20 Most Recent Speeches

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 Min