I am delighted to have secured this debate. It is opportune that we should have it now, because only three months ago we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic links with China at ambassadorial level, and in a few days' time we will have reached the fifth anniversary of the return of Hong Kong to China. I asked the Library when the House had last discussed our bilateral relations with China, but it was unable to find an example of such a debate. It is vital that we air the subject thoroughly.

The debate is opportune also because many hon. Members present today have just returned from a visit to China. For propriety, I should declare that our air fares were met with commercial assistance and that our transport and hospitality costs while in China were met by our interlocutors there, the National People's Congress, the provincial people's congresses and the municipal people's congresses. Many hon. Members who went on the visit were keen to be present for this debate, but some are committed to attending other Select Committee meetings and visits, or have similar engagements. For example, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) has asked me to express his apologies, as he is with his Select Committee in Warsaw.

The all-party group on China, which I chair, is one of the largest such groups. We think it important that as many Members of Parliament as possible, including Members of the House of Lords, take an interest in China and are able to speak about it with authority within the Palace of Westminster and outside it. It is important also, given the rate of change in China, that regular visits take place, not least because change is a constant there, and we need to be current. It is helpful to have the opportunity to bring the House up to date on matters as I and my colleagues found them.

In my mind's eye, I see a bilateral relationship as a pie chart. The pieces of the pie relate to commercial relations, civic relations, academic and educational relations, sporting relations, governmental relations and so on. The piece that relates to parliamentary relations is relatively thin, but it is important, especially for political and democratic development. My colleagues in the China group attach some importance to maintaining the size of the slice of pie and of the group itself—and, indeed, to developing both.

We regularly receive visitors from China. As recently as yesterday, I met the deputy chairman of the standing committee of the provincial people's congress of Guangdong; and a few weeks ago I and my colleagues met Li Ruihuan, the chairman of the Chinese People's political consultative conference. We have also tried to encourage parliamentarians to learn Mandarin and to facilitate that learning, and we have been instrumental in bringing a clerk from the National People's Congress for training and experience in the Palace of Westminster. However, like other groups, we are seriously limited by an absence of resources. Funding has been difficult, and may be complicated and restricted by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, although we are now trying to tackle the problem.

Our debate is particularly important now, because although our bilateral relationship with China is in excellent shape, especially following the successful hand over of Hong Kong, it is still in need of widening and deepening. In a sense, it has been a truly bilateral relationship for five years only. Prior to that, for 150 years it was a trilateral relationship in some respects, and our dealings, especially in more recent historic terms, were conducted against the background of, and in relation to, Hong Kong. There is still much to be done, especially given our joint permanent membership of the Security Council. I may be over-ambitious, but I think that in the light of our historical and current relationship and our different spheres of influence there is unexploited scope for double-header initiatives with the People's Republic of China.

Given our history, remarkable progress has been made. We enjoy close collaboration on the governmental front, and that has been particularly so recently in relation to international coalition against terrorism. Government links are many and varied, and high-level exchanges are frequent, which is to be greatly welcomed. That was demonstrably true of the Deputy Prime Minister's recent visit to China, against the background of the crucial global challenges of the environment in general and the Kyoto agreement in particular. It was also true of Vice-President Hu Jintao's visit to the UK in October last year.

However, not everything in the garden is rosy. Just as the Chinese do not see all aspects of the UK as perfection, there are some aspects of China's affairs that we find imperfect. Human rights remain a serious concern, and the all-party group never fails to raise the issue on its visits to China and with Chinese visitors to the UK. We recognise, however, that the colossus that is China is on a continuum that will take it from economic reform through political reform to social and civil reform. Like much else in China, that process is probably inevitable, and the all-party group has a small role to play in encouraging China along the line of that continuum—however slowly—through constant dialogue.

It is readily acknowledged that the opening-up and reform of China have led to massive improvements in living standards and in the enjoyment of economic and social rights, but it is fair to say that they have not been matched by similar improvements in social and political rights. The continued detention and harassment of democracy activists and religious practitioners run contrary to international human rights norms, as do the excessive use of the death penalty, the continued use of detention without trial and some aspects of the situation in Tibet and Xingjiang. Religious beliefs, freedom of association and of expression and the media are routinely restricted. The crackdown on activists in the China Democracy party and the Falun Gong continues, and Falun Gong leaders have been handed harsh sentences. I and, I think, the Government have no particular view on the Falun Gong, but we are concerned about human rights abuses, wherever they occur.

That said, the human rights dialogue is continuing and. I think, progressing at national and European Union level. A round of bilateral exchanges concluded just before we went to Beijing. The Chinese have ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, and have signed the covenant on civil and political rights, but not ratified it. We continue to express our hope that they will do so, and to make clear our concerns about the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans.

We applaud the work that the British Council and the Great Britain China Centre have done within that human rights dialogue on promoting the rule of law, on strengthening civil society and on many other issues. I recognise, however, that the maintenance of social stability will be the predominant requirement as the Chinese move forward, and that both social and economic development will inevitably have Chinese characteristics.

For many years, China has been regarded as potentially the largest market in the world. The realisation of that potential has been a long time coming, but the fact remains that economic developments have been remarkable for China's 1.25 billion people—they currently make up one fifth of the world's population, and the figure is growing. Since Deng Xiaoping adopted the open-door policy in 1978, the economy has grown by almost 10 per cent. per annum. Shanghai is a new "Metropolis", and it is said that three quarters of the world's construction cranes can be found there. That is certainly apocryphal, but impressionistically it could be true. I did not count them, but there appeared to be hundreds, if not thousands, of high-rise blocks. Futuristic buildings of high quality and architectural design stand starkly and modernistically alongside the traditional architecture of the Bund. To walk down Nanjing road and see its commercial activity and feel its buzz is an energising experience. Shanghai had a gross domestic product of $60 billion in 2001, and its foreign trade expands by 20 per cent. a year. Many major projects are under way, such as the deep-water port at Yangshan island, which I think will carry as much traffic as the port of Hong Kong.

It is true, however, that in Shanghai and elsewhere too many Chinese still harbour an old-fashioned view of the United Kingdom. Believe it or not, London is still thought of as foggy. That Dickensian view is held partly I suppose because of the Chinese liking for British classics. It is thus opportune that another effort is being made to dispel that image, and to promote an innovative and technologically advanced Britain through the Leading Edge events in Shanghai in October.

Some years ago when I served in the British embassy in Beijing, I was shown plans of a new futuristic area of the city—virtually a city in itself—called Pudong, which was to have its own financial centre, international airport, high-tech zone, industrial areas and so on. I was dubious about its achievability, but it has now been built and is massively impressive. I no longer harbour any doubt about China's ability or commitment to developing the western regions. Indeed, I recognise that as another inevitability, and we saw a little of it when we visited Xi'an.

In that context, it is appropriate that the policies of and assistance from the Department for International Development should focus in China on poverty alleviation, mainly in the western provinces where the majority of the poor are located. However, the western provinces are also important commercially. Development in that region will provide massive opportunities for exporters and investors. We need to facilitate such development for UK exporters and investors.

It is commendable that in recent years our exports to China have grown massively, no doubt assisted by the China-Britain Business Council and its predecessors. In the 1990s, our exports quadrupled. It is quite coincidental that my period as commercial councillor in Beijing promoting our trade there ended in the 1980s, when our exports were sadly rather flat. After my time, they took off dramatically. If we include direct exports alongside exports via Hong Kong. the figure for 2001 was £2.4 billion.

That said, the direct visible trade deficit grew from £32 million when I was there to £4.25 billion by 2001. In other words, Chinese exports to the UK have massively outstripped our exports to China. There is obviously some ground to be made up, as there is in relation to our European competitors. For example, Germany's direct trade exports were two and half times those of the UK a couple of years ago, and French exports were 50 per cent. higher.

UK capabilities in telecommunications, technology for the supply of liquefied natural gas, transportation, chemical production, power generation, agriculture and food processing, among other things. mix well with Chinese priorities. One wonders whether, for many, China is still too far, too big and too difficult. We need to develop measured ways to attract, in particular, small and medium-sized enterprises to the market, and perhaps more closely consider piggy-backing their export efforts on to those of larger firms, not least those that deal with oil and related activities and have massive investments in China.

China's entry to the World Trade Organisation will also provide opportunities for UK firms, which colleagues from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry are examining as I speak. One understands China's reluctance to expose a fledgling financial services sector to severe competition too early, but we need to press for services such as banking, insurance and fund management, among other areas in which we have particular expertise, if we are to have a better share of and better opportunities in the Chinese market. Our relationship on the environmental front may also allow us to promote our expertise in environmental and pollution control equipment and environmental consultancy. By the same token, the market in consumer goods, health care, education and training will open up much further, not least in the western provinces.

It is also inevitable that, as with the Asian tigers, China will need to invest overseas, as it is already doing to a certain extent. In purchasing power parity terms, it is already the world's second-largest economy. It will, as night follows day and for a variety of sound economic reasons, need to move its investment overseas as well as inland. Inward investment is a long process, and it is right that Invest UK is targeting the market.

Although our cumulative figures make the UK the sixth largest investor in China and the leading EU investor, much of that is represented by industrial giants. Without wishing to encourage the export of jobs, we still need to encourage British companies to consider making their own investment in China as a basis for tackling the market in the region. The upcoming Beijing Olympic games of 2008 will provide significant commercial opportunities, and we welcome the attention that Trade Partners UK is paying to that. The Beijing municipality is investing $24 billion in urban infrastructure and facilities for the games.

We did not visit Hong Kong, so I shall restrict my remarks on that region, but we intend to visit it later this year. Suffice it to say that the Chinese seem to me and, I think, to the group to have honoured the terms of the joint declaration to the letter. The Special Administrative Region arrangements are working, as far as one can see, absolutely as intended. As a result, the interactions between China and Hong Kong are now on an even more massive scale than before.

The economy of Hong Kong has seen difficult times, as have other economies of that region and elsewhere, but it is weathering the storm and showing its perpetually remarkable ability to adapt. It remains, of course, an important market for the United Kingdom, and Britain remains its leading foreign investor.

The system of governance of Hong Kong is changing, and progress is being made towards universal suffrage. The Chief Executive has announced his intention to introduce "Ministers" from outside the civil service, who will be politically appointed and answerable to him for the duration of his political tenure. Although those Ministers will take full political responsibility for the success or failure of their policies, personally speaking, I wonder whether that measure is sufficiently radical or forward-looking to achieve what are regarded as normal forms of governance or the process towards democratisation, which is designed to benefit the people of Hong Kong, for whom we have an enduring moral and political responsibility because of our residual responsibilities. I also wonder whether the Chief Executive's measure is forward-looking enough for the economy of Hong Kong.

It is striking that there are now 20,000 Chinese students in the United Kingdom. It is equally striking that most of them are privately funded and that the Chevening scholarship programme for China is the largest in the world.

I have ranged generally, sometimes superficially, over several issues, but our bilateral relations are necessarily wide and diverse. They include, for example, important non-governmental connections through the UK-China Forum, which will meet in Beijing next year.

China is vastly important as a global player and in relation to the United Kingdom. The nation seems to recognise increasingly an external role, as it did with its leadership during the Asian economic crisis and as it has done in relation to the current India-Pakistan dispute. It showed such leadership by hosting the APEC summit for the first time last year, by establishing a peacekeeping affairs office and by indicating its willingness to play a part in UN peacekeeping operations. It will do so at a different level as more and more students and tourists travel overseas. Large numbers are already doing so.

China is a colossus of geo-political importance. It is a colossus in its commercial, economic and industrial development, and in its ability to affect the world for good or ill, be it in relation to the environment or to world stability. It is also a colossus by virtue of its scale—31 provinces or autonomous regions, each the size of a European country. It is twice the size of western Europe and stretches from the tropics to the sub-Arctic. Although there are difficult economic and political changes ahead, because of the scale and complexity of matters Chinese, China provides us with opportunities on a wide front. With major changes in the Chinese hierarchy due in autumn this year and spring next year, I hope very much that we can utilise our bilateral relations to good effect in terms of the people of both nations and global well-being.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and to the Minister for the fact that I shall not be able to stay for the whole debate, but I am chairing a meeting of the International Development Select Committee.

The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), the excellent chairman of the all-party group on China, is to be congratulated on securing this debate. If the millennium development goals for 2015 are to be met, it will be largely because of the Herculean efforts that have been made by China to lift her people out of poverty. The past five years have probably been the most momentous for relations between China and the UK.

As the hon. Member for Wirral, South said, the hand over of Hong Kong, about five years ago, was much more successful than most people had expected. The following year, the Chinese Prime Minister visited the UK, and our Prime Minister visited China. In 1999, there was the extremely successful state visit of the President of China, the first such state visit ever. Those visits have been followed by others, such as that of the Vice-President last year, and the chairman of the People's consultative committee this year. Against that background, there has also been a substantial increase in bilateral trade. The Chinese ambassador said only yesterday that there were only about 8,000 Chinese students studying in the UK when he visited this country five years ago, whereas there are now about 40,000. Our relations with China have been strengthened considerably during that period.

As one of the vice-chairs of the all-party group on China, I want to reinforce something that the hon. Member for Wirral, South said on a parliamentary housekeeping point. The British-American parliamentary group receives public funding, and other groups in the House can secure overseas visits either through the Inter-Parliamentary Union or, for Commonwealth countries, through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We are often very fortunate in being welcomed by other countries, as happened recently when the National People's Congress entertained Members of the House of Commons. I did not go on that visit, but I have recently been to China on my own account. However, the lack of budgetary assistance makes it difficult for us to invite representatives of other countries here. If relations between Parliaments are to be thickened, a two-way dialogue is required.

Some people in the private sector are willing to support the work of the all-party group on China, which they regard as important. An unintended consequence of the legislation on donations to political parties has been to muck that up. If a public company in the UK wishes to give money to the all-party group on China for the purpose of exchanges between parliamentarians, it has to obtain the approval of its shareholders at an annual general meeting. Companies are not unwilling to do that, nor have they anything to hide, but it is an additional imposition. The hon. Member for Wirral, South and I can talk to the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Sam Younger, about the matter, but I suspect that he is constrained by the law.

We need to consider whether the House could set up a trust fund or other mechanism to facilitate parliamentary exchanges without public companies having to go through the brouhaha of resolutions at their annual general meetings to enable them to give modest sums. Otherwise, it will be difficult to develop and thicken the relations that are necessary between this Parliament and the National People's Congress in China, which I am sure we all want to do. China is a large and increasingly important country. It is in all our interests to get to know how Chinese parliamentarians think and how they view issues.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as it is unusual to give way to the Minister. Parliament voted recently to allow all hon. Members to make three visits to European countries, not on matters to do with the Government. Speaking as a Member of Parliament and not as a Minister, I would have no problem with a resolution to allow one trip a year further abroad to enable hon. Members to make longer range visits, which are, I agree, so important.

That is a constructive comment, and I endorse it. It is difficult for us to invite parliamentarians to Westminster as our guests to discuss matters such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South in relation to human rights. That cannot be done in headlines; it requires a degree of subtlety and should progress over a period of time when we have established some trust and got to know people. It is important to keep dialogue going in both directions.

Bilateral trade with China has doubled over recent years. However, there is still enormous potential for small and medium-sized businesses. The China-Britain Business Council does brilliant work, and is much to be congratulated. So, too, do many British trade partners. The export of the year award was made at the lunch to celebrate the Chinese new year, and I was struck by the fact that it has often been a matter of chance that the winner has been established in China. I suspect that much more needs to be done to give small and medium-sized businesses the confidence to get to grips with the Chinese market. Those that do, and persevere, find openings for specialist niche companies, but they need help.

With regard to culture and language, China is an increasingly important player on the world stage, but practically no schools in the UK offer Mandarin as a subject. It is not an impossible subject; my daughter has just completed a GCSE in Mandarin and hopes to go to China for her gap year to teach English. So it is possible, although she was fortunate in being at a school that offered Mandarin. For her and others who study the language, it is essential to understand that a culture can have completely different values, but that it is none the less important for that. Having some understanding of those cultural values is extremely important for people in our schools if they are not to see China in terms of historic stereotypes. We should consider how we in the UK can ensure that we have a better understanding of Chinese culture, history and language, provide greater opportunities for youngsters in our schools and enable those who may like to do so to study Mandarin.

Those were my three brief points. The first concerned how we can improve relations between the UK Parliament and the National People's Congress; the second, how we can help small and medium-sized businesses to take greater advantage of the ever-growing Chinese market; and the third what we can do to ensure a better understanding in our schools of Chinese culture and greater opportunities for children to learn Mandarin.

I should like to follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). I, too, was a member of the all-party group that went to China, which was an enormously impressive experience.

I shall respond to the comments made by the hon. Member for Banbury about the cultural side of the visit. Although much of the business and the constant string of meetings that we conducted in China could be tiresome, to put it mildly, the highlight of our trip came when we visited the Great Wall of China. It took more than 2,000 years for the fabled wall to be built, which gave me a marvellous reference point for continuity within the Chinese polity and allowed me an insight into Chinese culture, which regards outsiders as "the other". The Chinese name for China is Zhongguo, which translates as "the middle kingdom" and suggests that the outer world continues to be regarded as something other.

During our trip, I perceived the Chinese Government as trying to break down those barriers and making conscious efforts to look outwards. There is no greater example of that than China's recent accession to the World Trade Organisation. Mr. Tong, the remarkable and erudite man who took China into that organisation, was our host for a large part of our visit. Not only did his erudition come across clearly, but it was obvious from his humour and use of demotic language that he was an internationalist in the true sense of the word. I do not suggest that he reflects the reality of the Chinese masses, however.

Let us consider what the Chinese have to deal with. Some 400 million Chinese live in great cities such as Beijing, Shanghai and Xi'an. That is challenging enough, but in addition 900 million peasants live in the countryside, in a very different world from those in the cities. The Chinese Government have to take that into account.

Like my hon. Friend, I was struck by the great strides being made internally on the economy and infrastructure. I smile to think of the M25 and all the problems associated with it, such as yesterday's breakdown, given that the Chinese have just built a fifth ring road around Beijing, which runs freely and puts the M25 to shame. When we took a 14-hour train ride from Beijing to Xi'an, I realised that it would be a good idea for such companies as Railtrack and Virgin to go and see how to run trains that arrive on time, are clean and provide excellent food. There is much to be learned from China.

I want to deal with the provisions in the United Kingdom for the Chinese language and for an understanding of Chinese culture and education. My hon. Friend referred to the stereotypical view of London as foggy. In fact, on a dank day in mid-winter, one can still be misled into thinking that that stereotype is true. However, we have our own stereotypical views of China and the Chinese. Their major cities are no different from major cities anywhere in the world: the young people wear the same style of clothes, have the same fashions, go to the same McDonalds hamburger joints and eat at Kentucky Fried Chicken. There is a great international cultural affinity at that level, although I make the distinction between the cities and the countryside.

There remains an ignorance of cultures on both sides, as the hon. Member for Banbury said. I was interested to hear that one of his daughters has been studying Mandarin, because one of my daughters is head of a language specialist school in Liverpool, which teaches Mandarin and is twinned with a school in Shanghai. Indeed, my old school in Liverpool—St. Edward's—is also a language specialist school. It teaches Mandarin and has a twinning arrangement with a school in Shanghai. Other schools in Liverpool have such an arrangement, which is not surprising as Liverpool is home to the oldest Chinese community in Europe. It dates back 300 years, and we have long-standing links with China.

I want such links to be reinforced. I want to ensure that we do whatever we can in the House and through the Government to provide additional support when that is appropriate. I note the tremendous work of the British Council in facilitating twinning arrangements and exchanges between schools. However, we have a long way to go to address the ignorance in this country and to service further exchanges between the many schools in China that are crying out for such arrangements. I hope that what happened in Japan post the Tokyo Olympic games and the Sapporo winter Olympic games, and what happened in South Korea post the Seoul Olympic games, will have a progressive effect post the Beijing games.

The Chinese Government and the Beijing municipality have gone out of their way to make sure that the games will be a great success. I have no doubt that, given the unity of purpose and the application of the Chinese people, they will be a tremendous success. There will be an influx of overseas visitors, the likes of which the Chinese have never had to contend with. The games will be a beneficial occurrence. I am positive about it. It will have a similar effect on how the Chinese view other people. That will happen post-Beijing, as it happened post-Seoul, and to a large measure post-Tokyo. The games are important to the Chinese people and to their Government. I trust that we will play our part in making sure that they are a great success.

It is easy to have a mutual admiration society, but we cannot overlook the differences between us and the Chinese Government, especially on human rights. Mr. Tong pointed out to me that Guangdong province has a population of 135 million people. That is a sizeable province. Xi'an province, for example, has between 38 million to 39 million. That is a huge number of people, and we must remember that there are tensions within China as certain provinces and municipalities move on at a rate of knots. Its extremely entrenched and conservative countryside has the infrastructure to move on. However, that lends itself to strains and to an arbitrary way in which to deal with such matters.

To return to what I said about the Great Wall, there is a tremendous fear among the Chinese that if there is not an enemy from without, atomisation is always lurking round the corner from within. We should be aware of that when considering human rights in a Chinese context. The Chinese Government have strong views on missile defence, which reflect their long culture of feeling in peril from without. Her Majesty's Government have a different view. I speak only for myself, because I take issue with the Government on missile defence. We must recognise that in our dealings with the Chinese Government and people, who are on the edge in their development. Factors that incur mistrust are not helpful to anyone, and there is mistrust on both sides, on issues such as human rights on the one hand and missile defence on the other.

We have tremendous potential for trade, educational and scientific relations with China. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are from the part of the country from which I hail. Imagine a city stretching from Chester to Preston, and from the west of Merseyside to the east of Manchester, with 16 million people in it. That will give you some idea of the scale of what is happening in China. We would not feel uncomfortable in such a city; we would feel quite at home, as it would have many of the things that we aspire to for a civilised life.

To put it crudely, we should be getting a bit of the action. We have excellent civil servants in China who are doing an excellent job. The Leading Edge event is coming up in Shanghai in October, and is all about promoting British trade in the Shanghai autonomous area. It behoves British companies to take up those opportunities, to get out there and to sell themselves as those in other countries are doing.

rose—

Order. Three hon. Gentlemen wish to participate in the debate before the winding-up speeches. If they restrict themselves to, say, six minutes, we will get them all in.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall restrict myself to six minutes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) for initiating the debate.

Like many other hon. Members present, I too have visited China as a guest of the Chinese Government. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) spoke about the different culture in China, which was referred to as a colossus by the hon. Member for Wirral, South. It is all those things. It is amazing to compare Beijing now with how it was the first time I went there eight or nine years ago. Downtown, one could still see carts being pulled by oxen with peat-like fuel on the back. Two years later, I did not see that in Beijing, and one now has to go further out into the countryside to see it.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton is right to point out that China has a huge industry, and that amazing infrastructure projects are taking place in Beijing, Shanghai and other places. However, there is huge poverty outside those major urban areas, and that is a problem that the Chinese Government will want to address.

As has been said, it would be wrong for us to debate China and not mention human rights, and to think that by not mentioning the subject we were doing the Chinese a favour. The fact is that we do them a favour every time that we mention it. It is in the spirit of friendship that we raise those issues. This and previous Governments have promoted dialogue with the Chinese Government, and they continue to do so. The hon. Member for Wirral, South mentioned several delegations that have visited from China, and those from this country that have gone to China. The friendship that exists because of those visits is vital.

China is a colossus; it is a huge market. I get a bit depressed when I read the trade figures. The trade deficit in 1988 was £32 million, and now it is more than £4 billion. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton that we want a slice of the action. It is important that we start to focus more on that market. If the Germans and the French are doing that—I believe that we have overtaken the Italians now—then we, too, should do so. We must also focus on what we can do to improve our trade relations with China. As prosperity grows within China, it will buy goods from abroad, just as happened in this country. That is important.

As for tourism, I have been fascinated by places such as Chong Ching, which I had not even heard of before I visited it in September. It has a population of 32 million. That is amazing. I have visited other cities in China with large populations. We need to understand better the country's culture, rather than dictating to it, and learn about Chinese history. As has already been said, we should have more Mandarin lessons in our schools and universities. More people need to learn Mandarin, which will help trade in future.

It is amazing what China has to offer. Huge and growing numbers of people visit China to see, for example, the Great Wall, the terracotta army in Xi'an and the forbidden city, which is superb and unparalleled anywhere in the world. I hope that that will lead to more Chinese people visiting this country, which must be encouraged.

Education has been mentioned time and again, and it is vital. At the university of Central Lancashire, which is in my constituency, more than 500 students are Chinese. China is its largest overseas market. The university is focusing on that and wants the numbers to increase, and I congratulate it on that. On 12 July, the Chinese ambassador, His Excellency Mr. Ma, will receive an honorary degree from the university, and I hope to be present to congratulate him on the recognition of his enormous work. He has been a great friend of the all-party parliamentary group on China.

I, too, congratulate the British Council on its work on English language learning and its investment in distance learning, which will have a huge market in the future. I also congratulate organisations such as the 48 group club, which is trying to improve trading relations between China and the United Kingdom. I have attended its annual Chinese new year luncheons, at which prominent people of all political persuasions have spoken.

No differences between the parties are involved. We want relations to continue to improve. We had a successful visit from the President of China, and the Vice-President came to London last year. That was superb, and we want to encourage such visits in future. I hope that we shall hear some suggestions from the Minister about how we can re-focus our attention and ensure that Britain has more than its fair share of the action in that amazing colossus of a country.

I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). I was privileged to have the opportunity to be part of the delegation that recently visited China. It was hugely eye opening.

I have been very much involved in south-east Asia through my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on Japan. Being in Shanghai and looking out over the city at night, I could not help but feel that Shanghai now will be the Tokyo of tomorrow. I have no doubt about that.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton that China is a massively key player in the world. It has an important role to play in exercising sanity in a volatile area of the world. I pay tribute to its recent work in trying to persuade India and Pakistan that conflict is not the way to resolve the problem of Kashmir, and that they must have dialogue on such issues. I envisage China playing that role much more in that part of the world, because it is undoubtedly a very stable country, even if we do not agree with the system that governs it.

I was also impressed with the concept of the socialist market economy that the Chinese say has developed—every time I look at my £2 Rolex watch, I think that there must be some merit in that new concept. China has a massive internal market of 1.2 billion people, which will grow to 1.5 billion. It has a hugely impressive growth rate of 7 or 8 per cent.

Travelling through the country, albeit only a part of it, was an exciting and interesting experience. The Chinese are adamant that their priority, above all else, is the unity of the country. Although all of us on the delegation voiced our concerns about human rights issues and about the political process itself, one can understand why unity is a priority. We must remember that, only 60 years ago, China was a continent at war with itself. It was ridden with civil war. Warlords were running riot and part of China was occupied by Japanese forces. Sixty years later, it is hardly surprising that unity is the first priority of the country and the ruling elite.

I had never been to China before, but looking out at Shanghai and seeing how that city has grown is breathtaking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton said, a by-product of the political system in China is that a city such as Shanghai can develop quickly without worrying about planning applications that might involve five years of arguments—although I do not offer that as justification. The Chinese tend to decide and then do it. It might not be democratic, but it ensures speedy decisions.

I will not take up any more of the House's time. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity to take part in the delegation that visited China. I thank my colleagues on the delegation for their comradeship and enjoyable company. Above all, I thank the Chinese people for their hospitality and for the opportunity to see a country that, in the normal run of events, I would probably never have seen. What I saw leads me to believe that China will increasingly be a powerhouse in the future. In the same way that we see the balance in world sport moving east—not least in football—the balance of economic power in the world will also move east.

I was also part of the recent delegation to China referred to by the chairman of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman). As one of the vice-chairs, it normally falls to me to deal with human rights issues whenever we meet delegations from China. I do not want to say any more about that this morning other than that I associate myself with the chairman's comments. In a sense, the way in which we deal with concerns on human rights and other issues with our friends in China is a measure of the relationship between our two countries and peoples. I am an active member of the all-party Tibet group, and that is well known to our friends in China. Relationships are important, and we must understand that, in a true partnership or a marriage, whenever the partners fall out, they are not automatically divorced, otherwise there would be a great many divorces throughout the world. We must be able to put opposing views to each other, and realise that the wider interests of our two peoples are served by continuing dialogue.

I shall comment further on the historical perspective of the development of China as a very large country throughout history, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) alluded. He said that there have been many periods of trouble in China. Our nation must have the maturity—as must other nations, including France, Germany and America—to acknowledge that our actions in China during our imperialist and colonial period greatly angered the Chinese people over hundreds of years. That is quite understandable.

Those of us who have been lucky enough to visit China on delegations know that the Chinese people have matured a great deal during a short time in a modern technological world. They have moved from a command economy to what they call a socialist market economy—I must admit that I am attracted by that concept—with a full understanding of the difficulties that that creates. They must deal with unemployment for the first time without an established social welfare safety net. They are astute enough to realise that they should look to countries such as Britain, America and other European countries. We have made our mistakes in those areas, and perhaps the Chinese people can learn from that, and from our good practice.

That is not a one-way exercise, because we can learn from China. Hon. Members have mentioned that China must address large environmental issues owing to its great economic growth during a short time. China is examining technologies and methodologies to ensure that its people gain the benefit of economic growth while dealing with the enormous ecological problems that such growth creates. China is investigating technologies that, to be frank, companies in Great Britain have sufficient finance to try. China is trying new technologies that we are not trying, although we would like to, and we can learn from its experience.

My hon. Friend the chairman of the all-party group alluded to the fact that China's economic and political maturity has been demonstrated. When the south-east Asian financial crisis hit the world—it was a world event—the Chinese Government showed real maturity by refusing to devalue the renminbi. That might not have happened in an earlier period; China might have thought that a short-term quick fix could earn it quite a bit. However, it played a mature and sincere role in that crisis. It has also played an excellent role in world peace through the United Nations Security Council, as well as unilaterally and bilaterally.

The future is bright, if only because China is talking to the world, and the world is talking to China and recognising that it is a major player in the world, and that it will increasingly be so. We should create a genuine partnership, which should include investment and social and political relations. I am optimistic about the future, although I am not uncritical.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on securing the debate, and I associate myself with his and other hon. Members' comments about the recent trip and the declaration of interest.

I shall concentrate mainly but not exclusively on the economy. China is a large country and has many facets, but we must use this occasion to look at the reality, which represents a challenge, but an opportunity. I have been told that the Chinese word for challenge also means opportunity; that draws attention to the Chinese character—and, I hope, the British character. I want us to see that China represents a great chance for us.

The hon. Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) referred to maturity. I endorse what he has said about the Chinese economy: it is not a mature market economy, such as ours. However, the Chinese displayed great maturity by resisting calls for devaluation during the recent Asian crisis, and subsequent utterances from the Chinese Government suggest that they will continue to take that approach.

We are talking about reality, and I was impressed by the way in which the Chinese Government are addressing their massive problems in respect of restructuring the job market and meeting new challenges. As has been said, Liberal Democrat Members stand back in amazement at developments in Shanghai, and at economic developments and the way in which they are being tackled.

The Chinese appear to be quick learners—and I hope that we will be too, because there is much that we can learn from China. The Chinese are setting up an economy by quickly learning things that have been done in our country and other countries. I offer one example of that: the remarkable scale of the stock exchange in Shanghai. One cannot fail to be impressed by the fact that after only 11 years the Chinese have established such a highly sophisticated operation, which can process transactions swiftly: more than 80,000 transactions per second can be handled at that single stock exchange.

The way in which the Chinese have dealt with the modernity of their computer systems so that they can deal with future needs is also impressive, as is their approach to regulation. When asked about what they will do to address future problems, they said that meetings are held almost daily to discuss what problems might arise and to find ways to solve them. Perhaps that is something that we can learn. In trading, their nationwide satellite communication network is also impressive. They are laying down lots of realistic foundations for the future.

Since its accession to the World Trade Organisation, China has had to meet change ever more quickly. That will give us and other countries greater opportunities for trade, because China's economy is likely to expand considerably. I hope that those few words on the economy will act as a backdrop to the most important element, which is that we should play our part in China's economic progress. Furthermore, a significant presence in China will mean a significant presence in the rest of Asia.

Bilaterally, China and the UK have had their problems. On the Chinese side, the blowing up of the Chinese embassy in Kosovo did not help relations; and more recently the US spy plane crash could have led to a return of the cold war. Another concern, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) suggested, is the United States' ballistic missile defence system, which is apparently supported by our Government. My party is strongly concerned about that development and the worries that it has caused, in particular to China.

On the other hand, we are right to raise issues such as Tibet, which remains a live and worrying problem. It is also right to refer to dissent in China. We believe that countries that are confident of their status, like China, should not feel the need to suppress dissent, but should welcome it instead. However, just as we are able to make such points about China, so the Chinese are entitled to make points about us. On the positive side, we are remarkably encouraged by the way in which the Chinese Government have come alongside us in trying to deal with terrorism throughout the world since 11 September. Those events acted as a catalyst to bring the two nations together.

We have a bilateral role to play in China because 30 years ago we became the first western country to give the country ambassadorial status. That has stood us in good stead, and in recent years it allowed us to settle the question of Hong Kong. Like many hon. Members, I feel respect and amazement when I see how China's Government have instituted the one country, two systems approach that they promised. Taiwan poses a similar problem, and I tentatively suggest that a similar one country, two systems approach could be used there—but that remains to be seen, and greater brains than mine will agree or disagree on that.

I spoke originally about the great importance of our economic relationship with China. Recent moves to create a free trade area involving China and the Association of South-East Asian Nations mean that our market will not be restricted to China, but will potentially be very much larger. Our bilateral relations will also cover those relationships increasingly being created within the wider trade area of the European Union community.

The UK is China's second largest trading partner and its biggest investor among EU countries. With China's GDP ranked sixth internationally, it has great potential, but we need to work harder to achieve our aim of increasing trade, particularly with regard to small businesses. As I have mentioned, of the EU member states, we are one of the top traders with China, but that position is not secure. We need to widen our trading base and make it more varied and diverse. I hope that the Government will continue to identify areas of current and future growth in China and focus on those areas where we lag behind.

I can speak for many when I say that we value our friendly relations with China, which are epitomised in many ways through Government, trade and other contacts. Reference was made to the many Chinese students in this country. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned twinning of schools, and the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who is no longer here, also talked about education. In my constituency, we have recently twinned four schools with schools in Beijing, and a programme is being fostered by the British Council to further such twinning. We want to engage people at an early age with a country a long way away.

The Chinese people are hard working, vibrant, enthusiastic, imaginative and innovative, and they have a long history and rich cultural background. Above all, like us, they are anxious to increase friendly relations between our two countries, and not only at Government level. As we saw when we went to China recently, the people are extremely friendly and welcoming. I thank them for their great hospitality.

I congratulate you on your knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which reflects your considerable contribution to our parliamentary life. I also want to express to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) the gratitude of everyone who has spoken. He has great knowledge of the subject and is a distinguished chairman of the all-party group on China.

Napoleon once described China as a slumbering giant. The same could be said today, except that the giant has begun to stir. We ignore China at our peril because of its economic, political and cultural importance. Chinese civilisation and culture have made an enormously important contribution to the world. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said, we have long had a Chinese community in our country. That community has been greatly enlarged, and I pay tribute to its entrepreneurial energies and commitment to family support and excellence in education—wholly admirable characteristics that are an example to us all.

The emergence of China as a major economic and political power and in other ways will bring about internal changes in the country. We can already see change taking place. That has an impact on our bilateral relationship. The successful handover of Hong Kong was in no small way the catalyst for improved and ever-improving relations between our two countries. The way in which China has since handled Hong Kong has been immensely to its credit.

We agree with the first conclusion of the 10th report of the 1999–2000 Session by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, and with the Foreign Office view expressed in it, which was that we should view as a priority the closer integration of China in the international system

"in all fields, as a friendly and responsible partner in dealing with global and regional issues".

The enhancement of British-Chinese relations over the past few years is extremely encouraging. Hon. Members have talked about visits by various politicians: only last year, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had a lengthy meeting with Vice-President Hu Jintao in London, at which he affirmed the Conservative party's commitment to further its long-standing relations with China—an objective that the Government share. Our close relationship with the United States, which is appreciated and understood by China, affords us a special role in helping to act as a bridge between the two countries.

Internally, modernisation in China continues. The way in which the Chinese authorities reacted to the Asian meltdown was a source of great stability in the far east and for world economic conditions. As the economy changes in China, we see civil unrest, and we note the tough action by the Chinese Government against pro-democracy dissidents, especially Falun Gong adherents. No doubt they are seen as something of a challenge to the monopoly of power held in China.

We have heard about the large gap between the rich and poor in China, which appears to be widening, and about regional differences. That is a great challenge to China. How it addresses the needs of its people and adapts to the modern world, raising the living standard of all its people, will be one of the yardsticks by which its success in the 21st century is measured.

There is no doubt that recent economic growth in China has been absolutely unparalleled. Further economic liberalisation, utilising communications advances and the internet age, combined with China's access to immense human resources and the political will to make it work, should make such growth sustainable. Before the Asian meltdown, China used to attract about 30 per cent. of inward investment into the far east; that figure is now 70 per cent. That is one of the reasons why China is likely within eight or nine years to become the world's fourth largest economy. China's accession to the World Trade Organisation represents an important step in establishing future channels for trade and prosperity for both nations. As the WTO director general Mike Moore said,

"With China's membership, the WTO will take a major step towards becoming a truly world organisation."

Economics is just one aspect of China's complex place in the world amidst the challenges of the 21st century. Since 11 September, we have seen new-found fluidity and changing relationships bring China into the fold of key world players. That is extremely important. We value China's support for the war on terror and its willingness to work with the west in that respect. We must all work together to face such challenges, and as China continues to emerge as an economic power, its political importance will grow.

We do not want to over-simplify the problem of the status of Tibet. We urge our friends in China to respect Tibetan culture and identity. China must recognise the rights of the Tibetan people to live in peace and security and to live their lives free from unwarranted pressure and discrimination. It would be inappropriate, as this is a matter for a longer discussion, to get into the issue of Taiwan, but it has an impact on US-China and UK-China relations in that Chinese sensitivities on Taiwan have to be recognised. All we can hope is that the two entities will work together to resolve the matter. As a third party, we should be wary of coming between the two principal players, but we should also look for ways to facilitate dialogue.

It is important to note that there are signs of US-China relations and UK-China relations improving. President Bush's visit to China in February 2002 was important, as was that of Chinese Vice-President Hu Jintao to Washington. The normalisation of relationships between those two countries, in which we can play our part, is very important.

Also, as has been noted before, China's relationship with Pakistan and its more fledgling relationship with India have been helpful in cooling passions over Kashmir during the past few weeks. We have also touched on the vexed question of human rights violations. Some progress has been made there, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, we would not be good friends of China if we did not point out that that was an area of concern in the UK and in other parts of the world. On a more positive note, we very much welcome the fact that the Beijing Olympic games will take place in 2008 and will undoubtedly be a great success.

In its long history, China has suffered from wars and invasions by foreign powers. It is at last effectively united and confident, and it will undoubtedly be a major global power in the 21st century. There is a lively debate in China about how to marry economic liberalisation with a monolithic political structure. The 16th party congress in September is an important event and we hope that it will be a considerable success. Ultimately, however, no country can operate a free enterprise system without political plurality. That is China's greatest challenge as it emerges as more economically successful on the world stage. We shall watch developments there, confident that overall the forces of reform and modernisation will prevail.

Sir Nicholas, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to address you by your new title and to be a member of a Government under whom you have been properly rewarded and honoured for your long service to Parliament. This has been a remarkably good debate and I ask our friends in the Chinese Government, in Chinese business and Chinese non-governmental organisations and human rights organisations to read hon. Members' words in Hansard. They spoke not just for themselves and Parliament but for the British people, and there is virtually nothing that I, on behalf of the Government, would disagree with in the contributions of almost all hon. Members.

Britain has a long-standing relationship with China. As had been noted, we exchanged ambassadors 30 years ago, having maintained diplomatic recognition at the height of the cold war. In passing, I pay tribute to Sir Edward Heath for his constant work in maintaining good relations between the United Kingdom and China. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on having obtained the debate, on his powerful and cogent speech and on his tireless work as chairman of the UK all-party group on China. The House and the Government owe him a debt of gratitude.

I first visited Canton, now known as Guangzhou, 20 years ago. At that time, there were bicycles, the odd, rather large, ugly black car and a few lorries. I was dumped back in my hotel at 5.30 for a dinner, given a vacuum flask of green tea and put in my room, where I remember watching the unfolding of the Falklands conflict via Chinese television. It seemed a lot clearer than the gentleman who was reading our news bulletins at the time.

I revisited Guangzhou recently. What a difference. Like Shanghai and Beijing, it is an extraordinarily strong, confident city of skyscrapers and apartment blocks, new cars and lots of people engaged in successful businesses. At the end of my stay, two young lady interpreters asked whether I could disco dance. I gave the first lessons at the Mao Zedong memorial agricultural institute. I may be responsible for having introduced disco dancing to a nation that has made it so much its own.

My message to business people, backpackers and gap year students is: go east young men and women, the future of the 21st century will be found in China. A two-hour flight away from Shanghai are 60 cities with more than a million people residing in them. In 10 years' time, the area stretching to Korea and Japan will produce 25 per cent. of the world's GDP.

As has been noted, China is rapidly becoming an economic power. It is also becoming a political power. Our relationship at diplomatic and political level is positive and good. The inward flow of visitors, including President Jiang Zemin and other senior officials, is strong and constant, and we regularly send top officials and Ministers to China. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit later this summer and I have been three times, having visited China more often than any other country for which I have ministerial responsibility. I hope to return in September.

There has been an eightfold increase in students—some 20,000 now study in the UK—and we are witness to a new phenomenon: a remarkably successful capitalist economy controlled by a communist system. Young Chinese people are studying overseas in rising numbers, more than 3,000 British projects are being undertaken in China, and there is an increasing level of inward investment from Chinese businessmen in the United Kingdom. We need to sustain the rhythm of economic contact.

The human rights issue remains a pebble in the shoe—or perhaps a thorn in the side—of our relationship. There is no ducking the need to refer to it. We do not seek to preach or impose our norms; all we ask of the Chinese authorities is that they obey their own laws and respect their international obligations under the international covenants that they have signed or ratified. We do not attempt to impose a western or United Kingdom vision on China. We request that every country in the world obey its own laws and international laws to which it has put its name.

I am positive about China, as are the rest of the Government and the hon. Members who have spoken, but we need a little dose of corrective realism. The extraordinary economic growth that has taken place in China has happened through the classic method of rapidly developing industry. The impact on the Chinese environment from rapid industrialisation, especially the increase in desert areas, must be taken into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff) was gaily contemptuous of the Chinese ability to bulldoze through the planning norms that feature in this country and others. Planning laws appropriate to each society are a mechanism for containing industrial development so that it has some relationship with nature. However, we see positive signs from China in that regard, as it reduces its use of fuels emitting CO₂ and works constructively with other Governments to tackle the problem of global warming.

We must also take a reality check on the issue of corruption and the need to develop the rule of law in the commercial field. A separation is needed of business from Government. I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who spoke for the official Opposition, that a fully functioning open market economy is incompatible with a closed, secretive and unaccountable political system.

We need to deal with the theft of intellectual property rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook and Small Heath was of course joking when he referred to his £2 Rolex watch. When I am in China, I get no pleasure from seeing Burberry coats and other rip-offs from British firms on sale for £2. The lack of respect for intellectual property rights is no laughing matter, and those who return from China with their cheap Mont Blanc pens, fake Lacoste shirts or Rolex watches are doing a grave disservice to the companies and the employees of companies who make those products in Europe and elsewhere. China also needs to consider the need for trade union reform, to allow an authentic and autonomous voice in its labour market.

Mention has been made of human rights in relation to Tibet, which is an issue that I have raised with Chinese Ministers and officials. I have requested them to have a dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Mention has also been made of Taiwan. Of course, we recognise the one- country system, but increasing commercial contact between Taiwan and China seems a better way forward than mutually reinforcing military systems.

China is a huge source of culture. I cite Gao Xingjian, the Nobel prize winner, whose book "Soul Mountain" I have read and commend to hon. Members, and the highly important work being done by the British Museum and cultural institutions in China.

In the end, however, our policy must be one of engagement, engagement, engagement. For too long, China was isolated, as the west adopted a policy of isolation. The British Government's policy is one of constant engagement with a view to China entering the world, living under the rule of international law and enjoying peace and stability with its neighbours and partners everywhere.

Excellent Deabate

I begin by congratulating you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your recent knighthood. Everyone present was delighted to hear of it, and no one deserves the honour more than you. I am particularly pleased that our debate is about Gibraltar, because you have spoken about it on numerous occasions and have been a steadfast defender of the rights of the people of that British overseas territory.

I raise this issue because the people of Gibraltar have a right to be heard in this place. They cannot elect a representative to the House of Commons, yet Parliament and our British Government make decisions on their behalf. Since this subject was selected for debate, several hon. Members have spoken to me of their support and of the need to keep the issue alive. There is a great fear that the Government are letting down the people of Gibraltar behind closed doors and betraying their rights and interests, so I make no apology to the Minister for once again raising the issue in Westminster Hall.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will know how frustrating it is for us to keep having to debate this issue. Imagine our constituents' anger if we regularly had to debate their rights and freedoms in the Chamber. Imagine the anger in the Minister's constituency if we regularly had to debate his constituents' rights and freedoms. It is utterly wrong that the present situation continues.

I proposed this debate because the discussions on Gibraltar have gone on long enough, and the people of Gibraltar have a right to expect a speedy conclusion. I understand that the Prime Minister is meeting the Prime Minister of Spain today, and I hope that the Minister will convey to him the strength of feeling in Parliament, among the British people and among those who live on the great rock of Gibraltar. I hope that the Prime Minister conveys those sentiments to the Prime Minister of Spain and that he realises that the game is up: he has no support for his plan to betray the people of Gibraltar. He should realise that he has misjudged the mood of our people and that he should ditch the entire ill-conceived process.

I am saddened by the need yet again to debate the Government's disgraceful and irresponsible attitude to Gibraltar and its people. The Government persist in their course of selling out the 30,000 loyal British subjects of that British Crown colony to Spain. They seem increasingly desperate to pursue that policy, despite the evidence that there is no support for it, except among some Labour Members, although only a few of them are here to support it.

Before I continue, however, I should like to convey the apologies of the chairman of the all-party Gibraltar group, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who is in Hong Kong with a parliamentary delegation. He asked me to convey the feelings of the all-party group, of which I am secretary, and to say that the people of Gibraltar deserve better. The hon. Member for Chorley, a Labour Member, is not alone in holding that view, because there is much anger among Labour Back Benchers about the issue of Gibraltar. The fact that the hon. Member for Chorley has articulated that anger on so many occasions proves that he has a great deal more integrity than some members of the Government.

Gibraltar is British, and its people want to remain so; who can blame them for that? That is unquestionable to anyone who has ever gone anywhere near the place or read reports of visits there. That is also clear from the recent visit to the rock by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who, in contrast to the cries of "Judas" that greeted the Foreign Secretary, was met with cheers from well-wishers, who thanked him for standing up for their democratic right to remain British and decide their own future. Having visited Gibraltar many times, I know the strength of feeling held by everyone there, their wish never to be ceded to Spain, in any respect, and their sense of betrayal and anger at this Labour Government's refusal to accept those wishes.

As my hon. Friend knows, I recently visited Gibraltar as a guest of the Government there. Some 30,000 people took to the streets in anger at what our Government are doing in selling out the people of Gibraltar, because they believe, as we do, that the Government should be fighting for their interests. In the Government's discussions with the Spanish Prime Minister, they should be raising the issues of access to Gibraltar, of telecommunications and telephone lines to Gibraltar, and ensuring that Spain becomes a friend of Gibraltar, instead of wanting to poach people whose only crime is wanting to remain British.

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely correct. It is the duty of any British Government, of whatever political persuasion, to defend the interests, rights and freedoms of British people anywhere in the world. The Minister has a duty to the people of Gibraltar, yet he ignores their concerns, fears and wishes.

I draw an analogy between the Spanish Government's attitude to Gibraltar and the attitude of the former Argentine Government to the British territories of the Falkland Islands. I had the pleasure of visiting Argentina in 1996. The Argentines have relinquished their claim over the Falkland Islands because they are mature and realise that it is better to form good relations and to befriend the Falkland islanders than to bully them, as the previous undemocratic Government did.

Only last week, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands, and Argentina is now a democracy. One would be forgiven, however, for wondering whether Spain is a democratic country, because the Spanish Government's attitude and tactics are disgraceful. The Spanish Government should take a leaf out of the Argentine Government's book and change their attitude. They will never win friends or influence the Gibraltarian people if they continue with their approach, so I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley for making a valid point.

At this point, I would like to mention that the Minister and Foreign Secretary have said on numerous occasions that the so-called Brussels process was initiated by a Conservative Government. I have some news that I would like to convey to the Minister. Yesterday evening, I spoke to the noble Baroness Thatcher and informed her that the Foreign Secretary and the Minister had used her name in connection with the Brussels process on many occasions on the Floor of the House. She was incandescent at the suggestion that the actions of the Labour Government today are a result of a process that she initiated.

Baroness Thatcher told me that she was appalled at the prospect of the rights and freedoms of loyal British subjects in Gibraltar being sold down the river. She said, "Gibraltar must remain British." I ask the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all Members of the Government to desist from using Baroness Thatcher's name in this context, because it is dishonest and wrong.

On 7 November 2001, the Minister commented that, on his visit to Gibraltar he had found that

"Gibraltar is a proud place and that Gibraltarians are proud people".—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 88WH.]

What the Minister omitted to say, and the reason why the Government are going so badly wrong, is that they lack understanding about what drives that pride. Gibraltarians are not proud to be a political football between the United Kingdom and Spanish Governments. They are proud to be British, and it is astonishing that the Minister or a member of any British Government cannot understand that.

Hon. Members should consider the demonstrations mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley that took place in Gibraltar on 18 March. Between 25,000 and 30,000 people—about 90 per cent. of the population—took to the streets to express their disgust at the Government's position. Imagine 90 per cent. of the Minister's constituents deciding to demonstrate on the streets of Neath. Would he ignore their wishes? He would not be a Member of Parliament for long if he did, and nor would any of us. That enormous display of anger and fear about their own future shows that the people of Gibraltar have spoken. It is time for the Government to acknowledge those wishes.

Furthermore, according to recent opinion polls such as that undertaken by MORI in March, 80 per cent. of people in Britain support Gibraltar's right to self-determination. A staggering 300,000 supportive messages and 45,000 e-mails reached the Government of Gibraltar office in London following press advertisements. Only the British Government continue to ignore Gibraltar's wish to remain British in its entirety and in perpetuity.

Two weeks ago, we all celebrated the magnificent occasion of Her Majesty the Queen's golden jubilee. It was an occasion for all British people, including the people of Gibraltar, to celebrate 50 years of our Queen being on the throne of our country. During the week of celebrations, a national newspaper said:

"While Britain enthusiastically celebrates the Queen's 50-year reign, her Government is pursuing a squalid campaign to deny Gibraltarians their fervent wish to remain her loyal subjects."

It is a shameful indictment of this Government that, during the Queen's golden jubilee, they are betraying 30,000 of her most loyal subjects. The Government must realise that they have given the impression that they are betraying those people, even if they do not consider that they are doing that. They must acknowledge that, and they must end what has been described in that national newspaper as "a squalid campaign".

I turn to Spain, which is the country that would like to incorporate Gibraltar into its own kingdom. Spain is, supposedly, a modern, democratic European nation state, and I congratulate the King and the people of Spain on the enormous progress that their country has made during the past 20 years with regard to becoming a democratic country. However, it saddens me that an ally of ours—a country that is a member of the European Union and NATO—should continue to treat a small territory that is adjacent to it in such an appalling and undemocratic fashion. Although Gibraltar is historically and geographically close to the kingdom of Spain, it cannot be right that Spain a modern, democratic country—should continue to treat Gibraltar in such a way.

I offer some quotes from a speech that the chairman of the Gibraltar Federation of Small Businesses made at a recent meeting of the Congress for Democracy. She highlights many of the areas where Spain is behaving not as a modern, democratic country that respects human rights, but as a country that one would be surprised to learn is a democracy on the evidence of its behaviour to Gibraltar. She said:

"As part of the overall strategy of Spain to cause whatever harm it possibly can to Gibraltar, it has, with its British Government allies, managed to ensure that all airport-related measures specifically exclude Gibraltar, albeit that we are a British territory within the EU."

She went on to say:

"One has to question the logical reason for two democratic countries with populations of 60m and 35m to try to impose their joint wishes on a country of only 30,000 people."

That is a valid point.

Her third point is as follows:

"The persecution and aggression from Spain continues. Despite agreement when Spain joined the EU and opened the gates to Gibraltar, it continues to refuse to allow direct access by air or by ferry. When bad weather requires the closure of Gibraltar airport, the airlines are forced by Spanish air traffic control to take their passengers to Tangier in North Africa, then transfer them to Malaga, where they invariably face baggage delays and security checks. Why place passengers at risk by insisting on a visit to North Africa when the flight path to Gibraltar is directly over Malaga airport which by air is less than ten minutes away?"

I am glad that she made that point because my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley and I had that experience only four months ago. We attempted to fly to Gibraltar, but we were diverted to Tangiers, because the kingdom of Spain-which is our friend and ally—would not allow the Gibraltarian flight to land in Malaga. We had to go to Tangier, where the flight had to be designated as a Tangier-Gibraltar flight. What country would treat an ally and a friend in such a way? What democratic country can justify such actions?

Marie Lou Guerrero continues:

"Contrary to EU law, the Spanish Government has chosen to limit international telephone links with Gibraltar. It refuses to accept … Gibraltar's international telephone code and has amended its telephone system to block the roaming facilities of Gibraltar mobile phones … The border with Spain has endless queues 24 hours a day. There is never an official reason for the delays and regardless of the British Government and EU Government claim that it has been condemned at 'high levels', the queues continue."

Those of us who have been to Gibraltar have seen those queues, and they are a disgrace. How can a fellow member of the European Union behave in such an obnoxious manner toward the kind, generous people of Gibraltar? How can it justify such actions?

Marie Lou Guerrero's final point is:

"Spain continues to veto any international event that Gibraltar enters whether it is a dog show or a sporting event. Within the EU, it continues to veto all legislation unless Gibraltar is excluded, except, of course, when Gibraltar's inclusion will cause extra work or hardship to the population. Gibraltar has implemented more EU legislation than Spain and during a recent check it was revealed that the number of directives to be implemented in Spain was more than those pending in Gibraltar."

The evidence is very clear, but does the Minister speak up for the people of Gibraltar? Not a bit of it. He continues to compromise with the Spanish Government. He continues to pander to the Spanish Government and to those in Brussels who want to see an end to territories such as Gibraltar throughout Europe.

I make no apologies for raising my next point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition recently planned to visit Spain and meet the Prime Minister of Spain. That meeting was cancelled at short notice. How can the Prime Minister of Spain, who is the leader of a centre-right party, deny the leader of another centre-right party the opportunity of a bilateral meeting?

What is the Spanish Government's obsession that means that they cannot see that there are greater objectives in a modern world and a modern Europe than simply arguing over Gibraltar? It is utterly wrong that Spain chooses to behave in such a manner. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition rightly continued on his visit to Gibraltar and ignored the Madrid Government's strong objection. It is time that the Prime Minister and Ministers in our British Government showed that same integrity and sense of duty on the issue.

Our Government are losing the debate on Gibraltar and resorting to the old tactic of discrediting their enemies and those who highlight how wrong they are. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs' complaint to the Chief Minister about the lack of financial information from Gibraltar is part of that desperate and dishonourable tactic because Gibraltar is regarded as one of the best-regulated financial centres in the world.

During the past four years, Gibraltar has enacted strict new banking and financial codes. Gibraltar's financial services industry has met the standards set by many international organisations including the United States' Internal Revenue Service. Only last March, the industry received a glowing endorsement from the International Monetary Fund. The industry also follows European Union financial regulations. Yet the Foreign Secretary has even accused Gibraltar of failing to inform the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of financial information pertaining to the territory. How desperate must the Government be to make such unfounded accusations?

The facts are clear. All the Government's revenue and expenditure in Gibraltar is scrutinised by the House of Assembly at the time of the Budget, published and then passed to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. What could be simpler than that? The accounting and financial affairs of Gibraltarian Ministers are controlled by the Accountant-General. The accounts are scrutinised by the House of Assembly. Equally, the Government's procurement contracts are put to tender in an open and transparent manner.

Amid such despicable allegations, the Government wonder why the Chief Minister will not attend talks on sovereignty. Mr. Caruana is to be commended on taking such a position of principle. There should be nothing to discuss in the first place. If there were, it should be when Spain will drop its totally unfounded claim to Gibraltar. As secretary to the all-party group on Gibraltar, I receive letters, e-mails and messages from people throughout the country about this subject.

Yesterday, I met two constituents in Romford who are Gibraltarian and who wanted to protest about the Government's actions. One of whom was Charles King, a local artist. He has painted a magnificent portrait of the rock of Gibraltar, depicting the Barbary apes and the Union flag. Sadly, in the portrait that he has so skilfully crafted, the Union flag appears to be fading in the background. It is so disappointing that a native Gibraltarian who now lives in Britain feels the need to depict such imagery.

I hope that the Minister will consider the emotion surrounding the matter and the fear among Gibraltarian people, both living on the rock and in the United Kingdom. The brother of my other constituent, Lucy Cahill, designed many of the stamps and commemorative memorabilia of Gibraltar. I thank both of those constituents for their help in our campaign to keep Gibraltar British.

The Minister should realise that he and his Government have aroused anger and fear about their real motives in respect of Gibraltar and how such action connects with their overall strategy of taking Britain further into the European Union and the Brussels monstrosity. If the issue of Gibraltar is ever to be settled, the territory must indeed—as the Minister for Europe wrote in Tribune—"be decolonised". In accordance with the overwhelming wish of its people, Gibraltar must be allowed to achieve devolved integration with the United Kingdom. France, the Netherlands, Spain and Denmark have all to varying degrees incorporated their overseas territories, with the result that they are constitutionally stable and not subject to repeated debates and referendums on their future. Devolved integration would be a modern, European, lasting solution to the Gibraltar issue.

I wish now to put some specific and awkward questions to the Government about their mishandling of the Gibraltar issue. First, what precisely are the legal grounds for the Minister for Europe's claim, made in evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee last year, that the integration of Gibraltar would contravene the treaty of Utrecht? Legal opinion suggests that integration would be compatible with that treaty. Secondly, given that Spain secured the duty-free status of its integrated territories in north Africa with the European Union, why does the Minister for Europe feel that Gibraltar's special tax status would be a barrier to integration? Thirdly, why have the Government made no move to refer the question of Gibraltar's constitutional standing to the International Court of Justice? Until that happens, the Government can continue to claim that any constitutional settlement emanating from Gibraltar contravenes the treaty of Utrecht.

Fourthly, on what legal basis does the Government hold that the treaty of Utrecht remains valid? The treaty has already been broken by Spain's repeated sieges of Gibraltar and by the presence of Jewish and Moorish populations, prohibited by the treaty. It has been superseded both by the treaty of Rome and the United Nations' declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples. The treaty was written in an age when states signed over territories with little regard for their inhabitants, and it is totally incompatible with the democratic age.

It is the treaty that is the anachronism, not Gibraltar. I hope that the Government will finally open their eyes and see the reality of the situation. They are trampling over the people's democratic right to decide for themselves. It is not as if the people are divided on the issue; indeed, nearly everyone on the rock of Gibraltar wants to remain British. Barely anyone in Gibraltar supports a move towards unification with Spain, so why do the Government pursue that policy? There is a great danger that if the casual and flippant attitude of the Government and the feeling of betrayal continue, a much larger problem will loom on the horizon.

Gibraltar must remain British, and the Government should realise that the future of the rock must be stabilised. The only way to achieve that is for the Government to end this so-called "process", to end the discussions, to stand up for the rights of the British people of Gibraltar and to do the duty that they were elected to do. They should defend British people, instead of appeasing Spain and pursuing the wider goal of promoting British participation in everything that comes from Brussels.

I join the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) in congratulating you on your knighthood, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I have known each other for many years and the award, which brings enormous pleasure to you and your family, brings equal pleasure to your many colleagues on both sides of the House.

I welcome the debate on Gibraltar, as will many hon. Members. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Romford on his luck in obtaining the debate. I have taken a close interest in the affairs of Gibraltar and have taken part in debates on the subject for many years. I have visited Gibraltar on several occasions. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am privileged to be the chairperson of the United Kingdom Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and I remind all hon. Members and my right hon. Friend the Minister that Gibraltar is a member of the Commonwealth. The role that I play in the UK branch brings me into regular contact with many parliamentarians from Gibraltar, and we often discuss that issue.

The remarks that I shall make today are my own, but I tell the Minister that many members of Commonwealth Parliaments feel deep concern about what they see as the actions taken by the British and Spanish Governments towards Gibraltar. All of the Government's future actions will be watched closely by fellow members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a family of nations. Whether the matter involves the richer or the poorer members, we closely support the rights of a fellow Commonwealth country when, as I believe is happening to Gibraltar, its rights and the voice of its people are being ignored.

I welcome this debate and the others that have taken place. As the hon. Member for Romford says, it is essential to ensure that the issue is never allowed to disappear. It now receives prominent coverage. It is unbelievable that the British Government are still closely involved in discussions with the Spanish Government on the future of Gibraltar.

The British Government know the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, parliamentarians of all political parties and, above all, the people of Gibraltar about any attempt to give Spain any control over the day-to-day affairs of Gibraltar. They have been told that in referendums and in the many letters that the people of Gibraltar write to us—not the standard letters that we all receive to which someone merely attaches a Member's name or which are merely signed, but letters written by men and women in their own handwriting that clearly express their views on this important subject. The message is clear: "Leave us alone." That is what they are saying. They want nothing to do with the proposals of the British or Spanish Governments about their future.

No one learned that better than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on his recent visit to Gibraltar. There were thousands of people on the streets and thousands of Union Jacks on display. However, I did not read a single poster that said. "Welcome Jack. Jack, you're our friend. Jack, we trust you with our future." I did not see one poster displaying such sentiments on the part of the people of Gibraltar. However, I did see many other posters that clearly showed the true feeling of the people of Gibraltar towards the British Government and my right hon. Friend. Have they not yet got the message, "Leave us alone"?

As the hon. Member for Romford says, vast numbers of people in the United Kingdom fully support the views now being expressed by the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, and he is joined in his view by many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House. I fully support his action in not attending the talks between the British and Spanish Governments, as I do not believe that he is accorded equal respect. He is the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and was elected in a democratically run election. He speaks with the overwhelming and massive support of the people of Gibraltar, who completely trust him in looking after their interests and those of Gibraltar. Yet there is no evidence that his views—the true views of Gibraltar and its people—will be listened to and acted on.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister regularly says that he fully supports democracy, human rights and the voices of free people. No one could say that the people of Gibraltar are not free. No one could say that they do not have a voice in the crucial negotiations taking place, so why do the British Government not listen to that voice? I would not expect the Spanish Government to listen. Many of us know them of old and know the behaviour that they have shown to Gibraltar and its people over many years, as the hon. Member for Romford outlined. However, I would expect the British Government to listen.

I am one of the United Kingdom's representatives on the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. Two weeks ago, commencing on 3 June, the assembly of the WEU met in Paris. One of the main speakers was the Defence Minister of Spain, Mr. Trillo-Figueroa, who represented the presidency of the WEU and the European Union. He made a lengthy speech in which he repeatedly mentioned the importance of human rights, freedom and listening to public opinion. Never did he mention Gibraltar or the discussions between the British and Spanish Governments. I pointed that out and asked him, given his repeated comments on democracy, for his views on the discussions and the clear opinion expressed by the people of Gibraltar.

I have with me the full transcript of that speech and my question. We are not talking about an unknown Back Bencher of the Spanish Parliament, but the Defence Minister of Spain. In his reply to me, he did not once mention the views of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar or of the people of Gibraltar. He talked about the treaty of Utrecht and international law. In his closing comments, he said that he hoped that the Governments of the UK and Spain would have reached agreement on Gibraltar by the end of the year. What arrogance to assume that! He gave no suggestion that he would listen in any way to the views of the people of Gibraltar.

My right hon. Friend the Minister and I know, as do many other Members of the House, that the people of Gibraltar do not trust Spain. That is regrettable, but true. My right hon. Friend has a job of work to do; he must try to defend and sell the proposals. I was a Minister during the premierships of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan many years ago, and often had to defend policies that I was not very happy with. However, knowing my right hon. Friend's background in defending democracy and human rights, I cannot believe that, deep in his heart, he can feel happy in seeking to defend the negotiations.

All of us, whatever party we belong to, are deeply concerned at the lack of interest in politics, the lack of trust in politicians and the appalling low-percentage turnouts at elections. The hon. Member for Romford referred to the volume of letters and e-mails. Given our deep concerns, does my right hon. Friend really think that the electors of this country will have their opinion of and trust in politicians enhanced if they believe that the British and Spanish Governments are driving the matter through, irrespective of what the people of Gibraltar have clearly said? I want the relationship between the United Kingdom and Spain to improve. I repeatedly meet Spanish parliamentarians, and I like them; they serve on a committee that I have chaired at the Council of Europe. However, we are considering the rights of people who have loyally shown their allegiance to this country. This country should now show its allegiance to them.

rose—

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that we must allow the Minister time to respond. I hope that not only Back Benchers but those who will sum up from the Front Bench will use self-discipline.

May I join in the consensus by expressing my pleasure that you have been so rightly honoured, Sir Nicholas? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing the debate, which seems to be a regular feature in this Chamber. We have debated Gibraltar several times in the past few months and it is appropriate, given the meetings that are going on, that we should debate it again. I shall keep my comments brief.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said about Gibraltar's relationship with the Commonwealth; that is worth remembering. Equally, it is sometimes difficult to remember, when one listens to Government speeches, that Gibraltar is also a member of the EU, which it entered, together with the UK, in 1973. It is a European territory, for whose external relations a member state, in this instance the United Kingdom, is responsible. Accordingly, article 227(4) of the EC treaty applies. That is difficult to believe when one reads articles by the Minister—the most recent in The House Magazine—about the impediments posed to our relationship with the EU by Gibraltar. He says that there has been the usual scaremongering about the Government's intentions by those who should know better. However, we are entitled to ask what the Government's ultimate intention is. It is far from clear.

Why do the Government always appear to be taking Spain's side, rather than championing the rights of the people of Gibraltar, for whom they are responsible? The Prime Minister is meeting Mr. Aznar. He has also had the opportunity of meeting the Chief Minister—an invitation that, to date, he has declined. It is worth remembering why the Chief Minister will not come to the talks under the present restrictions. It is all about terms, and the terms are all important. In Spain's words, the Chief Minister was invited merely to express an opinion on matters of his competence. That is extraordinary, given that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Pique, said that the opinion of the people of Gibraltar "is not relevant" to the question of sovereignty. In other words, as the Chief Minister says,

"I am invited to take part in the talks only to express my opinion, but on the sovereignty of my homeland not even to express my opinion. To participate on those terms would be to renounce our right to self determination, which we will never do."

He is right. I ask the Minister to address the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford that the International Court of Justice should revisit the treaty of Utrecht, and all breaches of agreements over the centuries. Does the Minister agree that if the matter were to be referred to the court, we should abide once and for all by the outcome?

I invite the Minister to comment on the suggestion made in Fiji last month by the Deputy Chief Minister, Mr. Azopardi, who proposed using more balanced language in draft seminar conclusion No. 48. He called for the replacement of the reference to the UK and Spain in the description of the process of dialogue by a reference to "interested parties", which would obviously include the Gibraltar Government on behalf of the people of Gibraltar. More important, it called also for the inclusion of a reference to the outcome having to be in accordance with the freely expressed wishes of the people of Gibraltar. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that Spain rejected that idea, but I believe that it is worthy of consideration. I invite him to address that point.

May I add, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the congratulations on your richly deserved honour? I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing this important debate and on introducing it so ably.

We have had three debates in Westminster Hall on the subject of Gibraltar since last autumn. It is worth noting that, in previous debates, the Government have at least been able to drum up support from a handful of Back Benchers. As we have clearly seen today, they cannot get one Back Bencher from more than 400 Labour MPs to turn up.

They are on Select Committee business.

They cannot all be attending Select Committees. The Government cannot get the support of their Back Benchers, which is telling.

We know that there is no support in Gibraltar for what the Government propose. We have heard of the demonstration on 18 March, when more than 25,000 people—about 90 per cent. of the population—demonstrated vociferously against what the Government were proposing. When the Foreign Secretary visited Gibraltar, he was given the mass equivalent of what is described in the Army as an interview without coughing.

Discussions on the subject have been undertaken above the heads of the people of Gibraltar, and without their support—in their name, but without their consent. Equally, there is no support in Britain for the proposals. We have already heard that some 80 per cent. of those polled by MORI said that they supported Gibraltar's right to self determination; and 300,000 responses to a newspaper advertising campaign and 45,000 e-mails give a clear indication of popular opinion in Britain.

As in previous debates, we have not yet been given a satisfactory answer as to why the Government are continuing to push ahead when it is evident that the people of Gibraltar and of Great Britain do not want what is proposed. Why are the Government investing so much political capital in such an obviously unpopular process? Many believe that the Government have gone to all the trouble not for the welfare of those who live on the rock but to secure Spanish votes in the European Union. Ultimately, the Government are prepared to sell 30,000 people down the river so that, at certain EU meetings over the next few years, the Spanish Government representative will raise his hand when the British Government representative asks him so to do. This was always going to be a sordid deal, and the longer the process has gone on, the more sordid it has become.

I realise that Front-Bench Members wish to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I agreed to keep my remarks brief. I shall conclude quickly. It has been widely reported that the talks are now stalled and that the momentum of the process, such as it was, has faltered. I very much hope that that is the case. If it is, will the Minister finally lay the issue to rest today to clarify the whole business? That would allow the people of Gibraltar and of Great Britain to celebrate Gibraltar's remaining British. After all, that is all that the people of Gibraltar have asked for. The Government's initiative has gone on for long enough and appears to have run into serious trouble. It has no support on the rock and none in this country. It is a child with no parents and this orphan should finally be laid to rest.

Sir Nicholas, may I add to the burden of congratulation under which you labour? I congratulate you on your recent richly deserved honour. I am sure that it will be a difficult week for you, dodging compliments around the Palace.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on securing this debate on a subject that remains extremely topical—as each contributor has made clear—yet curiously unresolved. It is nearly five months since we last debated the subject in this Chamber and we have not discussed it on the Floor of the House during that period. The status of the negotiations is still unclear, as are the Government's objectives. Officially, we are given a lot of general themes, but not many specifics.

The hon. Member for Romford said that he understood that the Prime Minister was meeting with his Spanish counterpart. He was right to be wary because, compared with previous meetings between the two Prime Ministers, there has been no advance publicity, no speculation and no—dare I say it—spinning. My office checked with the Downing street press office just to make sure that the meeting was still going ahead and received confirmation that it was. I hope that something will emerge from the meeting other than the usual nice words to the effect that the talks were conducted in a friendly and constructive atmosphere. Such phrases are all very well, but we need to know whether there is a chance of anybody agreeing anything.

The Liberal Democrats take a slightly different position from those Members who have already spoken, in that we support the talks—the Brussels process—whoever started them and whether or not they remain committed to them. We firmly believe that without discussions nothing can ever change and we regret that the representatives of Gibraltar have not felt comfortable with the process and are not party to those talks, although the Minister will no doubt remind us that they have an open invitation to join in.

To be successful, the discussions will require a deal between the Governments. Based on what the Minister has said before, there will then be negotiations with the Gibraltar authorities and, after that, an endorsement of the conclusions will be sought from the people of Gibraltar. That sounds simple enough but the realities are pretty stark, never mind the apparent lack of progress between the Governments over the issue of sovereignty and the problem of the bases in particular.

Even if that problem can be overcome, the mood of the people of Gibraltar is negative to say the least. There is probably more chance of Scotland winning the World cup than of the UK Government holding sway in a referendum. In the past few months, a number of diplomatic efforts have been made to persuade Gibraltarians that the rock is safe. There have been salvos in the local newspapers and even visits by the Foreign Secretary. That process has not been particularly successful. Members have already mentioned the dramatic demonstrations on 18 March, followed by the advertising blitz in the United Kingdom in the middle of May.

Whatever one's views of the Government's tactics or actions, the message from Gibraltar is clear enough. The residents do not trust what the Government and the Spanish Government are up to. After 300 years of British sovereignty, they fear that they will not even have 300 days before they are bounced into new arrangements. However, it does not have to be like that. I have already stated that we support the Brussels process, but I repeat our previous assertions that the three parties must be encouraged to be part of that process.

The Government have set out their four objectives for resolving the dispute: to preserve the Gibraltarian way of life; to offer greater self-government; to improve the practical benefits, whether in access to telecommunications, health services or in other areas; and to achieve an agreement on sovereignty. All that would help Gibraltar by assisting the United Kingdom in pushing its wider European Union agenda.

Gibraltar clearly wants to achieve most of those objectives, even if it is nervous about sovereignty, which may be a slight understatement. Spain also needs to see the bigger picture and wants to remove what it perceives as historical difficulties. Everyone has something to gain from the process, but the process seems designed to fail.

Trust must be the key; the only way in which any settlement will succeed is by winning the trust of the population as a whole. Some may seek to disparage those who lead the campaigns in Gibraltar, but the people of the rock will not be won round if they do not know the outline terms of the discussions between Governments, what form subsequent negotiations with Gibraltarian authorities might take, what period will be allowed for deliberations and what type of question will he asked in the referendum.

Finally, on an issue that has not been focused on today, what happens to any intergovernmental settlement if the referendum is lost, as looks likely? The Government have said that, in that instance, the settlement will not apply but that we cannot uninvent the deal. Perhaps we cannot, but we can formally withdraw from it and confirm that future discussions will start afresh. The people of Gibraltar deserve reassurances on that point and many others.

No one would choose to start from here with the process, given the almost certain prospect of failure. However, with the reality that the Gibraltarian authorities are not participating, a new approach is desperately needed. If the Government are still committed to a referendum, they, too, must be pragmatic about its prospects. Others must play their part. Gibraltar should be encouraged to participate, and Spain needs to pursue genuine and wholehearted confidence-building measures.

The Government in the United Kingdom need to reframe the whole process fundamentally. They must be clear about the measures under negotiation: preserving the Gibraltarian way of life; promoting greater self- government; and easing restrictions on everyday life. They must be straightforward about the terms of negotiation on sovereignty and realistic about the need for a decent period to discuss the conclusions of negotiations. They must also be fair-minded—dare I suggest—about the subsequent referendum process.

It has so far taken 300 years to get us to the present stage. The impression is often given that we have only another 300, or perhaps only 30, days to sort matters out. If that remains the strategy, a huge rebuff is in the offing. The process is right in concept but wrong in execution, and it is doomed to failure.

First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on introducing the debate and on taking such a lively interest in the subject of Gibraltar and foreign affairs in general. My hon. Friend has posed three key questions, to which I hope the Minister responds. I congratulate all other hon. Members who have participated in the debate.

The negotiations with Spain that the Government have conducted—or, rather, misconducted—may have stalled. Given the Government's efforts to bully the Gibraltarians into accepting a deal on joint sovereignty to which they are totally opposed, we would certainly welcome the stalling of the talks, which would give us an opportunity for some fresh thinking. The Government must not suggest that a deal could lie in abeyance, only to reconstitute it later. Given the reported difficulties in the negotiations, today would be an excellent time to announce the suspension of the talks. Doing so would bring great relief to the 30,000 residents of Gibraltar. As my hon. Friends have observed, hundreds of thousands of people in this country have written letters and e-mails in support of the Gibraltarians' right not to have imposed on them a future that they do not want.

Under normal circumstances, I have considerable regard for the Minister, but I must tell him that the talks are a sad reflection on the Government's competence, and show their disregard for Gibraltarians' rights. From the start, the talks have been ill thought-out, and the Government's language has been inflammatory and marked by their incorrigible habit of employing bullying spin. I am sure that the Minister recalls his Parliamentary Private Secretary talking of massive smuggling in Gibraltar, even though it was perfectly clear that there was no basis for that allegation. The Spanish Government provided no evidence to support it. I once again call on the Minister to apologise for that remark.

There are many other examples of such behaviour, including accusations of money laundering and of pensions being owed to Spanish workers. That is all part of the Government's reprehensible use of the black arts of propaganda against the people of Gibraltar. As a result of such intemperate language, people there have no confidence in the Government's ability to look after their interests. The Minister has mocked their numbers and claimed that they are stuck in the past, have been left behind and do not do what the Government want. How can such talk be at all constructive or help to resolve the problems?

From the beginning of the negotiations, the Government held out the carrot of joint sovereignty for Spain, even though they should have known that the people of Gibraltar did not want it and that it would not be enough for the Spanish. Ministers gave way and offered what they could not deliver. It took them months to accept our "two flags and three voices" formula for the talks. If they had done so earlier, we might have been in a better situation than we are now.

Ministers apparently hit on the idea of leaving a joint declaration of proposals hanging, regardless of whether the people of Gibraltar rejected them. I call on the Government to agree that any such joint declaration will be null and void if the people of Gibraltar reject it in a referendum. We had hints in Foreign Office questions in April that the Government might have accepted our argument, and today's debate would give the Minister a good opportunity to calm anxieties in Gibraltar and in the House, and to redeem the mess that the Government have created in the negotiations.

I should make it clear to the Minister that no incoming Conservative Government would feel bound by any agreement on surrendering Gibraltar's sovereignty or by any agreement that had not received the assent of the people of Gibraltar.

The Spanish have said that they will never give up their sole claim to Gibraltar and that, although an agreement on shared sovereignty might be long-lasting, it cannot be fully accepted until the issue of full Spanish sovereignty is tackled. They have said that they will not accept an agreement that does not give Spain joint use of the military base in Gibraltar. With good sense, the Secretary of State for Defence noted how unpopular the talks were and how unacceptable it would be for Britain to have anything less than full control and sovereignty over the military base in Gibraltar.

In short, the Government have bungled the negotiations and shown a bizarre dismissal of the democratic wishes of the people of Gibraltar. As we have heard, Gibraltar has been subject to harassment by Spain, and talks with Spain are needed to resolve those problems. Spain is a good friend and ally of the UK, which is what makes this all so painful. It is surely in everyone's best interests that Gibraltar and Spain should have a good and neighbourly working relationship. Both Gibraltar and Spain would profit from that, and the Brussels process was set in motion to try to achieve it.

I hope and trust that the Minister will take this opportunity to inform the House about the current state of the talks and tell us when we can expect a meeting between the respective Foreign Ministers. We know that the Prime Ministers are currently meeting. I hope that he will also say whether the Government still expect the talks to be concluded by the summer and, if not, what effect their failure will have on British-Spanish relations. We want a clear statement on what will happen if the proposals are rejected by the people of Gibraltar and what their status would then be in the eyes of the British Government.

In November, the Minister asked the people of Gibraltar to judge the Government on their actions. The Gibraltarians' view of the Government's conduct was made clear by the reception given to the Foreign Secretary on his recent visit. By contrast, my right hon. Friends the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the Opposition were given the most warm and spontaneous welcome by the people of Gibraltar, which said it all. Support for the liberties of the people of Gibraltar extends to all parts of the House of Commons—it is not a party political issue—and that has come through loud and clear in all our debates on the matter.

The Government should respect the clear judgment already made by the people of Gibraltar, acknowledge the harm that the Government's incompetence has done to relations between Britain and Gibraltar—and, indeed, between Britain and Spain—and suspend the talks immediately. Rarely in our long history have a British Government conducted themselves with such a lack of sensitivity and succeeded in infuriating everyone concerned.

Echoing the words of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), the Minister has a proud record of defending people's democratic and human rights over many years. I ask him to reflect on what has happened to Gibraltar and on the pressures being placed on the people of Gibraltar by the Government. In the interests of everyone concerned, the talks should be suspended immediately.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Chidgey. I am sorry that I did not have the opportunity to join in congratulating your predecessor in the Chair on gaining a knighthood.

I genuinely thank the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) for securing the debate, because it gives me an opportunity to reply on this important subject. I am also grateful for the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has a long and honourable record of working for the Commonwealth, as well as for the contributions of the hon. Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire), for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring).

The hon. Member for Romford asked me a series of questions, one of which related to the International Court of Justice. The reason why the matter of sovereignty cannot be referred to the International Court of Justice is because both countries must agree to such a referral, and Spain does not recognise the issue as one that comes under the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

I was astonished at the hon. Gentleman's question about statistics because, as the Foreign Secretary said in a letter to the Chief Minister on 19 April 2002, there is a lack of up-to-date statistical information on Gibraltar. A statistical abstract for Gibraltar has not been produced since 1997; five years is a long time without comprehensive official statistics.

In May 1998, a Government-funded consultant reported that Gibraltar's accounts estimates were

"weakly based and little confidence can be placed in them".

There is a question as to whether Gibraltar is complying with its obligations under European Community law on statistics. I should have thought that he would have wanted that matter dealt with, as we are seeking to do with the Government of Gibraltar.

There has been much talk about spin recently. As the House will know, I do not do spin. I shall set out the facts, clearly and simply. We made it clear from the outset of the negotiations last July that our shared objective was a future in which Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and the opportunity to reap the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region, and that the guiding principle was to build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and, yes, for it to retain its traditional British way of life and citizenship.

When the talks come to an end, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement in the House setting out the agreement that we have reached or explaining why we have not reached an agreement. As we have long said and as I told the Chamber on 31 January, there is nothing inevitable about such matters. A solution to the Gibraltar dispute has eluded Britain and Spain for more than 300 years. It may continue to elude us. We may have to wait a while. As we have also made clear, no agreement is better than a bad agreement.

Our objectives in the negotiation are simple. They are to preserve Gibraltar's way of life, establish greater self-government for the people of Gibraltar, deliver lasting practical benefits and a stronger economy and secure a permanent agreement on sovereignty so that Gibraltarians can enjoy security for their way of life—a security that they have not enjoyed during 300 years of dispute. I remember also saying on 31 January that we are negotiating with Spain a framework agreement, a set of principles for a settlement that we would commend to the people of Gibraltar. It would be a basis on which we would invite the Government of Gibraltar to join us in putting flesh on the bones and to work up detailed arrangements that could be put before the people of Gibraltar in a referendum to which we remain committed.

We are not selling out Gibraltar. No deal will be implemented unless the people of Gibraltar agree in a referendum. We are not doing deals over the heads of the Gibraltarians. Contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for East Devon, we offered the Chief Minister—and, through him, the people of Gibraltar—a place at the table from the start. It was always—contrary to the assertion of the hon. Member for West Suffolk—on the basis of two flags, three voices. We made it clear that the Chief Minister could help to shape the outcome and that, if he did not like it, he would not be bound by it. He refused. We have not excluded the Gibraltarians; Peter Caruana has.

We are not hiding an already done deal. There may not be one. There will not be one unless it meets our bottom lines. We are not giving Gibraltar away to Spain. As I have made repeatedly clear in the House, there has never been any question of doing so. We are pursuing the negotiation for two reasons: for Gibraltar and for Britain itself.

We are doing it for Gibraltar because Gibraltar will not thrive while the dispute festers. It will not thrive as long as Gibraltarians have to put up with the everyday disruption that they currently endure, such as uncertainty and queues at the border, telephones that do not work and air services that do not fly, to which Opposition Members have referred. Gibraltar will not thrive as long as its economy cannot fully modernise and join the new global marketplace, attract new investment, remove barriers that separate it from the wider region or secure full access to the largest single market in the world—the one on its doorstep, that of Europe. Such matters all require an end to the dispute with Spain.

We are entering into such negotiations for Britain.' do not apologise for that, because the dispute is damagingour interests. Our trade with Spain is worth more than £8 billiona year. It supports thousands of British jobs in our constituencies. I am astonished at the anti-Spanish prejudice shown by Conservative Back Benchers.

Will the Minister give way?

Not for the moment. I want to make progress. If I have time, I shall give way later.

Our alliance with Spain in Europe in helping us to deliver a European Union of strong nations and a European economy that creates jobs and prosperity across Britain. However, that relationship remains constrained by the Gibraltar dispute. If we are really going to get the best for Britain out of our links with Spain, we must fix the issue.

Real things are at stake in the EU, too. The dispute has blocked or delayed benefits such as the liberalisation of the European aviation market, in which British companies will do very well. We want measures to make air travel safer, flights cheaper and delays shorter for the British people and British businesses. Those are real things that real people—including our constituents—want, and they are obstructed or delayed by this dispute. The dispute affects not only 30,000 Gibraltarians—although their rights remain paramount—but 59 million Britons.

We are not doing this for fun. Nobody who saw the treatment that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary received from some of Her Majesty's citizens during his recent visit to the rock would think that. He deserves not abuse but credit for setting out for the people of Gibraltar some difficult home truths that many of them still do not want to hear. That is the honesty and real leadership that people in Britain want from their Government Ministers.

I draw a comparison with the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), and with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Their strategy has been the complete opposite: to tell the Gibraltarians only what they want to hear.

We are not doing this for the Spanish, either. Anyone present, as I was, at the tough negotiations with the Spanish, would know that it was not some cosy love-in. The truth is that this is an outdated historical dispute that has no place in modern Europe.

It is striking that the speeches from Back Benchers—especially Conservatives—and, despite my admiration for him, from the hon. Member for West Suffolk, put forward no alternative. No clear alternative policy is being put forward by the Conservatives for resolving this dispute—only shouting and screaming. We have tried and will continue to try honestly to resolve this dispute.

That is an absurd caricature of what the Conservative party has said. There is a powerful echo in this dispute with the way in which the question of Northern Ireland sovereignty was handled. The Republic of Ireland was told from the beginning that there was no question of joint sovereignty. Once the issue of sovereignty was taken away—once that thorn was removed—all other discussions became possible, including on possible relationships across border. That is the basis on which to operate, given what was guaranteed to the people in the treaty of Utrecht. It is a parody for the Minister to say that we have no considered view on how to handle the dispute.

The real parallel with Northern Ireland is that negotiations took place between parties and groups that had been locked in an historic and bitter dispute. The only way to resolve the dispute is to talk to Spain, which is what we have been trying to do. The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned sovereignty. The Brussels-process negotiations—begun, I say to the hon. Member for Romford, under Baroness Thatcher's Government in 1984 and continued under every successive Tory Administration since then all the way through the 1990s—included the issue of sovereignty. It is part of the Brussels-process framework, launched and agreed by the Conservatives under Baroness Thatcher.

We have come a long way since we and Spain reopened the talks last year. For the first time in history, we talked honestly and openly about Gibraltar and how to give it a secure future. We have built confidence between Spain and ourselves. The talks have been tough, but we have both reached a better understanding of each other and our respective interests. Whatever happens, I am confident that the strong relationship that the Government have already built with Spain will endure.

We have also seen efforts by Spain, which we have encouraged, to build confidence where it is most needed: between Spain and Gibraltar itself. The second channel at the border opened in March, and queues that sometimes took hours have been cut to minutes. Foreign Minister Josep Pique's personal letter to the Gibraltarians—the first ever by a Spanish Foreign Minister—in which he sought a new relationship and understanding was another example.

We never thought that this was going to be easy, and it has not been. Serious differences remain between us. With regard to the longevity of any agreement to share sovereignty, we insist that it must be certain and enduring; it cannot be a slippery slope to full Spanish sovereignty. We also insist that the military facilities in Gibraltar must remain under British control. However, the most important consideration is the role of the Gibraltarians. We insist that they—rather than Spain or the British Government or anyone elseߞmust decide whether to accept any agreement on sovereignty. It isnow make your mind up time for Spain. It knows our bottom lines. There will be an agreement only if it meets them, and if we believe that we can commend the agreement to the people of Gibraltar.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Spanish Foreign Minister Pique will meet in a few days at the Seville European Council, and in London on 26 June, when the details that the hon. Member for Romford asked for will be addressed. The next formal Brussels-process meeting will take place after that. We would rather have no deal than a bad deal. A good deal must advance the interests of Britain and Gibraltar. We will not sign up to anything that does not do that, and Gibraltar will have the final decision.

The Opposition do not care about British interests. They are not even interested in having a serious debate. Is that the case because Gibraltar is the only place left on earth where anyone is pleased to see the Leader of the Opposition? I offer a quote from the Daily Mail, which is not usually a source of support for the Government. It reported his recent visit to Gibraltar thus:

"This is little short of political paradise for lain Duncan Smith. Hugged and kissed at every turn. Hailed as a saviour by all he meets. Pursued across sun-swept squares by a cheering mob of Union Flag wavers. He would be lucky to get a welcome like this at his own birthday party at a Tory party conference, let alone walking down a street. There is only one slight problem: this lot can't vote."

I welcome the current policy of the Opposition, and I hope that they will carry on with it, because saloon-bar nationalism—the frothing at the mouth about sovereignty and their obsession with Europe—is what lost the Tories the last election. I hope that they will not heed the words of a former Chairman of their party, who was rather good at winning elections. On 17 May, Chris Patten said of these negotiations about Gibraltar:

"I am amazed at the criticism … because the concessions Labour are considering are the same as the ones John Major's government was willing to make."

Of course, Chris Patten was a member of John Major's Cabinet. He continues:

"In politics, it is important that parties do not lose their sense of history. Some of this criticism expresses an out of date and completely obsolete vision of Spain. What Straw and Pique are trying to do is very difficult and complex, but not impossible."

Baroness Thatcher began this process in 1984. Every successive Conservative Administration continued it, and we are now trying to settle the matter. If we do not settle it now, it will not get settled for a long while. There is an historic opportunity and we have made a big investment of time and effort. If this does not work, we will turn to other matters, and Britain and Spain will be losers, but the biggest losers will be the people of Gibraltar.

I wish to offer the Minister an opportunity to withdraw his facile remarks about the Conservative Opposition being anti-Spanish. It is possible to be pro-Spanish as well as pro-British and, by definition, pro-Gibraltarian.

I am a Minister in this Government and I am pro-British, pro-Gibraltarian and pro-Spanish, which is why we are trying to resolve this matter. I have made it clear that the prejudices that have been expressed did not come from the Conservative Front Bench, but they were revealing about the real views that some of the party's Back Benchers hold about Spain.

The Minister intimated that the Government are attempting to bring the process to some kind of conclusion. Is it realistic to hope that we might have a statement in the House by the Foreign Secretary before we rise for the summer recess?

I do not know. It depends on how long the discussions take.

The people who really care about Gibraltar's interests are not the Conservative party. The real patriots are not the Tories: they are those who recognise that this issue is damaging British interests, as well as those of Gibraltar. The real patriots are those who honestly try to do something about the matter, despite the difficulties, and who are determined to find a solution in the interests of the people whom we represent—our constituents, the people of Britain. The true Brits are those of us who understand that British interests are being damaged by the dispute, and who remain determined to ensure that that damage ends.

I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the serious matter of channel tunnel rail link domestic services. I have advised you, Mr. Chidgey, and my right hon. Friend the Minister that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) are also hoping to catch your eye and make a brief contribution.

Services are intended to run on the new £5.2 billion channel tunnel rail link when the Ebbsfleet terminal becomes operational in 2007. The reason for securing the debate is that we in Medway believe that the Strategic Rail Authority has failed to understand how fundamental that service is to the Thames gateway strategy. Without improved rail networks between Medway and the capital, the regeneration of north Kent will fall well short of all our expectations.

It is not my intention to present a picture of doom and gloom in respect of north Kent. It has had record levels of new investment, including new hospitals, schools and roads. Most recently, there was an announcement of the expansion of the universities on the Medway campus. There are to be some 6,000 additional students. The Government's commitment to Medway and the rest of north Kent is not in question. Their record to date is one of action. I have listed a few examples, but there are many more. We should not forget that the Government, under the Deputy Prime Minister, rescued the channel tunnel rail link from the financial regime implemented by the Tories. History tells us much about the Tories' record and their economic competence when it comes to running railways.

Medway and north Kent have been transformed since the 1980s, when unemployment rose to nearly 20 per cent. and depression hit hard. They are now areas of growth and low unemployment. However, this debate is about the future of not just my constituents and those of my hon. Friends or the region, but of London and the UK economy as a whole. In the next 20 years, 50,000 new homes will be built throughout north Kent, accommodating 100,000 more people. Some 84,000 new jobs will be created and 22 million sq ft of additional floor space for businesses will be provided.

The scale of change is considerable, so the challenge for all involved is to get it right. The responsibility of those delivering public services is to maximise cooperation and partnerships so that the necessary infrastructure is put in place. That will engender confidence in the private sector so that we can all realise the full potential that north Kent has to offer. One of the key players is and has to be the Strategic Rail Authority, because it will determine whether Medway and other parts of north Kent have a link to the terminal at Ebbsfleet, and so to London. We have serious concerns that that is not the SRA's intention.

I ask the Government and my right hon. Friend the Minister whether we are five years away from the transformation of rail infrastructure for north Kent, and from being able to realise the potential of the gateway, or whether we will fail when the first opportunity arises to lay a foundation stone for new rail infrastructure. Will the Government agree to the SRA allowing channel tunnel domestic trains to thunder through Kent and not stop at the largest conurbation in the county—Medway? Let us imagine train after train going through Kent every day and not stopping at Medway, even though all the peak trains on the existing services from Medway are packed to the gunnels. Some 12,500 people board trains in the Medway towns every day. That has gone up in the past year by 4.8 per cent. That trend and growth will continue.

It is necessary to carry out signalling and other infrastructure work to allow new trains to run along the north Kent line and on to Ebbsfleet and London, yet the SRA has only now begun to examine the cost of the work. I say only now because it will begin the tendering process in the autumn. Whoever wins the franchise will be expected to procure the rolling stock, undertake the infrastructure works and run the service. Given the potential for delay, serious anxiety has been expressed that the trains will not be ready on time. The calamity of having brand new track and links but no trains to service can be imagined.

This is not a little, local issue. Only last year, the Government confirmed that the regeneration of north Kent is a regional and national priority. The SRA has yet to advise key partners. including the Government and the Thames gateway Kent partnership, of its thinking about the franchise specification. We do not know where trains for the domestic service will stop or how frequently they will run.

Most alarmingly—this is the key motivator for the debate—all we know is that the franchise concentrates solely on channel tunnel domestic services from St. Pancras, Ebbsfleet and Ashford, with running-off services to Medway and elsewhere, such as Sittingbourne, as optional extras, or add-ons that are nice to have. That is a disastrous prospect. If the only terminal for people in Medway to access is at Ebbsfleet, one can imagine the additional traffic on the M2. The additional infrastructure will not be cheap. The proposals of the SRA in its present guise will dissuade interested commercial operators.

The first stage of the channel tunnel rail link is nearing completion. Throughout the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, we in Kent lobbied hard to ensure that there would be domestic services on the link. From our perspective in Kent, it is entirely reasonable that, if we are to bear the brunt—especially through the Medway towns—of a project that will benefit the entire country, there must be some net gain for the largest conurbation. That gain comes from the domestic services.

The issue cannot be seen simply in terms of rail infrastructure. It must be seen in the context of the entire Thames gateway programme. Medway must be connected to the channel tunnel rail link. It cannot be an optional extra in the SRA's franchise; it cannot be a nice-to-have or an add-on. I hope that in responding to me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the SRA's franchise will run channel tunnel rail link domestic services through Kent and that there will be an explicit requirement to include the Medway towns and other parts of north Kent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on having secured this important debate. I thank him, you, Mr. Chidgey, and the Minister for allowing me to contribute.

I bring great news from the heart of Kent. The channel tunnel rail link is on time, on schedule and on budget. Phase 1 is a sight to behold, with the North Downs tunnel, a splendid piece of engineering. The new CTRL Medway bridge has risen from the mists of the river Medway, and the overhead gantries are now shimmering in the sun along the route—at least for this week, while we have the sun. The entire route will be complete by 2007. High-speed trains to and from Paris, Brussels and the mainland continent will never have to trundle through the Kent countryside again. All that will have taken us only 20 years since the passing of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, the largest conurbation in Kent—the Medway towns, of which Gillingham and Rainham are part—could miss out. My constituents could be left on windswept platforms coping with leaves on the line and, of course, the wrong type of snow. That certainly was not the intention of the rail barons of the mid-1990s.

Looking back at Hansard, one sees that in January 1995 the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), said on Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill:

"The Bill provides … for a combined international and domestic passenger station at Ebbsfleet … A connecting line to the north Kent line … will enable trains from the Medway towns to join the link for fast running into St. Pancras."—[Official Report, 16 January 1995; Vol. 252, c. 465.]

A year later, the then Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), said:

"Domestic rail travellers will also benefit from the new line…the Government will be reserving capacity on the new line for up to eight domestic trains an hour in the peak period. The new services should start as soon as CTRL is open … The increase in overall rail capacity will help ease congestion".—[Official Report, 29 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 1000.]

I assure you, Mr. Chidgey, that there will be no fast-running services into St. Pancras from Medway, they will not start as soon as CTRL is open. and congestion will not ease for my commuters or for many thousands more in Medway towns and the surrounding area unless there is a reaffirmation of the commitment to the original intention of CTRL domestic services.

We are well aware of the processes that the Strategic Rail Authority must follow. We recognise that there are technical hurdles to overcome in order to supply the services. However, it must be recognised that some of the improvements are already required, such as a power upgrade and improved signalling, to name but two. It would be wrong if those costs were borne in entirety by the successful bidder for the CTRL domestic services franchise.

As my hon. Friend said, noises emanating from the SRA give the impression that CTRL domestic services to Medway will not be at the forefront of the tendering process in the autumn. Such a decision would on its own be a betrayal of the commuters of Medway and Gravesend—but the issue does not stop there.

Medway is at the heart of the Government's national regeneration area—the Thames gateway. The Government have supported the area investment framework from the Thames gateway Kent partnership, which is a public-private sector organisation that has a vision of transforming north Kent, creating 100,000 new jobs and 50,000 new homes, and building on new inward investment. CTRL domestic services are not only another route into London, but a major catalyst to realising the Government's regeneration dream in north Kent.

Will the Minister reaffirm the Government's commitment to proper CTRL domestic services in north Kent? Will he recognise the importance of the Thames gateway in delivering the Government's regeneration policies? Will he take the opportunity to remind the SRA of the importance of Medway to the whole regeneration project?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing this extremely important debate. I can be brief because my task is simply to support both his detailed and careful submissions and the poetic observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark).

I start by addressing the same theme of achievement in the Medway towns. During the past 10 years, the economic aspirations and well-being of the Medway towns have been transformed. Three of the four main priorities that my hon. Friends and I had when we all started our stewardship in 1997 have been all but secured. We have achieved in securing a university base; we used to be the largest conurbation in Europe that did not have a university. We have achieved in securing all the land that is necessary for the regeneration of the post-industrial riverside site, which has disfigured the centre and heart of the Medway towns. We have received multi-million pound investment to improve infrastructure and to release resources from the wealth of Thamesport and the Island of Grain.

Those achievements have occurred for several reasons. The first is that there was an enlightened council during the 1990s. The second, I hope, is some small contribution from the Members of Parliament who represent the Medway towns. The third is multi-million pound investment by the Government in the fortunes of the Medway towns. I say with great respect to my right hon. Friend the Minister that he, as much as anyone in the Government, has been a friend of the Medway towns, at both his present and previous Departments.

After that uncharacteristic eulogy, I shall come to the essential problem. I know that my right hon. Friend understands that I am not overstating matters when I say that if we do not get the CTRL infrastructure through to the Medway towns to provide the service into London, all the fruits of that investment will be placed in jeopardy. We simply cannot be expected to attract the extra investment in money and skills necessary to take advantage of the steps that we have already made if a third world rail service continues to run into the heart of London from the biggest conurbation in the south-east.

There are two reasons why the CTRL is important. First, there is the economic and commercial importance that we have emphasised. Secondly and almost as importantly, the link is essential to the identity and psychology of the Medway towns. The CTRL, so graphically described in its present state by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham, represents an unhappy metaphor for everything that has happened to the Medway towns since the closure of the dockyard—in that it goes straight past and does not stop. At the moment, so far as we can understand from the Strategic Rail Authority, there are no definitive plans for that area to create real benefit from CTRL domestic services.

I know that my right hon. Friend understands our strength of feeling and the importance that we put on the development. He will do the best that he can to ensure that the Strategic Rail Authority is precisely that—an authority for the proper strategy of public service, not for the interests of rail operators.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss the channel tunnel rail link and domestic services for north Kent. I also welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Paul Clark) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I am only grateful that there was no Government Whip present to witness my hon. and learned Friend's favourable comments.

Before I respond on the main issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, it may be helpful if I provide a background to the CTRL project and the benefits that we can expect. The CTRL is a completely new high-speed rail line running for 68 miles between the channel tunnel and London St. Pancras. It will be Britain's first major new railway for more than a century, providing 140 mph running for Eurostar services and fast new domestic services linking Kent with St. Pancras. It will also contribute to regeneration in the Thames gateway, which was rightly identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham as an important regional and national priority for growth, and has the potential to make a major contribution to the economy in the south-east around St. Pancras and Stratford, as well as in several areas in Kent.

The CTRL is being built by Union Railways on behalf of London and Continental Railways Ltd. The project was authorised by Parliament with the passage of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, although I appreciate the much longer lineage ably described by my colleagues.

The new high-speed line is being built in two sections. Section 1 runs between the channel tunnel and Fawkham Junction, near Swanley in north-west Kent, where it connects to the existing Railtrack network, to allow Eurostar trains to serve Waterloo. It also includes connections into Ashford International station. Work on section 1 began in October 1998 and it is more than 83 per cent. complete. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham described its physical impressiveness. It is one of the major civil engineering projects in Europe, and is not only on schedule for completion next year but, as he rightly said, a public-private partnership delivering on time and on budget, with enormous technical expertise. It is worth mentioning that, as the media so often focus on public sector projects that fail.

Work began in July 2001 on section 2, which completes the line by extending it from the new rail link in north-west Kent, under the Thames, to London St. Pancras. Section 2 also includes new international stations at Stratford in east London, linking into docklands and Canary wharf, and at Ebbsfleet, providing fast links to Paris and Brussels from docklands and north Kent. Work on that section is due to be completed by the end of 2006. I particularly mentioned the connection of Stratford to Canary wharf because of the huge increase in employment there—some 4,000 extra jobs a month are added.

The Strategic Rail Authority may take over sponsorship of the project in due course. For the moment, that role remains with the Department for Transport. Significant sums of public sector support—totalling approximately £3 billion—are due to be paid to help construct the CTRL. That will help to provide capacity for fast domestic services, which will revolutionise rail services from Ashford, cutting journey times by 30 minutes. I will speak more about the benefits of the CTRL and domestic services in a minute, but first it might be helpful if I speak about the Thames gateway initiative.

The Thames gateway initiative is the largest regeneration initiative in north-west Europe. It has the potential to accommodate 100,000 new homes and 300,000 new jobs over the next 20 years, largely on previously used sites. Fourteen zones of change have been identified in the gateway, in which the new development will be concentrated. The new international passenger stations at Ebbsfleet and Stratford are key economic drivers in two zones—the Kent/Thameside and Stratford /Royals zones—which are together expected to accommodate up to 46,000 new homes and 100,000 jobs. Medway is another key zone in the gateway, as rightly identified by my hon. Friends. It is a free-standing urban area of around 250,000 population, with huge potential for the renaissance of its considerable brownfield land and as a city of culture, tourism, learning and hi-tech industry.

The Government have established a strategic partnership, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Rooker, the Minister for Housing and Planning. It comprises six Ministers and representatives of the three regional development agencies, regional assemblies and sub-regional partnerships, to drive forward regeneration of the Thames gateway. The partnership is providing the framework within which the area's potential as the major focus for growth and development in the southeast can be achieved. The provision of the new international and domestic services that will be provided on the CTRL from 2007 is critical to the sustainable development of the Thames gateway.

The benefits of the CTRL are enormous. The new railway will bring major transport and economic benefits, including up to eight Eurostars per hour each way from St. Pancras and, owing to the new railway's greater capacity, the possibility of running twice the number of Eurostars to Paris and Brussels at peak times from St. Pancras. Paris will be two hours 15 minutes from St. Pancras by non-stop Eurostar, compared with the current journey time of two hours 55 minutes from Waterloo. Forty minutes will be cut from the journey time to Brussels, reducing it to two hours.

We estimate that growth in the Thames gateway area will be boosted by the CTR L by fostering additional development estimated to be worth about £500 million. Connections to both the west coast main line and the east coast main line will be built near St. Pancras, thus retaining options for service provision in the long term.

My hon. Friends rightly dwelt on the implications for domestic services and future specifications. The development agreement relating to the channel tunnel rail link provides that the following shall be reserved for domestic services. In peak time, there will be four trains per hour between east Kent and London, two trains per hour between north Kent and London, and two trains per hour between Ebbsfleet and London. Off peak, there will be two trains per hour between east Kent and London and two trains per hour between north Kent and London. Travelling from St. Pancras via the channel tunnel rail link, the physical links with the Railtrack network will be at Ebbsfleet, on to the north Kent line, and at Ashford.

I take on board the remarks made by my hon. Friends on the need for access, especially if the ambitions for the Thames gateway and the surrounding area are to be achieved. We need a balanced development to take advantage of the considerable areas of previously used land—brownfield sites—available for development in the north Kent area.

The plan is to start domestic services in 2007. Domestic passengers will travel on high speed, high-quality Kent express trains that will provide a reduction in journey times and a more reliable service. The channel tunnel rail link stations at St. Pancras, Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford will provide a focus for social and economic regeneration. The quality and speed of international and domestic travel for business and leisure will be transformed, offering a stimulus to many sectors of the local and regional economy.

I turn to the matter of estimated journey times. Trains from Ashford to Ebbsfleet will take 19 minutes. Trains from Ebbsfleet to London non-stop will take 15 minutes and, with a stop at Stratford, 18 minutes. Trains from Ashford to London, with stops at Ebbsfleet and Stratford, will take 38 minutes.

The Strategic Rail Authority is working with Railtrack to establish the feasibility of operating the new high-speed trains off the new channel tunnel rail link on the existing Railtrack south-east network, with a view to developing a train service specification and identifying appropriate depot and maintenance facilities for the new rolling stock fleet. This is a complex area, and will involve examination of the power-supply requirements of the new trains. Hon. Members will know that those requirements are already being dealt with through necessary remedial measures. Structural clearances and platform lengths will also be examined. All those areas may involve considerable investment to allow new trains to run on the existing network.

The Strategic Rail Authority is in the planning stage for selecting a domestic operator to run services on the route. The bidding process for the channel tunnel rail link domestic services franchise is planned to start later this year. Through the process, which should be completed by the end of next year, the SRA will seek to select an operator competent to procure the unique high-speed rolling stock that will be required for domestic services on the channel tunnel rail link. That will require synchronising with Eurostar trains, and should follow completion of the route in 2007. The trains will need to be capable of operating at 125 mph, to have fast acceleration, braking characteristics and pressure-sealed doors, and to conform to modern safety standards.

Before I conclude, it might be helpful to give an update on the Connex South Eastern franchise, which runs until 2011. Under the agreement, the company is required to replace all its mark I rolling stock. From the introduction of the new timetables at the beginning of this month, the new class 375s replaced older trains on many of the services on the Ramsgate via Chatham and Hastings lines. There are also plans to introduce metro-style trains on parts of the network. Connex South Eastern has also secured £40 million for expenditure on reliability modifications to its fleet of class 465, 466 and 508 trains. The SRA is in discussion with Connex regarding proposals for an enhanced franchise.

Work is being done, but I fully understand that more needs to be clone to get the channel tunnel rail link up and running. Real progress is being made, and I fully accept my hon. Friends' comments that this is a "once in a generation" opportunity for Kent's railways. It is important to get things right before committing substantial sums of public and private money, and that will be the task of the Strategic Rail Authority. I shall keep a close watch on matters.

I am delighted to have secured this debate, which is particularly apt given that this month sees the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the successful campaign to regain the Falklands. We are also commemorating the loss of 255 men, and remembering the many wounded. The conflict cut short the careers of numerous soldiers, Marines and seamen, but many times that number are medically discharged every year. Sadly, the care of such veterans leaves something to be desired, and would be further reduced were it not for the tireless work of organisations such as the South Atlantic Medal Association 82.

I secured this debate to raise the iniquitous treatment of our service men, which has gone on for many years. In my first year as a Member of Parliament, several people walked wounded into my surgery. One 27-year-old former Marine from Norton Manor camp in my constituency had nine years' experience. He was given poor advice and left the corps because of an ankle problem, losing his place at the top of the Ministry of Defence medical treatment list. He now sits at the bottom of the NHS list, and will not be treated for at least a year.

Gulf war veterans who have suffered terribly from Gulf war syndrome have also come to my surgery. This country has not recognised that condition, even though the United States recognised it eight years ago. Indeed, several people are talking to a US congressional delegation elsewhere in the House today. It is perhaps apt that today's edition of The Sun quotes a widow as saying

"the Government takes this seriously, but things take an awful long time".

I hope that the Minister will take note of that.

I particularly want to mention John "Jacko" Jackson and Martin Walkinshaw, who saw service in the Falklands. Through SAMA 82, they help others to rebuild their lives, and they work tirelessly for their fellow south Atlantic veterans. They brought the Benefits Agency's unfair treatment of veterans to my attention.

The common thread in all these issues is that those who serve in our forces are volunteers, who do military service because they love their country and are willing to put their lives on the line. As a result of serving our country, some pay the ultimate price, while others suffer for the rest of lives. The treatment of disabled ex-service men is unfair, given that they never questioned the fact that their country would look after them if they were injured. As one veteran put it to me, quite a few service men at Bagram airport and elsewhere in Afghanistan would have second thoughts about being there if one explained exactly how the welfare system worked against them.

There is a lot wrong with the way in which we treat those who volunteer to defend our country's interests, and I shall concentrate on one aspect in particular. This debate is about raising awareness of the need for greater liaison between Her Majesty's forces and the Benefits Agency so that the agency treats disabled ex-service men more equitably. One good suggestion would be for the agency to be represented on resettlement courses for service men who seek to leave the Army, the Marines, the Navy or the Air Force. We must educate the senior non-commissioned officers and warrant officers about the benefits system, because they have immediate responsibility and can help their charges to make the right decisions on leaving the corps, the Army, the Air Force or the Navy.

It appears unjust that service men should be disadvantaged because of the nature of their employment and their lack of contact with the outside world. At the weakest moment of their lives, when they have been medically discharged, more often than not lost their home and their career and are having to plan for their future, they do not know where to turn. Perhaps even more distressing is that many of the people in their world do not know how to get the necessary help for them either.

From an annual turnover of personnel in our services of about 20,000, roughly 1,600 service men are medically discharged. The bulk comes from the Army because it is the largest element of our forces, about a third comes from the Navy, which includes the Marines. and the balance comes from the Air Force. The Department for Work and Pensions informed me that the figure includes about 1,000 cases due to physical ailments—mainly musculo-skeletal problems involving broken bones or damaged ligaments, which make service men unfit for potential combat. Some 10 per cent. are discharged on mental grounds involving various problems that it is probably best for us only to guess at. However, less than half of the total receive incapacity benefit, and I am told that the majority do not satisfy the medical test for the personal capability assessment. Those numbers are not huge in Government terms, but each one represents an individual case where the system is failing to treat an ex-service man fairly. The following example is just one small indicator of the poor way in which we treat our service personnel.

After 28 weeks of sickness before his medical discharge, it is likely that a soldier or a Marine, once discharged, would have to claim incapacity benefit at the short-term, lower rate, whereas his civilian counterpart in, let us say, the Ministry of Defence, could claim it at the higher rate. The difference between the two rates is about £9.50 a week, which is withheld at precisely the time that that ex-soldier or ex-Marine needs support. That is despite the fact that he pays the same class A and class D national insurance contributions and the same level of income tax. As I am sure the Minister will tell us in detail, one reason for that among many is that that soldier or Marine would never have received statutory sick pay.

In recent weeks, much effort has been made to acknowledge that there is a problem. That is due to the tireless work of John "Jacko" Jackson, who works for the Benefits Agency in Bridgwater near my constituency and is an active member of SAMA 82. Recently, there has been much movement towards resolving the matter, but that has not always been the case. In response to a letter from Mr. Jackson, a civil servant at the then Department of Social Security wrote in March 1999:

"When sick, there is not the usual need for income replacement as when in Civvy street, and the services provide for their basic needs and have their own medical services outside the NHS."

It is a common gripe among service personnel that those services outside the NHS are no longer what they were. I would say that that civil servant was harking back to former days.

In 1999, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), then Secretary of State for Social Security, wrote a letter to Tom King, the then Member of Parliament for Bridgwater, stating:

"Whilst it is right that servicemen should have proper access to Incapacity Benefit, I am not convinced there is a compelling need to make changes in this area of provision to enable earlier access to higher rates of incapacity benefit".

Those attitudes from three years ago might go some way to explaining the initial lack of progress.

When researching for this debate, the feedback that I received from the Ministry of Defence was that there were only a dozen or so such cases every year. I am sure that that was just a flippant remark from a civil servant, but it adequately demonstrates the nature of the problem and why it has taken the indefatigable work of people such as Jacko Jackson to get the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions publicly to announce that they are willing to try to do something. That announcement shows that things have moved on.

I acknowledge the positive letter written by the Minister on 8 June, which stated:

"I have asked officials from both the MOD and the DWP to try and find a suitable way for implementing the relevant legislative changes so that the anomaly might be removed with effect from April 2003"—

one year away. However, by way of caveat, he goes on to say:

"we are by no means assured of success."

I would appreciate the Minister's views on where the pitfalls may lie in the ensuing 10 months or so.

In that letter, the Minister continues:

"those personnel who want additional cover for injury or incapacity resulting from service in the armed forces have access to commercial schemes."

Sadly, he adds that the PAX scheme was closed to new applicants after the way in which our country responded to the events of 11 September. I regard that as scant compensation for many in SAMA 82 and for those service men who were willing to put their lives on the line for their country and now expect their country to repay that debt. They expect their country, rather than the corporation, to be there for them.

I acknowledge that the MOD has been proactive, but I would have liked to have seen a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions here today. Every week for the past 20 or 30 weeks, I have tried to secure a debate entitled "Treatment by the Benefits Agency of Disabled Ex-service Men", so it is surprising—although I was told in advance—that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence will respond to the debate.

Why has it taken three years to highlight and bring to fruition something that should have been sorted out many years earlier, especially when the Government accept that there is a problem that needs solving? This is an example of how our service men our treated, and it demonstrates that they are treated less fairly than those who wear suits and do not, at least in the same way, lay their lives on the line for their country. I am glad that the debate has highlighted the plight of those who are medically discharged and who are unfairly treated compared with their civilian counterparts. We are a wealthy, well ordered country, and we should be able to sort things out more quickly. It is three years since John "Jacko" Jackson first wrote to the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Work and Pensions.

I acknowledge that the Veterans' Affairs Secretariat is doing its bit, but it could help further by having a dedicated armed forces liaison officer, perhaps jointly funded by the MOD, but certainly funded by some Department, who could train senior NCOs and warrant officers on what is available to those individuals who are considering leaving the forces or who are having that decision made for them. It is a pity that it has taken the Government three years to say that they are keen to resolve the issue, but too many of the Minister's words in the letters that I have seen are conditional on other Whitehall Departments getting their act together. I acknowledge that the MOD has made some great strides, but I seek cast-iron assurances from the Minister and his colleagues in the MOD that the work will be done by next April.

A broader problem remains in society, however, because we do not always adequately reflect on what these individuals do for us and for our country. The work of organisations such as the Royal British Legion, which supports the campaign, the Seamen, Soldiers, Air Force Association, BLESSMA and SAMA 82, which brought the matter to my attention, shows us that, as a society, we are not doing enough for those who are medically discharged. At a time of particular difficulty in recruiting and retaining service men in our professional Army, we are sending out the wrong message about how society will look after those who are badly injured in the service of Queen and country.

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) for giving us the opportunity to consider the treatment of disabled ex-service men and women. Many people have no direct experience of military service, and it is easy to lose sight of the sacrifices made by many of those who served in our armed forces, as well as by their families. I welcome the opportunity to speak about the practical support and benefits provided to ex-service men and women who are incapacitated by illness or disability.

The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised relates primarily to incapacity benefit as it affects armed forces personnel. I have been dealing with that in my capacity as Minister for Veterans, which is why I agreed that I should give the Government's response rather than a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions, as would normally have been the case. To use the standard cliché, it could be described as joined-up government. In case Ministers from other Departments are listening, I should add that the presence of the word "veteran" in the title of future debates will not necessarily guarantee that the Minister for Veterans will reply. However, I take a keen interest in the matter, and it is important that I continue with it.

Before I go into detail, I would like to pay tribute to all those who have been disabled or bereaved as a result of service to the country in the armed forces. The Government fully recognise the debt of gratitude owed to all those who made such sacrifices. I pay tribute also to the valuable work carried out by the volunteer and charitable ex-service organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Incapacity benefit is a flat-rate national insurance benefit that is intended to provide a basic non-means-tested income to people who are incapacitated by illness or disability. As such, it takes no account of a person's particular financial needs. Incapacity benefit replaced sickness benefit and invalidity benefit in April 1995. The main test of entitlement to state incapacity benefits is the personal capability assessment, which sets a threshold of incapacity that must be met in order to qualify for state incapacity benefits.

The incapacity threshold looks at the effect of an illness or disability on a person's ability to perform a range of functions related to capacity for work. Until the medical test is completed, people receiving incapacity benefit must supply medical certificates from their general practitioner. As the hon. Gentleman said, incapacity benefit is paid at three rates: the short-term lower rate payable for the first 28 weeks, which is currently £53.50; the short-term higher rate payable between weeks 28 and 52, which is now £63.25; and the long-term rate payable after 52 weeks, which is now £70.95. Most employees will receive statutory sick pay from their employers for the first 28 weeks of their absence from work. At the end of the 28 weeks, employees may claim state incapacity benefit and receive the short-term higher rate if they satisfy the contribution conditions.

While in service, armed forces personnel continue to receive full pay. However, they are unable to claim incapacity benefit until they leave the service. If they qualify for incapacity benefit on discharge, they will therefore start at the short-term lower rate of incapacity benefit. That contrasts with the position of the rest of the population, whose time spent receiving statutory sick pay—up to 28 weeks—counts towards the short-term higher rates straight away.

The rationale for the current arrangements is that service personnel who are sick continue to receive full pay and allowances until they are discharged on medical grounds. Most receive generous occupational pensions following discharge. In addition, the armed forces control their own arrangements for certifying and dealing with sickness, which means that there is no direct link with the state schemes and the GP medical certification arrangements that underpin it. Therefore, if members of the armed forces leave due to ill health and make successful claims for incapacity benefit, the regulations result in them receiving incapacity benefit at the lower short-term rate, rather than the higher rate, for their first 28 weeks as civilians. That is because their time spent on sick leave for the previous 28 weeks could not be taken into account.

Given that social security legislation will continue to exempt members of the armed forces from the need to claim incapacity benefit while they are in the services, we shall be looking to put members of the armed forces on an equal footing with the civilian population by counting the first 28 weeks of sickness as if it had been a period of statutory sick pay.

Further, the numbers affected by those arrangements are small. The last full year for which we have figures is for April 2000 to April 2001, when there were 1,580 medical discharges from the armed forces. The Navy has by far the most, the Army is second and the Royal Air Force has fewer than 200. Of the total, about 1,000 cases resulted from a disease. The rest were due to trauma. Of the diseases, musculo-skeletal conditions comprised half, with about 150 mental health cases.

Medical staff from the Surgeon-General's department have estimated that less than half of all medical dischargees would claim incapacity benefit and that the majority would probably not satisfy the personal-capability assessment. Despite the fact that the changes were made in 1995, the anomaly was brought to our attention only in 1999 by the organisations and Mr. Jackson. The current policy has been in place for many years. We would be keen to hear details of cases when veterans have been affected by the differing ranges of incapacity benefit, but none has been forthcoming so far. That is why the hon. Gentleman was given what sounded like a flippant reply from a civil servant; there would be few such cases. In reality, I hope that there are a few cases in which such action would take place, although I accept that there is a theoretical risk.

Does the Minister accept none the less that, by the time people work out that they may be entitled to extra benefits, time will have passed on? It is the nature of service men that they do not tend to complain about things in the past—or else many of them would not have turned up in the first place.

I accept that absolutely. Despite the small numbers involved, we are determined to press ahead with the change. We acknowledge that the discrepancy should be rectified to allow days of service when sick to count towards satisfying the 25 weeks' requirement. I regret to say that any changes to the system, however small, will require either an amendment to legislation or complex regulations. They require changes to forms, guidance and training for Jobcentre Plus staff, not to mention computer systems—changes to which are not made lightly. It is not realistic to introduce the change quickly.

I should like to take the opportunity to explain the Government's changes to pension income rules over the past year. as they, too, have led to some discussion. Since 6 April 2001, the amount of incapacity benefit payable to a person who has a pension income is reduced by half the value of the pension in excess of £85 a week. That reflects the fact that many people now receive a pension income before they reach state pension age. The rules for incapacity benefit were brought up to date to reflect significant changes that have occurred in society since benefits for incapacity were first introduced.

The previous rules covering incapacity benefit ignored the fact that many people retired early and had occupational and personal pensions. For example, in 1953, only 28 per cent. of people received an occupational pension. Today, 86 per cent. of men in full-time work are members of an occupational or personal pension scheme, as are 77 per cent. of women who are in full-time work and 35 per cent. of women who are in part-time work. The changes affect those with the highest incomes. The rules for taking account of pension income in incapacity benefit mirror the rules for taking account of such income in the contributions-based element of jobseeker's allowance. However, there is a much more generous disregard: £85 as against £50 in jobseeker's allowance. Additionally, the regulations provide that only 50 per cent. of pension income over that amount is taken into account.

Personal pension income includes occupational pensions paid on cessation of employment. Armed forces service pensions paid on cessation of service are occupational pensions and are treated in the same way as other occupational pensions. That applies equally to both service-invaliding pensions, which are paid after medical injury, regardless of condition or injury or whether it happened on or off duty, and to service-attributable pensions, which are paid when the condition or injuries are attributable to, or aggravated by, service. However, war pensions paid because of disablement are paid whether or not employment in the armed services is continuing. For that reason, they are not included as pension payments. I hope that that explanation is more clear than it sounded.

When considering the legislation, the Government took the view that pension income from all sources should be included, whether provided through an occupational pension scheme, additional voluntary contributions or a private pension. To introduce a disregard for the armed forces, while continuing to take account of occupational pensions for the police and fire services, would be inequitable. The regulations provide that only pension income that a person is actually receiving is taken into account. If people choose to forgo some or all of their pension until a future date, their incapacity benefit will not be affected by the amount forgone. Pension changes apply only to new claims made for a period on or after 6 April 2001.

This is probably the first time that a Minister from the Ministry of Defence has dealt with a question about the service provided by the Benefits Agency. I welcome the opportunity because it provides a powerful illustration that the veterans initiative is working. The initiative arose from one of the wider themes of the Parliament—public sector reform aimed at achieving a co-ordinated approach and an integrated policy across government. Those words are easy for Ministers to use, but are much more difficult to deliver on.

Until now, veterans' concerns have tended to be dealt with on a single-issue basis by the responsible Department or within local government. Because of the Government's determination to provide a co-ordinated Government focus for veterans' concerns, on 14 March last year the Prime Minister announced that I would also be responsible for ensuring that veterans' issues were properly understood, appropriately prioritised and effectively addressed across Government. The appointment of a Minister for Veterans demonstrates clear recognition by Government of the special status of the ex-service community and the unique contribution that they have made to the nation.

Three main priorities were identified for the initiative. First, we must pull together the Government's response to issues that cut across Departments, such as the assistance that is provided to address homelessness or ill health. Secondly, we must ensure that lessons learned are absorbed into the MOD's planning. We need to make sure that we have the right preventative measures in place to minimise later problems such as service lost to injury or illness, and to respond adequately to the challenges of operational stress and resettlement.

Thirdly, we should co-ordinate communication by publicising and demonstrating the full range of assistance offered to veterans by central and local government. That would ensure both that the Government receive credit for what they do and that veterans' organisations have the opportunity to represent their collective and individual concerns to the Government at ministerial level.

The issue of changes to the discrepancy in payments of incapacity benefits for armed forces and air personnel has been discussed in detail by the two new cross-cutting groups set up to help me in my work—the veterans forum and the veterans taskforce. At our last meeting in May, Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions agreed in principle to make the change. Unfortunately, they have been unable to give it a higher priority in their heavy modernisation programme because of other priorities for work with much more wide-reaching results. A clarification is being sought from the Department for Work and Pensions' legal team about whether such a change will need primary legislation, or whether changes to regulations will suffice. The timing of the change can therefore not yet be estimated.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Gulf war syndrome. I should like to correct a misapprehension that appears to have crept into the minds of those who write articles in the press about it. It will not affect the pension paid to any of our ex-service men by one penny if the illness is classified—in my opinion wrongly—as Gulf war syndrome, or if it is classified as something else. Our pensions are paid according to the degree of disability that people are suffering. The labelling of their condition has absolutely nothing to do with it. Some inflated claims have been made by journalists who really should know better, given the effort that we have put into trying to convince them in the past year or two. Pensions are paid according to disability, which is as it should be. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that; I was not suggesting that he did not.

The House will understand that whatever benefits our ex-service men and women receive, it can never be enough to repay the sacrifice of those who risked their health and well-being to defend their country. I hope that the report that this welcome debate has enabled me to present to the House gives some assurance about the progress being made by the veterans initiative to ensure that those who have given so much receive the benefits to which they are entitled. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall keep a very close eye on the matter, and that the changes will be brought in as soon as is practicable.

I wish to return to the subject of unadopted roads—or private roads, as they are sometimes called—which was raised in the previous Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I will not go into the minutiae of the legal position on adopted roads, as that is reasonably well known by people who have explored this arcane subject, and it was run through at length in the debate five years ago. Instead, I wish to draw attention to ways in which we might address a problem that is genuinely held to be significant by many people, and to give a couple of examples.

It is thought that there are about 4,000 miles of unadopted roads in this country. However, that figure might be incorrect; there has not been a survey on the subject for 50 years so. At present, we do not know enough to query it. Later in the debate, I will suggest that we should do something to address that lack of recent information.

There are 31 unadopted roads in Swadlincote, which is a small, ex-mining town of 35,000 people in my constituency. Some of those roads are of considerable significance; they play an important role in the highway network, as they often link two adopted highways, and are used as through-routes by people who do not live along them. That can cause considerable nuisance for the people who do live alongside such roads. They face several problems. They have to bear the cost of maintaining the road—until it becomes dangerous, at which point the local authority can assist. Unauthorised parking can be a problem, and they have almost no recourse to deal with that. They also have the problem of people dumping cars and rubbish. They can be subject to a claim by a person who has an accident on the road, if it can he shown that they could reasonably have done something about it. Those are regular causes of concern and expense to the people who live along such roads.

However, it must be acknowledged that most people who have bought houses in such roads are aware that they have also bought those liabilities. I shall explore ways in which we could deal with that, because they have something to gain from rectifying this situation, so the cost of the solution to it should not be wholly—or even largely—paid by the public.

How big is the problem? It would be helpful if, for the first time in 50 years, we tried to find out how many unadopted roads there are in this country, and how long they are. As I have said, the last survey was done in 1960. We now have an opportunity to collect new data, which would help us to identify the scale of the difficulty that we face.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Order. Under the rules of the House, it is necessary for hon. Members who wish to intervene to give prior notice to the hon. Member who has secured the Adjournment debate and the Minister who is responding, and for both of them to give their agreement to those interventions.

My hon. Friend has spoken to me.

If the hon. Gentleman and the Minister agree to accept the intervention, the Chair has no objection.

I am most grateful. Unadopted alleyways have also long been a matter for concern. With regard to my hon. Friend's call for a survey, does he agree that it is equally important to get a sense of how many unadopted alleyways there are, and to find the funds to make them up?

With regard to unadopted roads, one of my concerns is non-vehicular access. Alma road in Newhall is a link between two adopted roads. Unadopted roads are an important part of the pedestrian network of the town, which is of equal concern to the Government. It is also important to keep those safe and free from nuisance and hazard, so I understand the point made.

Data collected could recognise the cost of contributions towards unadopted roads in the local government funding formula. Some people think that there is no public cost for unadopted roads, but the public purse bears a liability when it can be shown that there is a danger. Regularly within Swadlincote, small contributions are made towards dealing with large potholes appearing in unadopted roads. That is a cost to local government, and it would be reasonable to recognise such roads in the funding formula as a cost to the public purse.

Such recognition would also help to strengthen the identity between the local authority and the residents of unadopted roads, which is currently sadly lacking. Most local authorities take the robust view that they are not generally a matter for their concern unless someone is likely to be badly hurt.

Until the poll tax and then the council tax were introduced, living in an unadopted road was recognised in the bill paid to the local authority—it affected the rateable value of one's house and therefore the rates bill. That is no longer the case, except if one lives on the cusp of a council tax band, when the difference in valuation between a property in an undadopted road and one in a normal road would be significant in tipping the balance into a different band valuation. There is a strong argument for giving a discount to residents of unadopted roads on the part of the council tax bill relating to the highway authority. It should not be a large discount, because such residents use the rest of the road network. Nevertheless, they feel that they do not get any value for the money that they pay the council for maintaining the roads outside their houses, and that should be reflected in how much they pay towards their local authority's costs.

Obviously, highway authorities, especially in the past 10 or 15 years, have found it increasingly difficult to do anything much about unadopted roads. In my area, the last unadopted road that was improved—John street, Swadlincote in 1995—was the last one that the local council was prepared to contemplate. The Minister will surely deal with this matter in his response, but I understand that local authorities can choose to spend their money on unadopted roads should they feel that they are a high priority. At the moment, however, most find that there are many other calls on their purses besides the individual needs of relatively small numbers of citizens, however acute that need may be. Certainly, the retort from a Derbyshire county council spokesman on the local radio this morning was typical: he said that people knew what they were getting into when they bought the property, so it is tough on them. Such a robust approach would not cut much ice with many of the residents, who feel that they pay substantial amounts of council tax and expect higher levels of service. It is not, however, an untypical answer.

In my experience, many people living on unadopted roads recognise their responsibility. Does my hon. Friend agree that residents need a solution whereby costs could be made affordable by spreading payment over a period of time, as was suggested in a letter to me last August from the Minister who formerly had responsibility for the subject, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)?

Indeed, I shall turn to that exact issue. As I said, local authorities have many calls on their budgets and I understand why the issue would have low priority. However, I have approached other bodies.

I mentioned with intent that Swadlincote is a former coalfield town, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley will agree that the problem is especially prevalent in such communities. Often, the towns and villages were built without the great care and attention to utilities and public services that we would expect these days. I have put it to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust that a perfectly good use of its resources would he the provision of a small amount towards environmental improvements based on the adoption of unadopted roads, because that would lead to a significant environmental gain. An unadopted road, through no fault of its owners, often attracts the worst possible nuisances, such as abandoned cars and rubbish. The adoption of such roads would have a wider impact than the benefit of the individuals who live along them. I would welcome the Government's support in drawing the benefit of that opportunity to the attention of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and other bodies that provide funds for coalfields communities. A pump-priming approach would help.

I turn to funding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, some works involve a substantial cost. The family who appeared on the radio with me this morning live on Vicarage road in Woodville. I guess that it would cost about £100,000 to adopt that road. I am afraid that most people who live on unadopted roads—the phrase "private roads" gives the impression of exclusivity and poshness—in my area are generally people without substantial means to contribute to large-scale capital schemes.

A method of dealing with the problem has been explored in correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley shared with me. I have also received a similar letter in response to my inquiry. That method is to allow the cost of the scheme to be spread over several years and to be set against the value of the property on such a road when sold. It is undoubtedly true that the improvement of an unadopted road makes a significant difference to the value of a property, and a householder making such an investment would experience a good return. That approach should be commended to local authorities.

I have a small query about how local authorities account for a debt that is not recoverable for several years. Is there an acceptance of that funding mechanism? Will the Minister tell us whether that method of deferring a payment for up to 30 years and holding the payment against the value of the sale of the property is acceptable and commendable to local authorities?

A cash flow difficulty would be caused by the initial payment to fund the scheme. In most cases, the costs are significant, and if the money were not recovered for many years, the council would face a cash shortfall, which would take money from other services. That is why I have suggested co-operation with other agencies to blunt the edge of the cash flow problem. I want a capital fund to be established that would be available for such projects. That could be drawn down to allow projects to proceed, and as money was repaid to the fund, it could finance further qualifying projects. Such a scheme would encourage local authorities to support a solution to the problem rather than giving it a low priority because they believe that people knowingly buy into the problem by purchasing an affected property. People deserve a higher quality response that offers a way ahead. I hope that some of my suggestions will help to relieve that difficulty, and will provide a solution for hundreds of my constituents and many thousands of people throughout the country.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) for having raised the issue. It is a matter of concern not only in his constituency but elsewhere, especially in the north and midlands and in many of our traditional industrial towns. In answer to one of his queries, my advice is that 1972 is the latest year for which figures are available, when there were estimated to be about 40,000 such private streets throughout England and Wales, amounting to some 4,500 miles.

The 1972 figures are merely an extrapolation on the 1960 data collection. We have not collected the data since 1960. In 1972, someone estimated what might happen in the intervening 12 years.

That was the advice that I received.

In 1990, it was estimated that it would cost more than £2 billion to make up all private streets for adoption. Given the slow rate of local authorities' making up private streets, it is unlikely that the figure has reduced much since, although I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) about alleyways. I have encountered the problem in Smethwick, in my constituency, too.

It might help if I set out the background of private street works law. A private street is a highway that is not maintainable at public expense by a highway authority. The Highway Act 1835 introduced a provision under which, for a street to become publicly maintainable, the responsible public authority must deliberately resolve to adopt it. Nowadays, that authority will usually be the local highway authority in the case of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire, for example, Derbyshire county council. In general, responsibility for maintaining a private street will fall to the owners of the properties adjoining it—known as frontages—who are also legally liable to meet the expenses that the council incurs in making up the street for adoption. As a result, as he said, a significant number are likely to be in a poor state of repair.

Part XI of the Highways Act 1980 contains what is known as the private street works code, under which a street works authority can resolve to make up a private street at any time. After the works, the street is usually adopted. The authority may apportion the expenses of making up the street among the frontages by reference to the frontage lengths of individual properties. However, it may also modify the apportionments if it has resolved in advance to take account of the extent of benefit, if any, that individual properties derive from the works. In addition, the authority may, if it sees fit, contribute to the cost of the scheme itself.

Provision is made for property owners to object to their apportionments if they choose to do so. In the last resort they can appeal to the Secretary of State against the sum demanded. That is the extent of the Department's involvement in individual cases.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the advice of the former Minister responsible, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that a local authority may proceed with making up a road for adoption after consultation and that that does not require unanimity among the residents?

I hope to come to that later.

I now turn to local authorities' discretion to contribute from their own resources. Local authorities have the power to moderate street works charges in four ways. First, as I said, they may take account of the extent of benefit received. They would use that power in order to reduce the charge payable by a householder with a long-flank frontage who may receive little or no benefit from the works. They may make up the difference themselves, rather than re-apportioning the cost among frontages.

Secondly, they may allow payments by instalments. Thirdly, in cases of hardship, the authority may waive reimbursement of the principal sum due until the property is sold and in the meantime recover from the householder the interest on the outstanding charge only, to which my hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) alluded. Finally, local authorities have a general discretion to bear all or part of the cost of a scheme.

In that context, it is worth noting that local authorities have the power to use proceeds from the sale of assets—generally 25 per cent. in the case of council houses and 100 per cent. in the case of most other receipts—on capital expenditure of any kind in any year. It is then for authorities themselves to determine how those usable capital receipts are spent, in the light of local priorities and circumstances.

On 12 June, we announced a draft local government Bill, which proposes to give authorities new freedoms to respond to the needs of their local communities. The Bill includes a new capital borrowing system, which means that authorities will be free to borrow without the Government's consent as long as they can afford the debt. Authorities will be able to use their revenues to finance additional borrowing and that will give them greater autonomy and responsibility for their own decisions in making capital investment. Although local authorities have the power to make payments, I accept that they might not necessarily wish to do so.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire said, there is no doubt that many who live on private streets—particularly those whose houses have long frontages that make them liable to correspondingly high charges—see their liability to pay for private street works charges as unfair. Obviously, I have sympathy for those for whom the charges create a degree of hardship, but liability for street works appear in the local land charges register and should therefore be—and in many cases has been—taken into account in the purchase price of the house. Many householders have already paid for having their own streets made up and might well feel aggrieved at a decision to make the service free to future users—especially in residential roads where the benefits will be enjoyed almost entirely by householders and their visitors rather than by the public at large.

My hon. Friend informed me in advance of the debate of several points of interest to him, several of which he raised earlier. I shall address those points now. First, he suggested that the Government's formula for calculating local authorities' highway maintenance allocations be changed to reflect the length of unadopted roads in each authority area. That option may seem attractive, but many authorities do not have legal responsibility for such roads.

My hon. Friend also suggested allowing residents of unadopted roads a discount on their council tax. However, council tax is essentially a means of contributing to the cost of providing a range of services throughout a local area rather than a specific charge for particular services used or enjoyed directly by individual households. That argument has been used in other contexts.

Council tax represents about 25 per cent. of local government revenue, with the rest provided by Government grant, non-domestic rates, parking fees and rents. At present, there are no specific reductions for residents of households where responsibility for roads and other services have not been adopted, but neither are there reductions for other groups, such as those who do not have children at school, own a car or currently require social services.

The Minister expands a familiar argument. I draw to his attention the fact that provision for schools and social services exists and it is up to citizens whether to use them, but that does not apply to the provision for a road outside someone's house.

That argument may not appeal to the constituent who does not have children and who sees the percentage of council tax that is spent on local education. The level of a household's bill depends primarily on the valuation band to which the dwelling has been assigned. The provision of facilities is a factor that may influence the valuation band in which a property is placed.

As to extra capital funding for unadopted roads, transport capital funding is made available through local transport plans and is provided in two forms. For approved schemes—those of a gross cost exceeding £5 million—resources are provided out of specific ring-fenced funds for the scheme in question and cannot be used for other purposes. For smaller, integrated transport measures—those under the £5 million mark—and for road maintenance, resources are provided as a single, block allocation, and authorities have the discretion to spend that in line with the aims, objectives and priorities established in their plans.

The Government's commitment to improving transport provision after years of under-investment is reflected in the £8.4 billion package that we announced to implement the first five-year transport plans. The £1.3 billion allocation announced for the first year of the plans—2001–02—is more than double the previous year's funding. The Government's introduction of local government transport plans demonstrates that we believe that local government, not central Government, is best placed to address the issues faced by communities, which is why the authorities have the discretion to utilise the capital resources to reflect those local circumstances and priorities.

On making road-adoption schemes part of wider coalfield regeneration projects and obtaining funding from third parties, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is solely funded by Government money and was not set up to provide funding for large capital infrastructure projects. It is an independent charitable trust, and its priorities are to get people back to work using education, training and community enterprise. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire may want to confirm with the trust the position in his area.

My hon. Friend also asked whether there were accounting barriers to an authority allowing a householder to defer the costs to which he or she is liable for bringing a road up to maintainable standards until the property was sold. That question was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, and I am not aware of any obvious barriers. In such circumstances, the authority would in effect be making a loan to the householder, and the capital financial system does not place restrictions on such activities. The authority would simply need to show the outstanding sums on its balance sheets as amounts owing to it. I hope that that assists my hon. Friends.

As I said earlier, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire for raising this issue. That said, the existing system has enough flexibility to allow sensible decisions to be taken, and I hope that what I have said will meet some, if not all, of his concerns.

In view of my right hon. Friend's comments about the possible role of the coalfields regeneration trust, does he agree that if the trust were able to assist in some way, it could play a tremendous role in local regeneration and help to achieve its three prime objectives? Will he support us and make that approach to the trust?

Obviously, we would have to examine the resources that are available to the trust and the current demands on it. Local circumstances may make that more likely in some areas than in others, but I undertake to examine that point and see what progress can be made.

We have touched briefly on some of the issues, and if any of my hon. Friends wants to write to me on specific questions, I shall examine them and answer the points in further detail.