I start by saying gently to the Minister that it is disappointing that we have to have a debate on Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall. You will recall, Sir Michael, that many of us have called regularly on the Leader of the House to arrange for the Foreign Secretary to give a regular statement on the Floor of the House on the deteriorating situation in Zimbabwe. I believe that the Foreign Secretary gave us such an undertaking six or nine months ago, but sadly it has not been fulfilled. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and point out to the Foreign Secretary when he next speaks to him, as no doubt he will later today, that it would be helpful if the whole House could cross-examine him on the Floor of the House on the situation in Zimbabwe.

I intend to stress three separate points—the current position in Zimbabwe, the response to that position, and, most important, where we go from here. The situation in Zimbabwe is dire. During the year, there have been two dreadfully flawed elections: the general election in March, and local elections on 28 and 29 September, which were so deeply flawed that it was clear that thugs from ZANU-PF were telling local tribal leaders that there would be no food if they did not ensure that ZANU-PF's canvas won in their areas. There has rarely been an occasion in a so-called democracy when food has been used as an electoral weapon. That is disgraceful, and should be placed on the record.

You will also recall, Sir Michael, that Zimbabwe was formerly the most successful country in Africa. It is no longer so, due to a systematic destruction of its economy and institutions. The currency is completely debauched, and the only way in which many people survive is by obtaining hard currency from relatives abroad.

It is worth pointing out that real problems have arisen during the past week that will continue until Christmas as relatives return, especially from Botswana and South Africa. They are being treated most brutally at the border; their hard currency is being taken from them and, no doubt, is corruptly going into the hands of officials and Ministers. For many of those people, that money was the only way their families were going to survive.

There is a desperate food shortage, which cannot be excused solely on the grounds of the drought. There have been droughts before and there will be droughts again in sub-Saharan Africa. Until now, the commercial farms have coped extraordinarily well with droughts, as have the grain distributors. In other words, grain has been put away in good times to see the country through the droughts and the difficulties. However, that is not happening now. Indeed, no proper farming is going on. Grain has been sold on the black market to the obvious benefit of Government officials, although a large part of the country is starving, and the World Food Programme has recently said that it does not believe that it will be able to cope with feeding the population.

The tragic figure, which unfortunately is true, is that 75 per cent. of the population of Zimbabwe now lives in poverty. That would be an extraordinarily high level anywhere in the world, but for a country that was once prosperous, successful and a food exporter, it is shocking and disgraceful.

The international response can best be summed up as too much bark and too little bite. We and other western countries have talked a good war, but have done precious little. Some critics would say that the bark has been counter-productive in Africa and the lack of bite has been counter-productive in bringing ZANU-PF to heel. However, if that has been our response, the lack of response within Africa has been devastating. That has damaged perceptions of southern Africa and weakened the promising but embryonic New Partnership for Africa's Development—NEPAD—and the African Union, which I believe everyone in this Chamber supports. The lack of response also has an adverse effect on investment, not only in Zimbabwe but throughout southern Africa.

I hope that leaders elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa, perhaps particularly in South Africa, will reflect on this debate and the fact that the continuing deterioration of the situation in Zimbabwe and the lack of regional action are harming not only the people of Zimbabwe but the whole of southern Africa. We, and to a greater extent they, will have to live with the consequences.

Enough of the current situation and the inadequate responses to date. Let us now try to be positive and see what we can do to help. Our prime objective must be to isolate ZANU-PF in every possible way and make life so uncomfortable for that party that its evil regime will be unable to function in future. It is a regime, not one man, although it is easy to demonise Robert Mugabe—he is bad; he is evil. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) said on the Floor of the House last week, he is comparable with Milosevic and other dictators who abuse human rights.

However, the corruption has spread much wider. The whole ZANU-PF apparatus is corrupt. The senior civil service is corrupt. Much of the commercial world that remains in Zimbabwe is corrupt. Above all, the army is not only brutal but extremely corrupt, as we saw with the recent rape of the Congo, which was hugely to the financial benefit of senior army officers, who pillaged diamonds and other reserves. So what do we do about that? The most important thing is to enforce existing sanctions more rigorously and ensure that they are renewed in February.

Travel is a sensitive issue, as the sanctions include a restriction on ZANU-PF leaders travelling. It causes great hurt in and outside Zimbabwe that senior Ministers and other thugs attend meetings in Europe and elsewhere. We are told that that is because of international law, as they are attending United Nations-sponsored conferences, for example. I am not satisfied with that, and we should pursue it further. However, when these wretched people attend a conference they should be completely restricted to it. The moment that they step outside the conference, except when returning to the airport, they should be deported. They should not be allowed to use attendance at a conference as an excuse to wander up Oxford street and Jermyn street to buy all they want with their looted proceeds, and they should not be able to visit friends and family. To put it bluntly, they should be harassed from the moment they arrive to the moment they leave.

I call for an expansion of the list of those targeted to cover the commercial supporters of the regime in Zimbabwe, who so far seem to have got off completely—the bankers and those who front ZANU-PF's economic interests, including safari operators. Many of those people are white and they benefit hugely from the regime. I hope that when the sanctions are reviewed their travel will be restricted. We know what type they are. Who was the most prominent supporter in this country of the Mugabe regime? None other than Mr. Nicholas van Hoogstraten, one of the most dangerous, vicious crooks that this country has seen, an evil man who is now behind bars and will be for a long time. That is the quality of the backers and supporters of the Mugabe regime.

The sanctions should be further expanded to include another layer of politicians and civil servants, including ZANU-PF Members of Parliament and senior civil servants, who must be subject to the same restrictions as Ministers and Army leaders. I encourage the Minister also to ban their immediate families from travelling, including children and relatives who are being educated in the west. Some will say, "Ah, if we educate these people they will see that western democracy works, so they should be excluded from such a ban," but I do not believe that that will happen. I am convinced that money looted from Zimbabwe, which should go into state education in that country, is instead going into private education in the United Kingdom, America and elsewhere, and that is morally wrong. We should make it absolutely clear that no members of the family of anyone on the sanction list, including the commercial backers, will be allowed any form of education in this country.

I single out one person about whom I would appreciate a response from the Minister. Like me, he will have read a recent article in The Sunday Times about an evil thug called Chris Pasipamire. It is wrong that he came to this country as a student and his deportation, if it is not already under way, should take place very shortly indeed.

Has the hon. Gentleman considered the question of sporting sanctions? Does he support a call to the England cricket authorities for England not to play its world cup matches in Zimbabwe next year, as do many Labour Members?

That is my next point, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by what I have to say.

It is important to extend sanctions a stage further, so that whenever anyone who has been involved in human rights abuses and torture enters the jurisdiction of the civilised world, they are arrested under the international convention against torture. Incidentally, in the obscene league table of human rights abuses around the world, Zimbabwe is near the top of the premier division. I am disappointed that we have not yet seen any arrests. As the Minister will be aware, under that convention, people can be tried outside Zimbabwe. In other words, we arrest, we detain, and, if the person is found guilty, we imprison them for a long time.

I have files, as no doubt the Minister does, containing detailed cases of torture of anyone in Zimbabwe who holds an independent view, particularly members of the Movement for Democratic Change. Those cases are horrific to read. It is essential that there are arrests, prosecutions and convictions under the international convention soon.

I will make a final point about sanctions. I hope that the Minister and the Prime Minister will mount a campaign to expose the extent of stolen assets from Zimbabwe in countries that have declined to participate in an asset freeze. Let us start embarrassing the many countries that are happy to make a quick buck by taking that tainted, dirty money. I also suggest to the Minister that the United States has performed well below the standards that we have come to expect from the world's leading democracy. The bureaucracy in the USA has been so inept that it has still not imposed an asset freeze on any of the funds from Zimbabwe that are there. I find that inconceivable. The USA, with the European Union, should be taking the lead, rather than being a laggard. I hope that pressure can be put on our US allies and friends.

There are two other areas in which I believe that we should take action. The first is the dire food shortage in Zimbabwe. People are dying in huge numbers, and the situation is worsened by the AIDS epidemic, which is weakening people and making them more susceptible to the food shortage.

As the Minister will readily acknowledge, food is being given only to supporters of the regime. The areas that backed the Movement for Democratic Change in this year's election are being starved, and the nongovernmental organisations cannot always get through to those areas. The Zimbabwean Government systematically try to stop any food getting through. I urge the Minister to arrange, with our allies and partners, an international airlift of food to the isolated regions that voted for the MDC, which are facing a real humanitarian crisis. That is a matter of urgency.

My final suggestion follows from what the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) just mentioned. In general terms, I have always opposed mixing politics with sport. It is not healthy or positive and it is in nobody's best interests. However, there are always exceptions. I very much back the motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), which is on today's Order Paper calling for the International Cricket Council to think again about moving the world cup from South Africa to Zimbabwe. As the hon. Member for Harrow, West pointed out, this is a bipartisan issue. I should like to single out one other person for praise. The MEP Glenys Kinnock has organised an excellent campaign within the European Parliament to ensure that pressure is put on the ICC.

If the world cup goes ahead it will legitimise an evil regime. Mugabe is the president of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union. I have no doubt that the sportsmen, officials and sports journalists who attend a world cup in Zimbabwe will be extremely well treated and well fed. They will see no problems or demonstrations and good cricket will be played, if that is possible with our present England team. That is not enough. It will do huge damage to cricket's reputation. It will condone evil. I hope that the Government are putting every possible private pressure on the ICC.

If the ICC does not agree to move the world cup from Zimbabwe to somewhere else—there are plenty of other places that would host it, or it could stay in South Africa—I hope that pressure will be put on our cricket team not to go. If that does not happen, it will send out a bleak message that cricket is more important than human rights, more important than torture and more important than starving your enemies to death, and that we live in a happy little complacent world where we can play cricket and all is well. It will do the great sport of cricket immense harm. I hope at the very least that our team will withdraw.

We need to do more. Many of us were disappointed yesterday when we listened to the Prime Minister in the Chamber giving what was, rightly, a very positive statement on the Copenhagen summit. It was an historic occasion with so many central European countries, free of the Soviet yoke, coming into the European Union. It was a great day. But there was no mention of Zimbabwe. There was no suggestion that high on the agenda in Copenhagen was a debate about what further action should to be taken by way of sanctions or other means against the Zimbabwe regime.

Many of us cannot help but feel that there is boredom and fatigue among western Governments. There is the crisis in the middle east. There is the war on international terrorism. There is the issue of Iraq. Therefore, Zimbabwe drops down the agenda. We will be judged very badly if we let black Africa down in the way that we would not have dreamed of letting the white Balkans down, where there was positive intervention against a similar evil and corrupt regime. I urge the Minister and the Government, their partners in the EU, their American allies and others to do more and to do it quickly; otherwise, we shall have even more blood on our hands.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing this morning's debate. He has done us all a service by once again drawing to the attention of the House the plight of Zimbabwe and the suffering that so many people will have to endure throughout Christmas and beyond. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and other hon. Members for being unable, as a result of other parliamentary engagements, to be here for the summing-up speeches. However, I will in tomorrow's Hansard read with interest the contributions that I have missed.

The International Development Committee, of which I am a member, is holding an inquiry into the food crisis facing southern Africa. As part of that, we have examined the appalling humanitarian emergency that has developed in Zimbabwe. It is important for hon. Members and the public to appreciate that the ongoing problems of Zimbabwe have had repercussions extending far beyond its own borders.

Zimbabwe was once described as the bread basket of Africa and has traditionally been a net food exporter to its neighbour countries. However, many changes have arisen and the country now has the highest food aid requirement of any country in southern Africa. At the peak of the crisis, more than 6 million of its people—almost half the population—were in need of food. Up to next March, the country requires some 705,000 tonnes of food aid. That is a disturbing and tragic turnaround for Zimbabwe, and it has rightly caught the attention of the international community.

I accept that not all of the blame for Zimbabwe's food shortage can be attributed to Robert Mugabe and his regime. This year the country faced one of its worst droughts for 20 years. However, the political turmoil and land reform over which Mugabe has presided have served only to make an already appalling problem even worse. By removing so many white commercial farmers, he has contributed to the reduction of his country's maize production to a quarter of its customary level. Without food exports from Zimbabwe, more people in countries such as Malawi and Mozambique are now also starving.

My recent discussions with the Zimbabwean high commissioner confirmed what had previously been reported—abandoned farms are now owned by friends of Mr. Mugabe, and local people are unable to run them effectively because they lack expertise and, following years of employment at bread-line wages, capital.

The famine is now being exacerbated by the stranglehold of HIV/AIDS—a disease that has a grip on the whole region. According to Oxfam and Save the Children, 33 per cent. of adults in Zimbabwe are now HIV-positive, the third highest figure in the world. The stigmatisation of those living with the disease has left many in Zimbabwe refusing to be tested. A recent report suggested that as many as 90 per cent. do not even know that they are infected. With levels of detection so low, the true level of infection must be much higher. How can the war against HIV/AIDS be won when we do not know where the enemy is?

I am not belittling the money—according to answers to my parliamentary questions, some £7 million—that the Department for International Development has contributed towards the funding of the voluntary counselling and testing centres. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State share my passion to tackle HIV/AIDS. However, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that we have a long way to go before we can say that the fight is being won.

Part of the blame for the scale of the HIV/AIDS problem in Zimbabwe can also be attributed to the policies of President Mugabe and his regime. His fast-track land reform policy resulted in a huge movement of people, forcing changes to family units. As many NGOs have reported, such population mobility has only added to people's vulnerability and potential for acquiring HIV. Mugabe has done nothing to tackle the marginalisation of people suffering from the disease. As if that were not enough, evidence suggests that people infected with HIV/AIDS find it even more difficult to access food aid because of stigma, impaired mobility and ostracism.

The AIDS profile research undertaken by the AIDS policy research centre at the university of California recently produced a report that described how HIV is seen in Zimbabwe as the disease of shame. People who suffer from HIV there are often treated with contempt and described as immoral, leaving them unable to access decent care and treatment services.

The politicisation of aid distribution, which has already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bracknell, is well documented. The channelling of food aid away from HIV sufferers urgently needs addressing. HIV has left a scar on Zimbabwe that is likely to take many years to heal.

As a result of the AIDS-related deaths of parents, it is now commonplace for grandparents, or even young children, to be looking after households of 10 children. Those deaths mean that knowledge and skills are not being passed from one generation to the next, leaving orphans to head households and to farm with minimal experience of agriculture. The impact of that on Zimbabwe's ability to fulfil its future security needs is considerable, and has created a long-term problem for which a long-term strategy is required.

The tale of Zimbabwe is tragic. A great deal of excellent work is being undertaken by the Department for International Development, and by NGOs on the ground. I pay tribute to their efforts, especially during the coming months. President Mugabe has created a broken country and has left the international community to pick up the pieces. Little or no hope exists for the future of many citizens of Zimbabwe, and they look to the international community to provide some. We, here, can and must respond to that challenge.

I did not intend to speak in the debate; I intended merely to listen to what was said. I give credit to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) for giving me this opportunity to speak. I have an interest in the subject because the high commissioner in Zimbabwe is one of my constituents. I begin by paying tribute to him and all the staff in the high commission in Harare for the tremendous work that they continue to do in difficult circumstances.

I might differ from the right hon. Gentleman on the tactics that could be used and actions that could be taken, but I hope that all Members share an absolute abhorrence of what can only be described as a barbaric regime.

This man Mugabe is a dictator. He did not win the election, at least not freely, and it is difficult to deal with a situation in which it appears that the prime objective of a country's ruler is to destroy his country. It is difficult to put in place sanctions. With a normal, responsible leader—even a normal, responsible human being—pressure can be applied by saying that unless they behave themselves, we will do this or that. However, Mugabe wants the destruction of his country so it is difficult to put pressure on him to do otherwise.

Mugabe keeps going on about the need for land reform. I should like to put it on record that successive British Governments have supported land reform. We have tried to go down a legal route to give people—the Africans in Zimbabwe—an opportunity to own their own land. We must pursue a legal route, not a route that includes the barbaric treatment that many farmers are having to suffer in Zimbabwe.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell talked about positive action and made a comparison with the situation in the Balkans. I should like to think that this Government are doing a great deal in terms of positive action. I should not like to think that it is suggested that military action should be taken against Zimbabwe.

indicated assent.

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. I should not want those outside to get the impression that there will be military action. We need to do everything that we can to bring down the dictator. He is there illegally, he cheated in the election and he is creating a huge amount of suffering not only in his own country but around the rest of southern Africa.

I hope that the British Government are doing everything that they can to freeze assets and to impose sanctions. I should like to see more action from other southern African countries. It is important that we get a consensus across Africa because it is in the interests of all African countries to make sure that such an abhorrent dictator does not succeed. His reign should be brought to an end as quickly as possible and Zimbabwe should have a truly democratic Government, which would mean that we could start to deal with problems such as AIDS and food aid.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay). He made a thoughtful speech, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's responses to some of his comments. The contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was also opportune, given his Select Committee experience.

I shall amplify my intervention on the right hon. Member for Bracknell, and I want to use the debate to put a little more pressure on the English cricket authorities and the International Cricket Council over their continuing plans to play part of the cricket world cup in Zimbabwe next year. I am at a loss to understand how anybody could contemplate playing international sport in that country at a time when such destruction is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, being wreaked on the people of Zimbabwe by their own Government. My hon. Friend was right to say that successive British Governments, and in particular this Government, have supported land reform and have offered to help finance it, only for those efforts to be rebuffed by the leadership in Zimbabwe.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to say that in general politics and sport should not be mixed, but it is difficult to stand aside and pretend that cricket can be played at a time of such damage when so many people in Zimbabwe are being deliberately starved and being made to pay a price for taking part in democratic elections.

Does my hon. Friend draw a distinction between the England cricket team going to Zimbabwe and Zimbabweans going to international competitions in other parts of the world? For example, we welcomed the Zimbabwe team to the Commonwealth games in Manchester.

I understand that a distinction can be drawn, and it is probably true to say that most Zimbabwean sportsmen and sportswomen have no truck with the regime in their country. We have reached a point, however, at which we have to contemplate Zimbabwe's sporting isolation. I was not entirely comfortable with the participation of Zimbabwean sportsmen and women in the Commonwealth games in Manchester, although on balance it was right that they participated.

I felt very uncomfortable when the England cricket team toured Zimbabwe two years ago; I thought that it was wrong at the time and I said so. It would be entirely unjustified for England to go ahead with matches in Zimbabwe. If the ICC is not prepared to move the games scheduled to take place at Harare and elsewhere, the English cricket authorities should show some leadership and refuse to play in the area.

It is right to say that we work with other southern African Governments to put pressure on the leadership in Zimbabwe, and to ascertain how we can freeze assets. There are more important ways than through sport alone in which to put pressure on Zimbabwe and ZANU-PF, but those of us with an interest in sport believe that it can add its voice to that pressure. I hope that we shall see leadership by the English cricket authorities and the ICC and that world cup matches will not be played in Zimbabwe next year.

This has been an important debate, which rightly focuses our attention on one of the continuing disgraces in Africa and elsewhere. I add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate. I endorse the point that he made at the outset that it is shame that we are forced to discuss Zimbabwe in Westminster Hall instead of having the opportunity to discuss it in Government time in the main Chamber. Perhaps the Minister will give some consideration to that and the various pleas that have been made to the Leader of the House for a debate in the House when it returns in the new year.

We have heard a range of contributions, which have rightly focused on the chronic situation in Zimbabwe. There is a consensus that all of us need to focus on a proper response. The economy is dire with inflation of well over 100 per cent., according to some reports; unemployment is more than 60 per cent.; starvation is rife; and the situation is exacerbated by a fuel crisis that is bringing the country to a halt, with the latest negotiations between it and its fuel supplier, Libya, apparently running into problems.

I wonder what conclusion the hon. Gentleman draws from the latest reports from Zimbabwe that Mugabe is considering sequestration of the assets of some western oil companies in that country, and what implications that will have for the long-term future of Zimbabwe's economy.

The reports, which I have also read, are alarming and show the truly desperate situation that Mugabe has put himself into. It is a downward spiral in a country which, over a short period, has gone from being one of Africa's beacons and one of its wealthiest countries to a position in which almost anything of any good has been thrown away. I do not believe that Mugabe will solve his problems by nationalising foreign oil assets.

The state of the famine must be the focus of our humanitarian concern. When organisations such as the World Food Programme are forced to withdraw from their work in the south of the country, when there is widespread abuse of the aid that arrives in the country because it is being channelled by Mugabe only to his supporters and when almost 50 per cent. of the country's population are suffering starvation, that regime must at some point recognise its responsibilities. We are not arguing that the situation is solely Mugabe's fault, but the measures taken by him and his regime over a period of years, most notably in the past year, have undoubtedly exacerbated a dreadful situation and made the prospect of Zimbabwe finding its own way out of this particular mess very unlikely.

The famine has been made worse by the suffering that HIV/AIDS has caused many people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) said. That has happened in a wider situation that Mugabe has largely foisted on to his own country by his decisions. All observers outside the country and many inside believe that he cheated in the presidential election earlier this year. The most recent regional elections, too, are deemed to have been unfair and corrupted. The leader of the opposition party is under arrest for treason because he dared to provide opposition to the President, as he calls himself. The latest twist is the delaying of that treason trial into the new year. The regime is characterised by brutality and repression and, with every passing month, marches further beyond the acceptable limits of international states and their standards.

We learn today that, after months of negotiation and many false dawns—I hope that this is not another one—peace has been declared in the Congo, where Zimbabwean forces and commercial and other interests have played a major role. There is now the prospect of unpaid and undernourished armed forces returning to Zimbabwe, further complicating the situation there. The prospects are not good and it looks as if the downward spiral can get only worse.

In response, there has been much international wringing of hands and concern about what should be done. I hope that the Minister's reply will focus on some of the issues for which Britain has a particular responsibility. Recent reports that existing arms embargoes have been flouted by the supplying of spare parts for the Hawk jets used by the Zimbabwean air force are especially alarming, and we need to know the extent of government investigation into that, and the action that is to be taken.

Further afield, we had many months of difficulty in persuading all Commonwealth nations that Zimbabwe should be expelled or suspended from councils in the short term. That was achieved in March, but recent discussions by the troika of Australia, Nigeria and South Africa have demonstrated that there is no consensus about how progress should be made. The hard-fought victory earlier this year, which the British Government played a part in achieving, is now in danger of being lost, and all the political advantage gained from the March suspension with it.

Other hon. Members have commented on the existing travel bans. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that it is a shame that the United States of America has not been more robust and focused on the imposition of smart sanctions. Likewise, we have seen in the European Union the casual flouting of travel bans by other members of the regime. Protection under international law for attendance at United Nations and other meetings must be respected but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we must ensure that such attendances in Europe are properly regulated and monitored, not abused—which would give rather inelegant signals to the international community.

The United States has suggested coping with the famine in Zimbabwe through intrusive measures. It would be helpful if the Minister explained what the US might have in mind, and what our Government believe is appropriate. During operation Lifeline Sudan, air drops were used to deliver aid to key parts of the country that could not be reached by other means. Are the Government now considering that type of measure for the current crisis in Zimbabwe?

The international community in its various guises has a major responsibility to focus on Zimbabwe. Perhaps the most important focus should come from southern African countries. In the past year, we have seen the New Partnership for Africa's Development brought forward, and hailed as a great step change in the way that Africa looks after its economic development and its political governance. Africa has given itself the tools that it needs to tackle many of its problems. Although that has been hailed as a qualitative change, the most recent meeting between the Southern African Development Community and the European Union failed to agree on the procedures that NEPAD should follow.

South Africa, the key player in the region, has continued to support Zimbabwe to an extent that is hard for those us of outside the region to understand. Without its help, Zimbabwe would be in a truly awful state—even worse than at present. South Africa, along with Nigeria and Australia, was the key to the suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth earlier this year. At the time, the Canadian high commissioner hailed that as NEPAD passing its first test. It would appear that it is in danger of flunking the second. After the most recent meeting of southern African and Zimbabwean foreign Ministers, the South African Minister said:

"Even if Zimbabwe has made a mistake, the point is that we need to move to the future".

African media comment was rightly harsh, criticising that Minister for ignoring the ugliness of what has happened in Zimbabwe.

The country cannot shake off its responsibilities. It has to lift its own veil; other countries in the region will then perhaps play their part. It is argued that there is an honourable tradition that countries in Africa do not meddle in each other's affairs. That might be realpolitik if the problem existed only within Zimbabwean borders, but the contagion is spreading economically and politically. Not only are the southern African countries suffering from the withdrawal of current investment and further concerns about future investment, but they seem to have no prospect of being accepted for additional positive treatment from the international community in the years ahead unless they tackle the problem.

African media comment on the current state of NEPAD has been just as harsh as its observations on the activities of South Africa concerning Zimbabwe. One commentator stated that the NEPAD project

"is doomed to fail because it is nothing more than wishful thinking".

That would be a disaster for southern Africa, and specifically for Zimbabwe. The United Kingdom has long links with Zimbabwe and the region as a whole, and we are rightly concerned about what goes on in that great country. The despot who is in charge of it and is determined to ruin his country should be under no illusions about what the international community regards as right and proper. We have slightly lost pace during the past few months. I hope that the Government will show us that that pace is about to pick up again.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate and on introducing it in such a measured yet forceful manner.

The debate addresses some of the most vicious violations of human and civil rights in the world today. I join my right hon. Friend in regretting that the debate is not taking place in Government time on the Floor of the House of Commons. Once again, an Opposition Member has had to raise the topic. My right hon. Friend said that he chided the Government gently. If I may, I shall be a little more blunt. For months, we have had nothing but silence and inaction from the Government. I say that in a spirit not of anger but of frustration. For months, I have pressed the Government not only to say more but to do more. There was silence at the G8 in June and at the Earth summit in August. When pressed to raise the subject at the Earth summit, the Prime Minister said that he did not wish it to be hijacked by Zimbabwe, but it was hijacked by Zimbabwe—by President Mugabe—and by the President of Namibia. There was silence in November when the EU Southern African Development Community conference was moved from Copenhagen to Maputo to allow banned Zimbabweans to attend. There has been inaction in the face of ethnic cleansing and politically manipulated starvation, and inaction as people are forcibly and illegally dispossessed and politically destroyed.

It is no wonder that the people of Zimbabwe feel abandoned by the British Government. I was there in July, and they told me so. They do not understand the reason for that. They know that they are not inhabitants of some distant country of which we know little. We know a lot about Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe knows a lot about us. We can have debates like this at a distance, but when one is in Zimbabwe—as I was for a short period in July—and sees the situation on the ground, it is difficult not to become frustrated. I saw the displaced black farm workers in the woods outside Harare. They were starving, they had been thrown out of their homes without any possessions or any hope of future employment, and they were being harassed by the authorities. I saw the food queues in Harare, alongside the fields outside Harare that were unplanted and unsown, with the rotting vegetation from last year's harvest still there. I met the brave young civil rights lawyers who are, at great risk to themselves, collecting evidence on human rights abuses—rape camps, murders and tortures. I met Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition—a very brave man facing a charge of treason.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way. If I sound a little emotional, it is because I sometimes feel that we do not understand with sufficient emotion what is happening in Zimbabwe.

I want to reinforce the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. In some sections of the media, the situation is seen as an attack by a black African Government on white farmers, but the people who are suffering most are not white farmers but tens of thousands of black people who have also been forced from their homes and workplaces.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am glad that he reinforces my point.

I sometimes wonder whether the reason for the Government's inactivity is, as the Foreign Secretary suggested in his recent article in the New Statesman, that they are ashamed of our history and fearful of being accused of being neo-colonialist. I have talked to black people in Zimbabwe and they do not see it in that way at all. They see us as having a responsibility that they are waiting for us to fulfil. Rightly, the Government never hesitated to protect the oppressed people of Kosovo from violation and destruction, but they appear to standing passively by as even worse things happen in Zimbabwe. We must never let a situation arise whereby the millions of Zimbabweans who look to us for help appear less important than the peoples of the Balkans and of Afghanistan.

Zimbabwe is facing catastrophe. Hon. Members have outlined many of the ways in which that is happening. Of the 15.5 million people facing starvation in southern Africa, 6.5 million are in Zimbabwe. One in three adults in Zimbabwe is HIV-positive. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) rightly made a point about that. HIV and malnutrition are perfect partners. I learned when I visited Zimbabwe and South Africa that HIV combined with malnutrition provides the quickest way for HIV to turn into full-blown AIDS. In 2000, the average life expectancy in Zimbabwe was 60 years. In two years, it has fallen to 37 years.

As the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) pointed out, inflation is running at more than 100 per cent. It was 144 per cent. at the latest count, and the International Monetary Fund predicts that it will soon be more than 500 per cent. The economy is expected to shrink by more than 10 per cent. this year. The economy of Zimbabwe is in meltdown, yet we are told that the targeted sanctions—isolating Mugabe and his thugs from the international community—are effective. However, my constituents and I see Mugabe and his lieutenants waltzing around Europe unimpeded. His police chief has twice gone to France on Interpol business. People do not understand how that can happen if we are serious about sanctions that ban travel.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell raised a particular case, which I wish also to discuss. What is the truth about the vice-chairman of the ZANU-PF Harare executive, Chris Pasipamire? He is a well-known, brutal activist in farm evictions in Zimbabwe. Is it true that he has been granted a visa to come to this country to study—ironically—land reform? If so, I can say only that that is outrageous. Baroness Amos in the other place last week was unclear about that. I hope that we can get the full facts today, because they are owed to us.

Whatever else, the sanctions are not working, but what is working is the use of starvation as a political weapon. ZANU-PF's organising secretary, Didymus Mutasa, said in August:

"We would be better off with only six million people, with our own people who support the liberation struggle. We don't want all these extra people."

The extra people happen to be the 7 million other Zimbabweans who are now being starved, harried and ethnically cleansed, not least the 5 million proud Matabele. According to the United Nations World Food Programme, 6.7 million Zimbabweans need food aid. Increasingly, they can get it only from Mugabe in return for votes.

Food is a valuable political weapon for Mugabe. In Chimanimani, illiterate and hungry voters were rewarded with maize once they had been assisted to vote for ZAN U-PF in the September rural district council elections. The World Food Programme had to suspend food aid distribution in Insiza in October, following the seizure of food by ruling ZANU-PF activists. In that part of the country, which very much supports the Movement for Democratic Change, Mugabe used food for political blackmail. That safe MDC seat was won by ZANU-PF in a recent by-election in return for food.

The control of food in Mugabe's hands is, in a sense, a weapon of mass destruction. He has created the shortages. His illegal farm seizure policy has destroyed Zimbabwe's self-sufficiency. The national cereal deficit is a staggering 1.5 million tonnes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned a drought. I saw no drought when I was in Zimbabwe in July—the reservoirs were brimming. Water is not the problem; the problem is that because nothing has been planted there is nothing to harvest. That is Mugabe's legacy. A country that used to feed its neighbours has now become the beggar of Africa.

Mugabe still has in his sights constitutional gerrymandering to preserve his dictatorship. He needs a two-thirds majority in Parliament for a change. In November, he was six MPs short of that. After the Insiza by-election, he was five short and, after the suspicious death of MDC MP Learnmore Jongwe, he is down to four. To put it simply, he is terrorising and bribing, if not murdering, his way to the destruction of democracy.

Then there are the attacks on justice and press freedom. There is now no justice to speak of and no protection to which people can turn. The Insiza by-election showed that graphically. An MDC official was shot in a police station in front of police by the ZANU-PF candidate, Andrew Langa. The victim and 11 MDC associates were subsequently charged with inciting violence against themselves, and the aggressor walked free. On 29 August, one of the two independent radio stations in Zimbabwe, the Voice of the People, was destroyed in a midnight bomb explosion. Since July, a total of 18 journalists have been arrested and charged under Mugabe's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. ZANU-PF supporters and war veterans continue to attack vendors selling copies of the fiercely independent Daily News.

Yet, astonishingly, in the face of all that, the International Cricket Council still looks likely to hold part of the coming world cup in Zimbabwe. Inevitably, the patron of the Zimbabwe Cricket Union, Robert Mugabe, will be there and will parade himself as a great leader on an international stage. I found an extraordinary quotation from Robert Mugabe that dates back to 1984. He said:

"Cricket civilises people and creates good gentlemen. I want everyone to play cricket in Zimbabwe; I want ours to be a nation of gentlemen."

How hollow that must ring in today's Zimbabwe. To use a cricketing analogy: if Mugabe is really keen on cricket, he should learn that when one is given out one does not glue the bails to the stumps and say, "I have not been given out," as he did in the election earlier this year.

To give Mugabe a stage is to ignore his fascist brutality, to turn a blind eye to his genocidal behaviour and to spit in the faces of the millions of Zimbabweans who are enduring poverty, oppression and death at the hands of this vile dictator. The people of Zimbabwe love cricket, but not at the cost of buttressing Mugabe and his henchmen. I call again for the ICC to relocate the Zimbabwean part of the world cup. This is not about sport, it is about a murderous dictatorship. No one can deal with Mugabe and not be soiled by it.

How much of the estimated $10 million revenues accrued from media coverage and match sponsorship will end up in the coffers of Mugabe and his cronies? The Government have been strangely silent on the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend join me in regretting the Government's seeming lack of determination to pursue the millions that Mugabe and his henchmen have sequestered around the world?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I will come to his point in a moment.

I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to join me and others in urging the ICC to move the world cup from Zimbabwe. None of us can stand aside from what is happening. We cannot do nothing and hope that death, destruction and implosion will bring their own answer. The human cost is too horrific to contemplate. Last week, to my surprise, the Secretary of State for International Development said:

"I really fear that there will be a disaster such as we have never seen in our lifetime, with the lack of food, the political situation and HIV all playing into each other. I expect that that will bring an end to that awful regime."—[Official Report, 11 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 243.]

It must not be the Government's policy simply to let famine, genocide and corruption decide the future of Zimbabwe's people.

Of course, as the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) said, there is no easy solution. There are a number of steps that must urgently be taken. In many cases, the previous measures that we called for—travel bans, the freezing of assets, suspension from the Commonwealth—came too late. Sanctions must be tightened and made to bite. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell rightly suggested, the travel ban and the assets freeze must be extended to cover families, including children, of members of the regime and also those international business men who bankroll the regime. He mentioned Mr. van Hoogstraten. I mention Mr. John Bredenkamp. I hope that the Government will investigate carefully what his involvement in Zimbabwe has been.

The Government must work with the United States of America to monitor food distribution on the ground in order to destroy Mugabe's ability to use food as an instrument of oppression. They should persuade the United Nations Security Council immediately to place UN personnel on the ground in Zimbabwe in order to monitor not just food distribution but human rights abuses. We have to work with the United States State Department to bring new pressures to bear on South Africa to get Mugabe to hold fresh elections. There is a genuine and growing concern about the potentially devastating economic impact of the situation in Zimbabwe on the South African economy.

I have always welcomed NEPAD and think that it is a worthwhile initiative, not least because of the quasi-contractual nature of the plan: financial investment is offered in return for good governance. The agreement was that good governance is for African Governments to assess at peer-group level. A test of that assessment must be whether those African Governments condemn the clear misgovernance of Zimbabwe. If they do not, they should not receive the NEPAD money. In arguing for that legitimate leverage, I have frequently been accused of seeking to damage black African interests beyond Zimbabwe. Of course it would cause wider pain, but nothing like the pain being experienced by the people of Zimbabwe today. There is no painless solution, but a solution must be found. South Africa must be persuaded that it is in its best interests to bring this disaster to a swift close. South Africa holds the key. It has the power and the means to do that, and it will suffer immense damage if it does not.

Why are the British Government so shy of bringing friendly pressure to bear on South Africa? Why is the Prime Minister so loth to ensure that NEPAD works as it was designed to work—genuinely to promote good governance for all of Africa? Why are the Government so resolute in the face of human rights abuses elsewhere, yet so silent in the face of Mugabe?

I hope that the Minister will be brave. He should stop being frightened of his post-colonial shadow, restore this country's credibility and fulfil the promise that his Prime Minister made at the conference a year and a half ago that the Government had a moral duty to act. The Minister must tell us today what the Government will do to end this nightmare. History will not easily forgive the Government who walked by on the other side, and nor will the people of Zimbabwe.

I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) on securing the debate. I welcome this opportunity to consider the critical situation in Zimbabwe. It is tragic that half the population of that country, which was once referred to as the bread basket of Africa, now depends on food aid. The tragedy is all the greater because, although southern Africa is affected by drought, the policies of ZANU-PF have turned a situation that could have been managed into a humanitarian crisis.

Evidence of ZANU-PF's mismanagement can be found everywhere: inflation at 140 per cent., unemployment at more than 60 per cent. and a currency trading at more than 20 times its official rate. Zimbabwe's economy will shrink by about 12 per cent. this year, at a time when most of Africa is seeing growth, and it has already shrunk by 23 per cent. in the last two years. It is the fastest imploding economy in the world.

That incompetent economic performance is coupled with a collapse in the rule of law and high levels of political violence. More than 140 people have been killed since 2000, the great majority of them opposition supporters. The majority of the victims are black, as are the many thousands of former farm workers who are now homeless—displaced in their own country in the name of the fast-track land resettlement policy.

Zimbabwe's problems are the result not of a black versus white conflict or a conflict between Zimbabwe and Britain, but of poor Government policies. The main victims of the regime's policies are the poor black people of Zimbabwe. For that reason, we continue to help Zimbabwe with humanitarian assistance. Since September 2001, we have contributed £43 million—taxpayers' money—and we will continue to do so. That money is disbursed through the World Food Programme and non-governmental organisations, not the Zimbabwean Government.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked why we could not do more. Well, Britain has done a lot. Indeed, we invested substantial resources under a Conservative Government in helping to bring Zimbabwe to independence. Those resources were extended after independence in the form of £500 million in bilateral assistance. However, independence means just that. Zimbabwe's regime is responsible for its actions; it cannot pass the buck to others, whether in Britain, Europe or anywhere else. Zimbabwe's regime needs to accept responsibility for its actions, which are damaging the Zimbabwean people.

The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) gave what he described as an emotional speech. He referred to the UK Government standing passively by and urged us to respond as we did in Kosovo. I suspect that there is a loss of perspective here. It almost seems as if he thinks some form of gunboat diplomacy is the way forward. It is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Bracknell were right to say that some form of military intervention was a bad idea. It would carry huge political costs and is practically impossible. Zimbabwe needs peace, not more conflict. The MDC does not want it. In any case, the region would not cooperate. The UN Security Council's role is international peace and security. The region would need to support any action. That is not the way forward.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that we need to put more pressure on the Zimbabwean Government. We have had co-operation from both the European Union and the Commonwealth. Zimbabwe was suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth in March. The Commonwealth troika remains engaged. Australian Prime Minister Howard, South African President Mbeki and Nigerian President Obasanjo met in Abuja on 23 September. Mugabe was invited, but did not attend. The troika will review the situation in March, at which point it has said that stronger measures might need to be considered. We welcome that clear signal of a continuing Commonwealth engagement and regret that Zimbabwe has not responded.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked why the Prime Minister did not mention Zimbabwe in the Copenhagen statement yesterday. Zimbabwe was not on the agenda at Copenhagen, but was discussed at the previous week's EU General Affairs Council. It will be raised again in January. Zimbabwe is raised regularly by the United Kingdom in EU forums and will continue to be raised regularly. I accept that it is an enormously important issue. The Government intend to ensure that it remains high on the EU's agenda.

EU sanctions were introduced in February 2002. We will work to ensure their rollover or extension next year. Some 79 people are now on the banned list; 28 accounts in the United Kingdom containing funds totalling over £500,000 have been frozen. We expect more to follow. That is the sort of well targeted pressure that hits the individuals responsible for Zimbabwe's situation.

Will the Minister confirm that we plan to extend and deepen the sanctions to include financial backers, middle-rank officials and/or Members of Parliament, as I suggested in my speech?

I shall come to that. We ought to consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposals. I will certainly look at an extension and see whether there are ways in which we can tighten the grip and pressure on Zimbabwe. We would obviously need to talk to our European partners and the United States. They have a longer list of banned people, but they are not applying the freezing of assets as we would prefer. We need to increase the pressure on Zimbabwe by working with both our European partners and the United States.

The Opposition have asked repeatedly about the freezing of assets of all those involved with Mugabe and his regime, particularly those assets that are held overseas. Can the Minister tell us what action has been taken by the Government since we started asking those questions?

As I have just said, we have frozen 28 accounts in the UK. Obviously, it is for other countries to freeze accounts in their territories. We want to see the freezing of accounts and the extension of pressures, restrictions and bans on individuals who are responsible for Zimbabwe's condition.

Since April, people on the banned list have been denied access to the European Union on six occasions. As recently as November, others have been obliged to cancel their plans to travel in the EU. That shows that EU sanctions are having an effect. Norway, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, New Zealand and Australia have also imposed targeted sanctions, and the International Monetary Fund adopted a declaration of non-co-operation with Zimbabwe because of its refusal to co-operate with it on policy, and its arrears. On 11 September, the board began procedures to suspend Zimbabwe's voting rights, which in effect expelled Zimbabwe. It is clear that Mugabe is imposing his own economic sanctions on Zimbabwe.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell made a point about the visa for Chris Pasipamire. All visa applications are carefully assessed in accordance with immigration rules. I understand that the gentleman in question has a visit visa, not a student visa, so he cannot study in the United Kingdom at this point. He is not on the EU banned list, and I understand that he has told a newspaper and others that he wants to look for a course. However, if he does so and finds one, he cannot go on it. If he wants a student visa, he will have to reapply. I will ensure that Home Office Ministers are aware of the concern expressed in the debate about his case.

Will the Minister give way?

I said that I would not give way again, but I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman is very brief. Before he intervenes, however, I must tell him and other hon. Members that I cannot prejudge the view of a Home Office Minister and officials about a particular visa case. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, given his experience in government.

Why was Chris Pasipamire allowed to come here, given that we have a ban against people who are active in the regime in Zimbabwe? Why is he not on the banned list?

He is not on the banned list. [HON. MEMBERS: "He should be."] Several hon. Members are now saying from a sedentary position that he should be. However, he was not on that list when he applied for his visa, so he was granted a visa. He will have to apply again if he finds a course and wants to go on it. I will ensure that the concerns expressed in this House are brought to the attention of Home Office Ministers, who will be able to do what is appropriate in the circumstances and within the law.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell expressed concern about extending the various bans. I will consider that, and will write to him on that point. He also said that we should consider the possibility of extending the bans to civil servants and some of their families, as well as to bankers. That is a useful point, and I will consider the feasibility of doing that and how it would work. Again, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.

The right hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to see arrests. Again, if it is possible to do so—if people are in this country and there is evidence of offences—I am sure that the police will respond appropriately. He rightly said that there was a lack of response from some parts of Africa to the situation in Zimbabwe, and that countries next to Zimbabwe needed to respond much more firmly to ensure that the reputation of Africa, which in many ways is at stake, was not damaged by the likes of President Mugabe. The British Government are talking to other African countries, and President Mbeki, the president of southern Africa's most major country—South Africa—will visit the UK at the start of next year. The Prime Minister will raise those issues with the president, who is engaged in trying to move them forward.

The EU-Africa summit in Lisbon on 3 and 4 April was mentioned. The EU troika will discuss it at the meeting in January; our view is that the visa ban on ZANU-PF elite should not be waived for that event.

The right hon. Member for Bracknell was concerned about the continuing violence against MDC media and trade unions. We condemn that violence and ZANU-PF's continued use of intimidation, especially against the MDC. It was clearly seen at the by-election in Insiza district on 26 and 27 October, as was ZANU-PF's blatant manipulation of food aid. The World Food Programme was forced to suspend distribution in Insiza during that period.

We strongly condemn the disgraceful and groundless arrest of Wellington Chibebe of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions, and of eight other trade union leaders, The right hon. Gentleman said that people were threatened that if they did not vote ZANU-PF they would not get food, but the situation is worse than that. In some instances, people who do not carry a ZANU-PF membership card do not get Government food. Donor food is dealt with in a different way, but it shows the extent of the regime. A leading ZANU-PF MP, Didymus Mutasa, was reported as saying that he did not mind if 6 million Zimbabweans died as long as the remaining 6 million were loyal to ZANU-PF. When one is dealing with someone with that turn of mind, what can one say to convince them that they have to behave in a different way?

We are doing all that we can, putting in substantial resources to help the victims of Zimbabwe's humanitarian crisis, the scale of which is great. DF1D has committed £43 million of UK taxpayers' money since September 2001; British aid is distributed by the UN World Food Programme and internationally respected NGOs on the basis of need alone. Some of that support will also go towards agricultural inputs for planting next season. We are worried that next year might be worse than this year, but there is nothing that we can do about the food that the regime has bought, which is being distributed based on people's membership of, or loyalty to, ZANU-PF. We strongly condemn that. The United Kingdom has committed £56 million in response to the latest humanitarian appeal for Zimbabwe, Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland.

The right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Devizes raised the issue of sport. Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell, I think that we should be cautious about importing politics into sport. However, we should recognise that there are exceptions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the world cup should not go to Zimbabwe. The Government's position is that the decision whether to play the six world cup matches in Zimbabwe can be taken only by the International Cricket Council, of which the England and Wales Cricket Board is part.

That is obvious.

I will come to that in a minute. The decision should be taken in the light of what is happening in Zimbabwe and in recognition of the fact that the political, economic and humanitarian situation could deteriorate in the next few months. We briefed the England and Wales Cricket Board with our travel advice, as we would other British organisations and individuals considering travelling to Zimbabwe, and we have agreed to keep in touch. Decisions whether to travel to Zimbabwe have to be taken by the individuals or organisations themselves, based on all the information available to them. The Government's position is to ask the ICC and the ECB to look at the matter. We will not issue orders to them; however, speaking personally, I hope that they will listen to the strong views expressed in the debate. My view is that it would be better if the team did not go.

The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) raised the issue of the arms embargo. As the time available is short, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Our objectives for Zimbabwe are clear. We want a prosperous, stable and democratic Zimbabwe. The ruler of Zimbabwe is preventing the country's people from having such a future. We condemn the way in which he is running the country, we are determined to take action to deal with him, and we will work through international institutions to achieve that. With the help of the Zimbabwean people and the international community, we will ensure that we create a Zimbabwe in the long term that works in the interests of all the people of Zimbabwe and is prepared to deal with all the critical issues facing the country.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to introduce today's debate. When the angels ask me to recall the thrill of my parliamentary contributions, I will have to reveal that they have focused disproportionately on such issues as tax credits, housing benefit, the implementation of the social fund and local government finance. I suspect that even St. Peter would be stunned into torpor to listen to them, but, at the risk of sounding pompous, I should say that such issues are the meat and drink of people's experience of government, particularly the experience of the poor.

My comments today will touch on important aspects of the quality of services that people receive from central Government through local agencies. I have three main points. First, I shall discuss the distribution of local authority grants in the light of the recent grant review and settlement. Secondly, I shall focus on the index of multiple deprivation—the means by which the Government distribute resources for special projects aimed at deprived areas. Thirdly, I shall talk about the census and what it can tell us about the measurement of people's needs in urban communities.

The vast majority of resources distributed to areas of deprivation are mainstreamed through the resources made available to local government, health authorities, regional development agencies and so forth. The mainstreaming grants are the most important.

Last week saw the results of the review of local government finance and the distribution of grants to local authorities across England. The review process was controversial because it went back to basics in examining the measurements of need and the allocation of resources. Much disquiet was caused, especially in London and in urban authorities in other parts of the country, about how the indicators were determined and the different weightings across the country. The review was, rightly, seen as influencing the amount of resources available to local government for social services, education and other vital services.

London local authorities across the board did better than had been feared. Some—Brent, Tower Hamlets and Newham, which have high levels of deprivation—did well, and I am delighted that they received a generous settlement. Nevertheless, it is clear—analysis continues in town halls throughout the country—that next year some local authorities, particularly those on the floor, will face a tough year as a result of their budget settlements. Welcome though the floor is, and however much better it might be than what was expected earlier in the year, I fear that exceptional costs and needs pressures in London and other urban authorities have not been fully recognised. The debate will continue—the recent review has not fully settled the issue.

Population mobility and turnover are a concern for urban authorities throughout the United Kingdom, particularly those in London. High population turnover in the cities places particular pressure on schools, social services and environmental services, but the Government have not yet recognised the extent of that pressure. I had hoped that this year the Government would decide in favour of a special grant to help authorities with high population turnover, especially of pupils in schools, but they have given no indication that they will and no such decision emerged from the recent settlement. Will the Minister tell us today, or at a later stage, whether the debate on meeting the needs of communities with high population turnover is continuing? That population trend appears to be accelerating in urban communities, and it will need further discussion.

The main issue that I will address this morning is the index of multiple deprivation. Many London local authorities are ranked lower in the 2000 index of multiple deprivation than in its 1998 predecessor. Of the seven authorities nationally that dropped out of the 50 most deprived across all the domains, four were London authorities. Most large metropolitan authorities are ranked as less deprived in the 2000 index and, in general, non-urban shire authorities are ranked as more deprived compared with 1998.

Those changes in ranking affected the funding allocated to London boroughs. A rough estimate shows that if the previous index had been in force, London would have benefited from £125 million more in neighbourhood renewal funding and £125 million of housing funding through the general housing needs index. The Minister will be aware that housing pressures are the single most acute issue facing central London and probably London as a whole.

The current review should be taken as an opportunity to ensure that the resources intended to tackle deprivation are focused on areas where need is greatest and where investment will do the most good. There are three areas in which I hope that the Minister will be able to accept my representations and those of other Members of Parliament and organisations such as the Association of London Government and the Greater London Authority. I am sure that many of those organisations will make formal submissions to the review.

The first such area comprises crime, social order and the physical environment. It is essential that issues of crime and social order are included in any future index. The Association of London Government is confident that we now have the means to compare ward-based crime rates, taking account of population numbers and characteristics, and risk levels. There can be no question that the quality of life enjoyed by residents in a particular neighbourhood is closely related to their experience of crime and antisocial behaviour. I therefore urge the Government to use such an indicator in the review.

Similarly, perceptions of physical danger or squalor in a neighbourhood powerfully influence its desirability and, therefore, the potential for ensuring a healthy and viable social mix in that area in future. I urge the Government to incorporate indicators on road traffic accidents—which are, as we know, closely correlated with poverty—and levels of air pollution. Those indicators are easy to measure and would be recognised as meaningful.

The second issue—I know that other hon. Members want to address this in more detail, so I will skirt over it—is the measurement of access to services other than in a strictly geographical way. In recent years, one of the IMD indicators that have caused most concern to representatives of urban authorities in the distribution of local government resources is the scarcity indicator. I grew up in a village, and the last bus home left town at 6.25 pm, so I am conscious of the fact that rural isolation can also be equated with poverty and deprivation. That issue needs to be tackled.

There are, however, perverse consequences of using scarcity indicators, which may count a long and sweeping driveway as a measure of deprivation. Families growing up in 18 and 20-storey tower blocks may be seen to be relatively less deprived as a consequence of the range in the scarcity and density indicator.

The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful speech about the indicators. One can have as many indicators as one wants, but at the end of the day, there must be the political will to make sure things actually happen. It seems to me that there is stagnation in London caused by the Mayor: he has produced a huge spatial plan, but it seems that very little has happened since. Would the hon. Lady care to comment on what has been positively done for her constituency, or for London as a whole, since the Mayor produced that plan?

Thanks to the Mayor's commitment to increasing the provision of affordable housing in private sector housing developments, my constituents and those in the borough of Westminster have benefited considerably compared with the previous efforts of the council in securing affordable housing units or putting additional investment into the affordable housing fund. In that way alone the work that the Mayor has done has been of considerable value on a measure that is dearer to the hearts of my constituents than almost any other.

The London plan is the most ambitious and comprehensive review of the needs of London for generations. Of course, the consultation is taking time—many people have an opinion about it, and I am not going to sign up to every dot and comma. It covers such a wide range of issues that a debate is right and proper, but at least we have a sweeping and panoramic vision of how we want the future of London to develop. It would be most unwise of the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) to dismiss it.

Addressing that point, I agree that there is great vision in the London plan. It has to be said, however, that Mr. Livingstone is not a man with the capacity to deliver on that vision. We all know that, as does anyone sensible in politics.

The main problem with the suggestion about affordable housing is that private developers will be dissuaded from carrying out any development at all. That is one our concerns. We all want to see more key workers housed in central London, which is a policy of the two Conservative authorities based in the hon. Lady's constituency. There is no question about that, but the real concern is that developers would be dissuaded by such a hard and fast set rule. At the end of the day, the most vulnerable in society would lose out if such policies were put in place without flexibility.

The most vulnerable people in society have lost out by the thousand on housing opportunities as a consequence of the planning and housing policies adopted by Westminster city council over the years. One only has to look at the borough represented most ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) to know what a local authority can do when it negotiates hard with developers.

Hammersmith and Fulham council has an excellent record of achieving affordable housing in its development and we have had no indication that private sector developers are refusing to enter into any form of negotiation with that council. Westminster council in particular has failed to make use of its opportunities over the years: it is sitting on some of the highest value land in Britain, and people in housing need have been the losers. I am sympathetic with much of what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) says—I know that he is concerned for his constituents—but I am afraid that that is absolute nonsense.

On measurement of access to services, I ask the Minister to review again the issue of scarcity versus density, and to accept the fact that road distance is of very limited value as a deprivation measure. We need to incorporate other barriers to access to services, of which the use of minority languages would be a very good measure. Where 170 different languages are spoken—as in London—and there is little recognition of the additional cost pressures that that places on services outside education, it is essential that we take such indicators into consideration.

The third issue is housing costs and affordability. That affects the index of multiple deprivation and the allocation of Government resources to local authorities. I am concerned about the possibility that the new index will use working families tax credit as an indicator of urban poverty. That measure discriminates against London, and its use may already have cost us between £15 million and £18 million in grant allocation. London as a region has a relatively low take-up of working families tax credit, due largely to the high cost barriers to entering work—child care and housing costs—and a skills mismatch.

Housing costs have a massive impact on disposable income. Any measures that exclude property issues will fail to reflect poverty levels. One option in the review is to use households that claim working families tax credit and that have incomes below 60 per cent. of the median before housing costs, but that will seriously distort comparisons between regions. In many cases, households in London appear above the median solely because of differences in housing benefit, yet that tells us nothing at all about their disposable income or quality of life.

I also ask the Minister to reject proposals to exclude lone parents from the employment domain. New research from the Greater London Authority shows that 90 per cent. of lone parents interviewed expressed a desire to work, with more than half citing lack of affordable or suitable child care as the barrier. There is no case for excluding such lone parents on the grounds that they may not wish to be available for work. London has the highest percentage in England of children living in households that are dependent on income support, and what that means must be properly recognised.

I ask the Minister to take time to study the recent report "London Divided". It shows that despite the progress that has been made and the excellent and innovative schemes that are in place to reduce poverty—from sure start to the children's fund, from the new deal to youth inclusion programmes—poverty in inner London remains staggeringly high. One quarter of London children are held to be living in poverty before housing costs are taken into account, rising to 41 per cent. if such costs are taken into account. Thank God for the working families tax credit. It is an important and valuable tool, but to use it as an indicator of poverty would be to do an injustice to urban authorities and to London in particular.

Finally, let me mention the census. On the back of last year's census, and more generally, concern is increasing about the accuracy of data sources relating to numbers and needs in an increasingly mobile, multi-ethnic population. At the risk of being accused of special pleading, I must say that I am completely confident that the census has not given us a complete picture of the population in central London, whether its final figures show a plus or a minus compared with previous estimates. The same is likely to be true of several other urban areas. Inner-city populations are becoming harder to track and count, and that has massive implications, not only for head counts and capitation-based allocations, but for the measurement of deprivation. The Office for National Statistics may be doing a brilliant job in 96 per cent. of the country, but it would be unwise of anyone to be too confident about the accuracy of its figures on the inner city. The time is ripe for an overhaul of the processes by which we measure numbers and needs in an urban context. I ask the Minister to consider that point.

Sources of funding available to my constituency under the index of urban deprivation have been immensely valuable. We have benefited from the urban renewal fund, the neighbourhood nurseries initiative and neighbourhood warden schemes. Many projects have made a distinct contribution to improving the quality of life for my residents, but I am very concerned that, as a result of a combination of the census and possible changes to the indicators in the review, urban communities in Paddington and north Kensington, across London and in other urban authorities will not continue to benefit from such sources of funding. We must choose the right package of indicators to reflect most accurately the reality of urban poverty and urban deprivation.

As London's needs become more intensely concentrated, complex and turbulent, resources available through the index of multiple deprivation become more important than ever. I hope that the Government will listen to representations and address the concerns so that we can do still more to tackle the pressures that bear down on our cities, and on London in particular.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this important debate. As one or two colleagues may have gathered, notwithstanding the little spat we had a moment or two ago, we work well together—at least that is my side of the story—on several Westminster-related issues.

I believe that we are both glad to see that in the comprehensive performance assessments not only Westminster but also Kensington and Chelsea were rated excellent councils. A neighbouring borough, Hammersmith and Fulham, had an excellent rating as well. It says much for the dedication of councillors and many council officers and employees in central London that we are able to achieve such excellence, particularly in social services, which is always a most difficult side of things, in the difficult circumstances to which the hon. Lady alluded.

One of the first things that I did when I entered Parliament about 18 months ago was to visit the two local hospitals in my patch: Barts in the City of London and St. Mary's in Paddington. When I asked about the bed-blocking problems that I had heard of from so many other parliamentary colleagues, the hospital officials said that they did not have such problems. That is very much a tribute to the work that is done for the most vulnerable in our society.

My constituency, like the hon. Lady's, is diverse. If people walk through the leafy streets of St. John's Wood in her constituency, or through the more deprived parts of Bayswater and Pimlico, they would not necessarily assume that they were in, respectively, a constituency that was a relatively safe Labour seat, and one that was a relatively safe Conservative seat. That is true throughout London. The Minister represents Hornsey and Wood Green, which includes lush bits of Fortis Green and Muswell Hill that do not appear to be deprived but, around almost every corner, great problems exist. That applies to suburban areas as well to inner London.

I shall say a few words about the local government finance settlement, touch on the census, which was mentioned by the hon. Lady, and wind up with a few thoughts on deprivation.

There is no doubt that there is abject poverty in central London. Even in my constituency, more than 75 per cent. of housing is social housing in several wards. There are also the many problems that arise from having a large number of asylum seekers and other immigration issues. As the hon. Lady said, a factor that is taken far too little into account is mobility. The most recent figures for 2000 showed that turnover in Cities of London and Westminster was the largest single turnover in any seat—23 per cent. It is probably the same 23 per cent. who move year on year; the entire population does not change over a four-year period. None the less, that puts major pressures on schools, hospitals and social services.

It was therefore disappointing that, in the financial settlement, the social services of several inner London authorities saw a slash in finances that will have an impact if the 3.5 per cent. floor in increases are lifted next year, or at any point in the near future, without considering financing. The settlement runs the risk of penalising excellent, well run councils, and I am not making a narrow party political point, because that is as true for Labour councils as for Conservative ones.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that perhaps the entire reason why Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster are at the floor—we have yet to complete analysis on that—is because of the problem with population measurement and the census, rather than with using indicators that have been chosen, as he implied, to penalise these authorities?

That is fair. In a moment, I shall move on to the environmental, protective and cultural services HEPCSH basket because that has a strong impact, particularly in southern Westminster.

It would be wrong to defend the old standard spending assessment system; it was arcane to put it mildly. However, there is a worry that we are replacing it with another grant distribution system that is equally perverse and lacks transparency. Local government finance is not easy at the best of times so we need either a relatively clear process or a recognition that clarity will not be achieved. To call the new system transparent, when it has arcane rules, is not helpful.

On EPCS, strong arguments exist for treating several central London authorities as sui generis. The business rate for Westminster alone amounts to about £860 million annually, which goes into Government funds and from which Westminster is able to call on about £72.5 million. I appreciate that that may not be a fair comparison, but it suggests that Westminster should be treated differently.

On the cost of street cleansing, the most recent contract that has been signed for Westminster amounts to a 60 per cent. increase on the previous contract. The rate of inflation for cleansing contracts is clearly greater than the average rate of inflation. Westminster does a good job in that area—a number of colleagues say that when they walk across the road they feel that there is a greater risk of a Westminster city council cleansing van knocking them down than of cars or cyclists doing so. Westminster makes an important contribution to the UK as a whole. Central London is a showcase to overseas investors and visitors, and there are vast numbers of non-residents. We need to ensure that the quality of our streets is sufficiently high.

As has been mentioned, the performance of social services in central London is high. However, the budget is at risk, and I hope that central Government will think about ring-fencing it. Many people assume that the City of London, which is part of my constituency, must be a wealthy area because of the riverside developments of recent years and the Barbican, which was not a wealthy area when it was built. The Barbican originally contained much social housing, although the right to buy means that relatively little of it remains. In my patch, there is also Petticoat square and the Mansell street estate, which is more like Tower Hamlets than the City of London. It is important that we do not assume that relatively wealthy areas are taken care of, because the most vulnerable will fall through the hole if they are not catered for.

It has been estimated that 60,000 people were "lost" in the Westminster census. I moved into Westminster in April 2000, and on three occasions I tried to obtain a census form, but I could not manage to do so. I have never completed a census form, and I know that many people who live near me in Belgravia have experienced the same difficulty. I reiterate the concern of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North that we need to give that matter some serious thought. That point applies not only to Westminster but to several other inner London boroughs, and at last week's Prime Minister's Question Time, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) also expressed similar concerns. I hope that the Government will examine the matter. If the census figures are not right an important knock-on effect, which will affect funding for the most vulnerable in the years ahead, will clearly come into play.

The Office for National Statistics seems to totter from one disaster to another. It overvalued pension funds in February, double-counted contributions in October, and now faces concerns about the census. It is high time that it was subject to an independent investigation, and I hope that the Minister can provide some pointers to such an investigation when she replies.

I shall say a few words about asylum seekers in central London. I do so with a slightly heavy heart because, like the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, I have foreign blood in my veins. My mother had sought asylum twice by the age of 15. She was born in a part of Germany that is now in Poland, and fled with her family in the immediate aftermath of the second world war and then again in 1954. I do not therefore have a hard-and-fast view on asylum seekers, although I personally believe that we should encourage more economic migrants into this country.

We should welcome people who want to abide by our laws and make a contribution to our society by integrating with it and assimilating into it. On the issue of assimilation and the indigenous population, the population is not static and the common norms of today will be different from those that will exist in 20 or 30 years' time, and there is no doubt that waves of immigrants will play a part in that. Members who represent central London constituencies are weighed down by the amount of work that we have to do on behalf of asylum seekers or people requiring immigration advice. Many of them are not constituents in the sense that they do not count towards the, say, 73,000 people on our electoral rolls, but none the less they require significant assistance.

I have been concerned by events in Sangatte. In essence, the French Government blackmailed us into allowing the Sangatte refugees to come in. Although many of them have work permits, there is a fear that they have been dumped in central London. Three of four tranches of them have come into my constituency in the past 10 days. The matter, which has not been well thought through, is a further hammer blow to central London after the local government financial settlement, and I hope that the Minister will assure us—I appreciate that the asylum issue is not entirely in her hands—that the costs will be fully underwritten. In so far as central London authorities have to pay the bill for arrivals from Sangatte, who are going to play a part in our society and be living in hostels for the homeless or bed and breakfasts for a time, the costs should be properly underwritten and taken into account in the consideration of future financial settlements.

The issue of immigrants, asylum seekers and those who are justified in coming here on work permits, visas and so forth is a difficult one that we do not discuss enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever the rights or wrongs of the situation, there should be a proper system of measuring what is going on so that resources can be allocated properly to deal with the problem?

That is the nub of my point. My personal view—not my party's—is that we should pull out of most of the conventions of which we are members and look to take more economic refugees or migrants. Many of our so-called European partners have taken a parochial and nationalistic approach that has not assisted us in any way. My hon. Friend is right to say that proper measurement is required, not least because the most vulnerable among the indigenous population will suffer most if resources do not trickle down to those areas that have a disproportionate burden in dealing with asylum seekers.

Although I am convinced that the census was inaccurate—the hon. Gentleman kindly told us that he did not complete his census form—we would be on dangerous ground if we equated that entirely with asylum seeking and migration, as he and others have attempted to do. When I raised the issue last year, my local authorities told me that there was a greater likelihood of non-participation in the census in the more prosperous multi-occupancy in the south of the borough than in the deprived and multi-ethnic north.

rose—

Order. I deplore over-long interventions, but as it is the hon. Lady's debate I have showed discretion.

Many of us deplore over-long speeches, Sir Nicholas.

I am sorry if I was in any way misconstrued. I was simply making a narrow point about deprivation in relation to the asylum issue, not trying to link it with the census. I suspect that there are not many asylum seekers in the vicinity of Belgravia who did not fill in their census forms for that reason.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate, which is an extremely rare one on the subject of urban deprivation. If the title of the debate had been "Rural Deprivation", the Chamber would be full of Members making heart-rending cries about problems in rural areas—as they are of course entitled to do, as there are difficulties in those areas. Speaking, like many hon. Members, for a constituency that is partly rural and partly urban, I know about those difficulties.

Policies in the Welsh Assembly and in this Parliament have been hopelessly distorted by the vigorous hallelujah chorus of complaints from rural areas. That has resulted in policies that irrationally devote money to rural areas at the great expense of urban areas. I shall give a simple example. My constituency has three of the most deprived wards in the top 50 in Wales. Although we are in that position, we do not get a single penny of objective 1 money, whereas two areas, Ceredigion and Conwy, which do not have a single ward in the top 100 most deprived wards in Wales, get full objective 1 funding. The reason for that is rurality and the exaggerated picture that has been presented by the campaign led partly by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is not known as an advocate for exposing urban deprivation.

I speak with a little more force today, having yesterday evening run the gauntlet of a blocked Westminster bridge between the serried ranks of police vehicles and mounted police and the lines of rural rabble who were threatening, violent and abusive. They were, I understand, organised by the Countryside Alliance. It is a great tribute to the police in London that, after I quoted Sessional Orders to them, they got me through the lines of protestors who were, I understand, trying to persuade me and others to vote their way at the end of the debate. Nothing could be more counterproductive.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, but his comments are not relevant to the debate. I should be obliged if he would direct his comments to urban deprivation.

Indeed I will, Sir Nicholas. The reason for the lack of cash going to urban areas is the excessive amounts that are being given to rural areas. I shall give an example from my constituency, which has suffered very badly from job losses during the past 12 months. For the first time since 1789, no iron will be manufactured in Gwent. An area of urban life has gone; it is dead and finished for ever. It is not only the jobs that have gone, but the skills that have existed there for more than two centuries. There was no letter from Mr. Angry of Highgrove to the Prime Minister complaining that a precious, unique way of life has died. The businesses that have been affected by the loss of steel jobs receive no compensation and some small businesses have gone to the wall. Extraordinarily, businesses that were affected by the foot and mouth outbreak—there are a number in my constituency because they do business in rural areas although they are located in an urban area—-received generous compensation amounting sometimes to tens of thousands of pounds, because they made a loss.

Urban areas have been deprived and discriminated against, but all the arguments, including the one advanced last week by the Countryside Agency—there is no urban agency—tell us that one in five country dwellers lives below the poverty line. That is regrettable, but one in four urban dwellers lives below the poverty line. The Government have just announced a policy for spending more than £500 million to keep rural post offices open and more than £100 million to close down urban post offices. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North mentioned a deprived person living in a remote area down a drive a mile long. I agree with her entirely that there is urban isolation for people who live at the top of multi-storey blocks of flats. There is deprivation of community if the local post office on a council estate closes down and people do not see or have contact with their neighbours. Those losses are at least as damaging as those suffered in rural areas.

I have a list of statistics with which I shall not burden the Chamber, but in every example between urban and rural areas the priorities are wrong. The most deprived areas and those with the highest crime rate and the poorest schools, in which life expectation and every other factor that can be applied is poorest, are in urban areas. Yet for the past 50 years Governments have shelled out huge sums of money to compensate rural areas, and that money often comes at the expense of urban areas.

During a debate last week the Government announced an extra £500 million to implement the Currie report. It was not received with any enthusiasm by the Opposition, including the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who is speaking for the Opposition, and one hon. Member who complained about the lack of excitement and leadership. I would dearly like the Government to give £500 million to the steel, aluminium or other industries that have suffered grievously with resulting job losses. We put up with the fact that there was no excitement in the announcement or leadership, but that distortion in policies is continuing. That is partly due to the extraordinary propaganda exercise that is being mounted from Buckingham palace down to the various alliances and countryside agencies, many of which are funded by Government money. As a result of their constant, unrelenting complaints, our urban areas are being deprived, with obvious results for all to see.

Although almost unlimited sums have been given to urban areas for their problems, particularly during the past year, we must remember that every urban-dwelling family, often living in very poor conditions, is contributing £16 per week to one rural industry. There is a lack of funding in all urban areas, and poor priorities that are based not on reality but on the power of propaganda.

It is understandable that there is distortion in the reporting in the popular press: I do not know of any newspaper editor who does not live in a rural area, and I do not think that any would live in a deprived urban area.

On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Is it in order for an hon. Member to impugn Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done in a debate on urban deprivation? It seems to me that he is straying a long way from the subject.

I have listened with some concern to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). I did not intervene, in the hope that he would not continue with such remarks. I hope that he has heard the point of order that has been raised and understands my discomfort, in the Chair, at some of his remarks.

The people to whom I have referred are victims of their own environment, as rural billionaires, and I do not lay any criticism—

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman, because of his experience in the House and the respect that I have for him, not to continue with the remarks that he is making. As I have said, I think that the House could be placed in an awkward position.

I shall respect what you say, Sir Nicholas.

To reinforce my remarks, I point out that every calculation and every comparison between urban and rural areas shows rural areas to be better off. About 41 per cent. of rural households have two or more cars, compared with 26 per cent. in urban areas. Rural business growth is currently higher than urban business growth. The Government have allocated an additional £30 million to rural policing when, on every comparison of crime between urban and rural areas, it is urban areas that should have that extra policing. The standardised mortality ratio is 92.5 in rural areas and 99.7 in urban areas. About 45 per cent. of starting jobs gained under the new deal are in rural areas, compared with only 43 per cent. in urban areas. About 4 per cent. of households in rural areas have been burgled, compared with 10 per cent. in inner city areas. I believe that part of that distortion is evidenced in this House, where urban deprivation is not regarded as an issue of any importance, although it is a problem of gigantic proportions.

I shall be brief, because I am aware that other hon. Members wish to catch your eye, Sir Nicholas.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing today's important debate. I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the index of local deprivation, especially now that the contract to review the 2000 index of deprivation has been let by the neighbourhood renewal unit.

When the 2000 index of deprivation was published, it was seen that my local authority, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, had fallen from being the 18th most deprived borough in the country to 68th in the list. That has had a very serious impact both on the amount of regeneration funds available to the borough and on mainstream funding in general, especially the amount of capital funding that the authority has been granted. Given that effect, the financial position of the council will be seriously affected by the outcome of the review and therefore that review is extremely important to my borough.

The allocation of the neighbourhood renewal funds transitional protection, which has been provided for the last three years to those localities that were in the top 50 in the 1998 index but dropped out, has also seriously affected my authority—although I am grateful for the transitional protection. Under the arrangement, the seven boroughs that benefit from transitional protection, which include Hammersmith and Fulham, still qualify for neighbourhood renewal funding. However, that funding is calculated using a standard amount per head of population in those wards in the authority that are among the most deprived 10 per cent. of all wards nationally. In the 1998 index for local deprivation—I am talking about the previous arrangement—Hammersmith and Fulham had 13 wards in the poorest 10 per cent. nationally. By 2000, the number had fallen to two wards. The practical effect of that has been that the borough was allocated £2.3 million for next year, whereas if the previous index of local deprivation still applied, the council would have been allocated more than £13 million.

Hammersmith and Fulham has received £17 million less in housing capital, despite the transitional relief, as a result of the changes made to the index. In 2004, that transitional relief will end and the impact of ID 2000—the indices of deprivation published in 2000—will inevitably worsen. The borough's situation is very serious and I am pleased that the Government have now acted to review the 2000 index.

I will focus on the geographical access to services domain and the potential impact of a crime domain. There is no justification at all for the use of the geographical access to services domain. The researchers responsible for the calculation of the index claim that the majority of authorities support the domain in practice, but the reality is that the authorities that support the domain are predominantly rural and have very small populations. As far as I am aware, no such measure has ever been used anywhere else in the world to measure deprivation—in fact, there is evidence of the opposite measure being used. For example, I am told that in the calculation of the European Union 50 cities audit, high population density was used as a measure of deprivation.

The indicator measures the distance to key services for those persons and households living on income support. The number of people affected seems to be irrelevant. I am advised that in Chenies in the Chilterns, one of the most deprived wards on the domain, there are fewer than five people on income support, and it is possible that there is only one person on income support. It seems nonsensical to suggest that Chenies is more deprived than other wards because the one person who is on income support has to travel further to the post office. Compare Chenies with a ward in Birmingham, Sparkbrook that has 4,655 households on income support. Of the 10 most deprived wards on the domain, only two have more than 30 families living on income support.

The indicator measures the distance to key services as the crow flies—that is the only measure of access to services that is calculated as part of the domain. No consideration is given to waiting times, the quality of the service or any other factor that may be important in determining access to services.

At the time that the index was published in 2000, the academics who produced it said that the domain made very little difference to the overall result, yet they have consistently refused to support that view. I call on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to publish the data. * Like other hon. Members, I would like to see what the index would look like without the domain included—then, we could all see what effect it has had.

The Minister with responsibility for local government at the time of the publication of the index, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), recognised that there was a clear gap because there was no crime domain. I believe that all the experts working in the field recognise that a crime domain is essential to any meaningful measure of deprivation. The absence of a crime domain fundamentally undermines the credibility of the index, so I am pleased that the basic crime data are now available for the whole country. I congratulate the Association of London Government and Greater London Enterprise Ltd., because they worked closely with two recognised experts in the field at the universities of Manchester and of Liverpool to identify robust methods of modelling that extend down to ward level. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm today that a crime domain will be included as an integral part of the review of the 2000 index.

There is no doubt that the index has a substantial effect on the funding of local authorities, particularly in London and other metropolitan and urban areas. I understand that the first report of the research team that carried out the work has just been published for consultation. I am advised that the deadline for comments is 15 January 2003. I hope that the review of the index, when published, will accept that anomalies inadvertently crept into the index that was published in 2000, and that appropriate changes will be made, so that the index can once again stand as a genuine and proper measure of deprivation.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his succinct speech.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. She may not be aware that back in 1983, after encouragement from the then Prime Minister, I cut my political teeth in her constituency. At that time it clearly contained both affluence and very high levels of deprivation, and I doubt that it has changed much since. As a councillor in Hackney in the late 1980s, I had firsthand experience of similar levels of deprivation.

I have much sympathy with many of the points that the hon. Lady made. For example, she touched on the index of multiple deprivation and the ways in which, when being updated, as is happening now, it could be modified to include factors such as crime. I could add poor physical environment, to which I think she referred, and concerns about accessibility.

I shall echo one of the points, and not necessarily the whole range, made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), who spoke of the concern about post office closures in urban areas. Like other hon. Members, I have had difficulty identifying precisely what those proposals mean to each of our constituencies. That information has not been forthcoming and I have no idea which, if any, of the post offices in my constituency might be on the hit list, if such a thing exists.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one difficulty with the reinvention programme that is being put into place is that urban post offices have been systematically closed in the last three or four years? It is not clear whether those closures will count towards the reinvention programme or whether it will be a reinvention programme involving 3,000 losses as of the beginning of next year.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. Clearly, we need to know what the baseline is so that we know the overall number of closures that we face.

Other hon. Members gave statistics relating to London in particular, but it is worth reeling off a few more. London paid at least £10 billion and possibly as much as £20 billion more in tax than it received in public spending. We all know that London is a city of extremes, with the highest percentages of both high disposable income households and low disposable income households. Hon. Members referred to the level of deprivation in individual wards. London has two thirds of the most deprived local authority housing estates and three of the five most deprived boroughs in England. A series of other statistics confirm the level of deprivation in London.

I shall consider three or four key points relating to funding, the first of which is whether funding is sufficient to make a difference. The obvious answer is that we do not know whether it is, because, historically, the take-up of available grants has been limited.

I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government intend to ensure a much higher take-up in future. If she replies that take-up is 100 per cent., we are clearly still failing to deal with fundamental issues such as homelessness in London, which in the third quarter of this year stood at 49,850—a 3.4 per cent. increase on the previous quarter. So far as I can tell, it is the highest figure since 1986, perhaps the highest since records were started. We know that it has a heavy knock-on impact on other services, such as the NHS. It is estimated that homeless people using accident and emergency departments as their GP surgery costs the NHS an extra £1 million a year.

Hon. Members will know that there are about 750,000 empty homes and 200,000 homeless households in England and Wales. Each region has sufficient empty homes to meet the demand. It is not true that all the properties are up in the north and all the demand in the south—the north does have relatively more empty properties, but there are enough in the south to accommodate the homeless households. One has to assume that funding remains insufficient because major problems such as homelessness are still a problem. London should not rule out extra funding to improve its deprived urban areas. I am sure that the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North supports London's Olympic bid as a means of bringing in an extra £1 billion of private investment, which would be targeted at the more deprived areas of east London.

Having examined whether funding is sufficient, we should move on to examine whether it is reaching the parts that other resources cannot reach. I apologise for using a local constituency example, but I know most about the northern wards in the London borough of Sutton—St. Helier, Wandle Valley and The Wrythe—which are comparable to the 20 per cent. worst wards nationally. The local authority estimates that Durand close, an estate in the Wrythe ward, requires about £30 million to regenerate. Various activities go on around the estate—neighbourhood wardens and nursery facilities, for example, and Learndirect has recently set up an outpost close by—but because it exists at the sub-ward level, it is not picked up by any of the usual indices. I have drawn attention to that problem before, so will the Minister say what progress has been made on producing statistics that recognise the sub-ward level? I have provided one example, but I suspect that every Member here today could identify many similar pockets of deprivation in their constituencies, which should appear on the Government's radar.

Another crucial issue is how easy it is to access the available funding. I am aware of long-standing complaints about the complexity of too many funding streams, which require significant management time to deal with. The Government have started to examine rationalisation, but I hope that the Minister can tell us more about their plans to make it easier for local authorities to access available funds. If there were enough funding and people could access it, would that be sufficient to regenerate our deprived areas? The Government need to consider other areas, such as the urban task force's identification of the need for a single remediation permit. Such a permit would facilitate the regeneration of brownfield sites by co-ordinating pollution prevention and control and tying in everything that needs to be done to deal with water pollution and contaminated land.

There is another area where more work is needed, even with sufficient funding. I am sure that the Minister has seen the latest news from Urban Forum, which has identified the need for the much greater involvement of community and voluntary groups to make the best use of available funding. The main recommendation of its latest report is that the Government need to invest in community and voluntary groups with as much passion and belief as they invest in business support and public services.

How do we make private funding available for business? I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the community development finance institutions that were set up specifically to lend in deprived areas and under-served markets, especially in ethnic minority communities, where it is difficult to get access to mainstream finance. Will the Minister set out what support the Government can give that sector?

Unfortunately, I do not have time to touch on issues such as policing and the resources for policing, the role that public transport can play in regenerating areas, or the role that the tram could play in regenerating the St. Helier estate in my constituency by extending to Tooting.

This has been a well informed and non-partisan debate. There is clearly much regeneration in London, as in other cities such as Manchester and Birmingham. That is welcome, but extremes of wealth and poverty are still visible. The real test of the Government and their funding strategy will be whether they can provide funding for much smaller pockets of deprivation in our constituencies, as well as regenerating the larger and more visible areas of deprivation.

I am grateful to you for allowing me to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on choosing a subject that is not debated enough in the House, and on making a constructive and worthwhile contribution. The hon. Lady's complex speech may, perhaps, be summed up in one sentence: poverty in London remains staggeringly high. I believe that that is the case. It is an indictment of us all in the House, and we need to stiffen our political resolve to do better to solve the problems of our inner cities. To deal with a point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn), that means treating the problem as an holistic whole. It does not mean setting the countryside against the cities; it means trying to produce a constructive solution for the whole country.

I am pleased to see the Minister in her place. I had very satisfactory meetings with her in her previous guise as the Minister with responsibilities for immigration. She was extremely helpful on several occasions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) touched on a key point. Other hon. Members touched on the Government's new index and how, paradoxically, the new measurements are making some of our most deprived areas, especially in London, worse off than they would have been under the old system. That is clearly unacceptable. I am sure that the Minister has listened carefully to what hon. Members had to say about that. Representations must be made by 15 January 2003, and I am sure that the Government must be thinking carefully about the matter to ensure that the transitional arrangements up to 2004 are satisfactory. We will put in place a robust system to deal with the situation after 2004.

If we are to solve the problems of inner cities, we need to treat them holistically and to plan on a much longer-term basis than at present. At the moment, we seem to be operating almost on a fire-brigade basis; we deal with desperate problems as they come along instead of having more strategic planning for the future. Although I was critical of the Mayor's spatial plan, it is a good initiative, but only if we start to make progress on implementing it. I should have preferred such a huge document to contain a progress schedule of what the Mayor would expect to have achieved by each year end, so that his expectations could be measured against the reality.

My hon. Friend has an interesting point: how do we measure accurately what is going on in inner cities, especially one that is as complex as London? The homeless charity Crisis, which used to be called Crisis at Christmas, has estimated that there are up to 400,000 hidden homeless in this country. If that is so, there are more homeless people than ever before, but we simply do not know whether it is so.

I asked Lord Falconer, when he was a Minister with housing responsibilities, to introduce a system that would come up with some robust numbers and information. If the debate achieves nothing else—this is not a political matter—I hope that it will lead to the adoption of such a system if we think that the census, of which there is increasing criticism, is unreliable. I do not necessarily blame the Office for National Statistics, as it is difficult to get people to complete forms, especially if they do not want to be seen to be living where they are. There are a number of reasons why people—not least my hon. Friend—adopt that attitude. I do not know his reasons for not filling in his census form; perhaps he will tell us. This is a serious problem because we cannot devote resources to problems if we do not have accurate figures. My most serious point for the Minister is to ask whether a system can be put in place accurately to measure the extent of the problem.

With the exception of London, there is a flight from major cities—such as Newcastle, Liverpool and Manchester. There is a flight into London, especially during the working day, but the more we improve transport systems, which we desperately need to do, the more people will commute longer and longer distances in order to work in London. We must try to overcome that problem by planning, which has a huge part to play in urban regeneration. We shall address the problem in more detail when considering the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill this afternoon.

We must start thinking out of the box in relation to our planning problems and try to secure developments so that people can live closer to where they work and to where they send their children to school. If we started thinking in such ways, we could solve many problems, including that of traffic congestion. In many parts of London, from 8 am until 9.30 am, and again at 3.30 pm until 4.30 pm, the roads are completely clogged by cars containing one parent taking one child to one school. If there were a system to ensure that the streets were safe so that people could walk their children to school, we could start to solve some of the problems of traffic congestion. If we started to use all the money that the Government have in an integrated way, we could begin to solve some of our problems.

My second most important point is about various Government budgets. I do not mean just the inner-city regeneration budgets—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is absolutely right; the regeneration budgets are far too fragmented. People do not know what they are for, and they are underspent at the year end. We are not getting the money from Europe that we should because we are too timid at claiming it, going outside the box and taking a risk. Surely it is better to try to get the funding, even if it is disallowed at the end of the day and the Government have to make it up. We should be pushing the barriers in Europe to get as much funding for our inner cities as we possibly can.

The Government could do far better for inner cities by employing joined-up thinking. They should use all their budgets in a joined-up, holistic way because there are many overlaps. The social services budget overlaps with the health budget, which overlaps with the education budget, which overlaps with the crime and Home Office budgets. Too many civil servants are locked in their Departments and will not think outside the box because they deal only with their own Departments. Somehow we must get a system to improve co-ordinated thinking throughout the Government. If the Cabinet Office is the vehicle for that, it is not working; we must to do better.

There are many problems that we could begin to solve. Many people have said to me, "What is the hon. Member for Cotswold doing talking about urban regeneration?" I have been the party spokesman on the subject for three years, and during that time I have taken a great interest in the subject, which has taken me to some of the most deprived areas in the country. I have visited deprived areas in Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, Birmingham and Coventry. I have begun carefully to learn from some of the experts to whom I have listened, and I have begun to see some of the problems and some of the solutions.

The former hon. Member for Henley, Lord Heseltine, is not flavour of the month in my party, but during the 1980s the Conservative party carried out some of the most imaginative inner-city regeneration that has ever been seen in this country. He encouraged the public, private and voluntary sectors to work together and to think in innovative ways about how problems in our inner cities could be overcome; we should encourage more of that. We should encourage innovation, and the people with the energy to innovate, through Government funding and the bidding system.

I came across a very interesting quote from the former hon. Member for Henley:

"I accepted that it was possible to prop up these communities by increasing the flow of public money, but that didn't address the fundamental issue of concentrated poverty. We needed to attack the root causes of the problem. The teenagers with the skills, the young would-be homeowners, the aspiring entrepreneurs, the strong, all those with the resources 10 choose, had to be persuaded to stay".

As I said earlier, we must persuade people to stay in our big cities. If they leave, areas become run-down and the entire system starts to fall down. People must be encouraged to stay by making their areas vibrant places in which to live, where people will want to stay.

The former hon. Member for Henley continued:

"even to come back, live and invest—close to the areas of deprivation."

If we do not get all sectors investing in our inner cities, we shall never solve our severe problems. He added:

"It was necessary to tackle the infrastructure's problems, to improve dramatically the quality of the public services and to create an environment to persuade people that it was in their own interests to live and work there. In other words, one had to enable these communities to compete for their place in the sun."

Everybody must be involved. People need to be imaginative in bidding for Government money, coming up with community schemes and working together rather than arguing with one another.

I pledge that the Opposition will, if we can, help the Government to improve urban regeneration. It is unacceptable that we have some of the worst problems in Europe, but are one of the most prosperous countries in Europe. We must come up with more imaginative solutions: I have begun to open the box this morning; I ask the Minister to do the same. Let us get Ministers, the Government and civil servants all thinking more imaginatively, and surely together we can all come up with solutions to some dreadful problems.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on her choice of subject and on the thoughtful way in which she introduced the debate. I have enjoyed the debate, which has been of a high standard, featuring excellent contributions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I thank the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his kind remarks. Whatever disagreements we may have on the detail of policy, nobody could doubt his passion and commitment to the agenda. Equally, nobody could doubt the passion and commitment shown by my hon. Friend in her work over the years, during which she has tirelessly raised the subject time and again. I shall try to deal with the important points that were raised during the debate.

Far too many people who live in our deprived urban areas suffer a double blow in that not only do they live in such areas, but the highest standards of public services are not available to them. The Government's programme of regeneration is about not only the new deal for communities, vital though that is, and other programmes such as neighbourhood management—on which my hon. Friend is keen—and neighbourhood wardens, but about how we use, or bend, mainstream programmes to ensure that services deliver for people. That is why one of my key objectives is to ensure that other Departments deliver on their floor targets. That may be one of the most bureaucratic official phrases ever invented, but it is an exciting concept. Floor targets are the social equivalent of the minimum wage. They set a minimum level below which standards should not be able to drop. That is every bit as important as all the programmes that we have. I point out to the hon. Member for Cotswold that it provides the joined-up approach to the mainstreaming of those programmes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North painted an accurate portrait of London as a place of absolute contrasts. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke about affluent areas sitting side by side with much poorer areas, mentioning my constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green. As I am sure that he would agree, the picture is even more complex than that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) talked about pockets of deprivation at sub-ward level. I could point to places in the most affluent areas of my constituency where a couple of extremely affluent houses will be next to a house in multiple occupation with acute levels of deprivation. That is what creates an acute situation in London. Of course, it is not confined to London, but is found in other areas as well.

Over several decades, successive Governments have failed too many communities, leaving a legacy of decline and despair in parts of our urban areas, and we know that we have a huge amount to do to turn matters round. In January, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will announce his plan for sustainable communities, aiming to create and maintain thriving communities in the long term.

Will the Minister comment on one of today's most intractable problems? She mentioned mixed estates. Does she agree that mixed estates are better than the current trend of sending those who fall below the norms of acceptable behaviour—antisocial people—back to the same estates, which will then become the new sink estates? We must think carefully about that problem.

Some recent housing developments show encouraging trends in the other direction. I visited a housing development in the Thames gateway not long ago and was interested to see that it was a complete mixture of owner-occupied housing, rented housing and shared accommodation, side by side. I accept that we need to get away from the ghetto approach that was sometimes seen in the past. People are not designed to live in neat boxes, and planners and others should not categorise them as if they were.

As I was saying, we know how poverty and prosperity can live side by side. Areas in my hon. Friend's constituency have severe pockets of poverty. Golborne ward in north Kensington is in the most deprived 10 per cent. of English wards, whereas Hamilton Terrace ward in St John's Wood is in the least deprived 25 per cent. Such differences create huge issues for us all to deal with.

There has rightly been much concentration on the index of deprivation. I am extremely glad that we have had such a good debate on that, so soon after the publication of the first stage of consultation. We are consulting on options for updating the indices of deprivation 2000, to ensure that they remain a robust and up-to-date instrument for identifying deprived areas. We hope that that will meet the commitment made when the index was published in 2000, and we will look to update and revise it as substantial new data on small areas come on stream. We have also taken the opportunity to consider issues and debates that have emerged since publishing the indices, and whether refinements to the methodology are required.

A key task will be to assess whether we can develop indices for areas smaller than wards so that we are better able to identify pockets of deprivation. Several hon. Members have mentioned that, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Torn Brake). Other issues under consideration are revisiting previous attempts to include indicators on crime and physical environment and taking advantage of better data in existing domains. Reference has been made to those.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. I shall try not to ask her to do so again.

The Minister has touched on a serious problem, which other hon. Members also mentioned. If, increasingly, we cannot rely on census data because people have not completed the forms, and we simply do not know how many people there are in an area, how will the index of deprivation be measured? I am very concerned about that, because if we cannot measure such things properly, we cannot divert the resources that are necessary to deal with them.

I understand the remarks that have been made about census data. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North dealt with the matter in some detail. She also mentioned the implications of population turnover. Given my experience in my own borough and constituency, I listened to her on that with heartfelt sympathy. We want to hear more about that matter from my hon. Friend, who has considerable expertise there, and all other hon. Members, and I hope that we will be able to have robust consultation on it.

The updating project is divided into three stages with extensive periods of consultation. The stage 1 report is already out for consultation. It sets out preliminary proposals for updating the indices, and deals with some points that have been raised during the debate. Stage 2 will result in a blueprint of our proposals for updating the indices; that will be subject to further consultation, lasting until early May 2003. The index will then be updated and published in summer 2003. We are therefore giving considerable time to dealing with updating. I am convinced that we must get it right, and I want to hear from the widest possible number of colleagues, as well as from those outside the House.

I shall deal briefly with the points that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham asked me about publication material. Throughout the process, I shall endeavour to publish as much material and data as I can. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) raised the question of urban post offices. An announcement about the post office fund for urban areas will shortly be made. I hope that it will bring comfort to my hon. Friend.

The hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington and for Cotswold, as well as others, referred to homelessness. It is a subject dear to my heart, but difficult to go into it at length now. If we are to eradicate poverty and deprivation in London and other urban areas, we must tackle homelessness and, in particular, the problem of families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That is why we have set ourselves challenging targets, and why I announced a couple of weeks ago that I would be consulting in the new year to ascertain how we can give the targets statutory bite.

Last week, we announced additional money for the country—£7 million—for refuge accommodation. In addition, £1 million from the homelessness budget was matched by another £1 million from Comic Relief—its largest ever domestic donation, so many thanks to it—for setting up a national helpline. I refer to domestic violence in the context of homelessness because we know from figures that we are collating that, although it varies from region to region, women and children fleeing violent partners account for 16 per cent. of homelessness nationally. The connection is clear and the problem needs a joined-up approach. I take the point about more research on homelessness having to be done. We are committed to doing that.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned initiatives, including a review of area-based ones. He will know that we have made significant reductions in the number of such initiatives. I continue to keep a wary eye on new initiatives, which must pass strict tests. A great deal of work is happening locally. In Bolton, a local authority is putting its regeneration initiatives together to see what extra results can be gained.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned access to finance. That is an area huge enough to have a debate of its own. He was right to mention business funding, particularly access to business by black and minority ethnic communities. I hope that we shall return to that subject in detail.

This has been an extremely important debate. We have not dealt much with the new deal for communities, which I believe will significantly change the 39 areas to which it will apply over a long period. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham, who is the chair of the north Fulham NDC partnership. The neighbourhood renewal fund will kick-start mainstream programmes and bring the integrated funding for which so many hon. Members have asked. I am pleased to have made my contribution to this important area of policy, and to have listened to so many good contributions.

I am delighted to have secured this debate on the A303, which I hope will be fairly constructive in the light of the fact that the plans that the Secretary of State for Transport unveiled last week are on the whole welcomed by myself and my constituents, and in surrounding constituencies such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

However, I start on one slightly discordant note—relating to the Government's policy on public transport—that is directly relevant to the amount of traffic that travels down the A303, and to issues of traffic safety and congestion. Only a couple of years ago, the Government were willing to give a clear commitment that they were considering upgrading the A303 to a four-lane road, and the Strategic Rail Authority was prepared to upgrade the railway line between Exeter and Salisbury from a one-track to a two-track line. It is to be regretted that the Government's proposal to improve the A303 has not gone hand in hand with an improvement to the railway line, which could reduce congestion.

The other day, I made the mistake of referring in a local newspaper article to the railway lines between Exeter and Salisbury as "Victorian in character". I have since been corrected by several constituents and non-constituents, who pointed out that in Victorian days—from 1870, I believe—there was a dual-track line between Exeter and Salisbury. I have been somewhat unkind to the Victorians, who maintained a better railway system in the area that was more efficient in terms of journey timings than the balance of road and rail today. I hope that the Minister will touch on the issue of dual tracking the railway line, and the relevance of that to the A303.

Broadly, I welcome the Government's plans for the A303, particularly the plans to dual the A303 eastwards from the Southfield roundabout near Ilminster, towards the junction with the M3. That will be an important step in helping to ease congestion on that route. It will open up a vital economic artery for the south-west, and should improve safety on many stretches of the A303 because people who get stuck behind slow-moving traffic are often tempted to overtake. That has meant that a number of stretches of the A303 have a very bad accident record.

I begin my comments on that part of the A303 by asking the Minister several practical questions about the newly envisaged plans. What timing is envisaged for the different stretches of road? We appreciate that projects take place at different periods. There is a plan to dual the A358 up to the M3—a subject to which I shall return—and there are also plans to dual the Ilminster bypass and the stretch of road from Sparkford to Ilchester.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Sparkford to Ilchester road that he and I share, which is of great importance, sadly, because of the number of fatalities and serious accidents that have happened along that stretch. Does he agree that the plan—which has already gone through a public inquiry with no serious opposition—should be prioritised by the Department, so that some of the funds available for improving the A303 could be spent at an early opportunity?

That is a sensible suggestion. I hope that the Minister will return to it and explain the timing status for different stretches of the A303, particularly in Somerset, and tell us which of them already has some planning consent that might allow work to be accelerated.

The second practical point concerning timing is that I hope that the A303 will not be dualled simply to speed up traffic from London towards the west. That would open up an artery of traffic that could lead to huge congestion in Somerset before the completion of the route that we hope will take traffic from the A303 Southfield roundabout to the M5. I shall return to that when I discuss the A358.

Another issue on which I want to press the Minister is grade separation on the A303 in Somerset, which is being considered in relation to Cartgate, near Yeovil, and Podimore junction. Do the Government intend to consider grade separation on those two parts of the route in the light of the fact that that could improve the flow of traffic and reduce the number of accidents on those stretches of the road? What measures is the Minister considering to deal with the environmental damage that could result from dualling those stretches of the A303? He will be aware that issues have already arisen concerning the A303 Ilminster bypass, which is a concrete road that the Government have promised to resurface properly when work is next done. The neighbouring villages close to the A303 bypass, including Seavington and Whitlackington, have experienced a lot of noise nuisance since the bypass was opened. They are hoping that planting and screening, as well as embanking, will take place when the A303 is dualled in that area, to prevent the noise nuisance increasing.

I promise not to interrupt my hon. Friend again. Road noise is a substantial problem on quite a long stretch of the A303, particularly in the area of Wincanton, where for some inexplicable reason the Highways Agency, far from increasing the planting, has cut down the trees that used to reduce the sound nuisance to local residents, with the result that the road now has a very noisy surface and the residents have nothing to shield them from the nuisance. We are told that resurfacing will not be done until 2005. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Government and the Highways Agency can do better in providing relief for local residents?

I certainly share my hon. Friend's views on the matter and hope that the Minister has detected that this is a common concern in the villages that abut the A303 in Somerset.

The choice that the Government must make between dualling the A358 from the Southfield roundabout to the M5, and dualling over the Blackdown hills, is obviously controversial; even people within the immediate area have different views. The Government were right to say that they wish first to explore the option of dualling the A358 from the Southfield roundabout to the M5, instead of going over the Blackdown hills. They were also right to suggest that they may make that choice for a number of reasons.

First, there will be a major environmental issue if the A303 over the Blackdown hills is dualled. Such an environmental controversy could result in the project becoming bogged down for many years while objections are heard. We all know that during such projects Governments come and Governments go, and as suddenly as a road scheme goes on to the agenda, it can be taken off. If the rest of the A303 were dualled from the M3, we would face the problem of much larger volumes of traffic coming down the A303, then having to go on to single-lane roads, either over the Blackdown hills or up the A358. That is my first reason for hoping that the Government will go for the option of dualling the A358.

The second issue is that the A358 is a major trunk road in the region. It has key economic significance for Dorset and south Somerset, and is a major artery from there to the vital route of the M5. At present, it is one of the most congested roads—if not the most congested road—in Somerset, and has a very bad accident record. We hope that economic, environmental and safety benefits could be secured by improving that route.

Will the Minister be a little more open and informative than the Secretary of State was in the House of Commons the other day about the inquiry into the practicalities of the A358 route? Will he tell us when it will start, and give a broad idea of when a conclusion will be reached? The Minister may have heard about the frustration of many people in the Blackdowns area when it was announced last week that the Government are to set up another inquiry into the issue. Many people in the area feel that the Government should make a decision quickly, whichever route they take. Gill Bromley, a member of the Buckland St. Mary parish council, was quoted in the local newspaper:

"This has been going on for so many years and they are putting it off and putting it off. This is a non-decision, we are no further forward".

I hope that the Government will come up with a decision on the route very soon.

I also hope that the Government will work with Somerset county council—for which this is a tremendously important highways issue—and that the Minister will suggest to officials in the Highways Agency that they should open communications with the county council to discuss the project's practicalities. I hope that when he speaks to his officials he will make the vital point for Somerset and the Blackdowns that this part of improving the A303 cannot be left to the end. It must be done as soon as possible if we are not to end up with a huge bottleneck at the Southfield roundabout, and if the extra traffic coming down the dualled A303 from London and the south-east is not to be faced with a choice of two very unsatisfactory single-track roads.

What is the Government's thinking on the manner in which a dualled A358 will join the M5? The Minister will be aware that the junction there is already extremely busy, and that many cars and lorries that use the route do not turn west to go to Devon and Cornwall but turn east. Are the Government considering a new junction on the M5 close to Taunton, and will they consider a southerly and a northerly junction for the A358 at that point?

Are the Government determined to ensure that the A358 scheme is as environmentally sensitive as possible? Is the Minister aware that many people still suspect that the Highways Agency and the Department for Transport have always favoured dualling the A303 over the Blackdowns, and that they might be tempted to bring forward a scheme for dualling the A358 that is not as environmentally sound as it could be, so as to reopen the question of dualling the Blackdowns route? Will the Minister assure us that he will not allow that, and that he will ensure that any A358 dualling is done in as environmentally sensitive a way as possible?

I shall wrap up my comments by talking about what will need to happen if the Government go ahead and opt for the A358 route directly up to the M5 rather than dualling the A303, the Blackdowns route. Many people who live along the Blackdowns route in villages such as Buckland St. Mary and nearby Newtown are concerned about existing traffic volumes on the A303, and about the bad safety record of the A303 through the Blackdown hills. The safety and congestion issues must be addressed. There is therefore a need to ensure that if the A358 route is chosen, the Government will put in place alternative measures to take traffic off the Blackdowns route.

How does the Minister intend to instruct the highways officials to design the A358 route to the M5 so that it becomes the natural highway taking traffic from the east to the west of the country? Will signing and grade separation be used to encourage people going to Devon and Cornwall to use that route rather than the Blackdowns route? Will he also consider downgrading the classification of the A303 Blackdowns route so that people are no longer encouraged to use it?

The Minister will be aware that a series of safety measures relating to the Blackdowns route has recently been considered, including a reduced speed limit of 50 mph and speed cameras. Will he ask his highways officials, as part of the wider project, to consider whether more fundamental safety measures are needed to make the route less attractive to through traffic and safer for people using it?

There is a very dangerous junction—the Eagle Cross junction—on the Blackdowns route, which has a high accident rate. The local feeling is that traffic lights or a roundabout are needed to deal with the safety issues there. The Minister may wish to write to me about that detailed point. I am grateful to him for participating in the debate and I look forward to hearing his comments. Doubtless I will be in contact with him about the issue over the months ahead.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has conducted it; he has made his points very strongly on behalf of his constituents.

I noted his welcome for the thrust of the announcement that the Government made last week in relation to the south-west area multi-modal study. He talked about bringing schemes forward and about extra spending on the rail scheme. He is a pragmatic and sensible man. If he were not, his leader would not have made him the number two in the Liberal Democrat shadow Treasury team. I believe that he has been put in charge of finding spending cuts of £2 billion. I am certain that he would not want any of the schemes that he mentioned today to be part of those cuts.

Will the Minister give way?

Of course. The hon. Gentleman is probably about to tell us where the cuts will take place.

I fear that, although that would fascinating, it would take up too much of our time.

Will the Minister explain why a proposal to upgrade the rail link between Exeter and Salisbury to dual track appeared in the Government's spending plans two years ago, but has now disappeared? I say that in the most constructive way possible.

The hon. Gentleman said that it would take a long time to tell us where all the spending cuts will take place; I am sure that Hansard will have recorded that.

There are priorities in such matters. The hon. Gentleman will know, having the job that he does, that one has to face priorities. That is particularly true when one is in government; it is different when one is in opposition.

The A303 is an important trunk road. It is part of the strategic route from London to Exeter, which also includes the M3 and the A30. On Tuesday last week, the Secretary of State announced to the House the Government's decision on the London to south-west and south Wales multi-modal study, known as SWARMMS. The study was established in April 2000 to look at congestion on the M4 and M5, the impact of tourist traffic, the potential to transfer freight on to railways and the need for improved road services to reduce pressure on roads.

The study also considered the future of several on-hold road improvements on the A303 in Wiltshire, Somerset and Devon and on the A38 in Cornwall. The schemes on the A303 within the study's remit were as follows: the Ilminster bypass improvement; the Sparkford to Ilchester improvement—which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath); the Wylye-Stockton Wood improvement; the Chicklade Bottom-Mere improvement; the Ilminster to Marsh improvement; and the A30 and A303 Marsh to Honiton improvement. Those stretches of the A303 are the remaining single carriageway sections of the road. They have a high rate of accidents—above the national average.

The Government are mindful that this is a popular holiday route, particularly from the south-east to the south-west. The rest of the route is already dual carriageway. Sections of the road are severely congested, particularly in the busy times of the summer when holiday traffic is in evidence. The route is also important for business because it links the south-west to other parts of the country. It provides access to the channel tunnel, the M3 and the M25.

We realise that there are sensitive environmental issues relating to that corridor. Four of the schemes are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty. The Ilminster to Marsh and the Marsh to Honiton improvements are located in the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty.

We all know that increased pressure and congestion are experienced not only on the M4, but on the M5. That is particularly prevalent in the summer months. The SWARMMS study considered the need for improvements to the parallel railway routes that might reduce congestion on the M4, M5 and A303. Those are the routes out of Paddington to Bristol and Taunton, and out of Waterloo to Exeter. On the second line, the section west of Salisbury is single-track, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, prevents further improvements from being made to journey times and service frequency on that section. However, the study concluded that, although improvements to the Waterloo to Exeter route were desirable, they were unlikely to take significant amounts of traffic from the A303. That is one issue that informed our decision.

In the discussion that we had on the statement last week, the hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the re-dualling of the Salisbury to Waterloo railway line. I can only reiterate what the Secretary of State said at the time; that is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority, and because of the other huge and competing demands, we are unable to take that scheme forward at the moment.

The SWARMMS study concluded that the whole route from the M3 to the A303, the Exeter route, needed to be improved to provide a second dual carriageway; a high-quality road from London to the south-west. Compared with the M4 or M5, the M3 from London to Exeter is shorter by some 25 miles, with obvious savings in time, costs and pollution. An improved A303 could provide an alternative and more reliable route from the London area or from the south-west to the south-east.

As I said, the A303 and A30 west of Ilminster go through a nationally important environmental landscape. The hon. Gentleman will know that our policy on areas of outstanding natural beauty is that we do not support infrastructure developments that damage the landscape if there is an alternative. The consultants who worked on the SWARMMS study considered that there was an alternative to improving the A303 and A30; directing traffic north from the A303 at Ilminster on to the A358 to join the M5 at junction 25 at Taunton.

The A358 is already a busy section of road, catering for regional north-south movement, and the hon. Gentleman has raised that route in past correspondence with the Department. However, the consultants recommended that route as an alternative to improving the A303 and A30 through the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. They thought that that solution was less environmentally damaging.

The south-west regional assembly has given us comprehensive views on the SWARMMS study. It undertook public hearings on the recommendations and decided in the end to ask us to dual both the A303 and the A358. What was not clear in its representations was why both those routes needed to be improved to meet the strategic needs that the study was reviewing.

Unfortunately, life is not that easy, and there are a number of problems with the consultants' solution. First, the A358 route is longer than the direct route from Honiton to Ilminster. Secondly, it will direct traffic to the congested junction on the M5 near Taunton. Thirdly, it does not provide an extra route all the way from the M3 into Cornwall that is totally separate from the M4 and M5. In other words, extra traffic will be put on the Taunton to Exeter part of the motorway. Taunton is designated in regional planning guidance for the south-west as a focus for sustained growth over the next 10 to 15 years.

However, the route has the considerable benefit of not requiring the A303 and A30 to be improved through the Blackdown Hills area of outstanding natural beauty, as that could damage the historic landscape and a number of wildlife sites nearby. We understand that if the A358 were chosen for improvement, there would still be residual traffic, environmental and safety problems in particular to be addressed on the unimproved A303 and A30. We are therefore mindful that some improvements would be needed on the existing route if the A358 option went ahead.

The hon. Gentleman asked how the inquiry on junctions on the motorway was progressing. I would not dignify it by calling it an inquiry, but the Highways Agency is certainly considering the technical specifications and all the other issues that relate to the provision of the A358 alternative route, including any extra motorway junctions either side of Taunton that may be required.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time. Will he ensure that his officials consult Somerset county council highways officials on that inquiry, and does he expect the inquiry to report with a final conclusion on whether the A358 will be made a duel carriageway in the next 12 months?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the relevant parties will be consulted. That is the thrust and the spirit of the multi-modal studies. We want this local input. Indeed, we have had enormous input from Somerset county council and all the other county councils that have been a central part of the inquiry. I cannot predict how long those discussions will take, but we hope that they will not stretch too far into next year. We want the matter to be resolved fairly soon, because it is key to progress on the entire route.

There are planning and environmental issues relating to the whole route. Which parts of the route will be dealt with first will be a matter for careful consideration. I take into account the comments made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, as we realise that several benefits might be attained by dealing with some parts of the route before others. We want to take the views of the county councils and Members of Parliament into account when we go ahead with the plan. We must balance the benefits to road users with the environmental impact, but whatever decision we take will upset one group or another. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are not yet in the position to take that final decision. However, I hope that we will be able to do so shortly. We are, however, clear that the south-west needs the two high-quality routes.

As I said, parts of the M4 and M5 are suffering problems of severe congestion, and the targeted programme of improvements lists four improvements to tackle some of those problems. More importantly, hon. Members will be pleased to hear that we have accepted the SWARMMS recommendations for the area east of Ilminster. The Highways Agency continues to work with the statutory environmental bodies to prepare the schemes to allow their entry into the TPI. Part of that work includes looking at junctions and roundabouts on the route, and making improvements at roundabouts such as Cartgate arid Podimore. That should allow us to announce a comprehensive package of measures, some of which we hope to be able to deliver quite soon.

I know that the hon. Gentleman will ask why we cannot immediately ask the Highways Agency to press ahead with the construction and why there is a need for further delays. The answer is that we are not yet ready to include all these schemes in the TPI, but the Highways Agency is working with various bodies to see how we can make rapid progress on the schemes. Those discussions mean that I am confident that the schemes will be an improvement on others that we promoted in the past. They will incorporate the latest mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impact. I noted the comment about the trees. I am aware that the Highways Agency is the second largest planter of tress in England—second only to the Forestry Commission—and I am proud of that green aspect of the work of my Department.

As hon. Members have suggested, not all the schemes are in the same state of readiness. We intend to be in a position to make further announcements in the first half of 2003 on some of the priorities. I appreciate that improving the A358, as SWARMMS consultants recommend, would have local benefits, as well as facilitating longer-distance travel from Devon and Cornwall. We recognise that the north-south route from Dorset and Somerset to the M5 and north of Bristol is important, and we will get detailed advice from the agency and produce some answers on that as soon as possible.

We have had a short but useful debate. If I have failed to cover any issues in the short time available, I should be happy to correspond with the hon. Gentleman to answer his questions more fully.

The subject of the debate is battered women who kill. A few years ago the headline court cases of Sara Thornton and Emma Humphreys brought these women and their predicament to the public's attention. They were long-term sufferers from domestic violence who, in the end, killed their violent partners. Before their cases, the jurisprudence of the murder made little allowance for the effects of battering on such women.

In a majority of the 20 or so cases that come before the courts every year, the women are convicted of murder. They are convicted because they fit badly into the principal defence of self-defence, which has developed in the law with men—the majority of violent criminals—as the model. Classically, a case might involve a woman with no convictions, who would probably never harm anyone in other circumstances, but ends up a killer. The husband may often appear a nice, charming man, but is all too frequently drunk. He is sorry when he has been violent and promises to change; she believes it, but blames herself because she cannot make him want to change enough. She is economically dependent on him and if she left, her children would become part of a poor, emotionally disadvantaged one-parent family—so she stays. The men keep telling the women that they cannot leave and the women become convinced of it.

The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others know that a woman in these circumstances may typically be assaulted 35 times before she seeks any help. When she does, the man sees it as the first step towards her leaving him, and it becomes the most dangerous time for the woman. Many women who leave partners in those circumstances have sometimes been followed and forced to return, and they often continue to be intimidated long after leaving. The need for secrecy about the location of refuges makes the dangers all too clear. It is difficult to disappear: they will have friends in common and he will have the right of access to the children.

Let us examine the problem from the male point of view. Almost half the total number of women killed in England and Wales are killed by a partner or ex-partner, usually when they are about to leave or just after they have left. In contrast, only between 6 and 8 per cent. of men killed in England and Wales are killed by their female partners.

Sometimes the circumstances do lead women to kill. Characteristically, the woman kills the man with a single blow, often with a kitchen knife, when she is under attack from his fists. She will be charged with murder, which is unlawfully killing someone, intending to kill them or to cause them serious harm. Four defences are possible, but the only ground for an acquittal is self-defence: the other three would reduce the conviction to manslaughter. Self-defence is the main defence, but it is the one that women fit least well into.

Self-defence is lawful when someone is attacked and he can use such force as is reasonably necessary to defend himself, but the force must be proportionate to the attack and it must stop when the attack is over. The measure of proportionality is seen through his eyes, so it has a subjective aspect.

More than 90 per cent. of violent offences tried by the courts are committed by men. Unsurprisingly, defences evolved in the courts to deal with male responses. Self-defence, with its requirement for proportionality, is effectively made for two reasonably physically matched men fighting. In that sense it is fair, allowing the attacked man to defend himself until he feels safe from further attack. However, is it fair to women who are attacked and use self-defence, especially to women who are victims of repeated domestic violence?

Women's situations and responses are different from men's. Women see themselves as physiologically somewhat fragile. They are not used to fighting, or to feeling the need to fight back, and they are less likely to have had training or practice in measuring force to make it proportionate in a fight. On average—I am the exception that proves the rule—women are smaller than men, and also weaker.

Women say in evidence that if they defend themselves using proportionate force to a man, not only does that not stop the attack, but it provokes worse violence. In the case of domestic violence, if a man has attacked a woman before—perhaps not in a life-threatening way, but inflicting pain, cuts and bruises and causing discomfort and depression—the woman will be afraid of provoking more of the same. If she has to fight back, therefore, she will not be calm and will panic too much to be able to measure a response. Self-defence entitles the woman to defend herself until the attack stops, but to do that she will have to stop the attacker completely. She will, at least, have to make him unconscious, and to do that she will need a weapon. We are now moving away from a proportionate response to his fists.

Many women say that they use a weapon to put the man down and thereby stop the attack, as an observer might say. However, they are gripped with the certainty that he will get up and attack them again straight away. In the middle of an attack when the man is down, they feel that they will feel safe only by hitting him more to ensure that he stays down. That is not convenient testimony, but it is what women have told psychiatrists, many years after their convictions, in anonymous surveys that have nothing to do with getting an appeal or retrying the issues.

The need to go beyond proportionate force to stop an attack only takes a woman to the point where a man is entitled to go in law—to defend herself until the attack stops. There is a subjective element to the matter, which must be looked at from behind her eyes. She does only what a man is entitled to do, but in her case it involves disproportionate force and so takes her outside the realm of self-defence.

Women do not fit the model of self-defence as evolved by the courts. That is not surprising, because violence has been male territory. The mismatch with self-defence goes a step further. There are cases in which self-defence is coupled with what seems to be delay. A man's previous act of violence is over and he is asleep, but the woman is sure that when he wakes up he will attack her again. She is convinced that she cannot leave, and feels like a hostage, waiting for him to wake up and torture her. If she strikes out at that point, it might seem even further from the male model of self-defence.

In trials in Canada, expert evidence is allowed to explain that mismatch, and the processes through which the woman goes. In the United States, the Washington state Supreme Court has accepted that any instruction to a jury that limits force to proportionate self-defence for a woman is not giving her the equal protection of the law. In England, neither of those things are the case. The jurisprudence is male. Without expert advice, women's reactions are not understood and may seem counterintuitive. Consequently, self-defence is a poor defence option for a woman facing a murder trial. Its biggest disadvantage is that if that defence fails, she will be convicted of murder and receive a mandatory life sentence.

Women should, but dare not, invoke self-defence, and settle for a partial defence such as provocation, reducing their conviction to manslaughter. Consequently, the understanding of women's different reactions, of the kind that I have outlined that have been accepted in Canada and the United States, are not being put before English judges and juries because women dare not do it. No attempt can therefore be made to develop a female model of self-defence. That can be remedied only by a review of cases of battered women who killed, and that issue should be looked at carefully in the domestic violence review that the Government will carry out.

Unlike self-defence, the defence of provocation—the partial defence to murder—has adapted to women's needs. Provocation reduces murder to manslaughter if the killing is done during a sudden and temporary loss of self-control caused by things said or done that would also make a reasonable person lose their self-control. The courts are increasingly starting to understand the way in which women react to repeated provocative conduct, which is what domestic violence turns out to be. In the famous case of Emma Humphreys, the whole history of violence against her by her pimp was put in, to show her loss of self-control when she finally stabbed him in its fullest context.

That is good for future cases, but it raises a second problem. When case law moves the law on, it is not so well known as when a new statute is passed. Although the cases are famous, what they say is not. It is likely that many women before Emma Humphreys would have been convicted only of manslaughter, had the full extent of the provocation against them been included. The legal rule is that once the law has been declared, and once, as in this case, cumulative provocation can be brought into evidence, it is deemed always to have been the law.

A number of individuals have emerged from prison—usually in response to publicity—to appeal and to benefit from the changes in the law brought in by the Court of Appeal. They were convicted before cumulative provocation was allowed. They have appealed since, and their appeals have been allowed. Diana Butler from Yorkshire, Josephine Smith from East Anglia and Donna Tinker from the north-east are three who have appealed and benefited from that law change. They had the help of campaigning groups such as Justice for Women and Southall Black Sisters, but neither of those groups, nor any other, has the resources to identify and to prepare the appeals that must be outstanding for other women on a case-by-case basis. It is likely that there is a group of women scattered around the prison estate, serving sentences for murder, who were convicted before the law changed and who would now only be convicted of manslaughter. They are now entitled to an appeal and do not realise it. This is an unusual position; indeed, I imagine that it is unique.

There are particular difficulties in relation to domestic violence victims. They do not readily talk about what they have suffered, and so they are even less likely to respond to the publicity and to come out; nor is it known how many women are serving sentences in England and Wales for the killing of violent male partners. North American research finds that between 70 and 80 per cent. of women serving murder sentences are serving them for the murder of their partner as a result of domestic violence. The English academic Horder sees no reason to think that the proportion would be significantly different here. I have asked parliamentary questions to try to find out how many women who have killed their partners are in prison, but no record of that is kept. The Home Office's best estimate is that 14 women are in prison for the murder of violent male partners. At the time of the debate, however, the Justice For Women group is supporting 19 women who are in exactly that situation, so there is clearly a significant underestimate.

Miscarriages of justice, as some of those cases may be, should go to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Appearing before the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the chair of the commission, Sir Frederick Crawford, was asked when he would exercise the commission's power to self-refer, whereby it would not wait for an application, but would consider cases that might be unjust and take them to appeal itself. Sir Frederick said that he would want to exercise his self-referral power on precisely the sort of case to which I have referred, but the commission has never done so. One imagines that it is too over-burdened to self-refer at all. In the case of Josephine Smith, which I mentioned earlier, it took three years from drafting grounds of appeal to the review commission sending it to the Court of Appeal.

What is to be done? Five, 10, 20 or 50 women may be serving life sentences, and perhaps many of them should be released now that the law has changed. They may be mothers. They may not know what they are suffering. I have pointed to two different ways in which I seek help from my right hon. Friend the Minister—two different ways in which the law on murder causes injustice to women victims of domestic violence who snap and kill.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for raising an important subject and eloquently setting out the issues relating to women who are imprisoned for murder following domestic violence. Does she agree that an additional point is that a woman is doubly victimised when she is a victim of murder? A perverse incentive in sentencing means that it is to the perpetrator's benefit to kill the victim of domestic violence, because there will be no victim impact statement and no voice to counter allegations that she had aggravated his anger and thus caused him to murder her. Should not that be taken into account in the domestic violence review, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention and I agree with her. Further to her point, domestically violent male killers of women have committed frequent criminal offences. Let me put it another way. Women victims of domestic violence who become defendants have had repeated criminal offences committed against them by the perpetrators, against whom they turn. However, many men who kill their partners have had no such experience. Their cause for complaint is that the woman nagged them, or said that she was going off with the gym instructor, as happened in a famous case a short time ago.

It is well known that domestic violence affects one in four women, although battered women who kill are few. If the criminal justice system continues to treat them harshly, that sends out a clear message that the state is not prepared to understand the ramifications of how domestic violence affects women. If women electors are to have confidence in the system, the two features to which I hope I have pointed adequately in this short debate must be changed.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on obtaining the debate. Having heard her introduction, I believe that on this occasion the appellation "learned" is justified. I do not use it in every circumstance, but perhaps I should. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran), who chairs the all-party group on domestic violence, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown), who is also actively involved with these issues.

In addition to being the Home Office Minister with responsibility for crime reduction, including the reduction of violent crime, I chair the inter-ministerial group, which meets regularly to co-ordinate the Government's response to domestic violence. I hope to say a little about that later if I have time.

Domestic violence is an unacceptable violent crime that claims the lives of two women a week. It accounts for a quarter of all violent crimes and nearly half of all female murder victims are killed by a partner or an ex-partner. It is important for the Government and many other agencies to make a priority of stopping domestic violence and bringing its perpetrators to justice. The British crime survey indicates that there were 635,000 incidents of domestic violence last year. That estimate may increase as we improve the survey methods to make them more confidential, and as more incidents are reported. Certainly, one in four women is affected by domestic violence in her lifetime. I shall attempt to set out the legal position as I understand it, and then respond to the two particular areas of concern raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

The law on homicide does not distinguish between men and women, but statistics do not support the view that, in similar circumstances, men are more likely to be convicted of manslaughter and women are more likely to be convicted of murder. On the contrary, the statistics for England and Wales show that in convictions for partner or ex-partner homicides, a far greater percentage of men are convicted of murder and a greater percentage of women are convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

Over the past six years, on average, three women a year were convicted of murdering their partner or ex-partner—14 per cent. of cases—compared with an average of 36 men a year, or 37 per cent. of cases. The law must deal fairly and appropriately with those who kill, recognising the variety of circumstances in which killing may take place. We believe that the law on homicide is appropriate and that courts are able to take account of the experiences of women who have been the victims of domestic violence.

Self-defence is a defence that can be used by both men and women. It is partly a common law defence, but the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that a person may use

"such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime".

The courts must therefore consider any defence on a case-by-case basis. Self-defence is a complete defence to a charge of murder; if successful, it results in the acquittal of the defendant. Self-defence is available to those who use such force as was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances to prevent injury to themselves, their family or their property. If made out successfully, it is a complete defence to injury or killing. It is for the jury to decide whether the force used by the defendant was reasonable and necessary in the circumstances. That is not a matter of blow-for-blow proportionality. A person suffering an attack may use the force that they honestly believe is reasonable in the circumstances, depending on the nature of the threat that they face. The courts take account of what was reasonable in the circumstances for someone in the defendant's shoes. For example, allowances are made for panic in the heat of the moment or for the fact that the defendant was small and frail and the criminal large and threatening.

If I understood the argument of my hon. and learned Friend correctly—I hope that she will forgive me if I did not—it was concerned less with the way in which the primary legislation is stated and more with the degree to which current practice encourages, or otherwise, defence solicitors and their QCs to argue a case in court. Through her professional efforts, my hon. and learned Friend has played her own part in raising the profile of defences and the arguments that can be made. I am sure that what she said today will reach a wider audience than those of us who are in the Chamber.

It is true that self-defence cannot be used in the anticipation of violence towards the defendant. Although I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend made a case this morning for changing that, I am aware that some groups have argued for such a change in primary legislation. It is very difficult to see how one could legitimise killing in anticipation of violence, as some appear to have suggested. I do not think that legitimising the planned killing of another person should be advocated as a way of dealing with violence. My hon. and learned Friend did not do that, but I am aware of some of the wider debates and arguments.

As my hon. and learned Friend said, provocation may be used as a partial defence, reducing the offence to manslaughter. As she set out very well, case law confirms that response to an act of provocation need not be instantaneous and that the cumulative effect of prolonged abuse may be taken into account when assessing the impact of a final provoking incident. She raised the interesting and perhaps unprecedented question of whether that change in case law has created an identifiable group of imprisoned women who have not yet had the opportunity to exercise that defence. That is a provocative question, as would he the question of why they were not able to exercise that defence. However, my first reaction to it is that the power to act on that lies not with the Government but with others, such as the commission to which she referred. However, that was an interesting and important point.

We have focused on court processes and the legal position of women who kill in circumstances of domestic violence. To close the debate, I should like to restate the importance of the Government's wider strategy—to try to stop the abuse at the root of such killing and to provide proper support for sufferers of such abuse so that other, better remedies are available to them. We are taking steps, although we must build on them further, to protect women from domestic violence. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, for example, provides a remedy for behaviour causing harassment or fear of violence. Criminal evidence legislation has given greater support to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.

There are many good projects up and down the country. Yesterday I visited the women's support unit in Cardiff, which provides very effective support to women who suffer from domestic violence and helps them through the complex legal procedures involved in housing, benefits and so on. It is important that women suffering from violence in their relationships have real options; somewhere safe to go, financial support and help in finding new schools for their children if necessary. They need information, help and support throughout the process, including ensuring that the offender is prosecuted and punished for his violent behaviour.

In short, we must do everything we can to help victims before matters reach the point where lives are lost—most fundamentally, the lives of the two women a week who are murdered at the hands of their partners or ex-partners, but also the lives of the men murdered by women who have suffered from domestic violence, although that is much rarer.

Much work is being undertaken. We are working with the police service to pilot the use of risk assessments, so that we can better identify the women who are at greatest risk and give the right priority to planning the safety and protection of victims. We want to ensure that assistance and support are in place so that domestic violence incidents do not go unreported. It is important that the measures on which we will consult in the new year ensure that the protection that the law is meant to offer women who suffer from domestic violence is real and can be upheld. More widely, we need to increase safe accommodation choices for women; we announced measures for doing so last week.

We must ensure that the health service plays a fuller role in supporting women who are victims of domestic violence and that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service give a consistent and appropriate response. Fundamentally, we must also continue to promote education and raise awareness so that the sense of the unacceptability of domestic violence as a violent crime is shared throughout society.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to debate the Post Office universal service obligation, not least because it is of particular importance to rural areas and areas in which residents have set up small businesses in their own homes.

My constituency is one of the most rural in southern England, and employment is concentrated in the new high-tech industries. There are many self-employed computer specialists, and such people depend on the postal service being prompt, reliable and universal.

It is remarkable that, in the 21st century, the postal service is struggling to meet the standards that it met in the 19th century. Nevertheless, we are to see not only a switch to a single daily delivery in the UK—the scheme has been piloted recently in my constituency, which is part of my motivation for this debate—but less efficiency, a more impersonal service and the decimation of a rural and urban post office network. Above all, we are witnessing a significant threat to the principle of the universal postal system—one that provides daily collections and deliveries throughout the country at a uniform price.

The universal service obligation was written into law by the Postal Services Act 2000. That states:

"a universal postal service is provided if",

except under exceptional geographical or other circumstances,

"at least one delivery of relevant postal packets is made every working day to the home or premises of every individual or other person in the United Kingdom"

and with uniform postal costs throughout the UK. I shall return to the point that the Act stipulates not a second delivery but at least one delivery every working day. It is important to appreciate the wider picture.

It is widely accepted that the Royal Mail will face much more intense competition in coming years. That prospect has the potential for improving postal services in some respects, but there are also clear dangers. As the Public Accounts Committee concluded earlier this year, more competition could mean reductions in low profit services and an erosion of the principle of a universal service at a uniform tariff. As elsewhere in our public services, the mantra of competition and efficiency can translate into the removal of basic service provision.

In response to my questions at the Public Accounts Committee hearing on 25 March, the chief executive of Consignia—as it then was—admitted that the uniform tariff, under which the cost of postage is the same wherever one lives in the UK, could be scrapped as more competition is introduced. He accepted that that could damage rural communities in particular. Yet the Government have led us to believe that liberalisation is secondary to the statutory requirement, under the 2000 Act, for a universal service, with attention to the needs of pensioners, those on low incomes and those living in rural areas. To quote the Secretary of State:

"We have … established that Postcomm's primary duty is to ensure that a universal service is delivered. Any proposals or decisions from Postcomm about market opening must be subsidiary to that duty."—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 297.]

I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to assure my constituents that that remains the Government's commitment, and that the growing concerns in west Berkshire about a decline in service will be addressed. Many of the problems faced by Royal Mail, in terms of failing to meet targets and declining profits, are the product of inefficiency only in the sense that inefficiency stems from inadequate investment.

At the same hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, it emerged—again in response to my questions—that the Post Office's losses are in large part due to its profits being eaten up by the Treasury over many years rather than being reinvested in new technology and services. The subsequent Public Accounts Committee report found:

"Consignia would have liked to invest more than £1 billion in recent years on greater automation of its sorting process, and in improving the quality and condition of its sorting offices. This was in the context of profits totalling some £3.8 billion (in cash terms) made by the post office over the last 20 years, around 70 per cent. of which (in cash terms) was paid over to the Government."

Those Members who, like me, have made a pre-Christmas visit to a local sorting office will be aware that most are woefully out of date, badly maintained and dilapidated.

Postcomm's proposals envisage a faster timetable for liberalisation than that envisaged by the European Commission. Postcomm envisages full market opening by 2007, while the Commission is talking about 2009, subject to an impact study. That raises the prospect of European postal companies having greater access to the UK's domestic postal market than the Royal Mail does to theirs.

As I have already noted, the 2000 Act does not stipulate a second delivery. It stipulates only

"at least one delivery every working day".

There is nothing wrong with that statement in itself, but there must also be regard to ensuring equity—fair and equal treatment for households and businesses across the UK—and reliability of delivery. Sadly, neither of those conditions is presently being met.

Newbury was one of the pilot areas for the single daily delivery, which started in July. Interestingly, three of the pilot areas were so horrified by the way in which the scheme worked that they refused to continue it after just two weeks. The basic components of the scheme were outlined in a press statement on 10 July. "Customers" receiving 20 or more letters a day on a regular basis were to get a delivery before 9 am. Most other customers were to receive their mail between around 9 am and "lunchtime". Customers could choose to pay for a delivery before 9 am, at a cost of £62.50 a month, or they could opt to collect their own mail free of charge.

Businesses could pay £184 a month for deliveries from 6 am if they were within 10 miles of the delivery office. In terms of outcomes, the magic word was "efficiency", which was defined in two senses. First, Royal Mail told us that there would be a "saving", as distinct from a cut, of around £350 million a year. Secondly, more letters would be delivered "on time", which means the next working day after posting.

There are some basic absurdities about the scheme. The cut-off point of 20 or more letters a day seems completely arbitrary. In fact, rather than paying £62.50 a month, it was cheaper for some of my constituents who were just under the limit to mail themselves empty envelopes, to bring themselves over the threshold. I am told that only one man in the country—not a constituent of mine—opted to pay the £14 per week charge.

More fundamental issues are also at stake. For those of us who are interested in maintaining a public service ethos in postal services, the language used in press statements of that sort rings immediate warning bells. People are no longer local residents; they are now called "customers". Cuts are cloaked in the language of "efficiency" and "savings". One journalist pointed out that in reality, it is not the second delivery that is being removed, but the first.

Last month, Newbury residents were told that the pilot scheme had been a great success. In a letter, which infuriated many of my constituents, addressed to "customers", Royal Mail informed residents that

"The pilot has … confirmed our view that a single delivery is the right way forward."

Postwatch took a more critical view. From the outset, the public watchdog insisted that

"customers' opinions and views be given full consideration when final decisions are made."

It also stated:

"Whilst we recognise that Royal Mail needs to make changes to provide a more efficient service, we cannot support those changes without a true understanding of customers' opinions and experiences."

Postwatch also noted that

"the trials were inadequate in duration and were run over the awkward summer period. Customers did not have enough time to gauge whether the new delivery arrangements were acceptable."

The fact that the Post Office thinks that the trial was such a triumph is contrary to the remarks about it that I hear from my constituents.

What lessons can we learn from the pilot scheme in Newbury? As for equity, small businesses in west Berkshire were put at a disadvantage when the Royal Mail singled out particular areas for the pilot. Later delivery times disadvantaged small businesses more generally, particularly in areas such as west Berkshire where many people work from home. The £184 per month for earlier delivery may be small change to larger companies, but not for small businesses or the self-employed.

Anne Karpf, writing in The Guardian, pointed out the fundamental point—that

"by separating off ordinary customers from business ones"

Royal Mail

"has irrevocably fissured the postal service in one of its fundamentals—universality."

As she pointed out, public service is not supposed to discriminate. Why—in social terms, as distinct from considerations of profit—is the so-called granny post deemed less important than express parcel deliveries for those able to pay? A cross-subsidy is not, or should not be, a term of disrepute, because it lies at the heart of the public service ideal.

What about reliability, a concept that is quite distinct from the narrow market conception of efficiency? Certainly the experience of my constituents—or should I say "customers"?—does not support the conclusions reached by Royal Mail. In a letter, one of my constituents stated:

"On at least 3 occasions the post has not arrived before 3.30 pm, and on many occasions it has been after 1 pm. I have had 3 letters this week, that I have had to put back in the post box because they were not for me. Two letters last week arrived 5 days after the post mark date, so I presume they suffered the same fate. A neighbour told me that number 29 got number 27's mail and number 31 got number 29's mail. I had a letter delivered after 6 pm one night so I expect that had been delivered to someone else in the road."

Is that the "consistent service" that "customers" were promised in the letter that they received from the Royal Mail in November? The shift from the individual local postman who knew the area and the houses to which he delivered the mail to "teams" has resulted in less reliability, not greater efficiency. For businesses, reliability is more important than the number of deliveries in a single day, but the switch to a single daily delivery has not secured greater reliability.

There is a strong impression that the Royal Mail reached its conclusion before the pilot began. That is suggested by the fact that its press announcement in July stated:

"Following the pilot schemes, a national roll-out of the single delivery will start in the Autumn and be completed by October 2003."

That was the stated intention before the pilot scheme had even started. Local experience of the changes and the views of people in Newbury and elsewhere have simply been ignored, because they had been discounted from the start.

In the past, the Government have said that the universal service guarantee comes before any commitment to liberalisation, but that guarantee is now under attack. A scheme that has failed to deliver a better service to my constituents—it has worsened it—has been given a nationwide stamp of approval. Is that the price that we are being asked to pay for the Government's failure to unlock the resources needed for investment in and modernisation of the postal service?

A report published this week by the New Economics Foundation warns that community life in Britain's small towns and villages is declining, with the closure of one fifth of our corner shops, grocers, high street banks, post offices and pubs in less than a decade. The report raises the prospect of a "ghost-town Britain", with town centres in terminal decline and many of our communities isolated and excluded. Post offices are part of that equation. More than 4,000 post offices have closed since 1981. In 1997, 20 per cent. of rural post offices were the last shop in the village.

The post office is more than just another business; it is a vital social service that helps to sustain community life. The mail is an instrument of social inclusion, affordable for even our most deprived citizens and available to even our most isolated. If that is to remain the case, the Government and Royal Mail must rethink their priorities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on securing this debate on the Post Office universal postal service obligation. I have listened to his concerns and welcome the opportunity to respond to them. I speak as the granddaughter of a former postmistress in Bucklebury, Berkshire, not very far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

It is in my constituency.

Indeed.

A key feature of the structures that were established in 2000 was regulatory reform to promote and protect the consumer interest. The Postal Services Act 2000 established not only an independent regulator, Postcomm, to ensure the provision of the universal postal service and to oversee the regulated postal market but a consumer council, Postwatch, which is specifically charged with responsibility for addressing the needs of consumers. The establishment of an independent regulator was widely sought, particularly by Post Office management and the trade unions, to enable the company to have commercial freedom, at arm's length from government, to operate in an increasingly competitive and dynamic market in which consumers increasingly have a choice of communication means and supplier.

The hon. Gentleman made some slightly disparaging remarks about the role of competition, but I am sure that he recognises, as we do, that it is a good feature of a market when it works well and that it provides choice and cost opportunities for consumers.

The consumer interest was and remains a main feature of the Government's reform of the postal services; therefore, maintenance of a universal service is the highest priority. Our commitment is well demonstrated by the 2000 Act, which enshrined the universal service obligation in UK primary legislation. It was a significant step forward for consumers and the UK postal service. Daily postal delivery service to every address in the UK at a uniform rate remains at the very centre of our approach to postal services, and the legal obligation to maintain universal service is the regulator's primary duty.

Let me turn to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about postal liberalisation in Europe. Concerns have been expressed that the UK is moving faster than Europe, but what is happening in the UK is consistent with European trends systematically to open the letter post market to competition. Some member states have already opened their markets in whole or in part, and the European Union has adopted a framework that provides for others to do the same.

Within the parameters set by the European directive, the UK and other member states determine the most appropriate course of action for their own markets. In the UK, Postcomm has a duty to ensure that the market is opened to competition in a way that meets the needs of consumers and is consistent with its primary duty to ensure provision of a universal service.

The hon. Gentleman commented on the single delivery. He does not need my advice about talking to the local management about some of the particular problems that his constituents have experienced; I am sure that he does that on a regular basis, as we all do when such issues arise on our own patches.

Royal Mail is a business and is run on a commercial basis. Delivery processes are a commercial matter for the company. It cannot continue to lose more than £1 million every working day; it must get a grip on its costs in order to be in a position in which it can provide the quality of postal services that we require in the future. The second delivery had become an anachronism. It was delivering just 4 per cent. of the UK's mail while accounting for 20 per cent. of Royal Mail's delivery costs; obviously there was a huge discrepancy. Reducing that disproportionate cost will make a positive contribution to retuning the company to profitability. Royal Mail wants to save £350 million gross a year by reorganising deliveries.

The new services have been tested as part of pilots during the summer. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman's uncharitable suggestion, the experience of that will be properly reviewed by Royal Mail. That is not to say that Royal Mail does not intend to roll out the new delivery specification during 2003, but it does mean that we can assess the impact of delivery changes on small businesses—something that was specifically assessed during the pilots.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks on his constituents' experience of delivery during the pilot arrangements that were tested this summer, and these will be studied by Royal Mail. The whole point of a pilot is that it is a dry run that tests whether things work as well as they should and works out how to respond if they do not. I am sure that Royal Mail has learned from the experience.

On rural and urban services, the performance and innovation unit recommended options—Postcomm advised us of them last year—for supporting the rural network of post offices from 2003. On 2 December we announced the details of a £450 million funding scheme to assist the rural network during the next three years, subject to European state aid clearance. That funding is part of an overall financing package for the Royal Mail group in line with the Secretary of State's announcement in June.

On the rural network, the Government have made a firm commitment to prevent avoidable rural closures before 2006; we have made available a £2 million fund to support community post office initiatives. We will make available £450 million—£150 million a year from 2003 for three years—to help continue to provide access in rural areas where it could not otherwise be sustained on a purely commercial basis. Much is being done to support the rural network.

On the urban network, the Government have earmarked £210 million for the reinvention programme, obtained the necessary green light from the European Commission for the arrangements and, on 15 October, received Parliament's approval for the expenditure.

Details of a £15 million scheme to support post offices that are invaluable to the communities in deprived urban areas throughout England will be published shortly. An equivalent programme was launched in Wales on 15 November, and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland are developing or considering similar schemes. Those actions are supported by substantial funding, making it clear that the Government have lived up to their commitment to implement the PIU report. The Government maintain that commitment.

I shall turn to the operation of Royal Mail as a universal service provider, and to our measures to put it on a stronger footing. The Postal Services Act 2000, together with the arm's-length relationship that the Government have given the company, provides the commercial freedom that is necessary to enable Royal Mail to respond to competition and meet consumer demand successfully. The Government's 2001 manifesto commitment to

"high-quality, universal postal services, and a dynamic Post Office which can thrive in a world of technological change and increased competitive pressure"

meant that restructuring the company was a key priority. To put Royal Mail on a stronger footing, we have taken action to help the company face the future. We have already spoken about the package of reforms, and this year we have further strengthened management by appointing a new group chairman, Allan Leighton, and securing a new chief executive—to be announced—for the post office network. A new human resources director will also take up post early in the new year and the non-executive team has been further enhanced with four additional directors. The appointment of a new chief executive for the mail business and a new chairman of Post Office Ltd. is under way.

Royal Mail Group is already implementing a radical restructuring programme and over the next three years, under the renewal plans announced by Allan Leighton, the losses will be eliminated and the company returned to profit.

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's comments about visits to post offices and the information that Royal Mail Group sent to us. We were all encouraged to do something and, in my constituency a week or two ago, I took up the offer and visited the Hatfield regional distribution centre of Royal Mail Group. It was very interesting to see how it has changed much of what it was doing over the past six months or a year to provide a more efficient and effective operation. That has resulted in a real turnaround in the performance of that distribution centre, and it is the sort of action we are expecting to see. It shows that real improvements can be brought about in the way in which things are done, and in efficiency and outcomes for customers, whether that involves businesses, individuals or business-to-business transactions.

That all came on the back of Lord Sawyer's examination of the deep-rooted industrial relations problems in Royal Mail Group. I congratulate all concerned on the resulting reduction in the level of strikes. We believe firmly that greater commercial freedom in the public sector is the right policy. The company's renewal plan is to address the problems of the past and restore profitability.

The package of measures introduced from June onwards has enabled the company to utilise the reserves of £1.8 billion on its balance sheet, which represents accumulated past dividends and cash generated by the business—that picks up a point that the hon. Gentleman made about the history. It enables the company to fund the necessary investment in Royal Mail Group's business to implement the renewal plan and to provide support for the nationwide network of post offices—subject, when necessary, to the relevant state aid clearances. We remain committed to ensuring that continuation of the universal service is secured efficiently and effectively.

As the Minister seems to be coming to a conclusion and we have a minute or two remaining, can I take her back to the question that she attempted to answer on the timing of the introduction of competition? She said that the introduction of competition in this country two years before Europe comes within the European directive. Does she agree that, nevertheless, the fact that Postcomm decided to introduce competition in that way seems to mean that Royal Mail Group will not be allowed to try to run postal services in Europe until two years after the equivalent European services have been allowed to try to run services in this country?

That issue needs to be considered carefully, but there has already been an opening up of markets in parts of Europe. It is appropriate that, within the parameters set by the European directive, the United Kingdom and other member states can determine the most appropriate course of action for their own markets. Obviously, we believe that, in the UK, we are moving at the right pace for our own market and its opportunities. A competitive business in the shape of Royal Mail Group represents a great competitive opportunity for the company and I am sure that the group actively recognises that.

We are looking to the continuation of a universal service to secure a viable and successful network of post offices to complement the improvements that we hope Royal Mail Group will achieve and to see an effective and efficient delivery service secured throughout the UK.