Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing this important debate to take place. I also thank the Minister and shadow Minister for attending and the Minister for answering the questions that will be raised.

The purpose of the debate is to discuss the future of Gibraltar and in particular its sovereignty. Members will be aware of the appropriate timing of the debate, as talks are continuing between the British and Spanish Governments about Gibraltar. I hope that the debate will provide the opportunity for clarification of the Government's plans, as well as assurances about the future sovereignty of Gibraltar.

The 30,000 people of Gibraltar are United Kingdom citizens, who have been loyal for almost 300 years. Their loyalty should never be questioned. At all times, during both world wars and when we were engaged in the Falklands and the Gulf, Gibraltar has supported the British armed forces. We should never forget what they have given on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Let me ask some questions. Which country has a border-crossing procedure that takes a minimum of one and a half hours, at all times of day on every day of the year? Which country prevents UK military flights from overflying its airspace, although both countries are members of NATO? Which country provides reduced security for British citizens by denying them participation in the open skies agreement and related security provisions? Which country refuses further telephone connections to restrict the economic development of Gibraltar? Which country actively campaigned to restrict its neighbour from joining UEFA and even stopped judges from attending a dog show? Which country refuses to accept that people should have the right to determine their own future? Which country stops cruise ships from sailing to its neighbour; they have to go to a neutral port? Which country stops a ferry crossing the straights from Algeciras?

I am not referring to some tin-pot south American dictatorship, based on fascism; I am talking about Spain in the 21st century and its relationship with Gibraltar. Both belong to the European Union. The citizens of Gibraltar are naturally concerned about the outcome of discussions between the British and Spanish Governments. After all, we are dealing with their future and their right to self-determination.

The Minister has visited Gibraltar and is aware of the feelings of its people. I hope that he will keep their views at the forefront of all discussions with his Spanish counterparts. I commend the Minister on his work and on his determination to work with the Spanish to solve various issues, alongside my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. That needs to continue. Dialogue is important. I always tell people that discussions cost nothing; they are important and are a way forward. We cannot continue to allow anomalies to exist.

The uncertainty of change always causes anxiety but that has only been made worse by the actions of the Spanish Government, who continue to pursue their claim to Gibraltar. Why does Spain have a claim? The British have been in Gibraltar for almost 300 years, but the Spanish were there for only a couple of hundred years before that. Gibraltar belonged to the moors before that and Spain did not even exist. One could argue that Spain has the least claim over Gibraltar. Britain, however, did exist. Dutch marines and the Royal Marines fought in Gibraltar. The Royal Marines who will be going into Afghanistan carry Gibraltar on their crest. It is their most famous battle and it is silly for people to deny that.

We should recognise that Gibraltar has been British for 300 years since the treaty of Utrecht and its people have developed a clear sense of identity, with their own culture and heritage, as part of the United Kingdom. The territory is economically self-sufficient with an economy based mainly on tourism, ship repairing, port activities and financial services. The armed forces are there as well. We should remember that Gibraltar's industries are a major employer in southern Spain. Those using the border crossing are generally people from Spain going to work in Gibraltar rather than vice versa. Gibraltar has helped to ensure that that underdeveloped part of Spain has become economically more sound.

As Members will be aware, Gibraltar is also a full member of the EU, having entered as part of the UK in 1973. The people of Gibraltar value the political stability that membership of the EU brings which, unfortunately, is not being delivered. Given Gibraltar's membership of the EU, it is difficult to comprehend the actions taken by the Spanish, which are often extremely damaging to Gibraltar and its citizens. The Minister is well aware of such actions and although I do not want to spend too much time on the matter, it is necessary to remind the House of the appalling conduct of Spain. There are continual delays at the border, in clear violation of the EU freedom of movement laws. Spain refuses to recognize Gibraltar's telephone dialling code, which means that Gibraltar has run out of new telephone numbers. The Gibraltarians cannot create more numbers because of Spain.

Spain forbids Spanish operators from signing mobile roaming agreements with Gibraltar, so Gibraltarian mobile phones do not work in Spain in clear breach of EU competition rules. Spain has taken active steps to disfranchise Gibraltarians by taking the UK to court to prevent us including Gibraltar in European parliamentary elections. Continuous attempts have been made to damage Gibraltar's status as a finance centre with allusions to money laundering, which does not occur there. The case that the Government of Gibraltar are not in charge of the policing of Gibraltar can also be refuted. The Governor is in charge of policing, but the myth that he is not continues to be sustained by Spain, along with that of Gibraltar's involvement in drug running. Why would a smuggler want to smuggle drugs into Gibraltar and have to smuggle them back over a border that has one and a half hour queues? Why would he not just smuggle them into Spain? It should be recognised that Spain is the route for most drugs.

Spain should he careful. The Spanish should examine the sale of property along the Costa del Sol, as people are cashing in their currencies before euros are introduced. Spain ought to wonder where that money is coming from and consider allegations closer to home rather than making allegations against the financial institutions in Gibraltar. We must not forget that those institutions operate under the rules of the City of London, which have been tightened and strengthened by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

We have to talk about the prohibition of air and maritime links between Gibraltar and Spain, as well as Spain's obstruction of Gibraltar's participation in international sporting federations. When considering such examples it is little wonder that Gibraltarians are anxious about talks between the two Governments over the future of their country.

I come from an area where we have similar problems. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Gibraltar understand the use of the word sovereignty but are a little concerned that the sharing of the sovereignty of Gibraltar with Spain is more in the mind of some of our representatives than Gibraltarians would want?

I know that there is concern about that. I believe, and the Minister has stated clearly, that the future of Gibraltar should not be decided over the heads of the people of Gibraltar, who have the right to self-determination.

Fears will have been made worse by recent press speculation about secret deals and in particular the comments made by Josep Pique, the Spanish Foreign Minister, that the British Government should not give the people of Gibraltar the right to vote on any matter involving sovereignty during discussions on Gibraltar's future and that they should be ignored when a decision is taken.

I find it difficult to believe that a country such as Spain, which is young in democratic terms and has come out of a dictatorship, which has seen fascism and gone through many years without the right to vote, refuses to recognize the rights of 30,000 citizens of Gibraltar to determine their own future. One must question whether that is hypocrisy. People may say that Gibraltar is part of a colonial past of which we should rid ourselves, but Spain's hypocrisy lies in the fact that the people of Ceuta and Melilla, two enclaves in north Africa that are not even on the same continent as Spain, are given full European Union rights. No one seems bothered about that.

If people want overseas territories to be modernised. let us please let that happen. Let us get away from some of the old colonial pressures. Let us consider what France has done in incorporating French New Guinea, Corsica and its other overseas territories, as Spain has done and as has been done in the Dutch West Indies. There is a model for us to consider. The British Government have decided on a different model, but neither is wrong. We must respect the wishes of people in overseas territories and those who are democratically elected should have respect for the people of Gibraltar. We must never lose sight of that. Thankfully, the Minister who is responding to the debate today has fought for and recognises democracy and will never give up on it.

We should remember Spain's hypocrisy, and the fact that the Canary islands are further from Madrid than Gibraltar is from London. Spain must recognise that it should treat the people of Gibraltar in the same way as it treats people in its own overseas territories.

The hon. Gentleman is right to contrast the way in which the Canary islands and Gibraltar are treated. The Canary islands have received enormous amounts of EU aid, new roads and airports and coastal defences, which sharply contrasts with the aid that Gibraltar is not receiving, although it is a full member of the EU and the Canary islands are associate members.

That is right. The two enclaves in north Africa are treated in the same way—this debate concerns how overseas territories are treated. Spain's actions towards Gibraltar and its unwillingness to recognize the right to self-determination of the Gibraltarians are not the actions of a responsible member of the EU. I am aware that Spain is a useful ally in the EU on many other matters, but in relation to Gibraltar I am afraid that this is not the case.

Would the hon. Gentleman accept a solution that made Gibraltar, like the Canary islands, an autonomous region of Spain? Is that what he is suggesting?

I believe in democracy and the rights of the people of Gibraltar to self-determination. A new Member of this House who has just been democratically elected should recognise that fact—and a trade union member should too, as many people in Gibraltar are members of the Transport and General Workers' union.

Given the concerns of the people of Gibraltar and the concerns that I and fellow hon. Members have, it is essential that the Minister provides certain assurances before further discussions and before decisions are taken. First, and most importantly, does the Minister agree that sovereignty is not negotiable without the consent of the people? I am aware of previous statements on this matter, but it is essential to clarify the point. Despite the views of the Spanish Government, no decision regarding sovereignty can be taken without a referendum.

Secondly, the Gibraltar Government must have their own voice at talks regarding the future of Gibraltar. If the Government of Gibraltar decide to go, they should have their own voice—the decision is for the Chief Minister to take. Those two assurances will guarantee the people of Gibraltar a voice in discussions on their future. They should have nothing less. Indeed, they should have the final say in determining their future. The problem is that the Foreign Office has sought to make it impossible for Gibraltar to attend the talks. That is no good for anyone and will not help to move the debate on.

I am sure that the Minister will look favourably on my requests and is working to ensure that future talks reach an amiable agreement. It might be a little more difficult to convince the Spanish Government to adhere to those requests, but I am sure that our Ministers will persuade them.

I have made my views clear. The Minister is aware of the views and feelings of the citizens of Gibraltar, which I ask him to represent in talks with the Spanish. I hope that he will guarantee that the people of Gibraltar are treated fairly and have the right to determine their future. That will end the anomalies that allow UK citizens to be treated so badly. We should look after the people of the UK, but we seem to have forgotten the loyalty of the 30,000 UK passport holders in Gibraltar.

I want to make a simple point. I have no special knowledge of foreign affairs, but I have the pleasure of regularly going on holiday to Gibraltar. My wife and daughter went there recently while I was working hard in politics here.

The Minister should be aware of the uncertainty in Gibraltar, which is a great worry. In the past, people always said, "Britain's okay, it's strong, it will never sell us out." Now, there is growing uncertainty and when people discover that I am a Member of Parliament, they ask me what is going on, because things seem to be happening in the background.

Feelings in Gibraltar are abundantly clear. As the Minister well knows, a referendum has shown an astonishing 98 per cent. support for retaining connections with the United Kingdom, so there is no doubt about the level of commitment. I have respected the Minister over the years and have always regarded him as sound, sensible and straightforward, particularly on European issues. I do not mean to disrespect the Labour party or to say that no other Labour Members are like that, but there are people in all parties whom one can trust and I have always regarded the Minister as straight, honourable and decent. I have been staggered by his recent comments, however, which conflict not only with reality but with his earlier comments. There might be a good reason for that: he might have come across facts and issues of which I am not fully aware, or which I am not intelligent enough to understand. However, he will understand that people are worried and are asking, "Is something funny going on?"

We should also remember that Spain is a major recipient of European Economic Community funding and it annoys people in Gibraltar that they get nothing even though they suffer considerable stress, worry, unemployment and misery.

I could go on for a long time, but I and the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who made an excellent speech, believe that there is only one thing for the Government to say: no constitutional change must be made unless the people of Gibraltar want it.

What worries me most about the EEC—it used to worry the Minister—is that democracy does not matter a damn and that the views of the people do not count. I had the pleasure of being in Germany when people were talking about joining this single currency business and I met no one who wanted it. It seemed that the whole German community opposed it, but the politicians were for it. To that extent, the views of the people did not matter at all. People come to my surgery almost every week to ask about things that worry them, such as the export of live cattle or the amount that the EU spends on growing high-tar tobacco that it dumps in the third world, or even about the age of homosexual consent. People are worried about those things, but when they discuss them they have to be told, "I'm terribly sorry. Your MPs do not matter." Then they say, "Well, can we go to the European Parliament?" The answer to that is, "There is no point because, if the European Parliament closed its doors tomorrow, no one would notice apart from the taxi drivers of Strasbourg."

What can we say to the people of Gibraltar? We must tell them, "Your views matter. It is not a question of Ministers meeting in secret with representatives of the European Union to come to a dirty deal and sell you out." If that were to happen, my faith in British democracy and the British system of government would disappear. There is an easy answer. The Minister need not present complex arguments about his dealings over borders and about how things can be improved. He should simply tell us that the views of the people of Gibraltar, and nothing else, are what matter to Britain. After all, it is their place. They live there and their views are what matter.

Many of Britain's great problems, which Governments of all parties have faced, could have been overcome if we had simply had the decency and integrity to treat the views of the people as what counted. Without that clear message, the uncertainty in Gibraltar will continue.

My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour linked events in Gibraltar and the democratic deficit in the European Union. Does he accept that there is no question of a democratic deficit in Gibraltar if 98 per cent. of its population have made it crystal clear in a referendum that they want to retain their links with the United Kingdom?

My hon. Friend is right. It is a pleasure and honour to have him as a neighbour. He will make a splendid contribution to democracy. Something that worries me about getting old is who will defend democracy when I fade away, but the presence of my hon. Friend tells me that I need not worry and can relax.

The hon. Gentleman is more likely to go out with a bang.

I did not hear that. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman does not speak very clearly. He must come from somewhere—[Interruption.]

We want a simple message to be given to the people of Gibraltar: that their views count and nothing will happen without their agreement. If we cannot send that message and do not think that the views of the people count, there is no point in pretending that we are a democracy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley on requesting the debate and on his honest, fair assessment of the situation. I hope that we can all agree on a new popular front—that nothing but democracy and the views of the people of Gibraltar will count in deciding this issue.

In a recent parliamentary question I asked the Foreign Secretary whether it was right, in 2001, that we should maintain the anachronism of what is effectively an outpost colony within a major European partner. I stand by my view, despite having since received several insulting e-mails. If their tone indicates the standard of debate about Gibraltar and its relations with the United Kingdom and Spain, that is depressing.

We need to examine how to bring about positive relations between the countries concerned. That does not mean taking the view that there will never be any change with respect to Gibraltar. However, the context of the debate needs to be made clear. The previous two speakers rightly maintained the need for democracy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) made clear, the Government stand by the commitment to the people of Gibraltar that was set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which enshrines the principle of the consent of the people of Gibraltar to any change in sovereignty. On the need for democracy in Gibraltar, the Government stand by the preamble to the constitution. That is the context for our debate. Those who would raise doubts in the minds of the people of Gibraltar about the Government stance on the constitution do no service to them or our relations with Spain.

How can the hon. Lady say that Gibraltar is a colonial outpost when Britain does not tell the Gibraltarians what to do? The Gibraltarians say what they want to do themselves. Does she accept that Gibraltarians are a legitimate democratic unit and are entitled to express their views and have their wishes followed and understood?

Obviously, the Government's commitment means that the Gibraltarians will have the opportunity to give their views. That is set out in the constitution and the Government stand by it.

The dispute has effectively raged since 1713 and it cannot continue until 2002 or 2050 without a resolution. The talks are nothing new. A recent article by Geoffrey Howe, previously a Conservative Foreign Secretary, made it clear that some of the discussions have gone on in detail for 17 years.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Spain's two enclaves in north Africa ought to be the model used for Gibraltar?

It would be ill-advised of us to try to pre-determine the outcome of any discussions, as many hon. Members have said. The Gibraltarian people should debate with Spain and the United Kingdom how to achieve a better future for Gibraltar.

Having said that the constitutional commitment has been reaffirmed, I think it important that we move forward. Geoffrey Howe's discussions started 17 years ago with Fernando Moran—he is not a relative of mine—and appeared to make progress. However, they were halted once again. It is now time that we modernised our relationship with Gibraltar and Spain and put the discussions back on track. We need a vision for the future of Gibraltar rather than constant reference to its history.

Gibraltar needs to capitalise on its natural strengths, by which I do not mean only tourism and the naval base. Increasingly, it is a regional financial services centre. Its business links can be further advanced through more positive relations with the UK and Spain.

I noted carefully that the hon. Lady said that we needed a vision for the future of Gibraltar, but that is not so. The people of Gibraltar have a vision for the future of their country and we must support them.

We are all party to the future of Gibraltar, and "we" includes the people of Gibraltar. It is important that we have a collective vision of how we can enhance Gibraltar's natural opportunities, its business links, its sharing of a common language and law system with us and its reputation for sound regulation. More positive relations with the UK and Spain could further enhance those opportunities. It is important that we recognise the possibility of developing Gibraltar airport, which could bring further economic and commercial benefits to the people of Gibraltar and those in neighbouring regions of Spain.

I apologise for missing the start of the debate.

As someone who has visited Gibraltar several times, both as a Member of Parliament and before I was one, I know that its people have a clear vision of what they want to do and of the economic and social developments that the hon. Lady talks about. However, their neighbour, Spain, increasingly frustrates them from achieving their ambitions. Surely this Government and Parliament should encourage Spain to allow them to seek and fulfil their destiny.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and it is precisely the argument that I am trying to advance. We cannot resolve some of the problems articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley unless there is a more positive dialogue and relationship between Spain and this country. That would end some of the disadvantages that Gibraltarians suffer in their everyday lives—for example, the restrictions on flights and telephones and the border queues. We shall not resolve issues such as the border delays, which are unfair and unwarranted, simply by banging the table or threatening legal action which would be long drawn out and uncertain. Spain can be compelled to change the border regime, but we shall achieve that only through dialogue and more positive relations.

Gibraltar needs to show more imagination. We have within our grasp the opportunity to end 300 years of what in some circles would be called Spanish harassment and the colonial trappings of the relationship with the United Kingdom. We should try to maximise that opportunity. Surely, Gibraltarians would be interested in new arrangements that would bring about good relations with Spain and greater self-government for Gibraltar, giving them a greater say in their own affairs. That must be a positive way forward for Gibraltar.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the Government of Gibraltar have always been willing to talk to the Government of Spain? Does she agree—it is important that she is precise about this—that the people of Gibraltar are entitled to the United Nations right of self-determination? Will she give a yes or no answer?

I—[Interruption.] I was astonished by the question. Of course, the people of Gibraltar are entitled to United Nations—[Interruption.] The fact of the matter is that we understand the concerns of the Gibraltarian people. Britain's commitment to Gibraltarians makes their participation in the dialogue not only essential but safe. They have that safeguard for their constitution. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said that Gibraltar will speak to Spain. I hope that that will be the case in the further discussions in November and that Mr. Caruana will be at those discussions so that there may be some progress, which is long overdue.

We recognise the need for Gibraltarians to see early evidence of the potential benefits of improved co-operation with Spain to build up faith in the dialogue process. The quid pro quo is that Spain needs to show greater flexibility, particularly on some of the problems, for example the ways in which Gibraltarians are hindered in going about their daily business. There must be some movement and early benefit to show Gibraltarians that there are real advantages in a more positive relationship with Spain.

It is not for us to dictate the new dispensation for Gibraltar. The constitutional commitment is clear: it is for Gibraltar to decide in a referendum. It is patronising to suggest that any option should be ruled out of talks before the people of Gibraltar have had a chance to consider the options on their merits. A veto on constitutional change is not a veto on any change whatever.

We acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about uncertainty in the dialogue process, but the Gibraltar Government need to be part of the dialogue and to be positive. It is important that the Chief Minister participates in the Brussels process. Britain and Spain respect the need for him to have a separate voice in the process and he is best placed to voice Gibraltar's interests and wishes. The way to resolve the longstanding disputes about the future of Gibraltar is through dialogue, particularly between friends and allies. We seek a positive future and look to the opportunities that dialogue presents. We must focus not on the history of Gibraltar, but on a new vision of a European future in which it has positive relations with the UK and, in particular, with Spain.

I will be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak. That fact shows the importance and timeliness of today's debate. We should thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle).

We can take it as read that all those present are loyal and committed to our country and to Gibraltar. That is what the people of Gibraltar deserve, because they have also shown loyalty and commitment in the past three centuries. Many of us also love Spain and take a positive view about the many wonderful developments that have occurred there since democracy returned. Spain is now a pluralist country with devolved power and different levels of government, such as in Catalonia.

The Minister knows that I respect him greatly, but I should tell him that the British Government have been very wobbly on this issue for far too long. There is no reason why we cannot have a perfectly good relationship with our friend and neighbour Spain, while saying, "On this issue, you have to move on. You must give up this old-fashioned, out-of-date, pre-democracy position." If we enter into talks in Barcelona on 20 November with the attitude that everything is up for negotiation and that we should start from the beginning and ignore history and if we let Spain assume that it can negotiate sovereignty, formal agreements such as the treaty of Utrecht and the result of the Gibraltar referendum will be betrayed. Such an attitude would also be entirely unrealistic in terms of our obligation to maintain the existing position.

We must make the Spanish Government understand that they have to behave as adult Europeans on this issue. They behave that way in all other respects, but they have never responded appropriately to the Gibraltar question, and they need to be given a clear message. Will the Government make it clear to Spain that, although Gibraltar is a colony, the right to self-determination prevails? Will the Minister confirm that it remains Government policy to allow the people of Gibraltar to decide their future and to have the right of self-determination? Will he also make it absolutely clear that newspaper reports in the past two months on the sharing of sovereignty are inaccurate? The Government and the people of Gibraltar need to be assured that that is not on the agenda, so that the issue can be put to one side. The Minister knows the constitutional problems that such a change would present.

Will the Minister also confirm that the gradual passing of control to Spain is not on the agenda? Of course, there should be talks on the nonsense of border controls, the telephone exchange and so on. As the hon. Member for Chorley pointed out, the argument that Spain consistently adopts is pretty rich, given its territorial position in north Africa.

Over the years, Gibraltar Governments have fully understood their obligations to the European Union, of which Gibraltar is a proud member. They have also understood their obligation to deal with past problems such as customs and excise and financial controls. They have responded by doing all that was asked of them and by taking on the burden of EU obligations.

However, in one regard, we have failed Gibraltarians completely, as the case of the Gibraltarian woman who obtained a European Court judgment demonstrated. We failed to grant them their right to be full European Union citizens by failing to establish their right to vote in European elections. If the EU does not agree on how the matter should proceed, will the UK Government legislate in good time to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are granted their full right to participate in European elections?

Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is also a case for elections in Gibraltar resulting in representation in the House of Commons?

That is a perfectly proper option. In the first instance, I am keen to ensure that, in some way or other, the people of Gibraltar have a vote at the next European elections. The constituency to which they belong might be a matter for discussion, but the British Government should take the initiative.

I urge the Minister to show again the strength that he showed when he stood up for democracy in South Africa in his youth. He made many pronouncements from the Back Benches and, since becoming Minister for Europe, he has made many assertions about the importance of a modern, democratic Europe. I welcome him to the job, but he must do better than his predecessors, who gave Gibraltarians little consolation over the years. We need firm, clear and progressive views, not wobble.

I commend the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for his stand against the desires of some to remove the rights of the people of Gibraltar. I also commend the work of Albert Poggio MBE and the Gibraltar Government office in London for their work to enable people in the United Kingdom, including Members of Parliament, to know the truth about the situation in Gibraltar.

I felt ashamed on hearing the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). What are we here to do if not to stand up for democracy? The reality is that the people of Gibraltar are being bullied, and have been for a long time. It is outrageous and completely unacceptable for us in the democratic Parliament of the United Kingdom to allow the people of Gibraltar to be treated in a way that none of us would allow our constituents to be treated.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment.

Gibraltar's people are as British as the rest of us; they are loyal decent subjects of Her Majesty the Queen. Gibraltar is British, and its people want it to remain so. We owe them the same support and loyalty that they give to the United Kingdom.

I am pleased that the Minister for Europe is here. He has a reputation for standing up for democracy and human rights. I hope that he will continue to live up to that reputation by standing up for the democratic rights of the people of Gibraltar, as he has done for peoples in other parts of the world. I was surprised to read a quote from the Minister in a recent newspaper article, in which he talked about "normalising" the situation and getting the people of Gibraltar to "modernise" their thinking. What is more modern than to allow people to choose their own future and to decide their own destiny? That is what we are talking about for the people of Gibraltar. How can we talk of modernising something when democracy is what counts?

The hon. Member for Luton, South spoke of an anachronism, and about three countries. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. The people of Gibraltar are not the people of a third country; they are British and will remain so. Whatever people say and do and whatever the misunderstandings projected by hon. Members and others, the people of Gibraltar must be allowed to decide their own future.

I have visited Gibraltar many times, and I have also visited the Falkland Islands and Argentina. I have good relations with the Conservative party's sister parties in Spain and Argentina. I ask hon. Members who are sceptical about the rights of the people of Gibraltar to consider what has happened to the party in Argentina. It has adapted the way in which it handles matters to try to bring about better relations with the people of the Falkland Islands. To some extent, it has succeeded.

We should contrast that with the outrageous bullying tactics of successive Spanish Governments, including, shamefully, its current Government. Spain's Foreign Minister recently described Gibraltar as a parasite on the Spanish economy. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is scandalous that any British Government—if we had a Conservative Government, I would say the same—should for so long have allowed the people of Gibraltar to be treated in this shameful, unacceptable, undemocratic and bullying fashion by Spanish Governments.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), who said during a previous debate on Gibraltar that

"nothing is to be gained by bombast and megaphone diplomacy."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 119WH.]

We need a genuine debate, not talk of bullying, hypocrisy and similar nonsense.

That says it all. I am utterly astonished that any hon. Member could make such a ridiculous comment. Those of us who have come to the Chamber to speak up for the people of Gibraltar are not engaged in megaphone diplomacy—we are acting on behalf of people whose democratic rights are being denied to them by the Spanish Government. The hon. Member for Chorley described a whole range of unacceptable behaviour by that Government, who are supposed to represent a modern, democratic member of the European Union.

We should consider the situation on the border, where people have to wait for hours in appalling circumstances to get into Gibraltar. We should consider the Spanish Government's refusal to recognise the Gibraltar telephone code and their objection to Gibraltarians voting in European elections even though, for better or worse, they are part of the European Union and should be entitled to vote in them. We should consider the open skies agreement, on which the Government, sadly, appear to have capitulated. Even sporting events are affected. Disgracefully, a dog show was disrupted. Such behaviour is outrageous, and cannot be justified by any Member of Parliament who claims to believe in any form of democracy. None of us should tolerate it for a moment longer.

I wish to convey my immense admiration to the people of Gibraltar for their steadfast refusal to buckle under the crude and illegal pressure placed on them by the Spanish Government. Gibraltar has been a sovereign British territory for 288 years, and the British people of Gibraltar are happy with that arrangement. The entire situation is underwritten in the treaty of Utrecht, which states that Gibraltar is to be

held and enjoyed absolutely by all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever"

by Great Britain. Meanwhile, Spain appears oblivious to the hypocrisy of its sovereignty over two less successful territories in Morocco, where it is doing the exact opposite of what it claims in respect of Gibraltar. How can that doublespeak be justified?

Later this month, discussions on Gibraltar's future will take place. There should be no such discussions. Why should we discuss the rights of British people? Would any of us discuss negotiating away the sovereignty of our constituents? We would never do so. If we were to do so, we would not deserve to be Members of Parliament. The people of Gibraltar should be given the same rights as our constituents. They should be able to vote in all elections, including elections to the House of Commons, and they should have equal rights across the board. How can anyone disagree with that proposal?

It is time that we had a consistent approach to not only Gibraltar and the Falklands, but all our overseas territories. I hope that the Minister will take that on board when we discuss the British Overseas Territories Bill. All overseas territories want to remain sovereign under the Crown. They want to remain connected with the United Kingdom, and their inhabitants should have the same rights as the rest of our people. I hope that that point will be considered in the British Overseas Territories Bill. Every British person, wherever they may be, should have the right to choose a representative and to vote in elections to the House. That is what democracy is all about.

I am saddened by the need for this debate. Spain, which proclaims itself to be a modern democracy, is not prepared to treat British territory in the way that it would treat any other part of the European Union. I appeal to our allies in Spain, Britain's friend, to reconsider its attitude and approach, which has achieved nothing. Its approach has caused a great deal of upset and heartache for the people of Gibraltar. The matter will never be resolved until Spain adopts the democratic, modern approach of accepting the human rights and the right to self-determination of the people of Gibraltar. It can only be hoped that Spain's diplomatic tantrums continue to wash over the proud Gibraltarian people as harmlessly as the sea spray assaults their great rock. Let the message go out from the House that Gibraltar will never be ceded to Spain and that it will remain British in perpetuity.

I would say to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) that a bombastic debate is not useful. We must make a genuine and honest attempt to achieve proper outcomes that give the people of Gibraltar a better standard of living and better opportunities to build their lives. They must have an opportunity to live as full and forthright members of the European Union.

I am glad that we are having today's debate because there should be discussion. The hon. Member for Romford, who has just declared that there should be no discussion, is flying in the face of reason. The status quo is not sustainable for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). The quality of life for Gibraltarians, which relates to issues such as border delays and phone lines, has no prospect of improvement under the status quo. Indeed, we have not considered the number of Gibraltarians who choose to use the Spanish national health service rather than St. Bernard's hospital. If we had a genuine, calm, decent, honest debate in which we did not start chucking around words such as "hypocrisy", we might be able to achieve significant benefits for Gibraltarians.

The present situation is unsustainable because Gibraltar will become increasingly isolated within the European Union. European Union elements that may be of benefit will contain an exclusion for Gibraltar that will make things increasingly difficult for its economy and for its people to live their lives.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain how Gibraltar would be disadvantaged? It is a member of the European Union, as we are members. How can he justify any suggestion that one set of European Union citizens should be disadvantaged in any way because of a territorial claim by another member state?

I agree that European Union citizens should not be disadvantaged, but we have heard no proposals on how to change the status quo from any hon. Members who have spoken today. The open skies directive no longer applies to Gibraltar and other territorial issues in EU directives will make things more difficult for Gibraltar's economy.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I may give way in a moment.

Many hon. Members who have spoken have not realised that the present situation is also unsustainable simply because Spain has changed. Between 1969 and 1972, when I was young, I lived in Spain. I remember the Government under Franco. I remember driving past the political prison in Carabanchel and seeing the guards outside with their Darth Vader hats. The country has changed dramatically. Some people have been rather caustic about Spanish democracy. Spain has, in fact, managed the transition to democracy with considerable aplomb, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) mentioned. We need to recognise those issues.

I look for a new solution, but I openly say to hon. Members who have spoken in a different vein that Gibraltar should be taking part in the Brussels process on the basis of safety and dignity, as Mr. Caruana said when he first took office. I firmly believe that that is true and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) who said in a previous debate that the Foreign Affairs Committee

"does not believe that co-operation with Spain should in any way be equated with appeasement. The tendency in Gibraltar to criticise successive British Governments in that regard is regrettable. Co-operation is, in our view, the most sensible way forward."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 8 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 119WH.]

That is an almost impossible case to answer.

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the Gibraltar Government have always said that they have been entirely happy to have an arrangement with the provincial Government over the border in Andalucia, so that the matters of that region can be worked out collaboratively? They are happy to participate in local government arrangements across Spain with the Spanish. So they have never been unwilling to come to practical arrangements, provided that Spain accepts that Britain has sovereignty. They must determine for themselves who the Government of Gibraltar are; that is up to them. If Spain were willing to take that off the agenda, there could be lots of co-operation.

I agree, but that is all the more reason for Mr. Caruana to take part in the Brussels process at the end of the month, not least because he has asked for safety and dignity. I have no problem in saying that the constitution of 23 May 1969 is entirely right.

Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would live under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Several hon. Members have sought reassurance on that and it must be the fundamental principle on which we proceed. That should not prevent us from discussing enhanced co-operation that might involve EU money, NATO, customs, telephone lines, and other matters that would materially affect people's lives. Mr. Caruana should take part in such discussions and there should be some discussion of sovereignty.

We should not decide the conclusions of those discussions in advance. However, by virtue of the constitution, and as successive Governments have stated, at the end of the process the people of Gibraltar should have a referendum on any proposals. The British and Spanish Governments would then honour that referendum.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry. I said that I would give way, but I want to finish my argument.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman will obviously not give way.

I shall press on, because others want to speak.

If it is not possible to resolve the issue under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Aznar, it is unlikely ever to be resolved. On behalf of the British and Spanish Governments and, most of all, the people of Gibraltar, I would feel ashamed if we got to 2050 without having come to a better resolution. I ask hon. Members who have argued differently in the debate which solution they propose.

Democracy.

It is not good enough just to shout out a single word. Democracy is a good principle, but we have to create a better opportunity for the people of Gibraltar.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this important debate at a crucial period in the history of the people of Gibraltar.

I have visited Gibraltar twice, most recently in September this year, with the hon. Member for Chorley, other hon. Members and Members of the European Parliament. In a series of meetings, we were left in no doubt that the people of Gibraltar regard themselves as British, value their historic links with Britain and wish to remain British. Above all, they want the right to self-determination so that they can decide for themselves their own future. Surely they should have that right in a democratic world.

It was pointed out to us that historically there should be no question of Gibraltar's right to remain British, because that right is enshrined under the treaty of Utrecht. For any change to occur, Britain would first have to relinquish its claim on the territory. So, my first question to the Minister for Europe is easy. Does the Government have any intention of relinquishing our claim on Gibraltar? The political leaders in Gibraltar demand the right to self-determination. Chief Minister, Peter Caruana and the Opposition leaders, Joe Bassano and Joseph Garcia. are united in their view on self-determination.

Albert Poggio MBE, the United Kingdom representative of the Government of Gibraltar, sent hon. Members a copy of a declaration of unity that was signed on 4 October this year by all Members of the Gibraltar House of Assembly, four past and present Speakers of the House of Assembly and 20 former members of the Gibraltar legislature. It states:

"We, the undersigned, being all the elected Members…declare and endorse the following propositions, which unite and reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of the people of Gibraltar.

1.The people of Gibraltar will never, ever, compromise or give up our inalienable right to self-determination, that is, the right to decide our future in our land

2.The people of Gibraltar will never compromise or give up our sovereignty, not for good relations with anybody and not for economic benefits either.

3.The people of Gibraltar will not compromise our right to self-determination, still less sovereignty, in exchange for respect for rights which are ours anyway, and which others should be made to respect unconditionally".

They

"a. CALL UPON Her Majesty's Government to honour, respect and uphold our EU rights by ensuring that we participate in all EC and EU measures in the same manner and to the same extent as all other citizens and territories of the European Union AND WE CONDEMN Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for capitulating under pressure to the suspension of Gibraltar from the EU Single Skies measures, and the Government of the Kingdom of Spain for demanding it.

b. REAFFIRM that Gibraltar wants good, neighbourly, European relations with Spain based on reasonable dialogue and mutual respect. Spain is obliged to respect our EU and other rights.

c. ASSERT that Gibraltar belongs to the people of Gibraltar and is neither Spain's to claim, nor Britain's to give away."

The hon. Member for Rhondda(Mr. Bryant) made the Government's negotiation tactics obvious. Their aim is to discuss sovereignty with Spain in the hope that Spain will grant Gibraltar economic benefits. The Government would put that proposal to the people of Gibraltar in a referendum so that people could see that there would be economic benefits, but only if they accepted the poisoned chalice of interference in their affairs by the Spanish. It is obvious that those are the Government's tactics.

I do not know if it is obvious—we will have to wait for the Minister to give his response—but it is certainly a concern of many people in Gibraltar, not least the members of the Assembly there.

In September, it was my privilege to travel to Gibraltar with the hon. Gentleman. In the light of the declaration that he has read out, would he agree that it was astonishing to see the leaders of all three political parties—Joseph Garcia of the Liberal party, Joe Bassano of the Gibraltar Socialist Labour party and Peter Caruana, the leader of the Gibraltar Social Democrats—in total unity in their determination to ensure that the people of Gibraltar decide their own future?

Order. This is becoming a second speech. I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) has got the point.

Yes, I agree with the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell). It was one of the finest examples of constructive opposition that I have seen.

Those of us who were present on national day, 10 September, were in no doubt that the people of Gibraltar support the declaration. Half of the population of 32,000 turned out in the main square to celebrate their Britishness and to demonstrate their wishes to us and to other visitors. Undoubtedly, visitors from Spain observed that gathering and we have already heard about the number of difficulties that exist between Gibraltar and Spain.

I will concentrate on the open skies agreement that was mentioned in the declaration. I tabled two questions, the first was sent to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to ask what criteria were assessed when deciding to sign the European open skies agreement. The Minister replied:

"The European Commission presented its legislative proposals on the European Single Sky to the Transport Council on the 16 October.

The Government is considering its response to these proposals, but has not signed any agreement."—[Official Report, 29 October 2001; Vol. 373. c. 483w.]

I also tabled a question to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that asked what assessment had been made of the impact of excluding Gibraltar from the European single sky agreement. I received a long answer from the Minister, for which I am grateful. It said:

"We consider that the Commission's proposed Single Sky package offers the best way of reducing delays and improving safety, and is essential for improving the use and management of EU airspace. Spain insisted that Gibraltar airport be suspended from the scope of application of the Single Sky legislative measures. Given the importance which the UK attaches to the initiative, we reluctantly agreed that clauses suspending the application of the measure to Gibraltar airport will be inserted when the proposal is considered by the Council."—[Official Report, 1 November 2001: Vol. 373, c. 811w.]

It seems to me that we caved in and allowed the Spanish Government to dictate terms. That goes to the heart of the problem, which the people of Gibraltar see as Spain claiming Gibraltar and Britain not batting for the people of Gibraltar. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister and the Opposition spokesman have to wind up, but if the people of Gibraltar wish to remain British, they should be given the right to vote in the European elections. If they want to be attached to the south-west region for those elections, I am sure that we would all welcome that.

I thank the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for initiating the debate. It has been more than a year since the House properly discussed Gibraltar and this has provided a useful opportunity to discuss the issues at a very important time. I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering commiserations to Spain for yesterday's car bomb in Madrid. We all condemn terrorism wherever it is perpetrated.

The House may be amused to know that I have a personal link with Gibraltar. My father was commanding officer of 224 Squadron in the early 1960s and as a youngster I used to spend a lot of time running up the beach near the border with La Linea as he was flying his Shackletons on maritime reconnaissance over the Mediterranean. That was 40 years ago, but I have vivid memories of Gibraltar. My brother was born there and the last time I saw him he seemed British to me.

This is an important time for Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary will meet his Spanish counterpart in Barcelona on 20 November to discuss the future and they have agreed to resolve that future by the end of the year. That has inevitably given rise to rumours and concerns that require the Minister to offer reassurance. I am sorry to say that there have been too many examples of the Government's lack of clarity. They have failed to reject the proposals of Abel Matutes for joint sovereignty. Those proposals sat on the desk of the previous Foreign Secretary for four years and now that the Government are negotiating with Spain—we would like to know about what—we have still had no assurance that they are doing so on the basis that those proposals are unacceptable. When the Conservative party was in office, the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, rejected those proposals. I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will do the same.

Unfortunately, that is not the only instance of the Government's failure to respond unequivocally to Spanish claims. On 15 March, the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Pique, referred to Gibraltar as a "gigantic duty free shop" and an "economic parasite" on Spain. In our view, those are ill-chosen words, and it is disappointing that the Government have not responded to those remarks and still more disappointing that they have failed to do so even after the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs criticised them six months ago for their lack of response. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to reject those comments on the record in response to the recommendations of the Select Committee.

Furthermore, and perhaps more significantly, on 30 October, Mr. Pique said:

"the people of Gibraltar cannot have the right of veto over matters being discussed by two sovereign states".

Does the Minister agree that the citizens of Gibraltar have good reason to be wary of the current negotiations with Spain? Gibraltarians have a right to veto any proposed change in their status and if they want to remain under British sovereignty, they should. They have never voted for anything else and should be free from outside pressure. Gibraltar's position is very clear and supported by a massive majority on any measure that has ever been taken. Will the Minister tell the House what he intends to discuss and what will be on the agenda in his meetings with the Spanish?

The Minister could give one crucial assurance that would allay many fears. The Government could confirm unequivocally that Gibraltar retains the right to face no change in its status without the wholehearted consent of Gibraltarians. Will the Minister confirm that the preamble to the Gibraltar legislation of 1969 still stands and will govern all his conduct and discussions throughout the next few months?

I want to leave the Minister as much time as possible. Other hon. Members have spoken about the restriction of movement, the open skies agreement and other matters that appear to Gibraltarians to be an attempt to bully them into some form of submission. I would like an assurance that Gibraltarians will be able to vote in European elections.

The views of the hon. Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) are puzzling. She views the status of Gibraltar as a British territory as an anachronistic relic. Is it an anachronistic relic of colonialism to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar and to respect the fact that they want it to remain a British overseas territory? If so, she believes that democracy itself has become an anachronistic relic. To approach issues of foreign policy in a simplistic way will cause great problems, because when an issue is tackled simplistically, it causes problems elsewhere on the globe. The hon. Lady thinks that a small territory whose only land border is shared with a larger neighbour should, whatever the wishes of its inhabitants, allow the larger neighbour to incorporate it. That logic is at best mad, and at worst—I dare not say. Does the hon. Lady think that East Timor should be part of Indonesia? If she follows her simple line of thought, she will find that it raises similar problems across the globe.

We seek the Minister's assurance that he is doing nothing behind the scenes to cause the House concern.

Order. Some hon. Members who have contributed to the debate may have visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government of Gibraltar, or in some other capacity. They may wish to make that interest clear for the record, if they have not already done so.

I would like to do so.

indicated assent.

indicated assent.

indicated assent.

indicated assent.

indicated assent.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) for securing this debate. The all-party Gibraltar group, of which he is chairman, does a valuable job.

I shall answer the questions that hon. Members have asked after I have placed the Government's policy on the record. Like the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, I believe that we have a unique opportunity to resolve the historic tensions between Gibraltar and Spain, to settle differences and to move forward to a better future for the people of the rock. We have a new opportunity to achieve three wins: a win for Gibraltar, a win for Britain, and a win for Spain. If we lack the courage to grasp the opportunity and retreat because of lack of political will or absence of vision, we shall all lose. The main losers, however, will be the people of Gibraltar.

Gibraltarians have nothing to fear from the discussions in Brussels; our dialogue with Spain is not a threat, but an opportunity for Gibraltar to secure a safer, more prosperous future. I know from a recent visit that Gibraltar is a proud place and that Gibraltarians are proud people. They are hugely suspicious of Spain and of British Ministers and officials. They do not like to feel that they are being told what to do. But no one is telling anyone what to do. When the dialogue ends, the people of Gibraltar will be able to form a judgment. I ask the people of Gibraltar to judge us by our actions and by outcomes, not by myths and prejudices.

I assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that the Government stand by the constitutional commitment given to Gibraltar in the preamble to the Order in Council that established the 1969 constitution. It states:

"Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".

I shall go further and, for the first time, give this pledge: we will never ask any Gibraltarian to sacrifice his or her citizenship unless they freely choose to do so. Gibraltarians shall remain British citizens for as long as they want.

Europe has changed, and is changing. Gibraltar should not be left behind in those changes. Some politicians and pressure groups cry, "Stop this change, I want to get off." They let Gibraltar down. They are stuck in the previous generation, when the Iberian peninsula was a very different place. Spain was under the rule of Franco. and Gibraltar was threatened. Spain has long since undergone profound transformation, and it is now one of Europe's leading democracies. It is one of our closest NATO allies and one of our strongest partners in the European Union.

I was among those who refused to visit Spain when it was under the rule of Franco, but 13 million Britons now holiday in Spain every year. Some 500,000 Britons—more than 15 times the population of Gibraltar—have made Spain their home. Hundreds of Gibraltarians have properties in Spain. Many more shop and spend their leisure time there. The people of Britain and Spain have never been closer and, despite aggravation, the people of Gibraltar and Spain have never been closer.

The politics of 1969 must be replaced by the politics of 2001. The British Government must make choices. Will we try to reach a new deal for Gibraltar, or will we duck the issue and pretend that matters can continue as they are even though they take Gibraltar nowhere fast? Does Spain have the courage to make hard decisions? Does Gibraltar have the vision to contemplate a new deal? The choices will not go away. If they are ducked, Gibraltar will be left behind.

The dispute with Spain about Gibraltar is a constant factor in the otherwise excellent relationship between Britain and Spain. For a long time, Spain has placed grossly unsatisfactory and damaging obstacles in the way of normal life for the people of Gibraltar. The obstacles include restrictions on the use of the airport, long and unpredictable delays in crossing the border, restrictions on telecommunications and even restrictions on organising dog shows.

The dispute has gone on for so long that attitudes on both sides have hardened. The only key movement made by Spain was an offer of more than triple the number of telephone numbers available—from 30,000 to 100,000—and that was announced at the first meeting of the resumed Brussels process. The time has come for Spain clearly to demonstrate its new attitude through action. It could, for example, open up normal red and green channels at the border; allow normal procedures for the diversion of Gibraltar-bound flights in bad weather; ensure that Gibraltarian mobile telephones work in Spain; and ensure that telephone calls from other countries get through.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said, the status quo is not sustainable, because Gibraltar's relations with Spain are abnormal and will remain so if the status quo prevails. Spain's historic aspirations are unattainable, and the continuous aggravation with Gibraltar is anachronistic and unseemly. Britain's relations with both Spain and Gibraltar are damaged by the status quo.

Will the Minister give way?

I will give way at the end of my speech if I have the chance. For the European Union, the status quo is a permanent threat to Britain and Spain's relationships—with each other and with our European partners. That is to Gibraltar's detriment.

As the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) said, we recently agreed to suspend application of the EU single sky agreement and aviation security legislation to Gibraltar. We did not take that decision lightly, but we must face reality; it is imperative that we have a safe air traffic system in Europe. The suspended implementation of that legislation will have a minimal impact on the people of Gibraltar and their security. None the less, I understand the feelings of those in Gibraltar who demonstrated on 4 October against the suspension of the single sky agreement and of the many senior figures in Gibraltar who signed the declaration on the subject.

I understand why some suggest that the solution is straightforward—that Britain should bang the table and demand that Spain and the European Commission sort out these and other problems—but a fortress Gibraltar would achieve nothing. Proponents of a fortress Gibraltar do not understand the realities of modern Europe or the need for consensus. The blunderbuss approach that we are persistently exhorted to adopt on Gibraltar's behalf would receive little or no support from our EU partners or from the Commission.

A second line of argument states that we should take all Gibraltar's complaints on the EU to the European Court of Justice. Even when that is possible, the legal processes involved are slow and uncertain, and there is no guarantee of a helpful outcome. We will get further, sooner, if all sides have the political will to find a solution. We and our European colleagues face huge challenges, big decisions and hard choices on the future of the EU, economic reform, security from terrorism, our environments and many other issues. Our European partners do not understand why a dispute between two member states over a territory with a population one fifteenth that of Luxembourg should be a deciding factor in such decisions.

rose—

Order. It is obvious that the Minister has no intention of giving way at the moment.

As I have promised, I will give way at the end of the debate if I have the chance to do so.

As a result of regular discussions with the Spanish Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I firmly believe that Madrid's approach to Gibraltar is genuinely starting to change. We have no fixed blueprint. As I said to the House on 30 October, there is no secret deal with Spain; there is no hidden agenda. In fact, the position is quite the opposite. There is a mutually frank desire to resolve an unsustainable status quo, and it would be irresponsible of the Foreign Secretary and I not to pursue it.

I say to Conservative Members who tell us not to talk to Spain that the Conservative Government talked to Spain persistently to try to resolve such issues. Indeed, the former Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe of Aberavon, wrote about that recently in The Times and the former European Minister, Lord Garel-Jones, has written about it in the Gibraltar Chronicle.

If we cannot make serious progress within, say, a year, the Government and the House will attend to other priorities of great importance. Gibraltar will be left with a live dispute and problems with the rest of Europe. Continued tension with Spain will be a day-to-day reality. I am giving an honest assessment of political reality and those who choose to ignore it are doing the people of Gibraltar a grave disservice. As well as confronting reality, let us consider the huge opportunity for Gibraltar provided by the current situation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) said, let us have the vision and the boldness to grasp it. If we reach the agreement that I thinly believe is now within our grasp, Gibraltar will have a free flow of people, goods and services on and off the Spanish mainland. It will become the financial services hub for Andalucia and the wider region, and that will bring more jobs and prosperity to all. Agreement about allowing the airport to be fully developed—which is thwarted by the current impasse—would transform the opportunities for travel and tourism in the whole region.

The Government's objective is that decisions about Gibraltar are made in Gibraltar by elected representatives of the people of Gibraltar and not by officials and Ministers in London. The best way in which to achieve a new deal for Gibraltar is through dialogue. Gibraltar has nothing to fear and everything to gain from such a dialogue. That is why we have worked so hard to enable the Gibraltar Government to join the meetings under the Brussels process, with its guaranteed separate voice—as Britain and Spain have agreed jointly. Spanish Ministers have assured us that they would welcome the attendance of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who will be treated with the respect and dignity that his position deserves. There is no reason why he cannot attend such meetings, and I again invited him to do so by telephone last night. The next meeting is on 20 November and more meetings are planned thereafter.

However, if Gibraltar feels unable to accept the invitation to join the Brussels process, the process must and will go forward. It is vital that the momentum and good will that we have established are sustained. The dispute that led the Conservative Government to agree the Brussels communiqué 1984 will not go away. It would be the height of irresponsibility on my part to pretend that it will. This is a moment of destiny for Gibraltar. The Foreign Secretary and I mean business. We shall do all that we can to resolve the impasse and build a new future for Gibraltar.

rose—

I wish to respond briefly to the specific questions that have been put to me and then I shall give way. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) asked about voting in European parliamentary elections. I assure him that we shall secure such a position urgently in accordance with the court judgment. The lion. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) said that Gibraltar's view counts—of course, it does. The hon. Member for Romford said that we should not discuss such matters with Spain, yet our Conservative predecessors held such discussions consistently.

Will the Minister give way?

I have been asked questions, and I am trying to answer them. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked about the Matutes proposals. At the ministerial meeting on 26 July between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister, we agreed to set aside the proposals and to focus on the future.

This has been a good debate.

rose—

I shall happily take an intervention from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing).

I should like an assurance from the Minister that he will not repeat his chilling remark that, because Gibraltar is small, it is insignificant: 30,000 people are 30,000 people.

The hon. Lady mischievously puts words into my mouth. [HON. MEMBERS: "You said it."] What I said was that we needed the agreement of our European partners to advance Gibraltar's interests. To do that, we need to build consensus with Spain. We are trying to do that, and the hon. Lady should support us.

My right hon. Friend said twice that the status quo was unsustainable. Does status quo involve sovereignty?

As the Chief Minister said, in any discussion, he would expect Spain to raise its longstanding sovereignty claim. However, we are not prepared to enter into discussions on the basis of fixed agendas. We must find out whether we can find a way forward.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this issue. I am slightly surprised to find that this is the first such opportunity in this Parliament, if only because in the last Parliament the topic seemed to recur with alarming regularity, and hardly surprisingly, because of the great anxiety felt by hon. Members of all parties about the potential loss of the sub-post office network.

We know that post office closures are not a new phenomenon and have been happening over a long period, but an acceleration followed the Government's ill-judged announcements on automated credit transfer, which had a significant effect on people's decisions about whether their businesses could remain viable.

During the last Parliament, about a year and a half ago, significant anxiety was expressed about the future of the post office network. In April 2000, the National Federation of SubPostmasters organised a fantastic rally, which I was happy to attend, just across the road, in Methodist Central Hall. The message from that meeting was how worried people were, to the point at which the Prime Minister himself realised that the game was up and something had to be done. Petitions were organised throughout the country. In my region, the Western Daily Press accumulated more than 1 million signatures to express people's anxiety at what was happening to the post office network.

The response was belated. but when it came it was welcome. It took the form of the performance and innovation unit report, which contained several proposals to maintain the post office network. One of the most important was the concept of a universal bank that would deal directly with social and financial exclusion and, it was hoped, provide a stream of revenue to enable smaller post offices to continue.

In addition to the universal bank, a measure of protection was introduced through the Postal Services Act 2000, and the past 12 months have brought the advent of new technology in our post offices, such as the Horizon system, which is now in place. That welcome raft of Government proposals did a great deal to allay the worst of people's fears about what was happening to the post office network. People took the proposals at face value and realised that if they all came to fruition there was the prospect of maintaining a viable network. It is no disparagement to the Minister responding to today's debate to note that many people were also persuaded by the transparent energy and enthusiasm of the previous Minister, now the Minister for Employment and the Regions, whose clear commitment to the Post Office was obvious in all his dealings with the matter.

What has disappointed many people, and certainly me, is that it has all gone very quiet since the election. There has been a paucity of announcements from the Government on the situation, and little progress has been made in terms of setting up the universal bank, which is supposed to be coming into operation in 2003. That is a clear deadline, but I detect no urgency on the part of Government, and there has been no substantive progress—but perhaps we will hear different when the Minister replies.

It is of even greater concern that despite all the assurances, and the framework that the Government have acclaimed, the problem remains: many sub-post offices are still being closed throughout the country. I heard with amazement the Minister of State, Scotland Office, saying yesterday that there were no closures in his constituency and everything was fine. That is all hunky-dory for his constituency, although it does not accord with the experience of many other hon. Members. Indeed, a parliamentary reply earlier this year showed that, in the financial year up to March 2001, no fewer than 547 post offices closed. That is a significant number, and it should be a matter of alarm.

That view was reinforced yesterday, as a pure happenstance, by the Countryside Agency report, with which I am sure the Minister will be familiar. It singles out post offices as the service in rural areas that is still showing decline, while in other areas there seems to have been a reversal of decline. In a press release to accompany the report, the deputy chairman of the Countryside Agency says:

"The current pressures on the Post Office and doubts about the future of the Universal Bank could lead to further closures, despite the government's commitment to maintain the rural network."

That is undoubtedly the case.

What is the motor for those closures? Part of it is purely demographic—a continuation of what has happened previously. Much of it, however, is due to the uncertainty about the future of the universal bank and the post office network, which the Government have allowed to continue. When there is uncertainty, people cannot produce viable plans to take on new business or maintain their current business through bank borrowings or other means. Without the confidence of a guaranteed revenue stream in the future that will make businesses viable, closures will follow, irrespective of the good intentions of the Government or anyone else, and local communities will be damaged.

It will be not only rural communities that are damaged—I represent a rural area and feel passionately about services in our villages—but urban and suburban communities. Many of the losses in recent years have been on the edge of towns and in the poorer areas of towns and cities, which is equally worrying for those who depend on such post offices. The people about whom we should care most are those vulnerable individuals who may be dependent on benefits and pensions, and who rely on their local post office for the cash in their hand each week. Such people budget week to week—this is something that Ministers sometimes forget—in terms not of a monthly cheque that goes into a bank account, but in terms of the cash that they have in their hand, which they need to spend to keep body and soul together. It is desperately important to them that they can continue to draw money over the post office counter, and that it is close and available to them in their local communities.

I wish to ask a series of questions. If the Minister is able to answer them, some of the concerns that have been expressed might melt away. First, who is running the show? That is a fundamental question for the Government to answer. I am unclear about who is responsible for establishing the universal bank and for maintaining the post office network. It is clear that the Minister's Department still has a role as the sponsoring Department. Indeed, I understand that the budget still lies with the Department of Trade and Industry, which will support any subsidies required by the system. However, we are also told that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been installed as some sort of universal bank tsar. We hope that the bank can be sorted out, but opinions differ about his precise role: he might be a Treasury man, or his task might be to do what is best in terms of the delivery of benefits. It is certainly unclear whether his purpose is to do what is best for post offices and their customers.

I seek clarification about the specific responsibilities of the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury—which is the unseen force here—and about how their activities interact.

My second question is, when will the protracted negotiations to set up the universal bank reach a clear conclusion? Although 2003 is fast approaching, we do not yet know what form that bank will have, and we have not received detailed information about the services that it will provide. However, we have heard clear intentions about those services. Several clearing banks and other financial institutions have regularly entered the discussions about the project: sometimes they have expressed their determination to make it work, but at other times they have sounded distinctly lukewarm about it. We need to know when there will be clarity about the matter. When will the financial negotiations for setting up the bank conclude, and when will we learn of their outcome?

Thirdly, how will the universal bank work? That question raises a specific problem: if the bank is to do what many hon. Members—and postmasters—wish, which is to provide over-the-counter services to the millions of people who take their benefits or pensions in cash, there will need to be a substantial commitment to the basic Post Office account, the third tier of financial transaction available in post offices. All of the surveys that have been conducted prove that those millions of customers will not be attracted by the offer of a basic bank account through the Post Office, or by using their post office to operate a bank account that has been opened elsewhere. The Post Office basic account is crucial to future operation. I have heard estimates that 5 or 6 million people ought to be using that form of transaction, yet we are also authoritatively informed that the Treasury believe that that figure should be no more than 2 million. The Minister will be able to tell me whether that is true.

I also want the Minister to tell me whether there is to be a cap on the number of Post Office basic accounts. If there is, how will it operate? Will the Government fund only up to 2 million accounts, beyond which the Post Office will be on its own in financing the transactions? That would put a huge financial burden on the Post Office and undermine the operation's purpose. Will the cap be on individual post offices, so that the number of transactions for which they will be reimbursed is limited? Again in that case, the burden and risk fall on individual post offices.

If neither of those mechanisms is used, how will the cap be applied? If there is to be a cap, how will that affect post offices that serve the least well-off areas? It is easy to see that once there is a universal bank in a more affluent area, people will transfer to bank accounts of one sort or another. They will be happy with that and not have a significant problem. However, in less well-off areas, more people are likely to want their basic post office account. If that is so, how will rationing work within the post office network to ensure that the post offices that we wish to survive are not the ones that cannot survive because they are unviable? That is a key question.

My fourth question is: when will we see investment by the national post office network in information technology that is connected to the local Horizon IT in sub-post offices, so that it can be used to its full potential? Currently, we have the nonsense that the average post office has a wonderful piece of kit on its counter that could enable it to do much, but most of the operations cannot be done because the next tier up is not available; the Government have not clarified their intentions. When will we have the necessary investment that will repay the investment of local post offices to provide a wider range of services?

My fifth question is very easy and the Minister can place the answer in the Library this afternoon. Will he identify the network of rural post offices that the Government intend to save? I believe—he can correct me if I am wrong—that that information is not yet available. The matter has been raised in parliamentary questions and Ministers have replied that there are 9,000 such post offices and therefore too many to list. It is not too many to list and many people would be interested to know the strategically important rural post offices that the Government intend to preserve. If we knew that, we would be in a better position to assist our constituents.

I turn to my sixth question. The Post Office has run an innovative pilot scheme in Leicestershire, the your guide scheme. That extends the concept of the general practitioner role of the Post Office. I do not come from Leicestershire, but I am told that the scheme has been well received and that people are keen on it. If that is so, why are we not quickly extending the pilot scheme to bring more post offices into its ambit? If a scheme is successful, we must share that success. It would send an excellent signal to people who are wrestling with business decisions about their individual post office. They would be shown that on its way was a lifeline that gave them an enhanced role.

Many hon. Members wish to join the debate and I do not want to take up too much time. I quote the general secretary of the National Federation of SubPostmasters, Colin Baker:

"Our customers have already chosen their local post office. What they now expect…is a quick, simple, no-fuss swap of their pension and order books for a post office-based account when the change in paying benefits takes place in 2003."

That is precisely what we are looking for and the Minister could, if he wished, confirm that that is happening. What we need, but more importantly what the post office network and its customers need, is some clarity and commitment to build confidence that the things that are being discussed are actually happening.

The Government may feel that the issue is old and belongs to the previous Parliament. They may feel that it was a good issue before the general election but that they sorted it, all has gone quiet and they are on the home straight. I assure Ministers and anyone else who is listening that that is far from the case.

If the debate serves any purpose at all, I hope that it will get some answers from the Minister. It should act as a warning to the Government that the community of interests that supports our post office network is still there and is examining carefully the Government's actions. That community is as ready to exert whatever political influence it can muster during the months and years ahead as it ever was. It will not take much to rekindle the interest that was exhibited last year. We want our post office network to survive. We feel that it serves a necessary purpose in communities up and down the country and we are impatient that the Government seem to be taking so long to deliver effective action to make that a reality.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate and on his speech. I have a longstanding interest in the matter, arising not least from my work as an adviser to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs during its major investigation into social exclusion in Wales, the results of which were published in a report last year.

I would like to speak briefly about the context in Wales. There are many negative features, such as the recently announced reduction in the number of collections in rural areas to one a day. In my constituency, the reduction in the hours of service provided to the public by local post offices is something that the organisation has refused to change its mind about. The centralisation of sorting in my part of rural Wales is a problem. For example, there is the ludicrous situation where a letter sent from Rhoshirwaun to Rhiw on the Llyn peninsula, a matter of a few miles, is taken to Chester to be sorted, sometimes taking many days to return, even with a first-class stamp. Another aspect, which has already been referred to, is the automated transfer of pensions and benefits.

Since my election in June, a number of further difficulties have emerged, such as the recruiting of sub-postmasters in my constituency. It is extremely difficult to recruit people who are ready to take on such work. In evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 4 July, the Post Office said that small rural post offices have an income of perhaps only £3,000 to £4,000 per annum, and that income is fixed. Small, full-time post offices in rural areas pay only £7,000 to £8,000 a year for a 40-hour week. As was confirmed to the Committee, that was roughly the minimum wage at the time. I do not think that that is enough for such responsible work and the National Federation of SubPostmasters agrees.

It was confirmed that, in three quarters of the Welsh constituencies, more than 50 per cent. of sub-post offices rely on benefit payments for a significant proportion of their business. Those sub-post offices are important to rural communities in Wales, but there have been closures, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. Between 1995 and 2000 there were 150 closures in Wales. In 1999 there were 10 closures. In 2000 there were 40—the rate is accelerating.

Sub-post offices perform a variety of vital functions. They are sources of Government information and are a vital feature of rural Welsh community life. One of the first films made in Welsh, "Y Noson Lawen", featuring performances of popular songs and poetry, had at the end, as the payoff to its sponsors, one of the characters depositing money in a national savings account—where else but at the local sub-post office?

Before we become too charmed by a rose cottage view of rural life, let me emphasise that Welsh rural communities are under threat from well-known sources. The crisis in agriculture, the lack of alternative job opportunities, the sky-high house prices—my area has both low incomes and some of the highest house prices in Wales, much more than three times local average income—and the closure of local facilities all lead to the migration of young, energetic and talented people. In that situation, sub-post offices are vital. Each is an indicator of the vitality of its local community and one of its chief supporters. People who need and can only afford basic financial services and those who cannot travel to larger population centres need their services.

The members of the Welsh Affairs Committee were concerned about the lack of understanding of the geography of rural Wales. One of the banks giving evidence said that it was closing a branch but that it had another only four miles away. However, that was as the crow flies. On the ground, it was up and down several mountains and valleys—the journey would, apparently, have taken all day. When the Post Office was asked about its system of measuring distances between sub-post offices, it confirmed that that, too, was as the crow flies. Crows are crows and people are people, and people cannot fly. Sub-post offices need the certainty of a secure and prosperous future. They need to become one-stop shops for many services including, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the universal bank.

Some sub-post offices in rural Wales are community co-operatives. Some of them do well enough, but they do so thanks to the intense support and effort of the local community. Others are small businesses run by hard-working couples. They are finding it difficult. There are particular circumstances in Wales, and those circumstances are best addressed in Wales. In a debate on sub-post offices in the National Assembly for Wales on 24 May 2000, Peter Law, then the Labour Local Government Secretary, said, rather despairingly:

"Policy for Post offices is not a devolved function and the Assembly has no power to prevent closures."

In Plaid Cymru, we believe that it is high time that the National Assembly for Wales had such powers.

This is an important matter and I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) on his contribution. I was interested in what he said about the Post Office's guidance on closures and the fact that it measures distance as the crow flies. I thought that perhaps there was to be a backdoor reintroduction of the pigeon post. However, crows are crows, pigeons are pigeons and people are people.

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1992 and have participated in a number of debates on the Post Office. There were closures soon after I was elected. I remember the chorus from the then Labour Opposition, saying that that was despicable. that post offices were vital, particularly for rural areas, and that it was the policy of the then Government to close post offices and merely to look at the numbers. We foolishly thought that if there were a change of Government, there would be a change of fortune for the Post Office. That has not been the case, which is sad. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome told us how many post offices have closed since the Labour party came to government. I worry that the number of post office closures is accelerating. In 2000, the number jumped to 382, according to Library statistics. The number for 2001 is expected to climb to more than 500. Those are enormous numbers.

I imagine that the job description would put people off going into the business. It would refer to long or, indeed, very short hours. Irrespective of that, it would offer low pay and enormous responsibility, yet require the ability to risk one's own money in the venture with the possibility of only a small profit at the end. Running a sub-post office, particularly in a rural area, is a vocation more than a job, and some people will do it irrespective of the returns. The challenge for the Government is to make it more attractive so that more people will want to do it. Many post offices are marginal businesses: they run at small rates of profit and would make no money at all but for the fact that they are usually allied to another business of sorts, such as a grocery business. One postmaster told me that the Post Office salary used to subsidise the other business, and it is incredibly worrying that the situation is now the other way round.

There have been post office closures in my constituency, which is very rural. There are more than 30 villages, most of which had post offices. The Post Office said that it would have kept the Stonyhurst post office open, but that no one could be found to run it. That is part of the problem: who would sacrifice their money and time given that job description? People must also invest in the building, and, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, the cost in some villages is disproportionate. Any sane person who had worked out the mathematics before interest rates became what they are would have found that they could earn more by investing their money in the bank than by buying a building and operating a business from it.

The suburban Barracks post office in Fulwood recently closed. I was told that it was difficult to find anyone to buy the building and open it as a business, but that people could go—although not quite as the crow flies—to a supermarket nearby. Many elderly people who rely on post offices in their villages and communities do not find it easy to get around. It is easy for those who have a car to go to out-of-town shopping centres or to large shopping centres in towns, but those who do not will have enormous difficulties if public transport is poor, as it tends to be in many rural areas.

Post offices in rural areas are a social service and a lifeline for many elderly people. One postmaster gives out pensions on a certain day, but will knock on the doors of pensioners who do not come to collect theirs to make sure that things are okay. What other business does that? The postmaster and postmistress in many rural post offices are a husband-and-wife team and very much part of their community, which they love. However, that is no reason to take them for granted and not to give them a proper reward for the job that they do.

The presence of the post office means that a village is alive—there is lifeblood and a centre of activity. If it closes, there is the risk of the village dying, as we have seen with the disappearance of village schools and shops. For many reasons, the village post office tends to be the last shop to survive. but it is under threat.

Every year, I make a summer tour of my constituency, visiting every village in a week. I always take the time to go to the post offices and speak to the postmaster and postmistress. They know everything that goes on and can tell me if there are problems and suggest what approach we should be taking in Parliament. I spoke with three such people this morning. They provided three short histories of an aspect of the problem.

A lady called Olga Leach runs the Bolton-by-Bowland post office—and will do until the end of the week. She has been a postmistress for 19 and a half years and is retiring. I suspect that if it were not for the fact that the job is not as attractive as it used to be, Olga would carry on. The village is lovely and she will stay there, but she is getting out of the post office business. She found it difficult to sell the business, but has managed it now. One of her great concerns was that the job was poorly paid. That is certainly the case in some small rural areas, which means that the work is not attractive. Often Olga would pay out more in one social security payment than she received for running the post office that week. I think that in that position I might find my morale was sapped.

Olga also runs a cafe, and, of course, in a rural area, such businesses have been kicked by foot and mouth, because tourism has dried up. That is a double agony for rural post offices that have relied on tourism. She sells groceries and newspapers as well. She has no complaints about the extent to which the villagers use the post office. She is grateful for the support that she gets, but she believes that the Government should re-examine the matter of advertising. An advertising campaign could educate people about the advantages of shopping at the post office where there is other business. That would ensure that the post office was profitable and could survive.

If the post office were to be lost and turned into a house—like, no doubt, many in the past 10 years—people would have to travel, and the elderly would be placed at a disadvantage. Running a post office entails enormous responsibility. I imagine that it is only when the shop door closes that some of the real work begins—the paperwork that is essential to its efficient running.

I spoke next to the postmaster at Chatburn, who has run his post office for six years. He believes that the post office side of the business should be expanded, enabling all post offices, wherever they are, to offer all services, including providing car tax discs. Some rural post offices would like that opportunity.

The postmaster also wanted more advice and support on the business side. I know that the Countryside Agency gives some support. Small sums are involved, but the business in question is supposed to find 50 per cent., and it is difficult for a marginal business that does not make much money to find £5,000. Banks will not lend to a business that is not making a profit, with no prospect of a return. There is interest in opportunities to upgrade the facilities. People do not want to walk into a dowdy-looking post office, on which no money has been spent for years. The people running them want to get into the 21st century, but cannot do that because they are not making a profit.

The postmaster said that a hole in the wall—or automatic teller machine, as I should probably call it—would be an advantage, and he looks forward to that. There is not one in Chatburn at the moment.

Chipping is another village in my constituency. I spoke to Andrea Cawley today, who, with her husband, has run the post office there for 18 months. They are new to the business and very young. David is about to go on a 460 km bike ride in Vietnam on behalf of MIND. I think that that is typical of people who run post offices: they tend to be enormously charitable with their time. They are community-based people. To do that on behalf of a local charity is superb and I wish him well. Andrea meanwhile will carry on running the post office when he is away—I will not say away enjoying himself. When I asked her what the one thing was that she wanted the Government to do to help her business, she said that she would like a grant to do up the post office and make it more attractive to customers. She mentioned the security aspect too, and said that if she had to upgrade the security in her post office, she was expected to pay. In this day and age, sadly, we must ensure that post offices even in small villages are properly secure and that the people who work in them feel safe.

Will the Minister consider ways in which we can sell post offices more readily? In Pendleton, my own village, the Swan with Two Necks pub acts as the post office and opens in the morning on certain days. Christine, the postmistress, serves the customers with pensions and stamps and is dedicated to the service of the village. If that service were taken away, people would have to travel to Clitheroe, which may not sound a long distance but would be an enormous burden for some elderly people.

Another example is the village of Slaidburn, where the post office closed because it could not make any money, when the postmaster's wife died and he decided that he wanted to retire. It is difficult to find someone to come to a place like Slaidburn to open a post office as a going concern—a traditional post office with a few goods on the side. The village shop was not making much money either, so the two businesses have combined and one hopes that now, with the support of the community, that shop and post office will make a go of it.

Some things became clear from my discussions with postmasters and postmistresses: the long hours that they work, the marginal nature of the shops and the fact that they love their job. In the main, they want to continue doing that job, if they can. The introduction of the odd internet machine in some village post offices will not be the answer, although those post offices that could provide a lottery service might receive a boost.

I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say about the universal bank and how he believes it will support village post offices. He has heard several questions from hon. Members about how we might make post offices a. more attractive proposition. Soothing words cannot be banked—he must come up with more, because the Government will be judged not on what he says but on how many post offices close between now and the next general election.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing the debate.

Post offices, as previous speakers have said, are an integral part of our rural communities. I echo the comment made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) about how long it takes for a letter posted in a remote rural village to get to a house in the same village. It may take several days to arrive. We need to go back to the days of the GPO, when the delivery and collection part of the business and the counters part were integrated. I do not see why a letter posted in a remote village for delivery in the same village or in another village a few miles up the road must be taken hundreds of miles to a big city to be sorted and sent back. Why cannot mail posted on an island, for example, be taken to a local sub-post office on the island and sorted into two batches—one for delivery on the island and the other for the mainland? The mail posted on the island for delivery on the island could be delivered the next day instead of in three or four days, as at present.

I give an example from Ross of Mull, a part of the country that the Minister knows well. If a letter is posted in Fionnphort with a first-class stamp to go to Bunessan, which is only a few miles up the road, the letter is put in the post office van and driven through Bunessan, possibly past the very house to which it is to be delivered. It is taken to the ferry at Craignure and crosses to Oban, whence it is carried 100 or so miles to Glasgow where it is sorted before it does the return journey to be delivered in Bunessan. Even with a first-class stamp, that takes three days. Many local businesses have important business to be transacted and legal requirements for mail to be delivered the next day. Why cannot the mail posted in Fionnphort be taken to the local sub-post office and sorted, and that which has been mailed for elsewhere on Mull collected separately and delivered the next day on Mull?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing an important debate. He observed that it might be the first time that we had debated the subject since the election, which is slightly alarming, as is the complete lack of any interest from Labour Members. None of them has sought to speak in the debate. They must either think that the problem has been sorted—if so we wait for the Minister to tell us what he has told them—or be too scared to try to defend the situation.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was generous and graceful enough to concede that post offices had been a mess for some time, and that the problem had not happened since 1997. The uncertainty and worries about the future of post offices have not been resolved in the past four and a half years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome made an important reference to the rally 18 months ago, which demonstrated not only the strength of feeling but the concerns of many people from across the United Kingdom. The Government were quick to respond with the promise of a performance and innovation unit report, which duly came. There was a sense that a serious attempt was being made to tackle the problem, yet people still do not know what their future holds. Now they ask whether all that Government activity after the rally was simply clever politics, not good government.

Many businesses feel extremely insecure. The balance has swung from people using their income from the post office side of the business to subsidise the rest of it to the other way round. People may have diversified into other businesses—gifts and cards, for example—but tourism has declined seriously during the past couple of years. I will not blame the Government for that, but it adds extra stresses and strains to those businesses. It means not only that continuing business security is unknown, but that the retirement of many who work in such post offices is blighted. Many who expected to have a business that they could sell on, and who live literally above the shop, now do not know whether they have a business asset or a wasting asset that they will not be able to pass on.

In July, the Minister was kind enough to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and me to discuss some of our concerns. My hon. Friend was briefly in the Chamber, but has had to attend to other business. He recently received a letter from Mervyn Jones, a gentleman who is a constituent of mine but whose business is in my hon. Friend's constituency. He is the local organiser for the National Federation of SubPostmasters. His letter states that

"we seem to inch our way ever closer to a decision, but the progress remains painfully slow. Many more Post Offices have closed while this uncertainty has continued. The situation is now most urgent".

When the Minister met us, he was keen to highlight many important initiatives that have been touched on this morning, such as the universal bank and the pilots in Leicestershire. I hope that he will use the debate as a good opportunity to try to allay some of the fears that the initiatives have been kicked into the long grass or, to mix my metaphors, have somewhat run into the sand. People do not yet understand the danger. The Government are not sending them the signals to convince them that they have a proper commercial future.

We are talking not about the world's greediest entrepreneurs, but about people who want to make a decent return on their business and to be able to continue to provide the social services that are informally expected of them. Examples have already been given. In my home town, Innerleithen, Douglas and Ann Coulter, the local sub-postmaster and his wife, are experts in helping old people, and anyone else who comes in, to fill out difficult Government forms. They do not get paid for that, and do not expect to, but they provide a vital additional service that no one else in a rural area can.

I understand that the contractual deadline for the universal bank is the end of this year. Perhaps the Minister can update us on that, and focus on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome about whether a capped amount will be provided to the Post Office to pay for that initiative. If it is capped and there are incentives for the Post Office to get many people on to something different, the initiative will not do what has been promised, or tackle the serious problems of the move from existing benefit books to a new system. The chances for confusion and commercial insecurity are great.

The situation must be sorted out, and we need clear signposts about what is going on. The Government cannot suggest that they have not been repeatedly warned. Earlier this year, Postcom carried out a useful survey, to which I and my hon. Friends contributed, about the nature of sub-post offices around the country. Postcom paid its first visit to Scotland when it came to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

Postcom's report makes it clear that the worries expressed in our part of south-east Scotland were repeated up and down the country. Time is running out. The times are desperate for sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters are not naturally demonstrative and the rally 18 months ago was a very big event for them. They do not want to have to get on to coaches and trains again and return to London, but if the Minister is unable to remove uncertainty for them, I fear that that will happen.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on giving profile to this matter. I share the concern of some of my colleagues that the Government got through their first Parliament in the normal way: being seen to be active, but not yet delivering. If they do not deliver in this Parliament, they will create much cynicism and disappointment in rural areas and areas where sub-post offices are getting desperate.

I will sit down soon so that the Minister will have longer to wind up the debate, but I press him to comment on the progress that has been made on the grants scheme introduced in the summer, and how much of that money has already been allocated. Some of us are worried that the scheme is reaching its limit and needs more money to achieve its goals, as it deals with problems such as start-up costs.

I reinforce a point about which the Scotland Office showed complete complacency during yesterday's Scottish questions. I hope that that was an aberration that does not reflect collective Government responsibility, and that this Minister still has serious concerns. Ministers' reassurances, which sound great, that people will still be able to use their sub-post office to collect their benefit will be meaningless if their sub-post office is closed.

I echo the congratulations that have been offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and add to his my appreciation of the Minister's predecessor, now the Minister for Employment and the Regions. He always gave the impression that he was doing things and was unfailingly courteous when we brought problems to him. I hope that his successor will react similarly.

It will be useful to reflect on the basic statistics on closures. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister a couple of weeks ago and he has helpfully provided the up-to-date position on the number of closures, which have steadily increased in the past five years. There were 175 in the mid-1990s, 163 in the financial year ending March 1997, when the Government took office, and 547 in the financial year ending March 2001. That is much larger than the figure recorded for any other financial year. The only figure that approaches it is 473 during the 1991–92 recession.

Why has the rate of closures accelerated? Post offices close for many reasons, including personal circumstances of the owners, such as ageing. They may want to convert their businesses to domestic use and so on. We must find the reason for the trend and why it is so heavily upward. In the early 1990s, the explanation could have been the recession and falling demand, but in the past few years the economy has been doing relatively well. The only possible explanation is the loss of confidence in the post office network resulting from the expectation that income would fall drastically in 2003 and thereafter. I can think of no other explanation, but if the Minister has one, it would be useful to know it.

The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) prompted the thought that the problems for rural areas will not be limited to those of the post office network. Anyone who follows closely the debate on Consignia finances knows that it is in deep financial trouble. Its senior executives are openly touting the idea that they may have to cut back on the universal service obligation. If that happens, rural communities will lose not only their local sub-post offices, but access to the national service of post distribution. That would be a major crisis for rural areas, but is a subject for another debate.

I want to focus specifically on the financing of the post office network. The basic sums are that the post office network will lose around £430 million of income when ACT is introduced, plus the footfall income from that, and we must focus on how that loss will be compensated, if it is. There are three elements to the story. The first is the specific provisions that the Government proposed to help post offices on the margin that are faced with closure. I understand that a very small fund has been set aside for that purpose—I believe that it is £2 million a year. Will that be increased when the system comes into operation in 2003, or is it a fixed annual sum? What will be the scale of operation of the subsidy? Can the Minister give us clearer guidelines on how it will operate? Members of Parliament will be part of the system, so it will be useful to know exactly how it will work. However, we are talking about small amounts of money.

In addition, the Government are putting approximately £15 million into inner-city refurbishment over three years, which, again, is useful but small, What will happen to those sub-post offices—they are the majority—in neither inner cities nor rural areas? For most of us who live elsewhere, sub-post offices are a critical part of the community. The message that I receive from Post Office Counters is that there will be large-scale consolidation of many suburban and urban post offices. They will be grouped in the same way that hospitals were amalgamated and there will be major loss of welfare if that happens. Those sub-post offices are not covered in the subsidy or support arrangements and it would useful to know exactly what is happening on that front.

Potential subsidisation of the network is one component. The second is new business and there have been some imaginative and positive developments. There have been pilot schemes for Government services for general practitioners, the internet and so on. Those are valuable and innovative and I have no criticism, except to question how much additional income they will bring in. I understand that current estimates are £35 million over three years or just over £10 million a year. There is vast disparity between the £430 million that the post office network will lose and the £10 million to £15 million a year that it will receive from the two additional sources of funding.

The third and most important component is the universal bank, about which there are many unanswered questions. Whenever I ask parliamentary questions, I receive answers that are full of references to commercial confidentiality—in other words, we cannot be told what is going on. That is understandable to some degree, but means that there is virtually no accountability in the process.

There are two aspects of the universal bank. First, there are basic bank accounts. I do not understand how they will work and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain that. Secondly, there are brand accounts, about which there has been controversy. Will it be possible for a Barclays bank account-holder in a market town to open a Barclays account at the local post office? If someone wants to open a Barclays basic account in a local village and has not previously had a bank account, will it be able to be used in the Barclays network, or will it be more circumscribed? What functions will it have? Will direct billing be available through this network because it will be crucial to obtain discounts from utilities?

What are the banks putting into this? The banks have said that they are contributing £180 million over five years, which sounds like a lot of money. However, there is a lot at stake. As the Government know, the banks are negotiating hard on the terms of their regulation under the new Paycom system, and £180 million would be a small price to pay for an easier regulatory regime. Some of us are suspicious of how much the banks are doing.

Will pensioners be able to access money free of charge through automated teller machines? There has been a recent culture of banks trying to charge as much as they possibly can for the withdrawal of money, and pensioners on limited incomes will find those charges disproportionate.

That matter is shrouded in a fog of obscurity, but I believe that the basic bank accounts will not have charges. There will also be no charge to use the Post Office card account, which I shall discuss in a moment. It would be helpful if the Minister put everyone out of their misery by confirming that there will be no charges.

The Post Office card account is a key driver, and the Government control it, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome was right to press the Minister. There are two important issues relating to the card account. First, to what extent are direct debits permissible with such an account? Secondly, the scale of the operation is crucial to the issue of financial exclusion. Almost 10 million people have no current account. Certainly, 5 million people have no financial services provision. The rumour that we have heard is that the number of people who will be allowed or encouraged—it is not clear which—to have a card account will be no more than 2 million. If the figure is at that end of the scale, it will hopelessly fail to meet the Government's financial exclusion objectives. Is there a notional number? Where does it come from? Is there a minimum or maximum figure? What scale of operation are we discussing, and who will determine that scale?

The scale of the operation is important to its funding. The assumption on which some of us have been working is that the Government will put £100 million into the system, which would be welcome new income for the post office network. However, that figure is predicated on the assumption of 2 million card accounts. If the Government put in three or four times that amount, it would fully compensate the network for the loss of its automated credit transfer income. The scale is crucial, and I hope that the Minister will explain it precisely. We could be discussing a minimal, token gesture or a fully fledged, highly comprehensive and extremely valuable replacement for ACT. It is unclear where we are on that spectrum.

The post office network has been dealt a deep wound to which there have been various attempts to apply tourniquets and Elastoplast over the past few months. We must know whether the flow of blood will be stemmed by the various initiatives that the Government are proposing.

It gives me great pleasure to welcome a fellow Essex Member of Parliament to the Chair, Mr. Amess.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate, which provides a valuable opportunity to question the Minister on an issue that is of considerable concern to many of us. He mentioned his surprise that this is the first time that the issue has been debated in this Parliament. All of us would stress that that should not be taken to indicate any lessening in the concern about the future of the sub-post office network. He also mentioned that the issue was raised regularly throughout the previous Parliament following the Government's announcement about ACT in May 1999. About 18 months ago, we had a rally in Methodist Central Hall of about 2,000 sub-postmasters, who came here to demonstrate how important they felt the matter to be. On that occasion, we devoted our Opposition day debate on the Floor of the House to the future of post offices. During that debate, the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, now Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, in response to concerns raised by Members on both sides of the House stated:

"Post office closures have nothing to do with the move to ACT in 2003."—[Official Report, 12 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 378.]

He went on to say that closures were bound to happen because that was part of normal commercial life—businesses would always open and close—and that there was no real reason for concern.

Even then, many hon. Members were shocked by that staggering complacency, but in the 18 months that have followed, the rate of sub-post office closures has accelerated severely. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) cited the figure for the number of closures to the year ending March 2001–547—which was far higher than in any previous year. We have even more up-to-date figures. Six days ago, the Minister gave an answer to a question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), revealing that another 119 post offices closed in April to June 2001—the first quarter of this financial year. There is no sign of the trend being reversed.

Why does it matter? Obviously, it is sad to lose any business, but sub-post offices are absolutely vital. The 17,500 that exist are roughly divided between the rural and the urban, although, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, several fall somewhere in between. Each one plays a vital part in its local community, and its loss would substantially deprive that community of vital services.

Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I represent a rural community, so I am familiar with the enormously important central role that is played by village post offices in remote rural areas. My constituency contains a large area consisting of remote, scattered villages with poor public transport facilities. In villages such as Bradwell and Tillingham—I am not going to take hon. Members on a tour of my constituency, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did, although I feel much better informed about it as a result—the loss of the post office often removes the life of the village, because it represents not only a place of business where people go to deal with mail or receive benefits, but the centre of village life. It may provide a meeting place for elderly people who cannot get out of the village, or its postmistress may supply advice. It is such a crucial part of life that many villages struggle to survive its loss.

Eighteen months ago, I was given the opportunity to open a village sub-post office—a replacement for one that had closed three years previously—in Great Totham in my constituency. Businesses are still opening, which is welcome, but the net loss each year is leading to a gradual decline in the overall number. Even if the Government create new opportunities for sub-post offices, too many may already have been lost to take advantage of them.

The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned the survey published yesterday by the Countryside Agency, which stated that as a result of the closures nearly 400,000 people in the countryside live more than one and a half miles from a sub-post office. That will create particular problems for elderly people, who will find it difficult to access their benefit payments.

The reasons why sub-post offices are closing have already been touched on. It is partly because they are experiencing the pressures that all small business now face. They are businesses like any other, and must cope with red tape, regulations and various other burdens, but the major reason for closures is the switch to ACT from 2003. The Minister who spoke in the debate to which I referred said that that cannot be the reason, because ACT has yet to be put in place, but the mere announcement of the switch has blighted the prospects for many sub-post offices. Those who want to sell their business on reaching retirement age are often unable to do so.

I was delighted to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that his constituent, who is about to retire, has found someone to take over the business, but in many cases that proves impossible. In my own constituency, for example, a sub-post office closed but no one was willing to take it on. To some extent, the problem is caused by banks advising that such businesses are no longer viable. Given the uncertainty about the future, banks are reluctant to lend money to those who want to take on sub-post offices. That creates huge problems for those who are currently running them, many of whom may have invested their life savings in the business.

It is worth stressing that point: it is difficult to establish the business case for investing in a sub-post office while such uncertainty remains. However, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the banks that are turning down loan applications are the very banks that are supposedly committed to the principle of the universal bank—the alleged saviour of such businesses? There seems to be a dichotomy in the thinking of clearing banks.

That is a good point. Although high street clearing banks have now signed up to the concept of the universal bank, they have shown a lack of enthusiasm for it ever since it was mooted. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, they appear not to be giving the concept the 100 per cent. support that it needs if it is to succeed.

On retirement, many of those who have devoted their lives to their sub-post offices will be unable to realise the value of the asset into which they have put all their money throughout their working lives.

I want to touch briefly on the very good report commissioned by the PIU, which outlined a number of opportunities for sub-post offices, such as the potential for e-commerce and internet sites. All such suggestions are welcome and I hope that they will be developed.

I apologise for not being here sooner, Mr. Amess. The explanation, in part, is that I am acting as host to Miss Alex Lawrence, who is here from Somerset as part of a "teenager at work" day.

The debate is not just about inclusivity in a village context. Although Taunton is a very rural constituency, the town itself is also suffering through the closure of sub-post offices. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem affects not only rural but urban areas, and—more importantly—that young children and teenagers will also find it difficult to access the services if the sub-post offices no longer exist?

I entirely agree. The problem afflicts all communities—rural and urban—and will afflict all sections of the population.

I do not want to speak for too long, as I am anxious to give the Minister the maximum opportunity to respond to the questions raised so far. However, I want briefly to discuss new opportunities for sub-post offices to win business—a matter touched on earlier. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned road tax licences. I asked at my local sub-post office what the Government could do to make life easier and was immediately told that every week several people who came in to renew their road tax had to be turned away. That is a specific suggestion.

The Government must address questions about the future of the universal bank, which could offer salvation to sub-post offices. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that everything had gone quiet since the election. That is not entirely true: comment in the newspapers has, if anything, increased our concern. About six weeks ago, The Sunday Telegraph ran a piece headed "Universal Bank in doubt". It said:

"The Government is considering scrapping plans for a Universal Bank, which would provide basic accounts".

We learned a couple of weeks ago that responsibility for the universal bank had been switched from the Department of Trade and Industry to the Department for Work and Pensions, which gave rise to the headline, "Darling sent in to save plan for Universal Bank".

I hope that the Minister will address these serious questions. Will he give us a guarantee that the universal bank proposal is still on track and will go ahead? When will it be in place? It is important to sort that out. It is not enough to wait until 2003 when the switch to ACT takes place. We need reassurance now, and we must have the arrangement in place as soon as possible.

A concern that has already been mentioned is that a limit may be placed on the number of eligible users of the Post Office card account. Clearly, any restriction of that kind would represent a huge threat to the potential income of sub-postmasters. Can the Minister guarantee that there will be no limit and that all those who are eligible to use the card accounts will be able to do so? Will he also tell us something about the remuneration terms for sub-postmasters who carry out universal bank transactions? I understand that some matters are still under negotiation, but it is not good enough for him to continue to answer by simply saying that all this is commercially confidential. We need information soon.

Can the Minister give us an estimate of how much the overall package will be worth to sub-postmasters? To what extent will it restore the enormous financial loss that the switch to ACT will cause? Finally, if there is a delay in getting the proposals up and running, is he prepared to delay the switch to ACT until the problems have been sorted out? The clock is ticking. Sub-post offices are closing every day. I know that hon. Members want to listen to the Minister, so I hand over to him to reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on securing this debate on the future of sub-post offices. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) on his appointment to the Conservative Front Bench. I will seek to be as expeditious as possible, given the range of questions put to me. I will seek to answer as many of them as time allows; the clock is indeed ticking.

This is the second Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to which I have had the pleasure of replying. I wish to place on record my tribute to the work that he does on behalf of his constituents. I thank him for his kind remarks about my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and the Regions, and join in paying tribute to his endeavours.

I listened carefully to the speeches and welcome the opportunity to respond to as many questions as possible. The concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome centre on the need to maintain the sub-post office network and to ensure a viable, long-term future for it. His comments reflected the concerns of not only his constituents but all those who live in the more rural areas of the United Kingdom, for whom the local post office is a focal point in the community. As all hon. Members are aware, the sub-post office network plays a vital role in every region of the United Kingdom.

I disagree with the substantive point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams). The sub-post office network would not be better dealt with by the devolved Administrations. I think that, if anything, the network argues for the level of integration that is possible in the United Kingdom. There is simply a philosophical divide on that issue between me and Plaid Cymru.

I pay tribute to the work by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). He missed no opportunity to talk about the important work of sub-postmasters in his constituency. I shall make a brief diversion from the substantive issues by also paying tribute to the charitable work of his constituent who is travelling to Vietnam. Having cycled in that country, I simply advise him to ensure that he has a good saddle.

We all agree that sub-post offices have a key role. As hon. Members know, post offices serve 28 million people every week. All those who have spoken, the Government, Post Office Ltd., sub-postmasters and post office customers are committed to the network's survival. Let us be clear that we face substantive challenges but the Government remain as committed as they were in the last Parliament to a sustainable network of post offices throughout the UK.

The network must be able to adapt and take account of the changes that some hon. Members have mentioned, not least changes in lifestyle, customer preferences and new ways of doing business. The traditional business of post offices needs to respond to those changing requirements, changes in society and the challenge of new opportunities as a result of changes in technology.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about post office closures. It is indeed the case that net closures of sub-post offices in the year to 26 March 2001 totalled 547. Of those, 441 were rural and 106 were urban-based offices, according to the Post Office's revised traditional definition of rural offices as those serving communities with fewer than 10,000 residents. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the definition of rural post offices. I shall raise that with the management of Post Office Ltd. and write to him.

Some of those closures cannot be avoided, but a significant portion are temporary, as designated by the Post Office. Indeed, 109 offices reopened between April 2000 and March 2001. Of the closures in the year, only four were designated permanent as a result of a Post Office decision. In all other cases, there is scope for reopening should a suitable applicant come forward within 12 to 18 months.

The hon. Members for Somerton and Frome, for Ribble Valley and for Maldon and East Chelmsford spoke about closures more generally. Net closures in the second quarter of the current year were 56, of which 47 were rural and nine urban offices. In the first quarter, there were 119 net closures, comprising 94 rural and 25 urban offices. That is a significant reduction, quarter on quarter. In addition, total net closures of 175 for the half-year are well below those for the corresponding period of last year, when 299 post offices closed. We should not read too much into any quarterly or half-yearly figure alone, but I hope that we can all welcome those reductions.

A range of new initiatives has been introduced, including the £2 million Government fund to support community volunteering initiatives to maintain and reopen post office facilities. I hope to return to that in responding to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). Other measures include the abolition by the Post Office from 1 April of the introductory payment of 25 per cent. of the first year's remuneration. That makes sub-post offices more attractive to prospective purchasers.

The Government are pressing forward with work to implement all the recommendations of the performance and innovation unit. I agree that the report was extremely worth while and I assure hon. Members that a great deal of expeditious work is being done to implement the recommendations to modernise the post office network. That is happening in close consultation with Consignia, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, the Postal Services Commission, the Consumer Council for Postal Services and other relevant bodies. The new products and services identified and the work that has been set in train provide a basis for reinventing the network and safeguarding its future.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) is new to the House, but has clearly already learned how to grab the attention of the Minister responsible for postal services. I know very well the area that he mentioned. Indeed, I have experience of the postal service in the Ross of Mull, having received both my 0-grade and highers results in that locality—that was in the days when highers results turned up. I will raise his concern with the Consignia management with great pleasure and take forward his specific point on postal services on the Isle of Mull.

The first question of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome focused on the respective roles of Departments in advancing the universal bank project, and it may be helpful to give some clarity on programme management. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is responsible for delivery of universal banking services as part of the wider Government programme of benefit payment migration to automated credit transfer and ensuring that benefit payment recipients can continue to receive their cash at post offices. That has been stated before, and it remains the Government's policy. That is a new role for the Department for Work and Pensions, while the Department of Trade and Industry continues to have shareholder responsibility for Consignia and sponsorship of the post office network.

The development shows that we are moving in the correct direction on the universal bank and demonstrates the Government-wide commitment to the universal bank project, which will ensure that benefit claimants can continue to draw their benefits in cash at post offices when benefits are paid into bank accounts. I am happy to reiterate that assertion today. It is positive that DWP has now taken overall project management responsibility, given its locus as a particular client of the project. As Consignia shareholder, the DTI will continue to be responsible and take a keen interest in the project, ensuring that it can he implemented successfully through the network of sub-post offices.

To clarify the situation, will it be the Minister or the Department for Work and Pensions that sets the target for the number of Post Office card accounts, and what will that target be?

Those discussions are continuing between Departments, because different bodies are involved. It will interest the hon. Gentleman to know that working relationships are positive and close. I will meet the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this afternoon, which is merely a reflect ion of a continuous series of constructive discussions.

It is important to recognise the significance of the universal bank project, particularly to the future of the sub-post office, and I pay tribute to hon. Members who have done so. It is a substantial, multi-strand project that will depend on many interlocking commercial relationships, not least between Post Office Ltd. and the individual banks. I am glad to see that the memorandum of understanding has been signed between DWP and Post Office Ltd., and between Post Office Ltd. and its suppliers of computing and other services.

I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, but he ducked the question about the target. Will he answer simply yes or no: will there be a cap to the number of Post Office basic accounts?

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will come on to that when I address his second question, which related to that specific point.

More generally as a preface, it was inevitable that the performance and innovation unit report would generate significant publicity. However, it would be deeply misguided to see that necessary and diligent work as a change of Government tone or policy. We have worked relentlessly to drive forward the policy, because we share the view that the universal bank has a critical role to play in the network's future.

However, the nature of the commercial relationships involved in the establishment of the universal bank means that many discussions cannot be conducted in public. If negotiations were conducted in public, it would not only imperil the project but delay it when we are determined to work to our target of 2003. I assure hon. Members that those many-faceted negotiations are being driven forward with urgency. Good progress is being made, and the project remains on track for implementation in time for the ACT change of 2003.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the universal bank's application. Those matters are being considered in the context of an overall migration and marketing strategy, on which much work is under way. It would be wrong to anticipate the outcome of those discussions, but it will remain our policy to encourage benefit recipients to use the accounts that best meet their needs.

On the new post office-based simple bank account and the PAT 14 basic accounts—named for policy action team 14—being developed by the banks, these are designed for everyday transactions, are accessible across post office counters and are free of charge to the user. Without post office access, those basic accounts will not achieve sufficient market penetration by themselves adequately to address the challenge of financial exclusion. The universal bank will provide a range of banking services that will cater for as wide a range of customers as possible. It will bring people currently outwith bank accounts into the financial mainstream by providing easier access to basic bank accounts.

The agreement with the institutions is that it will be possible for applicants to begin opening an account—

Order. Time is up.

I congratulate you, Mr. Amess, on your elevation. It has been a long time coming and well deserved. I shall miss you in other places.

Human cloning has raised much heat recently through the media and requires urgent Government consideration. [Interruption.]

Order. Would those people leaving the Chamber kindly go about their business more quietly? We owe that courtesy to Dr. Gibson.

Thank you, Mr. Amess.

Human cloning includes both so-called therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning. Although they are based on the same technique—the addition of a nucleus to an enucleate egg cell—they have completely different aims. They involve the production of an embryo, but in therapeutic cloning, tissues or groups of cells are created for the purpose of treating some chronic diseases. In this place we recently discussed issues surrounding therapeutic cloning during the debate on stem cell research. In that case, cloning means transplanting the newly created tissue back to the patient. There is no prospect of the patient having an immune rejection because the tissue is genetically similar. It can also be transferred to other patients with the aid of immune drugs to suppress any response.

Reproductive cloning aims to allow the embryo to develop into an adult and involves the creation—in theory, at least—of an individual who comprises exactly the same genes as another person, alive or dead. We need to appreciate that two individuals with the same genes do not always turn out to be exactly alike. Identical twins have identifiable differences because of the great influence of environmental factors during the transformation from zygote to full adult. Those factors have a great effect on the development of tissues, characteristics and so forth.

It is argued that reproductive cloning might be the only way that some people are able to have a child. We currently have in-vitro fertilisation, which is legal, but there are severe ethical, legal, scientific and political problems with allowing reproductive cloning. Dolly the sheep was produced only after many unsuccessful attempts-270 to produce one poor little sheep. Imagine the trauma if that were to happen with humans. Yes, we have also produced pigs and cows and, indeed, America now has a whole industry dedicated to reproducing a tame pet that might have been run over. One's cat or dog can be recreated for a price. It is, of course, never quite the same as one's pet moggy but, because of the genetic influence, it sort of looks like it.

An industry has been established to fulfil narcissistic ambitions of self-perpetuation—that is precisely what it is. The technology is not state of the art. Many of the animals produced display lethargy, obesity, arthritic conditions and failed sexual prowess. There have been miscarriages, abortions, stillbirths and genetically abnormal offspring, yet we only hear of the one great success.

An Italian scientist, Professor Antinori, is swanning around the conference circuit claiming to be able to judge embryos as fully normal and worthy of implantation in the mother, but many defects emerge only after birth during the development of the organism. In August 2001, an article in The Guardian referred to the same "maverick scientist" as promising a human clone by the beginning of 2002 and claiming that by the end of 2002 he will be able to produce an individual baby whom someone has paid him to create.

There is no reason to suppose that the problems that have been created during the development of pigs and cows would not apply to humans. It is not an exact science and we cannot turn back the clock in respect of DNA taken from an adult and put into a new cell nucleus to create a completely new organism. Problems can happen genetically on the way.

No children are born with their total genetic make-up being known in advance. Before birth, there is the mystery of which sex the child will be, the hair colour, the size, the looks and all the matters that make human beings different from each other. It is true that technologies can select embryos that contain certain genes. For example, the gene for a certain type of muscular dystrophy can be spotted. If it is, the individuals involved will be informed and, after discussion and advice, choices will be made. Under British law, we do not condone or allow the positive selection of certain characteristics.

In the first flush of human genetics earlier this century came the discovery of family trees where genes can be traced. The famous geneticist, Herman Muller, with whom I worked in Indiana, received a Nobel prize for discovering that radiation caused gene mutations. His book entitled "The Control of Human Heredity and Evolution" states:

"For any group of people who have a rational attitude towards matters of reproduction and who also have a genuine sense of their own responsibility to the next and subsequent generations, the means exist right now of achieving a much greater speedier and more significant genetic improvement of the population by the use of selection."

In some ways, that is close to eugenic arguments. I am sure that hon. Members can imagine some of the arguments we had in our coffee breaks about what I thought was Herman Muller's over-enthusiasm for being able to fashion individuals genetically. He referred in his book to a co-worker who argued that cells could be spotted with intelligent genes and non-intelligent genes and that such cells could be transplanted. Science created that excitement, but as hon. Members know, it can sometimes be a few steps too fast for the society in which it is being developed.

Hon. Members will recall that the Government, together with the chief medical officer, the human genetics advisory committee and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, recommended regulations that backed therapeutic cloning and said that legislation was needed to ban reproductive cloning to contain the public's anxieties about the cloning technique as perpetuated by articles in various newspapers and television programmes. All credible British scientists agree that it is essential to prevent charlatans such as Antinori from conducting reckless and dangerous experiments on women and children.

In 1990, when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act was passed, no one considered cell nuclear replacement, although it had been talked about in the scientific community since the 1960s when people carried out the technology with frogs and other so-called lower organisms. People obviously said that that could happen one day with a human being. That day is here now. In nuclear replacement technology, an egg cell receives its DNA from another cellular source and the egg cell develops into embryonic tissue or, indeed, into an embryo.

The Act, however, defined embryos as being the result of fertilisation—an egg and a sperm fusing together. When it was published, that was the only way in which to produce embryos—something that is now, of course, outdated. The pro-life movement has seized on that and claims that regulations could not be passed about cloning because the Act does not cover the nuclear replacement technique. If that is so, the argument is either that the technique is legal as it is not prohibited under the Act and scientists should be allowed to use it and be granted licences to undertake research and treat patients, or that cloning of any kind is illegal because the Act prohibits the splitting of embryos and other international laws and agreements prohibit cloning. The Government must make a clear decision. A judicial review is under way and a decision is imminent. I look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government will act as a result of the review.

I fear the judgment of lawyers and doubt whether the intentions of the 1990 Act will justify the necessary regulation to cover therapies involving nuclear replacement. Let us hope that pro-life groups do not turn back the clock and make cloning illegal, thus preventing the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority from granting licences for clinical research into diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. We have had those arguments in the House many times during the past year. I hope that the matter does not require primary legislation, that the Minister can confirm that it will be covered by the Act and that we can ban reproductive cloning. As the Government have been positive and supportive of science and medical research, I hope that we shall not lose this opportunity to clear up the dilemma that we face today.

I, too, welcome you to the Chair of Westminster Hall, Mr. Amess. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for having introduced today's debate. We have always said that it is important to debate such issues in depth and to take an open approach. I know that my hon. Friend fully supports the idea of exploring the issues seriously, as has happened over the past 18 months or so.

Human cloning is a serious matter and we in this country have given it a great deal of attention. In the debate on 17 November last year, my hon. Friend said that cloning is a difficult term to define. We have tried to be clear about the definitions involved in debates.

The creation of an embryo using cell nuclear replacement for research purposes only is commonly called therapeutic cloning. Embryos are not used directly in treatment, but stem cells can be extracted and used for research into potentially life-saving treatments, as in the cases that my hon. Friend mentioned—Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and incurable cancers—which might be tackled in that way. Enabling such research was a key consideration in introducing the regulations.

Cloning a human being, or reproductive cloning—the production of a cloned child—requires the implantation of a cloned embryo in the uterus. That is considered unacceptable throughout the world and will remain illegal in the United Kingdom. That is the Government's policy.

At the end of last year, three full debates on those issues were held in Parliament. The accepted view was that the standard of those debates was extremely high in both Houses, with many learned contributions full of expertise and knowledge and a great deal of energy expended by people who had clearly thought deeply about the complex ethical issues involved. The conclusion of a substantial majority of Members of both Houses was that permitting embryo research into potentially life-saving therapies for serious disease is right, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2001 came into force on 31 January this year.

The regulations enable the HFEA to issue a licence under the strict conditions imposed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for the purposes of increasing knowledge about the development of embryos or about serious disease, or enabling any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious diseases. Since the regulations were passed, the HFEA has received two applications for research under the extended regulations. However, I understand that those applications involve not cloning embryos but using embryos that are already available.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Stem Cell Research has taken evidence and intends to report by the end of the year. There is certainly no lack of interest in the matter, and it is right that it should continue to receive the most careful attention.

The regulations do not allow reproductive cloning, or the creation of a human being using cloning techniques, and the Government are clear that reproductive cloning cannot take place in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend said, Professor Antinori said recently that he wants to carry out such treatment here in the UK, but that will not be permitted. I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to state that clearly on the record.

My hon. Friend mentioned the judicial review brought by the ProLife Alliance late last year, which was heard in the High Court last week. The first aspect of the challenge related to the 2001 regulations, but that aspect was not pursued in the case. The regulations remain in force and permit the HFEA to issue licences for embryo research into serious diseases. The HFEA said that it would not take decisions about applications for licences for research that involves cloning techniques until after the judicial review. It would consider applications without making decisions, but no such applications were received so the matter has not arisen.

The second part of the challenge by the ProLife Alliance relates to the definition of an embryo under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That covers embryos created by cell nuclear replacement into an egg, which was the technique that was used to produce Dolly the sheep. The permission for a judicial review was granted on the grounds that there was an arguable case that raised matters of public importance. The judgment on the second limb of the judicial review has been reserved. We do not yet know the outcome, although it is expected in weeks rather than months, so we should know the outcome soon.

The current ban on reproductive cloning has two sources. The 1990 Act itself prohibits cell nuclear replacement into an embryo. If the nuclear replacement is into an egg—as was the case with Dolly the sheep—the Government believe that, given that the procedure will result in the creation of an embryo, it must be licensed by the HFEA. Of course, that is the matter before the court in the judicial review. I understand that some of the legal arguments centred on the legislation's purpose rather than its literal construction. The judge will consider that carefully.

The HFEA made it clear that it will not, as a matter of policy, issue licences for reproductive cloning. However, given the considerable public and parliamentary concern about the matter, the Government have stated their firm commitment to put the reproductive cloning ban on a statutory footing, and intend to introduce a Bill to do that as soon as parliamentary time permits.

It is true that there are different national approaches to embryo and stem cell research. They reflect the differing legal, historic and religious approaches throughout the world. The international bioethics committee of UNESCO reported on the matter earlier this year. It concluded that every society has a right and a duty to debate and decide on ethical matters with which it is confronted, and that embryonic stem cell research is a subject on which national debate is desirable. We have taken forward that approach in the United Kingdom. The round table meeting of science Ministers at UNESCO last month reaffirmed the unanimous commitment to the prohibition of human reproductive cloning. However, given the lack of international agreement on the status of the embryo, the UNESCO bioethics committee did not recommend international regulation of embryonic stem cell research now, but it considered that if such research was considered to be permissible following the national debate, it should take place only in the context of a state-sponsored regulatory system. In our case, that is the HFEA and, therefore, we are fully compliant with the international recommendations.

Later this month, the United Nations will consider proposals for developing a United Nations convention to prohibit human reproductive cloning. Developments are gradually spreading throughout the word and there is abhorrence for human reproductive cloning.

For the past 25 years, the United Kingdom has been at the forefront of assisted conception and related research. However, that does not mean that we are liberal. We have developed a system of strict legal control and licensing that covers all aspects of treatment and research. We have the most comprehensive legal controls of any European country. The regulatory system followed the fullest and most wide-ranging debate and public consultation possible on all the matters in the UK in the early 1980s. Such consultation and discussion has continued for the past 20 years. Clearly, the matters concern the British public, as well as parliamentarians at Westminster. We must continue to have an open, wide-ranging and informed debate with the public.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for securing the debate. I concur with what the Minister has said. The Government have indicated that they will swiftly introduce a statutory ban. Does the Minister agree that that will give the United Kingdom a completeness of regulation that will put us at the forefront, particularly in comparison with other European countries? It ill behoves representatives of other countries that, unlike the United Kingdom, have, as yet, made no effort in statute to introduce the regulation, to criticise the steps that we have taken through regulations to ensure that responsible and effective scientific research with limits is conducted in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. It has been suggested that our regulations will encourage reproductive cloning elsewhere. That is incorrect. It is vital to have a transparent, open and acknowledged system of regulation and licensing, so that the important issues that the Committee has been discussing can be addressed within a proper framework. If that system is put in place, the country will know that such issues are dealt with in accordance with our society's views. For instance, we must strike the right balance between research and the important ethical considerations that are relevant to this sensitive and delicate area. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the development of a robust and rigorous system of licensing, which means that we can continue to make progress.

On research, the Government firmly believe that both embryo and adult stem cell research is necessary if we are to discover how to re-programme cells—which might be taken from any hon. Member present—to treat the very serious illnesses and disorders for which there are currently no effective treatments. The possibility of being able to do that is very exciting and, more significantly, is of fundamental importance to people who are suffering from serious illnesses, and to their families.

Following careful debate and consideration of such issues, both internationally and in the United Kingdom, the Government have introduced regulations that have the potential to make a substantial and positive impact on the treatment of illness and disability. That will greatly benefit the people of our country. The Government have got the balance right.

We have had a mature debate about delicate and sensitive matters, and it is crucial that we keep them under review. We must continue to debate them as the science develops, and we must ensure that we encapsulate our scientific advances within a legal framework that protects the rights and interests of everyone. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has had the opportunity to raise these issues.

Since 11 September, the world's attention has been, first, on events in America, and, thereafter, on events in the middle east and Afghanistan. That is understandable but it is important that we do not forget the current crisis in Zimbabwe and the descent of that country into virtual anarchy. It has been removed from the front pages; indeed, it has pretty well been removed from the pages of every newspaper. In spite of events elsewhere, we must now look carefully at what is happening in that troubled country, and, above all, at the plight of the Zimbabwean people. Britain has an important and almost unique role to play, and Ministers have to show a great deal of initiative and imagination.

When President Mugabe first won office, Zimbabwe seemed to have everything—an efficient infrastructure, hugely rich mining reserves, a thriving agriculture, a robust and independent judiciary, and a free press. Above all, people of all races and political persuasions had a remarkable determination to make a success of that new nation. To be fair to President Mugabe, he helped to foster the mood of national reconciliation and good will, and his early years were characterised by pragmatism and magnanimity. In many ways, Zimbabwe was rightly held up as an example to the rest of Africa.

However, this is a tragic tale of self-inflicted disaster. Twenty years on, Zimbabwe, which was once the bread basket for Africa, is now a basket case, and many parts of the country face starvation. Having once exported food to many countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Zimbabwe is now unable to feed itself. Inflation is at more than 100 per cent., unemployment is at more than 60 per cent., exports have collapsed, foreign investment has dried up, and international lenders such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have, essentially, cut Zimbabwe off. Three quarters of Zimbabwe's population live in abject poverty. It is not Mugabe and his cronies who are suffering—they will always be okay—but the people of the country, who face not only poverty and starvation, but, as they have done for several years, state-sponsored anarchy, human rights abuses and a regular breakdown in the rule of law.

I shall touch briefly on the land question and the issue of farm invasions. I then want to talk about the rule of law and the judiciary, and consider the forthcoming presidential elections.

The Zimbabwean Government understandably regard land reform as an emotive issue. Money was on the table in the early years of Mugabe's presidency to address that issue. However, those farms that were repossessed and compulsorily purchased were not handed to small farmers or black Zimbabweans. Five were handed to Mugabe's cronies, and several others were left derelict.

That was the background to the farm invasions, which began in 2000 and gained momentum in the runup to the parliamentary elections last year. Those invasions have been well documented, and I shall not go into a great deal of detail now. Much of the press emphasis has been about white farmers and the dispossession of white farms. However, it is the black workers who have suffered most of all. Eight white farmers have been murdered, but thousands of black workers have been evicted, and more than 100 killed. There was overwhelming evidence that the army and police had equipped and directed the war veterans, who, apart from one or two, were not veterans at all, but members of the ZANU-PF militia and youth wing. As in so many documented examples, the police refused time and again to take any action.

We are talking about a human and environmental tragedy, which has been a disaster for the economy. The agriculture sector has been pushed into ruin in many areas, and tourism, which is another important foreign currency earner, has also been demolished.

The other day, I received a moving e-mail dated September from a constituent, Sheila Breen. Her great-niece farms near Bulawayo. She writes:

"Our Government has declared war on her own people—whites, blacks, men and women. Everyone has become a victim. Everyone is suffering and it defies both belief and understanding. Foot and mouth has spread to Beitbridge and there are now a total of 10 infected properties. Despite repeated appeals by veterinary officials and attempts to control the movement of livestock this explosive and highly contagious disease means nothing to the people calling themselves war veterans. War veterans moved cattle from a village onto a cattle ranch nearby and instructed the farmer to remove his 1,000 head of cattle as it was now their farm. This is just one incident of dozens around the country. With this mentality this disease will spread and ravage our country which teeters on the brink of starvation already. It will not only destroy the beef industry but will wipe out beasts which rural subsistence peasants depend on for milk and to till their fields and feed their families."

She goes on to say:

"On a huge ostrich farm nearby the owner and his workers have been evicted, the birds are dying of neglect and there is absolutely nothing that can be done. The police will not attend because it is political. On another property 22 giraffes have died in snares. Last year's tobacco grower of the year in Bulawayo has had his tobacco seed pipes destroyed, hydrants sabotaged and has been ordered to stop his tractors. This man—Zimbabwe's best grower—has been forced to stop production and to lay off his workers. On another farm in Selous, last year's cattle man of the year has been ordered to remove all his cattle from his farm."

The e-mail also states:

"Official estimates are that as many as 70,000 workers and their dependants in this district have been evicted from their homes in the past few months. We know that many have gone off to South Africa and are now being housed in townships round Johannesburg. They have lost their grain, their goats, their chickens, their clothes and belongings. They have had their homes burned to the ground. They have been beaten, kicked and whipped and warned not to speak out."

That moving e-mail sums up the sheer lunacy of what has taken place. President Mugabe will not forgive farmers and their workers for supporting the MDC. His bent and twisted logic demands scapegoats and revenge. Everything is happening because he is desperate to win next year's presidential elections at any cost.

As the Minister well knows, the issue was discussed at the recent conference in Abuja. An agreement was reached there, but, unfortunately, Mugabe has not honoured his pledge. I would like the Minister to talk about that and about Abuja when he replies to the debate.

The farm invasions represent a breakdown in the rule of law, but we must also consider the wider context. Last year's parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe were plagued by intimidation, violence, murder, ballot-rigging and fraud. Even by Africa's pitiful standards, they were far from free and fair. I have seen the July 2001 report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, as I am sure the Minister has. That non-governmental organisation is supported by several eminent bodies, including Amnesty International of Zimbabwe, the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, the Zimbabwe Human Rights Association and Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights.

The report examines in great detail the events running up to the parliamentary elections last year. In the opening paragraph it points out that between February and June 2000 ZANU-PF was engaged in a systematic campaign of intimidation, aimed at crushing support for opposition parties. It has identified 200,000 cases of political violence, 40 murders, and 704 serious assaults, including torture. One example that I found really appalling was that of the infamous late Dr. Chenjarai Hunzvi. It refers to a Patrick Chipunza.

"Chipunza was allegedly dragged off a commuter omnibus and taken to the home of ZANU-PF candidate Hokoyo. He was then taken to Dr. Hunzvi's surgery. He was recaptured after escaping, severely assaulted, tortured, left for dead but police transported him to the local hospital where he later died."

There are other examples of political intimidation and violence, including a petrol bomb in the constituency of Bahera, North, which killed two MDC officials. When that case was considered in court a few weeks later, there was an electoral challenge in that constituency. The High Court Justice James Devittie requested the Attorney-General to arrest the suspected murderers for their role in the petrol bomb attack on the two MDC officials, but he refused to take any action.

It has been obvious for some time that the rule of law has been breaking down and that the independent judiciary has had its independence taken away. I have read the remarks of the former Chief Justice, Anthony Gubbay, who spoke last Monday evening at the John Foster human rights trust lecture. He spoke of his utter frustration as decisions taken by the highest court in the land were ignored by the Government. His court was occupied by so-called veterans. Every time he insisted on police action, all he received was police inaction. He feared for his life. There were threats to his pension and, not surprisingly, he resigned. President Mugabe has replaced him with Godfrey Chidyausiku, who has now appointed two new Mugabe supporters to the Supreme Court. That court has recently overturned an earlier decision on fast-track land seizures.

Any pretence that there was an independent judiciary in Zimbabwe has now been totally undermined. That does not bode well for the presidential elections that must be held by 17 March 2002.

The second report by the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum has looked carefully at events in Zimbabwe since last year's elections. It is not an encouraging picture if we are hoping to see free and fair elections. In February 2001, Joe Sikhala, MDC MP for Harare, and his pregnant wife were severely assaulted by army personnel who invaded their home. In May, in Harare, ZANU-PF militias attacked and injured Willias Madzimure, another MDC MP. A few days later, his home was ransacked and looted. Also in May, Roy Bennett, one of the four white MDC MPs, had his farm raided and his house trashed. His food store, where grain was being stored to dispense to local people, was raided and the food was stolen by Government supporters. There are numerous other examples of torture and attacks on party workers. Is it any wonder when President Mugabe has, in speech after speech, incited that type of hatred and violence?

In July 2001, the Zimbabwe Minister of Foreign Affairs, said at a conference attended by trainee teachers:

"As civil servants, you have to be loyal to the Government. You can be killed for supporting the opposition."

We know that there is no longer a free press in Zimbabwe. BBC reporters have been flung out of the country and eminent journalists and editors have been arrested and imprisoned. It is vital that the elections be free and fair next year. We must insist on certain basic minimums, including an up-to-date electronic electoral roll that can be checked. There must be secure ballot boxes, so I urge that metal ballot boxes, which are much easier to secure, replace the existing wooden ones. An independent electoral commission is needed, and it is essential that foreign observers be put in place in good time. There must be impartial policing and free access to the media.

Given Britain's unique position, it is vital that Her Majesty's Government use all possible pressure and influence to persuade Mugabe that those conditions be put in place. He must be told that if he does not agree to them and to free and fair elections, Zimbabwe will be dismissed from the Commonwealth, and there will be a freeze on foreign assets and restrictions on travel.

We know that Mugabe is a bully and a tyrant. He does not understand the language of compromise. I was disappointed—I hope that the Minister was as well—by the supine communiqué issued by the eight-member Commonwealth delegation that recently went to Harare. It is no wonder that it was so lame, as it was a joint communiqué with the Zimbabwean Government. Why could it not have issued its own communiqué stating clearly what it had seen and the evidence that it had collected?

I have great respect for Baroness Amos, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, but she could have been more robust in her remarks. She said that Mugabe was a difficult man and that he must not be pushed into a corner, but he is a bully who understands only tough action and tough language. The time has come to send a special envoy to Zimbabwe to talk to President Mugabe and explain to him clearly that he has a last chance to play fair and to deliver free and fair elections. There are eminently qualified politicians in the United Kingdom whom Mugabe respects, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). His late father, Lord Soames, was the last governor-general of Zimbabwe—Mugabe attended his funeral six years ago—and his mother Mary Soames is a personal friend of Mugabe.

My hon. Friend was an outstandingly able Minister of State for the Armed Forces in the most recent Conservative Government, and is ideally equipped and suited to go to Zimbabwe as a special Government envoy. The Prime Minister believes in special envoys— he uses them all the time in the middle east—and there is surely an opportunity to use one in this case to point out to President Mugabe what will happen if he does not allow free and fair elections. The world has moved on, as Pinochet's case showed. Milosevic has been arraigned before the war crimes tribunal in The Hague. Mugabe must be told that, unless he delivers free and fair elections, win or lose, he will be treated as the mass murderer and brutal tyrant that he is and arraigned before a war crimes tribunal at The Hague. His assets will be frozen and restrictions will be placed on his foreign travel. He will never be able to walk in safety again, because the clutches of the world's international legal systems will be after him, but he has a last chance.

We owe it to the people of Zimbabwe to ensure that they have a free and fair election next year. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) on proposing the debate. We are all aware of his long-standing personal interest in Zimbabwe, and I thank him for giving me the opportunity to update hon. Members on Government policy. His speech was excellent, thoughtful and constructive. He quoted a moving e-mail from one of his constituents, and many of us have had similar worrying e-mails from people in Zimbabwe and their relatives in this country.

All Zimbabwe's friends are deeply saddened by events there. Free speech is imperilled. Democracy is undermined by Government violence. The rule of law is threatened by intimidation and manipulation of the judiciary. There is a growing culture of impunity. Anyone who ever doubted that human rights and fundamental freedoms are essential in a prosperous modern economy need look no further than the crisis that has befallen Zimbabwe in the past few years, where, as the hon. Gentleman said, the economy has continued its dramatic decline. Worse still, Zimbabwe's tragedy threatens to infect all of southern Africa by weakening business and investor confidence in the region.

Britain is, and will remain. committed to helping the people of Zimbabwe. As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, we worked with all shades of opinion at Lancaster house in 1979–80 to end white minority rule by negotiation. We have given Zimbabwe substantial support—£500 million since independence. We will not walk away now. We want to continue working in partnership with the Zimbabwean people towards a just society in which all the people enjoy fair access to opportunity.

By contrast, Zimbabwe's Government seek to limit international scrutiny of what is happening there. They blame the west, and the United Kingdom in particular, for their problems. The reality is simpler and more brutal, and the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it: a Government facing difficult re-election. That has led to the undermining of Zimbabwe's democratic system; widespread abuse of human rights; the rapid decline of the economy; and severe damage to commercial agriculture, the country's main foreign currency earner.

On top of that, recently introduced price controls can only create shortages in a country already facing a serious shortfall in basic staples by the end of the year. Such a fall from grace is unnecessary. It is wasteful and must be halted and reversed.

Five principles underpin our policy on Zimbabwe. The first is Britain's interest in seeing a stable, prosperous and democratic country. The second is that Zimbabweans deserve and should get the help of the international community which is increasingly concerned at events in Zimbabwe. The European Union signalled its concerns on 29 October, when it invited the Government of Zimbabwe to begin formal and time-limited consultations on human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement.

Commonwealth Ministers, in an initiative of President Obasanjo of Nigeria already referred to by the hon. Gentleman, brokered an agreement at Abuja on 6 September. Among other things, the Zimbabwe Government committed themselves to respecting the democratic and human rights principles contained in the Harare Commonwealth declaration and the Mill brook action programme. They committed themselves to no further occupation of farms; the removal of illegal occupiers; the restoration of the rule of law to the process of land reform; respect for freedom of expression; and firm action against violence and intimidation.

As the hon. Gentleman said, two months on there is little evidence that the Zimbabwe Government are honouring any of those commitments. My noble Friend Baroness Amos, who has ministerial responsibilities for Africa, saw that at first hand during her visit to Harare between 25 and 27 October. In their communiqué of 27 October, the Commonwealth Ministers called on the Zimbabwean law enforcement authorities to investigate violations of human rights and press freedoms, and called on the Government to implement land reform in accordance with the law and constitution. We look to the Commonwealth to press the Government of Zimbabwe to take the action they agreed.

The hon. Gentleman expressed his disappointment with, as he described it, the weakness of the communiqué, but it did talk about monitoring. It should be remembered that all the opposition parties and civil society in Zimbabwe value the Abuja process and want it to continue.

Our third principle is that Zimbabwe's future prosperity depends on respect for the rule of law and an end to political violence. We will not be deflected from pressing the Zimbabwe Government on their abuses of fundamental rights, many of which the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of, or from drawing international attention to those abuses. We have already taken a number of measures. We have imposed a complete embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe and cut non-humanitarian aid. These processes cannot be open-ended, but they must be given a chance. The European Union's article 96 process, for example, sets a strict time limit of 75 days.

We also need effectiveness. Further unilateral UK measures would not be effective and, more importantly, they would play directly into the hands of those, including Mr. Mugabe, who wrongly seek to portray Zimbabwe's internal problems as the product of a bilateral dispute with the United Kingdom. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his idea of a special envoy and will consider it. However, we must do what we can to avoid playing into Mugabe's hands, as it helps him for the issue to be seen as an old colonial dispute. A coordinated international approach is the best course. It should be enough, for now, to say that the international community is increasingly alive to alternative measures against the Zimbabwe Government.

A further reason for resisting some of the proposals is the reality of the modern Commonwealth. The suspension of Commonwealth members has up to now been confined to a narrow set of circumstances such as coups. We and others are working to broaden the criteria. Although concern is growing in the Commonwealth at Zimbabwe's disregard for the principles of the Harare declaration, no consensus yet exists on suspending it from the organisation.

We are determined to pursue our fourth principle, that Britain will help a democratic Zimbabwe to achieve prosperity through successful land reform. That is central to fair and equitable economic development in Zimbabwe and the righting of any remaining wrongs of the colonial period and white minority rule. As I have noted, since Lancaster house we have provided over £500 million in bilateral aid to Zimbabwe and have already provided around £40 million for land reform. However, let me emphasise that we shall not write blank cheques. The Abuja agreement made it clear that land reform would need to be based on the United Nations development programme proposals of December 2000.

Our final principle is that the future must he left in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe, which will hold a presidential election in a few months' time. We, the EU, the Commonwealth and others will work to ensure that the people of Zimbabwe are given a genuine opportunity to make their voice heard. They showed courage and dignity in parliamentary elections last year, when they voted in large numbers despite systematic intimidation and violence. They have the right to expect that the scenes that disfigured those elections will not be repeated. If President Mugabe truly believes that he enjoys the backing of his people, he need not fear the outcome of a genuine democratic process and should have no difficulty in inviting international election observers in good time. Sadly, however, the omens are not good. The violence and intimidation continue, and the Zimbabwe Government are obstructing efforts to observe at first hand the conduct of the election campaign.

Let me stress one thing for the record. Our policy is not about Britain versus President Mugabe but about helping Zimbabwe against its real enemies: poverty, disease, hunger, oppression and social injustice. I hope that the present Government of Zimbabwe and their successors will one day get back on the side of their own people and respect the rule of law. If they do so, Britain and Zimbabwe's other friends in the international community stand ready to help.

I am grateful to have secured this debate on universal provision of al hearing aid technology throughout the national health service. This is something of a departure for me, as I normally focus on quality-of-life issues such as graffiti and abandoned cars, but given the proven benefits that al technology can bring to many hearing aid users, the need to make that technology available universally amounts to a quality-of-life issue for deaf and hard of hearing people.

My decision to table early-day motion 317 and to apply for this debate was prompted by the many letters and cards that I received—as, I am sure, all other Members of Parliament did—from constituents who are hearing impaired and rightly concerned about the fact that fewer than 5 per cent. of people who need a hearing aid are in a position to take advantage of al hearing aid technology through the NHS.

I recall the words of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), when he was the Minister with responsibility for audiology services. He said that the Government were

"absolutely committed to ensuring that people who need audiology services from the NHS will get a first-class service. Nothing else will do."—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 854.]

Those were welcome words indeed. He was responding to a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) the last time the subject of audiology services was debated in the House. The Government's aspiration was a noble one, and it remains equally important that it becomes a reality today, three years later. There are 8.7 million people in the United Kingdom who are deaf or hard of hearing and of those 2 million have a hearing aid. According to the Medical Research Council a further 3 million would benefit from one.

Those statistics are even more striking when one considers that the most common cause of deafness is the wear and tear that come to us all with age, and that three quarters of people with hearing loss are over 60. However, we should not forget that 13 children in every 10,000 are born deaf or become deaf when they are very young. If the mark of a civilised society is how well it treats its very young and very old, providing the best possible audiology service must be a crucial part of that.

I am acutely aware of the huge financial demands on every area of the health service, but I am pleased that. three years after my right hon. Friend made the remarks that I quoted, the Government have made a good start in transforming aspiration into reality in providing al hearing aids. Under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend and, since the general election, my honourable and good friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, thousands of people now use digital hearing aids—the latest and most beneficial technology for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.

In partnership with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, 20 NHS trusts were chosen as first-wave sites at which audiology departments were to be modernised and where cutting-edge al hearing aids were to be fitted to patients. Those first-.wave sites had funding of £11 million earmarked for 2000–02 and their success was to be evaluated by Professor Adrian Davis of the Medical Research Council's Institute for Hearing Research. I understand that the results so far have been very positive. More than 10,500 aids had been fitted and almost 13,000 people assessed on the NHS by the end of September 2001, 12 months after the project was set up.

Preliminary evaluation results look good with respect to hearing aid use and benefit, compared with analogue aids. People use al aids more than they used the old type of NHS aids and are finding them much more helpful. Responses from RNID members bear that out. For instance, Sarah Maynard from Hammersmith told the RNID last week that using a al hearing aid

"had brought tears to my eyes",

so great was the improvement to her hearing. Alex Bevis, from Northwich in Cheshire, who has recently started to use a al hearing aid, e-mailed the RNID recently to say:

"It's only now that I realise just how isolated and introspective I had become."

Professor Michael Krom, an environmental scientist at the university of Leeds, wrote to RNID:

"I know from first hand how such hearing aids can transform one's existence from essentially a person with a severe disability to one with a problem but one which can be lived with."

The benefits of al hearing aids cannot be overstated, but the palpable frustration for many people who would dearly love an opportunity to take advantage of the new technology through the NHS is that there are still only 20 sites operating in England. That means that fewer than 5 per cent. of those who will be supplied with an NHS hearing aid this year will have a al one. The down side of the old analogue aids is thrown into even sharper relief with the advent of al aids. As the Audit Commission report, "Fully Equipped", of March 2000 puts it:

"Reports suggest that a third of [analogue] hearing aids are infrequently or never used because of the poor quality of aids and the advice given. This is due to a combination of poor technology, rushed fittings, patchy fitting skills and inadequate guidance and support for hearing aid users. This represents a waste of money, as well as excluding deaf or hard-of-hearing people from society."

The report goes on to say that, conversely, al hearing aids

"deliver superior performance, particularly in eliminating background noise; and can be programmed to meet individuals' specific needs. Clinical trials have found that users with digital aids increase their use of the aid (from an average of 6…to 11 hours per day)".

I speak on behalf of the deaf and hard of hearing people of Mitcham and Morden, and, indeed, their families—including my mum, if that is not an unparliamentary term—when I say that they would welcome a commitment to national roll-out as soon as possible, so that the wonderful progress made in the past 14 months will not be allowed to slip in the light of the other financial imperatives faced by the NHS.

There are four reasons why that commitment should be made. First, the quality of life of 2 million people would be dramatically improved. For a small amount of money per person—the equivalent of less than one night's stay in a hospital or one week's stay in a residential home—the national roll-out of digital hearing aids would offer each person huge benefits. It is difficult to exaggerate just how wasteful the current system is. It is not merely that people are given hearing aids that are inadequate for their needs; often, their current NHS hearing aids are simply not being used. That is a serious waste of public money. It is a false economy in the extreme to provide people with cheap analogue hearing aids if only two thirds are used properly and one third—again, my mother fits into this category—are never used at all. Few, if any, other policies would bring such huge gains to so many at such little cost.

Secondly, with improved hearing people would be able to live fuller lives and would be rescued from the isolation, lack of confidence and reduced communication that deafness can bring. In addition, for those of working age the ability to remain in work would be greatly increased. Although roll-out would involve increased expenditure, in the long run it would lead to savings for the health service and for Government Departments, as everyone knows. As the Audit Commission points out, the introduction of al aids, which can be programmed and adjusted according to the changing needs of users, offers potential economies by reducing the cost of replacements. Furthermore, deafness and the isolation that follows can be very expensive in terms of the effect on physical and mental well-being. al hearing aids extend independent living. The more people can look after themselves, the less of a burden they are likely to be on the public purse.

Thirdly, national roll-out would offer an excellent example of the Government's commitment to modernising the NHS. Audiology services have hardly changed in 30 years. Addressing that long-term neglect and modernising the entire service in the next two years would be an achievement of huge worth, and would show that the NHS can be improved.

Finally, as I have said, the vast majority of deaf and hard of hearing people are elderly. The modernisation of audiology services would be another clear sign of the Government's commitment to pensioners. Indeed, as the Audit Commission says:

"Nowhere is the cost versus quality debate in the provision of equipment for older or disabled people better illustrated than by reference to hearing aids."

Digital hearing aids would help many older workers to hold down their jobs, and would tackle age discrimination in the workplace. Given that job retention for men and women in their late 50s and early 60s is an important objective, there is a clear and obvious benefit. Providing al hearing aids is the right thing to do and makes sound economic sense.

The alternative would be to allow the NHS to continue to supply analogue aids. As a result, more and more people would be forced to purchase al aids privately, and even to travel abroad to do so. A privately purchased al hearing aid can cost up to £2,500, but each al aid costs the NHS only £150. Indeed, as the largest purchaser of hearing aids in the world, the NHS occupies a strong position. It can secure value for money by legitimately driving prices down: the more aids purchased, the more prices would be reduced.

The Government have already committed an extra £25 million for national roll-out from 2003–04. That is excellent news, but leaves some questions unanswered. First, the Minister will be aware of the worrying anomaly in funding arrangements. As things stand, the £11 million for 2000–02 will run out in five months, but the £25 million will not come on stream until April 2003. There is, therefore, a 12-month gap in the funding of the first-wave sites. Can the Minister clarify and address that situation? At the very least, can she tell us that a further 12 months' funding for the first-wave sites is guaranteed? Given that we are only five months away from the money drying up, an announcement on that would be helpful.

The Government surely do not want to see the 20 first-wave sites taking several steps backwards, and returning to supplying the old analogue aids. Aside from the demoralising effect on staff in audiology departments, the Minister can imagine the sense of powerless desperation that would be felt by patients who have been waiting for such a long time, or by those who have so far been provided with the best possible after care and would not get the same standard after next April.

Secondly, we have had no indication of the detailed timetable for national roll-out. I should be delighted if the Minister could tell us when an announcement was likely. Thirdly, can she confirm that, if national roll-out goes ahead, a full £25 million will be spent and not something up to that amount? Can she also explain how the figure of £25 million was originally estimated and whether she believes that it will cover the cost of the universal roll-out across England?

Will the Minister elaborate on the extent of the private sector's possible involvement in national rollout, a subject she has mentioned in recent replies to constituents and in her speech to the Royal National Institute for Deaf People last month?

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On the private sector, may I draw to her attention the fact that my high street optician offers free hearing tests? There may be scope for the Minister to look into whether high street opticians could provide hearing expertise so that people can kill two birds with one stone—getting their eyes and hearing tested at the same time.

As always, my hon. Friend has an eminently modern and fresh way of looking at things.

A recent leaked letter from the head of an audiology department reveals that such departments are under a lot of pressure. The letter urges colleagues who refer people to his service to play down the benefits of al hearing aids, to cope with high demand. No one would deny that the Government have made significant strides in the provision of al hearing aids on the NHS, or that it would be a tragedy for all concerned if that were unable to continue. It is still in the Government's gift to provide a first-class audiology service. For the millions of people whose disability means that they must rely on hearing aids, nothing but a first-class audiology service will do.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on raising this subject. I know that she takes a keen interest in it, and has ably lobbied on behalf of her constituents and, as she has made clear today, deaf and hard of hearing people across the country. I am pleased that the debate provides me with an opportunity to tell the House about progress in providing al hearing aids on the NHS to people with hearing impairments, and to mention some of the challenges that future developments will pose.

Like my hon. Friend, the Government recognise the importance of providing modern, good-quality and readily accessible services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Providing al hearing aids is one part of a wide range of cross-Government initiatives to improve the quality of life of such people—for example, through employment projects as part of the new deal for disabled people, increased access to television via the provision of subtitling, sign language and audio description services and the extra £105 million that is being provided to improve NHS community equipment services by 2004. Those are just a few examples of the wide cross-Government agenda for improving services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

My hon. Friend is keen to pursue the issue of al hearing aids. As she said, leading-edge al hearing aids are now available on the NHS for the first time. Equally importantly, they are being provided as part of a modernised service that puts people with hearing impairment at the centre of the service offered by the NHS. We are providing 21st century technology as part of a 21st century service. Just over a year ago, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), announced the modernising hearing aids services project. Currently, 20 NHS trusts routinely fit al hearing aids as part of a pilot project. By the end of October, 13,270 aids had been fitted and 16,178 people had been assessed. By the end of March, we expect that more than 18,000 will have al aids on the NHS.

As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out in her criticism of the more traditional approach to hearing aid provision, what is important is not only the hearing aid itself, but the proper fitting and assessment that goes with it. The patient, not the hearing aid, is at the heart of the fitting process. That is why the modernising hearing aids services project focuses on improving the rehabilitation that is provided as well as introducing new technology hearing aids.

The modernised patient journey—I apologise for the jargon—includes the formal assessment of the patient's hearing, hearing needs and lifestyle. At the initial assessment visit, a profile is used to assess their individual hearing needs and to discover the situations in which it is important for them to hear well. Another questionnaire assesses their attitude, motivation and expectations in relation to the aid. At the fitting, the aid is programmed using a portable computer with the patient's details and aid settings stored on it. The outcome is then evaluated both acoustically, using a probe tube measuring the response in the ear, and subjectively.

Fine tuning of the aid's settings may be performed about two weeks after the fitting, and about three months later the audiologist completes the profile by asking the patient, for each of the named situations, how much they use the aid, how much they benefit, how satisfied they are and how much difficulty they still have. That allows the audiologist to pick up on any problems and to identify if more help needs to be provided. The process helps to ensure that hearing aids benefit patients and are used to improve their lives, and that we get the very best out of the technology that we provide.

To support the modernisation project, my Department has provided an additional £11 million, put in place value-for-money purchasing contracts for al hearing aids, introduced new patient pathways designed around patients' needs and provided the necessary computer equipment. We have negotiated keen purchasing contracts for the supply of al hearing aids. NHS organisations can purchase them for about £150, which represents a substantial reduction on the commercially available price. I want to make it clear that all NHS trusts, not only the pilot sites, can take advantage of those contracts, provided that staff have the training and experience needed to fit them safely and effectively. Given what I have just said, the important point is that we ensure that people benefit from access to al hearing aids within the context of the whole process.

If it is true that al hearing aids are readily available, why are so many people travelling to Denmark to acquire them at half the British price?

As I have pointed out, we want to provide the best process on the NHS, as well as the best product, to ensure that those hearing aids are used effectively, and that people get the high-quality staff that they expect and deserve.

The aim of the modernisation project, which, as my hon. Friend said, is being taken forward in partnership with the RNID, is to test the benefits of providing al hearing aids on the NHS as part of a modernised service. I should like to join my hon. Friend in commending the excellent work that the RNID is doing managing the project and applying its experience and expertise. Having heard news of progress, I am aware that hon. Members will want to know—indeed, some have already asked me—when al hearing aids will be more widely available. I appreciate that people want al aids to be available everywhere so that everyone with hearing impairment can benefit. However, for the reasons I have outlined, we must ensure that we make the right hearing aids available. We must have the infrastructure in place to deliver not only hearing aids, but structures that will ensure that those who receive them can obtain the maximum benefit. That is why, as my hon. Friend outlined, we are evaluating the project.

In July 2000, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued guidance on hearing aid technology. It said that insufficient evidence was available to properly judge the benefits of al hearing aids. NICE will be revisiting its guidance in the light of the evaluation of the modernisation project, which is being conducted by the Institute of Hearing Research. We need information about the most effective aids for NHS patients, the best ways to supply hearing aids and how a modern hearing aid service can be delivered to NHS patients. Those are all important points that will inform decisions about the benefits of making these changes more widely available and how best to introduce them. It is important that we get this right.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, researchers tell us that, based on small samples, people with al hearing aids report improvements in hearing, and that they are wearing their aids more often, which means that fewer hearing aids are ending up languishing in kitchen drawers. That is encouraging, but the research is based on limited data. Subject to favourable evaluation, we shall make decisions about how best to spread the modernised service throughout the NHS. We have earmarked funds to begin that roll out, and we have said that up to £25 million will be invested by 2003–04, which answers the question raised by my hon. Friend about whether there is a gap in funding. We are considering the detail of spending allocations over the next year and beyond in light of the many competing and important priorities in the NHS, and the evaluation of the project. That will ensure that as we make the service more widely available, we do it in the most effective way for NHS patients.

We are not only putting more money into audiology, we are supporting NHS capacity to deliver change on the ground by boosting the number of skilled audiology staff that we need. We are working in innovative ways to keep waiting lists down. We are working with members of the profession to develop new streamlined degree courses in audiology. We expect, together with modernisation, that that will make audiology a more attractive career option. We are ensuring that existing audiology training courses are maintained, and looking at ways in which additional trainees can come on stream more quickly. The NHS plan sets out an agenda to increase the number of NHS staff in many specialties and professional groups. In the shorter term, we are working creatively on a range of measures to boost capacity, including the action on ENT programme, which is a project to spread good practice, reduce waiting lists and support better and smarter ways of working. We have invested £75 million in the project in 2001–02.

We must also examine, as does the project, the innovative use of skill mixing in audiology departments to make the best use of skills and expertise. I was pleased and interested to hear the comment about the high street from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I cannot comment on the ability of opticians to provide hearing tests, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are testing the pros and cons of involving high street hearing aid dispensers in the provision of NHS services.

I was not suggesting that an optician would be qualified to test someone's hearing. I was talking about modern access to services. There are common areas in improving people's sight and hearing and the Royal National Institute for the Blind and the RNID might consider how to bring audiology expertise to high street shops so as to provide people with a service for both sight and hearing.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the modernisation of the whole process and the need to consider new ways of delivery so that benefits are spread as broadly as possible. We are considering ways of involving high street hearing aid dispensers in providing NHS services.

In my recent speech to the RNID national conference, I announced that we would test ways of involving the private sector in support of NHS audiology departments and boosting NHS capacity to deliver benefits as quickly as possible to as many people as possible.

In her research, will my hon. Friend consider the fact that analogue hearing aids are a problem in many Government buildings that were erected during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. They are the worst buildings for those with hearing aids because the majority are of metallic construction, which causes a resonance of background noise. Perhaps the research that my hon. Friend is commissioning could pay particular attention to the problems of hearing aid users if the Government do not proceed rapidly on the use of al hearing aids.

My hon. Friend makes an important point and I promise to draw it to the attention of the researchers. However, I cannot promise that we shall be able to examine Government buildings in depth.

Before we get back to blaming Labour Governments for the buildings of the 1960s and 1970s, will the Minister return to the questions asked by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden? If the pilot schemes in the 20 areas, including Redditch, the Minister's constituency, are as successful as they appear to be from anecdotal evidence, will she proceed, without delay, to recommend a full roll-out for the 95 per cent. of the population to whom this important technological aid is not available?

I have made it clear that the issue involves not just money, but capacity in the NHS and ensuring that we provide the necessary processes. It was this Government who introduced the process for modernisation. We have been responsible for the progress that has been made so far and we are committed to ensuring that, subject to the evaluation, we make available the best possible services to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

To return to the private sector pilot, I want to make it clear that we are not talking about privatising the NHS hearing aid service. People with hearing difficulties will continue to be able to obtain hearing aids free on the NHS and we are not devaluing the role of NHS audiologists. They are the key to the delivery of modernised services and that is why we are committed to boosting their number and capacity to provide special skills and expertise. To succeed, we must be willing to explore a range of ways in which we can provide people with hearing difficulties with high-tech hearing aids as part of a modernised service. We are fully committed to achieving that aim.

I am pleased to have had the opportunity to give the House a clear demonstration of how the NHS is being modernised. It provides leading-edge al technology, supported by modernised patient pathways resulting in big improvements for people with hearing difficulties. That is part of what we are pledged to deliver and, subject to the evaluation. we are pledged to continue doing so.