20 Most Recent Speeches

Debate on Energy and Environment

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to House of Commons on Thu 27th May 2010

The technologies for offshore renewable energy and the oil/gas industry have considerable overlap

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): It is an honour and a privilege to speak under your presiding eyes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I congratulate you on your new role.

I welcome the Queen's Speech and the commitments to a green economy, which is essential for the restructuring of our economy, which has been so dependent on the financial services that have failed us so badly. However, I thought I might give the House the benefit of my personal history of engagement in energy issues. I worked as a young research and information officer for the North-East Scotland Development Authority in Aberdeen in the 1970s. At that time, it was struggling to find 16,000 new jobs for the area simply to stabilise the decreasing population. I doubt whether we would have succeeded in that but for the serendipity of the discovery of huge quantities of oil and gas in the North sea.

There was an unseemly scramble to get the oil and gas into production against the background of the first oil crisis and the foundation of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. It also coincided with the first miners' strike and the three-day week. A few weeks after his defeat as Prime Minister in the February 1974 election, Ted Heath came to Aberdeen, and I and others briefed him in our offices about the scale of development activity in oil and gas that was taking place in the North sea. He was duly amazed. I am not sure that he appreciated it when I told him that had he come before the election he might still have been Prime Minister, but it certainly brought home to him that we needed a strategy. The value of coal, as well as of oil and gas, had been dramatically changed by the OPEC crisis.

People may remember that at that time there was lively discussion about the need to reduce the industrialised world's dependency on oil and gas, while trying to maximise production from our own resources, where they had been discovered. I wrote pamphlets on the subject with Ross Finnie, who distinguished himself for eight years as the Environment Minister in the Scottish Administration. We called for a drive for greater energy efficiency and for policies to develop alternative technologies using smaller-scale generation, moving away from

dependency on fossil fuels. Somehow, as the oil price fell and the crisis diminished, all those high ideals fell away, and I find it extraordinary that 35 years later we are still talking about how we might implement them to any significant degree.

As someone who had, and has, no visceral objection to nuclear power, I became increasingly aware that far from being the cheap option that we were promised, nuclear power was economically unaffordable and we had been lied to big time by the industry. However, the problem of trying to develop alternatives was made much worse by the fact that the Atomic Energy Agency was put in charge of supporting and evaluating alternative renewable energy. I might say to the shadow Secretary of State that that too was like putting a vegan in charge of McDonald's, because the result-predictably-was that if anything looked as if it might become remotely commercially viable, the plug was pulled on further development. So, although Britain developed the first large scale wind turbines, in shipyards on the Clyde, we had no policy for deployment. It was therefore left to the Danes, who did have a policy for deployment, to become world leaders in that technology. I do not know if Salter's ducks would ever have generated electricity commercially from marine sources, but I know that the technology was never allowed to prove that it could, because the AEA was determined to ensure that there was no alternative. I wonder whether we are being subjected to the same propaganda today.

At the time it was also argued that we needed large generation stations to power the national grid and, given its format, we probably did. But even then it was clear to me that we should be thinking of moving to smaller-scale generation. Over the years, high-energy manufacturing-of which we have less in any case-has increasingly provided its own power generation as an integral part of its operation, requiring only top-up flows in and out of the national grid. So when I was first elected to this House in 1983 I joined what was then known as PARLIGAES, the parliamentary group for alternative energy studies, and I am currently a vice chair of its successor, PRASEG or the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energies group. They are not very snappy acronyms, but they are important all-party groups.

All of this predated any inkling of the threat of climate change. It was about reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and finding cleaner, more diversified and more sustainable ways to generate energy. We have wasted at least 30 years getting to this point. As a young researcher in 1972, I compiled the first directory of oil and gas operators and supply companies in north-east Scotland, which included an estimate of the number of people employed and a forward job projection. Interestingly, at the time there were several dozen companies employing a few hundred people. I projected that the number could rise to as many as 5,000, with the same number of jobs indirectly generated, and I was accused of gross exaggeration. Today, the Gordon constituency sustains more than 65,000 oil and gas-related jobs. They are not all based in the constituency, but they are payrolled out of it, and the industry employs an estimated 450,000 people across the UK.

As I said in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I was very pleased that last week, in his first week in office, he visited the all energy

exhibition in Aberdeen, covering companies engaged in all aspects of renewable energy technology. He saw for himself the impressive emerging technology for offshore and marine renewable energy, and the useful overlap between the technology and systems required by oil and gas and those required by renewables in an offshore environment. Installing a platform, sub-sea connectors, pipes or cabling requires the same equipment and engineering expertise, and there can be a crossover. The important point is that if we can run the second generation of North sea development-which probably has as much oil and gas again to be extracted, although in much more challenging conditions-alongside an expanding offshore renewable industry, we could benefit from huge economies of scale and efficiency by using the same equipment.

Mr Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend is, as ever, making a powerful speech. Not only do we have renewable energy and oil and gas, but carbon capture and storage. We have the skill sets and the ability to store carbon, and I hope that the failings of the previous Government will not mean that we lose the opportunity to be a world leader in that area, because it could produce jobs and wealth if we can sell that technology instead of having to buy it from others.

Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. As I have said, we missed the boat 35 years ago, and we must not do so again. There is a real risk that that might happen, if we do not get the policies right.

Simon Hughes: The benefit for apprenticeships and jobs is also manifest. People who are training to work on offshore oil rigs understand that in their careers they might work on renewables or carbon capture and storage, so we have to see this area as an apprenticeships, skills and jobs opportunity as well as an energy opportunity.

Malcolm Bruce: I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I hope that the Secretary of State took away several points from the exhibition. Exciting as the development of renewables is, it will not replace oil and gas soon in investment, jobs, tax revenue or exports. That will take some years-but if we run them in tandem, we can build one up as the other declines. Renewable technology will require a number of push-and-pull measures to realise its full potential. For both of them, we require substantial onshore investment in ports and transport infrastructure. As a representative of part of the city of Aberdeen, I am concerned that our infrastructure is not appropriate for a city that claims to be the energy capital of Europe. Our promised bypass has not happened, our commuter rail service has been postponed indefinitely, our city finances are in a considerable mess and we have the two most underfunded councils in Scotland, with money being diverted to other parts of the country. In those circumstances, my message to the Secretary of State-and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland-is that it is the UK Government who stand to lose if that infrastructure is not right, because some of the investment will go out of the UK altogether.

I welcome several of the proposals in the Queen's Speech to promote marine energy and to support home energy efficiency, which can help move us away from dependency on the national grid and huge power stations, and make microgeneration genuinely part of the national grid, rather than just a domestic alternative to current generation. As I keep asking at every event I attend, when will we get micro combined heat and power? What steps will be taken to provide an easy way for people to take up feed-in tariffs? I defer to the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) about renewable heat, which is part and parcel of that issue. What can be done to help people with hard-to-heat homes-a question asked earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)? We have many such in Aberdeen, and they are expensive and difficult to tackle.

I would like to address the international dimension. I am a vice chairman of GLOBE UK and GLOBE International, which played an invaluable role in testing potential policies and negotiating positions in the run up to the various climate change summits. In fact, in advance of Copenhagen, GLOBE clearly identified China's concerns, through the climate change dialogue that we run.

Mr Graham Stuart indicated assent.

Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend acknowledges that point. Unfortunately, had they been properly addressed, we might have mitigated the fallout in Copenhagen. GLOBE gave the UK Government the opportunity to ensure that what happened would not happen, and to see that Europe played a part in the process rather than being marginalised, so GLOBE has an important role to play.

It is unreasonable for developed countries to tell developing economies that they cannot enjoy the same development opportunities that we did-development that led to the climate danger. It is also realistic to recognise that China will not give up its commitment to double-digit growth, which after all has helped 400 million people out of poverty, although hundreds of millions are still left behind. It is also right to acknowledge, however, that China knows the damage that pollution and climate change are causing for its people and environment, and wants all the help it can get to grow sustainably. That is why I and the International Development Committee, which I previously chaired, do not want an abrupt end to the UK's aid programme for China. It is on the climate change front that we can work together most constructively. We have to give China space, share technology and innovation and recognise that many of the poorest countries are the victims of climate change, not the perpetrators. As the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has already acknowledged, China may well get ahead of us if we do not participate in initiatives with it, so it is in our interests to partner it as much possible.

Poorer and developing countries must be helped to adapt and mitigate the impact of climate change, be given the means to grow sustainably and not find the anti-poverty aid hijacked to fund climate change measures. The previous Government put in place a 10% limit on money being diverted in that way, and I hope-I will hold them to account-that the current Government will not weaken that commitment. Britain can lead the world on climate change policy, and in many ways, despite the criticisms that have gone back and forth across the House, it is fair to say that we have made significant progress, although it has been more about ambitions than delivery, so we now have to deliver.

Only if our targets are turned into policies for practical action can we demonstrate by our results and developing technology what we can offer the world. I would suggest-if I can put it constructively-that we should build on the initiatives of the previous Government and recognise that we can take them forward. If we do that, we will deliver credibility and prestige abroad, and jobs and exports for our domestic economy, and it will give us a new dynamic sector to take up the slack left by the abuses that damaged so much of the financial services sector, which I suspect will never make as big a contribution again. The lesson is quite simple: we can help save the world from climate change disaster, but only if we first save ourselves.

Read "Debate on Energy and Environment ".

COMMENTARY: The SNP is failing. And this deal is good for Scots

Speech delivered to By Malcolm Bruce MP as published in the Scottish Daily Mail on Thu 13th May 2010

As someone who has ridden the political rollercoaster from the close of polls to the formation of the new coalition Government - and received the barrage of emails hostile to any suggestion that Liberal Democrats should even talk to the Conservatives - I fully understand the concerns of some that there might be a return to the Thatcher years.

However, having seen the text of a document that is peppered with reformist, progressive language, liberal ideas and policies, I believe those fears are simply not justified.

The fact is, Britain now has an exciting new government and, make no mistake, Scotland has one too.

I, of course, followed Labour's argument for seeking an alliance of progressive, non-Conservative parties and, while always sceptical of its practicalities, I was keen to explore and test its potential.

However, not only did it lack legitimacy or a sustainable majority, there was neither the will nor the coherence to make it happen. Labour had already turned in on itself and into leadership election mode. It was incapable of negotiating or delivering any meaningful agreement.

Any argument that this new coalition lacks legitimacy in Scotland has, to my mind, no substance.

Fatuously and arrogantly, the SNP say 85 per cent of Scotland did not vote Tory. The SNP would do well to acknowledge that 80 per cent did not vote for them either.

In fact, almost 37 per cent of Scottish voters voted for the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives - more than voted for the minority SNP administration in Holyrood (which, incidentally, while denouncing Westminster Tories, has been happy to be propped up by Scottish Tories). Even in Parliamentary terms, while Labour remains dominant in Scotland, the new Government has 12 Scottish MPs - twice as many as the SNP.

In any case, raw and redolent in the Scottish psyche as the Thatcher years are, they predate devolution and the creation of a vibrant Scottish parliament to which we want to transfer more power and autonomy.

The world has moved on, but the neanderthal Mr Salmond has not. He would be better advised, as he has finally left Westminster, to turn his fulltime attention to running his failing administration in Edinburgh rather than acting as an unelected commentator throwing grenades from the touchlines.

The United Kingdom has a government fundamentally different from any in living memory.

Scotland now has a new Government which will change the face of politics. It is not a Conservative Government. It is a coalition Government, with Liberal Democrats sprinkled throughout all departments and at all levels.

Crucially, this is demonstrated by the fact that Danny Alexander, the new Secretary of State for Scotland, is a Liberal Democrat from the Highlands. He led the negotiating team during the coalition talks and has helped shape a Government which will address Scotland's needs and priorities with remarkable skill.

Liberal Democrats in Scotland campaigned for fairness across four main areas. These were fair taxes, a proper start for every child, new green jobs and banking and political reform.

The coalition's proposed new programme will be extremely beneficial to Scotland. Tackling the UK's massive deficit is the top priority, but a proportion of the savings identified to achieve this will be set aside to protect jobs and those on low incomes from the effect of spending cuts.

Funding for the NHS will increase in real terms, providing direct additional funding to Scotland, which will also benefit from the pupil premium. How these funds are applied will, of course, be a matter for the Scottish parliament.

The new Government is committed to reforming our banks to reduce future risks to the taxpayer and ensure that they provide the lending Scottish businesses need. This will be a key responsibility for Vince Cable.

Scotland has the chance to benefit substantially from the new Government's green jobs programme, reinforced by a green investment bank, finance for home energy improvements and support for marine energy, where Scotland leads the field.

Scottish campaigners will surely welcome the fact that the onslaught on civil liberties mounted by the Labour government will be halted in its tracks and put into reverse. ID cards will be scrapped, along with the National Identity Register and next-generation biometric passports.

Protections adopted in Scotland for the DNA database will be adopted as UK standards - an example where devolution leads the way for the UK.

And surely Scotland will rejoice at the end of detention of children for immigration purposes.

One of the uncertainties of the last Parliament was the constant dithering over when and if there would be an election. It demonstrated the superficial opportunism that characterised New Labour.

The new Government's reform agenda will end such shenanigans for good. One of its first acts will be to establish fixed, five-year Parliaments, setting the date of the next election as May 7, 2015, with an early dissolution only possible if 55 per cent of MPs vote for it.

The reform programme does not end there. The House of Lords is to be elected by proportional representation and voting reform for the House of Commons will start with a referendum on the Alternative Vote. There will be a right to recall MPs who have engaged in serious wrongdoing and force a by-election.

For Scotland, the proposals of the Calman Commission, including an allocation of income tax and extra borrowing powers, will be implemented. At the same time, there will be a commission to review the West Lothian Question.

The coalition signals a new beginning for Britain - and a bright new future for all Scots.

ENDS

Read "COMMENTARY: The SNP is failing. And this deal is good for Scots".

Home energy efficiency and fuel poverty debate

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to Westminster Hall on Wed 3rd Mar 2010

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of home energy efficiency and fuel poverty. When I applied for the debate, there were a few key issues that I wanted to bring to the Chamber's attention and to press the Government on, but I was inundated with a huge variety of information and lobbying from a great diversity of sources. I must apologise to some of those people who brought such issues to my attention because I cannot address them all, but perhaps other Members will. I shall concentrate on a few areas in which I have a particular interest or concern.

On the basic issue of fuel poverty, we should recognise that we are almost back to where we started from 10 years ago. We saw a dip in fuel poverty, but it has risen sharply and it is estimated that between 4.5 million and 5 million households across the United Kingdom are in fuel poverty, which is back to the same levels that we experienced 10 years ago. Being a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, I must emphasise that the proportion of people in fuel poverty or suffering from the problems of high-cost heating is much higher. Statistics compiled by the House Condition Survey in Scotland show that 618,000 households in Scotland-27 per cent. of the total-are in fuel poverty, which is up 47 per cent. over the past five years. A third of those are in extreme fuel poverty, by which I mean that they spend more than 20 per cent. of their income on fuel.

Energy Action Scotland believes that even those figures are an understatement and that as many as 750,000 households could be in some degree of fuel poverty. Such statistics are central to the debate, but for every household in fuel poverty, there are others who are not technically in poverty but have real problems with heating their home and paying their bill, and they are equally interested in what the Government can do to deal with the situation.

I shall raise a few aspects of home energy efficiency and fuel poverty, and await the Minister's reply with interest. Let me start with hard-to-treat homes. It is astonishing to discover what proportion of the UK housing stock is classified as hard to treat. Some 43 per cent. of households in England and more than 50 per cent. of households in Scotland are, in one form or another, hard to treat. They are mostly houses with solid walls or the early timber-framed houses, and flats and homes in multiple occupancy.

Under the carbon emissions reductions target, energy companies are required to promote insulation and efficiency, but evidence suggests that they tend to take the easy way out by, for example, issuing low-energy light bulbs rather than investing in significant insulation or alternative forms of heating. Hard-to-treat houses have pretty well been ignored by the energy companies. For many, the main way to tackle the problem is through external wall insulation, or external cladding, or, in some cases, internal cladding. By definition, such houses are hard to treat. Cavity wall insulation or loft insulation does not do the job. In addition, they need lower cost, carbon-free, low-tariff fuel systems, and for many, the packages are simply not available.

It is worth recording the fact that the social housing sector faces huge bills to tackle the problem. Dealing with the existing housing stock reduces the pool of funds available for providing new houses. A couple of examples have been brought to my attention. Aberdeen city council, which has been considering its high proportion of hard-to-treat houses, has recently upgraded 4,505 dwellings in multi-storey flats through a combination of cladding and combined heat and power district heating systems. The cost of the cladding was such that the council concluded that it could not clad them all. Effectively, it ended up installing more efficient heating systems, which heated the air as much as the buildings. Therefore, although such a system was beneficial to the tenants in that they could afford the heating, it did not solve the entire problem of the waste of energy.

Orkney council has also instigated a pilot scheme and spent £3.5 million on external cladding on a number of its houses. All over the country, local authorities and housing associations are independently tackling the problems without any real exchange of information or co-ordination, which is not the most efficient way to deal with the matter.

David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook, and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on obtaining this Adjournment debate. He will know that the Scottish Government home insulation scheme attached some criticism to the time it was taking to bring schemes to different areas of Scotland and to bring homes up to standard, as was the case with Northern Ireland in relation to the criteria used for how people apply for such schemes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it would be beneficial for the two regional Ministers to consult, and therefore exchange ideas, on how we could move the schemes forward and help in particular those suffering from cancer, who really suffer from the cold and need their homes to be insulated?

Malcolm Bruce: I take the point. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I believe in devolution, but I do not think that that means that we cannot co-ordinate effectively. The UK Government have a role to play in encouraging such co-ordination, particularly when it is about facts, information, best standards, value for money and cost-effectiveness. I completely agree with him, and the Minister will have his opportunity to address that matter. I will say only that the Government roll out schemes one after another, but it is difficult to find out how they co-ordinate them.

Let me finish on the issue of hard-to-treat homes. I have had a long and extended conversation with one particular constituent who is exercised by the issue. She is very aware of what is going on, and thinks that a lot of her neighbours do not realise how inefficient their homes are. She has had a thermal imaging take done on her house, which shows just how much energy is leaking, and her house is the same as all the others in the street. Her concern is that no one will tell her what is the best thing to do. She does not know what materials to get, there is no financial assistance or technical advice, and she has not been able to resolve her problems. She suggests a co-ordinated approach that applies the best technique and best advice, possibly reducing or abolishing VAT on the materials and providing certificated standards across the country. The Government should consider such issues rather than just accept the appalling situation in which half our housing stock is hard to treat and we have no co-ordinated response to deal with it.

Let me say as an aside-I do not want to dwell too long on this-that whenever we discuss the issue we should also consider the extra winter deaths that are directly attributable to fuel poverty. Such deaths have increased this year because of the cold winter. That issue never arises in Scandinavian countries because they do not have hard-to-treat homes. They have much better standards and efficiency, and I believe that we, too, should tackle the problem in a much more effective way.

Christopher Fraser (South-West Norfolk) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in rural areas such as Norfolk, where my constituency is located, an awful lot of retired people and pensioners have no choice but to use oil, because no other source of energy is available to them? They are penalised for living in a rural area and by the punitive costs that the oil companies place on them. Therefore, their poverty becomes worse.

Malcolm Bruce: I am very grateful for that intervention, because it precisely anticipates the next paragraph of my speech, which is about that point. People in rural areas who do not have access to mains gas depend on other forms of heating- mostly oil, but sometimes liquefied petroleum gas or some other alternative.

I was surprised by the figures on the issue. They might be incorrect and the Minister might have more accurate ones, but my information is that 1.5 million households do not have access to mains gas and 1 million of those households are in Scotland, which is a much more rural country. The rest are probably in Norfolk-I do not know. [Laughter.]

The cost of heating fuel for someone who is not on the gas mains is, on average, a third higher than for someone who is on the gas mains. I have been a Member of the House for rather a long time and when British Gas was being privatised, I served on the Committee scrutinising the Bill that privatised it, which became the Gas Act 1986. I also got involved in a stand-up, dragged-out row with Sir Denis Rooke-not a difficult thing to do-on behalf of my constituents at the time, because the gas mains were not being extended. As a result of that row, I got significant gas mains extension in several communities across my constituency.

However, I predicted that the privatisation of gas-this issue is about not the ideology of privatisation, but its consequences-would pretty much stop the extension of gas mains to anything other than major new developments, which has happened, although it is somewhat unacceptable. In that context, if the Government are unable to do more to ensure the extension of gas mains-I would add that, even if they do ensure that extension, a lot of properties cannot be put on the mains-I wonder whether they will specifically address the needs of those households that are not on the gas mains.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his speech. However, the situation is even worse than he describes, because the gas companies hold the individual households to ransom, charging ridiculous sums for connection fees. That is so unfair, given that the connection fees for everybody else who is connected were all lost in the capital costs. Those people without connection are being forced to pay the total cost of connection.

Malcolm Bruce: I completely agree with that point. At the time of the privatisation of British Gas, I formed a good alliance with the gas regulator, who challenged British Gas over its assertion that it could not afford such connection costs. He said that, if he was not satisfied with the costings of British Gas, he would force it to absorb the costs itself and he did so. Unfortunately, such engagement does not appear to exist any more.

Therefore, I repeat my question to the Minister: why, for example, should the energy companies not be required to prioritise in their alternative energy, renewable energy and insulation programmes those people who are not on the gas mains? Furthermore, on the proposal to introduce micro-combined heat and power, which could be a benefit, why are the Government also proposing a tax break that will make micro-CHP less attractive for gas and oil-fired CHP systems, even though those systems double the efficiency of a house's heating arrangements?

It seems to me that there are things that the Government could do to ensure that people in rural areas who are off the gas mains receive priority treatment from the energy companies, but there is no indication that the Government are prepared to do those things.

Christopher Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would help matters if the Warm Front scheme allowed double glazing to be put into those properties that are not on the gas mains, which it does not allow currently?

Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that that would improve matters. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have a different arrangement in Scotland, but I am aware of the issue involving double glazing. Double glazing is not the most efficient measure that may be taken, but clearly it is a relevant factor. There is not much point in putting in cavity wall insulation and loft insulation if all the heat goes out of the windows.

I want to move on to a subject that is topical, given the cold winter-cold weather payments. They are a very specific mechanism for dealing with fuel poverty. However, the mechanism for delivering cold weather payments means that millions of people lose out on them. It is estimated that 1.7 million people who would be entitled to the pension guarantee have not applied for it, and because they have not applied, they do not achieve the threshold-the "gate", as it were-and so they are not eligible for cold weather payments, which they would otherwise automatically accrue. In my constituency, it is estimated that 1,600 pensioners would be eligible for cold weather payments, but they have not applied for them, and I am sure that other Members have similar figures for their own constituencies. I do not wish to labour the point, but it is simply a geographical fact that Scotland is colder than the average for the United Kingdom.

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): Oh yes!

Malcolm Bruce: Said with feeling by my hon. Friend.

The cost of heating a house in Stornoway is 62 per cent. higher than that of heating an identical house in Bristol. Within the cold weather payments, no account is taken of that fact. Therefore, the contribution that those payments make to people who live in colder parts of the United Kingdom is reduced.

I can testify that, in my own part of the world, we have had snow on the ground pretty well continuously, with only the odd break of a couple of days, since before Christmas. We have also had frost pretty well every night, and indeed for most of the day, for most of the period since Christmas.

Dr. William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): I accept that it might be colder in Scotland than in other regions of the United Kingdom, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that wages for people in Northern Ireland are lower than for those in the rest of the UK, and that, therefore, a higher percentage of people's wages is used to heat their homes? People have to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. That is a great cause of concern within my constituency.

Malcolm Bruce: Of course I completely accept the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and that situation increases the incidence of fuel poverty, given the percentage of people's wages that is being spent on fuel.

I want to give an example. I am sure that many of us are out pounding the streets and highways and byways of our constituencies at the moment, even more frequently than we are wont to do normally. I left my home on Saturday morning to do just that. The temperature when I left was -6° C and there was about 20 cm of impacted snow on the ground outside my house. By the time I reached the Aberdeen city part of my constituency, the temperature had reached 6° C and there was no sign of any snow-indeed, the crocuses were up and the daffodils looked as if they were coming out.

However, that area in Aberdeen city is the base from which the cold weather payment calculation for the inland western part of my constituency is determined. As I say, the temperature difference between different parts of my constituency is astonishing.

I make a plea on the issue regularly, but I again want to say something, quite specifically, about the weather stations that determine where cold weather payments are made in my constituency. The two most important stations are at Dyce and Braemar. Anybody who knows Scotland will know that Dyce is 3 miles from the coast and that Braemar holds the record for the lowest recorded temperature in the United Kingdom. However, one part of my constituency, around Alford, receives cold weather payments based on Braemar. Meanwhile, 3 miles up the road in Huntly, which is further inland and further up

the hill so that there is more snow and lower temperatures, people have their cold weather payments assessed from the coast at Dyce. That is ridiculous and unjustifiable.

I simply say that the cold weather payments for that part of my constituency-the Huntly area-should be based on temperatures in Braemar, or temperatures somewhere else more appropriate than Dyce, possibly Aviemore. They should certainly not be based on temperatures in Dyce. That is my special plea, and I have to say that it is a very important point. If the Minister ever wished to come to my constituency, I could show him the temperature difference between different parts of my constituency with no difficulty whatever.

Thanks to a lot of pressure from Members in all parts of the House, the Government are in the process of introducing feed-in tariffs. However, I refer to the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) on that subject, which I have signed, as have many other Members. Fundamentally, the issue is that those people who have pioneered the use of generating capacity run the risk of being penalised for being involved in that area too early.

I want to press the Minister on the issue, because there is some suggestion that a review is going on to determine whether people who have already installed generating capacity that feeds into the grid should benefit from the new arrangements, rather than being penalised for being pioneers.

For example, I have a constituent who has told me that he installed a solar photovoltaic system in two phases-1.82 kW of capacity in July 2008 and a further 2.56 kW of capacity in July 2009. He has two issues. One is that the equipment he used was subject to microgeneration certification scheme approval guidelines. His concern is that the scheme approves only the most expensive systems. He was able to find cheaper systems that met European standards but not the certification standards, and he thinks that that is inefficient and unfair. Again, I leave the issue with the Minister.

My constituent's second and more specific point, having made that investment, concerns why on earth he should not benefit from the feed-in arrangements. I know that my constituent would be extremely pleased and grateful if the Minister gave him some encouragement.

Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind): May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to UK-wide matters on the cost of energy? I wish to make three brief points. First, does he agree that the hundreds of social tariffs should be simplified and standardised, and that they should be more generous? They are very confusing and do not give everyone access. Secondly, we should end the obscenity of people on pay-as-you-go tariffs, with the poorest in society paying more per unit of energy. Thirdly, we must ensure that people without access to direct debits-again, the poorest in the country-have access to the discounts that are available.

Malcolm Bruce: Those are pertinent points, and I am sure that the Minister will take note of them. However, as I said at the outset, there are so many dimensions to the matter that it is impossible to cover them all in one speech-and I am now near the end of mine. Indeed, if I tried to cover all those points, I might get less useful answers from the Minister on the particular issues that I wish to raise. None the less, the intervention by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) is pertinent. The situation is most confusing. Too many things are going on, and there are too many obligations. People who by definition are poor have to worry how the heck they are to access all those things, including whether they are getting the best deal and who they should ask for advice. Those are questions also for those who are not technically fuel poor, but who wish to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and to use greener energy systems.

I do not know whether other Members have tried this, as I have, but when one seeks information someone will say, "This is who supplies solar, and these people do wind, and these do heat pumps." People then phone those suppliers, but of course they want to sell them the products that they market. What people really want is access to an objective, impartial energy audit that says, "Your house needs this in the way of insulation and would benefit from that energy mix. Here is a range of the people who can provide you with installation quotes and costs, and they work to approved standards." If that happened, I suggest that people would then want to know what grants and long-term loans were available.

One scheme that seems to have been successful is the boiler scrappage scheme. Those running it say, "The phone is ringing off the hook with people wanting to replace their boilers and take advantage of the scheme." I say in passing that it is regrettable that the scheme has not been extended to Scotland. I know that Scotland has the money and may be spending it differently, but I am not trying to make a party political point. However, given the scheme's success, I suggest that the Scottish Government could usefully consider it.

John Mason (Glasgow, East) (SNP): Is not the scheme being introduced in the same way in Scotland?

Malcolm Bruce: If so, I am glad to hear it. The latest information that I have is that it is not available, but perhaps it will be, and I would welcome that. It is a simple scheme and it works. Devolution allows the Scottish Administration to do things differently, but I believe that if the scheme works we should use it. That is all I wish to say about the matter.

People also say that we should have smart meters, but smart meters are of value only if they tell people what is going on. They have to be able to record in real time, so that people can make active decisions. We should be clear when talking about smart meters that we need the whole package, not just half of it.

Home energy reports are of rather limited value-almost a gesture. They could be much more rigorously enforced. Indeed, if we are raising standards, the standard of home energy reports should rise with them. People should know their real value and, if they are below value, what should be done. That should be included in the negotiations on buying and selling houses-people should know what they have to do to bring the reports up to standard.

We are in the middle of the deepest recession in living memory. We face the huge challenges of hard-to-treat homes, fuel poverty and the need to develop and introduce greener forms of energy. I can think of nothing that would do more to stimulate employment, investment, economic growth and recovery than a major investment programme in that area. My concern is that the Government have failed to come forward with a comprehensive way to ensure that we deliver the materials and the installation capacity, and the carbon reductions and poverty reductions that should go with them.

I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to yesterday's announcement. He will not be surprised to hear that, like so many announcements, it is a statement of good intent that sounds attractive, but when will the detail be available and when will anyone be able to use it? If people want to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy in their home, they will want not only the best advice, but the right financial package to cover the cost of installing it and to give them savings at the same time.

I welcome the principle behind yesterday's announcement by the Secretary of State, but I shall be much more convinced when I see the colour of his money and we hear details of how people can get hold of the money. I suspect that it will not be this side of the general election.

We are debating an important subject with many dimensions to it, and I am sure that other Members will wish to mention other aspects. I hope the Minister can answer some of the key points that I have raised.

9.56 am

Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Cook. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing this debate, which is on an important topic and is being held at an apposite time.

I agree with all the points that my right hon. Friend made, but I particularly endorse what he said about the effect that the location of the weather stations has on the cold weather payment. I am sure that Members from all parts of the north of Scotland have similar problems with the location of the weather stations; it leads to communities living in certain geographical circumstances that experience very cold weather being disadvantaged when it comes to the allocation of those moneys.

I hope that the Minister takes on board what my right hon. Friend said about the weather station in his constituency, and that he is willing to extend the principle. Perhaps he will don his snowshoes or his skis and tour the north of Scotland, to experience for himself some of the variations in weather that occur in geographically contiguous areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr. David Kidney): It was not in the highlands or in the snow, but I was in Aberdeen last month.

Danny Alexander: I am delighted to hear that. I hope that the Minister enjoyed his visit. He is welcome to visit the north of Scotland at any time, not least if one purpose of his visit is to consider the issues raised by my right hon. Friend.

This debate is taking place during a long period of severe winter weather. When I arrived home in Aviemore last Thursday, I found my home under 2 feet of snow. When I woke in Friday morning, almost another foot had fallen, which meant that I had to work from home. All the roads were closed, and I could not fulfil my constituency engagements. As my right hon. Friend said, with snow on the ground in Aviemore and many other parts of my constituency consistently since 16 or 17 December until now, and probably for several weeks more, such matters are particularly important.

I wish to speak about a particular group of people-those who live in rural and remote areas. As my right hon. Friend said, many use heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas to heat their homes, as they are almost exclusively off the mains gas grid. That has a number of consequences. First, people are more likely to suffer fuel poverty. Secondly, more are likely to suffer extreme fuel poverty. Thirdly, they are more likely to have much higher energy costs, and they tend to live in harder-to-treat homes.

I bring some evidence to the debate. It is based on a survey that I carried out with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy) last autumn. We focused specifically on the rural parts of my constituency and his-Badenoch and Strathspey in my constituency, parts of rural Inverness-shire, Ross-shire, and Skye and Lochaber in my right hon. Friend's constituency. The evidence demonstrates that fuel poverty is felt more extremely in those parts of the country.

We found that 15 per cent. of people spent more than 10 per cent. of their household income on energy bills. Of those people, 21 per cent. spent more than 20 per cent. of their income on energy bills, which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said, is the definition of extreme fuel poverty. For 49 per cent. of those people, the main source of heating was heating oil. Ten per cent. were using LPG, some were using electric heaters and a few were on mains gas. Over the past year, 70 per cent. had seen their bills rise and 43 per cent. had struggled to pay their energy bills. Various points were raised about energy sources. It was interesting to note how few people received help through social tariffs and how few had tried to switch suppliers.

Mr. Drew: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a weakness of the CERT-carbon emissions reduction target-scheme is that the lack of transparency means that energy companies do not have much incentive to prioritise groups that are in fuel poverty? Too often, they go for the early easy wins, which are homes that are easier to heat.

Danny Alexander: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In many stone-built houses without double glazing, the energy-saving light bulbs that have been sent through the post are piling up, when different sorts of help would make a bigger difference. He is right about the transparency and support in CERT schemes. That is also a problem with social tariffs, which can be hard to understand and to get information on because of the complex systems that vary from company to company. Those things militate against people receiving the help to which they are entitled.

I wish to raise a number of issues with the Minister in relation to hard-to-treat homes where heating oil or LPG is the main energy source. The first point is about regulation. There are obligations on major utility suppliers, such as gas and electricity companies, to engage in schemes such as CERT, to provide support and to offer social tariffs. There is no such regulation of heating oil providers. There is also a major gap in the access and involvement of statutory consumer bodies such as Consumer Focus, which take up and pursue issues.

Dr. McCrea: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is great concern within communities about the price of heating oil? When the market price rises, the consumer price immediately goes up. However, when there is a reduction in the market price, the price that people pay for oil to heat their homes is not reduced at the same speed. There is a demand for transparency in that regard.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention, which made one of the points I was intending to make. That trend applies not just to the oil sector, but to gas and electricity. Companies are quick to increase the price but not as quick to pass on reductions. Certainly in my constituency and across the north of Scotland, small providers in the heating oil sector do their best to pass price reductions from the major oil companies on to their customers as quickly as they can. The lack of will is not with the local providers, but with the major oil companies from which they receive their supply.

David Simpson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one difficulty with the pricing of fuel, including gas, is that it is traded at least four or five times through commodity dealing before it reaches the shores of the United Kingdom, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or elsewhere?

Danny Alexander: I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the trading conditions for such commodities. I accept that there probably is such a problem, although it is not an area on which I am particularly expert.

Bob Spink: On this important point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is even worse than has been stated because many energy companies forward-buy their oil or gas at a fixed rate? Therefore, when prices rise, they do not necessarily go up for the companies straight away; often it takes up to six months. However, they are quick to increase prices for the consumer. The regulators need to take more firm action to make this matter transparent and to stop it.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister heard the point and will respond.

Some smaller heating oil companies in my constituency endeavour to help people struggling with their bills, for example by allowing them to spread payments regularly over weeks or months so that they do not have to pay huge lumps of cash up front when the oil tank has to be filled up every couple of months. My constituents have had to fill their oil tanks more frequently over the past two or three months because of the severity of the winter conditions. After Christmas, the road conditions made it difficult for oil companies to get oil to people's homes and there was a serious risk of shortages. I am grateful to the Government for acting to lift some of the working-hours regulations to address that issue. Many companies would like explicitly to provide social tariffs in this sector to people in the most difficult financial circumstances, but are unable to do so because of their relationships with large oil companies and the lack of regulation.My second point about such households concerns access to home insulation and other energy efficiency measures, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon rightly devoted a large portion of his speech. As such help is delivered partly through electricity and gas companies, those who have an unregulated oil provider have less access to such help to improve their homes.

I have investigated the systems that have been put in place in Scotland, such as energy helplines. Although in theory there are measures available to help people in older homes that use heating oil, in practice they are hard to get. One organisation I talked to could give only one example of someone having an air-source heat pump installed as an alternative to oil, but could give hundreds of examples of people who had received a bit of loft insulation. I am not decrying the importance of loft insulation, but the people I am describing tend to need more expensive measures that are just as necessary, if not more necessary, because of the circumstances in which they live.

Mr. Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The hon. Gentleman is touching on an important point. In parts of the UK, particularly Northern Ireland, advantageous schemes are unveiled by devolved Ministers. Sometimes, as advantageous as the schemes are, the people who could benefit most from them, namely the lower socio-economic groups, are unaware of the advantages. Unless such schemes are promoted more vigorously, the people who are supposed to benefit are also the ones who are least likely to avail themselves of them.

Danny Alexander: I would state the point in a different way: many of the schemes sound good, but are difficult to access for the people who need them most, who are often those living in older homes, for whom the schemes would be more expensive. They are difficult to access partly because of the information and the lack of awareness of what is available, but partly because the way in which the schemes are administered often means that the priorities are more to do with volume than with helping the people with the greatest need. I would like the Minister to address that issue.

Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend will have been to many presentations in this House by energy companies, where they offer all kinds of new technology but point out that the costs are disproportionately high. Does he agree that if the Government got their act together and put all of the schemes together, the market would be unlocked and a whole new industry created, which would reduce costs and benefit everybody, whether poor or better-off?

Danny Alexander: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right. An extension of the principle behind the boiler scrappage scheme to other technologies over a fixed period would provide an incentive, which would encourage industries to flourish and the training of technicians. That would make a big difference to the availability of such support.

Before I move on to another issue, I should say that I would be interested to hear the Minister update hon. Members on the status of the renewable heat incentive. I have big concerns about a scheme that is based on adding to the costs faced by those people who already have the highest costs-people who use oil, gas and coal-to fund improvements that are necessary to reduce those costs. The financial burden of those sorts of improvements should not fall most heavily on people who are already facing the highest costs. The Government were consulting on and considering that issue, so I would be grateful for a status update and an assurance that the Government do not intend to place extra financial burdens on users of heating oil and LPG, whatever the environmental merits of the schemes that will be paid for.

I also want to ask the Minister one or two questions on another form of fuel that can help to deal with such issues and provide an alternative to healing oil: wood fuel. Wood fuel is renewable, available and, very often, local. For example, in a housing development where I live in Aviemore, a district heating scheme warms 100 homes and is fuelled by a wood fuel boiler that uses wood material sourced from the sawmill 7 miles down the road. That has reduced costs, had significant environmental benefits and is an example of the sort of thing that could be done more often with wood fuel.

A very good European co-operation programme is going on between people in Scotland and other European countries. It has been set up by an organisation called Highland Birchwoods, which is considering how the use of wood fuel can be encouraged and how wood fuel boilers on a domestic scale can be pushed forward.

I would be grateful for the Minister's help on the issue of the VAT regime on wood fuel. Hon. Members will know that VAT on fuel is charged at 5 per cent. As wood has a wide variety of uses, however, suppliers of wood fuel face a VAT charge of 17.5 per cent. at wholesale level. The Government provide very little information proactively to suppliers of wood specifically for fuel uses-whether to providers of pellets, wood chip or anyone else who might be taking wood on a wholesale basis and converting it into wood used specifically for fuel-about how to reclaim the VAT difference.

In my constituency, for example, log suppliers have in good faith understood that they were required to charge VAT at 17.5 per cent. on logs when, in fact, they should have charged 5 per cent., which would have made a big difference to relative costs, principally to the consumer. Government should try to make clear the VAT rates on wood fuel and ensure that information about how to reclaim the difference is made easily available to small suppliers. That would make a big difference to promoting wood fuel.

More skilled technicians who can install wood fuel boilers as part of a domestic or district heating scheme are also needed. I commend to the Minister the work being done at Inverness college in my constituency to train up such technicians. As the technology becomes available and is more widely promoted, and the supply chain for domestic wood fuel builds up, it is important to ensure that there is a network of people who can install the technology.

I shall end on the same point with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon concluded. We are just coming out of the depths of the worst recession that this country has experienced for 60 years, and there is a significant need to create jobs. We have the opportunity to move the economy in a more environmentally sustainable direction. However, we need to ensure that any changes operate on the basis of the overriding principle of fairness that I certainly believe in and that is so well established in this country.

An effort to enhance support for measures to tackle fuel poverty-particularly home energy efficiency and home insulation-and to bring people in remote and rural areas who use much more heating oil and LPG within the reach of those measures, would have a dramatic impact on jobs, on the financial burdens on families who are struggling to make ends meet, and on ensuring that our society is fairer. For all those reasons, I urge the Minister to take any steps that he can to ensure that people in remote and rural areas who rely on off-gas-grid heating sources are given a much higher priority than they receive currently in the Government's thinking.

Mr. Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD): I apologise, Mr. Cook, for your not being informed that there was a change in the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for today's debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on initiating the debate at this most opportune time and on raising a number of issues that affect my constituency and that of our hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) as much as they affect his.

The problem affects not only rural and remote areas, but urban areas. Indeed, the difficulty of dealing with energy inefficient homes is particularly acute in the private rented sector, where the cost of improving the efficiency of a home falls on the landlord, but the benefits accrue to the tenant and to the country as a whole through the reduction in carbon emissions. Particularly in houses in multiple occupation, the incentive to invest and contribute capital is sometimes not supported as well as it could be by the current systems.

First, I shall discuss families in fuel poverty and their difficulty in budgeting for fuel costs. Such families are faced not only with variability in the weather-we have just experienced one of the coldest winters for many years, when people needed to use more energy and to produce more heat-but with the incredible volatility of energy prices. As a consequence, it is very difficult for them to budget for their energy needs. People in fuel poverty spend more than 10 per cent.-or, if they are in extreme fuel poverty, more than 20 per cent.-of their income on fuel. Fuel takes up so much of their income that any changes in that amount have a disproportionate effect on the money that they can spend on other things.

The Government have a duty to consider that matter in some way. I know that the Minister cannot influence the weather, although he may wish to do so in the future if he ever gets the opportunity again, but providing some stability in energy prices so that people can budget much better would be to their advantage and would reduce the impact of fuel poverty. There are ways in which that can be done, for example, social tariffs, to which I may return, but first I shall pick up some of the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon made, particularly about hard-to-treat homes.

The people who live in such homes often suffer from a triple whammy because their homes are not only an older type of property, with solid walls and other types of construction that make it difficult to improve efficiency, but they are off the gas mains. The people who live in such homes suffer many accumulated problems of fuel poverty. An issue that perhaps has not been discussed very often is listed buildings. Double glazing was raised in another context, I think, but it is often not allowed in listed buildings because of the planning process, so one form of fuel efficiency is often ruled out for such buildings. However, many innovative builders and carpenters are designing double-glazed windows that reflect the architectural traditions of listed buildings and could be used, so perhaps the Minister could intervene with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether something could be done along those lines.

My right hon. Friend mentioned external and internal cladding, but one can imagine the planning difficulties that would be incurred if people set about altering the appearance of listed buildings. That is one problem that has not been addressed to any extent. I live in a listed building-perhaps I should have declared an interest-and recently had to apply for planning permission to install solar panels. Although that process has been eased recently, it certainly was not an encouragement to involving myself in that type of improvement.

Households that are off mains gas can experience problems. Households in my constituency use not only oil, LPG and wood, but coal, because many of my constituents live in old mining communities and for a long time benefitted from free coal because they worked in the coal industry. Not many of those families still benefit from that, but the widows of former coal miners still have coal delivered on the street outside their house and have to get their sons or nephews to cart it round the back so that it can be used. There is a range of fuels, but all are much more expensive than mains gas. Indeed, in a little village in my constituency, Garth, I came across a group of elderly people living in local authority accommodation who had decided to switch off their LPG supply because its sheer cost made it impossible for them to heat their homes. The homes were poorly insulated and they were putting their health and lives at risk as a result.

What can be done? My right hon. Friend mentioned extending the gas mains, which really would be a long-term solution for fuel poverty for so many people. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) pointed out, the cost to individuals of having the gas mains extended is often beyond their means, and the investment would probably not produce a return in their lifetime, or even that of their children if they live in the same home after them. Will the Government consider either encouraging or subsidising gas companies to achieve a greater reach for gas mains? As I said, that would be a long-term solution to the problem.

Mr. Kidney: In Ofgem's current price control round on the energy companies-the five-year control period-there is an incentive for the companies to extend mains gas to fuel-poor households, although admittedly the scheme is modest, covering about 20,000 households.

Mr. Roger Williams: I thank the Minister for that comment, which indicates that the Government recognise the value to the fuel-poor of being on mains gas.

I would like to refer briefly to a concern about LPG supply that I raised with the Minister during Energy and Climate Change questions. Following my predecessor's work on competitiveness in the LPG industry and pressure I put on the Office of Fair Trading, it conducted an investigation into the competitiveness of the LPG market and found several practices that made it difficult for families to change their supplier because of the need to change the bulk tank and other fittings associated with the supply. Regulations have now been brought in that ensure that customers can now shop around between suppliers and get much better deals.

The community in another village in my constituency, Llanspyddid, were able to get together and reduce their energy costs substantially by getting competitive quotes from different companies. My concern is that that is available to those in the know. One thing that the Department of Energy and Climate Change could do is publicise the fact that people can shop around for their LPG supply. I do not think that the companies are proactively competing against one other by advertising better prices, and certainly any improvement arises only when the customers are proactive. Any raising of awareness or advertising of the possibility of changing supplier will make a real difference to people on LPG supplies.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey both referred to cold weather payments, and we certainly all have our stories about those. The weather station that serves the Ystradgynlais area is situated in Swansea, which makes it sound as though it is by the seashore. Certain parts of the Swansea valley area are by the sea, but parts of it are back up in the mountains in mid-Wales-Coelbren, for example, is about 1,500 feet above sea level and is very exposed. Cold weather payments are not triggered for those living there because the weather in Swansea is more benign and tropical.

We have been campaigning to have the weather station moved to Sunnybridge, which is often on the weather map as the coldest place in the UK. That would be much more beneficial in our area. I was talking to a Gurkha the other day who said he had trained in the Arctic, which was cold but dry, in the jungle, which was wet but warm, and in Sunnybridge, which was cold and wet, so he needed a high degree of personal organisation to survive there. I recommend it as the site for the weather station that should be consulted in those matters.

I will finish my remarks by referring to social tariffs and the ability to switch between suppliers. I remember participating in a debate in this Chamber on a similar topic, during which we discussed the ability to switch supplier. Of the several Members present in that debate-more than are present today-my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and I were the only ones who had not switched, and we concluded that it was an age thing, as we were brought up in a time when we received energy supplied by a nationalised company and did not shop around among other companies. It would be interesting to know which people do and do not switch by age band, and which of those people have access to IT equipment, which makes switching much easier. I am sure that we have all heard horror stories from constituents who have attempted to switch and then found that they were billed by two companies at the same time. All those deterrents make people cautious about whether they would benefit from switching. Social tariffs are very complex. I looked recently at a few quotations from companies, and they have different standing charges and different prices for the first 100 units and for the rest of the units, so it is difficult to put those details together and know whether a particular tariff would benefit the consumer. If there were some standardisation of the quotes for tariffs, that would make the process much easier, and people would be able to switch with much more confidence and receive greater benefit.

On social tariffs, and further to the point made by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is no longer in his place, I have figures for an average household consumption of 4,200 kW of electricity per year. Paying by standard credit, that would cost £977; by direct debit, £902; but by prepayment, £1,049. The people who use prepayment tend to be the most vulnerable: they have more difficulty budgeting for their fuel costs, yet are penalised the most.

The sharing of data between the Department for Work and Pensions and the electricity companies on those who should qualify for social tariffs would be beneficial. There has been some talk of smart meters, and I am advised that there are super-smart meters that automatically change the supply to the most advantageous supplier for the customer's circumstances.

This is a subject that we all have experience of in our own lives, but our most vulnerable constituents have the most difficult experiences. I have read the Government's proposals for green loans, as well as the Conservatives' proposals. They have many good ideas, but we need to implement them and prioritise them, so that the most vulnerable and needy in our communities-the ones who suffer from ill health and are at risk of premature death-get the greatest help.

10.32 am

Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing the debate. He has an excellent track record and is widely respected in the House for his knowledge of the subject and the wider agenda. This has been an excellent debate, albeit the contributions have come from one party and from outside England; nevertheless, some sensible ideas and analysis have been offered by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams).

As well as the points about heating oil and the difficulties of the most vulnerable, and some excellent comments on the potential of wood fuel, with which I thoroughly concur, the right hon. Gentleman's opening remarks were absolutely spot-on. He said that, sadly, after 13 years of Labour Government, it is groundhog day on fuel poverty. In absolute terms, we are back to where we came in, despite the money that has been spent and the progress that we thought had been made. It is depressing that we are back at the bottom of the tall mountain that we have to climb to overcome fuel poverty.

Simply business as usual is not an option if we really want to crack the problem and make progress on a far greater scale and to a far more ambitious timetable. That is why my party proposes a completely new and radical approach to fuel efficiency. The measures to date have not been up to the scale of the task, not for lack of good will on the part of the Government, nor for a lack of interest in the agenda, but simply because their policies have not been up to it. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for providing an opportunity to set out in a little more detail how we would tackle the twin challenges of carbon emissions and fuel poverty that domestic energy efficiency throws up.

As Members know, carbon emissions from the UK's housing stock are some of the worst in Europe. Without urgent action to reduce emissions, we will struggle to stay on track to satisfy the targets implicit in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the recommended emissions reduction trajectory laid out by the Committee on Climate Change. Moreover, fuel poverty is a ballooning social justice crisis throughout the UK. The average gas bill has increased by 169 per cent. since 2003 and the average electricity bill has nearly doubled. Ofgem predicts that energy bills will rise by another 60 per cent. by 2015 and, with 40,000 people pushed into fuel poverty by every percentage point rise in fuel costs, it is clear in the statistics that we have a serious problem indeed.

It is also clear that there has been systematic failure in this Government's efforts to tackle the problem with the policy toolkit that they have had available. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, there have been too many schemes. They have often been well meaning in themselves, but the sum total of the parts is not a coherent and ambitious whole. There have been too many stop-go initiatives, too much talking and not enough action.

The Government had promised that, at the turn of 2010, no vulnerable household would be left in fuel poverty, yet current estimates suggest that nearly one fifth of UK households were still spending more than 10 per cent. of their income on energy-the key definition of fuel poverty-at the same time that British Gas announced a surge in profits. The Government have relied for too long on falling wholesale energy prices to reduce fuel poverty and have not taken any real, concrete steps to tackle the challenge on a much larger scale. The average fuel bill is now a shocking £1,300 per year, yet competition in the sector is a fraction of what it was when the industry was privatised, nearly 20 years ago.

For off-grid gas customers, the problem is particularly acute, as has been mentioned. Heating oil and electric heaters compare poorly with even fairly old gas heaters in terms of value for money, and off-grid properties tend to be less efficient and harder to insulate as they are often older, single-skinned rural buildings, or, in the case of my constituency, static homes. There is an urgent need to address energy consumption in those often vulnerable households.

Rising bills have been compounded by other Government failures. The value of the winter fuel payment has decreased in real terms. When instigated, it covered one third of the average bill; now, it barely covers one fifth. In addition, the Government have slashed the budget for their Warm Front programme. Whatever concerns we may have about the programme's effectiveness, the bottom line is that the budget reduction from £1 billion to £810 million this year will lead to 50,000 fewer vulnerable households receiving assistance from that programme this year.

Mr. Kidney: Did the hon. Gentleman write his speech before the pre-Budget report? It had another £150 million for Warm Front, which takes the three-year spending figure to more than £1.1 billion.

Gregory Barker: Yes, but, as I understand it, the money announced in the pre-Budget report was exactly that-it will not do anything to help vulnerable people this winter. To put the figures into context, the Treasury collected £9 billion of VAT receipts from UK utilities and £1.2 billion from domestic fuel customers last year.

Rising bills have been fuelled by the Government's lack of a credible energy policy. Allowing utilities to sweat assets and the failure to bring a greater strategic focus to infrastructure renewal have left the UK a net importer of gas with a looming energy crunch. That, combined with only 14 days' gas storage, leaves the UK vulnerable to spikes on the spot market, gives utilities a fig leaf for raising electricity bills, and is a particular threat to off-grid consumers.

The solution to many of those challenges is simple, straightforward and pays for itself: greater energy efficiency. In the home, that means energy saving and insulation. Some 33 per cent. of the heat lost from an uninsulated house is lost through the walls. One could save around £90 on energy each year in an average home by insulating wall cavities alone. That would save about £720 million of energy a year, or 9 million tonnes of carbon-enough to power 1.8 million homes for the same period.

Despite the clear economic and social advantages of increasing energy efficiency at scale, we are not moving at the scale and pace that is needed. That is why, a year ago, the leader of my party announced an energy refit programme, the Conservatives' green deal, that would establish a new model with a far greater sense of ambition for delivering energy efficiency throughout the UK-a new way of tackling this embedded social and economic problem. Under the Conservatives' approach, households would get instant access to the measures to make energy efficiency improvements, the cost of which would be paid back, not by the householder, but by the owner of the property who pays the electricity bill over 20 years through a surcharge on bills, just as transmission charges, for example, are currently levied on an electricity bill. That would guarantee immediate savings, so homeowners would see not only an improvement in their quality of life, but an immediate saving. With a street-by-street roll-out in partnership with local authorities and by targeting vulnerable households, that policy will also bring together the dual priorities of reducing fuel poverty and reducing carbon emissions, but on a far more meaningful time scale than has been achieved by the Government over the past 13 years.

When we first set out the principle of our energy efficiency measures, it was routinely rubbished by Labour Ministers. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change dismissed it as a

"a bad combination of...reheated and...uncosted"

policies. They pooh-poohed the figure of £6,500, saying that it could not be afforded, yet the beauty of our scheme is that there would be no overall charge to public funds. The scheme will be privately financed by banks and investment funds: I have met many of their representatives and they are keen to enter this new, exciting market. But one year on, it is no surprise that the Government have realised that they simply cannot go forward with their own policies and have produced, I am glad to see, something that is remarkably similar to the Conservatives' programme, with a few tweaks at the edges. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but it is disappointing that it has taken the Government 13 years to do that. Now in their death throes, in their last weeks in Government, they have finally had to admit that their policy has not worked and they need to come up with something else. However, that is welcome in so far as it means that, in the new Parliament, there will be much greater consensus on the way forward on tackling this urgent problem.

I am concerned that the Government have not really had a genuine change of heart and that this is just a political ruse. Their policy is undermined by its being twinned with renewable energy and renewable energy feed-in tariffs. Burrowing into the Government's statistics, their own anticipated forecast and target is that by 2020 only 1.6 per cent. of our energy will come from decentralised energy sources supported by feed-in tariffs. If that fact is married to the "Warmer Homes, Greener Homes" strategy, that is a pathetically unambitious and impoverished figure that shows that that is not a genuine adoption of the agenda but is merely a political manoeuvre to try to parry a radical proposal from the Conservatives. I am sorry that the Government are not really, in their heart of hearts, keen to embrace this agenda, but I welcome any moves towards it.

I want to give the Minister time to reply to the many points that have been raised, but insofar as we see any consensus in the Chamber today there is consensus on business as usual not being good enough. We are not making the progress that we need to make. We need fresh ideas, new thinking and a far more ambitious time scale on implementation. We need to embrace new technologies as well as new financing models. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Ultimately, the only way that we are going to get to grips with this agenda to do justice to the fuel-poor as well as to our carbon transformation is to sweep away this tired, end-of-life Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr. David Kidney): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on securing an important debate on a important subject, and on his thoughtful, constructive approach to it, which was in stark contrast to that of the previous speaker, who turned it into a party political argument.

In respect of the point made by the right hon. Member for Gordon part-way through his speech-that real people really die in the cold of winter if we do not get this right-eradicating fuel poverty is an important challenge to Government. That is my responsibility in this Government and I take it seriously.

I prepared what I think is a brilliant speech to respond to the debate, but I did so before I heard hon. and right hon. Members speak. It would be a much more constructive use of my time, certainly to begin with, to try to answer the points that were raised, so that is what I intend to do.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the trend in fuel poverty. Back in 1996, 6.5 million households were in fuel poverty. By 2003, partly because of benign global prices, partly because of the system of regulation of energy companies and partly because of the first successes of some schemes that I may have time to mention later, that figure decreased to 1.5 million, which is a huge change. Then came four years of incredible high price rises. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) mentioned that huge growth in prices in quite a short time. However, no hon. or right hon. Member has said that there was something that the British Government could do about worldwide oil prices and their knock-on effects on energy prices around the world, but clearly that blew us off course in eradicating fuel poverty in this country.

The result of all that is that the 2007 figures-frustratingly, for me, those are the latest official statistics-based on all the information having been collected and assessed, show that 4 million households in the United Kingdom are in fuel poverty. Doubtless, prices continued to rise after 2007 and, although there was a fall-off more recently, which I may mention in a while, the figure is probably higher, not lower, as we speak. I take seriously my responsibility for trying to get that figure down again, rather than have it go up, despite what happens to global prices.

I acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said at the outset about certain properties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) also mentioned what happens when we have taken all the quick wins and insulated all the lofts and cavity walls. That has been done to great effect over the past 12 years-perhaps I will be able to provide some statistics later-and by 2015 we aim to insulate every loft and cavity wall that can be filled, provided that the owners and occupiers of properties permit the work to be done.

When all those easy wins have been achieved, we are left with the harder-to-treat properties, many of which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have solid walls with no cavity. It is incumbent on us to find the solutions to deliver sufficient energy efficiency measures to those properties to bring them up to a good standard of energy efficiency.

In the past, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the answer has been a fairly cumbersome system, usually external wall cladding, which sometimes, although I should stress not always, leaves quite a visual impression on a property that most people do not like. Developers have been working hard on modern forms of external cladding that are much easier on the eye and, crucially, on clever technologies and innovations in technology for internal-wall cavities that can be created with a modest loss of space inside the property, which is key to consumer acceptance of the technology. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has visited BRE's research centre at Watford, as I have, and seen some of the work that is going on to develop such technologies, but that work is in hand.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Government's strategy that was launched yesterday. When I say "HEM" from now on, that stands for the household energy management strategy. He is right to ask for all the details of that strategy and when it will take effect. The point about the strategy-given sufficient time, I will mention the works that we are doing up to 2012-is that it is our view of what happens from 2012 to 2020 to improve properties, especially those that have so far been regarded as hard to treat.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about local authorities working independently and not being co-ordinated or given the tools to do the job. HEM gives local authorities a central role in co-ordinating our activities to tackle fuel poverty and making properties more energy efficient. He referred to a woman who said that what she really needed was accurate advice from someone. HEM provides the solution of a new cadre of certified and well-trained advisers who can provide independent advice on all the options.

In the meantime, I do not want to diminish in any way the excellent advice given by the Energy Saving Trust, which is funded by my Department and provides a national system of call centres to provide advice. On the internet, through our branded website, actonco2, people have access to accurate and independent advice from the Energy Saving Trust.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about watching out for cowboys, whether installers or those who offer products, and it was suggested that there should be a reliable system of certification. In the HEM strategy, we discuss how we intend to provide a reliable system of certification. I hope that he can see how the strategy in each area will be valuable, although I acknowledge that, as he said, it will come into effect in coming years and is not in effect today.

The right hon. Gentleman made an important sally on the significant issue of properties that are off the mains gas grid, most but not all of which are in rural locations. I shall start with his request for statistics. He said that 1 million properties in Scotland are off the gas grid. If so, my figures are not sufficiently accurate, so I must be careful. According to my statistics, in 2007 in Scotland, 278,000 properties were off the mains gas grid, which is 12 per cent. of the total. In the same year in England, 2.6 million were off the grid, representing 13 per cent. of the whole. In Wales, 230,000 were off the grid, which is 19 per cent. of the total.

The picture in Northern Ireland is very different. There is effectively no mains gas grid, and 621,000 properties are off the grid, which is 88 per cent. of the total. I hope that those statistics are helpful in showing the scale.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing to help people who are off the mains gas grid to keep the cost of keeping their homes adequately warm at a reasonable level. I mentioned the drive by the regulator, Ofgem, to incentivise the energy companies to extend the mains grid to 20,000 more households that are in fuel poverty during the current five-year price control round. That is one measure.

Under schemes such as CERT-the carbon emissions reduction target, which is the obligation on energy companies to deliver energy efficiency measures-there is no reason why properties off the mains gas grid should not be helped, but I take to heart the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the Government should direct energy companies to do more work in such areas, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud said, they too, driven by volume targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions, have taken the easy wins, which are often in concentrated areas such as urban areas. Perhaps they have not given the necessary attention to that in the past. Under HEM, as we continue the obligation on energy companies, we intend to take more power to give directions on the sort of work that we want done.

As an example of how we are already flexing our muscles, we recently consulted on extending CERT from 2011 to the end of 2012. In the consultation, we asked for people's views on directing the energy companies to do more of their work as energy efficiency measures-no more free light bulbs posted to people's homes-and to aim more of its work at a super-priority group, which we intend to define as those most in danger of being in fuel poverty, to have more work done to their properties under CERT. That is an example of the more activist approach that the right hon. Gentleman urges on me.

Very recently, in September, we launched CESP, the community energy saving programme, which is the next step on from CERT and our publicly funded programme, Warm Front. Under CESP, we ask energy companies, local authorities and community groups to form local partnerships and go house by house, street by street, to improve the energy efficiency of every property, whether hard to treat or not. CESP has been a good forerunner of what we expect the landscape across all those schemes to look like post-2012.

Two of the first schemes announced by British Gas were in Glasgow and Dundee in Scotland, but they are urbanised areas. My ambition, as a Minister with a keen interest in rural communities, is to see some CESPs formed in rural areas. There is no reason why they should not be, if energy companies and local authorities form partnerships in such parts of the country.

I urge right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate to go back to their local authorities and to use their contacts with energy companies to ask why there is no CESP in their area. That is another example of what we can do for such areas.

The feed-in tariffs that will start in April are an incentive for people in rural areas to consider microgeneration as a source of energy, and now as a source of income also. In 2011, there will be a renewable heat incentive, which will be hugely significant, especially in rural areas and for people off the mains gas grid to take their energy from renewable sources of heat, and to receive a reward from the Government for doing so. That is a strong message to people, as is that about microgeneration.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what efforts are being made to promote microgeneration. This Government had the first ever microgeneration strategy in 2006. We are renewing and refreshing it to deliver an up-to-date microgeneration strategy. There is a certification scheme for the goods and services under microgeneration, and grants are available for people under the low-carbon buildings programme to fit some forms of microgeneration to their properties. There are already encouragements for microgeneration.

Danny Alexander: Will the Minister explain briefly how the Government intend to fund the renewable heat incentive?

Mr. Kidney: The clock is against me and I have much more to say, including answering the hon. Gentleman's question about the renewable heat incentive. I do not have an answer today, but there will shortly be an answer in the Budget, so I ask him to be patient.

Malcolm Bruce: First, will the Minister answer my question about the range of products available under the microgeneration certification scheme? My point was that they are more expensive. Secondly, will there be some sort of retrospective allowance for people who have already invested in microgeneration to benefit from feed-in tariffs?

Mr. Kidney: I will deal with those points. On the range of products, when we go from no certification to certification-there is already a certification scheme for microgeneration-it takes time to build up sufficient products and sufficient people with the skills to carry out the installations, but we are determined to drive that forward. On a different point, the right hon. Gentleman said how important it is that there are certification schemes to avoid the cowboy scenario. We need to do the work, and I am keen to do so.

I had not quite finished explaining what we want to do to help people who are off the grid. The social price support, about which several Members spoke approvingly, means that there would be money off the bills of fuel-poor households for their electricity. Generally speaking, people have an electricity supply wherever they live, so off-mains gas grid customers will have the benefit of social price support if they are in danger of fuel poverty.

For those who must pay for heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas and have difficulty with the up-front cost of bulk buying, National Energy Action is carrying out work at the request of the Department of Energy and Climate Change to see whether there are ways-for example, through credit unions-to help people with up-front costs. That could be a significant development.

On feed-in tariffs, our judgment is that people who decided to fit renewable energy sources before we announced the scheme based their decision on the scene as it was at the time. They may have received a grant from the low-carbon buildings programme, but they did their own calculation, so we do not feel too guilty about the fact that the system is to drive more investment in future, not to reach back to reward those who based their judgment on the situation at that time.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the location of weather stations and cold weather payments. The Department for Work and Pensions reviews the locations every year and takes into account the representations made by hon. Members and the public. I remember statements by that Department of changes that it had made in response to representations. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to make their representations.

I have so much more to say just in reply to right hon. and hon. Members' questions, but on the issue of confusion, no one has mentioned Consumer Focus, the consumers' champion. I am keen to support it, so that everyone talks about its role-its help is very significant.

[ENDS]

Read "Home energy efficiency and fuel poverty debate ".

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to Hansard: (13 Oct 2009 c. 12WH)- Westminster Hall on Tue 13th Oct 2009

(10.14 am)

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): "I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran) on securing this debate. I should like to testify to his unstinting work on the issues of North sea safety in which he is heavily engaged and interested. He was right to bring this matter to the House-he does so from time to time-and highlight both the problems and achievements. I should like to draw out some of those and reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) also said.

According to Oil and Gas UK, my constituency of Gordon has more oil and gas jobs located in it and derived from it than any other constituency in the United Kingdom. Ironically, the figure is greater than the electorate. That arises from the fact that a number of the headquarters of the major operators and supply companies are located in the constituency; the jobs are not necessarily based there. We are talking about an industry that employs some 450,000 people across the UK. Taking into account the investment and operating expenditure and export and balance of payments benefit, the industry is worth something like £40 billion a year. It is a very important industry. It is ageing, but not decaying, and that is the crucial point. It is in everybody's interest to ensure that the integrity of the equipment is maintained for its efficient and safe operation. In the context of the North sea, safety is everybody's responsibility.

As we have heard from some of the contributions, there is a recognition that it is not an "us and them" approach; that everybody understands the importance of safety. However, everybody must continue to apply pressure to ensure that we have the maximum safety culture. We have not always done that, but there is a recognition now that that is what we must do. If we reflect on the matter, we will see that we have an industry that is international in its scope and reputation, and that has a growing export business. A disaster in the North sea would have significant implications for the credibility of that industry as well as cause huge worries and anxieties to the people who are engaged in it. If we do not have the right culture-of being at the absolute apex of safety consciousness-it will not just prejudice the lives and concerns of workers in the industry, which are absolutely central, but affect the economic performance and capacity of the industry in the long run. That is why all of us must be engaged across the whole piece.

I also happen to represent Aberdeen airport. Although I have been told by the airport manager that it is no longer the busiest heliport in the world, it is nevertheless very busy. It was the airport from which the Super Puma operated by Bond left and was returning to when it crashed. Four of the crew lived in my constituency. That incident reinforces the point for all of us in the north-east. We live daily with the knowledge that we are asking people to trust themselves to this highly risky environment. Collectively, we need to respond to the best of our ability. I want to reinforce the point that I made in my intervention to my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. All of us have been engaged in discussions about the future of the North sea and the work force. There is real concern that the work force is ageing. I do not mean that they are old, but they are approaching a time when they are likely to retire or leave the industry. With them will go a huge residue of cultural knowledge, wisdom and experience. We must ensure that there is a younger generation coming into the industry and that that knowledge, information and culture is transferred to them quickly and efficiently so that they are carried through to the next generation. We all know that there is a challenge to persuade people that this is an industry with a future. Those of us who are engaged in it every day see young people in the industry doing the most amazing jobs and taking on the most remarkable challenges. They want to tell others that this is an industry that has not only a fantastic past but a great future.

I want to reinforce that point, because there is a view among those who are not engaged in this industry on a day-to-day basis that somehow it is just fading into the sunset and that it is a declining industry. The number of times people say to me, "Well, you must be worried now that the oil is finished, what are you going to do next?" And yet the information that we have is twofold. First, there is probably nearly as much oil and gas still to be recovered from the UK sector as has already been recovered. Secondly, there is a huge export industry that we are supporting internationally, from the collective capacity and technical ability of companies that have derived their success from operations within the North sea.

It is important that we have a taxation and economic regime that gives confidence to the industry that we will continue to invest, because as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North rightly pointed out, the integrity of the structures and their inherent safety depends significantly on continuing investment. We must ensure that that investment is stimulated, encouraged and-this is the important point-is made at a level that guarantees that we have the platforms and the installations that we deserve and need.

Key Programme 3 was a very good check and one that reinforced the safety case culture. It is the responsibility of the operators to ensure that their installations are safe, but it is also the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to test those operators all the time, in terms of establishing what is the safety culture and what is the operation of those safety cases on a day-to-day basis. It seems to me that KP3 was an extremely useful check.

Similarly useful is the helicopter taskforce, which is chaired by Bob Keiller, whose company is also located in my constituency, beside the airport. Indeed, if one visits his company and many others in the industry, before anything else is discussed they will give a safety briefing, which is not just about the building that they are in; it is part of the recognition that, before anybody goes anywhere in the industry, they should think about safety. I do not think that any of us would deny that that culture is much more sharply defined now than it probably was in the past.

What is clearly important is that we put in place at all levels all the mechanisms that are necessary to ensure that we can have confidence that this industry will invest for the future, will operate for the future, that the people who work in it will have an environment that is as safe as it can be, that its international image is one of high integrity in every sense and that it has a long-term future.

Helicopters are an obvious point of concern, but there is no other practical way to take crews on and off platforms. It is true that the investment in higher technology and automation over the years means that the number of people at any one time on a platform now is smaller than in the past. However, the number of people flying backwards and forwards to platforms is sometimes greater now than in the past, because those people have specialist roles to play.

In that context, after the last crash there was a discussion about what we would do with helicopters. Clearly, there were very many workers who said, "I am very uncomfortable about taking that journey out". However, being the kind of people they are, they also say, "There isn't actually any option, that is my job and I will have to accept it, take it on trust and hope that the accident was something that happens rarely and won't happen again". Nevertheless, I think that anybody can understand the atmosphere that would have been pervasive within the industry after that last crash. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have helicopters of the highest integrity and operation systems that are as thorough and rigid as they can be, in terms of maintenance and actual operation environment.

Of course, there has been some concern about the competition for helicopters. We have had separate debates in this House about the need for helicopters, for example in Afghanistan. I do not know whether the Minister will be able to comment, but we have concerns that there is some pressure on the numbers and availability of search and rescue helicopters. I hope that it is not true, but it has been suggested to me anecdotally that there are some people in the search and rescue business who are not sure that they can absolutely guarantee 24/7 cover around the UK coast. As I say, I hope that that is not true. I do not know if the Minister is able to give any reassurance on that issue or, if necessary, could write subsequently. It is important that, if there is a problem, we address it. Of course, that issue does not just concern the North sea; it concerns people operating in the industry, but it also concerns anybody else operating around the UK coast.

I believe that this is a very timely debate. It is important to stress that we have an industry here that has a very substantial past-I myself first went offshore in the North sea 36 years ago-and a very substantial future, whereby people will still be travelling offshore in the North sea in 36 years' time. We must also ensure that this is an industry that operates to the highest standards internationally and that people see it as a beacon of high standards, so that they can be attracted to work in it because they know that the environment may not be 100 per cent. safe-nothing can ever be 100 per cent. safe-but is as safe as it can reasonably be and that safety is the paramount priority of everybody engaged in the industry."

ENDS

Read "North Sea Oil and Gas Industry ".

School Bus Safety

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP- response by Transport Minister Sadiq Khan MP delivered to House of Commons debates, 2 July 2009, 6:00 pm on Thu 2nd Jul 2009

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat):

I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate the subject of school bus safety, and it is perhaps appropriate that this debate should follow the debate that we have just had on road safety.

There is a problem, in that the statistics are not collected specifically on school bus safety. One of my proposals is that they should be monitored. I first raised the issue in the House 11 years ago, when I introduced a ten-minute Bill. Although there has been a reduction in the number of accidents and deaths reported, there are still too many. A number of them could have been prevented if other measures had been adopted, such as those that I have proposed and on which I should like to engage the Department.

The Department for Transport has data for road casualties in Great Britain by year only up to 2007. Over a three-year period, the number of fatalities among school pupils when travelling to or from school in a bus or tram went down from 21 to eight, while the number of casualties went down from 424 to 338. Although that is an improvement, my area has been shocked by a number of incidents, including two fatalities within two weeks of each other in the past year or so, when 15-year-old Robyn Oldham and 12-year-old Alexander Milne were tragically killed having just got off a school bus.

Robyn had just moved into the area and was travelling home from school at Turriff academy when she was struck down by a car, seconds after getting off the school bus. Robyn's mum Carla has been campaigning vigorously to raise awareness of the dangers as part of the Bus Stop! and School Bus Safety Group campaigns, to which I shall return. Just a fortnight after that, Alexander Milne-Zander to his family-was travelling home from school in Fraserburgh when he was also knocked down by a car. I have today spoken to Zander's father Philip and Robyn's mum Carla, who are both adamant that had there been a rule not to overtake a stationary bus, their children would be alive today. The House will therefore understand their strong feelings about the proposal which the Government are resisting for reasons that I hope I can engage with in this debate.

As a result of those accidents, the campaign for improved safety on buses has been stepped up. It has gained support across a wide spectrum of councils, councillors, parliamentarians from the Scottish Parliament and from this House, and many local residents. All have concluded that improvements can be made, and many believe that changes should be effected through legislation so that a nationwide policy can be put in place, although I hope the Minister will understand that I am looking not only for legislation but for greater safety awareness and an opportunity to make everyone who uses the roads aware of the dangers so that they will behave in a way that will reduce the likelihood of such accidents.

The School Bus Safety Group is run by Ron Beaty from Gardenstown in Aberdeenshire. His granddaughter Erin was seriously injured in a school bus incident five years ago. The group has set up a website-www.schoolbus.org.uk-and quite a lot of its proposals have been incorporated into the School Bus (Safety) Bill, which I have presented to the House. The Minister has seen the Bill and responded to it, and I hope that I shall be able to engage him on that subject tonight and subsequently.

The Bill has cross-party support, and I am grateful to Miss Begg, Mr. Blunkett, the hon. Members for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), all of whom have supported it. The Minister will be aware of the work done by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside on the Yellow School Bus Commission last year, which was widely welcomed by many campaigners.

This is not a back-of-an-envelope Bill. It is a short Bill containing very specific proposals, and I have consulted widely on it and continue to do so. I am not suggesting that it would be a definitive law. I am not even asking the Government to adopt the Bill, much as I would like them to do so, but I would ask them to recognise that it contains serious proposals, which might need to be refined or modified but which could make a serious contribution to road safety.

Every day, parents across the country entrust their children's safety to bus companies on the school run, although I am not suggesting for a minute that those companies and their drivers take that responsibility lightly. Nevertheless, I would like to engage with the Minister on some of the ideas in the Bill, and explain why I believe that they would contribute to road safety. The Bill suggests that school buses should

"be single decked, be fitted with three point safety belts on every seat, be fitted with large external 'stop' signs which must be activated when the bus is stationary at bus stops, be brightly and distinctly coloured, and display prominently on the interior and exterior notices containing safety advice for drivers, passengers and other road users".

Those are very specific proposals. I have also proposed that consideration should be given to the no-overtaking rule, and that a school bus safety council be established to monitor what is happening and to make recommendations on how our safety culture might be improved.

I have also acknowledged that there would be costs involved; I am mindful of that fact. I do not want a culture in which only the big bus operators could provide school bus services and from which the small operators would be excluded. Also, I do not want to see over-regulation resulting in unrealistic costs, given that school transport, including transport over longer distances, has to be paid for by local authorities. My proposals have taken all that into account, in order to ensure that they are practicable, workable and affordable. In that context, I hope that the Minister will take them in the spirit in which they have been put forward.

In the Minister's reply to me regarding the Bill, he has made a number of statements to the effect that he believes that the existing law is adequate to deal with these issues. Obviously, he will not be surprised to find that I am not entirely persuaded by all his arguments. He refers to school buses already having to meet "minimum regulatory standards", and states:

"Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations require all buses carrying children (under 16) to or from school to be fitted with a prescribed sign showing clearly to the front and rear."

I have to say that the signs in school buses are hopelessly inadequate in poor lighting. They are temporary, as they are put up for just that purpose, and they are easy to miss, particularly in poor visibility. He goes on to say:

"Buses carrying children are also permitted to display hazard warning lights when stopping to allow children to board or alight."

I suggest that that would not have the impact that a dedicated flashing sign would. It could be removable by all means; I understand that buses might well be used for other purposes. I have no problem with the signs being removable, but they need to be prominent, clear and flashing if they are to have the necessary impact.

The Minister also said that under the regulations, additional signs would be "permissible". Well, it is fine that they are permissible, but they are not required.

That is the difference between the Minister and me. He says that the culture is in place, but the law does not enforce it or require it to be enforced. I would suggest that the difference between us is the belief that we need to step up the regulatory framework to the point of requiring a more prominent display of warning signs.

It is true that there have been improvements in the requirement for seat-belts provisions, but they are not fully implemented across the board. It has been put to me that, ideally, in the longer run, three-point belts would be inherently safer.

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents:

"Although lap belts are not recommended for pregnant women, they are safe and suitable for other adult passengers. Three-point seat belts are safer, but wearing a lap belt is far better than wearing no seat belt at all."

I know of people who have suffered severe injuries from lap belts, which would not have occurred if they had been wearing three-point belts. I thus suggest to the Minister that there is room for further discussion about having regulations or at least guidance that is stronger.

Let me deal with the specific issue of the no-overtaking rule, which attracts very considerable support, certainly from the parents of schoolchildren. I notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is in her place and I know that this measure is widely supported in the north-east of Scotland. It is believed to be an important contributor to road safety, yet it is resisted by the Department. The Department argues that on higher-speed roads, higher-speed braking might be required, which could be hazardous in itself, while drivers waiting from a side road might be less likely to let an approaching bus pull out in front of them and, indeed, might be encouraged to overtake dangerously when they think the bus is going to stop. That is the Department's main argument and I am not saying that those considerations are not relevant, but I am not entirely persuaded by them.

The evidence I have seen suggests that where people know that something is the rule, they are likely to comply with it. The fact that it is advisory in the highway code seems to have absolutely no impact on behaviour at all. Perhaps because I have a direct interest-perhaps because I am, I hope, a careful and considerate road user and a parent of children of school age-I would certainly not consider overtaking a stationary bus that is picking up schoolchildren. I would be very mindful of the dangers and likelihood of children moving out into the road.

I am, of course, in favour of a safety culture that encourages children to go to the back of the bus and to wait for the bus to move off. All those things will contribute to safety and they are all relevant, but I can say without fear of contradiction that there is widespread belief that a no-overtaking rule would save lives, and notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the Department, it would be a net contribution to safety rather than the other way round. That requires it to be an understood and accepted law. Other arguments have been deployed, but I hope that I have addressed the key ones and I hope that the Minister will take them in good faith as worthy of further reflection.

Michael Penning (Shadow Minister, Health; Hemel Hempstead, Conservative):

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for generously allowing me to intervene in his Adjournment debate. If evidence is required and if evidence is also the basis of the Government's opposition, why have they not looked at countries where these measures have been in force for years and years, without producing the risks that the Government have adduced as evidence for not supporting a no-overtaking rule? Overtaking a school bus is a very serious offence in America, and there does not seem to have been any of these problems. The traffic stops because it has to; that is how it should be.

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon, Liberal Democrat):

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Government take issue with that, but I certainly agree that there is such evidence. I would also say-I am conscious of my time-that Aberdeenshire and Moray councils cannot adopt that because of the law, but they have adopted a whole variety of safety measures. They have run an excellent campaign under the logo "Bus Stop", they have set up a website, and they have made changes to regulations requiring all buses to have seat belts by 2010 and prohibiting double-decker buses for school transport.

I assure the House-this is directly relevant to the point made by the hon. Member -there is a clear willingness and, indeed, enthusiasm in Scotland to be given an opportunity to test the proposals in my Bill. I am a Liberal Democrat, not a Scottish nationalist, and I am not interested in an argument between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, but I am interested in establishing whether my proposals can be applied practically.

The hon. Gentleman said that we had evidence from elsewhere. We could have evidence from the United Kingdom if the Government would consider, for example, allowing a no-overtaking rule to apply in Scotland-it would probably require an area that large to be effective. It could be policed and administered by the Scottish Executive, who are keen to introduce it, and by local authorities in Scotland, which are keen to be part of any test. There could be a very constructive relationship between the two Parliaments which would be widely welcomed, and I urge the Minister to give it serious consideration.

A number of measures are being implemented by the local councils in the north-east of Scotland. Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen and Moray are to be congratulated on the action that they have taken. One example is the "See Me" system, consisting of a flashing light. We have dark evenings, which makes the light much more visible. A contact in Aberdeen suggested to me the introduction of warning signs that would indicate that children were passing the front or rear of the bus, rather like distance indicators. They could be fitted very cheaply, and it would be an example of the use of technology to deliver a safer environment for children travelling to and from school. It was described as a "bus-pedestrian safety control" by Alistair Maguire, who suggested it to me, and I think that the idea is worth exploring.

I want to give the Minister time to give a proper reply. Let me end by saying that I want to engage with him, that I think the campaigners would like to engage with him, and that I appreciate his offering that opportunity. The debate has given me a chance to put some of the terms of my Bill on record, to make the speech that I could not make when I presented it, and to explain some of the parameters. I should be grateful if the Minister did not dismiss them out of hand. I am aware of his objections and I am sure that he will wish to rehearse them, but I hope he will acknowledge that my proposals have been given a great deal of consideration by, among others, bus users, local authorities, parents and others with an interest in bus safety. They believe that the implementation of those proposals would make a real contribution, and they are a little disappointed by the Department's resistance.

The Department has a new ministerial team, which seems to me to present a fresh opportunity. Even if the Minister articulates the Department's reservations, which I expect him to do, I urge him to engage with us. I urge him to consider whether the Department can act, by means of adaptation or in some other way. I urge him to consider whether Scotland could test the proposals further, so that we could establish whether at least some of them could become law or be put into concrete effect. That would enable us to ensure that in future there are far fewer tragedies such as those that have blighted the lives of families in the north-east of Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom.

I hope that the Minister will engage with my proposals in a constructive spirit; I am sure that he will.

6:18 pm

Sadiq Khan (Minister of State, Department for Transport; Tooting, Labour):

I congratulate Malcolm Bruce on securing a debate on a subject that is so important to so many children, families and schools. How he managed to secure a debate on this subject that immediately follows an estimates day debate on road safety is beyond me, but I congratulate him on managing to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a coalition in his constituency, but it is no coincidence that Mike Penning and my hon. Friend Miss Begg were present to hear his speech. The way in which he tempered his remarks, and the way in which he has led the campaign, are reflected in the fact that Members on both sides of the House were present to listen to his valuable speech.

I was extremely sorry to hear about the recent deaths in Aberdeenshire of Alexander Milne, aged 12, and Robyn Oldham, aged 15, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The family and friends of young people who are killed, and those who survive but whose lives may be utterly changed by a tragic collision, have my deepest sympathy. Nothing I can say will bring them comfort, but I assure the House that we take the safety of children and of all road users very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman referred to my offer to meet him to discuss not only his private Member's Bill, but other issues. It was a genuine offer and I will listen with open ears to the points he makes at that meeting, just as I did to his short speech. I will not make a Second Reading speech or try to rebut the points that he made. Some of the key parts of his proposal are in place, while it is always worth reflecting on others proposals, especially where tragedies could be prevented in future.

All buses used for school transport must meet minimum regulatory standards to ensure that the vehicles can operate safely to carry passengers on the public highway. The safety provisions for single and double-decker buses are equivalent. Buses carrying children to and from school already have to show retro-reflective "Children" pictogram signs; their minimum size is prescribed, but larger versions may be used. Secondary reflective signs, with markings or wording to indicate that children are on board or nearby, are also permitted-the right hon. Gentleman wants them to be obligatory-as is the use of the hazard warning lights when children are getting on or off.

Since 1997, irrespective of the vehicle's age, all coaches and minibuses-though not public transport-type buses designed for urban use-have been required to have either lap seat belts or lap and diagonal seat belts fitted if they are used to carry groups of children aged between three and 15 on organised trips. That would include dedicated home-to-school transport. Since 2001, seat belts have also been required in all new buses, except those designed for urban use where standing passengers are carried.

The responsibility of choosing the appropriate vehicle for a particular journey rests with those making the arrangements. Schools and local authorities can specify requirements above the minimum within their contracts with school transport providers. For example, they could specify in the contract that they will accept only vehicles fitted with lap and diagonal belts, or that signs should be above the minimum size. They can also specify the fitting and use of additional hazard lights or illuminated signs, and the removal of signs when buses are not being used as school buses. It is perfectly open to local authorities in Scotland to do just that.

Stopping all traffic from passing a school bus if children are getting on or off-a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead-is of course a reserved matter; our traffic signs regulations, which would include the proposed stop signs on a school bus directed at other road users, apply in England, Scotland and Wales. National consistency in the use and meaning of traffic signs is extremely important to ensure good compliance, and this is particularly true with safety-critical signs. We have considered the suggestion of adopting the "all-stop" rule, and we do not think that it would be the safest option. Most children who travel to and from school by bus use ordinary public service buses, and would not benefit.

One of our concerns is the possibility that children who were afforded such protection on school journeys might develop a false sense of security and take less care when getting off public service buses, or when crossing the road at other times. I promised the right hon. Gentleman that I would have open ears, however, and I will discuss the detail with him and listen to him at our meeting. He referred to a pilot, and we can discuss that when we meet. The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead referred to the United States and to Canada, and we could look at the empirical evidence that exists in those countries. It is a mixed picture, but we can discuss it when we meet. There will not be a rebuttal; it will be a genuine discussion of whether there are possible solutions to the problems that the right hon. Gentleman identified.

The Department for Transport does much to promote the safety of children. Among other things, we issue advice, guidance and teaching materials. The Highway Code gives advice to drivers and other road users emphasising that drivers need to take special care when passing buses and bus stops. Rule 209 specifically covers stationary school buses displaying a school bus sign. The code is not in itself a legal document, but drivers are expected to be aware of its advice and failure to observe this can be cited in any prosecution for offences such as careless driving or dangerous driving. It cannot just be parents, or those with experience of bereavement, who drive safely; it must be all of us, especially around children.

I took my driving test so long ago that it did not have theory element-I am not sure how long ago other hon. Members present took their tests-but I have been assured that the theory element that now exists in the 21st century stresses the need to be aware of, and allow for, all vulnerable road users. It is important that people getting off the bus take special care as well, especially because large vehicles can hide them from the view of passing drivers. We advise in the highway code that people of all ages need to be careful at all times when crossing the road, and particularly that they should wait until the bus has moved away. That advice is repeated in much of the teaching and publicity information that we distribute, including our free booklets aimed at children beginning to cross roads and travel independently.

The first materials in our new, comprehensive set of road safety educational resources were issued this spring. They will cover all ages from four to 14, and will help teachers and local authorities to train and educate the children in their care. We have recently launched a new publicity campaign aimed at six to 11-year-olds, and we are planning a new teen road safety campaign for later this year. All these initiatives aim to instil good road-crossing behaviour and demonstrate the consequences of poor choices. We are currently disseminating the Kerbcraft child pedestrian training scheme, whose evaluation has shown that the scheme is highly effective in delivering a lasting improvement in children's road-crossing skills and understanding.

I could have responded to the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech by giving lots of reasons why we cannot do what he suggests, but I think it is far more important that I have put on record what currently takes place and will meet him to discuss with an open mind some of the matters he has raised. I welcome his comments, and he fairly said that it is not possible to change behaviour through legislation alone; we must look at all possible options and levers at our disposal in order to try to reduce deaths and injuries.

As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend Paul Clark, said in closing the estimates day debate on road safety, the statistics for injuries and deaths have decreased, but they are still not low enough. The fact that last year we had the second lowest number of deaths among young people since records began does not give me any comfort when I consider the facts of the two deaths to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. They are tragic, and they could have been prevented.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having introduced this debate, and to the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead for having stayed to the end. I consider the issue of promoting school bus safety to be very important. I hope that I have demonstrated both that we are very active and have an open mind in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned .

Read "School Bus Safety".

Debate on Gaza

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to House of Commons on Thu 15th Jan 2009

(HANSARD: 15 Jan 2009 : Column 425-427)

"I am pleased to speak after two of my colleagues on the Select Committee on International Development, the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), both of whom made very pertinent contributions in their own way. Importantly, we on the Committee, which has produced two reports on the occupied territories, have been increasingly depressed at the deterioration of the situation over a long period, and we are obviously horrified at the current situation.

The Department for International Development allocated $10 million for emergency relief, mostly through UNRWA, on top of £243 million that has been allocated over three years to support aid and development in the occupied territories of Palestine. However, not a penny of that money would have been needed if there had been peace. That money could have been spent in parts of the world where poor people need it just as much. It is frustrating for us that aid resources are being channelled in that way-not for development, but simply for first aid-and that conflict is costing our taxpayers.

Malcolm particularly made reference to the plight of the civilian population and teh role of the international community in the House of Commons debate on Gaza

I pay tribute to John Ging and the UNRWA team in Gaza, who are not only supporting the Gazan people through this time, but effectively sharing their suffering. UNRWA has given us detailed day-to-day information on just how horrific the situation has been. Bad and intolerable as the situation has been over the past two years, what has happened in the past three weeks has escalated the suffering, stress and humanitarian trauma to the civilian population beyond anything that can be justified by any provocation. Indeed, I am appalled at Members of this House trying to justify that degree of disproportionate action. Those 322 children have absolutely no responsibility for anything that has happened, and they are now dead. The House should acknowledge that we cannot stand by and accept that.

Not only that, but comments have been made about the role of Hamas. Hamas was democratically elected, and however much we might dislike it or condemn some its utterances and many of its actions, the actions of the past few weeks are likely to make Palestinians in Gaza and the west bank more likely not only to support Hamas rather than less, but even to begin to wonder how they will ever live in an independent Palestinian state alongside an Israel that behaves in the way that it has behaved in the past two or three weeks. It is important to recognise that if we do not take firm action and give a lead in delivering a proper peace process, we may well create a united Palestinian unity, albeit one under Hamas. Then the international community will have to determine how to deal with it.

Our Committee did not agree on how we should deal with Hamas, but most of us took the view that we had to engage in some way. The irony is that the United Kingdom has a long history of doing precisely that kind of thing. We had to deal with Mau Mau, with EOKA and with the IRA. No agreement was ever achieved other than by talking to those groups before agreeing the conditions for concluding an agreement. That seems to be a lesson that we can reasonably take from history.

In a very good statement on Monday, the Foreign Secretary said that the United Kingdom

"supported resolution 1860-to uphold the standards on which Israel and the rest of us depend."-[ Official Report, 12 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 23.]

However, I would suggest that that resolution goes further than that. This is the crucial point that the Foreign Secretary was making. It is not just that Israel must recognise its responsibility as a legitimate state and a member of the United Nations, with all the obligations that that entails. The point is that the international community, particularly the United Kingdom, which played such a crucial role in creating the state of Israel, would be tainted by association with breaches of international law, flagrant disregard for UN resolutions and the possible perpetration of war crimes if we failed to ensure that a member state with which we are closely associated complied with international law on terms that we subscribe to. If we fail to act, we will be tarnished with collective guilt by association.

That is what our citizens are saying so strongly to the Government. They feel that they share responsibility for the conflict, and they want the Government to accept their responsibility to use their initiative, in concert with others, to try to ensure a resolution. Surely we have to seize an opportunity from the worst and darkest hour. All this death and conflict-and the possibility, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, that Israel has made a tactical error-can be turned around if the new Administration in the United States, with a lead from the United Kingdom and Europe, say that Hamas has to recognise the mistakes it has made, that Israel has to recognise its responsibility and, above all, that we all have to recognise that the Palestinian people should not be exposed to this degree of suffering in future. We have to ensure that the regime that operates in Israel and the Palestinian states is designed to give prosperity, peace and a functioning state to Israel and Palestine, because the alternative is the disintegration of the entire region."

ENDS

Read "Debate on Gaza".

Debate on Aid Transparency in the House of Commons: 13th Nov 2008

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP on Thu 13th Nov 2008

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I certainly do not intend to try to follow that pub rant from the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), which seems to be considerably at odds with the views of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) and gives a degree of discomfort to the idea that we have a modern, reformed, liberal-minded Conservative party that wants to engage in these issues. Of course, there is an entirely reasonable debate to be had about how DFID should deploy its staff and its resources and in how many countries, and what its priorities are. My Committee, the International Development Committee, regards its prime function as to call the Department to account, challenge it on its policies and make constructive recommendations, which I hope that we do.

Transparency is one of those issues that is very easy to talk about and a lot more difficult to deliver. It is not always possible to turn every expenditure of cash into a

measurable result, but we must try to do it, as far as possible, for exactly the reasons that have been stated-to reassure taxpayers at home that the money is being spent effectively to achieve the objectives and to reassure people in the countries on the receiving end that their Governments are using the money to good effect.

As I understand it, a significant aspect of providing direct budget support is to try to enable the developing country to build up the capacity to control its own budget and expenditure and to deliver services, ultimately to the point at which the revenues that are generated allow the development support to be phased out and withdrawn. Whenever my Committee and I visit DFID offices in various countries, we always ask the staff to what extent their budget is being distributed under direct budget support, and what engagement they have with the people with whom they are working in government to ensure that as far as possible-allowing for the fact that it is their choice, not ours, what the money is delivered for-it is being spent properly. That is a difficult ask, and the situation needs to be consistently and constantly monitored and improved. Several of the Government's initiatives represent at least an attempt to put in place processes and procedures that will improve the quality of that process. I do not think that they will be offended if I say that we have some way to go, but that is not necessarily to suggest that we are doing the wrong things.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield expressed concern about some of the countries that are receiving direct budget support and suggested that our Committee might investigate that, and we are happy to discuss whether and how we might do so in future. I assure him that we continually discuss and ask about direct budget support. We are going to visit Kenya and Tanzania in pursuit of our inquiry into sustainable development in a changing climate, but also with an awareness that Tanzania is the largest recipient of direct budget support in Africa. The Committee will want to ask about that and try to provide reassurance, which I hope might be helpful to the Department as well.

The new Administration in the United States should not be lost sight of in this context. The US Congress and the present Administration have argued that they do not approve of direct budget support and will not give it. It is sometimes argued that they are hiding behind the idea that congressional rules will not allow it, but Congress has the capacity to change its rules. It has been suggested that under the new Administration the United States might be willing to move, albeit gently, towards giving direct budget support in partnership and co-ordination with other donors, and we must not say anything that deters them from doing that. We should not say that it is fundamentally wrong, only that it is challenging and that we must ensure that it is effectively delivered.

Indeed, it is in that context that co-ordination among donors is important. If we can get all the European donors, the United States, Canada and perhaps even Japan to agree to a set of rules, or even to channel aid through the same vehicles, as we are trying to do in Afghanistan, there will be a much greater chance of delivering better accountability, better transparency and better quality aid, and we will do so in such a way that the country on the receiving end will have the capacity to absorb aid more effectively.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Chairman of the Select Committee make two particular inquiries about direct budgetary support transparency? First, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned substitution, whereby giving aid to a country allows their leaders to spend money on jets, for example, which is undesirable. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman examine how much money is getting to the projects it is supposed to support on the ground, rather than being creamed off in corruption at the centre?

Malcolm Bruce: I am perfectly happy to do that, but I can also assure the hon. Gentleman that those are the sort of questions that we have asked. On Uganda, about which questions have been raised, it is interesting that the Ugandan Government had an agreement with the community about money being spent on education in which they undertook to nail on the school door a breakdown of the budget allocated, where it was coming from and how it would be spent so that the community could monitor the situation.

That brings me to my second point: we have to develop countries' capacity to monitor their own expenditure effectively. That means working with Parliaments and with civic society. When we have a debate about ownership of aid and development by developing countries, we have to understand clearly that we are talking about ownership not only by the Government, but as far as possible, by the people. We need to give Parliaments information that allows them to call their Governments to account, and work with civic society to challenge MPs and inform the public. That is probably the best defence against money being misappropriated, although we have to accept that in many cases it will take many years for a strong and sophisticated capacity of that sort to develop.

It has sometimes been argued that there is a sort of perverse, inverse relationship between aid and development. Professor Collier calls it the Dutch disease; he asserts that in some cases, the more aid a country is given, the less responsive it is-the poorer it gets, in other words. His argument is that the purchase of local currency creates a drain, which cannot be offset if there is no strong economy. To counter that, I would say that his is an argument for ensuring that the aid is of high quality and is well targeted, not an argument for not giving the aid.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. On Uganda, I remind him that during the visit I mentioned earlier, we had the opportunity to meet the Minister of Finance. He opened the books, and one of the most glaring aspects of what he told us was debt repayment. It was absolutely astonishing. We found that developed countries were already benefiting a great deal from the poorest countries in the world, and given the right hon. Gentleman's experience, I am sure that he would want to acknowledge the progress that we have made in that field.

Malcolm Bruce: I do. It is always difficult when one gets drawn into a detailed debate about an individual country, because of the complexity within. It is absolutely true that debt repayment, and in some cases the liquidation of that debt, has been a key part of the process. At the end of the day, it is important that future arrangements

do not sink into that sort of relationship. Countries should be able to borrow, but on their own terms, not unfair terms, and with debts that can be properly serviced, not what might be called odious debt. We must avoid returning to that situation.

Two or three topical concerns have already been raised, but one has not been, and it is one on which I suspect the Minister cannot make any immediate comment. I was somewhat horrified, just before I came into the Chamber, to see John Ging being interviewed live from Gaza on BBC News 24, saying that 750,000 people there are desperately in need of food aid from the United Nations Works and Relief Agency, and that they have had no supplies delivered since yesterday. He says that the food is on the Israeli side of the border and that the Israelis are refusing to allow it to pass, which is contrary to their international obligations and the law, which permits humanitarian relief.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will at least use his good offices to ensure that the UK applies appropriate pressure so that the food gets through. Those who need it are mostly destitute women and children and unemployed men, who have no other form of income in a small territory where there is no other food to be had. That is not usually the case-even in the poorest countries, it is amazing how food can sometimes be obtained. However, given that Gaza is shut in, the problem is serious.

Yesterday, members of the Committee had the opportunity to ask the Secretary of State about the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We did not get a clear answer-he undertook to write to us-about the reason for the extent of the delay in reaching some people, or even identifying them. It was disturbing to read about and see television pictures of people who had had no food for two or three days, and sometimes up to six days. Clearly, the consequences do not require stressing in the Chamber.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The problem is that people are not fleeing to semi-established or established camps. They are fleeing, in the clothes that they stand up in, into a most inhospitable jungle territory. That is why it is taking so long to get desperately needed support to those who are suffering.

Malcolm Bruce: I understand, and I am grateful for that intervention. I am simply trying to say that we can imagine the consequences if we cannot reach those people soon.

Several of us attended the round-table briefing about Afghanistan, which brought us up to date, at the Foreign Office this morning. The results of a BBC poll, based on a stark and rather silly question, were published yesterday and showed that 68 per cent. of the British people wanted our troops to be withdrawn within a year. The question did not provide any context, but revealed a problem. Liberal Democrat Members-and, I believe, most Members-believe that engagement with Afghanistan is necessary. It is in the interests of British security and right for the people of Afghanistan, even if it is a difficult and challenging place to be. There are concerns about the way in which we communicate that.

It is understandable, given that the United Kingdom's military commitment is in Helmand and that significant numbers of men and women in our armed forces are dying in that engagement, that the British people question the reason for putting our troops in harm's way to that extent in such a far-away place. That tends to lead to an exclusive focus on what happens in Helmand, and does not take into account the fact that Afghanistan is a substantial country, and that not everywhere is in the same position as Helmand. Indeed, approximately 75 to 80 per cent. of British aid and development expenditure happens in other parts of the country through the national Government to help achieve important development objectives, such as getting children, including more than 2 million girls, back into school, and impressively providing at least basic health care throughout the country. Other objectives include improving communications and roads and are mostly financed by the United States. In other words, the picture is not all negative and bad.

The nature of society in Afghanistan means that it has never had a unified Government and bureaucracy running the entire country. It has always been run through some form of agency-local leaders, warlords, tribal chiefs and so on. It is therefore not surprising that that continues to happen to some extent. It does not mean that the country is not being governed, that state money is not being properly spent or that services are not reaching the people. However, as our Committee found when we visited, the people of Afghanistan are all too often unaware of what is happening. It is simple for a local governor to pretend that all the largesse-it is not much largesse; we are considering a very poor country-is somehow his creation rather than something that has come from the central Government. Similarly, central Government want to claim the credit, rather than admit that the help comes from the international community.

That is a dilemma. It is a problem if we cannot win the Afghan people's hearts and minds and show them that we are in a genuine partnership-a partnership between the international community and the people, to try to achieve the stability and ability to develop that they want, and between the people of our country and Afghanistan to enable it to build up a viable state.

That is a challenge for us, but we all have a responsibility to fulfil it, at least so that the great sacrifices of our forces will have been made not in vain or for a failed project, but for one that, however difficult, might ultimately be achieved. I suggest-I say this with the Secretary of State in his place once more-that there is scope for more explanation of the interaction between the military and DFID in Afghanistan and of how things work. Those of us who are engaged in the debate understand that, but even in the House and certainly among the wider public, there is a lack of understanding about how those aspects interact. There is a form of transparency that is not about just money, but about understanding aims and objectives and what is happening.

The Secretary of State quite understandably mentioned the undertakings that were made in Accra and has probably read, as I have, Simon Maxwell's blog. Having honestly said that he was not sure what Accra was all about when he went, Simon Maxwell paid tribute to the Secretary of State for the energy that he had expended in trying to secure an agreement that contained real commitments, rather than just platitudinous statements, which is what people told the Committee they feared it

would contain when we visited earlier in the year. I am happy to share that acknowledgment. As Simon Maxwell also said, it is fine to get a lot of countries signing up to a big commitment, but people will want to see what that means in terms of ownership and buy-in.

That leads me back-I am happy to conclude on this point-to the relationship between the donors and the developing countries and the people living there. The reason why DFID was created as a distinct Department was to separate foreign policy from development and to focus on poverty reduction, so that development policy would not be compromised by being an instrument of foreign policy or by commercial interests. That has been a success, both in persuading the British people that our aid programme is worthy of support and in determining our approach, which has helped DFID to achieve a position of leadership throughout the world.

I must also echo what the Under-Secretary said. The entire staff of DFID comprise about 2,500 people, which includes foreign nationals employed in overseas office. That core-the UK part of it, at least-is under the same strictures of staff reduction as staff in other Departments are. That is a challenge for the Department and there is no doubt a shortage of expertise. There are ways around the problem, ingenious or not, that need to be pursued. There are also questions about how one might prioritise-in terms not only of money, but of staff-what we do and do not do, both sectorally and in individual countries.

Although I did not take too much to the style of the speech that the hon. Member for Monmouth made, it is always perfectly possible to conduct a proper review of the number of countries we engage in and how effectively we do so, although I understand that a significant number of offices have been closed this year.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the constraints on numbers that operate across Whitehall, including DFID. Let me reiterate that we think it is absolutely absurd that DFID staffing figures are being restricted at a time when the budget is rising significantly. The staffing level should be set to meet that rising budget, not the reverse.

Malcolm Bruce: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The Committee has not completed its report this year, but we certainly acknowledge the pressures and have expressed our concerns. The permanent secretary is obviously constrained by the rules across Government, but she conceded that the Department was struggling. That is something that we should take to heart.

I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the website, which I believe has some merit, and to ask the Department to consider it. Perhaps the Secretary of State could give some thought to the exact purpose of the website. Whenever our Committee visits countries in which we have an engaged programme, we visit DFID. I am sure that other Committees visit their relevant Departments. We usually get an extremely thorough, detailed briefing from the DFID office, showing what is being spent, what the priorities are, the breakdown, and an honest question and answer session. A lot of that information could be in the public domain. It would help if we could go to the website and find out exactly what the budget is and what the priorities are in more detail and in a more up-to-date way. That would make the website more interactively beneficial and the Department more transparent. It could address some of the concerns: it is not that people are against what is being done; they just do not know what is being done, which makes them either suspicious or inclined to ask questions. Will the Secretary of State consider whether more could be done to make the information more accessible and transparent?

The Committee's report looked at how we as a country and the international donor community could work more effectively together. It became clear in that process that how effectively we can work depends on whom we are working with. The Committee, in choosing which of our European partners to have a dialogue with, made a journey from Rome to Berlin to Copenhagen and then, via video link, to Stockholm. Not to put too fine a point on it, I am glad that we did it in that order, because the reverse process would have been deeply depressing.

The reality, as far as I can see, is that the Italians have pretty well opted out of supporting the commitment to international aid and development. The previous Italian Government were in the process of setting up their own development agency; the present Italian Government have abandoned it. I am grateful that they are continuing to support the multi-national organisations, but that is probably about saving face among their peers. They support the Rome-based institutions but, beyond that, there is very little commitment.

I do not want to do a qualitative analysis, but there is a group of countries that we, the Foreign Office and DFID call the northern liberals, and which the Scandinavian countries refer to as the Nordic-plus countries-basically, the Scandinavian countries, plus the Netherlands, the UK and Ireland. We are definitely like-minded and work together. Doing so can have a huge impact in driving the right kind of development. By that, I mean development that is designed to reduce poverty, to give poor people in developing countries a degree of ownership and control over the quality of aid and development, and to help them to call their Governments to account. In that way, they can be part of the process of lifting themselves out of poverty and achieving the success and development that they have been denied for so long, but which they richly deserve.

Read "Debate on Aid Transparency in the House of Commons: 13th Nov 2008".

The House Magazine: Forward with federalism

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to The Liberal Democrat Conference Publication of The House Magazine on Mon 15th Sep 2008

The SNP may be in pole position, but the Scottish Lib Dems have reason to be optimistic, says Malcolm Bruce.

Liberal Democrats throughout the UK have mourned the loss of two staunch and inspirational Liberal Democrats this year. First Ray Michie, MP for Argyll and Bute from 1987 to 2001, succumbed to cancer; and in July came the sudden death of Russell Johnston, who was MP for Inverness from 1964 to 1997. Both were strong supporters of home rule and constituency MPs with a great love of the Highlands and the Gaelic language.

Russell led the party and also served as president, presenting uplifting Liberal speeches to a whole generation of Liberals. He was also distinguished in Europe, where he became president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

Scottish Liberal Democrats have been in the vanguard of shaping modern Scotland and continue to develop policies which command the support of the people of Scotland. The last general election saw the party win nearly a quarter of the votes cast, and the election of 11 MPs. Willie Rennie's sensational by-election victory in Dunfermline took the total to 12. This is more MPs than the SNP have ever secured, yet the significance of this achievement is not widely acknowledged in the Scottish media.

What is more widely acknowledged is the near-demise of the Conservative Party in Scotland as a credible political force, the implosion of Labour's hegemony and emergence of the SNP administration by a one-seat margin in last year's Holyrood elections.

There is no doubt that the SNP has been able to attract disaffected former Labour voters and Tories who see the party, in some areas at least, as the best way of defeating Labour. Yet support for independence has fall and polls generally show that most voters in Scotland want more powers for the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom - very close to the Liberal Democrats' federal policy.

But Liberal Democrats have adapted better to opposition than Labour, who have been in disarray, or the Conservatives, who - astonishing for a Unionist party - have cosied up to the SNP, helping them secure their incoherent, inadequately costed and almost illegal budget.

Week after week at first minister's questions in was Nicol Stephen who discomfited Alex Salmond the most, revealing the SNP leader's less attractive side, as he becomes personal and abusive when riled. Nicol's decision to stand down for family reasons is understandable.

Our new leader will need to present a strong case to persuade a majority of Scottish voters that the Liberal Democrats are closest to their interests and aspirations. Opting for a populist movement whose key objective you don't share is a risky decision.

Politics needs to rise about choosing another group to whinge about. It is about securing Scotland's place in a UK with a positive role in the world, based on its domestic tolerance, freedom, inclusion and enterprise. It is about an agenda for a Liberal Scotland in a Liberal UK, setting an example of Liberal Democracy to the world.

Nick Clegg tells us, and I agree, that there are more people of Liberal leaning than vote Liberal Democrat. We have to show them north and south of the border that voting Liberal Democrat will change the character of politics radically for the better.

Read "The House Magazine: Forward with federalism".

Reconstructing Afghanistan

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to Westminster Hall, Houses of Parliament, Column 489WH onwards on Thu 10th Jul 2008

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): The members of my Committee are pleased to have the opportunity to debate our report. Although many things have happened in the fairly long period since we began our inquiry and published the report, we feel strongly that the role of the British Government in Afghanistan is crucial to that region.

I shall open the debate by summarising in a couple of sentences what is needed if we are to secure a future for Afghanistan. The country needs improved security, a crackdown on corruption and a strong human rights culture, especially in relation to women. The international community is helping, and should be striving to help, the Government of Afghanistan to achieve those three key things.

I will not delay right hon. and hon. Members by summarising the report: they can read it for themselves, and probably have done so already. When Committee members visited Afghanistan last October, we took the opportunity to try to get as broad a view of the country as we could. For that reason, not only did we spend time in Kabul and the surrounding Shamali plain, but we divided, with half going to Helmand and the other half, including myself, going to Balkh province in the north and to Mazar-e-Sharif. When we came together, we had a complementary idea of a diverse country, with a great variety of things happening in different parts of it.

I say at the outset, perhaps for the benefit of opinion and the media in this country, that Afghanistan should not be confused with Iraq: the reasons why we are there, what are doing there, and the purposes and circumstances by which we came to be there are fundamentally different.

Mr. Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth, East) (Con): I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I commend him on his report. Many hon. Members have had an opportunity to visit both Afghanistan and Iraq. On analysis, there is a clear concern that the pace of reconstruction and development under the fragile umbrella of security was not apparent in Iraq and is not apparent in Afghanistan, for exactly the same reason. There are therefore lessons for each country to be learned from the other.

Malcolm Bruce: I accept that there may be lessons to be learned on reconstruction, but my point is that often the two engagements are conflated in the British press as though they were similar in context, and they simply are not. That important point needs to be made. Whatever people's views are on Iraq and Afghanistan, the situations

in those countries should be treated as two completely separate engagements, rather than two sides of the same one.

There is evidence of strong support among the Afghan people for the international community's engagement within their country. Indeed, we were repeatedly told that, if anything, people were concerned that we would not stay, or would not stay for long enough. That we should not be there was not a message that we heard to any significant extent.

Nobody should underestimate either the challenges, which are huge, or the uncertainty of the outcome; our report makes that absolutely clear. More than 100 British service personnel have died engaging with insurgents in Helmand. It is perhaps understandable that that has become a strong focus of the United Kingdom media, and rightly so. It is, however, encouraging to note the comment of Sir Jock Stirrup, Chief of the Defence Staff, last month:

"Make no mistake, the Taliban influence is waning, and through British blood, determination and grit, a window of opportunity has been opened."

Windows open and close, but an opportunity has been created.

It is important to recognise that the aim of UK policy in Afghanistan is to assist the country to build up a viable and efficient state, and for public services to create a climate for development and poverty reduction. Although the number of competent administrators is limited-one estimate that we heard when we were there was that there were as few as 200-the education, health and rural development Ministries are markedly improving delivery of basic services. Six million children are in school, more than one third of them girls, a high proportion of the population have access to basic health services, and agricultural production has improved in some parts of the country.

Part of the international community's work has been to train the Afghan national army, where there has been positive achievement. That was borne out in the successful NATO-supported action to recapture Musa Qala. On the other hand, training the police force so that local people can trust them is proving to be a challenge, and the general perception still seems to be that the administration of justice throughout Afghanistan is dire. There has been a shortage of police trainers. The Government, who have said that the number of UK policing experts in Afghanistan is rising, are providing support to the EU police mission to Afghanistan-EUPOL Afghanistan-and working with the US-led police training programme. Will the Minister tell us how many EUPOL trainers there are in Afghanistan, how many are UK police, and what progress has been made in increasing the number of female police officers?

Providing security, especially in the south of the country, is crucial to the future, and that makes the role of British forces key. It is important to remember that Afghanistan is a diverse country, which needs to develop national administration that is free from corruption and accessible by all, especially women. During our visit, it was disappointing how often we heard people say, "We appreciate what the British are doing in Helmand; it is a pity that you are not engaged elsewhere in the country." In reality, the overwhelming majority of our aid and development budget is being delivered to the national Government to provide services throughout Afghanistan, yet the focus is on Helmand.

On the role of women and their rights, the context is not the same as in any western country. Afghanistan is an intensely male-dominated society where women's rights have traditionally been limited. It is disappointing that since liberation and the establishment of democratic government, the country seems to be moving backwards. When the Government were created, there were four female Ministers and between eight and 12 female deputy Ministers. Today, there is only one female Minister, and three female deputy Ministers. Apart from the deputy health Minister, the others are all in the Ministry for Women's Affairs. In other words, women are being patronisingly compartmentalised.

Yesterday, I met Afghan journalist, Horia Musadeq, who gave me further cause for concern. Promises that a vacancy for a senior judge would be filled by a woman have not been kept and the post has now been filled by a man. The implementation of the justice action plan is not progressing, and the human rights component of the electoral commission is being diminished, leading to concerns that perpetrators of human rights abuses will continue to dominate the Parliament. Horia also told me that freedom of expression is being restricted by the application of the new media law and the use of blasphemy laws.

I suggest that the international community should make it abundantly clear that the long-term commitment to Afghanistan depends on the country establishing international standards against corruption and upholding the rights of its citizens, especially its women. If Afghanistan is to survive and to develop as a viable state, it needs improved security, a crackdown on corruption and a strong human rights culture. Will the Minister tell us how the Department for International Development, in co-ordination with other bodies, will monitor and prioritise that, and specifically-this was mentioned in the Government's response to our report-how it will apply the gender equality action plan in Afghanistan?

The other focus of interest whenever Afghanistan is discussed is inevitably poppy cultivation. Partly through a policy of substitution that has made 20 provinces poppy-free, and partly because of a market glut, overall production is expected to fall. It is interesting that rising prices for other crops-notably wheat-have also helped. Although it is not always understood, there is a direct correlation between poppy production and insecurity. Some people think that all we have to do is to destroy the poppy crop, but that debate has no resonance because the Afghanistan Government will not allow that and, frankly, I do not blame them, because it would destroy the soil's reproductive capacity. There is no point debating destruction of the poppy crop because that is not going to happen.

It is more to the point to ask why farmers grow poppies. It is not the best crop for money, but the criminal elements who buy it come to the farm gate with cash and take the crop away, which eliminates the need to travel off the farm and thus the risk of bribery and ambush on the way to market and intimidation by criminal elements. If farmers were provided with security in the form of protection from intimidation and with access to the market at reasonable cost and safety, other crops would become more attractive.

Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am impressed by what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. In paragraph 131 of the report, his Committee emphasises that

"Controlling drug trafficking between Afghanistan and Pakistan"

is "a necessary condition" to tackle the issue. Paragraph 80, which covers a related issue, says that

"greater international pressure should be placed on Pakistan to control more effectively the Federally Administered Tribal Areas."

What he is saying about cultivation and security rings true in two powerful paragraphs in his report.

Malcolm Bruce: Those paragraphs demonstrate that targeting poppy farmers is the wrong approach, and that it is necessary to target the perpetrators of the traffic. It is encouraging that the new Pakistan Government have indicated that they intend to take strong action in the frontier territories to tackle the Taliban and other criminal elements. One must remember that the border is huge and infamous. It is not internationally recognised-only the UK and Pakistan do so-and has a notorious reputation in world and specifically British history. That reputation has not changed much in recent years.

Mr. John Horam (Orpington) (Con): I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about drug trafficking and so on. What impression did he get of the border with Iran? What actions are the Iranian Government taking to stop drug trafficking?

Malcolm Bruce: We received a little information in passing on that, but we did not go to that end of the country, nor did we take specific evidence. Clearly, there is a lot of traffic across the border between western Afghanistan and Iran. There was evidence that the behaviour of the Iranian Government could have a positive or a negative effect, and at different times it had had both those effects.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I endorse the right hon. Gentleman's last point: our strong impression was that although there had been incidents on the Iranian side, stability in the relationship with Iran is crucial, and the wrong sort of activities on the other side or directed towards Iran could set up a chain of events in Afghanistan that would be far from helpful.

Malcolm Bruce: Yes. The relationship between the Governments and people of Iran and Afghanistan, and the traffic that crosses the border, are complicated. The Iranian Government do not want a lot of drugs imported into their society, so to some extent they take strong action against it, which is helpful. However, they want a relationship with those whom they consider to be their kith and kin over the border. At other times they are a little less engaging. One can tell that when they are doing the right thing in that context, the problem is diminished, and when they are not, the problem is not diminished. That is another dimension to the international problem of how to deal with Iran, although that it not the subject of this debate.

Mr. Ellwood: The right hon. Gentleman says that Iran is not part of this debate, but Afghanistan is a mixture of identities, religions, ethnic groupings and so on. Afghanistan is a patchwork quilt of loyalties, not just one country, and that is where the constitutional model has gone wrong. Does he agree that where things have gone well in the east, it relates to Iran being the only country to invest in a railway line going to Herat? That will allow the east of Afghanistan to start trading. It is trade and investment that will replace poppies.

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): The west.

Mr. Ellwood: Sorry, I meant the west.

Malcolm Bruce: Of course, I accept that entirely. Although we did not go to Herat, we had many reports of how successful that area was. Certainly, those of us who visited Mazar-e-Sharif saw some pretty lively economic activity. That is important, but at the end of the day, if Afghanistan is given security, good roads, a decent education system and so on, it will have the capacity to create a successful economy. However, there are a lot of presumptive buts and ifs attached to that, which is precisely why the focus of this debate is how we create the climate it to happen.

I shall now go to the next stage and move from the subject of poppy growing to that of the agricultural support that the Committee thought was necessary. We have recently had a wider debate about agriculture and the extent to which the world community has taken its eye off the ball in supporting agriculture as part of the development strategy throughout the world. We should not suddenly come rushing back to agriculture because it is fashionable in this year of high prices; we need to deal with the matter in a way that is coherent and has been thought through.

Let me give a practical example. We visited a village in Balkh where the community had been persuaded by old-fashioned methods-namely, threats-to stop cultivating poppy. The villager had therefore started to grow water melons, of which they had no previous experience. I have no expertise in relation to water melons, but I understand that the problem is that they are prone to attack from a particular kind of flea. When the villagers' water melons suffered such an attack, they could not find anyone to advise them on how to deal with the problem. As a result, they did not say they would be better off with poppy; what they said was, "We've got a crop from which we're not deriving much of an income." They also said, "Thank you for the support you've given us in providing a clean water supply for the humans in the village, but we don't have enough water for our animals, which are dying." The people need irrigation to feed animals and for proper extension services to be provided by the Afghan authorities-perhaps with our support and expertise-to enable farmers to switch to other produce. We also need to ensure that people know how to manage and deal with those alternatives, as it will enable farmers not only to come out of poppy growing, but to find a long-term future from alternative sources.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): The right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech and the point that is dealt with in some detail in his Committee's report, which has been the subject of a number of interventions, leads me as a matter of courtesy to say to the Minister that it would be extremely helpful if he set out for hon. Members in the clearest possible terms what the Government's counter-narcotics strategy is in Afghanistan. We are spending a lot of money on this important work, so it would be extremely helpful if he told hon. Members from the Committee and other hon. Members precisely how that strategy is determined and what it aims to achieve.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have a question about the agriculture strategy that relates to his point. The Government have committed £345 million to development in Afghanistan in the 2008-11 spending review. Will the Minister indicate, either now or in writing, how much of that resource will go into horticulture, livestock, agriculture and rural development, and in what form? That is part of our recommendations.

It is fair to say that there are vested interests in the UK in terms of agricultural research, academia and other areas and that, of course, the people involved with that have an agenda; however, it is not one that is not legitimate. Such people say that they have underutilised expertise that they feel could help. We obviously want to build up the capacity of the Afghan Government, not import capacity from outside, but I believe that we can work alongside Afghans and train them to improve the quality of their extension services.

John Battle (Leeds, West) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman will find that there is a parliamentary question in my name asking for a breakdown of DFID's funds. It is important to remember that our Committee is the International Development Committee and not the Foreign Affairs Committee. I make that point because it is important that we focus on poverty reduction in Afghanistan and make sure that the funds-certainly those from DFID-go into poverty reduction in Afghanistan and do not trickle into other areas. Of course security is important, but if we lose that funding focus, we will not crack the problem of poverty eradication.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that pertinent, timely and extraordinarily important point, which reinforces again the distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iraq is not a poor country, whereas Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. We should be engaged in helping to reduce that poverty. The truth is that if Iraq were a stable non-threatening country, we would not be there, other than as a trading partner or whatever. That is a fundamental and radical difference.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to make that point and to make it clear to other hon. Members here who are not members of our Committee that our focus is fundamentally on development. However, as in so many cases, it is impossible to avoid the security, defence and foreign affairs dimensions to these matters. I will come to that point at the end of my speech. We completely understand that there are other complex reasons for our being in Afghanistan, but we should never lose sight of our development priority. It is right to ensure that development money is not diverted to other purposes that might be legitimate, but for which development money has not been provided. It is easy to be misunderstood, and people often do misrepresent what is happening and suggest a rather confused idea of what the British Government are doing in Afghanistan.

On a practical point-I do not want this to be seen as in any way ironic-when we visited Afghanistan, we would not have been able to cover the ground and see what we did in the week we were there if we had not had access to a plane that was seconded to the use of the British embassy at that time, particularly because our Committee split and went to opposite ends of the country during a very short visit. At the time, we were concerned-we have mentioned this in the report-that the plane was only available for the short term and was likely to be withdrawn. We have made a specific recommendation stating our hope that the British embassy and British development staff will continue to have access to a plane, because we feel that that would greatly assist their ability to cover the ground. We know that it is expensive, but the reality is that without the plane, those staff would essentially be confined to operating in Kabul and Helmand, and they would not be able to reach the rest of the country, especially given that many of them are on a short-term rotation for security reasons. Will the Minister say whether a decision has been taken and, if so, what decision has been made on the future of the plane or making a similar arrangement?

I reinforce the point that nobody should underestimate the challenges and difficulties of operating in the post-conflict environment of today's Afghanistan; our Committee certainly does not. Conversely, however, nobody should underestimate the cost of failure. Afghanistan is the fulcrum of an immensely unstable part of the world. It is the source of the world's drug traffic and the hub of the world's terrorist training network. A stable, developing Afghanistan has positive implications for its neighbourhood; a failed Afghanistan would hugely destabilise what is potentially the most volatile region in the world. Anybody who suggests that Afghanistan is a far-away place of which we know little and that we should not be there fundamentally fails to understand why it is central to our national interest now, as it has been in the past.

Afghanistan is also a point of concern and focus because of the plight of its people, who have been battered to hell from all kinds of sources and from every different direction. Understandably, they are doubtful and frustrated at not knowing what their future might be. Time and again, we were told that because of their experience, the people of Afghanistan fundamentally do not trust anybody; they simply do not believe that anybody will stay long enough or be consistent. That is why Ministers and others in the international community repeatedly say, "This is a commitment for a generation. We will be there be 20 or 30 years." That is not some sort of bold, post-imperialist statement; it is a real attempt to reassure the people of Afghanistan that we understand that building up a viable state is not something that will be achieved in the short term and that we are there to work with them to deliver that.

Progress is being made, as the Secretary of State highlighted in his speech in Kabul on 29 June. He also highlighted the challenges and opportunities. Afghanistan is our business in terms of both contributing to security and helping some of the poorest people in the world to lift themselves out of poverty. There will be setbacks and shortfalls, but as long as we can engage with constructive partners in the country and recognise the case for long-term commitment, that is what we should do. I urge the British media and the British public to understand and to recognise that what we are trying to do in Afghanistan is a noble venture, and we must stick to it.

ENDS

Read "Reconstructing Afghanistan".

House Magazine Article: Building a Nation by Nightfall

Speech by Malcolm Bruce on security, reconstruction, trade and development in Afghanistan delivered to House Magazine on Mon 2nd Jun 2008

Malcolm visited Afghanistan last year with the International Development Committee to see reconstruction projects

Much of the media coverage on Afghanistan in the UK relates directly to Britain's military engagement in the region. As a committee whose remit concerns International Development, our focus when conducting our recent inquiry was on the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

Since reconstruction and development can only be achieved through the maintenance of peace and security, any development work does rely on the success of the military mission. Purely from a Development perspective, the conclusion that can be reached is that the overall military engagement in Afghanistan is far less than it needs to be.

The first major challenge therefore is for the Afghan National Army to reach its capability. There has been progress in this area already, as was shown when Afghan troops played a large part in the successful battle for Musa Qala, alongside NATO forces. Training and mentoring from UK forces has helped the Army, which is just two to three years away from achieving capacity.

The same cannot currently be said for the development of the civilian police force. Reports of corruption, partly attributed to low pay and drug use, within the Afghan National Police, are eroding confidence amongst the general populace. In a bid to speed up progress on this front, training has recently been streamlined and now falls under a joint European mission, but concrete results as yet remain elusive.

One of the main challenges for the EU Police Mission must be to face up to the lack of female police officers. Less than 1 per cent of the 63,000 police being paid salaries in 2006 were women and, in a country where men and women are often segregated, this needs to be addressed if women are to feel comfortable reporting crimes.

The justice system is also currently failing to address the needs of women. Although many women do not have confidence in the state courts, more traditional and informal justice mechanisms, such as Shar'ia, which is still widespread, tend to discriminate against women, children and other minorities. The UK Government has contributed £2.5 million towards a new Justice Sector Reform Project, but what is really needed is advice and encouragement from other Islamic countries about how Afghanistan can establish a judicial system that complies with its international human rights obligations.

Many charities have expressed concern that funding by international donors has disproportionately favoured the development of policing and the army in favour of the judicial and agriculture sectors.

When people think of Afghanistan's agriculture sector they tend to concentrate on opium poppy production - and understandably so, since it counts as the main source of income for 14% of the population. There are clearly real issues to be addressed here, but recent trends and regional disparities show a strong correlation with poppy cultivation and security rather than just income alone.

For instance in Helmand Province, which is responsible for 50% of Afghanistan's cultivation, it is evident that traders often collect the crop directly from farmers, enabling them to avoid check-point payments and road-side bribes, but more importantly ensuring that they also avoid the insecurities of open and dangerous roads. This makes poppies a low-risk crop in a high-risk environment, whereas other crops, such as mint or saffron - and at current prices wheat and other crops - may offer greater returns per acre, but there is no support to help take these products to market safely. In short: security is the pre-cursor to poppy control, rather than vice-versa.

The Afghanistan situation presents many challenges and it is clear that there is a lot more to be done. There are questions over international aid co-ordination, and there is a desire to see the United States' Government commit more of its spending locally in order to bolster local capacity-building.

However, the UK should take pride in its role so far in helping this war-ravaged country reconstruct its institutions and society, and it is right that we continue to work in partnership with Afghanistan's Government in bringing peace and security to the people of Afghanistan.

Read "House Magazine Article: Building a Nation by Nightfall".

Debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to House of Commons on Wed 5th Mar 2008

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): Towards the end of her speech, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was in danger not only of being out of order, but of putting across her preferred European dimension. The trouble is that there are 60 million people in Britain, and in practice, one cannot proceed to determine our relationship with the European Union in that way.

I have been following the most recent process closely. Indeed, I read the draft constitution before the French people rejected it. Personally, I thought that the contents were valuable, and I am glad to say that many of the most valuable parts are in the treaty of Lisbon, which is why I am happy to support that, too. Nevertheless, the constitution was an attempt to create a watershed moment in the European Union, which made it completely different in character from all the amending treaties that had gone before-from the founding treaty, the treaty of Rome, through all the others that have been mentioned, right up to the treaty of Lisbon.

That is why, as somebody who is not an enthusiast for referendums and who believes that many of the reservations that have been expressed today are valid, I nevertheless felt that a constitution that swept up more than 50 years of European Union history, from the founding treaty to the most recent amending treaty, was an appropriate moment to redefine the relationship and give people the chance, which they have not had for more than 30 years, to determine whether the new, reformed, relaunched European Union-that was the intention-was where we wanted to go. That is why I was happy to support my party's commitment at the last election to hold a referendum on a constitutional treaty.

However, at the very moment that we were committing ourselves to that, the French and the Dutch were deciding that no such constitutional treaty was likely to exist. I do not wish to repeat the arguments, which have already been rehearsed today, about the processes by which we moved from there to where we are now. What is a matter of concern, however, is that the process that we are using is far less transparent and consultative than it could and should be. One of the things that I particularly welcome about the treaty of Lisbon is that it gives national Parliaments a more clearly articulated role in that process. In the future-I hope that this will be in the long term, before we get to the next reforming treaty-the process may well involve the 27 national Parliaments.

At the end of the day, however, we must accept that treaties can be negotiated only by Governments. Governments can consult a lot better, but treaties cannot be negotiated by 27 Parliaments, and they certainly cannot be negotiated by 490 million people. There comes a point when, even with the best endeavours that have been made, people have to decide whether something is good enough for them to continue. The disingenuousness and dishonesty of many of the arguments come from ignoring the consequences of that.

Malcolm Bruce Speaking in the European Union (Amendment) Bill Debate

It has been said-but it must be said again and again-that Conservative Members are asking for a referendum on the treaty of Lisbon, which is not a constitutional treaty, because they want to defeat it and because they know that, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) clearly articulated, the consequence of that would be to paralyse the Union and destroy Britain's competitive and effective relationship with it.

Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 80 per cent. of voters in the north-east of Scotland want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty?

Malcolm Bruce: I do not think it possible to say that 80 per cent. of voters in the north-east of Scotland want any such thing. All tests of opinion, nearly all of which have been less than objective, have indicated that people want a treaty; but the majority of people would like a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, not on the Lisbon treaty, about which most of them have not been informed. As someone who reads and pursues the media of the north-east of Scotland every day, I have to say that people's ability to be informed on the contents of the treaty of Lisbon is not very apparent.

Mr. Chaytor: For those of us who find the idea of an in-out referendum at some point in the future extremely attractive, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his party's decision to abstain on the amendment has weakened its capacity to put forward the very pro-European views that he advocates?

Malcolm Bruce: Absolutely not. Our view is that if we vote against the amendment, we will be voting against the principle of a referendum. The referendum is a principle that we like; what we do not like is the question. I do not wish to test the patience of the Chair, but the House will have noticed that our party has unfortunately been considerably frustrated in our attempts to get the words that we want put before the House and debated in ways that would make our position abundantly clear. We have to live with that frustration, but it has put us in the position of having to deal with what is before the House rather than with what we wish was before the House. I have to say that that is too often the case.

Hon. Members: Resignation.

Malcolm Bruce: Regarding the comments from those on the Benches behind me, one thing that I am proud of is that, in all the time that I have been involved in my party, it has clearly and consistently been in favour of our joining the European Union, being a constructive and engaged member of the European Union, and supporting progressive reform of the European Union. The nationalists, however, have never known which way to turn. They voted no in 1975, then they claimed that they wanted independence in Europe, and now they want to vote against the treaty of Lisbon while somehow or other saying that they are still pro-European. They are utterly and totally confused; they are in a totally tartan dwam as far as this issue is concerned.

Ms Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman is a genuinely committed European, and I believe that he would like to take the people with him in his vision of Europe. Does he not think that a referendum would provide a much better opportunity to extol the benefits of, and to make the case for, the European Union, rather than blackmailing people by simply asking, "In or out?"?

Malcolm Bruce: No. Perhaps I should not be surprised by the way in which the hon. Lady's relationship with, and attitude to, Europe has changed because of her experience of the negotiating process. I would have thought, however, that she would understand that if the United Kingdom decided now, in the present circumstances, to hold a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, and if we failed to ratify the treaty as a result, we would be faced with an internal dilemma, in that two thirds of Parliament would have voted one way, while the people would have voted the other way. That would be a domestic problem, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe has articulated. Also, we would certainly have created a degree of resentment among our European colleagues for having held up a difficult process at a crucial moment. I think that the hon. Lady knows perfectly well that those would be the consequences of such a decision.

I am articulating my party's view, which is that after 35 years, it is appropriate to say to people, "The European Union has been modified by treaties. This is actually a good reforming treaty, which will leave it in better shape than most of the previous ones-certainly Nice and Amsterdam-did," and to ask them, "Will you vote for Britain to be in Europe, but as a package, on the understanding that that is with the Lisbon treaty?" The Lisbon treaty is not optional. We cannot be in Europe and not ratify the Lisbon treaty.

Michael Connarty: It seems entirely consistent, given the policies of the Lib Dems, that they would want both to stay in Europe and to give people a choice in a referendum. I can see how that is consistent. I do not particularly support referendums; I do not think that they fit with, or should be part of, the parliamentary process. Is it true, however, that the Liberal Democrats intend to abstain this evening, rather than voting for the treaty to go through, and against a referendum?

Malcolm Bruce: We have made it abundantly clear that we are voting for the treaty, but that we are not voting for a referendum on it. As I said to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), I believe that it is fundamentally disingenuous and dishonest seriously to suggest that it is possible to vote against the Lisbon treaty while maintaining that Britain's membership of the European Union would not be compromised by such an act-

Michael Connarty rose-

Malcolm Bruce: The Conservatives' position is quite simple. They do not wish Britain to continue as an effective member of the European Union, and the purpose of their amendment is to start that process-

Hon. Members: Give way!

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sylvia Heal): Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) could make it clear whether he will give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).

Malcolm Bruce indicated assent.

Michael Connarty: I asked the hon. Gentleman what I thought was a simple question, but he did not quite answer it. Following the logic of what he has just said about consistent support for the European Union and getting the treaty through, will he explain why he and other members of his party are going to abstain tonight?

Malcolm Bruce: My colleagues and I have repeated the explanation ad nauseam. If it is impossible for people to hear or understand it, that is their problem, not mine.

We are engaged in a process to determine whether this country is going to be a leading member of the European Union or a continually moaning, peripheral country that is increasing becoming a tiresome irritant to the 26 other member states that want to go forward. That is why we believe that there is a case for having a defining referendum, in which we can ask the people of Britain whether they want to continue with this enterprise, as we do, or to put themselves on the margins of Europe and accept the consequences of so doing.

In September last year, I visited Estonia with a group of liberal democrat parliamentarians and had a very constructive meeting with the Prime Minister, Andrus Ansip. He is, of course, a leading member of the liberal parties of Europe-as, indeed, is the leading opposition party in Estonia- [Interruption.] It would be fair to say that Estonia is probably the most liberal country in Europe. It is worth listening to the voice of the people of Estonia.

Mr. Harper rose-

Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab) rose-

Malcolm Bruce: Let me make this point. One thing that the Estonian people will tell us is that they spent 700 years trying to escape from outside oppression-most recently, escaping from the Soviet Union. They are certainly not interested in buying into some kind of European superstate, which the Conservative party is so afraid of. What they want is a functioning, effective, working Europe in which decisions can be taken by 27 countries, and in which a small country such as Estonia can have its proper place and influence. The Prime Minister of Estonia told me that he sincerely hoped the UK was not going to be instrumental in delaying or obstructing implementation of the treaty of Lisbon. For my part, I said that I would do everything I could to ensure that that did not happen, and that the treaty would be ratified, because I shared his view that ratification was in the best interests of Europe.

Mr. Harper: It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman is willing to listen to the people of Estonia, but not to the people of Britain. Leaving that aside, however, will he clarify his earlier comment that if the House were to grant a referendum and the British people were to vote against ratification of the Lisbon treaty, it would in some way compromise our membership of the European Union? That did not happen when the French and Dutch refused to ratify the constitutional convention: they are still members of the EU and no one called that into question, so why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be any different for Britain?

Malcolm Bruce: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman travels at all in Europe or talks to our political colleagues- [Interruption.] Yes, we need to bear in mind that our Conservatives do not have any! Those of us who talk to mainstream political groups in pretty well every country in Europe could tell the hon. Gentleman quite categorically that the process by which the constitution was abandoned was painful enough. The follow-up process whereby 27 countries sought to reach agreement by delivering the Lisbon treaty and its many constructive and practical measures-the British Government, along with the German Government, played a constructive role-was also hugely difficult. If the hon. Gentleman believes that it would be willingly acceded to if the UK Government stood up and said, "Sorry, guys, I know that 26 of you are already going to adopt this treaty, carry it forward and start working with it, but we are not, as we want another couple of years to rethink the whole thing," I have to tell him that he is living in cloud cuckoo land. The truth is that we do not know what the consequences of a no vote in a referendum would be, but it would certainly not be in the interests of the United Kingdom, of our reputation or of our influence within the European Union.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Not knowing the consequences has not stopped the hon. Gentleman from asserting them very vigorously-and, in my view, inaccurately. Amendment No. 296 provides for an enabling power to have another referendum, so would that not satisfy the Liberal desire to have their in-out referendum?

Malcolm Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) explain that an amendment that would allow the Government to write any question, or no question, as they liked, does not tell the House what is wanted clearly enough. That makes it a non-workable and non-functioning amendment.

To be honest, I take a very simple view. First, we as a party are unreservedly and unapologetically pro the European Union, pro Britain's membership of the European Union and pro a functioning Union of 27 states that can take decisions in an intelligent format. At the same time, we believe that the British people deserve the right to have a real debate about what kind of Union it is-because we cannot create it in our own image-and whether they want to continue with the enterprise.

That is a risky venture, but one that we as a party would be willing, indeed enthusiastic, to take to the people. If we had been given a vote on it and the House had supported us, that is the referendum that people would have had-and I believe that it would have been won-rather than a referendum in which there is an attempt to persuade people that it is possible to vote for continued membership of the Union without ratifying the treaty of Lisbon. That is a dream world: it is not reality, it does not make political sense, and it will not be supported by our party.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080305/debtext/80305-0019.htm#08030572001579

Read "Debate on the European Union (Amendment) Bill ".

Scottish Liberal Democrat President's address to conference

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to Scottish Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Aviemore on Sun 2nd Mar 2008

(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)

Where stood Scotland 500 years ago? At war with the English and trying to retake Berwick. Not much change there, then. Except a lot has happened in the intervening period that has been for the better.

Throughout the years there is one thing we in this party and its predecessors have always stood for - Home Rule for Scotland in an outward looking Liberal United Kingdom.

Of course our core values have been rooted in Liberal freedoms - freedom from oppression and exploitation and freedom of expression and the means to self improvement.

That is why we support business and enterprise tempered by strong competition policy to prevent monopoly and by care of the environment and partnership between employer and employed.

It is why we support strong, high quality public services fairly distributed and accessible to all on the basis of need.

As John Donne said, no man is an island. By the same token the mainland we live on is Great Britain, and Scotland, while including many islands, is not an island and has never been insular.

All of us are shaped by our relationships - especially with family and neighbours in our communities, work place or other institutions with which we engage.

Of course we also define them very subjectively inventing sometimes our own relationship myths - like behind every great man is an astonished mother-in-law.

That is also true of our national character. Scots define themselves by selective recollection of our history. Many people believe, for example, that we were conquered and subjugated by the dominant English - rather than 'bought and sold for English gold - such a parcel of rogues in a nation.'

My eldest daughter has been researching our family tree. On my father's side we were ordinary folk closely connected with fishing and ships - two centuries and probably more of Fifers.

My mother's side was more colourful - consisting of traders and merchants around Angus, Perthshire and Stirlingshire although there is also a direct line to Dutch farmers who came over with William of Orange.

I guess the ancestry of most of us is similarly mixed yet we choose to remember it selectively.

It was the Scots who forced Mary Queen of Scots to abdicate for being to Popish and too French. It was the Scots who then enlisted the help of the English to drive out the remaining French yet we prefer to remember the Auld Alliance.

There were more Scots on the side of the King at Culloden and Flora MacDonald was no Jacobite just anxious for Charles Edward to leave Scotland as soon as possible and spare further embarrassment. Her family were loyal to the Crown in the American war of independence and returned to Scotland once the colonies were lost.

The Act of Union was controversial but it was thoroughly debated and voted on in the last Scottish Parliament and by the burghs.

It was the Union of two sovereign nations motivated by business opportunities and a mutual desire to secure the Protestant succession. The end of an auld sang.

It paved the way for the Scottish enlightenment: a partnership of Scots and English in the development, trade and administration of the Empire to which and from which Scots contributed and benefited disproportionately.

Throughout that period Scotland preserved its distinct identity, with its own legal and education systems, and established Presbyterian church. The cross-fertilisation of people and ideas was energising for the whole UK.

It was in recognition of this, and the rights of the Irish and the Welsh whose role in the Union was not the partnership the Scots enjoyed, that Liberals stood out for reform, extending voting rights and the case for Home Rule as a means of delivering a Union paradoxically strengthened by devolution from the centre.

That is also entirely compatible with the recognition that, just as some aspects of sovereignty deliver better results if devolved, so pooling sovereignty with other nations extends our reach, opportunity and influence.

Our party called for Britain to be a founder member of the Common Market, and still today will argue the case for the UK to be a fully participating member of the enlarged and transforming European Union.

Yet in some quarters it is fashionable to poor scorn on the Union, its achievements and its still positive dynamic, which would weaken us all if it broke up.

A bit like the dolphins leaving earth in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy with the parting shot "so long and thanks for all the fish", nationalists say good riddance to the empire. It's Scotland's oil, goodbye.

Well just haud the bus and consider what that means.

Of course over the centuries not all of Britain's actions have been noble or right but they have been collectively taken.

Last year we marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. It is true and we were all happy to record that Glasgow abolitionists played a large part in the campaign against slavery.

But we should also acknowledge that some of the largest plantations belonged to Scots who were among the largest slave owners in the Americas.

As post war Britain liberated its Empire Scots were as prominent as they had been in its acquisition

In the liberation of Europe from fascism, Scots forces played a heroic role within the British forces and alongside our allies.

More recently, this party voted together against the invasion of Iraq and we have been vindicated.

Nevertheless, we did support the action in Afghanistan and the prospects for that poor war-torn country would certainly have been brighter today if we had not been distracted by Iraq.

There has been wall-to-wall media coverage of Prince Harry's active service in Helmand. While attention is focused on him let us remember thousands of his fellow service men and women, including many from Scotland, have been deployed with dedication and courage, risking, and sadly in some cases losing, their lives, and we unreservedly salute their bravery and dedication.

The transformation of the UK from an imperial power to a post industrial service-led economy has not been easy, and has brought pain and change to many parts of Scotland.

But there is a new dynamic which has seen population decline reversed and new energy spreading to many parts of the country including the once ailing Highlands.

Internationally, Britain has recovered from its sick man of Europe identity and is watching as France and others have to face up to the challenges we have already confronted.

As someone who travels internationally as part of my Parliamentary responsibilities, I can confirm that, although we have been damaged by Tony Blair's unquestioning support for the Bush administration Britain is seen as a regenerated nation, with a genuine commitment to tackling inequalities and poverty in the world and at least through some of its agencies a beacon for democracy.

Through the Department for International Development, the UK is now one of the world's largest bilateral donors for development. We are the largest contributor to the World Bank's International Development Association programme and World Bank administered trust funds.

Almost half of DFID's UK staff is based here in Scotland at East Kilbride - around 560 people - and many Scots are active in country development programmes in 65 of the poorest countries around the world.

Reducing poverty is a huge challenge as so many factors are at play.

Today is Mothers' Day and the International Development Select Committee marks it with the publication of a report on Maternal Health in developing countries.

While there is concern in the UK about the shortage of midwives and the high level of Caesarean births, this pales into insignificance when compared with the horrors facing expectant mothers in many poor countries.

In Niger, for example, 1 in 7 women can expect to die in childbirth compared with 1 in 8200 in the UK.

Globally, international agencies cite a figure of 536,000 maternal deaths a year. Yet, research carried out by an internationally-backed team led by Aberdeen University, suggest the figure could be nearer 872,000.

And for each woman who dies 30 become disabled, injured or ill as a result of their pregnancy. This means millions of mothers suffer death, disability or illness as a result of pregnancy, making it a truly frightening experience.

DFID is a leading agency in seeking to tackle this scourge. Millennium Development Goal 5 - to reduce maternal deaths by 75% by 2015 - is the most off track of the UN's 8 millennium development goals, and this has implications for others such as child mortality, education and poverty reduction.

Yet it doesn't have to be that way. Mothers-to-be need skilled birth attendants, access to emergency obstetric support and basic drugs and equipment.

Unsafe abortion and lack of contraception are major causes of deaths in pregnancy so it follows that denying women access to contraception and safe abortion is effectively condemning millions of women a year to death and disability.

In International Development, the UK is seen as one of the best players having untied its aid from UK commercial or foreign policy interests and concentrating on what will reduce poverty and achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.

We are on target to achieve a contribution of 0.7 per cent of GDP in aid by 2013 - behind the Nordic countries but well ahead of the other G7 players both in quality and quantity.

Another unique British institution is the British Council, committed to extending the English language as it is spoken on this side of the Atlantic and British culture and learning - in association with our universities. No wonder an increasingly monolithic, Kremlin-manipulated Russia doesn't like it - proof in itself of the relevance and the demand for its services wherever it operated and requests for it to open where it does not.

Our armed forces, small and overstretched as they may be, are professional and dedicated in the difficult theatres we choose to deploy them, where others fear to tread. I don't mean Iraq, from which we are rightly withdrawing but the Balkans, Afghanistan, Cyprus and Sierra Leone.

The BBC, for all we moan about its London-centredness, is still the envy of the world. We rightly call for more creative capacity to be developed in Scotland, and we should promote that, but Scots and Scotland are important components of the BBC.

In the theatres of international diplomacy and influence the UK is a significant player, with weighted voting rights in the EU, a permanent seat on the Security Council and influence within the Commonwealth of which the Queen is head.

Similarly, the UK has diplomatic representation in many more parts of the world than Scotland could possible aspire to. Many Scottish businesses will testify to the value of services they can access through British Embassies, High Commissions, Consulates and Trade Centres.

Together, we must police the borders of our island state, manage immigration and share our defence and foreign policy needs.

To break up the United Kingdom is to put all this and more at risk and for what purpose? To enable Alex Salmond to strut and swagger on the world stage like a tartan peacock?

We would reduce the impact of every citizen of the United Kingdom. Because the population of England is around nine times that of Scotland many of these institutions would continue but they would be smaller and qualitatively poorer without the input of Scots.

For many in Scotland the horizon of opportunity would be foreshortened and opportunities reduced.

So let us consider where the SNP wants to take us.

Economically they have acknowledged that they would keep the pound for an indefinite time - so our currency and interest rates would be managed by a foreign Government which is also our prime market.

They haven't told us what our defence and foreign relations capability would be or what it would cost. They wouldn't join NATO (a departure from their usual comparison with the Norwegian example).

The SNP attitude to Europe is as confused and inconsistent as it always was. They campaigned for a NO vote in the 1975 referendum. They subsequently claimed they wanted independence in Europe and have no voted against the Lisbon Treaty which would have the effect of marginalising us in European councils.

Of course there is room to improve the EU and its engagement with citizens. The debate over Britain and the EU is mind numbingly repetitive.

We believe that the UK must be a fully participating member arguing the strength of our case. If the majority of the people don't want that they should vote to leave and face the consequences.

A Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, a Scottish Council, or a Scottish International Development Department would all require separate administrative overheads and yet, even if we could afford them, they would never match their British counterparts.

Yet our new minority administration buoyed up by a 'here's to us wha's like us' attitude would trample all this underfoot in the rush to a spurious independence.

They will seek gratuitous fights with London.

Mr Salmond continues to protest at the negotiations between the UK and Libya for mutual return of prisoners, brushing aside repeated assurances by UK Ministers that individual decisions rest with the Scottish authorities and ignoring the fact that Mr Magrahi is currently pursuing an appeal against his conviction and could if he wins return home anyway.

Watch out for the progress of the SNP's plans for Scottish Futures Trust.

First they scrapped all new PPP projects (while claiming credit for those going ahead which were approved by the previous administration). They offered minimal access to alternative capital grants and forced local authorities and other agencies to put many urgent developments on hold.

Aberdeenshire, for example, urgently needs new schools and leisure facilities. It is no good the SNP calling for swimming lessons for all and smaller class sizes while making it impossible to provide new facilities.

And what happens when the Treasury says no, as they have indicated they will? Messrs Salmond and Swinney will blame what they call the London Government.

Grandstanding by the SNP in their mission to destroy the UK - for which they have no mandate - is no substitute for delivering the essential facilities our children and local communities need.

Ah, but you support an independent Kosovo and Estonia, why not Scotland?

Well there is one vital difference. Kosovars, Estonians and others need their independence to be free people. Scotland is a free society.

Independence is not needed. Bill Anderson, when he spoke at our conferences, always concluded by saying what Scotland needs is more independent Scots not more Scottish independence.

Just as we believe that there is room to improve the EU we want to continue to move towards greater home rule within the UK -we especially want the Scottish Parliament to have a significant share of the taxes in Scotland.

But devolution shouldn't stop at Holyrood. Local authorities and health boards should not be in thrall to central control from Edinburgh. By itself, replacing council tax with local income tax will not change the fact that local authorities are heavily straitjacketed by Ministers in Edinburgh.

A freeze on council tax comes at a price of cuts in services.

As Nick Clegg said on Friday, devolution should not stop at Edinburgh. As a party that champions local income tax, let me suggest we go a radical stage further.

Instead of all taxes, bar the discredited council tax going to the Treasury to be top sliced, wasted and lost. Let us keep more of the taxes where they are collected.

What councils and health boards need is their share of taxes paid in their locality, raising their access to income from local sources to 75 or 80 per cent of their total budget, leaving the grant from Holyrood for new services and to adjust for income inequalities.

This would offer us a new cause for campaigning - local taxes for local services.

That is the opposite of the SNP's 'one Scotland' approach.

Our commitment to Home Rule is deep seated and long lived. It is not a response to nationalism, it is driven by a desire for reform and to make Government more transparent and closer to the people.

This contrasts with Labour, which has had to be led down the path of devolution driven by fear and trepidation.

Even now they are in a state of confusion. Gordon Brown seems like one of the Lost Boys who can't find his way to the Wendy House - perhaps because of Cairns pointing in the opposite direction.

Perhaps he would be more comfortable taking UK-wide initiatives that would broadcast the breadth and depth of the Government's commitment to the Union and Scotland's place in it.

Why not have the vision of the French and build high speed trains to all parts of Great Britain, bringing us all closer together? Paris to Marseilles is approximately the same distance as London to Aberdeen yet the journey time of the former is three hours three minutes compared with seven and a half hours.

Such a service would easily switch much freight from road to rail, benefiting both the environment and our balance of payments.

Similarly, also to the benefit of Scotland and the Union, would be support for robust interlinks for transporting energy to enable Scotland to deliver its wealth of renewable resources from tidal power in the Pentland Firth through wave, wind energy and even solar.

So come on Gordon - don't get lost, get real.

Let us face up to it. The SNP are hell bent on one mission alone - to end the United Kingdom. Labour are unfit to respond. They are confused and scared and simply cannot handle Home Rule.

The Tories have sold their previous strong commitment to the Union for a pretty short tartan-crested spoon to sup with the nationalist devil.

No wonder the Liberal Democrats, under Nicol Stephen's leadership have become the effective opposition. We are determined to expose the inadequacies of the SNP's bluster and spin over promises broken because they were never intended to be kept.

We alone have the Federal vision and the Liberal flair to offer an alternative which matches the aspirations of the Scottish people far better than tiptoeing along the precipice of separation.

If you want Scotland with Home Rule, and greater freedom for citizens and communities to set their own priorities, if you want a federal, liberal United Kingdom with external relations of which you can be proud not ashamed, you know where to turn.

I share Nick's view that there are many more people who share our Liberal aspiration than have yet voted for us. Our task from now to the next election is to go out find them and bring them home to the Liberal Democrats.

ENDS

Read "Scottish Liberal Democrat President's address to conference ".

Westminster Hall Debate on Cross-Border Rail Services

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to Westminster Hall on Tue 29th Jan 2008

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I very much welcome the opportunity to raise some issues in this debate. I assure the House that I do not intend it to be what we in Scotland call a greeting meeting, where we just catalogue all the complaints. There will be some of those, but I hope that we can focus on what we can and should be doing to fulfil ambitions for the services. I say that with some feeling, as I represent a constituency that is literally at the farthest end of the east coast main line. In that context, may I stress to the Minister my earnest hope that he will make it clear that the east coast main line runs from London to Aberdeen, not from London to Edinburgh? That is a genuine concern, not least because it is London to Edinburgh when investment decisions are being made, but London to Aberdeen for operational services.

I hope that the Minister will understand that those of us who represent constituencies and stations north of Edinburgh are campaigning energetically for some commitment to improve the quality of the service, not least because if the time comes, as I hope it will, when we have high-speed links to the central belt, the north of Scotland will also have at least relatively high-speed links to enable passengers to access cross-border routes effectively.

Debates about cross-border rail routes have been going on as long as there have been such routes-perhaps 150 years or more. It is a matter of regret to me that I rarely travel on the cross-border routes, not from any prejudice against trains-quite the reverse, I enjoy travelling by train-but because, frankly, the journey times are impossible for somebody who travels as often and as regularly as I do.

As it happens, Aberdeen airport is in my constituency. It is expanding in both passenger numbers and services, but there are people who object to its expansion. They offer the usual arguments about pollution, noise and climate change. I point out to them that although I am sympathetic to their arguments, the truth is that the airport is the lifeline communication for an economy such as ours.

I would like to believe that there is an aspiration to ensure that people have real choice, and that surface transport, particularly rail, is a genuine, viable alternative for more people more often than is currently the case. For the record, the journey time between London and Aberdeen is between seven and seven and a half hours. Indeed, most journeys are in excess of seven and a half hours, and that is only the time from station to station. By the time one adds on access to the station, particularly city centre stations, and travel across London, one is talking about a journey of nearly nine hours, as compared with my air journey yesterday, which, even though delayed, was about four hours. I am sure Members will understand that there really is no contest when people have to make a choice.

At present, several issues have clearly caused concern and anger. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me refer to the disruption caused by the engineering works at Christmas time. Virgin has estimated that it lost £10 million in revenue, and 50,000 people were affected by the disruption and the fact that it went on well beyond the predicted time. Somebody sarcastically said, "We are back to BR," but "BR" meant bus replacement rather than British Rail.

Dan Roberts wrote in The Daily Telegraph about the problem. To be fair, taking the whole article, he acknowledged that given the age of the infrastructure, it is surprising that for much of the time our trains run on time and provide a reasonable service. The problem is one of predictability. He states:

"The perverse paradox of Britain's bungled privatisation experiment"-

I do not expect the Minister to defend privatisation, as he and his Government were not responsible for it-

"is that railways are expensive and unreliable because they are so popular. There's not enough slack in the crowded system to allow trains to route around maintenance closures. But rather than spend the billions needed to lay new track, Network Rail and its dysfunctional private counterparts seem happier letting rising prices keep demand in check.

Sadly, profits have little to do with operational effectiveness and everything to do with how poorly or otherwise the contracts are negotiated."

A discussion that does not deserve mileage in this debate is whether Virgin, Arriva or National Express is better or worse, or whether Network Rail is responsible. We tend to hear enough over the airwaves of train operators blaming the track operator and vice versa-presumably the track operators blame the train operators for having the discourtesy to run trains on their tracks and generally making it inefficient for them to operate a network-but such debates do not really get us anywhere. What is really required is to bring all this together in ways that will meet the needs and expectations of passengers.

There are three passenger franchises covering the cross-border rail services: National Express on the inter-city east coast main line, Arriva-owned CrossCountry Rail, which took over the franchise in the past few months, and, of course, Virgin on the west coast. As they are relatively new services it is not possible to evaluate them, although there is anecdotal evidence. No doubt in due course we will be able to determine how well they are performing.

Many people regret the passing of the Great North Eastern Railway, or GNER. The irony is that one of the most popular franchises lost its right to operate because of the failure of its parent company, not because of shortcomings in its operations. Indeed, it was the franchise that passengers put at the top of their preferences. The new franchise clearly has quite an act to follow, and we hope that it will maintain the standard.

The other problem is that since the new franchises have taken over, they have announced some of the biggest fare rises on all the routes. National Express East Coast fares will increase by 6.6 per cent., and CrossCountry by 7 per cent. Both increases are measured at the retail prices index plus 2 per cent. That is significantly above the average 5.4 per cent. increase across the whole network, which itself is above inflation, and may bear out the comments that I just read out from The Daily Telegraph.

The Government may argue that above-inflation fares are needed to enable services to be improved, but I believe that passengers would like services to be improved first, rather than think that they are paying for something that may not materialise. In any case, if we are serious about the long-term aspirations of developing the network and encouraging more people on to it, it is reasonable to expect that fares will not increase above inflation. Indeed, in an expanding network that was actively encouraging people to transfer to it, one would hope that, if anything, fare increases would be below the overall RPI.

There are some other worrying indications. I need to press the Minister a little more about the negotiations and terms of the contracts, about which I have had some correspondence with him and others. When Arriva CrossCountry came through as the winner of the franchise in July last year, it said that it would introduce an older fleet of trains and cut back on-board services such as toilets and shops. I was contacted yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who would have been here were it not for the fact that his Select Committee commitments prevented him. He asked me to point out his concerns about the services that pass through his constituency, in particular through Berwick. He is appalled to hear suggestions that hot food services could be cut in standard class between Dundee and Penzance.

Evidence suggests that not many passengers take the whole journey on that train, but the train makes the whole journey and people have the right to do so, too. If people taking a significant chunk of the journey from Dundee to Penzance are told that they will be on the train for hours but that no hot food will be available, it is pretty poor provision. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is happening. If the argument is that by not having hot food and having fewer toilets we can seat more passengers, it means that more passengers will be offered a poorer service. Are those the expectations? Is such provision within the contract that the Government negotiated? What is the justification for that? I hope that the bid was not accepted because it cost the least in subsidies, rather than because it met the balance between cost-effectiveness and passenger need. Will the Minister share with hon. Members how the Government balance the two factors of value for money for the taxpayer, in terms of a lower subsidy, and comfort and efficiency for the passenger? It is not right for one to be completely traded for the other. I hope that the Minister agrees.

Just this week, there was a demonstration by passengers on First Great Western, boycotting that railway, refusing to pay or using fake tickets. I do not want to make too much of that, but there are clearly pinch points where passengers feel aggrieved because although they are paying, in some cases, significant sums to use trains, they are not getting the service they expect so, not surprisingly, their anger rises.

The Government, perhaps understandably, are anxious to control or reduce the level of subsidy given to the railways-we need a debate about that. However, that has to be part of a genuine public engagement about where the burden is shared. If it is simply a matter of the Treasury reining back on the cost of the railways and, in effect, offloading it on to passengers by saying, "We do not have the capacity anyway, so we can charge them more and more and actually it will be helpful if they go elsewhere", that ignores the wider debate about climate change, pollution, congestion and so on.

One of the reversals of progress, compared with 150 years ago, or even in my lifetime-50 years ago, say-is that people used to be able to walk into a station, ask about the route and find out which fare, by whatever class they wanted to travel, provided the best value from A to B. That is no longer an option. The amount of questioning, effort and research that is needed to find the best route and the best fare is disproportionate to the result.

Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): When I was researching for the debate, I was intrigued to see that one of Arriva's commitments for its new cross-country franchise was to provide a website showing clearly the cheapest fare and the quickest way to make journeys. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he or his constituents have any experience of whether that website is up and running yet?

Malcolm Bruce: I do not know, although I will give a sample of fares for part of that route later. However, the hon. Gentleman makes my point. It is all very well saying, "We have a route-one route-and we can tell you exactly what the best fare is on it", but many people travelling cross-border have to change trains and operators, particularly when going from north-east to south-west, or vice versa, and that is where the difficulties arise. That was true in Victorian times, too, but there was none the less an integrated timetable and fare structure, so it is not something that was possible only during the British Rail era.

The whole fare-pricing structure involves the price, the name of the ticket and its validity, any conditions attached to it, its variability and whether it is appropriate for the journey that people are taking. Increasingly, people are prepared to use the internet, hoping that it will have done the work for them, to search for the best fare. However, that is a matter of trust; people do not know how good the internet service is and the extent to which it has provided the right answer. In any case, they have to ask the right questions.

A considerable amount of research is still required to find the cheapest price. People have to book early in advance, if they can, for the cheaper, fairer prices that the Government say are available, but which are often buried in an obscure area, for an obscure train at an obscure time. If that is so, it is a meaningless option. The French have a "most recently bought" competitive fare, which enables passengers to know which fare people buy most regularly and how it compares with other fares.

As information is not available and people cannot find the best deals, journeying by rail is becoming increasingly beyond the means of the majority of people in this country, particularly if they are travelling, as I have sometimes tried to do, with a family, notwithstanding family rail cards and the like. My office priced a journey for a long weekend next month, travelling on Thursday and returning on Monday, from Huntly in my constituency to Bristol. That is not an unusual journey-it is not true that everybody wants to go to London-but the cheapest price for one adult is a saver return at £168.30 on a restricted ticket. When I talked to someone from my local newspaper about that, he said, "Don't you mean £68.30?" I repeated that the ticket cost £168.30. A standard open return ticket costs £279, which is a pretty steep jump.

People can pay a cheaper fare if they have the patience and time to investigate the single fares on offer. Of course, that has become the great catch. Most people assume that if they are buying a return ticket there is a discount-a deal. However, increasingly, the way to find the best deal is to buy two singles, independently, from opposite ends of the proposed journey. If people do that for a return journey from Huntly to Bristol, they can find a return fare totalling £92, but the tickets are valid only on specified trains. That is a serious problem, because even people who are pretty clear about when they want to travel can find that circumstances change, and their whole ticket would be invalidated if that happened.

Just for the record, the train journey from Huntly to Bristol takes 10 and a half hours. According to the AA, the road journey takes nine hours and 55 minutes on 547 miles of road. Although I am not sure that I believe that figure, I shall use it for a comparison. Would a family, or even two or three adults, even contemplate a 10 and a half hour train journey that cost, at a minimum, nearly £300 and might cost £500 or £600, or would they take the car?

Although people can find competitive fares, it is not reasonable to expect them to do all the work themselves. There is no guarantee that they will get the most appropriate fare or deal for their circumstances. We need to take a much more radical look at how all these things are operated and reported on. That is not just my view. The Select Committee on Transport has, not surprisingly, looked into the matter and was pretty critical about what it found out in its sixth report of the 2005-06 Session, "How fair are the fares? Train fares and ticketing". The Committee commented on the costs and said that

"on the whole, there is little doubt that walk-on rail fares in the UK are more expensive than in many European countries."

It also criticised the lack of flexibility, particularly for walk-on fares:

"It is essential that when rail passengers walk up and buy a ticket immediately before departure, they do not have to pay over the odds. Fully flexible open fares may need to command a price premium over other less flexible tickets, but the prices now charged by many long-distance operators are absurdly high. The 'see how much we can get away with' attitude of operators has put the thumbscrews on those passengers who have no option but to travel on peak-hour trains, using fully flexible open fares. Such behaviour has brought not only individual train operators, but the passenger railways in general into disrepute."

The Committee issued a rebuke about the complexity in unregulated fares. The Government have said that they are putting in place a simplified system, but it is not clear how effective it will be or whether long-distance operators will apply it. If the Minister can give an update about exactly what is being done to try to simplify the structure so that people can access and manage it, I would be grateful.

It is worth recording that although things have improved, the three cross-border routes attract a high number of complaints. When I asked the Library for information, I was told that in 2006-07 there were 1,229 complaints against the three train operating companies offering cross-border services, which outnumbered the 973 complaints made against all the remaining 18 train operating companies. There were more complaints against those three operators than the other 18 by a factor of four to three. I accept that the cross-border routes involve longer journeys, but given that many people do not bother to complain and only three operators and three routes are involved, it is indicative that there have been serious problems. However, I acknowledge that the figures seem to have improved.

The situation is not all bad. We have some good operators and some new franchises, but there is still some uncertainty. People want reliability, improved journey times and fair and competitive fares, but we have a long way to go, even within the existing structure, to deliver people's expectations.

I turn to the vision thing, or perhaps I should call it the lack-of-vision thing. Many people have travelled on continental railways. People travel internationally, so they are aware of what other countries are doing, and they feel that the United Kingdom is falling embarrassingly behind. Japan sets a high standard in reliability, punctuality and cost. My parliamentary researcher, who went to a wedding in Japan over the Christmas and new year period, reminded me of how efficient the Shinkanseng-the bullet train-is in time and price.

I have made some comparisons between the UK and France. France may be the aspirational model, but it is our next-door neighbour and it is reasonable to ask why we are so far adrift from what the French have done. There is no doubt that what has been achieved in France has been the result of genuine political leadership, vision and determination. I shall give an example. The trip from Paris to Marseilles is about 411 miles, compared with 397 miles for the trip from Aberdeen to London. That is the distance as the crow flies, and I accept that the track does not follow the crow, but I am comparing like with like. The journey time is hugely different; from Paris to Marseilles it is three hours and three minutes, compared with seven hours and eight minutes on a comparable line in the UK, so there is no contest.

Even given the favourable exchange rate, the TGV fare is significantly more affordable. The most popular, most bought fare is £36 return. Recently, I helped helping my daughter to book a summer rail trip from London to Avignon, which is a direct service that runs in the summer and take five and a quarter hours. The return fare is £189, which is a fantastic bargain in time and price compared with anything in the UK.

When the Government commissioned a feasibility study on high-speed trains, as they did for their last manifesto, they estimated that £30 billion would be required for a high-speed Scotland to London line. When the White Paper was launched last July, the Secretary of State dismissed proposals for a high-speed railway and suggested that it would not be considered again until 2012, presumably because then we will have digested the Olympics and it will be after the next election. That is not a satisfactory response. The Secretary of State said:

"If the economics or the environmental calculations change, it is right that we consider them in due course"-[Official Report, 24 July 2007; Vol. 465, c. 695.]

I suggest that they are changing, and changing fast.

There are issues of climate change, congestion, pollution and economic diversity in the UK. My constituents and I consider ourselves to be major contributors to the British economy in terms of the goods that we supply, particularly food, to the home counties market. We are heavily engaged in oil and gas, paper and other industries. A high proportion of our customers are in the south of England, and communication with people and goods to the south is of mutual benefit, yet one has the impression that the south of England is quite happy, despite our balance of payments deficit, to import competitive products from the near continent rather than from the UK's hinterland. Part of the reason for that is that the near continent has invested in high-speed rail links that are not available to the further parts of the United Kingdom.

That economic disadvantage hampers not only the parts of the UK that have the capacity to serve domestic markets, but our own economy, because it means that instead of using domestically produced goods, we are importing them. That is partly due to the lack of infrastructure investment. A fast rail link between Edinburgh and London would help to redress the north-south economic divide, and I am sure the Minister acknowledges that.

We should consider journey times in France, and what a high-speed rail link would do for the United Kingdom. Journey times to the central belt of Scotland could be only two and a half hours, which would have a huge impact on domestic capacity at airports, allow more international flights from domestic airports and reduce the number of journey connections. There would be benefits in reducing aviation, reducing pollution and increasing efficiency.

When I spoke to Virgin, the company said that there is substantial capacity to switch people from planes to trains on, for example, the Glasgow route. It obviously has an obligation to run its services, but it needs upgrades and improvements on the lines to do so. Its plea is for both parts of my submission: first, that we keep investing in existing services to cut down journey times and increase efficiency and reliability, or enable rail companies to do so and, secondly, that we have the vision in the long term to connect to a high-speed link as and when that investment is made.

It is easy to ask where £30 billion or more will come from, but that is where the political will comes in. It is a lot of money, but it can be spread over many years. Governments have a way with figures. When they want to show how much they have spent, they total a huge number of years and say that they are spending billions, and when they want to say how unaffordable something is, they do the same. When they want us to believe that identity cards are a great idea, they say that the cost is just a small amount each year and absorbable within the overall cost. It is a matter of will.

The chief executive of Network Rail favours such an investment-as he would. He talks about London to Glasgow, via Birmingham and Manchester, London to Edinburgh via Leeds and Newcastle, and London to Cardiff via Bristol. There is talk of a possible route linking London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, perhaps with a branch to Liverpool-[Interruption.]

David Taylor (in the Chair): Order. That is the third occasion on which the debate has been interrupted by an electronic device. Will all hon. Members and observers please ensure that such devices are switched off?

Malcolm Bruce: I apologise, Mr. Taylor. I assure you that my phone is now firmly off.

The argument is that we can invest in rail if we want to. Such investment would have a huge transformational effect on the sense of unity of the United Kingdom and its land area. As a Scottish MP who believes in the Union, I say to the Minister that a strategic focus of that kind is a classic example of what the Union can achieve. It will bind us together in a common interest rather than drive us apart.

I make no complaint about the fact that a significant amount of the funding for the railway network in Scotland has been devolved to the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament. I do not quarrel with that because clearly they have more local knowledge. However, I hope that the Government will acknowledge that devolution does not absolve them of strategic consideration for rail services that affect Scotland and England. I do not mean just those that straddle the border, but linking services, too. It is not commonly recognised that if one is in the central belt of Scotland, there is more than 300 miles of Scotland to the north. My home village of Torphins is 220 miles from the English border, but it is also 220 miles by road from Orkney. Such distances are really important, and railways contribute hugely to shortening those journeys.

I am not arguing for a high-speed link all the way to the north of Scotland, but for real investment in services across the central belt. We need a real commitment to invest in high-speed trains for journeys that include the central belt and we need investment in efficient connecting links. There would be little point in building a high-speed line that cuts the journey time from London to Edinburgh to two and a half hours, which would be comparable to what the French have achieved, if it then takes two and a half hours or more to get from Aberdeen to Edinburgh-a journey of little more than 100 miles-to connect with that service. There needs to be a comparable upgrade in all the services to enable such a high-speed line to work.

I want to make two small local points. One of them is within the remit of the Scottish authorities and the other is not, so I shall speak to the Minister's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick) about it. Network Rail made a commitment to upgrade the Aberdeen to Inverness service and to provide for the possibility of a commuter rail link between Inverurie, the main town in my constituency, and Aberdeen, which would have huge benefits for consumers, at a cost of between £60 million and £70 million. Network Rail handed over that responsibility to the Scottish Executive who, so far, have shown no real will to pull together the money. They have argued that the project needs to be phased, showing a complete lack of understanding. The project does not lend itself to phasing, because the track, passing spaces and signalling have to be provided before the rolling stock can be introduced. Once those things are in place, the rolling stock is immediately required. I hope that Network Rail has not handed us a duff transfer.

The other issue is rail freight. A very worthwhile effort to provide subsidy to encourage traffic from road to rail had led to the development of services into and out of Aberdeen. Asda, in particular, was bringing in food for its stores in the north-east and a consortium of local transport organisations was putting together an initiative, too. The rules of the franchise were that there had to be a stopover point in Scotland. As a result, the southward part of the service does not attract subsidy, which means that the service will become non-viable. I hope that Ministers will readdress that point. As I have said before, if we are supplying our goods to the home counties, it seems illogical to enforce a stopover point in Scotland to qualify for the subsidy. I hope that it will be possible for the matter to be concluded.

I have indulged myself, Mr. Taylor, on the grounds that I have not had a huge number of interventions. It has given me the opportunity to range more widely over the course than might otherwise have been the case. I hope that hon. Members will recognise the existence of some very serious issues. I do not suggest for one minute that the Government have no interest and no commitment, and have done nothing. Such a comment would be unreasonable and unfair, and I wholly accept that a significant amount of taxpayers' money is involved. Those of us who were sceptical about privatisation always acknowledged that would be the case anyway, and that achieving a balance was the issue.

I have avoided going into the whole argument about the structure of the railways because that is for another time, another place and another debate. To those who say that we cannot control everything, I point out that all we are concerned about are two issues. Can we have more reliable services, which run more quickly and are more competitively priced, and can we have an aspiration to provide rail investment that will put us on a par with the substantial investment that is taking place across the country?

I hope that the Minister will give us some answers, certainly on some of the detailed points that I have raised, although I am not sure that he will be able to answer my second question. However, that is the kind of vision that our country needs. I submit to the Minister that there is a very strong case for the United Kingdom to recognise that strategic investment of the kind I described benefits the UK economy and all its parts, reduces our balance of payments deficit, increases the efficiency of the distribution of people, goods and services within the United Kingdom and is probably one of the biggest single infrastructure developments that would put us in a competitive position with our continental counterparts. I urge the Government to look for that kind of vision. I am disappointed that so far they seem unwilling to do so.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080129/halltext/80129h0001.htm#080129100000010

Read "Westminster Hall Debate on Cross-Border Rail Services".

Westminster Hall Debate on Thai-Burmese Border

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to Westminster Hall on Thu 6th Dec 2007

Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): I can say on behalf of members of the International Development Committee that we are extremely pleased to have the opportunity to debate our report. Naturally, we think that all our reports are important and relevant, but this one is particularly timely. It is important for the House to understand that the Committee undertook an inquiry into the situation in Burma before the recent events took place. After all, the plight of the people of Burma has been serious and deteriorating for 60 years, but, clearly, what has happened since our visit has put into sharp focus just how desperate it is and how important it is that the world does everything that it possibly can to alleviate the suffering there.

Members of the Committee visited the Thai-Burma border in May. We met groups that work cross-border to try to support internally displaced people close to the Thai border but on the Burmese side. We also met exiled groups that were operating out of Thailand to support the Burmese people, and in both Chiang Mai and Bangkok, we met a variety of charities and non-governmental organisations that are involved.

As I said at the outset, Burma has suffered from 60 years of civil war-my lifetime-and 45 years of a military rule that is callous, inhumane and entirely destructive. We had the opportunity to visit one of the largest camps on the border, Ban Mai Nai Soi, and to speak to the refugees. Many told us of how they were subjected to forced labour and harried out of their villages and into the jungle.

The Committee spends a great deal of time discussing poverty, but the kind of poverty that was described to us in Burma is beyond comprehension. Poverty is often described as earning less than a dollar a day, but for the internally displaced people in Burma, it is earning and having nothing. They have no access to food, medical care, education, shelter or anything. They had to flee into the jungle and were constantly harried.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The right hon. Gentleman refers to poverty in Burma. The poorest state in Burma is probably Chin, which is on the Indian border. Does he think that there is considerable scope, as Christian Solidarity Worldwide urges, for cross-border initiatives to relieve the poverty in that state, as well as to promote democracy and human rights, in the way that CSW and other organisations have done for such a long period?

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention. Naturally, the Committee was not able to visit all the border sites, but the report does refer to the fact that there are refugees fleeing across the borders with India, Bangladesh and China. Obviously, there are displaced people in those countries as well. The answer is simple: we should support efforts to provide relief to people along any of the borders. There is evidence that more could be done on all fronts, but, clearly, the biggest pressure is from eastern Burma into Thailand, which is why the Committee went to that area. However, the hon. Gentleman's point is correct.

John Battle (Leeds, West) (Lab): I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He led my colleagues on the Committee and me in producing an excellent and timely report. Could I suggest to him that the poverty that we saw is not just about an inability to get resources to live on? The fact that people are displaced across a border means that they are in no place with no hope for the future. We saw absolute desperation driven by violence. I think that we sometimes underestimate poverty, which can also involve oppression, violence and statelessness.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Of course poverty is all those things. We saw poverty, but what we heard about was even more serious. We spoke to the people who had actually made it across the border and were receiving some kind of support in camps. Their situation was pretty bad, but the stories that they told of how they got to the camp and the suffering that they saw before they managed to get there were, as I said earlier, beyond comprehension-and, for many people, beyond endurance.

We were told by the support agencies about the completely brutal actions of the military forces. For example, we were told that the head people of villages were forced to kill their own families in front of the village or be killed themselves. They were then harried out of the village, which was destroyed. Women were subjected to continuous and violent rape and, after enduring all of that, fled for their lives, taking nothing with them. They survived on what they could gather in the jungle or what cross-border agencies could get to them until they managed to arrive at the camps, where we encountered them. It is important to acknowledge that providing aid across the border is itself a difficult and dangerous operation, but it provides an essential lifeline for the people in that area who have literally nothing.

We were told that villagers were forced into labour by the soldiers who destroyed their village. They were then forced to plant crops and work their own fields but were driven away into the jungle while the crops grew and matured. They were then rounded up and forced to harvest the crops for the benefit of the soldiers-none of the food went to the villagers. In such a situation, even the basics of subsistence are not provided, let alone things such as health care and education, which we regard as fundamental to even a rudimentary civilisation. In many cases, none of those things was provided.

The situation on the border represents a huge dilemma for the Royal Thai Government, who clearly have a problem. They are concerned that, if they provide too much support, they will attract even more refugees and increase the burden. Nevertheless, they are not lacking in compassion. It is estimated that there may be 1 million or even 2 million Burmese refugees living illegally in Thailand.

Ann McKechin (Glasgow, North) (Lab): I thank the right hon. Gentleman and Chairman of the Select Committee for his introduction to this important debate. Would he agree that the international community must do more and offer resettlement for refugees? Frankly, it is unlikely that many refugees will be able to return in the short to medium term, and the Thai authorities have been left with a truly dreadful dilemma, as they try to cope not only with the people in the refugee camps but the 2 million who live in Thailand outside the camps. Should not the international community do more and offer permanent resettlement in their own countries?

Malcolm Bruce: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady, but, in that context, we could also do more to help Thailand. We should all share its economic burden. Of course, many of the illegal refugees are gainfully employed, but there is the danger that they may be deported at any time. Clearly, that is not a satisfactory situation.

I entirely agree that other countries should be willing to help, although I believe that the hon. Lady would acknowledge that that in itself would create a dilemma if it were to result in taking leadership away from the camps-they have more to offer-and leaving the poorest and least-skilled people behind. There is a dilemma even in trying to ensure that a social structure is maintained.

Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab): I am following with care what the right hon. Gentleman says, and I agree with everything so far. On the situation with the refugees-he may be coming on to say something about this-it is clear that we need to sort out our own co-ordination. As far as the UK is concerned, the Foreign Office is responsible for refugees and DFID is responsible for several things relating to internally displaced people. Equally, on an international level, the respective roles of the United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees need to be brought together in a much more consistent way if we are to do the right thing by the refugees.

Malcolm Bruce: I completely agree with that. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the co-ordination of all kinds of agencies is an issue that comes up in almost every situation that the Select Committee investigates. It is certainly true in this context that more effective co-ordination would be of benefit to the refugees and displaced people.

The hon. Gentleman anticipated the point that I was going to make about the operation of DFID and the Foreign Office and the location of offices. We were a little surprised to arrive in Bangkok and find that the DFID office was in the process of closing. The decision, which had been taken some years ago, was perfectly understandable, in that Thailand is a middle-income country and DFID's commitment is to poor countries. In that context, the Committee would not expect Thailand to have a DFID office, but the reality in Burma is that DFID has a serious daily responsibility to be in touch with the plight of people operating in Thailand to support people in Burma. We have asked the Government to reconsider their decision to operate entirely from Rangoon with no DFID staff in Bangkok. I do not expect the Minister to give a commitment to act on that, but I should be grateful if he at least undertook to look closely at the practice. I told the Secretary of State informally that my guess is that, if the groups that operate out of Bangkok were asked whether they are frustrated at the absence of the daily contact that they previously had, they would say yes and that they would appreciate a more regular contact.

Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): As a member of the Committee on the visit, I reinforce the need for co-ordination in Bangkok. Many organisations can freely co-ordinate their activities in Burma through direct aid and across the border only when they leave Burma. They must meet outside, because there is no way that they can meet and speak freely about what they are doing within the regime.

Malcolm Bruce: That is exactly the point. People were prepared to say things to us during meetings in Bangkok and Chiang Mai that they would not have been prepared to say in Burma. In that context, the Government say in their response to our report:

"We will arrange meetings at least every 3 months with those groups who provide cross-border support, and with those who lobby for political change from outside Burma. This will ensure a regular flow of information and ideas."

I suggest that a meeting every three months does not compare with daily contact, which is what happened before relocation to Rangoon. The Government continued:

"Second, we will continue to engage with all donor co-ordination initiatives both in Bangkok and Rangoon. The flight from Rangoon to Bangkok only takes one hour."

The problem is that one does not know when to fly if one does not know what the issue is, and that comment demonstrates remoteness from the need to engage with groups in Thailand.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con): I shall return to this point if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Gale, but it may be helpful to say now that, as the Committee Chairman knows, the Conservative party strongly supports his point. We hope that the Government will look again at the excellent section of the report that argues that point, and we want to encourage the Minister, even now during our debate when he has his officials behind him, to consider whether he can change policy on that important matter.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention and support. The Government should consider carefully whether they can continue to maintain the close links, co-operation and working relationship with groups operating in Thailand if they do not have a permanent member of staff or two based in Bangkok.

We were, however, impressed with the work of the Foreign Office and the embassy in Bangkok, and we do not wish in any way to criticise that work, particularly in support of refugees. We believe that a DFID engagement is necessary in addition to, not instead of, the Foreign Office engagement. I hope that the Minister and the Department will think carefully about the decision that has been enacted and consider whether, in practice, they need to revisit it. I hope that they will do so, because we are not convinced that the close relationships that were maintained before the office closed can be continued under these arrangements.

The Government have acknowledged that support for refugees and cross-border organisations and in-country support for the Three Diseases Fund and the civic society group are not mutually exclusive, and we had a considerable debate about that. We had the impression at one point that the Government were arguing that cross-border support was something that other people provided, and that DFID and the Government had an advantage in providing in-country support. I should like to make it clear, as I am sure would the Committee, that we commend DFID's work in Rangoon and want it to do more of it, but looking at the problem of Burma in its entirety, we do not believe that we can do that without providing support for cross-border agencies and exile groups at the same time. It is not an either/or matter; the approach should be dual-pronged.

In the light of developments since our visit, will the Minister tell us by how much, for example, the funding of the Three Diseases Fund can and will be increased and whether it is still possible to work with civic society and faith groups in-country in the wake of the recent clampdown? How closely supervised are DFID staff, and how restrictive is the supervision by the junta Government and their officials? Were any of DFID's key partners inside Burma directly affected by recent events? Those constraints and problems are being confronted on the ground.

I welcomed the Secretary of State's announcement on 29 October that aid to Burma will be doubled from £9 million to £18 million by 2010. I also welcome the fact that that will be reviewed and could lead to the quadrupling of aid, which our Committee called for, on the same time scale. Although, not surprisingly, there has been some concern that the Government should go further and faster, it is fair to say that they have responded positively. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) looks rueful, and no doubt he will explain himself, but we asked for a quadrupling of aid. The Government have not ruled that out and have immediately doubled it, so it would be churlish to deny that that is a positive response.

A small matter of Committee sensitivity is that it received the Government's response to our report on 15 October, and in response to our call to quadruple aid they said:

"we will be considering an increase in funding for our programme in Burma following the Comprehensive Spending Review settlement in October."

A week later, they announced their decision to double it and that they might further increase it subsequently. It would have been good for parliamentary relations if they had acknowledged the report and the response to it, rather than implying that they had made a spontaneous decision unrelated to anything that was going on. We shall claim the credit anyway.

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): I hope that the Minister was listening and that, when he finally accepts the full recommendations and quadruples aid, he will commend the Committee on its work.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for that intervention. There is a serious point, because the Committee worked extremely hard and made serious recommendations. It is gratifying when the Government accept all or part of those recommendations, but Ministers seem to be reluctant to acknowledge that they are responding to parliamentary pressure. It would be a virtue if Ministers welcomed that and publicly acknowledged it, but perhaps that is for the future.

John Battle: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to emphasise one point. Aside from the increase in funds, the business of the Three Diseases Fund is crucial, because 70 per cent. of the population are at risk from malaria, and Burma now has the third highest HIV prevalence in the whole of south-east Asia. Moving on from our report, I suggest that DFID and other international donors should start to look at alternative mechanisms for tackling the three diseases. We saw from the maps that were presented to us that there is no way that their present strategy will cover people's needs.

Malcolm Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I certainly hope that the Department will provide more detail on how it is using the extra money to scale up delivery of those services. I agree with him that a stronger and deeper infrastructure is necessary for that to happen. The point is that the Burmese Government-if one can call them a Government-spend almost nothing on health care and provision and, as the Committee has discovered from looking at aspects of health care in other parts of the world, if there is no health service infrastructure it is extraordinarily difficult to provide even the most basic treatment. Nevertheless, the evidence is that the Three Diseases Fund has been successful in reaching at least some people, and it would be worth the Government explaining in more detail how they propose to extend it to reach more people more quickly.

In the present situation, development in Burma is virtually inconceivable; all we are offering is absolutely basic aid. When I say that development is inconceivable, I mean that it is inconceivable as long as the country is under the thumb of a brutal military dictatorship that holds normal human values in contempt and cares nothing for the people of Burma, still less for the ethnic minorities in the country. Some of those who participated in the recent protests-since the Committee visited the area-have said that they are now so poor and so repressed that it is worth dying to change things, because life offers so little. A question hangs in the air: is change likely as long as the junta is in power? Is there any prospect of change from within? I say to the Minister that-obviously, in co-operation with the Foreign Office-every effort must be intensified to bring that brutal regime to an end.

The tragedy for Burma is that it is rich in natural resources and has a potential for development that other countries would give their eye teeth for. However, the country's resources are being exploited by the dictatorship simply to sustain itself in power, rather than to provide anything for the people in terms of economic, health or education benefits, or any of the normal perquisites of civilisation. The country is being developed with no regard whatever for the people.

We must also consider Burma's neighbours. Clearly, the military regime is sustained by the fact that Burma can find customers for its resources abroad. It is therefore worth asking what China, India and Russia especially are doing. Will the Minister say what protests have been lodged against Russia's plans to build a nuclear power station for the regime? The Government are worried about Iran, but I hear no protests about the fact that Russia wants to build a nuclear power station in Burma. How can India hold its head up as a democracy-the largest democracy in the world-and as a member of the Commonwealth while continuing to provide arms for the regime? What protests have the Government lodged and what engagement have they had, with the Indian Government on the matter?

Finally, and perhaps most important, what discussions are the Government holding with China? Of the three countries I have mentioned, China is the one with which some degree of co-operation and understanding might be the most productive. Clearly, the Chinese want assets-oil, gas, electricity and water-for eastern China, and nobody can blame them for wishing to secure them from a close source. However, China also needs security of supply, so it must consider whether a military regime whose people are suffering and who are beginning to protest provides a secure basis for future supply, or whether it ought to apply pressure to ensure that the regime delivers some democracy, freedom and services for the people, to create a stability that will in turn provide future security for China's investment in Burma. What talks are being held with China to that effect?

The Committee believes that there is scope for a significant increase to DFID's in-country aid to Burma. We welcome the Government response, but we want them to go further. The Government must ensure that money goes to all the appropriate resources, whether in-country or out of country, where they can be reached and be effective. There must be no continuation of a debate that says we can do one thing and not another. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) said, we need to co-ordinate with other agencies to ensure that whatever we do is done most effectively and reaches the maximum number of people, and we should pile pressure on the junta to accept its responsibilities to the people whom it subjugates and represses.

In conclusion, recent events suggest that if we cannot prise the generals' fingers off the levers of power in Burma, the 60 years of suffering might end in a bloody and awful denouement. In the meantime, we must do everything in our power to relieve the suffering of the Burmese people and to bring an end to a brutal and repressive regime.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071206/halltext/71206h0001.htm#07120642000196

Read "Westminster Hall Debate on Thai-Burmese Border ".

BOND International Development Disability Day

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to Methodist Central Hall on Mon 3rd Dec 2007

It has been sobering to listen to Graham Teskey (Head of Governance and Social development, DFID) and Isaac Kute (ADD, Chief executive). There is a book that has recently been published by Paul Colliers "The Bottom Billion". It talks about how to reach the billion poorest people in the world and deliver development. When you hear there are 600 million disabled people in the world and that 20% of the world's population is disabled, you wonder how many people in that bottom billion are actually disabled. A significant proportion of the world's poorest people are disabled people.

I do not wish to direct any criticism to Graham Teskey, but one needs to acknowledge that mainstreaming disability issues in development policy and in practice is a challenge. I'm delighted to hear that the "How To Notes", recently published by DFID, provide practical guidance to country programmes as to how to include the needs of people with disabilities in their work. Despite a majority of the world's population being women, it is difficult enough to mainstream gender into programmes! How much more difficult is it to prioritise disabled people? One should look at the West first before looking at developing countries, to see how far we have to go.

I got involved in issues surrounding deafness because my daughter was born deaf 30 years ago. I was confronted with something I did not know about and had not previously had to deal with. Over the 30 years that I have known her, and witnessed the challenges she has faced, I have learnt a lot about the obstacles facing people with disabilities. There is little recognition of the skills or the potential people with disabilities have. It is hard to find jobs and, if they do, hard to find work which is appropriate to their level of skill and experience. It is difficult to access professional training, etc.

There are many other obstacles. For profoundly deaf people, for example, recognition and access to sign language is frankly abysmal! I have been campaigning on this issue for 30 years, 25 of them as an MP, and we have made little progress. In fact, I wonder if we are going backwards! There is official recognition, and substantial financial support for minority languages such as Welsh and Gaelic. It is well known that a lot more people use sign language than Gaelic, yet, Gaelic receives millions of pounds a year to support its use and promotion. Sign language actually receives no direct support.

If it's challenging being disabled in a country like the UK how much more difficult is it in the Democratic Republic of Congo or another developing country where challenges arising from disability are compounded by poverty and, for many, the struggle for subsistence? Many disabilities in these contexts are acquired because of the state of the country and because of poverty.

The key Millennium Development Goals are about delivering maternal health and education, tackling diseases and building up health services. These are institutions which are required to support disabled people and their inclusion. If you are in a country where people are living on less than a dollar a day, what is the possibility of you being able to acquire and afford necessary hearing aids? What's the chance of a wheelchair? What's the chance even of spectacles when these actually cost more than individuals earn in a year? What is the chance of competing with people who are poor but not disabled for those resources which are disproportionately expensive?

These arguments underline the huge importance of including the needs of people with disabilities into the development strategy. I hope Graham would agree with me, we don't talk in the UK so much about overseas aid, as overseas development, and rightly so. Aid is like sticking plasters or for an emergency. But the real objective is to support people in their own countries to help themselves, so they can ultimately deliver these services themselves. It is crucial to involve organisations representing disabled people in developing countries to identify their needs and their aspirations to find out how international development processes can build them in to the establishment of systems that are needed for the whole Community.

The International Development Select Committee is currently looking into maternal health. One of the privileges of being on such a committee is that you are confronted with lots of information you wouldn't necessarily find out about unless you chose to go looking for it. When you are told that over half a million women a year in developing countries die in childbirth, it is difficult to understand. Of course, and this is relevant to today's discussion, for every one who dies there are probably many who survive but are disabled in some way. Many children are also born disabled as a consequence of poor maternal health, new-born health services, malnutrition, lack of support, etc. So, it's a vicious spiral where poverty and disability are interdependent.

I think having an event like this today confronting the argument that disability should be built into the development strategy is important. What I would say to you is do not consider it special pleading; it isn't special pleading its essential! If the objective is to make poverty history then supporting disabled people is essential to achieving this. Some of the poorest people in the world are disabled, if they are not included in programme work then, by definition, you are not attempting to make poverty history. You are guaranteeing that poverty will continue to be a reality for people with disabilities. I believe there are ways of including people with disabilities. The challenge to you and all your partners in other countries is to identify and prioritise those things which would best support disabled people and their inclusion in society.

If I come back to the personal anecdote of my daughter, she is 30 years old now, and has a digital hearing aid, she has a computer, a phone, a textphone, and has means of communication. These have helped her, they haven't solved everything or fixed her communication challenges but they have assisted her. And how much did that cost our society? We have to ensure those benefits are spread as widely as possible. We have to recognise, and this is exactly the point I think Graham was making, that we are talking directly to disabled people, that disabled people are allowed to speak for themselves, and that they are integrally included in international programme work. I regularly visit DFID country offices as part of my work as Chair of the Select Committee, and I will make a point of asking them how they are building disability into their work.

I would like to say, just in case anybody thinks I'm levelling criticism here, I have been to more than a dozen, 15 I think, DFID country programmes in the last 18 months. The work that DFID staff do, I can honestly say, is something this country can be inordinately proud of. They do a wonderful job and do it with huge dedication and relatively small numbers. But they also have a huge challenge. You can't be entirely surprised then that on occasions knowing which issues to prioritise is difficult. I think we have to help them to make sure that disability is one of these priorities. I'm quite sure that Graham is making damn sure that they do and, for my part, I will ask them how they are getting on when I'm next visiting them. My next stop is West Africa and then China and that will be a good start and I will report back to you.

Thank you for asking me here, and having this conference, and please rest assured that you have the right to be heard, and the more practical help you can feed in the greater the chance we have of building disabled people's issues into the mainstream. But at the same time remember we have to keep fighting at home. If we can't set a good example here and ensure equality at home, there's not much chance of poor people in poorer countries achieving this either.

Read "BOND International Development Disability Day ".

Debate on Global Poverty

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to the House of Commons on Thu 15th Nov 2007

Malcolm Bruce: I greatly welcome the opportunity to engage in this debate. In the short time available, I thought that I would comment on some countries in which we have been engaged recently as well as on the general thrust of today's report. I should like to place on the record my thanks to the staff of the International Development Committee for ensuring that the report was available today; that required a degree of effort but has added to the value of our debate.

We have been concerned with a number of countries in the past year. The Secretary of State referred in his opening statement to Burma and we recently published a report on that country. I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman first for his very prompt response in announcing the doubling of aid and secondly for his indication to the House today that that does not limit the aspirations. After all, we can always talk about money, but the ultimate point is always effectiveness. We all agree that there is a greater capacity for more aid to reach poor people in Burma than has been delivered. We greatly welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to achieve that.

The Committee was concerned, however, although we understood the reasoning, about the basing of the entire Burma DFID staff in Rangoon. Many of the expatriate organisations supporting the Burmese people in a whole variety of ways are perforce operating out of Thailand. The suggestion that a quarterly meeting with those groups is sufficient and that Thailand is only a plane ride away does not fulfil the need for regular contact. I thus hope that the Secretary of State will think again about whether a permanent DFID presence in Bangkok might still be necessary and justified, as the Committee recommended.

The Committee visited Pakistan some time ago in the wake of the earthquake. Obviously, more recent events in that country are a considerable cause for concern. Will the Under-Secretary say whether consideration is being given to the way in which aid might be delivered in Pakistan in the changed circumstances? Put simply and starkly, it would be wrong for DFID money to go directly to a President who has suspended the democratic process. The people of Pakistan must not, however, be denied the effective aid that is needed to deal with issues of poverty and development.

My colleague the hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) has alluded to the fact that the Committee returned two weeks ago from a week-long visit to Afghanistan, where we had the opportunity to visit not only Government agencies, NGOs and our representatives in Kabul, but the field around Kabul-part of the Committee went to Helmand and part of it to Mazar-e-Sharif-to get some idea of the scale and diversity of the challenges facing all the agencies in Afghanistan, from the Government to the people and the international community. The Committee will produce a detailed report, but I do not think that I am anticipating that unreasonably by saying that, difficult and challenging as the situation is, we all recognise that we should be in Afghanistan and that it is a long-term commitment. It is a poor country and our objective must be to give it a chance to develop. The balance between military and civil development activity will probably need to be reassessed, but we will write shortly to the Secretary of State with our interim views, and then publish a detailed report in the new year.

The Committee remains somewhat unhappy about the Government's policy towards the Palestinian occupied territories. Some of that is history, on which it is probably not appropriate to dwell too long. A huge opportunity was missed, however, when there was a Government of national unity, to provide some kind of continuing support. The Palestinian community is now very divided, and the international community has taken sides, supporting one half and isolating the other. Let me make it absolutely clear that I hold no brief whatever for Hamas, but it was elected by the Palestinian people. If we are trying to build a viable Palestinian state, there is a danger of being part of the process of increasing the wedge and division within and among the Palestinian people.

Mr. Douglas Alexander: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman. As he will be aware, when the Prime Minister spoke on foreign affairs on Monday evening he indicated his intention that I travel to the Palestinian territories and Israel in the coming weeks. Obviously, we are looking ahead to the Annapolis meeting. As was indicated in Prime Minister's questions, there is a willingness for financial resources to be committed in support not simply of the peace and reconciliation efforts, but of the economic development needs of those communities. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the matter is receiving urgent attention from the Government and Ministers.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful for that. Perhaps this is a subject for a another debate, but I remain concerned that, as things stand, the international community has added to, rather than solved, the problems of the people of Palestine.

Having made those specific comments about countries where we have a direct engagement, one positive story was our visit to Vietnam in the summer. The Committee was impressed by DFID's contribution and the value that it added to the programme there. Given that we are contributing £50 million a year-a substantial amount-to a country in which we do not have a long-standing record, part of the reason for the visit was to determine whether we were adding value that other donors could not provide. We were persuaded that we were doing that. It is worth placing on the record that Vietnam has the look of a success story in development terms: it has every prospect of making the transition from a low-income country to a middle-income country in short order.

That brings me on to the wider issues of how DFID can deliver effectively the 0.7 per cent., to reach the largest number of poor people in the largest number of countries. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) rightly made much of our collective aspiration to reach that target. As our report stated, however, simply saying that we will spend more money to achieve an aspiration is, as I am sure that the Secretary of State will acknowledge, unique to his Department. If any other Minister were to talk in such terms, he or she would almost certainly have his or her knuckles rapped by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for saying "What I want to know is not how much money you will spend, but what you are going to achieve-what the outcomes will be." I am not suggesting that DFID does not concern itself with outcomes, but I think it reasonable to say that in these unique circumstances it is important for us to persuade the British taxpayer not just that we are meeting United Nations aspirations, but that we are determined to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible to deliver poverty reduction.

Although the Committee has made it clear that it understands and accepts the staffing constraints, we are concerned about what the implications may be, and there may come a time when we take a different view. Providing budget support, advice and the detailed range of practical measures that is required is people-intensive. In evidence to the Committee, DFID staff have acknowledged that the present constraints may lead to consequences that are not driven by policy: we may be forced to invest more than we would otherwise have invested in multilateral agencies over which we have less direct control, give more to consultants than would otherwise be appropriate, or reduce the number and range of programmes that we commit to and the number of countries in which we operate. If that happened, the Committee would want to think again about whether the Department should be under such constraints.

Mr. Alexander: I am sympathetic to the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes about the need to review staffing levels constantly, but given that-notwithstanding the success that has been enjoyed-DFID accounts for approximately 8 per cent. of global aid flows, is it not reasonable to seek to increase our commitment to the multilateral institutions, not just because they are currently capable of contributing to poverty reduction but because they are the means by which we can secure influence over institutions which themselves have considerable influence over the effectiveness of aid globally?

Malcolm Bruce: Absolutely. Indeed, the Committee is heading for Washington in two weeks for detailed discussions with, in particular, the World Bank to try to ensure that that happens. However, we want DFID and the United Kingdom to exert their influence, which is substantial in the World Bank, to ensure that there is congruence between our Government's policy objectives and those of the international agencies. If we are satisfied of that, it is clearly appropriate for more resources to go in their direction.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell rose-

Malcolm Bruce: I will incur a penalty in terms of time, but I will give way.

Mr. Mitchell: I am extremely grateful.

Is it not the case that what the Secretary of State says is absolutely right, as long as he makes the decision because that is the right thing to do rather than because he has not enough staff to do anything else?

Malcolm Bruce: Of course that is true. It is partly why I think we should have a full-time director of the World Bank to ensure that Britain's influence is given full measure. I believe that we should use consultants and multilateral agencies, but for the right reasons. We should do it because it is the best option, not because we are constrained.

Another important issue that the Committee is about to examine in detail is the role of donor co-ordination, which is becoming increasingly critical. There is a proliferation of agencies, both multinational agencies such as the United Nations and those in individual countries, all trying to do their own thing. If there is no co-ordination, it is impossible for the Government of a developing country to deal with receipts of aid and development on such a scale. At a recent seminar, Louis Michael said that in Tanzania there were more than 600 health projects worth less than €1 million, emanating from a variety of organisations in the European Union. He may have his own empire to build, and when he says that he would prefer a single project worth $600 million he probably intends it to be under his direction, but his point is valid. How on earth can Tanzania deal with 600 agencies rather than one? The same applies even to national donors.

We certainly believe that greater co-ordination is necessary. Afghanistan is a clear case in point. The British Government, including DFID, play a very constructive role in trying to promote that degree of co-ordination, and to encourage the development of a simpler and more transparent route for the delivery of aid. I personally commend the Department for doing that and urge it to do more. It may be that as our aid budget rises and our influence and clout as a development provider increases, we have more success. The Committee will explore the extent to which there are potential partners for that kind of co-operation and co-ordination.

I conclude by saying that it is fair to say that the Department for International Development may well turn out to be the greatest achievement of the Labour Government. The untying of aid began in principle under a Conservative Government, but it was certainly not completed. Even if it was not universally agreed at the time, the clear separation into two Departments, with poverty reduction as the overwhelming strategy, is certainly universally accepted now and is the right way forward. It creates tensions and debate as to how we deliver effective aid and whether we can still advise middle-income countries, but it is the right model. It is important to ensure that aid and development are delivered for their own sake, not as an instrument of foreign policy. As long as that is the case, I am sure that it will carry the widespread support of the British people and of their tax budgets.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm071115/debtext/71115-0015.htm#07111535000620

Read "Debate on Global Poverty".

Westminster Hall Debate on the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Speech by Malcolm Bruce delivered to Westminster Hall on Thu 5th Jul 2007

Malcolm Bruce: It is particularly appropriate that you should be in the Chair for this important and timely debate, Mr. Bercow. I welcome the new Minister to his post and give him my good wishes. I wrote, on behalf of the International Development Committee, to the new Prime Minister before he took up office to ask him to beef up the Department for International Development and to give it an appropriate number of Ministers. I am glad that he has done so, and I expect that the Minister appreciates having three colleagues rather than only one, as would have been the case in the previous Administration. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply and to the future engagements that I am sure that members of the Committee will have with him.

Obviously, events have moved on since we produced our report, and not for the better. When it was published, in January, after our November visit to Palestine and Israel, we were particularly concerned, from a development point of view, that although an increasing amount of development aid was going to the occupied territories, poverty was also increasing at a high rate. The reasons for that were not hard to find, and I shall address them, as the report has done. We said in the report that the situation was unsustainable and would deteriorate, stating:

"The danger of the current approach is that it might push Hamas into a corner which encourages violence rather than negotiation."

We also pointed out that:

"Hamas now has closer links to governments like that of Iran than it had two years ago."

The events of the past two or three weeks show that that was not an inappropriate analysis. Indeed, last year, Jan Egeland described Gaza as a "ticking time bomb". Unfortunately, it has now exploded and the fallout is not yet clear. The takeover of Gaza by Hamas was brutal and unjustified, but the failure to secure recognition of its election victory may have contributed to its frustration, at least in part.

Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): I follow the reasoning in the right hon. Gentleman's report and in the comment that he has just made, but do not comments from Hamas about "keeping the flame of resistance alive until our Palestinian flag will fly anew over the walls of Jerusalem, the shores of Haifa and Jaffa" indicate a Government who not prepared to accept the existence of the internationally recognised state of Israel?

Malcolm Bruce: We know that, and I might come to that point later. I could retort to the hon. Lady that Israel is illegally occupying a significant piece of territory that does not belong to the state of Israel, and yet it does not always suffer the same degree of international condemnation for so doing, but I do not want to justify one wrong against another. I shall address her point in slightly more detail later.

Like all hon. Members, I am sure, I very much welcome the release of Alan Johnston this week. His kidnapping was deeply stressful and was damaging to the Palestinian cause. Clearly, Hamas will want to take credit for the release, or at least to tell the world that it indicates that it has control of the security situation in Gaza. We were unable to visit Gaza because of the security situation. The previous Secretary of State managed to get in shortly afterwards, but others have found it difficult. It is effectively a prison, sealed off by land, air and sea, with virtually no resources and no functioning economy. The question that we have to concern ourselves with is: how is the basic essence of life to be maintained there?

Our former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, is to take up the role of Quartet representative. He faces an awesome challenge and a crisis of credibility with the Palestinians given his close ties to the Bush Administration and to Israel. How can he mobilise international assistance, as he has been specifically asked to do, let alone develop the economy of Gaza in those circumstances without talking to Hamas? He will have to do so sooner or later. If he were here, I would say to him that Hamas will have to be involved in talks at some stage, as part of the wider process, just as on the path to peace in Northern Ireland he had to talk to Sinn Fein and the IRA.

Our report, and its timing, were motivated by the fact that while international aid and the UK's contribution to the occupied territories was rising, incomes were falling and poverty was increasing, with the most vulnerable-older people, women and children-suffering the most. I shall not go into the statistics now, but they show how deeply people were affected in practical ways. As our report says, that situation was directly attributable to two facts, the first of which was the withholding of revenue from the Palestinian Authority: both the customs revenue collected by Israel on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and budget support from international donors. The second fact was the effective blockade of Gaza and the total disruption of access and movement around the west bank, both of which were imposed by the Israeli Government.

John Battle (Leeds, West) (Lab): Our Committee's focus was the alleviation and tackling of poverty, but we cannot tackle poverty in the west bank and Gaza without considering the politics and economic realities. The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that although certain groups have used blood-curdling rhetoric and carried out serious attacks of violence and terror in the past, they eventually had to be brought into talks to bring about a peace agreement. I suggest that it might not be simply his view and that of the Committee that in order to tackle poverty in the west bank and Gaza, there will have to be dialogue with all the parties, including Hamas. That might now be the wider view.

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because that is the essence of our argument. Our report is an International Development Committee report, but I make no apology for straying into politics, because we cannot deliver development in the occupied territories without some form of political settlement. I want to know how it will be possible to deliver humanitarian assistance and support to the people of Gaza if we do not talk to the people who are in control there. I do not see how that assistance can be delivered in any other way.

The consequence of withholding aid, which might now be restored-I want to ask the Minister a few questions on that-was that the Palestinian Authority effectively collapsed. Its employees, by which I mean not only civil servants but nurses, teachers, doctors-essential workers-went unpaid, and, as a result, many went on strike. Economic activity was paralysed by the restrictions.

The Quartet is unequivocal in its requirements of Hamas and, if I may say this to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), completely equivocal in its approach to Israel. Paragraph 60 of the report specifically states:

"However, while severe pressure has been placed on the Hamas-led PA to change its policies and accept Quartet principles, no comparable initiative has been taken with the Government of Israel to encourage it to put into practice agreements it has signed up to or to end clearly identified practices which are causing poverty and suffering in Gaza."

The imbalance causes a great deal of resentment and is a practical obstacle to progress.

Mrs. Ellman: The right hon. Gentleman talks as if Hamas is a normal political organisation. Is he aware that article 32 of its charter talks about the Jews' plans being "embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Is that not just one example of plain anti-Semitism?

Malcolm Bruce: I am sure that the hon. Lady will have many more such quotes. I want to reassure her that I endorse nothing of what Hamas says, stands for or does in terms of violence. I am not here as an apologist for Hamas; I am here as a political realist, accepting the fact that, whether we like it or not, Hamas was elected by the people of Palestine. However, it has been denied the right to have any kind of engagement.

Conditions are legitimate, but we have imposed similar conditions in the past on all kinds of movements, for example the IRA, EOKA and the Mau Mau, and ultimately, we have to deal with the facts on the ground. That is the essence of my point. I am not asking anyone to like or appreciate Hamas, but at some point we will have to talk to it. It is my belief that Tony Blair, in his position, may have to talk to it sooner rather than later.

What is the state of life in Gaza? I wonder whether the Minister can answer this direct question: is there enough food? There were indications of difficulties in that regard. Are hospitals and schools functioning? What measures are in hand to provide long-term support-access and movement? Is the temporary international mechanism-TIM-continuing or are steps in hand for salary payments to be restored directly, through the Palestinian Authority? If that happens, will they be backdated, and if so, will TIM contributions be in any way deducted from or charged to the PA? While we were there, that possibility was mooted.

On the west bank, are the number of restrictions increasing or diminishing? Is work continuing on the security fence? Is the development of E1 still on hold? Are other settlements on the west bank still expanding? Those are real questions; we need to know whether the situation has changed positively or negatively. I suspect that I know what the answers are, but if the Minister has up-to-date information, hon. Members would be happy to hear it.

I appreciate that the Department has given £1 million to the Red Cross for humanitarian relief in Gaza. Will the Minister indicate what other aid the UK is providing directly and indirectly, and whether it represents an increase compared with the previous two years?

Tony Blair faces a huge challenge if he is to move from the present crisis to establishing even the beginnings of a viable Palestinian state. I believe that Israel and the Quartet are taking a significant risk by investing their support so directly and completely in President Abbas. His Fatah party was defeated at the elections to the Palestinian Authority largely because of public disaffection with extravagance and corruption in the past.

Many Palestinians, most of whom had voted for Fatah, told the Committee that they felt they were being punished for a democratic vote. One woman told us that the UK, "Had invaded Iraq to impose democracy but refused to recognise the Palestinian democracy resulting from a free and fair election." When I put that to Tony Blair on his appearance before the Liaison Committee, he replied:

"We have recognised the Government."

That slightly surprised me. When I queried it, he said:

"We have recognised Hamas as having won the election."

He continued:

"Let us be absolutely clear what the problem is. The problem is not whether we recognise Hamas have a mandate and have won the election, the problem is that if they want money from us...we need to make sure that that money is not being used for them to buy weapons."

That is a fair point: it is our money and aid money. That issue needs to be addressed, but it does not apply to the Palestinian Authority's own money. Its money had been collected, on its behalf, on the borders by Israel and had been withheld. That was the biggest single factor in bringing about the effective collapse of the day-to-day functioning of the Palestinian Authority. The Department for International Development, among other donors, had invested so much time, effort and resources into building up that body.

There is real anger and frustration among ordinary Palestinians. I am not necessarily talking about those who support what Hamas stands for, although some might have voted for it. The Palestinians have made many mistakes for which they are paying, and Israel has legitimate security concerns, which they are addressing robustly. Nevertheless, we face a long haul, in which the ordinary, beleaguered Palestinians face unreasonable hardship, are prevented from developing their own economic salvation from what should be a productive economy, and find that Israel is free to impose disproportionate reprisals, seal off activity and continue an illegal occupation without let or hindrance. The essence of our report, and, indeed, the up-to-date comment to add to that report, is simply: how long can this go on?

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://pubs1.tso.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070705/halltext/70705h0001.htm#07070556000007

Read "Westminster Hall Debate on the Occupied Palestinian Territories".

Westminster Hall Debate on Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction

Speech by Malcolm Bruce speaking in Westminster Hall on Thu 22nd Mar 2007

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this report. By definition, conflict is a difficult and huge subject that has many interweaving strands. Although I hope that our report was constructive and useful, it does not and could not cover every aspect of how to prevent conflict and how to rebuild after it.

We felt it important to carry out such a report, because we were only too aware of the devastating effect of conflict and of how it is incompatible with aid and development that one conflict can wipe out the effect of the world's entire aid budget for a year. The people who are most affected by any conflict are the most vulnerable, especially women and children, who suffer the greatest poverty and hardship. Countries affected by conflict have the lowest prospect of achieving the millennium development goals, because the capacity to deliver services is simply destroyed.

The other problem is that conflict affects neighbouring states. It does so either by spreading the conflict into them or because people in neighbouring states use it as an opportunity to take advantage of a vulnerable, failed or conflict-prone state. Given those facts, we took the view that it is essential that the Development for International Development has a strategy for dealing with conflict states. The strategy for Africa and for poverty reduction will simply not be achieved unless, in co-operation with other donors and agencies, we can deal with conflicts as they arise. That is particularly borne out by evidence that about half the states that have had conflict fall back into it within a few years of a peace being settled. I suspect that we shall hear examples of those during the debate.

No one on the Committee believes that there are simple, off-the-shelf solutions, and we accept that a number of different factors come into play. I welcome the Department's publication last week of "Preventing Violent Conflict", which gives practical examples of where the Department has promoted initiatives that it hopes will reduce conflict-in some cases, the Department can provide evidence that such initiatives have made a contribution to doing so. The Committee also appreciated the work of the cross-departmental conflict prevention pools and the post-conflict reconstruction unit. As our report said, these would be much more helpful if the Department of Trade and Industry were involved, and I intend to return to that point later.

The Committee held some interesting sittings at the outset about the causes of conflict. They were somewhat theoretical and academic discussions about the role of greed and grievance, and the regional dimensions to conflict that I have mentioned. In a sense, we were trying to establish whether general principles can be developed to deal with conflicts. We were resistant to the idea, which some academics advance, of a nice, simple analysis that defines things. By definition, the seeds and courses of every conflict are different, although there are some common factors.

We could not possibly undertake a definitive review of all of the recent conflicts in the world, so we did not attempt to do so. For example, we did not examine the conflict in Sri Lanka, which appears to have the capacity to continue indefinitely. It would be unhelpful if I were to comment on what the answers should be in that country. I simply put it on the record that we recognise that there are conflict situations that we did not examine and thus cannot comment upon usefully.

Given the importance of Africa to the Government's development strategy and the degree of conflict that there has been in that continent, the Committee visited three specific African conflict zones-northern Uganda, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, although I am not sure whether that is an appropriate name for it. The Committee split into two for the first two visits. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (John Battle) led the group to Sierra Leone, while I went to Uganda and the DRC. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will catch your eye later, Mr. Illsley, because he will have more to say about what he found and learned from the Committee's visit to Sierra Leone. I am sure that he will observe that while peace has been re-established, the factors that could lead to the re-emergence of conflict are still in place, but I shall leave him to elaborate on that.

In northern Uganda, we saw at first hand the consequences of 20 years of the sinister and bloody activities of the Lord's Resistance Army, which has terrorised people by attacking villages, abducting children and brutalising them as soldiers, and raping and enslaving girls as well as turning many of them into soldiers. Although we would not blame the Government of Uganda for causing that conflict, we found underlying concern that there is a clear division between the Government supporters and the Acholi people, from whom President Museveni's predecessor, Milton Obote, drew his support-those people tend to vote for the opposition. There is a mutual suspicion between the Government and the Acholi people in the north in respect of who is to blame and what could, and could not, be done about the situation. There were situations where the Government said that people were free to return to the land, but the people said, "Yes, but we have been told that we will be shot should we try to do so. We are not sure whether Government forces are there to protect or contain us."

People have fled in fear from their land into grossly overcrowded camps, whose facilities are poor. For too long, the Ugandan Government appeared content to allow the situation to rest, sometimes claiming that the insurgency was almost crushed and at other times saying that they were going to promote peace negotiations. Last year, there were the beginnings of what looked like a serious attempt at peace negotiations, but they seem to have run into the sand. One hears slightly disturbing reports that the LRA are recruiting again in the bush, and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State were to share any up-to-date information on that front.

I made a second visit, courtesy of Oxfam, six months after the first trip towards the end of last year, when I saw that something encouraging had taken place in the interval. The area of land under cultivation reaching out from the camps had substantially extended from being 1 to 1.5 km outside the camps to being 8 to 9 km distant. There were also outreach camps, which had a huge impact on the amount of land under cultivation and helped to diversify the access to food supplies and the restocking of livestock.

The fact remains that there is still no peace settlement and no signs of one. There were outbreaks of cholera in the camps. Without a peace agreement, the people were too terrified to return to the land. Even if they were to do so, they would clearly need a substantial amount of aid support to restock and to re-establish their livelihood within such areas.

The Committee made specific reference to its concern that last year the international community gave $200 million in aid collectively to that one region of Uganda, yet in stable camps under the watch of Ugandan Government forces, we found little or no education, poor health care provision-where there was such provision, it was provided not by the Ugandan Government, but by international agencies-and virtually no policing. If there was criminal activity in the camps, it was up to the victims to transport the accused to court, which is ridiculous because an impoverished refugee without transport in a camp cannot and would not expect to do that.

It seemed that the Ugandan Government were failing in their obligations to provide services to their own people and had left it to the international community to pick up the pieces. I venture to say that it suited the Ugandan Government not to have that responsibility. It may not be a direct consequence, but there is concern-the Secretary of State will acknowledge that this is the aid dilemma-that the process of providing aid lets the Ugandan Government off the hook. If they had to meet all the costs, they would have much greater motivation to solve the problem. It is a chicken-and-egg situation, and I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would give an update on that.

That situation brings home something that we mention in the report. I hope that it is history now, but the international community, including our Government agencies, have invested too often in people rather than institutions. People as leaders are unpredictable and unreliable, and we may have invested too much in President Museveni and not enough in ensuring that Government institutions function properly in Uganda. I hope that we will put more emphasis on the institutions and the mechanisms.

Uganda is a conflict state, but settling the problem of the Lord's Resistance Army and having a peaceful Democratic Republic of the Congo at its border would put Uganda back on the road to growth and development in a much more inclusive and unifying way, and it would make Uganda less aid-dependent in the long term. The questions that hang in the air are whether there is the remotest chance of that happening and what our Department can do to help to bring it about.

Our visit to the DRC was different. The Secretary of State tells me that there are problems there as we speak, and perhaps he will give us more information about that. When we visited the DRC, we were overawed by the scale of the devastation that had been wrought by that long conflict, but there was hope that the steps that the United Nations and others were taking to pave the way for elections and perhaps the rebuilding of effective government could move the country on from being unquestionably a failed state. If today's reports of fighting in Kinshasa are accurate, and if that fighting leads to further breakdown, it would be a worrying setback, but setbacks do not always destroy the momentum for peace, and we must hope that the latter applies.

We were in the DRC during the run-up to the elections, and I was given the honour, with the Foreign Minister of the DRC, of turning the first turf for the Department for International Development's new offices. Having done that, it was interesting that the questions from journalists attending the event were about which local company had got the contract to build the DFID offices or to supply the fixtures and fittings. No one asked about the benefit to the citizens of the DRC of DFID's increasing activity in that country. Perhaps that shows how far we must travel for people to understand the engagement in more than the most basic and material terms of immediate cash in their hands.

We were told about the problem of how a local leading politician corrupted DFID's painstaking work to build up capacity for road building based on locally recruited Congolese specialist surveyors, engineers and so on. The project had to be put on hold, because old-fashioned leadership styles cut across the development agenda. Will the Secretary of State indicate whether that problem has been, or is in the process of being resolved so that the infrastructure developments that should have flowed from that do so? I commend what DFID was trying to do to build up that capacity, but it shows how quickly it can be undermined when the tradition is corruption and self-serving, rather than engagement to deliver development results.

The Secretary of State acknowledged that one of our specific successes during the inquiry was the growing engagement of the Department in non-English-speaking countries-Francophone and Portuguese-speaking countries. That brought home to us the need for the Department's senior personnel in the country to have the same quality of language training that is available to Foreign Office personnel, because those people negotiate with Ministers and their Departments on development, budget support and so on. The Secretary of State acknowledged that that was necessary, and I am grateful to him for having done so.

As we travelled from Kinshasa to eastern Congo, we were as impressed as anyone by the beautiful setting of lake Kivu, and we had not expected to find something rather like Switzerland in the heart of Africa. Africa is a vast continent with a lot of wonderful scenery, but more surprising was the bustle, trade and business activity on the streets of Bukavu, because we had not expected that from what we had been told was a failed state. That was a clear indication of the country's resource richness and the way people were enterprisingly privateering and developing their contacts and business. The problem is that those very resources provided the money to sustain the warring factions and to prolong the conflict. It could be argued that Congo did not have a classic civil war; it had privateering on a grand scale by lots of individuals with their private armies, which minerals and other resources helped to fund.

We saw the direct consequences of the appalling suffering that ordinary Congolese people experience from disease, hunger and in particular the systematic and brutal rape of women as an instrument of conflict. We visited the local prison, where conditions were poor and justice appeared to be rough. We went to the Panzi hospital where we were moved and impressed by the wonderful work to support victims of sexual violence. They were victims twice. They were victims because they were brutalised, attacked and sometimes physically destroyed; then they were rejected by their communities for having been raped, and were outcasts. In the hospital they found support-not just medical support but rehabilitation and re-engagement, which was extremely important and useful.

What worried us at the time was that the European Commission's Humanitarian Office was considering withdrawing support from the hospital on the grounds that the conflict had supposedly ended. I am glad that DFID did not take that view, and tried to argue differently. Will the Secretary of State give an update on what is happening in that context? We would be appalled if such activity did not continue for a considerable time. Although the conflict was officially over, raped women were still coming into the hospital at the rate of 10 or 15 a week. Clearly, the conflict was not over for them.

Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab): On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Security Council resolution 1325 gives Governments the opportunity to see all those aspects-particularly the prime victims, who are women and children-through the prism of a women's agenda? When trying to recover from conflict and build the peace, it is critical that women become centrally involved-for their health and psychological well-being, in particular.

Malcolm Bruce: I completely agree. The hon. Lady will acknowledge that during my time on the Committee, and from the number of visits that I have made, I have become more and more aware of the key role that women must play not only in conflict resolution but in aid and development. I am absolutely convinced that giving women power will unlock many problems in Africa, and I just wish that more men in Africa would begin to understand that it is to their advantage to do so. I shall not discuss some of the mischief that we heard about when we were in Ethiopia-but it was women's revenge.

There is one point of difference between the Committee and not necessarily the Secretary of State's Department but the Government. We received evidence-we also saw evidence when we were in the DRC-from Global Witness, ActionAid, Rights and Accountability in Development, a non-governmental organisation, and Thomas Eggenburg of Krall Métal Congo. They clarified for us not only the regional dimensions of the war in the DRC but the extent to which it was sustained-either knowingly or without adequate checks-by companies transacting in minerals that had been procured illegally and often by force. The revenue enables rival groups to supply, pay and equip their forces, and in turn, they pray on the local population for further support. To be honest, I am not satisfied with that area of the Government's response, which was, otherwise, a good and positive recognition of and update on what they are doing.

The Committee was told in the Government's response that a number of companies are alleged to support the trade in illegally acquired resources, including some British companies. We discovered that the UN panel that submitted the names and identified the allegations processed them as "resolved". One would assume that a word such as "resolved" implied that, somehow, the allegations had been dismissed; however, the UN panel-the people who published the names-said that "resolved" should be interpreted as meaning not that it invalidated the panel's findings but that an agreement had been made that such activities would stop. The implication was that the UN expected responsible Governments-in the case of British companies, the British Government-to investigate the allegations further and to take appropriate action. The Government's response to our report shows inadequacies. The UK authorities appear to have done little or nothing.

Mr. Ketan Kotecha of Afrimex, one company against which the allegations were made, said that it had not had any contact with the DTI before and had not had any contact since, which is frankly astonishing. He also told us that he was unaware of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines, which for a small company, may be unsurprising. However, once the allegations were made, one would have expected the DTI to be engaged with the company, but it has not been.

We appreciate Mr. Kotecha's giving oral and written evidence to the Committee-somewhat naively, because he then tried to redress the balance. However, nobody from Alfred H. Knight International was prepared to do so. It is a reputable British company, against which serious allegations were made, and they were neither investigated nor addressed. The Committee does not have the capacity, inclination or responsibility to investigate those complaints, but we expect that the Government should have.

Given what I have said about the use of the word "resolved", when the Government say in their reply that the national contact point took "resolved" to be a reason for no further action, when they pray in aid that no NGO came forward with further information, and when they say that the information relating to Alfred H. Knight International involved German companies and was therefore passed to the German Government, it seems to be a washing of hands, an unwillingness to engage and a "not wanting to know". It is one reason why the DTI should be involved in cross-departmental groupings on conflict resolution.

The DTI needs to understand much more the potential damage to aid and development that British companies can do-consciously or unconsciously, deliberately or because they do not take enough time or enough care. The Committee proposes to take evidence from the DTI on the issue, and I hope that, together, we can get something useful going. The national contact point has done some useful work, but it would be able to do more if the DTI were brought in. Notwithstanding those comments, which were about one point that emerged from the Committee's investigation, overall we welcome the Department's focus on conflict issues. It is finding ways to use aid to resolve conflicts and prevent recurrence.

As the second largest donor in the DRC, the Government clearly envisage an opportunity to focus specifically on a conflict zone and find ways of using substantial amounts of aid to help for the future. I had written on my notes that there are risks in that strategy, and clearly, today's news is an example of one such risk. However, I still argue that they are risks worth taking, because if one can sow seeds of good governance, and lay the foundations of a functioning state, ultimately a whole region will benefit.

The DRC is rich in resources, and the tragedy is that if it were well governed, it could provide its people with peace, security and all the opportunities that they deserve. The people are entitled to look to the international community for help with the reconstruction of infrastructure, skills and capacity, but they must provide leadership. We must reach a point at which grievances are addressed and government is not an instrument for personal corruption and the franchising of public resources.

On Tuesday, the Committee met Sundeep Waslekar of the Strategic Foresight Group, whom we have met on several occasions and is based in Mumbai. He produced research that shows-unsurprisingly-that the rise of extremism and terrorism is sustained in areas where there is a deficit in development, democracy and dignity. It offers a transition in which aid, as a means of conflict resolution, provides support for policies that offset those deficits, restore dignity and democracy and provide the space for real and sustained development.

I wish DFID well. Conflict resolution is a big task, and every conflict is different, but I hope that the Government, in their engagement, will be able to demonstrate that they have found helpful policies. I hope also that at the end of the debate, the Secretary of State will be able to answer some of the specific questions that I have put to him.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070322/hallindx/70322-x.htm

Read "Westminster Hall Debate on Peacebuilding and Post-Conflict Reconstruction".

Debate to commemorate Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP speaking in the House of Commons on Tue 20th Mar 2007

The range of speeches in the debate has shown a balance between dwelling on the offence and commemorating its abolition. I was born within 5 miles of Pier Head, I lived briefly in a tobacco baron's house in Glasgow, and I now represent a constituency in Aberdeenshire, from which some of the richest plantation owners originated. I guess that I have made a journey through the UK that has quite a lot of close connections with slavery and the slave trade.

In light of the speeches made by the hon. Members for Brent, South (Ms Butler) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), it is worth recording that, in 1796, 30 per cent. of the estates in Jamaica were owned by Scots. In 1817, 10 years after the abolition of the trade, 32 per cent. of the slaves in Jamaica were owned by Scots. We must acknowledge and face up to that. On the back of that trade, Glasgow claimed to be the second city of the empire, but I guess that, in that context, it is a pretty close call between Liverpool and Glasgow. Subsequently, Glasgow became one of the great powerhouses of the campaign to abolish slavery altogether, so there was some recognition among the population of Scotland that abolishing the slave trade was not enough; the condition of slavery needed to be abolished. It is a slight irony that some of the campaigners-not Wilberforce-wanted to abolish the slave trade only because they thought that the lack of supply might make the slave owners treat their slaves better. I guess that one must start with half the argument before the other half becomes the logical conclusion.

Having read up on the subject, it is probably worth putting on record some of the arguments put forward. James Ramsay, a cleric, made the following ironic comment against slavery:

"Had nature intended negroes for slavery, she would have endowed them with many qualities which they now want. Their food would have needed no preparation, their bodies no covering; they would have been born without any sentiment for liberty; and possessing a patience not to be provoked, would have been incapable of resentment or opposition".

Because they are just like us, however, they did not comply and fought for and ultimately won their freedom, as has been pointed out.

The arguments put forward in the campaign still make pretty harsh reading. The committee on behalf of the plantation owners stated:

"the African trade is so blended with our commerce, and so interwoven with our general interests, that if at any time, through neglect, mismanagement, or misfortune, this nation should be deprived of its benefits, it will then suffer a very great and irreparable loss, a maim in its commerce, dignity, and power, of which it is impossible it can ever recover."

That is a damning comment, and it was an argument put forcefully in defence of slavery and the slave trade at the time, with, I guess, campaigning zeal. That shows why it took more than 20 years to secure abolition.

Like other Members, I am grateful that Scotland is acknowledging its role, and that several events are taking place in and around Glasgow and my city of Aberdeen that will enable the present generation to focus on that.

Another legacy of the way in which African slaves were treated is racism. They were treated as sub-human: the animals were probably better looked after than the slaves in transit. It is heart-breaking to read that not only were the conditions abominable but that family connections and loyalties were totally disregarded: families were split up, sold and moved around different plantations, never to see each other again.

Slavery has a long history. Greek and Roman civilisation-in which the origins of European civilisation lie-were founded on slavery and slave ownership. It is probably true that Aristotle and Socrates would not have had the time to think their philosophies through if they had not had the labour of slaves. We must acknowledge that.

Sadly, as others have said, slavery has not been abolished. The United Nations estimates that 27 million people are effectively enslaved today. The International Labour Organisation says that 12.1 million people are in forced labour of one form or another. In the spirit of the commemoration, we must take that issue forward and give a lead on it.

With regard to trafficking, a lot of the focus, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) pointed out, is on the sex trade and sex traffic. In fact, about 50 per cent. of those who are trafficked are men and 50 per cent. women. In the sex trade, it is 98 per cent. women and2 per cent. men. Men and boys are still being sold into slavery in a variety of different ways, and that needs to be addressed. Clearly, however, this country is at the receiving end of a great many women who have been trafficked or sold into slavery.

It is shocking to read that women from eastern Europe and the Balkans, including places such as Moldova, have effectively been sold into slavery for cash by their own families-their brothers, fathers and supposed husbands. That is knowingly done on the clear understanding of what is happening. The girls are deceived and told that they are going to take up a job or opportunity. Only when it is too late do they realise into what they have been sold. In some cases, they might have had a good idea that they were being sold into some dubious activity, but they probably thought that they would have free choice and opportunity, not be imprisoned, brutalised, beaten and denied any of the revenue generated. Even worse, they can effectively be sold into slavery and then be told that they owe the slave owner money for the cost of getting them where they are and for their keep. Therefore, all the money that they earn is taken, and their reward is to be beaten, raped and denied their basic requirements.

I do not wish to be misinterpreted, but I want to press the Government a little harder on the issue of the UN convention on trafficking in human beings. As the Deputy Prime Minister knows, the cross-party advisory group that he has put together discussed the importance of signing that convention. It would be impossible to commemorate the abolition of slavery and not be a signatory to the convention. Forty-six or, if we count Montenegro, 47 countries are potential

signatories. At present, 34 have signed, and Britain is one of those countries that have not. It is true that only five countries have ratified, and that 10 are required to do so for the convention to be implemented. If one looks at the countries that have not signed, however, one sees that we are not in the best of company. The major countries that have not signed are Russia, the United Kingdom and Spain. France, Germany, Italy, all the Scandinavian countries and most of the countries where the trafficking originates have signed.

I very much welcome the fact that we are going to sign the convention, but having tried to find out exactly what the Government's reservations are, I hope for clarification soon of their timetable for ratifying and of the final legal framework. Until the convention is ratified, people who are trafficked do not appear to have any recourse. They are constantly told that they are illegal immigrants and have no rights, and that is one of the threats used to keep them quiet. They are told, "No one is going to help you, because you should not be here anyway." They need to know and understand, if we can communicate with them at all, and if they can gain any information, that the United Kingdom has ratified a treaty that gives them rights: at least 30 days' grace plus, possibly, reflection time, and no conditions on whether they testify in relation to how they are treated. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to tell us a little more in her reply. We need to find out shortly what the conditions are and what will be the passage of time between the signing and ratification of the convention by the United Kingdom. That would make a good and sound connection between the commemoration and the current situation.

The parliamentary campaign that led to the abolition of slavery has rightly been acknowledged as a model, which has probably never been equalled. It required such extraordinary expenditure of effort that perhaps it inevitably gained a resonance, whereas nowadays there are so many campaigns and means of campaigning that it is difficult to raise above the above the rest and achieve such change. Nevertheless, engagement that involves people on the ground matters more than anything if a campaign is to be effective.

Points have been made about the inequalities that persist between Britain and Africa, and the descendants of slaves and the countries in which slavery operated. Much remains to be done. The International Development Committee, which I chair, had an informal briefing this morning from the Strategic Foresight Group. Its ideas about and analysis of the causes of division, terrorism and extremism are interesting. It also makes some practical suggestions about tackling that. It pointed out that, in the United States, which, as nobody needs telling, is the world's largest economy, a significant proportion of households in 29 states have an income of less than $25,000-a per capita income of $10,000 to $15,000. Of course, the group acknowledged that that would be a high salary in African terms, but it is a low income in the United States. The group made the point that Pentecostal Christianity and white supremacist groups have grown in precisely the states where such pockets of low-income earners are abundant. that the that the that the legacy of slavery survives where there is racial discrimination and deprivation.

We heard the example of the British version of the free-trade state, next door to the American version, which has also been racked by a destructive civil war. It can be difficult to know where blame lies when there is poor quality local leadership. I believe that we should apologise unreservedly and show shame for our actions, but that we must also challenge, and acknowledge that the world cannot go on trading apologies instead of delivering leadership and action that move things forward and create change. There must be a partnership between leadership in leadership in leadership in leadershipin the communities that we are considering. Our approach is not to tell countries what to do-we are not neo-colonialists-but to work with them and help them achieve what they want to do. That requires integrity, good governance and transparency. The good news is that, where that exists, we are beginning to see benefits.

Some countries in Africa clearly provide the beginnings of potentially sustainable growth. I hope that that example will persist, and that people perceive the benefits of a partnership that provides real money from developed to developing countries, gives genuine ownership to developing countries and adds to open, transparent good governance, so that those countries that do not benefit realise that they must follow the same route. We cannot have a position whereby people are enslaved by their leadership and the elite does not understand the need to share and include.

One of Africa's tragedies is that it remains probably the richest continent on the planet yet it has a high concentration of the world's poorest people. More poor people live outside Africa, but the proportion of the population of Africa that is poor is much higher than elsewhere. Those people live in the middle of great wealth, which is not properly shared in some African countries. Partnership between the Department for International Development and other international agencies will flourish only if we get the balance right.

One of the least edifying spectacles in the world at the moment is the continual bickering between the two great developed trading blocs about who is to blame for the failure to deliver a trade deal that constitutes a development round for the poorest countries. The best testament to the end of slavery that we could provide is to drop our protectionist barriers, if we genuinely believe in free trade, and open our markets. We should also provide the capacity, through aid for trade, for developing countries to flourish in their own way so that they can access their markets in real terms, not only in theory. That means delivering the Doha round. If that does not happen, we must find another, better way of ensuring that such partnership can continue.

Whether the colonial legacy or that of slavery is to blame, we cannot look at the state of Africa and feel anything other than shame. It may not be all our fault-I believe that we have now got our approach right-but we must deliver our part of the bargain before we can honestly expect the countries of Africa to get their fair share of the world's resources and an ability to participate as full and growing partners who are not dependent on aid. Dependence on aid is neither in their interests nor in ours. Escape from aid dependency restores dignity, and the restoration of dignity abolishes aid dependency. It is a perfect circle, if we can only break the current cycle. It is up to us to deliver-we have not yet done so.

To access the full text of this debate, please follow this link:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070320/debtext/70320-0004.htm#07032055000001

Read "Debate to commemorate Bicentenary of the Abolition of the Slave Trade".

Westminster Hall Debate on Sign Language Support

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to Westminster Hall on Tue 6th Mar 2007

I am very glad to have the opportunity to debate this issue. I have campaigned on it over many years, and I shall be intensifying the campaign, because sadly we have been going backwards rather than forwards.

Although I have no commercial interests in the issue, I have many personal interests that I should like to record. I am an honorary vice-chairman of the National Deaf Children's Society, a trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and chairman of the all-party group on deafness, and I have a grown-up deaf daughter, who of course has been the driving force behind my interest in the issue. She has just celebrated her 30th birthday, but I worry that if I had a deaf daughter today-and I have small children-she would not receive the same quality of education as my daughter did, because the provision of support for deaf children and their parents, particularly in the sphere of sign language support, has gone backwards rather than forwards.

There have been significant advances. There are much earlier diagnoses of deafness and much improved technology, with digital hearing aids and cochlear implants, providing extra support for deaf people-both children and adults-but there is no cure for deafness, and still three deaf children are born every day. Many will benefit hugely from sign language support, but for many other children and parents in many parts of the country, it is simply not available.

I attend many events, and there are many active and lively young signers in their teens and twenties in the population who complain to me vehemently about the lack of access to interpreters, and about their consequential exclusion from many activities in the hearing world.

During previous Parliaments, I was a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and during my time there I was honoured to be rapporteur on sign languages. I was particularly pleased when the Assembly overwhelmingly supported my report calling for legal recognition of sign languages, on a par with other minority languages, which in UK terms include Welsh, Gaelic and even Cornish. I am that in that in spite of such support from parliamentarians throughout 46 European countries, the Council of Ministers has been extremely dilatory in introducing a legal instrument that would provide such a guarantee.

I find it interesting that the countries that most proactively support the role of sign language are those where bilingualism is well embedded in their society. The trailblazers are by far and away the Scandinavian countries, where in mainstream education children have to learn English as well as their mother tongue, as a curriculum requirement. As a result, those countries have no difficulty persuading the parents of deaf children to learn sign language and the mother tongue as their equivalent of bilingualism.

Although the debate and my questions are about England, examples elsewhere in the UK are important. In Wales, where bilingualism between Welsh and English is well established, the Assembly has recognised that another minority language in Wales is British sign language. It has undertaken a radical programme-radical for the UK, not across the piece-to raise the provision of sign language interpreters to the European Union median, which is one in every 45,000 of the population.

At the programme's outset, there were 12 sign language interpreters in Wales; at its end in 2008, they hope that there will be 64. In Scotland, there are fewer than 30 interpreters, and we would need to train more than 80 to meet even the Welsh aspirational standard. In England, 700 additional interpreters would need to be trained to meet the Welsh standard, which is the EU median. We have not met that-and it is nothing like the ideal standard. We must treble the number of interpreters in the UK simply to deliver the European average of support for deaf children and their parents.

Those are some practical facts. If you want to know the aspirational best, Mr. Amess, I shall point you in the direction of Finland, which with a population of 5.5 million has more than 600 interpreters. If the UK were to aspire to the same level of performance, we would need 6,500 interpreters, compared with the present estimated total of 435, which is a huge deficit.

I shall begin with education and schools, because that is where support is vital. Will the Minister recognise that the right of deaf children and their parents to learn and be supported in sign language should be fundamental and guaranteed? Will he acknowledge that it is a function of his Department at least to monitor and possibly to require delivery, not simply to say that it is up to local education authorities to deliver? It is absolutely clear that many authorities neither deliver nor even aspire to do so.

There are 35,000 deaf children in the UK, and we must address what happens when a child is diagnosed as deaf, and what support the parents receive. Then we can ensure that the child is granted the maximum opportunity to attain the communication skills that will give them the best chance of making their way in life.

First, parents should be advised about the role that sign language can play-I do not seek imposition-in their children's education. They should also be given the right to learn sign language-a right that they should be able to exercise without having to pay for it. It should apply to the immediate family, too, because they will give the closest support to the parents.

Indeed, under the Every Disabled Child Matters aspirations, the service that a deaf child requires is access to sign language for them and their parents whenever they wish. That, I am afraid, is neither a Government target nor even an aspiration.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who very much wanted to attend this debate but is away on Select Committee business, has tabled his own early-day motion on lip reading and sign language services. It has attracted many signatures, and it speaks for itself about the growing frustration in many parts of the country. People have to pay for support, and more often than not classes are over-subscribed, and the number of interpreters available to provide teaching and support is nothing like adequate.

Indeed, sign languages interpreters and other communicators for the deaf often have to travel 200 or 300 miles to support a meeting, because communicators are not available locally. It creates huge extra expense and delay, and it indicates the shortness of supply.

I have received from many sources examples that amount to a catalogue of frustration. People have been unable to access classes or obtain support for sign language education, they have been actively discouraged from the idea that sign language should be used in the education of deaf children, and they have found that provision is patchy across the UK.

In London, for example, Frank Barnes school for deaf children in the borough of Camden provides access to the national curriculum for deaf children through the medium of BSL. Camden is in the process of redeveloping the site, and although no decision has been taken, there is a concern that the service, which is provided to boroughs right across London, may no longer be available in the future.

I want to try to anticipate some of the Minister's replies in the hope that he will not go down that avenue. Yes, it is a matter for local education authorities to determine provision and they have discretion in that, but it his Department's responsibility to monitor what is provided, set minimum standards and ensure that deaf children throughout the country get access to the sign language support they need. If necessary, it should intervene where that is not happening. My challenge to the Minister relates to the fact that it is not happening, and there is no evidence that his Department is prepared to intervene.

For 30 years, I have been involved in many discussions on this matter, and it disappoints and distresses me that a debate I thought we had dealt with 30 years ago seems to be reasserting itself. There was a school of thought in this country that suggested not only that deaf children should not be taught sign language but that it should be actively suppressed. The oral tradition was a very vigorous school, which regarded sign language as an obstacle to learning and held that because the hearing world did not use it, deaf children should somehow be forced to learn to speak and lip-read. If the outcome had been that every child was able to speak and lip-read, the method would be totally applauded, but that was not the outcome. Many deaf children are simply not able to acquire that degree of speech and lip-reading understanding, and they rely on sign language.

I contend, perhaps more controversially, but I have no evidence to the contrary, that sign language gives profoundly deaf children access to an understanding of speech and communication much more effectively than the lack of it would. I profoundly believe that, so to deny them sign them language is, in my view, to deny them the means to acquire the best possible understanding of the spoken and written language. My own daughter would certainly have had considerable difficulty in acquiring the level of speech and linguistic understanding she has without sign language support. Incidentally, she often says to me, "I don't really use sign language." She tries not to, and has to do without it in most circumstances, but when I see her with deaf friends, it is suddenly all sign language, and speech goes out of the window, which is true of many young deaf people.

Does the Minister have information on the current number of school and pre-school children who are deaf? The estimated figures that I have come from organisations such as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the National Deaf Children's Society. Does he know how many schools offer specialised training for deaf children? How many of them provide BSL in England, and how many pupils are benefiting from that, whether they are in special units in special schools or in mainstream schools with support? How many interpreters are currently being trained? Those are the most important questions, because if we do not have that information how can we tell whether deaf children are getting access to the services that they need?

Consideration should be given to offering the teaching of sign language, as a language, as an option in schools. After all, we have given legal recognition to the spoken minority languages of the United Kingdom-Welsh, Gaelic and Cornish-but we have no such recognition or teaching of a minority British language used by at least 70,000 deaf children, and there are probably many more who communicate with them.

If the Minister were to go to Sweden, he would find that Swedish sign language is offered as a language on the national curriculum, and in any given year 10,000 people are learning Swedish sign language. That massively increases the understanding and acceptability of sign language across the whole community in Sweden, and it increases the provision of potential interpreters, who have had their appetite for sign language whetted and are then encouraged to provide interpreter support in the deaf community.

When my daughter signed the national petition to Downing street calling for such action, she got a reply from the Prime Minister that entirely addressed the English curriculum and said nothing about Scotland, even though she was writing from Aberdeen, and also said that it was entirely a matter for local authorities. I beg to differ. The Prime Minister often tells us that education, education, education is his priority, and he often wants to direct in very great detail how the school curriculum should develop. In that context, it would be regrettable if sign language did not have the same level of campaigning support from the centre. I have received a heartfelt plea from Sense, which is a charity for deaf-blind children. For many such children, sign language that is touched on the hand is a vital means of communication, but again there is no absolute right of access to such support.

I am anxious that the Minister should have time to respond, and in conclusion, if his Department wants to pursue the matter further-I hope that it will-many agencies representing the deaf community will be happy to supply him with detailed anecdotal information on the huge variation in provision across the country, and the huge frustration for parents denied sign language for themselves or their children, who feel that their children lose out as a result. There are many instances of young people and children diagnosed as having behavioural problems that, when analysed, are found to be entirely due to the fact that they are unable to communicate effectively. They are frustrated because they are not understood and are not able to make themselves understood. In some specific cases, giving them access to sign language support has been the practical solution to that problem.

I urge the Minister to recognise that it is simply not good enough to deny deaf children and their parents the right to be taught sign language, use sign language and be educated with the support of sign language in their school environment-in a special or mainstream school. I urge him to ensure that he knows what is going on. If he does, and agrees that it is inadequate, will he tell us action he proposes to take to put the matter right?

Read "Westminster Hall Debate on Sign Language Support".

Archive of earlier Speeches.

Speech Feed(v1.0).