or not, the US is the most powerful player in that process—although it is distracted by the November presidential elections—and given that the EU is not trusted in Israel, does not the UK have a significant role in trying to put this initiative back on track? What does the Minister understand that role to be?
Fourthly, we have heard from the Prime Minister in recent days that, if there were some kind of unilateral disengagement, the international community would pour in and help to build a viable state for the Palestinians. Is there a plan for that pouring in of international support? What role would the UK Government have in such a plan, and who will co-ordinate such support? What role will the Quartet have in that process?
Finally, do the UK Government see any real prospects that the Palestinian Authority, as currently led, can be a partner for peace? What is the Government's view of the emerging leadership within the Palestinian Authority? Do they believe that there has been a failure of leadership on the Palestinian side, even though the underlying injustice of the situation for Palestinians is clear? What is the Government view on giving support to the emerging leadership, and what are they doing to build capacity in the Palestinian Authority, which will be needed if there is to be a viable Palestinian state?
We all want the same thing—lasting peace in the middle east, if possible within our lifetimes. The debate is a further opportunity for the Government to tell us what role they can play in bringing that about.
10.45 am
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his powerful speech in opening this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) spoke with great passion on an issue about which he cares deeply and on which he has spent a great deal of

391WH
time as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who has now left the Chamber, reminded us, in his role as chair of Labour Friends of Israel, that Israel also suffers from the lack of a peace settlement in the middle east. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) reminded us that Britain can influence the United States on the middle east peace process, but that we cannot control the superpower. We exercise our influence, but the US has its own policy and is the key player in encouraging a final peace settlement. It is therefore important that we bring our influence to bear, and we seek to do so.
The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) showed how myth and ignorance can sometimes inform some of the debate, and raised one particular issue that I shall address later.
In contrast to the view expressed by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I believe that there is little difference of opinion between the three main parties in the House on the desired result of a peace settlement—a two-state solution in which resolutions 242, 338 and 1397 are implemented. We want an Israel that is at peace and secure, and a Palestine that is independent and viable. I therefore believe that there is broad cross-party consensus—we all accept that the road map is the way forward to a peace settlement.
We have all been disappointed by the lack of progress on the road map in recent months. Political stalemate, the horrific cycle of violence and the humanitarian crisis continue. Since the beginning of the intifada in 2000, more than 3,000 Palestinians and more than 900 Israelis have been killed as a result of the conflict. The Israeli people live in fear of the next suicide bombing; meanwhile, targeted assassinations, which often result in casualties among innocent civilians, continue. The barrier is still being constructed on occupied land, cutting off people from their property, basic services and sometimes their families. There is a logjam in the peace process, and things show no sign of changing.
It is in that context that Prime Minister Sharon announced his intention to take unilateral action. On 14 April, he made public his plans to withdraw from all settlements in Gaza and some in the west hank. His plan also includes a substantial reduction in the Israeli military presence in those areas. The UK Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Quartet welcomed the move. Kofi Annan said:
"I believe that any initiative that is taken to influence this relationship should not preclude the future status issues which have to be settled between the parties and if what is being done is done in the context of the Quartet's Roadmap and the attempt of the international community to establish two States that is fine. The withdrawal from Gaza should be seen as a first step."
The UK Government agree with that analysis.
The withdrawal of settlements is in line with Israel's road map commitments. It could bring visible benefits for the Palestinian people. If it is handled properly, it might provide the opportunity to breathe life back into the peace process. Those steps must not prejudge final-stage negotiations and must be integrated into the road map process. The Quartet is meeting today and we await the outcome. No one can seriously claim that resolving the issue will be easy or straightforward; there are many
392WH
complex issues to be addressed, but we all share the common goal of a just and peaceful settlement, and we must make maximum use of the opportunity as a step towards achieving it. We must build on the Sharon formula to withdraw from parts of the west bank and all Gaza and see whether we can make that withdrawal the first step that can lead in due course to proper negotiations.
The proposed withdrawal is less than we would want. Prime Minister Sharon's plan does not envisage withdrawal from all settlements on the west bank, nor does it include full withdrawal from Gaza to include Palestinian control of the borders, the port and the airport. Full access to the outside world would certainly make a big difference to the prospects for Gaza's development and it could lead, as a first step, to a viable and more sovereign Palestinian state. However, we must not overlook the significance of the Sharon initiative. We have long been pressing for the dismantling of some settlements; the plan is therefore a first step. For that reason, it should be welcomed.
The Government share the eagerness of those who want the plan to be extended. We hope that Israel will consider handing over control of the port, airport and border in Gaza and, at a later stage, will also consider further withdrawals of settlements on the west bank. However, the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community must first commit themselves to making the initial step work. For its part, Israel must engage with the Palestinian Authority on the details of the plan, but we do not yet have a plan that is likely to be implemented, because Likud appears to have rejected the proposals in a vote—with fewer than 1 per cent. of the Israeli people apparently voting as part of Likud. We await the result of the discussion within the Israeli Government. We want to see what result it will produce and how Sharon proposes to proceed.
In the meantime, there are steps that Israel and the Palestinians could take. The Palestinians could stop the suicide bombings, which cause every peace process to be frustrated, and Israel should stop demolishing houses, imposing collective punishments and launching targeted assassinations. Equally, the Palestinians must demonstrate the will and the ability to run themselves if they manage to control parts of their territory. As the Prime Minister said in Washington on 16 April, the international community will have a crucial role in helping the Palestinian Authority to build their capacity. Britain, bilaterally, through its donations and donations through the European Union, is one of the main funders of the Palestinian Authority. We therefore have a particular influence in seeking to move the process forward. We should use that in trying to create the capacity within the Palestinian Authority to deal with some of the enormous economic, political and security issues that they must confront. However, responsibility for a constructive Palestinian response to proposals from the Israelis lies with the Palestinians themselves: the PA must become a credible governing body, capable of winning the confidence of the Palestinian people.
We wait to see what the Quartet decides today, and whether the meeting in New York has new proposals to take matters forward. We have been closely engaged in private discussions On how that can be done, and I look

393WH
forward to the international community regaining political momentum. We should also provide the necessary support to enable the international community to work with us, with the Israelis and with the Palestinians to gain that momentum.
The United Kingdom continues to support the Palestinian Authority's efforts to improve their effectiveness in dealing with security in some areas in which they operate. We will continue to provide the advice, assistance and equipment that they need to deliver their objectives. We have had some encouraging results, and we will continue to work with Palestinian leaders. When I spoke to Yasser Arafat, he was very grateful for the work that the UK was doing to help the Palestinians to create the capacity in their Government and system to enable them to deliver when they have proper control of their own territory.
The letter written by 52 retired ambassadors to the Prime Minister was in many ways a cry of frustration that things are not moving in the middle east as quickly as we would all like. We all share the frustration of the slowness of achieving peace. Whether a retired ambassador, British Minister or American politician, we all want progress. Oddly, the ex ambassadors claim that our policy has changed seems to be the basis of their letter. Let me make it clear that our policy continues to be based on UN Security Council resolutions 242, 338 and 1397. We want two states: an Israel secure and at peace, and a Palestine viable and sovereign. Final-stage negotiations, including on the settlements and right of return, are just that. They cannot be prejudged at this stage.
Britain has a vested interest in the middle east, and let me make it clear that it is in securing peace. We see the Sharon proposals as a first step, not a final one. The retired ambassadors advocate a poky of creating two states in the middle east. We agree with that, and I was not sure what the difference between us was, having read their letter. As I said, it seems to be based on the false
394WH
premise that we have changed a policy that has not changed. Britain has that vested interest in the middle east, and it is a substantial one.
Richard Burden: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. O'Brien: Given the time and the points that I want to make, I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not.
The running sore of the failure to achieve a Palestinian state fuels extremism throughout the middle east. Creating peace would not only remove a great sense of injustice, but show that Europe and the United States have helped to end the injustice. We have a vested interest in reducing international terrorism, and achieving peace in the middle east is one of a number of steps that will assist the fight against terrorism. In the end, peace will also benefit Israel. The best long-term guarantee of a peaceful Israel is the creation of a stable, viable Palestinian state. As most Israelis know, peace is the only long-term guarantee of the security of Israel.
Let us be clear about the fact that both the Palestinians and Israelis have suffered. During my visit to Israel, I went to a hotel where I had had a coffee a couple of years ago on holiday. Only weeks before, the main hall of that hotel had been subjected to a Palestinian suicide bombing while a wedding had been taking place and about 20 people were killed. Standing in that hall, where I had stood before in more pleasant times, brought home to me the devastation that the Israelis have suffered. Then visiting Yasser Arafat in the west bank also brought it home to me that children are unable to leave their gardens for fear of being shot. They fear that if they chase their ball into the street, they will end up with a bullet in their head. Those are the sorts of problem that both the Israelis and Palestinians face on a daily basis.
Our objectives must now be to get the peace process started again and to ensure that the Quartet plays a valuable role in encouraging a positive outcome from negotiations. In the end, the Israelis and Palestinians must decide the terms for the end of the dispute, but we believe that our policy of enabling them to reach that end, based on UN resolutions, is the best way forward.

Kosovo
11 am
Mr. John Randall: I am extremely grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity to raise this subject, which, I am afraid, has been rather sadly and mysteriously left off the list of Government priorities. I am delighted to see the Minister for Europe in his place, not only because it is always a pleasure to be in the company of such a charming and educated man, but because he has just returned from the region. I hope that he will be able to give us some news of what he found out there and assure us that Her Majesty's Government are trying to address the serious problems and the injustices that affect that poor, blighted, sad part of the Balkans. I know that the Minister is aware from his family background of the terrors that extremism, whether political or nationalistic, can inflict.
At the weekend we welcomed some new countries into our European family, including some that had been under the domination of the Soviet Union. We also welcomed Slovenia, which was a former republic of Yugoslavia. However, our delight at that must be tempered with the realisation that there is still an unresolved and serious problem in another area of the former Yugoslavia. That area, which was at one stage an autonomous region within the Yugoslav republic, is, of course, Kosovo.
Five years after the NATO intervention, the de facto UN or NATO protectorate is in a dire condition. Lawlessness and corruption appear to be the hallmarks of the area. I am afraid that that legacy was all too easy to foresee. It seems that some observers are beginning to examine what went on five years ago in a new light. After a weekend in which we have all begun to wonder whether we can really believe the evidence before our own eyes, such reflection is not before time. I read an article in the Canadian National Post from 6 April of this year, in which a Mr. Lewis Mackenzie posed the question whether we bombed the wrong side:
"Those of us who warned that the West was being sucked in on the side of an extremist, militant, Kosovo-Albanian independence movement were dismissed as appeasers."
He also pointed out that, at the time,
"the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), was universally designated a terrorist organization and…receiving support from Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda".
What makes Mr. Mackenzie's views particularly interesting is the fact that he was a major-general in the Canadian army and commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
I want to dwell not on what I perceive to be the mistakes of the past, but on the recent events in Kosovo and Metohija. Sadly, the media have turned their attention elsewhere, but there have been some voices. In September last year an article in Le Figaro Magazine described a victory for the Albanian extremists who dream of ethnic purification in the Serb enclaves, where the inhabitants live and die like condemned prisoners.
In March this year, horrific violence against the Serbs erupted, the pretext for which was the tragic drowning of some Albanian boys. Reports have now established that those unfortunates were not chased into the River
396WH
Ibar by Serbs, but died in a horrible accident. However, the incident was a light that set off much violence. That violence was almost too spontaneous—it was as if it was premeditated. I wonder whether the Minister has any evidence relating to that or any reports from which he can ascertain what happened.
According to UN statistics, 50,000 Albanian Kosovans, in the presence of 18,000 NATO peacekeepers, drove 4,500 Serbs and other non-Albanians from their homes, injuring 900, including 150 peacekeepers, and killing 19, in 33 flashpoints. Kosovo was engulfed in flames, and more than 300 homes, many of which had been recently rebuilt by the international community, were looted and torched.
Human life is obviously the most precious commodity, but the destruction of much else, including 35 additional churches, took place. I say "additional" because, as most people aware of the region know, since 1999 there has been incredible destruction of churches and monasteries in the area. It is fair to say that, as a result of the desecration of churches in Kosovo, there were retaliations against a couple of mosques, including a very old one in Belgrade. The Kosovan-Montenegran Government have condemned those retaliations. I mention that because, as in so much of the region, these are more than very important heritage sites; they are symbols. The fact that there is a desire on both sides to eradicate such symbols shows the incredible feelings that still exist.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of whether any single person has been arrested or held responsible for the burning and looting of the monasteries and churches in Kosovo?
Mr. Randall: The last time that a question on that matter was laid in Parliament, the answer was no. I would be interested to know whether, since then, and particularly since the recent attacks, any of the perpetrators have been caught.
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): More than 200 people have been arrested. Their cases are being examined and charges will be laid. There is no question about that; I reported it to Parliament before the recess.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister. If I have got the facts wrong, I will be the first to apologise to him.
Mrs. Mahon: The 200 have been arrested since the latest outbreak of violence. I was talking about the whole of the five-year period.
Mr. Randall: I am glad to see that we are getting somewhere. If 200 people have been arrested for the most recent outbreaks, I am delighted. That is a very positive move, which we should applaud. Without prejudging their guilt or innocence, we hope that at least some who are guilty will be found guilty and punished accordingly.
Last week, I and other members of the all-party group on Serbia and Montenegro, including the hon. Lady, met people who had just visited the area. Their witness statements were very telling. I hope that, in the near

397WH
future, the all-party group will be able to visit the region to see what is going on and report back. We could also talk to our counterparts at parliamentary level, to see what they are saying and doing about this situation. In due course the Foreign and Commonwealth Office might be able to assist us on that.
One of the people who came and gave us their views was Her Royal Highness Princess Linda of Yugoslavia, who visited the area from 14 April to 23 April. I would like to read out some excerpts from the speech that she made, because it is difficult for us in London to understand exactly what is going on. The Minister has been there and we will want to hear whether he was able to visit some of these areas outside Pristina. The Princess said:
"The Serb enclaves are not properly secure, even with the presence of KFOR. Albanians have freedom of movement in most of the enclaves, while Serbs cannot go anywhere without escort, which is how I personally travelled between all the enclaves. The enclaves are heavily dependent on humanitarian aid, land cannot be farmed safely. In many areas, Serbs complain that KFOR rarely responds to kidnappings, stonings and physical attacks, or destruction of property…The people driven out on March 17–19 were not allowed to take anything with them, even personal documents, by the Kosovo Police Force … Most Serbs were in a desperate psychological state even before the March 17–19 events. There is no possibility of jobs. They've gone through the NATO bombing in 1999, and have spent the time since as virtual prisoners, behind razor wire."
I shall not carry on with that quote, because it is one person's witness, and although I have no reason to doubt it, we have to try to resolve the problem, and to be as dispassionate as possible while understanding the real plight of people on both sides.
There has been some comment in our media but, strangely, the situation does not seem to have caught the imagination of the news desks. On 23 April, The Guardian reported that the International Crisis Group think-tank said:
"Kosovo is in danger of becoming Europe's West Bank, a destabilising source of unrest in the Balkans, because of five years of flawed and failed western policy-making and peacekeeping".
The Economist of 27 March quoted Mr. Javier Solana fulminating at the appalling and intolerable behaviour of people during recent events. The article went on to quote Harri Holkeri as saying that trust had been destroyed, and mentioned that one member of UN staff in Mitrovica said that she saw all her work go up in flames—literally. Also on 27 March, Christopher Caldwell wrote a piece entitled "NATO's Kosovo Dream is Dead".
The picture that I am painting is rather depressing, and that is not something in which I take any pleasure. One image presented to me has stuck in my mind; possibly it is not the most terrible, in terms of human suffering, but it could be regarded as the most upsetting. It is of the church in, I think, Pristina that has been turned into a public toilet. Elsewhere in the world, we are talking about winning over hearts and minds. Can we imagine what the world would say if a mosque were similarly desecrated? We would be rightly shocked if that happened.
The Minister has suggested that he came back from the area well educated—if that is possible for such an educated man. What is being done to repair homes and churches, and what input are the Government making towards the repair of churches and homes?
398WH
Despite all the misery, and despite seeing human behaviour at its worst, I have heard reports of some exemplary behaviour, and I should like to report the exemplary acts of some Irish soldiers. The UK forces are also well respected, I understand. Also, although I know that the matter does not come under the Minister's brief, I am sure that he has an understanding of current plans with regard to UK forces in Kosovo.
Tony Lloyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would also like to mention—unusually for our Chamber—the role of the French troops, who were, I understand, instrumental in preventing an attack on Mitrovica, or at least a Serb part of it, by mobs in mid-March. They put their lives at risk, and one French soldier died, so we should recognise their role, too.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, and I am sure that there were many such examples. I have also heard examples of behaviour on the part of troops that was not so good, but I do not wish to dwell on them, and I certainly think that it would be invidious to name nations. Whenever a multinational force is involved, there will always be some with more experience than others in certain situations, and some will perhaps always behave in a way that is more sympathetic in the circumstances.
The Prime Minister of Kosovo, Mr. Bajram Rexhepi, declared recently that
"if the final status for Kosovo is not resolved by next year, the Albanians are going to have a referendum and will declare independence."
That is obviously a dangerous prospect; it would increase tension not just in the province but throughout the region. I hope that there will be swift action in response to that declaration, and that a clear message will be sent to the Albanians that the status of Kosovo can be resolved only under the terms of UN resolution 1244, and only through negotiation.
I also understand that the head of the United Nations interim administration in Kosovo approved the establishment of a Kosovo office for foreign affairs and dialogue. I understand—although I would be grateful for information on this—that it is not proposed that any Serb will be employed in that office. On 29 April the Serbian Parliament unanimously adopted a plan of autonomy for Serbs and other minorities in Kosovo. I should be grateful to hear the UK's view on those proposals.
I understand that a large amount of weaponry is still in Kosovo, and still coming in. The KLA has, of course, never disarmed, although it gave back a few weapons. Safety and security for all citizens of Kosovo might, obviously, be achieved if the area were to be disarmed. I wonder what progress is being made towards that.
The borders around Kosovo—particularly between Albania and Kosovo, and Kosovo and Macedonia—should be properly guarded. I understand that there are still holes along the borders. I knew the area pretty well and I know that it is easy to say that a border of that kind should be properly patrolled. Still, I think that even I could possibly have penetrated some of those borders, without SAS training. The matter is an important one, encompassing the need to give people confidence that the borders are secure.

399WH
I am sorry that I must bring these matters to the Chamber; I have often said, as in 1999 when I was against what NATO did, that I want to be proved wrong. I hoped that everything would be sorted out, and it is a great sadness that things have gone as wrong as they have. Many people, and certainly the Serb community in this country, are bewildered and astonished by what little response has been made in recent years to the destruction and desecration of hundreds of churches, graveyards and cultural monuments, some going back to the 13th and 14th centuries. They even survived Ottoman rule, which was not always regarded as the most enlightened, although that is probably a controversial statement for which I shall get into deep trouble.
There might be an answer to all this, probably in the long term, with an even more expanded EU. However, even an avid Euro-enthusiast like the Minister would have to recognise that the admission of the countries in question is some way off. In the meantime, we must all work extremely hard to try to rid Europe of this potentially explosive problem—not least because of the huge number of refugees and internally displaced persons who are living in misery.
I ask the Minister not only to take the issue seriously but to make it a high priority of British foreign policy. Another tragedy is taking place in the Balkans before our eyes. It is an area where tragedies have become almost commonplace. I plead with the Minister to give all the people in the region hope of fairness and equality for the whole area.
11.19 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate. I endorse what he said, particularly about last week's delegation to the all-party group on Serbia and Montenegro. Our visitors were three people from very different political, cultural and social backgrounds. One was a member of the Yugoslav Government in the 1980s and 1990s. Another was an American citizen who was born, brought up and educated in the United States but is a devout follower of the Orthodox faith. The third, as the hon. Gentleman said, was an English woman who married into the Serbian royal family, lives in Belgrade and does humanitarian work in Kosovo. All three had the same tale to tell: there has been widespread ethnic cleansing since NATO and the UN took over five years ago.
Some 180,000 refugees and displaced persons—Serbs, Roma, Gorani, and other ethnic minorities—are now living in Serbia and Montenegro. The hon. Gentleman and I visited some of them a year ago. They are living in camps in miserable conditions, often just a few miles from the border of Kosovo, and are desperate to return home. They are simple, by and large agricultural, people. Great events happened around them, but they did not understand why they could not go home. All this took place under the noses of UNMIK and KFOR. To many of us who followed these events closely, it seems that the UN and NATO have turned a blind eye to what has been happening. When I think of all the debates, statements and passionate speeches about the dreadful ethnic cleansing, albeit temporary, of the Albanians,
400WH
who fled to Montenegro and Macedonia, I wonder where the sympathy is now for these people who, it seems to me, are permanently ethnically cleansed.
In my intervention, I mentioned the destruction of the churches. I add to that the fact that crimes that have been committed against minorities. Where are the people who have been arrested? Who has been sent to The Hague for climes against humanity? When will there be justice for people still living in Kosovo but in dreadful conditions in heavily guarded enclaves without any freedom of movement? It is a mockery to say that the elections held there are in any way fair and legitimate when minorities cannot get about and do the usual things that we all do in elections, such as canvas and move about safely without fear of death or injury.
In March, I asked the Minister questions about the recent outbreak of violence in Kosovo. He was not very reassuring. He could not even go so far as NATO did and condemn what was happening. Since then, I have waited for the Government's condemnation of what happened. Frankly, it is not good enough to say, as was said then, that inter-ethnic violence is to be condemned while studiously ignoring the main source of the violence. Can the Government bring themselves to say that the KLA orchestrated and perpetrated the violence? Not to do so is an insult to the people who are suffering at the hands of the Albanian terrorists, and undermines our position. It also flies in the face of utterances about the war on terrorism to ignore a bunch of thugs, terrorists and Mafiosi who have just purged another 4,500 Serbs and other minorities. I know that the Minister visited Kosovo recently. I hope that he talked to the same people on the ground to whom the hon. Gentleman and I talked and was not cosseted from the real situation. The hon. Gentleman and I hope to go there in the near future, and we will not let the issue go.
What is happening in Kosovo is incredibly serious; it is an attempt to eradicate a whole culture and a whole history. We must ask ourselves why. We cannot simply pretend that it is not happening. In the short time left to me, I shall concentrate on some of the most salient points that form the background to the latest series of attacks. First, the scale of the violence lends credence to the claims that it was systematic and planned by Albanian extremists. Amnesty International, for example, says that 33 violent incidents took place throughout Kosovo in mid-March and involved 51,000 people. Dozens were killed and hundreds injured. Amnesty International also takes seriously claims about the Kosovo police service. I am all for peace and reconciliation, but I do not understand the decision to put Agim Ceku, who led the KLA pogroms of Serbs and other minorities during and after the NATO bombardment, in charge of that police force. That is obscene.
In March, a senior UN spokesman, Derek Chappell, said:
"This is planned, co-ordinated, one-way violence from the Albanians against the Serbs. It is spreading and has been brewing for the past week. Nothing in Kosovo happens spontaneously."
Others have said similar things.
It has been reported in the British press and elsewhere that the violence was sparked by an incident in which Serbs drove Albanian children into a river, so that they were drowned. Those claims are being investigated by

401WH
an international prosecutor. Will the Minister explain what happened? I find it difficult to conceive that Serbs were playing on the Albanian side of the Ibar river—I have been there two or three time;. There were early witness accounts that those claims were not true, and that it was a tragic and dreadful accident. Perhaps the Minister can put us right about whether those claims are true. Even if they are, it stretches credulity to say that the co-ordinated attacks involving 51,000 people were spontaneous.
As Amnesty International and others point out, the violence is related to talks on the future of Kosovo, which are to due to begin next year. If there are no Serbs or other minorities left in the province, it will be considerably easier to make it independent, which is, of course, what the KLA wants. The KLA never disbanded; it simply took another name, and was allowed to keep all its arms. If we give in to such action, we will have deliberately encouraged and rewarded terrorism.
Many authorities have reports from a variety of sources, which establish that the KLA is sustained by organised crime. In my view, that occurs with the tacit approval of the United States and its allies. Some of us, including people far more exalted And knowledgeable than me, warned that that might happen. The hon. Gentleman quoted Major-General Mackenzie, who commanded UN forces in Bosnia during the civil war. In a recent article, the major-general wrote:
"The Kosovo-Albanians have played us like a Stradivarius. We have subsidized and indirectly supported their violent campaign for an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo … When they achieve independence with the help of our tax dollars combined with those of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, just consider the message of encouragement this sends to other terrorist-supported independence movements around the world."
Christopher Hill, America's chief negotiator and architect of the Rambouillet agreement has, in the past five years, been a strong critic of the KLA's drug dealing. As late as last year, Robert Gelbard, America's special envoy in Bosnia, which is part of the Albanian drug and people trafficking route, described the KLA as terrorists with links to the drug trade. As a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, we are undertaking a study on people trafficking in the Balkans, and on the links between the drug trade, people trafficking and terrorism. A visit to Interpol confirmed that bin Laden had strong links with the KLA; while we were acting as the KLA's air force, it retained its links with known terrorists.
The US Drug Enforcement Administration estimates that 4.6 tonnes of heroin leave Turkey for western Europe each month, passing through the Balkans. Some 80 per cent. of heroin arrives in Europe through Albanian channels via the Balkans. We have a serious problem on our hands.
Drugs are not the only trade in which those people are involved. They also trade in arms and traffick people. A recent Amnesty International report deals with the trade in women and girls for forced prostitution. I understand that there will be a press conference on Thursday in Pristina, the capital city of the Kosovo province, and I hope that the Government will pay it as much attention as it deserves.
Will the Minister assure us that he will consider and respond to these points, particularly to the criminality in the region, which will destabilise the whole area if we do
402WH
not get it right? An ethnically cleansed Kosovo is not the answer to anybody's dream of a peaceful Balkans. We need an international inquiry. I believe that some people in UNMIK have been involved in some irregular transactions, and that needs to be inquired into. On the issue of ethnic cleansing and the right of the people to return home, why is it right that Albanians are deemed to have an absolute right to return home but Serbs and other minorities are not? There seems to be a huge moral discrepancy there.
I should like to think that Britain is capable of taking all the facts into account, and of ensuring that a multi-ethnic community can live in peace in Kosovo and that the people who have perpetrated the violence and ethnic cleansing are finally brought to account, arrested and taken to The Hague. I am fully in favour of dealing with war criminals and those who commit crimes against humanity—be they Serb, Albanian or whatever nationality—but it is obscene that we concentrate on only one set of war criminals and not the other.
11.32 am
Tony Lloyd: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) not only on obtaining this debate but on his timing. The events that took place in March, which he outlined, have made everybody reconsider their views on what is taking place in Kosovo.
I visited Kosovo in February of this year. Although there is no doubt that Kosovo is a depressing place, at that stage there was limited progress. It was not great progress—I do not think that anybody would pretend that it was overwhelming—but it was progress. For example, people said to me that at that time it was possible for Serbs to walk through Pristina. It was significant that things had moved on in that direction. There were also individual communities where people were working hard to operate properly on a cross-cultural and cross-ethnic basis. Later, I will refer to at least one individual who has some significance in that connection. I do not pretend that that progress was uniform throughout Kosovo, but in February things appeared to be moving in a positive direction, if very slowly.
The events in March that the hon. Gentleman has already outlined were horrific in their own right. The loss of Albanian children in the river is not immaterial, because it is human tragedy at any level. However, whether it happened by provocation or by accident, and I am not sure that anybody has come up with an answer to that, it really is not the issue. The previous day, a young Serb boy—again, nobody quite knows the background—was shot. Those are not provocations that should allow anybody to justify a launch into mob violence of the sort that was seen over the following three days, when between 40,000 and 50,000 people stormed various parts of Kosovo and, in effect, almost anywhere where there were Serb minorities. That was almost certainly first whipped up by the media.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board the poor role played by the media. It is something that we will have to consider: who controls the flow of information? Who whipped up the incident of the deaths of the Albanian children in a way that allowed terror and mob rule to run amok? Of course, both the hon.

403WH
Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) were right to point out that there were almost certainly political minds behind the actions of the mob. My hon. Friend mentioned the KLA specifically. I do not have the same certainty about that. However, what is certain is that the motives were political; this was an attempt at ethnic cleansing.
I was in Kosovo—or rather on its borders—in 1999, and I witnessed the ethnic cleansing of Albanians. It was no more acceptable to me to witness Albanians being cleared from areas of Kosovo at that time than it is to see that happening now to the Serbs or the other minorities. It is as much of an outrage that ethnic cleansing is taking place against those minorities in Kosovo as it was that the Albanians were the victims five years ago.
The brutal truth is that we must say that we are not prepared to accept this; there can be no retaliatory balancing of things by settling old scores. We must recommit ourselves to creating a Kosovo that disbars and punishes that. If people are guilty of crimes, they must be brought before the courts because their crimes are just as serious and heinous as those committed elsewhere in the region.
If we simply say that in all circumstances one community is good and the other is bad, we will fail to address some important issues. Even in the days of madness, there were significant examples of individuals behaving differently. Lutfi Haziri, the Albanian mayor of Gnjilane, attempted to stand up against the mob to protect the Serbs in his community. People like that deserve recognition. There are Kosovar Albanians who are fighting for a humane solution that includes people of all ethnic backgrounds. Prime Minister Rexhepi also went out to the mob outside Pristina, and two thirds of the people turned their backs on mob rule by following him back into the town. In the midst of all the savagery, such acts should be recognised.
Some 4,000 people were chased away; 19 people were killed—eight of them Albanian, so this is not a completely one-sided situation; 900 people were injured; and, from the figures that I have seen, 700 houses were destroyed, as well as the churches that the hon. Gentleman referred to. The destruction has been crass, but it has also had a pattern: it has been an attempt to prevent people from returning. However, there are individuals who represent beacons of hope by working for a better solution.
As we have moved on to other issues, the international community's eye has not been properly fixed on the situation in Kosovo. Last week. the special representative, Harri Holkeri, was in Strasbourg talking to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. He said that he did not have the necessary resources. Of course, we must look into what those resources are for, but there is a real issue there. If the head of our international mission says that he does not have enough resources, we must take that seriously. We as parliamentarians must acknowledge that our Governments—the people who act in our name—have not been concentrating as much as they should on the situation in Kosovo.
404WH
We must accept that we have failed in our primary duty. KFOR and UNMIK are there, and their primary duty is the security of the men, women and children in Kosovo, in so far as it is possible to deliver that. We have failed in that duty because so many people were up against mob rule. We would not be able to accept that in our own cities without major questions being asked about what happened, and we cannot accept it in Kosovo without asking the same questions.
The first priority must be to guarantee security for all people living in Kosovo. I accept that that is difficult, but without it nothing else—investment, the returns policy, the justice system, the building of the infrastructure—will happen as it should. Without security, it would be a waste of time to try to secure those things. Security is central, and I want the Minister to say what he can about the role of KFOR and its capacity, because it is clear that in March KFOR was either not prepared or not able to act quickly enough or in a way that would have deterred the violence that ensued.
The second aim must be a quest for justice, and it is not simply an idle one. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has made this point already, but I must endorse it. The Minister is right to say that some of those involved have been arrested, and without prejudging the proper judicial process, which we must have in Kosovo, it is desperately important that a proper investigation is carried out, people are brought before the courts and those who are found guilty are sentenced to exemplary punishment. The signal must be given throughout Kosovo and to the wider world that those involved in such wanton and politically motivated violence will not be allowed to get away with it. That is a central point.
The intriguing question is always that of Kosovo's status, but I join those who say that the slogan "Standards not status" must be given meaning. Until we establish proper standards in Kosovo, any talk of status is almost irrelevant. Whoever inherits a Kosovo with no standards inherits a kind of desert, which is in nobody's interest.
Within those terms, we have a long way to go to build up capacity. That is another area in which the European Union, which is charged with the process of rebuilding the infrastructure, has not been as committed as it should have been. We need to tell the Commission, through our Government, that it must redouble its efforts. I say that while recognising that laying down a new infrastructure in a situation in which it could be trash tomorrow can work only if we recommit ourselves to the security equation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax has already mentioned returns. Even before the events of March, about 200,000 people had fled Kosovo. My hon. Friend gave the figure as 180,000, and I would not argue with that, but whatever the number, she was right to say that those people are entitled to return. We have said that throughout the region. I have stood in places such as Srebrenica and said that we must allow a policy of returns. We have made that demand of the Governments in Belgrade, Sarajevo and Zagreb, and we must make the same demand in Pristina. Only the right to return will show that we are underpinning a future for Kosovo as a multi-ethnic community that—these words may seem casual, but they are necessary—gives equal respect to people, whatever their background. The right to return can work only if the security equation is dealt

405WH
with. If we were to ask people to return to a place from which they were driven at gunpoint, many would tell us that it is impossible under the current circumstances. I underline the fact that everything that we want for Kosovo depends on the re-establishment of a proper security presence.
Although this may sound arbitrary considering the recent violence, there needs to be a return to some sense of normalcy. Capacity and power must be transferred to local communities. That has not taken place at the speed that it should have, and the international agency UNMIK must consider its role and how quickly it has been prepared to transfer that power. Some of those things would help us to get over issues such as the parallel structures supported by Belgrade. One legitimate demand that we should make to the authorities in Belgrade is for them to cease supporting the parallel structures. In return, if we are to begin to rebuild the structures of Kosovo from the ground up, it must be clear that people at the community level have the proper capacity to take control of their own destinies.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate, because the issue has not gone away. From 1999 till the present, the situation in Kosovo has been chronic. It may not have been acute for the most part, which has meant that it has drifted off the agenda. However, it became acute in March, and, to be brutal, if we do not give it consistent attention, as we should have done from 1999 onwards, it will deteriorate.
There are good people in all the communities of Kosovo, and we can see signs of reconstruction and the implementation of proper standards. We can also see that there is a European ambition—hon. Members in different parts of the Chamber can interpret that how they like—for the people of Kosovo and the wider region. However, that ambition will be fulfilled only if we are prepared to recommit ourselves to Kosovo—to recommit the resources and, in particular, the political will to make Kosovo change.
11.45 am
Mr. Michael Moore: Like other hon Members, I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. Like him. I think that it is worth putting the issue in the context of the great celebrations that we had at the weekend to mark the expansion of the European Union. While the Minister went to some very glamorous celebrations on the continent, I was at a more modest affair in Galashiels, in my constituency. People throughout the United Kingdom and elsewhere are pleased at how Europe has been developing, and although there are no doubt problems ahead, the fact that so many countries—particularly those from the former communist bloc—are now part of the European Union sends the outside world a strong signal about the state of Europe.
Our focus on Kosovo reminds us, however, that the situation in Europe more broadly has not yet been sorted out. The tragic outbreak of violence has brought the province back into the headlines in the most appalling way, albeit briefly. At least 19 people died, and about 900 were injured, in the recent violence. As a
406WH
result, it was necessary to call on NATO reserves to assist in re-establishing order, which rather underlined the seriousness of the situation.
It appears that the objectives of restoring calm and preventing the spread of violence to neighbouring areas have been successfully met, and we should pay tribute to members of the forces from the United Kingdom and elsewhere who put their lives at risk and carried out their task successfully. However, we should not ignore reports that sections of the international forces in Kosovo were not seen to do well when the violence broke out. In its report of 22 April, the International Crisis Group was highly critical of aspects of KFOR's performance:
"KFOR stood revealed as a paper tiger, and will have difficulty redressing its credibility deficit."
The Minister's comments on the issue will be listened to with great care.
Even the most casual observer of the Balkans will be sensitive to the difficult situation in Kosovo and to the region's terrible history. As the different parties there tiptoe towards elections, which we hope will be in the not-too-distant future, the ugly face of ethnic cleansing has once again shown itself. Whatever the rights and wrongs of each side's claims, historic and otherwise. the international community must ensure that all parties understand some basic messages. Political aspirations depend on dialogue and negotiation, not violence and ethnic cleansing. All communities must be able to live in their homes, and the rule of law must prevail. A stable. democratic and multi-ethnic Kosovo will never be achieved by inter-ethnic murder and violence.
The recent deaths and terrible disturbances sit in a wider, troubled context. The International Crisis Group report highlights the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia and, to some extent, blames the months in which the nerves of Kosovar Albanians were shredded by Belgrade for causing the tensions that gave rise to the violence. Alongside the problems with Serbia, long-running issues are still hanging over from the terrible events of 1999. I refer, in particular, to missing people. The United Nations interim administration mission figures suggest that about 2,500 Albanians and 1,000 Serbs are missing in Kosovo.
Identification of bodies in unmarked graves from earlier conflicts is a parallel and gruesome task. That problem was focused on by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), when she highlighted in a debate in December the anguish of those families who were affected and the circumstances that gave raise to those deaths, as Milosevic and his regime carried out wholesale ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and dumped hundreds of bodies in mass graves. If he has the opportunity, will the Minister tell us what progress, if any, has been made since that debate?
The issue is perhaps the most emotive that exists, but it sits in a wider context of international efforts to regularise the situation in the country. The Minister will be aware from the ICG's report—however briefly he has been able to examine it—that its criticisms go more widely than despair at the experience of KFOR. The report highlights the failure of the UN civil administration to kick-start the economy and provide the necessary development assistance. It is critical

407WH
especially of local institutions when dealing with law enforcement and, in particular, organised crime, a theme that has been highlighted by the hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). It focuses on the confusion over the steps that are necessary to move towards the final status discussions about Kosovo and says that that is having a serious destabilising effect.
Last November, the Minister announced a new mechanism of reviews for Kosovo to allow progress towards international standards and final status discussions to be monitored. To what extent has the recent violence knocked that process off track? Is it still the intention to complete the first formal review in mid-2005?
The crisis group has made 14 recommendations to the parties with an interest in Kosovo. Like others who have contributed to the debate, it focuses heavily on the need for enhanced security without which no progress can be made. It urges that there should be preparatory work for final status talks, in particular extended support for the development of the key institutions of government, which are failing. The group argues that it is most important for the international community to acknowledge that UNMIK needs to be restructured and given adequate resources to undertake its job.
The Minister's reply to my contribution and to the points made by the crisis group and others who have contributed to the debate will be listened to with interest. Kosovo is in a parlous and fragile state. This country has played a major part in stabilising it, and such action will undoubtedly continue. I hope that he will explain how.
11.54 am
Mr. Richard Spring: I, too, warmly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing the debate. He has taken a consistent interest in the part of the world under discussion and has huge personal knowledge of it. I wish to applaud the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who equally has consistently raised such issues at Westminster and enhanced our understanding of the whole region. I welcome the opportunity to debate the situation in Kosovo.
One point has been echoed by everyone this morning, most powerfully by the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), and that is that the horrific and controversial events in Iraq and the middle east have pushed Kosovo out of the international news, save when tragic events such as those in Mitrovica occur. We hope, however, that it has not fallen entirely out of view—I know that it has not so far as the Minister is concerned. It is important that the Prime Minister, also, should accord a priority to Kosovo and to the Balkans in general, even though the cameras of the world are focused elsewhere.
None of us can forget the terrible events of 1999, which saw the security forces of Milosevic ramp up the pressure on the Kosovan Albanians and engage in violent large-scale ethnic cleansing just hours after the commencement of NATO's bombing campaign. At the
408WH
same time, we witnessed the radicalisation of the demands of the KLA, coupled with increasing violence, often against innocent Serb civilians. The combination of NATO's air campaign and economic sanctions halted the violence in Kosovo. That, coupled with domestic opposition in Serbia—to which the credit must go—precipitated the fall of Milosevic in October 2000.
We know how complicated the history of the Balkans is. However, the tragic economic state of the region, the large number of displaced people, and the psychological scars of conflict, civil war and inter-ethnic tension bedevil Kosovo in particular. Sadly, five years on, much remains unresolved in Kosovo and the post-Yugoslavia region lingers on in limbo, with a security situation that is not conducive to the economic investment that is crucial, given such huge unemployment. I agree with the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), who said that security is crucial if all else is to flow from it.
Kosovo's ethnic tensions simmer just below the surface. Questions have been asked about the circumstances leading to the tragic deaths of the three Kosovan Albanian children in Mitrovica in March. What have been clear are the consequence of those deaths—the almost immediate inter-ethnic violence—the Serbian Kosovans being the victims on this occasion.
The violence in March left 28 Serbian Kosovans dead, some 20 churches and 350 houses burned and destroyed and—most ominously—six Serbian enclaves ethnically cleansed with about 3,500 Serbs displaced. That recent violence raises a number of profound questions about the real state of law and order in Kosovo and the prospects for any sustainable long-term settlement.
Too little notice has been taken of the ethnic cleansing and violence directed against Serbs in Kosovo in recent years. While I pay tribute to the dedication and work of NATO and UNMIK in Kosovo. it is clear that sufficient troops on the ground are a prerequisite for a stable security environment and that the performance of the troops stationed there appears to vary according to area and nationality.
Serbians living in Kosovo are reduced to living in what amount to Serbian enclaves surrounded by Kosovan Albanian areas. It is estimated that since 1999, about 350,000 Serbs have fled Kosovo, and that many of them remain too frightened to return. Those who have returned live in dread of violence such as that which occurred in March and fear that the more radical of the Kosovan Albanians—KLA supporters—have the broader agenda of forcing them out to create an ethnically pure Kosovo. However, there is fear on the Kosovan Albanian side too. It sees Kosovo as a large enclave surrounded by an even larger Serb regional presence. Such fears of domination by other ethnic groups, unless reduced, threaten to enflame the region once again—the potential is always there.
A deeply saddening consequence of the tension and violence has been the burning and destruction of many sacred sites, particularly churches and monasteries dating back to the Byzantine era, which represent an irreplaceable architectural heritage and are important sites of religious devotion for many. Their destruction has been a tragic loss for European civilisation.

409WH
I was moved by a letter that I recently received from an artist, Barbara Dorf, who has spent many years visiting the area to paint. She vividly described the appalling destruction of Byzantine churches and the like. She suggested that there should be a
"body to make certain that these sacred sites are preserved … I suggest safe havens around these monasteries".
What is the Minister's response to those suggestions?
Mrs. Mahon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that UNESCO should not ignore pleas from the Orthodox Church to highlight what is a wholesale destruction of a way of life and culture?
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. If UNESCO has any role in preserving the architectural heritage of anywhere in Europe, those churches and monasteries must be preserved. They are part of our entire civilisation and their destruction is a tragedy for everyone concerned, not only those of a particular religious persuasion.
As the Minister will know, I recently visited Slovenia. While there, I had several interesting; discussions about the Balkan region and Kosovo. It is clear that Kosovo is in dire need of investment and economic growth to provide incomes and employment for its people. Unemployment is high—about 60 per cent.—and privatisation has stalled. A vast number of people without means of employment provide easy pickings for those seeking to stir up resentment against other ethnic groups. However, investment and economic growth must be pursued in parallel with a focus on creating a secure and stable environment in Kosovo. Its regional neighbours are well placed to assist in those respects. However, although the UN and NATO can do much, a desire for reconciliation and respect for the rule of law must ultimately come from Kosovo.
Following the welcome accession of many former eastern bloc countries to the EU at the weekend and the similar steps being taken by others, such as Bulgaria and Romania, the prospect of regional involvement and support should be further explored. Similarly, there are opportunities for those countries to build trade links with Kosovo, given that some 80 per cent. of its trade is with Serbia. Such reliance on one trading partner suggests a need for trade diversification outside Kosovo. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the economic development of Kosovo and persuade its neighbours to assist? What steps do they believe that the EU can realistically take to assist Kosovo's stabilisation and transition as new countries move towards membership?
I shall touch on the possible eventual status of Kosovo, although I know how difficult that will be. As I read it, UN Security Council resolution 1244 is ambiguous. What is the Minister's response to those who argue that a form of partition would eventually lead to intensified pressure on those communities still on the wrong side of any line and risk an unravelling of previous regional accords, such as Dayton and Ohrid? What position does he advocate in respect of Kosovo's final status and how does he envisage the situation developing?
410WH
My conversations in Slovenia strengthened my view that the possibility, however distant, of NATO and EU membership could be an important incentive to stabilising the post-Yugoslav republics and clamping down on human rights abuses. Croatia is on the path to EU membership. Does the Minister agree that by offering that carrot, including to Serbia, the aspirations of politicians in the region would be lifted and it would be clear that membership implies proper European standards of justice and governance, including respect for cultural diversity? I truly believe that that would provide a long-term political framework to replace the political vacuum, not least in Kosovo.
12.4 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): I am more than grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for securing this debate, because it enables me to set out Government thinking on Kosovo and the region and to announce to the House today some changes in policy and some discussions that we are having with partners and with our friends in Belgrade and Pristina. I use those words deliberately because I will not seek to get into a blame game for today's activities. It is important that all hon. Members approach this in a balanced way.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) who has taken a deep personal interest in the plight of the Serb people over a number of years. She has done so in conditions of exemplary solidarity, and I hope that her successor as hon. Member for Halifax will maintain that interest. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd). He is one of the most distinguished members of our Council of Europe delegation and a predecessor of mine as Minister of State at the Foreign Office. His commitment to the region is of the highest order. As he reminded us, his visits to different sites in the region have informed all his contributions. I disagree with nothing that Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members said. They asked the right questions and approached the matter with the right tone.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge is right to secure this debate because it is five years almost to the week since the British Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, helped to put together the international coalition that ended the killing fields of Kosovo initiated by the Serb leader, Slobodan Milosevic. During too much of the 1990s Governments in Europe found reasons not to intervene in the western Balkans, and we know the price because we see it in our surgeries. More than a million asylum seekers have flooded into the rest of Europe from the former Yugoslavia.
In 1989 Yugoslavia was the richest country in the then communist world. Its citizens, from the Greek border to the Slovenian alps, could travel freely in Europe without visas. In that sense, it is my ambition to try to help all the people of the regions to get back to 1989. They have just become citizens of our common European Union. Along with the flow of asylum seekers in the early 1990s from Croatia, Bosnia and then Kosovo came the networks that helped to move them. They easily became the networks that could smuggle cigarettes, drugs and today, alas, prostitutes, arms and money. Those criminal networks exist throughout the region. They are not exclusive to Kosovo and we need to deal with that.

411WH
The decade of destruction and warfare unleashed by Milosevic in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and then in Kosovo is a dark chapter in Europe's history. Five years after the end of the formal Milosevic fighting, Europe has a responsibility to help all the western Balkans back to the community of European nations. We have had an uneasy peace in Kosovo since 1999. The weapons are mainly silenced, but the words from both sides are still too full of hate.
It is the power of verbal violence that we need to consider. Reference has been made to the three children who were drowned in the river at Mitrovica. The reporting of the incident by the Kosovan mass media was a disgrace by journalistic standards. I speak as a former president of the National Union of Journalists. It was outrageous how tensions were whipped up by Kosovan journalists to create the climate that then exploded into violence. Those are not just my views. The official at the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe who is responsible for media standards reported that to the Berlin conference of the OSCE last week. I will be encouraging the OSCE to see what it can do to set much higher standards for reporting in Kosovo.
Words from political leaders are also extremely important. If I may reveal a bit of private Foreign Office discussion to hon. Members, I remember how my heart sank when I got the reports of the programmatic speech made by the newly elected Serbian Prime Minister, Kostunica, to the Parliament in Belgrade on 2 March. A huge chunk of his speech was not about the problems facing Serbia and Montenegro, working out ways in which it could discharge its obligations to the international tribunal in The Hague or the new economic initiatives that were needed; it was devoted to raising the issue of Serb status in Kosovo. Describing what his Government wanted, he said:
"Substantial autonomy for the Serb population in Kosovo includes territorial autonomy, the division of Kosovo into entities or the cantonisation of Kosovo … and a corresponding cultural and personal autonomy."
I asked my officials why on earth Mr. Kostunica was making a formal speech calling for Serb territorial autonomy in Kosovo, how on earth every Kosovan would react and whether he thought I should condemn it; it is like Germany reclaiming parts of the Czech Republic, Silesia or Pomerania. I said no, however, because I like and trust Mr. Kostunica and I have had many good conversations with him; I like his new Government and I have worked in the region for a number of years. I said that I would not put out an official expression of concern by the British Government and that we should move away from a hectoring approach, preaching against statements by leaders in the region. However, I was sure that there would be a reaction.
Well, the reaction came, because words have consequences and so does announcing unacceptable policies. Although the drowning of those three poor Albanian children and the way that it was dealt with in the Kosovan mass media undoubtedly led to that explosion, and undoubtedly there were extremists in
412WH
Kosovo who fanned the flames, the time has come for everyone, including Members of this House, to measure their words very carefully.
Mr. Randall: The Minister is absolutely right. In that context, I wonder whether he will reconsider the combination of the idea of the annexation of Sudetenland and the issue of Kosovo. After all, Kosovo is still regarded by the international community as part of Serbia and Montenegro.
Mr. MacShane: In Germany, right up until recently, there were giant football stadiums full of people organised by the Bund der Vertriebenen—the league of the expellees—who, under a giant slogan, would have monster meetings and say, "Silesia belongs to us. We will return." People may wish what they want, but to my knowledge no German Government figure would endorse that or bring it into German Government policy. The parallels are never quite exact, but we will have to accept—I will develop this point a little later in my speech—that the time has come in which there can be no question of a return to 1999, 1989 or 1979 in terms of Serb control over Kosovo. If we do not say that honestly and on the record, as I am doing today, in my judgment we will encourage the wrong approach. The terms of any final settlement need to be debated and I will come on to that.
Mrs. Mahon: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I do not really want to have a conversation, because there are some important points that I need to put on record, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Mahon: My hon. Friend draws attention to one side's words during the recent pogrom in March. Did he take note of some leading nationalist Albanian speeches, both leading up to that and since? The first words of the pacifist Rugova after the pogrom were that it showed that Kosovo must have independence. There are two sides to every argument.
Mr. MacShane: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those remarks. That is why it is time for Europe to rethink its policies, and for our country to find new words and new ideas to help move Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo forward to a new relationship with each other, the rest of Europe and the world. We need a new approach in Belgrade and Pristina, as well as new thinking on how UNMIK, KFOR and the other international organisations carry out their duties. We need more investment and more encouragement for those trying to do good, including the mayor of Gnjilane who works collaboratively with villages in Macedonia and Serbia to try to offer local leadership to both communities. We need more condemnation of those who use words to stir up hatred and resentment, rather than to build, if not full reconciliation—that might be too much to ask for—then a modus vivendi that allows tolerance, or at least an absence of hate that spills over so easily into bloodshed.
I appeal again to all hon. Members not to take sides. Ten years ago, it seemed easy: as a new MP I recall listening to speeches in the House, and it seemed clear

413WH
that the Albanian Kosovans and their way of life were persecuted. The distinguished Serbian politician, Biljana Plavšić, who was one of the three top Government officials in the Republika Srpska, said that Muslims in Bosnia were a
"genetic mistake on the Serbian body",
and that to eliminate them was a "natural phenomenon", not a war crime. That language is on the record, and we have not yet seen any reconciliation from Serb leaders, particularly the Church, for what took place. There has been no equivalent of Willy Brandt kneeling in front of the Warsaw ghetto to apologise for the crimes that Germans committed against the Jews. There has been no formal denunciation or apology in Parliament or in the media for that kind of remark. That is not the position of the Serbs with whom I deal, but we must find clear new language. Today, in Kosovo at least, the Kosovan Albanians are in the majority, not the minority. I say to them here, as I said to them there, that they must not make the same mistake that Milosevic made in thinking that ethnic cleansing or violence could ever provide a solution to the difficulties between the two communities.
Last month, I met President Rugova, and told him that I did not want to hear talk of independence. I said that in today's Europe we are all interdependent and Kosovo must find a model of interdependence that allows it to live in harmony with all those who live in its territory and with the rest of the region. I firmly oppose the notion that partition politics arc possible or would make any sense in Kosovo. I visited the Irish troops who behaved with commendable bravery on St. Patrick's day, 17 March, when the rioting broke out and spilled over to 18 and 19 March. They took me to a Serb village called Dubrotin, which was a sad sight, where the people live in some fear. Suddenly, on the same road, with nothing to mark a change, was the Albanian village of Slovenje, with similar houses and people, in the same fields. In the cemetery there were 18 wooden grave markers: they were graves of men born in 1912, men born in the year of my birth and men born in the 1960s, and all killed on the same day in 1999, when 27 Kosovans were taken out by Serbs and shot dead. Only 18 bodies were recovered to be buried. The hatred is still there, just as the appalling attacks on the churches of Kosovo upset every Serb who sees the destruction wrought.
I told President Rugova that I did not want to discuss final status, because I believe that the only final status is when we are all dead. I said that the Kosovan authorities and Belgrade need to enter into a dialogue to find mechanisms to address the status issue on the basis of European values and European interdependence. They must realise that it is not the status of the state that matters, but the status of the citizens who live in a region.
The rioting of 17 and 18 March was inexcusable; I assure hon. Members that violence will not be rewarded. The international community will stay in Kosovo as long as is necessary—for 100 years if that is what it takes—until Kosovans accept their responsibility to stop the violence engendered by some criminal elements among them. I am glad that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, with the help of KFOR and the responsible Kosovan authorities, has ensured a transfer to The Hague of three Kosovan
414WH
Albanians—Haradin Bala, Isak Musliu and Fatmir Limaj—who have been charged with serious crimes. However, it is important too that Republika Srpska and its authorities make earnest efforts to secure the transfer to The Hague of Karadzic and Mladic. We are barely one year away from the 10th anniversary of the Srebrenica massacres, when 7,500 Europeans were taken out, separated from their wives and families, herded together and executed in cold blood. The judges in The Hague defined that 10 days ago as an act of genocide. There are too many people in Republika Srpska who know where Mladic and Karadzic are and who are not persuading them to report to the authorities for transfer to The Hague or helping in their transfer. There has been no clear, decisive condemnatory public language from responsible people in the Serb Government, and no parliamentary declaration, making it clear that it is the duty of those gentlemen to go to The Hague.
The riots were terrible; I saw the video and digital camera footage of the Irish soldiers. They showed children of about 17 or 18 who looked as though they should have been carrying school satchels; they were not KLA-trained people from the 1990s. It is a plain fact that 75 per cent. of Kosovans under 25 are unemployed. There is no economic hope, and Belgrade does not seem able to find a way of letting Kosovo be Kosovo.
The British Government want to move policy forward; we want less UNMIK, a strong KFOR, and more Kosovan economic control and responsibility for policing and security. The only way to make people responsible is to give them responsibilities. In the five years after the military interventions, the international institutions have been too slow and cumbersome in giving responsibility to Kosovans and requiring them to behave responsibly. That must change, but equally it must be understood in Belgrade that there cannot be a return to the past.
I had good, warm meetings with the Serb Government leaders when I was in Belgrade, and I asked them to discuss their ideas for decentralisation and helping the Serb people in Kosovo with Pristina. If we want to decentralise and build from the bottom up, we have to discuss from the bottom up, not issue programmes or plans from the centre and then expect others to fall into line with them.
That is why I find the proposals that have come forward from Belgrade in recent days very hard to accept. From the British Government's point of view, those proposals are simply unacceptable as formal policy. They may be a basis for discussion, but I have read, for example, references to Serbs in Kosovo claiming entitlement
"to parts of the territory that links in a natural way Serb-dominated settlements, in which they previously did not make up a majority".
I really do not understand what that means. I saw a village that was made up of completely contiguous Serb and Albanian parts, on the same road. The notion that they can be separated, which is what seems to be indicated in the plan from Belgrade, simply will not work.
I understand the fears and the needs of the Serbs in Kosovo, but Belgrade must discuss, in depth and continuously, its concerns with Pristina. Policies cannot

415WH
be decided in Belgrade or in New York and then announced as decrees to be obeyed. Dialogue is necessary. Political dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina must be direct, personal and continual, and should be aided by the Governments of Europe and the EU directly, via the European Commission and the high representative of the Council of Ministers. That process of dialogue should be separate from, yet parallel to, the administration of UNMIK.
We need to get political movement in the region, rather than just firefighting when a crisis breaks out. We have examples from which we can learn lessons. In Croatia the hatred has died down. Croatia is firmly on the path to the EU, and, if Croatia's alleged war criminal, Mr. Gotovina, is in The Hague, where he is wanted, by the end of June, I am sure that we shall be opening accession talks with Croatia. To the south, in Macedonia, Albanians and Macedonians have learned to build a political system that allows two communities to go forward together. We can take comfort from other examples in the region.
As I said, we shall need new policy and new thinking. I took Mr. Rugova to St. Nicholas' church in Pristina, where he said that what had happened there was an assault on European cultural and religious traditions. The next day I was in the mosque in Belgrade, which had been attacked by a Serb mob, and in the library there I found books, 200 or 300 years old, which had been put in a pile to be burnt. I need not remind hon. Members of the last time we saw people burning books in a European capital city, but it is not something that we ever want to see again. We have to move away from such hate.
416WH
Certainly the Government need to get more of a grip on UNMIK. The special representatives do an excellent job, but the UN in New York needs to devolve more real power to those on the ground and allow changes that will see UNMIK transfer more economic competences in Kosovo. We need KFOR operations to re-examined. The troops do an excellent job, but some national contingents cannot even be deployed without permission from their national Government. The commanding officer told me that he had about 17,000 troops, of which only one tenth—1,700—could be deployed on the ground. That needs to be changed. Those troops must be trained in riot control mechanisms. They do not use water cannons or tear gas, so there is nothing between having a shield and a baton and opening fire with heavy weaponry. That needs to be revised.
Kosovo needs economic movement. It has to import 70 per cent. of its food, but it is in one of the richest agricultural regions of Europe. We have to urge, at the highest political level, Serbs and Kosovans to discuss their problems. We would like to see a new special envoy shuttling between Pristina and Belgrade to facilitate that process. We need more engagement by European Foreign Ministers. The Foreign Secretary is fully committed to that policy. We need the stars and stripes to be present. We also need Russia to be actively involved at the UN level in finding a way forward.
I can only assure the Chamber that we shall continue to be engaged. Her Majesty's Government realise that, five years after the end of the military conflict, we need new energy and new policy. I am deeply grateful to those hon. Members who have made such constructive speeches, and for the chance to announce what I hope will be a new turn in British policy towards the region.

Human Rights (Western Sudan)
12.30 pm
Mr. Hilton Dawson: As chairman of the all-party group on Sudan, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce a short debate on what Mukesh Kapila, the United Nations humanitarian coordinator for Sudan, has described as the world's greatest humanitarian crisis. I know that at least one other well-informed colleague wishes to contribute, so I intend to be brief.
I begin with a tribute to the tireless and painstaking work undertaken by the joint Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development Sudan unit, under the leadership of Alan Goulty. I also pay tribute to the work of our embassy in Khartoum. Those hon. Members who are in regular contact with our officials regard their work in assisting the Naivasha peace process as an exemplary model of the disinterested and principled way in which the Government are conducting diplomacy in Africa. I look forward to the Minister's response.
It is imperative that the world should turn its attention towards Darfur. The murder of perhaps 30,000 civilians, the complete destruction of villages, the abduction of children and young people, and systematic rape and sexual abuse have all been documented for UN and humanitarian organisations by many people among the approximately 1 million who have been displaced in Sudan and across the western border into Chad. Those people have heard about and documented the theft of livestock and food and the wasting of crops on which many thousands depend for basic subsistence.
All in all, it is estimated that about 3 million people—half the population of a region the size of France—who live, at the best of times, on the margins of a sustainable existence have been and are being affected by the crisis. Anyone can see the potential for worse to come, no harvest this year for many people, animals gone and wells destroyed, so many people's basic means of livelihood stolen, people being displaced perhaps not once but several times, and continuing threats of the most appalling violence and insecurity hanging over so many people.
Child mortality, that crucial indicator, is increasing. The rainy season is almost here—it is due this month and next—and displaced people, are living in overcrowded and unsanitary camps. It is estimated that 61 per cent. of the conflict-affected population have no access to food assistance, 88 per cent. lack appropriate shelter and 89 per cent. lack sufficient clean water. A major problem exists for the world to address.
It seems clear, from the accounts that we have heard, how the crisis began. It stems from the response of the Government of Sudan to the rebellion of two armed groups—the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. It would appear that, acting together, the Sudanese Government armed forces and Janjaweed militia have attacked a range of civilian centres from the air and the ground, in clear violation of the Geneva convention. Civilian targets include markets, homes, wells, shops and fields—the property mainly of African tribes such as the Zaghwara, the
418WH
Masaalit and the Fur. These tribes are Muslim as well as African, and they appear to be targeted mainly by Arab groups that are supported at many levels and in many ways by the Government of Sudan. This is an horrific new outbreak of ethnic cleansing, and it may be genocide in the making. The people of Darfur need local, national, regional and international action now, and much of that action must come from the Government of Sudan.
Some of us have visited Sudan and hope to do so again. We were all heartened by aspects of our last visit. We regularly host Sudanese politicians and officials in this building, and we hear strong commitments to making progress in the largest country in Africa—a country that, apart from 11 years, has experienced civil war for the last 50 years or so. It is estimated that one eighth of the world's refugees are Sudanese. Above all, perhaps, Members of Parliament represent Sudanese constituents. Only this Saturday, I was talking to one of my Sudanese constituents. There are strong links between Members of this House, Sudan and its people.
I am sure that we have all been heartened by the substantial progress made as a result of the Kenyan peace talks. Some issues seem to take a very long time to resolve, but we have had and are seeing historic and remarkable agreements on a future referendum on the sharing of power and wealth throughout the country. We have heard, and I certainly believe, that the Government of Sudan want a united and peaceful country and want the development of Sudan's natural resources to benefit all the people of Sudan. They want the opportunity provided by debt relief and the lifting of sanctions, and they want Sudan—the largest country in Africa, and potentially the richest—to play a large part in the fine future that I am sure Africa has. If the Sudanese Government continue to want that, they should respect the ceasefire that they agreed on 8 April. Indeed, it is their responsibility to do so. They should ensure as far as possible that any militia or other armed groups in Darfur also respect that ceasefire. They should co-operate with international monitoring and allow full humanitarian access to all areas within their borders.
Our Government should make a substantial contribution to the new United Nations appeal for Darfur, and they should prompt the UN and all elements of the international community to ensure that sufficient and timely resources are made available to all war-affected communities in Sudan and Chad. We may need to prompt the UN and the whole international community to give the people of Darfur the support that they need. There cannot be many higher priorities for foreign policy. Perhaps this country should also be prepared to support Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, in his suggestion that the international community should be prepared to take swift and appropriate action if access is denied.
I will now give the Floor to anyone else who wants to take part in this debate, but let me say in conclusion that this is a crucial issue for our time. We have the opportunity to put into practice all the lessons that we have learned from Rwanda and Kosovo and from our experiences across the whole of Africa. This is the time for the international community, which is doing so much to promote the peace process in Sudan, to come together, recognise the dire situation in Darfur and add

419WH
that situation firmly to its agenda. The Government must carry on and develop their superb work in Sudan to ensure that we address the crisis and prevent what seems to be a catastrophe in the making.
12.41 pm
Mr. David Drew: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who chairs the all-party group on Sudan, which stands out as one of the best groups in Parliament. We hope to visit Sudan shortly. I wish to make two points and ask two questions of the Minister; I must say that I am pleased that the Foreign Office is represented here today.
I shall be more blunt than my hon. Friend, who was very diplomatic. My first point is on human rights abuses, which are legion in Sudan. Much as I feel some responsibility for Iraq and for Israel and Palestine, I wish that many more of my constituents got as wound-up about Sudan as they do about those places. I sometimes refer to people Pilgering their consciences. When I respond to all the letters that I get on Iraq and Israel-Palestine, I say, "Please also remember Sudan." There are the makings of a huge tragedy in that country. Already, about 750,800 million people have been killed, moved or brutalised, and it is about time that the western world, and indeed the whole world, gave it its correct priority and recognised the need to take action.
Secondly, the Government of Sudan unfortunately have form, whether we are talking about the Antonov bombers flying over the south, as they have done for many years—they are now flying over Darfur—or the use of Arab proxies in the south. There is the case of the Mullareen and—in this case, as my hon. Friend said—the Janjaweed. The Sudan Government are using forces on the ground to do their dirty work. It is pleasing to hear that the Sudan Government have stayed in the peace talks, and we congratulate them on doing so, but they cannot allow other parts of Sudan to break out into warfare just when the south appears to be closer to salvation than ever before.
My two groups of questions are simple. First, what is the current status of the peace talks between the Government of Sudan, the SLA and the JEM? Are they real peace talks? Will they lead to substantive change on the ground or are they a ruse to make it seem to the world that something is happening? In reality, are people just being moved out for whatever reason, as we know happened for so long in the south?
Secondly—I know that this question is directed more at DFID than the FCO—what contingencies do the Government have ready to allow them to get into not just western Sudan if and when there is an element of stability in the area, but Chad, where there has been a mass movement of people seeking some solace from the conflict? What resources can we put in to give those people hope? As soon as the conflict ends, there will be starvation and further conflict unless we act precipitately. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on those issues.
12.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for raising this issue. The Government are deeply concerned about the situation in Darfur, which is growing worse by the day. It is impossible to overstate the gravity of the crisis.
As my hon. Friends have said, the escalation in the fighting between the Government and the two opposition groups—the Sudan Liberation Movement and the Justice and Equality Movement—has led to a dramatic and potentially catastrophic deterioration of the security situation in Darfur. The UN estimates that the fighting has led to the internal displacement of more than 1 million people, but the UN and other agencies have access to only about half of them. Acute malnutrition has been reported in some areas, and needs in all sectors, including food, shelter and health, are enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, there is compelling evidence that militias have carried out the most deplorable human rights abuses, including systematic attacks on civilians, rape, pillage and the destruction of livelihoods.
It is true that the parties have signed a humanitarian ceasefire agreement. That is a welcome step, and I commend the Government of Chad on the key role that they have played in brokering the agreement. However, there is a great deal more to be done, and there is evidence that attacks by the Government-armed Janjaweed militia continue. We condemn the actions of such militias and of any parties that do not comply with the terms of the ceasefire.
The UK has been active from the outset on the issue of Darfur, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development raised it with the Government of Sudan, including the President, when he visited Khartoum last year. Since then, we have been in almost daily contact with the Sudanese Government and opposition groups through our embassy in Khartoum and our DFID-FCO Sudan unit in London. Our priority has been to stop the fighting.
Since the start of the current crisis, we have made it clear that the only sustainable solution to the problems in Darfur is a peaceful one. While the fighting continues, the humanitarian and human rights situation will continue to deteriorate. If things are allowed to continue unchecked, the situation could overwhelm the fragile negotiations to end the 21-year civil war between north and south.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud asked whether the Government think that the peace process is genuine and is making progress. We believe that it is genuine and that it is making progress, and we hope that a framework agreement will emerge in the next few weeks. It will take a few months to tie down the details so that a comprehensive package can be signed and so that planning for the post-ceasefire arrangements can get under way. Obviously, the international community will need to be closely involved to ensure that those arrangements work. As I say, however, there is a danger

421WH
that events in Darfur might take on a momentum of their own and overwhelm the peace process. We are, of course, seeking to avoid that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister will realise that I raised the following issue in business questions on Thursday. Can he tell us what practical steps are being taken to do something positive, not only through the United Nations, but through the African Union and other countries? The Sudan Government seem to back off when there is publicity but to start pressing again when it ends.
Mr. Mullin: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with that point in a moment.
The Abeche ceasefire agreement was signed in September 2003, and it seemed to offer hope. When it collapsed in December, however, it became clear that an internationally monitored ceasefire was needed. The 8 April agreement provides for a commission to monitor the ceasefire and for international participation on that commission. We are in close contact with the parties and with other members of the international community to help to set up such a monitoring mechanism. We attended an AU meeting in Addis Ababa on 19 and 20 April to discuss the issue, and we are discussing the next steps with our US and EU partners. Implementing the monitoring mechanism as quickly as possible is vital to ensure that all parties comply with the ceasefire agreement, civilians are protected and humanitarian assistance is effectively disbursed.
I understand that the AU is now in consultation with the parties on the mechanics of this operation. We are pressing for a proposal to be tabled soon. We hope that all parties will quickly agree to the modalities and that the monitoring team can be deployed soon thereafter. We are prepared in principle to contribute to such a monitoring mechanism. Given the fragility of the situation in Darfur, it is clear that speed is of the essence.
On the points raised about humanitarian and human rights issues, we are extremely concerned by the reports of widespread human rights abuses and breaches of international humanitarian law. We have made strong representations—repeatedly and at the highest levels—to the Sudanese Government. We have made it clear that there can be no excuses for such atrocities, and that they must stop. All parties to the conflict must respect the principles laid down in international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians. We have called for the reported attacks against civilians to be thoroughly investigated and for the perpetrators to be brought to justice, and we have pressed the Government to rein in the Janjaweed militias, which seem to be responsible for many of the worst atrocities. I regret that the Sudanese Government have so far appeared to be in a state of denial about both the extent of atrocities and the degree of access permitted to outside agencies.
The recent UN Commission on Human Rights meeting provided us with an opportunity to raise our concerns about Darfur. It mandated an independent expert to provide formal international scrutiny of the human rights situation in Sudan. Such scrutiny has been lacking since the end of the mandate for the special rapporteur when the Sudan resolution was defeated last year at the Commission on Human Rights.
422WH
Unfortunately, the language in the commission's decision was not nearly as strong as we would have liked. The EU tabled a much stronger resolution on Sudan, but it was not considered for procedural reasons. We are now focused on getting the independent expert appointed and operational as quickly as possible.
A UN human rights team led by James Morris, executive director of the World Food Programme, visited Darfur last week, following up its recent mission to Chad. We are awaiting the team's report on the situation and its recommendations on the international response that is needed. We support the call by the United States for a special session of the Commission on Human Rights to debate the report and to consider any appropriate follow-up action.
Under the terms of the recent ceasefire agreement, the parties are committed to "ensure humanitarian access". Access for humanitarian agencies is improving. Agencies can now reach more of the affected population, but things are improving from a very low base and the situation is still far from good. We raise the question of access with the Sudanese Government daily, and our ambassador in Khartoum took the lead in establishing regular meetings between the Sudanese Government and donors, the UN and international non-governmental organisations to discuss and try to reduce the obstacles to humanitarian access.
Despite the problems with access, we are working hard to ensure that the humanitarian needs are met. In that context, I can now address the second point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. We are the second biggest bilateral donor to the Darfur crisis after the US. We have already committed more than £11.5 million to UN agencies, non-governmental organisations and the Red Cross, and we are planning to contribute to the UN's recent appeal for $115 million for Darfur. DFID has also provided key personnel to reinforce the UN's response.
We urgently need to build the capacity of the various UN agencies and NGOs that are on the ground, and to ensure that they have sufficient supplies of food, water, medicine and shelter, as well as the capability to deliver the supplies to those in need. We are aware of the need to act swiftly, particularly given that the imminent rains will only complicate matters by increasing the risk of epidemics and hindering logistics.
The situation in Darfur remains desperate. The Government of Sudan must allow access to humanitarian assistance and discourage militias such as the Janjaweed from breaking the terms of the ceasefire.
Mr. Dawson:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for describing all the diplomatic efforts that have been made, but, as he acknowledged, the situation is desperate and urgent. There clearly cannot be delays over humanitarian access to people in desperate circumstances if we are to avoid people dying in greater numbers. I appreciate that he may not be able to say much at this stage, but can I assume that the Government are actively looking at the whole range and continuum of the possible measures referred to by Kofi Annan, which could be used to address the situation in the event of non-compliance by the Government of Sudan or their inability to deal with the militias?
Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend would be right to assume that. We raise the question of access almost daily with

423WH
the Sudanese. The last occasion was yesterday, when our ambassador met the Foreign Ministry in Khartoum. We are also in close touch with the Government of Chad, who are the other potential point of access, but there is no getting round the fact that we need the co-operation of the Government in Khartoum if we are to reach most of the people who have been affected and displaced by this tragedy.
In conclusion, let me say that my hon. Friends can be assured that we are well aware of the gravity of the situation and that we are doing all in our power to resolve it.

Home Education
12.57 pm
Sir George Young: I welcome this opportunity for a short debate about home education, which is an important but sometimes neglected tributary of mainstream education. I am delighted that the Minister for School Standards will be replying.
I confess to having known little about the subject before meeting the Medlam family in my constituency. They proved to me both how successful and rewarding home education could be, but also explained how some hurdles that confront families who educate their own children might be lowered. Therefore, after securing this debate I spent the bank holiday weekend, appropriately, educating myself at home about home education.
When I was Minister with responsibility for housing, I remember coming across self-builders. They did not want to buy an off-the-peg house; they wanted not only to design their home themselves, but to build it. I suspect that my then Department regarded them as inconvenient eccentrics, likely to make a hash of a difficult task best left to the professionals. However, having met some of them, I was deeply impressed by them and their homes. I took the view that the role of government was to enable them to find out what was involved before they decided to embark on their project and, once they had, to ensure that they got the support and encouragement that they needed.
The same should be the case with home educators. In the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the European constitution, we should "live and let live." In one sense, we are all home educators; any rigid demarcation between education that happens at school and non-education that happens at home is misguided. For most of us, educating a child is a continuous partnership involving both parents and teachers. Some parents—we do not know how many—heroically choose to do the whole thing themselves, and information technology and the internet may make that a more practical option today than it used to be. Those parents deserve more support and encouragement than they presently receive.
The Department's draft circular—perhaps the Minister can clarify its exact status—and the speeches made by Ministers have sounded a bit sniffy about home education:
"My Department recognises and respects the right to choose to home educate."
That reads as though the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), was giving planning permission for a nudist colony.
We have to read only what is said at recent teachers union conferences to see why parents who cannot afford or do not want private education opt out of the state sector and educate at home. Stressed teachers are unable to give pupils the attention that they need, are grappling with a more and more prescriptive curriculum, and are coping with increasingly violent children who bully one another and assault the staff, against a background of endless standard assessment tests and Ofsted inspections and an ever-growing pile of circulars from

425WH
the Department. That is the view of some teachers. I applaud the work of teachers in my constituency. Indeed, I visited three schools last Friday—Amport, Shepherds Spring junior and Ashford Hill—which all provide quality education.
Children are diverse individuals. If a system of education were to be devised with the aim of suiting every child, it would have to be infinitely flexible and accommodating. That clearly is not possible. Home education is an essential right for children whose learning styles, personalities, abilities or needs cannot be adequately met in school. It is also an important right in a free society for parents who wish to educate their children rather than entrust them to the state, particularly if they have lost confidence in state provision.
The previous debate on this subject was held was almost a year ago on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). I shall pick out four points from the reply of the Under-Secretary and then ask some questions. Home educators will then be able to work out what progress the Department has made since its last examination.
The first point, which stems from the Education Act 1996, is that parents who educate at home are not required by law to inform the local education authority of what they are doing. I believe that they should be obliged to do so. That would lessen the risk of children falling through the net or being accused of truancy. It would enable LEAs and the Government to know how many children are being educated at home. LEAs could be more proactive in offering targeted help and could put home educators in touch with one another. I do not want a heavy-handed, intrusive registration system, just a requirement to notify. I am aware that it is the duty of parents to ensure that their children are educated, but society is entitled to know who is exercising that duty for individual children.
Secondly, there was no sign of the Government seeking to promote best practice among the LEAs. The Under-Secretary referred to some LEAs providing
"national curriculum materials or other forms of support".
However, he could not bring himself to suggest that all LEAs should do so. Even in the draft circular to LEAs, the Department was unable to move to exhortatory mode:
"LEAs may be able to offer additional support to home educating parents; this may take various forms … Authorities have the discretion to provide support through local initiative projects should they wish".
That guidance appears to have been written by Treasury Ministers preoccupied with containing public expenditure, rather than Education Ministers concerned with raising standards.
Some Departments, notably including the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, have a specific mission of raising standards among local authorities and promoting best practice. Some education authorities are good—for example, Cornwall, Stafford and Essex. According to my e-mails, other authorities are obstructive. What are the Government doing to bring the backmarkers up to speed so that home educators throughout England get a good service?
426WH
The Under-Secretary went on to say that
"there has not been any independent and systematic evaluation at a national level of the overall quality of the education provided and the specific outcomes that it delivers for the children concerned."
That statement sits uneasily with Dr. Paula Rothermel's study, which showed that all children benefited from home education, with children from the lowest socio-economic groups doing best. She found that 65 per cent. of home-educated children scored more than 75 per cent. in a general maths and literacy test, compared with the national figure of only 5.1 per cent. The average national score for school-educated pupils in the same test was 45 per cent., whereas that of the home-educated pupils was 81 per cent. She concluded:
"The improved exam results could be down to the sheer quantity of parental attention and the sense of long-term security that gives them … It could also be down to the fact that families who home educate from birth had worked with their children from the word go and without the disruptive transition at an early age to the very different environment of school."
If the Government do not accept those findings and say that there has been no evaluation, they should get on and do it. We do not know how many children are involved. A year ago, the Under-Secretary estimated the figure to be between 50,000 and 100,000. What plans are there to undertake an evaluation?
The Under-Secretary then referred to the inequity of access to further education for those educated at home, and particularly the under-16s:
"The playing field should not be uneven."
That was against the background of evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that home-educated children aged under 16 are charged £1,800 per subject for a college place to study for GCSE, whereas other children get free places. I regret that there has been little progress in the past year towards putting that right. One of the biggest problems remains the funding for under-16s who want to take courses at local colleges of further education. Many of them, if they manage to get places, have to pay, whereas the 16 to 19-year-olds do not. That is one of the most important issues for those who educate at home. Parents are passed from pillar to post by the Department for Education and Skills, learning and skills councils and LEAs. The Department's draft circular makes it clear that parents are liable to pay all the fees unless their LEA is willing to provide funding. That does not sound like a level playing field.
I assume that, through the revenue support grant, local authorities are getting some funding for those children—certainly their parents are paying council tax. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that; the LEAs deny that they get funds for home-educated children, but my understanding is that the RSG is calculated per head of the population. Who has the funding to enable the children to attend college and how should parents set about getting places for them?
A related irritation is examination fees. The Government want more children to go on to university, but they cannot get there without A-levels. If they go to an LEA school, their exam fees are paid for them. The draft circular confirms that if one saves the LEA and the taxpayer about £20,000 by educating one's child at home, one has to pay examination fees. That is certainly the case in Hampshire. It is difficult to explain the justice

427WH
of that to home educators. Perhaps the Minister would like to have a shot at it. Parents also have difficulty in finding examination centres, some of which charge exorbitant fees. So, against the Under-Secretary's request a year ago for a level playing field, what has his earth-moving equipment been up to?
What was not in the speech? One dog did not bark. The Government are in favour of voluntary organisations, as I am. Usually, in debates such as this, the Minister can point to some help for the voluntary organisations active in the area under discussion. However. I understand that there is no financial or non-financial support for the voluntary organisations that support parents educating children at home. The Home Education Advisory Service may wish to maintain its independence and not receive direct funding, but it could certainly be a conduit for funding to help, for example, with part-time attendance at FE colleges or for GCSE entry fees. Several years ago, the other major organisation, Education Otherwise, received a national lottery grant to send out a booklet to all LEAs, but that is the only grant that I know of. Like the HEAS, EO is funded by member subscriptions and donations.
The Minister's Department refers professionals to the helplines of both EO and HEAS for legal information and advice, and the LEAs also make referrals. The Government's own bully helpline refers parents to EO. Tomorrow will see the national launch of the Government's £125 million fund for voluntary groups at the Emmanuel centre, Westminster. I hope that Ministers make it clear they will welcome applications from groups active in home education.
My interest in the subject, as I said at the beginning, originated with a family of home educators in Hampshire. I asked them the question about social isolation that people always ask. This was their reply:
"Both children did drama at the Watermill Theatre, sang in a local choir, did gym classes, swimming, football and Aikido and played in the Hampshire County Youth Orchestra. There was plenty of interaction with other children from the neighbourhood as well. In addition, as you know, our house is always full of people. And that was one main advantage of our situation: the children interacted with all sorts of people here and seemed to be totally at ease with adults."
A sample of one may be unsound, but I was relieved to read in other research that home-educated children are socially well-adjusted folk. Since this debate was announced, many home educators have been good enough to e-mail me. I quote Annelies Scott:
"I would like the DFES to inform the LEAs to be more open about Home Education being a valid option, and then to carry out their advisory duties in a well-informed and respectful manner, according to the law and not their own internal guidelines."
Last year, the Under-Secretary's speech ended with the following less-than-ringing endorsement for home education:
"We need to pay more attention to the contribution that home educators make".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 13 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 66–8WH.]
I hope that the Minister can find a better peroration today.
1.10 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): It is a pleasure to be back in Westminster Hall serving under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Brien.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on securing the debate, which follows up the debate secured by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) last year, and thank him for being good enough to send a copy of his speech to the Department this morning. Thanks to that courtesy, we have been able to do further research.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we are all home educators, and he is absolutely right. The roles of parents, grandparents and the wider family in supporting youngsters at home are an important part of the education system. I am glad that he recognises that we do not want to split the issue into two camps—one group of children for whom parents are responsible, and another for whom the state is responsible. For those in the maintained sector, responsibility has to be shared.
On a less consensual note, I was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed some negative views about the education system, although he ended his comments by saying that they were the views of only some teachers. He also said that such views were directly contradicted by his own constituency experience. The media image of an education system out of control—I do not know whether these were his exact words—with appalling children and teachers unable to control them is not a modern image of that system, and I am glad that the three schools that he visited on Friday belie it.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that not only children, but adults, are diverse individuals. It must be right that the education system should have the flexibility to cater for individual student needs, interests and aptitudes. That is what we call personalised learning. That is not a phrase that trips easily off the tongue, but it speaks to his understanding that different youngsters have different kinds of intelligence and learn at different speeds, have different interests and get different support from home.
Some parents may believe that home education is right for them. and I shall deal in a moment with why they might hold that view. I agree that such parents should have the right to exercise that choice. For the others, it must be right for the state to seek an education system of sufficient flexibility, a teaching force of sufficient adaptability and out-of-hours provision of suitably high quality to meet those diverse needs. I do not think that that cuts against the national curriculum and some other things that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
As Minister for School Standards, home education is not virgin territory for me, although some details are new territory. Our priority must be to raise the quality of the schooling offered in the maintained sector. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some parents who leave the maintained sector because they are not happy with the standards. I put parents who choose to home educate or to go to the private sector in the same category, because they are withdrawing their children from the state sector. It must be right that the focus of our attention should be to raise standards and the quality of schooling in the maintained sector.
None the less, the home educated have particular needs. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I will draw the points that he made to the attention of the

429WH
Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), who is responsible for the particular needs of the home educated. I am sure that I will be no substitute for my hon. Friend in depth of knowledge and enthusiasm, but I will go through some specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the home educated.
Sir George Young: The Minister said that he places children educated at home in the same sector as those who attend independent schools. Does he realise that that may not be wholly fair? Those who educate at home may not have the income to send their children to an independent school. It therefore might be a mistake to bracket them as he does, particularly with regard to examination fees.
Mr. Miliband: I did not say that those children were in the same sector; they clearly are not. The independent sector is not the same as the home schooling sector, but I said that the parents in those sectors are in the same category in that they have decided not to educate their children in the state maintained sector. I am happy to overcome any confusion on that point.
It is important to remember that there are two types of home education. The right hon. Gentleman did not draw that fact out, and it is important that I do. Home education can mean two things: education provided at home by parents who elect to educate their own children, which is what I have focused on so far, or home tuition provided by the local education authority for children who cannot attend school tor a period owing to illness or exclusion, for example. We must remember that there are those two types of home education.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that there is a good deal of confusion, or at least uncertainty, about the number of children being home educated. During last year's debate, the figure of 50,000 to 100,000 was used, and we do not have any greater intelligence now about how many such children there are. I will comment later on the Government's role in securing the rights of children who are home educated, and I was interested in what he said about registration, which I shall come to later.
The reason why we have not gone for a national survey or another such headcount is that we have not been convinced that its benefits would outweigh the bureaucratic costs to parents, teachers, schools and local education authorities. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is the Government's responsibility to provide education in schools, but it is the fundamental right of parents to decide not to educate children in the maintained sector. The Education Act 1996, which I think he mentioned but did not quote, states:
"The parent of every child of compulsory school age shall cause him to receive efficient full-time education suitable … to his age, ability and aptitude, and … to any special educational needs he may have, either by regular attendance at school or otherwise."
Parents choose to home educate for a number of reasons. The decision is prompted sometimes by the particular circumstances of the local school and sometimes by the particular needs of the child. The legal position is that when parents elect to provide home education once a child has already attended school, they must tell the school in writing of their intention to
430WH
deregister the child. Children and young people with special needs can be educated at home, but when a child has a statement of special educational needs that names a special school, his or her name may not be removed from that school's register without the education authority's consent. There is some liaison in that system.
Local authorities have a general responsibility to ensure suitable education provision in their areas. Although parents who educate at home are not required by law to be "registered" in any way, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that local authorities have the right to make reasonable inquiries to ensure that children who are withdrawn from school to be electively home educated are receiving appropriate education. The authorities can intervene if that is not being delivered.
The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the Children Bill, which is being debated in another place today. The Green Paper that preceded the Bill tried to address the issue of "unknown children", and he will be interested to know that clause 8 of the Bill provides for a database to hold information about every child, including the services that they are using. Some difficulties in this matter are brought home to me by the fact that many home educators say that they are unhappy about that requirement. I understand that he believes that the requirement should not be bureaucratic, but there is a difficult line to tread. Some home educators are unhappy about the provision, but it exists and it is important for this debate.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, LEAs have no legal right to enter a home to see a child, but it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that enough evidence is submitted to an LEA to satisfy it that the child is receiving a suitable education. Parents may choose to meet an LEA officer at home or at a neutral location, and we believe that that strikes the right balance. When an LEA is not fully satisfied that a child is receiving a suitable education, it may decide more regularly to contact the parents and/or the children who are being home educated.
The right hon. Gentleman asked specific questions about funding. The LEA does not get any funding for children who are educated at home because it does not have to deliver any services for such pupils. I dare say that his knowledge of the local government finance system is more long standing and, in all humility, much greater than mine, so he will know that the educational formula spending share has two components. The schools block is based on pupil numbers, and includes children educated at home only if the LEA is responsible for making the arrangements. Pupils who are educated at home through parental choice are not included, just like pupils who are sent to independent schools through parental choice rather than under LEA arrangements. My earlier analogy is relevant in that regard. Neither are children who are educated at home included in the count for the LEA block—the block of money for LEA services. Although that is based on the three-to-18 population, the relevant data are drawn from school returns and therefore do not include those who are not in school.
I shall return to the right hon. Gentleman's point about 14-to-16 education, but I want first to touch on the issue of children with special educational needs. As he and I agree, not all children have the same needs.

431WH
Although children and young people with statements of special educational needs can be educated at home, LEAs remain responsible for ensuring that the education that they receive is suitable. He did not dwell on that point, but I am sure that he will agree that it is right that they should have that responsibility. The statement of special needs must stay in force, and LEAs must ensure that parents can make suitable provision, including for their children's special educational needs. If parents' arrangements are suitable, the relevant LEA is relieved of its duty to arrange provision directly, but it remains its duty to ensure that the child's needs are met.
It may benefit the right hon. Gentleman to know that about 3.2 or 3.3 per cent. of all children have statements of special educational needs, although those numbers vary enormously between LEAs and schools. He may know that, in addition to those numbers, 13 or 14 per cent. of children have special needs that are not listed in a statement.
As I said, two types of children receive home education. LEAs may provide home tuition for pupils who cannot attend school for reasons such as sickness, exclusion or teenage pregnancy. There are more students in that category than is often realised—particularly those who are not at school because of sickness. A substantial proportion of the 50,000 to 100,000 figure is accounted for by youngsters who are too sick to attend school. Their education is provided through home tutors and e-learning, which allows schooling to be made available through virtual communities. It is set up in pupils' own homes, or in libraries for groups of young people. Such projects can lead to children obtaining several qualifications.
LEAs can pay directly for home tuition. The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the Department is providing support for the notschool.net project, which I am glad to say is not an ihateschool.net project, but one that offers IT-based education for disaffected children.
I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would move on to the issues of 14-to-16 education and the support offered to home educators by LEAs and the Government. There is no legal duty on LEAs to provide financial support for parents who educate their children at home, but some provide free national curriculum materials or other forms of support to such parents. We think that it is right that such decisions are made locally, but he is within his rights to ask what the Government are doing to make information about home education available to parents. I can provide some reassurance about something that he may be unaware of: to help to support parents, the Department provides general guidance in the form of an information pack on elective home education and the legal responsibilities of parents, which has links to other useful information on issues such as the national curriculum and assessment arrangements, and to websites created by home educators.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about education provision for 14 to 16-year-olds in college. He will know that that area is new, but growing fast. He will also know that the Tomlinson committee, which is considering the provision of 14-to-19 education, is currently sitting. Its interim report referred to the need for a significant
432WH
number of youngsters in the 14-to-19 age range to be educated not only in one institution, but in two, or in some cases three. It wants youngsters to have a home base in school, but to receive the benefit of vocational courses from a local college or even a local workplace.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Learning and Skills Council was set up to take care of post-16 education. Indeed, the hon. Member for Uxbridge raised that matter List year. The LSC does not have statutory responsibility for learners under 16, although it can provide limited support generally for the vocationally related provision in further education colleges for young people aged 14 to 16. That is operating through a series of pilots that I know from experience have been widely welcomed. The increased flexibility programme for 14 to 16-year-olds is a policy to let local partnerships between colleges and schools decide on provision. and home educators are welcome to request involvement in that programme. I do not know whether he will agree, but in my experience the greater number of children educated at home are younger and towards the primary school age range rather than older.
Sir George Young: Would home educators have to pay if they took part in the programme?
Mr. Miliband: I shall look into that and write to the right hon. Gentleman about it. The plans are local, so I shall need to check what is happening in each locality. From memory, there are 39 pathfinder areas for the new provision. He is right to say that provision is patchy. That is because it is new and we are only beginning in such matters.
I wish to mention two other points. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Rothermel study of the quality of home education. He was right that the anecdotal evidence from many parents who opted for home education was positive. They speak enthusiastically about the benefits that it provides and cite independence, maturity and keenness to learn among pupils. Others have pointed to the high grades that home educators receive. Last year, the Under-Secretary said that there had not been an independent, systematic, national evaluation of such matters, but I have been informed that the Rothermel study took place in a particular part of the country and in respect of a specific group of parents who volunteered to be a part of the process. The study was not claimed to be a representative sample. The Under-Secretary's statement was made on that basis.
Finally, I come to tomorrow's launch of the future builders fund, which will be governed through the Home Office and which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, has £125 million to support voluntary activity in five priority service areas: health and social care, crime, community cohesion, education and learning, and support for children and young people. Obviously, the fourth and fifth priority areas include the education service. The fund exists to deliver an increase in the scale and scope of public service delivered by the voluntary and community sector. It will invest in exemplar service and delivery operations in the areas to which I have referred. I shall find out for him whether there are any

433WH
restrictions on who can apply, but I understand that the programme will be open to cover as wide a range of people as possible.
Sir George Young: Before the Minister finishes his response, will he clarify the status of the draft circular on home education that I found on a website? Is it a spoof or is it genuine? If it is genuine, when will it be published?
Mr. Miliband: Much as the Government seek to entertain the public, we do not issue spoof documents. The circular is not a spoof. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was asking about the force behind it. It exists to provide exactly what it says it provides—guidance to local education authorities. He said that he was disappointed by the peroration at the end of the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, but it was perhaps neither the time of day nor the audience for a great peroration. We take seriously the need to choose—
Mr. Bill O'Brien (in the Chair): Older. Time is up.

Voluntary Organisations (North Lincolnshire)
1.30 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue and to tell the House of the concerns in north Lincolnshire about cuts in the council budget to support the following local voluntary organisations: Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire, the Humber and Wolds Rural Community Council, the citizens advice bureaux, the Crosby Community Association and the Humberside law centre. Last year, the organisations' funding from North Lincolnshire council was about £350,000. Most seek no real-terms increase, but the decision to cut the budget to £250,000 was a devastating blow to those groups and to people in need throughout north Lincolnshire who rely on their services.
I shall begin by putting the matter into perspective: starkly, the reduction in funding is the political choice of a new administration. In 2003, in an extremely exciting, all-out election, which is not the norm, the council switched from a Labour to a Conservative administration. There was a good turnout and the Tories won 22 seats to Labour's 21, winning two wards by a single vote. Whoever said that their vote did not count?
As all new administrations do, the incoming Tories inherited the budget set by their predecessors, so for a few months there were no great problems. Indeed, the Government's settlement for that year was, to quote the council leader, Don Stewart, when he was in opposition, "a good settlement". Having taken that good settlement, the administration received a 6 per cent. increase this year—about double the rate of inflation.
Why, therefore, has the council run into problems so quickly? The short answer is that the local Conservatives ran on a simple election pledge: to cut council tax by £40 when they came to power. First, they said that there would be no immediate refund, which would have to wait until they set a budget; then the issue became dependent on the settlement; and finally it was simply abandoned. Services and charges have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency as a result of at best foolish and at worst devious pledges to the electorate.
The 6 per cent. increase on the good settlement was castigated as a poor settlement, and a mythical black hole in the finances suddenly appeared. It was originally claimed to be £3 million, but it grows with every news release and everything is blamed on the outgoing Labour administration, about whose finances I quote the following statement:
"The council achieved a net underspend of £300,000 … more importantly, the council is facing significant cost pressures … and has identified savings to achieve a balanced budget. These savings will not affect the council's … service priorities."
Those words on the position of the outgoing Labour administration are not mine or those of a Labour party member, but those of the council's external auditors. Not only is there no black hole, but there is an underspend to boot, which is not a bad start for a new administration.
The voluntary sector is among those that have had to carry the can for the new administration's pursuit of their poorly costed and unlikely pledges. With only two

435WH
weeks' notice, the groups were informed of the £100,000 cut in their budget and the law centre was told that there would be no funding at all, which did not surprise me. It was originally set up and funded by the former Humberside county council, of which I was a member, and it was opposed by the Tories, including the current leader of North Lincolnshire council, on the ground that it would put local solicitors out of work. It may have given access to the law to those who did not have it, but it did not seem to close any local practices many years later. I was the leader of new unitary authority of North Lincolnshire council when it had its first shadow elections in 1995. We had to decide again whether we wanted to fund the law centre. Yet again, the Tories opposed it, saying that many of the cases that it took up were against the very authorities that funded it. To this day, I find that extremely hard to believe, because it suggests that it is okay for councils to act unlawfully against local people so long as those people have no redress against them. As I said, however, it is unsurprising that the funding will go now that the Tory councillors have the power.
Some of these organisations, such as the community councils and citizens advice bureaux, are well known to many people. Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire, for example, used to be known as the community and voluntary service, and everyone involved in voluntary organisations has heard of the councils for voluntary service. These organisations play key roles in advocacy and service delivery on issues such as social inclusion. However, less may be known of the local Crosby community association, which is based in the constituency of the Minister for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who very much supports its endeavours and those of the voluntary sector in general in the area, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac), who also represents part of north Lincolnshire.
As my hon. Friends and I know, the association helps people not only in the Crosby area, as the name might suggest, but throughout north Lincolnshire. Last year, it helped to obtain £1.6 million in unclaimed benefits for the most disadvantaged in our community, as is acknowledged in this quotation about the funding cuts:
"Families with children in the most deprived wards in North Lincolnshire will be badly affected, putting at risk years of hard work by a range of partner organisations to improve the area in and around Scunthorpe Town Centre".
I agree, but, amazingly, that was said by the council leader who is cutting the voluntary organisations' funding. The council's defence is that the association has lost Government single regeneration budget time-limited funds. The association tells me that that is not the case, but that it has had various external funds and seeks to ensure they are replenished so that it can continue its work. In essence, North Lincolnshire council's choice is simple. Is it willing to spend what would amount to thousands of pounds, but which will in turn involve millions of pounds, on the most needy people in north Lincolnshire, and what will it say about its priorities if the answer is no?
436WH
My hon. Friend the Minister will know all about compacts, which are Government-inspired, locally based agreements between those in the voluntary sector and those who fund them and rely on their services to deliver their agenda. I am pleased that a compact exists in north Lincolnshire, and much praise must go to Voluntary Action North Lincolnshire and others for the proactive way in which they approached the issue. I had the great privilege of speaking at the initial meeting at St. Bernadette's hall in Scunthorpe when the idea was first mooted. We all scratched our heads and wondered why no one could think of a better name than "compact", but that is the name. I also spoke about a year ago at the launch of a compact at Scunthorpe baths, and much more recently at the update seminar, when we spoke about the progress that has been made since.
Funding is one of North Lincolnshire council's most critical areas. No one would disagree that councils can decide on funding—after all, they are elected by the local community and they set the council tax. However, the compact is intended to establish that a respectful relationship will be maintained; that groups will be involved in discussions; that funding will not be cut without good, clearly explained reasons; and that due notice will be given.
Every principle of the compact was disregarded by North Lincolnshire council. The previous Labour administration gave groups the safeguard of 18 months' funding and full discussions, and it was a willing signatory to the compact, because it believed that it enhanced the good practice that it wanted to establish. The cuts that I am concerned about were announced with only two weeks' notice on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
It is little wonder that the protests were so loud and strong and that, yet again, the public gallery in the council chamber was full of angry residents, although that has increasingly become the norm in recent times. It does not seem to matter whether the subject under discussion is cuts to voluntary organisations, cuts in leisure services, cuts across the council agenda or increases in charges—we have a very angry community.
The council responded that as the Labour administration had signed the compact, it had nothing to do with the Tory administration. That is an interesting take on all the treaties that any incoming Government inherit from a previous Administration; apparently, somehow they no longer count. It was pointed out that. notwithstanding the date of final agreement of the compact, it had received all-party support when it was passed at a full council meeting. The current position is that the council supports the principle of the compact, but not necessarily all the details.
In the meantime, a welcome decision was taken that groups would be given six months' funding at last year's level. However, that was not quite as good as had at first been hoped. It was pointed out that there would not be any expansion in the £250,000 allocated by the council to the funding of voluntary organisations this year. That means that if six months of increased funding were taken up, there would be even larger cuts later in the year. Anyway, the council has now reduced the period in question to three months.

437WH
I do not want to pretend that all that I have outlined is happening after a time when summers were hotter and longer and the grass was greener. Voluntary organisations are used to difficult times and to having to chase around to fund worthy projects. Golden eras sometimes exist, but golden eras in funding are often apparent only long after they have passed. However, having been involved with the voluntary sector since 1989, when I was first elected a councillor, I have never known that sector to be as bruised, and with such low morale, as it is now following the treatment that it has had this year over funding from North Lincolnshire council.
What is the point of a compact? Why did all those groups from throughout north Lincolnshire spend so long negotiating with the council for it all to be tossed out on the whim of the ruling group? If the Home Office wants such arrangements as the norm and wants them to succeed, what can the Department do to try to influence the decision makers at North Lincolnshire council?
Most importantly, it is via voluntary organisations that much of the Government's agenda—social inclusion is the most obvious item—will be put into practice. The funding often comes via the council, in that the Government put the money in with an expectation that certain things will be delivered, and it reaches the voluntary sector through the halfway house of the council. Given this year's experience, we know that even when councils receive a 6 per cent. increase in their funds, that is not guaranteed to have a positive impact on the voluntary sector. Indeed, our experience in north Lincolnshire this year is quite the reverse.
Is it not time to tell councils that sign agreements and compacts and then tear them up that such irresponsible actions could have an impact on their future settlements? The comprehensive performance assessment is one method of judging councils on their delivery of agendas and formation of local strategic partnerships, and on their involvement of the voluntary sector and others in providing good-quality services in their area. Decisions are made through that assessment on the funding that councils will receive. There seems little point in the Government pumping money into that process if there is no good will from the local authority at the other end.
The compacts are rules that the councils have helped to set, and they now need to abide by them. It seems incredible that just over a year ago in an area of some 153,000 people only two votes were the difference between the ongoing Labour administration and a Conservative one. Those two votes were the difference between a fair council and an unfair one, between being interested in inclusion and causing exclusion, and between being progressive in what was trying to be achieved in north Lincolnshire and being regressive. All that happened simply because of a failed pledge on the level of council tax.
The people of north Lincolnshire deserve better. We need compacts with teeth and compacts that work so that voluntary organisations and the needy people whom they represent are protected from the political whims of an incoming administration that simply does not value what the voluntary sector is doing. I look forward to the Minister's response.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) for drawing the attention of the House to this important issue and for demonstrating his understanding of the vital and unique contribution that voluntary organisations make to community life. He talked about community life in his own and a neighbouring constituency. His account is common to constituencies throughout the country where the impact of voluntary organisations in tackling poverty, which is one example that he used, is second to none. He also demonstrated, in common with many other hon. Members, a familiarity and a connection with the detail of the work of local voluntary organisations that show how assiduously he represents his constituency.
The Government recognise the vital and unique role of voluntary organisations in delivering services to communities. We have put in train a number of mechanisms to support, underpin, enhance and enable them to do that. In many ways the most important factor is to recognise something that is expressed in the compact as the cost of doing business or the important costs of the infrastructure to deliver services to people. At least one of the organisations that he described as being at risk is one of those classic infrastructure organisations. Much of its work is in enabling other voluntary organisations to do their business, which is the traditional role of the council for voluntary service.
We recognise that those organisations are not always the most obviously popular in terms of local funding, yet many other local organisations simply cannot do their business without that support. That is one of the reasons why, following the 2002 cross-cutting review of the voluntary and community sector in service delivery, we have developed a framework for infrastructure and are developing investment in infrastructure, which are designed to enable those more locally focused organisations to do their job well, rather than to supplant local investment in very local organisations.
The job of ensuring the local dimension of funding is partly done by central Government in providing a generous and secure settlement for local authorities, providing an appropriate national framework in which voluntary organisations can thrive and enabling local authorities to invest in the contribution that local voluntary organisations make. As my hon. Friend demonstrated, the local dimension of the funding relationship is particularly important. Indeed, 70 per cent. of voluntary and community sector organisations operate at the local level. That is where the problems that he described arose, despite the fact that North Lincolnshire council received a generous settlement from the Government and that its books were, as he said, left in a healthy state by the previous administration.
I think that my hon. Friend will agree with the Government that local funding priorities should be decided at local level. The Government expect local authorities to value and support the essential role that a strong local voluntary and community sector infrastructure plays in helping authorities to develop and deliver community strategies and to build the capacity of local groups to fulfil their role in

439WH
strengthening communities and delivering services. I am therefore disappointed that my hon. Friend's local council seems not to be investing in such infrastructure.
Such problems are one reason why we developed the local compact, which now covers the overwhelming majority—89 per cent.—of local authorities. The compact provides a basis for building and enhancing the relationship between the local voluntary and community sector and public sector bodies. Published compacts must be used—this is Government policy—to improve the way in which business is done locally. They are about making commitments, calling partners to account and resolving differences. I am disappointed to hear that a locally agreed compact appears to have been disregarded. It is not right that a local council should seek to tear up commitments that it has made, even if it was under different political leadership at the time. As my hon. Friend said, the compact is like a treaty, and Governments cannot simply tear up treaties that have been entered into on their behalf.
We have instigated the compact mediating scheme to resolve disputes over compacts between the local voluntary sector and local public sector bodies.
Mr. Cawsey: Perhaps I can just say two things. First, I fear that we have a lot of work to do on getting the current administration to see the benefits of the principles of the compact. When asked about those principles at a meeting with voluntary sector representatives, one councillor said, "You can't have principles without cash." I am not certain that I would accept that statement, but it was made quite clearly.
Secondly, I, too, have mentioned the mediation scheme to local voluntary organisations. Although they are very interested in it as a possible route to resolving disputes, they are concerned about who will pay for the service, because their funds are declining and they have precious little money of their own to do so.
Fiona Mactaggart: I understand that that is a problem with the scheme, but I nevertheless urge voluntary organisations seriously to consider it because the investment can pay dividends and has done so in other cases. It is difficult for voluntary organisations facing a crisis of the scale that my hon. Friend described to consider taking such steps, and the compact mediating scheme does involve costs, but I would urge organisations to use it. Where it has been used to date, it has frequently produced a resolution that has made a real difference for the organisations involved.
The compact must be made to work. If 89 per cent. of the country is covered by local compacts, it is certain that local government organisations of the same party that is in power in my hon. Friend's local authority have devised, developed and signed up to them. It is neither right nor sensible for his local authority to pretend that the local compact is a creature of another political party. It is a creature of all political parties.
440WH
I look forward to the annual compact meeting tomorrow, which I shall jointly chair with Sir Michael Bichard. One of the reports will be from the Local Government Association on the commitment of local government to the compact. It will be interesting to draw the attention of my colleagues in local government to the example that we have discussed of the failure, perhaps, of one part of local government to live up to the ambitions of the compact.
I also take on board my hon. Friend's point about whether other measures to test the commitment of local government, such as the comprehensive performance assessment, could have embedded in them some way of measuring, for example, commitment to compact. That is already being done. In the newly developing comprehensive performance assessment, there is a greater emphasis on partnership and leadership. Formerly, the assessment of performance involved individual service areas being drilled down and focused on the precise outcomes.
As the scheme is being developed, however, there is a much greater recognition that much of what local government delivers is delivered not by local government itself through either its social service or education departments, but through its partnerships with voluntary organisations and other statutory bodies. At the heart of those partnerships is a relationship of mutual trust and respect. If North Lincolnshire council has decided to tear up the relationship of trust and respect that is embedded through a compact, that puts its ability to deliver at risk.
The council is held to account not, fundamentally, by national Government. but by the local electorate. My hon. Friend's account of the local electorate's response to the way in which his council has not upheld the relationship of trust that is at the heart of the compact suggests that the electorate may well tell the council that they will not tolerate such failures. That is the fundamental resolution of the compact. Nevertheless, I undertake to raise such issues in the compacts annual general meeting tomorrow, so that we can consider whether there are more practical ways to enable voluntary organisations to use the resources at their disposal, such as the mediation scheme, when they are faced with problems of the kind that my hon. Friend faces.
The Government's belief is clear: at the heart of our provision of a public life that engages and involves citizens is a vision not of the local council or the national Government doing everything, but of delivering change in partnership with voluntary organisations and enabling them to be active partners. That might mean disputes over funding, but those disputes should be operated within a framework of trust and mutual respect. That is what we have sought to deliver in the compact and what we shall continue to seek to do—
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.