On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is more with sorrow than with anger that I rise to put my point of order, of which I have given you prior notice. My views on abortion are well known. In the historic Protestant tradition, I totally oppose it, except where the life of the mother is in danger.

On 26 April 1993, two early-day motions appeared on the Order Paper. One of those reckoned that it was a sad day when the Abortion Act 1967 was passed by the House, and to that I affixed my name. The other welcomed the Abortion Act and called for universal abortion on demand for women. On 19 May, I heard that my name had been appended in error to the second of those early-day motions. I received a courteous and prompt letter from the Table Office saying:

"Due to an administrative error your name appeared in support of early-day motion 1863 (25th Anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967). I apologise for this error, and a corrigendum will appear in tomorrow's 'Blue Notices'."

The corrigendum appeared, saying:

"In the Notices of Motions given on Wednesday 19th May, on page 8662, the name of the Reverend Ian Paisley appeared in error in support of Early Day Motion 1863."

There I thought the matter would have rested. But when I was in Strasbourg late on Tuesday evening, the political correspondent of the Belfast Newsletter, Mr. Pauly, rang me and asked, "Have you done a U-turn on your attitude to abortion" I said, "Certainly not." He said that he had received from the office of the official Ulster Unionist party in the House of Commons a fax claiming that I had done a U-turn, and containing comments by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about my attitude and my supposed change of heart. I was appalled at that, and immediately got in touch with the Table Office so that it could fax me a copy of the letter that had already been sent.

I have never wavered on the issue of abortion.

Providentially, that all happened after the election was over. I do not know what effect it would have had if it had been an issue in the election. My problem, which I put to you, Madam Speaker, is that I do not know to how many newspapers the fax has been sent. I have received no written withdrawal from the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on the matter. I approached his leader and told him about the matter last night, and I regret that I have had to raise it.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, what action a Member of Parliament can take in such circumstances, when his reputation can be seriously damaged at a crucial time?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has now had the opportunity of putting the record straight, and I am pleased that he has been able to do so.

There is no magical bit of paper that can somehow defend our rights, and certainly a written Bill of Rights, although essential, is not a panacea. It can become meaningful only in a wider democracy, in which its values are accepted and practised by public authorities and private citizens. In order to build that sort of democratic practice in our country we need to take a long hard look at our democratic institutions and fundamentally reform them, and in some cases replace them, so that government at all levels can legitimately carry the stamp of democratic approval.

In essence, that means ending our long-unchallenged unitary system of government, in which all political power is decided in a winner-take-all general election, and establishing in our country for the first time a genuinely pluralist society in which many different centres of power are created, not dependent upon one another but each with its own electoral base and its own legitimacy, unafraid to challenge the monopoly of the over-powerful Executive in the United Kingdom.

That is the only long-term guarantee of our rights, ending the Executive's ability to control the Commons, to appoint the Lords, to select the judges, to instruct every local authority and to ignore Europe—centralised powers that would make a Stalin or even a Thatcher salivate.

Labour has crossed the great political watershed from unitarism—we no longer believe that we have the right to tell people what to do just because we are the good guys —to pluralism. There is a mature acceptance that people themselves should decide through democratic institutions what they want to do.

Since the election of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as the leader of my party less than a year ago, Labour has committed itself to an impressive review of our democracy. We propose a Bill of Rights, scrutiny of prerogative powers, free-standing local government, elected regional authorities, a Scottish Parliament elected by the additional member system, an elected second Chamber under a proportional regional list system, a European Parliament elected on the same basis, and a thorough reform of the way in which this place works, in addition to a referendum on how we should elect Members to this the first Chamber.

Never again will an all-powerful Executive be able to control every facet of our political life. It is a frightening prospect for centralists everywhere, but an exciting one for democrats of all parties and at all representative levels of all parties. It is in that new context that the idea of human rights will find its home.

We are very complacent about our rights in this country. We like to think that abuses of rights take place elsewhere, but not in the United Kingdom. The reality is painfully different. It is almost so painful that we do not like to talk about it or even to admit that abuses exist. In a country with no clear list of rights, it is quite difficult to assess what rights have been abused. In a society that places emphasis on class and hierarchy, it is often the place one occupies rather than one's rights vis-a-vis other individuals that preoccupies many and colours their view of any abuse.

All that is now changing. Old certainties are breaking down, and old social structures and values have been dealt the death blow by Thatcherism, by the atomisation of society and by the exaltation of greed. A social and a spiritual vacuum has been created. We in this place need to put new values and new ideas into that vacuum. A central part of that will be to develop clearly understood and widely accepted rights and responsibilities for the modern British citizen.

Such ideas are not alien to this country, as many would have us believe. We were the first founding signatories of the European convention on human rights, a convention incorporated into the legal system of most of our fellow European nations. I am proud to say that it was a Labour Government who signed the convention in 1951 and it was the Labour Government of Harold Wilson who gave United Kingdom citizens the right of individual petition to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

To the present Government's great shame, Britain as a country has since been found guilty of breaching the provisions of the treaty more often than any other member of the Council of Europe. Today, seven cases are proceeding against the Government in the European Court. One has been awaiting judgment for five years.

One of the major flaws of the European convention's being interpreted in Strasbourg rather than the British courts is the time it takes for cases of human rights abuse in Britain to be heard. The time is currently five or six years, after a petitioner has exhausted all other means of redress under domestic law. Anthony Lester, a noted expert in administrative and constitutional law, has predicted that, in future, cases will take a minimum of 10 years to be heard, and perhaps as many as 15 if current trends continue.

The consequence of the long wait and the associated expense is that only those with the backing of large organisations or with substantial personal resources can make use of the only guarantee of rights available to the United Kingdom citizen. That amounts to the creation of a two-tier system of rights in this country. Yes, our rights are guaranteed, but only the select few can enforce them.

I make it plain to the House today that that is wholly unacceptable. An incoming Labour Government will incorporate the European convention on human rights into our law, so that cases can be dealt with speedily in the British courts.

In the interim—the Conservatives pretend to be serious about human rights and about the delays—there is a need fundamentally to restructure the current two-tier, part-time court in Strasbourg and to replace it with a smaller, single-tier, permanently sitting court capable of dealing with the ever-increasing work load. That is the solution advocated by the vast majority of members of the Council of Europe.

Unfortunately, a small minority of Governments, regrettably including the British Conservative Government, have already been guilty of blocking the reform process. The Conservatives' intransigence is now preventing a workable solution from being reached—a solution that would enable the court to resume its role as a Europewide guarantor of human rights and minimum standards.

It is not surprising that the Government seek to frustrate the European Court. Between 1970 and 1978, 12 cases were commenced against the British Government. In the subsequent 12 years, 29 cases have been brought before the court. There are now more than 30 landmark decisions, as a result of which our Government have been forced to introduce new procedures to protect human rights. We were forced, kicking and screaming, by the European Court to change our laws.

None of the decisions has been trivial; some have been fundamental. They include ending unfair press curbs, ending unjust restrictions on prisoners' access to lawyers, ending unacceptable restrictions on husbands of immigrants, ending ineffective judicial protection of mental patients and requiring new controls on telephone tapping. I say with a heavy heart that, in Europe's league table of shame, Britain has the worst record by far of receiving adverse judgments in the European Court.

Ministers will, of course, point out that Britain's dismal record is in part due to the fact that we have not incorporated the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law. We are unlike other countries, where people have a remedy for human rights abuses in their own country. If that is intended to excuse the violations of basic civil rights, it is a woefully poor excuse. It begs the question why we have not yet incorporated the European convention or similar rights into domestic law, as is the case for all our close European neighbours.

We can incorporate such rights for others. In Hong Kong in 1991, we introduced the international covenant on political and civil rights. We can do it in Hong Kong, but, with this Government, we still find it difficult to do it in our own country. We are now the only country in Europe or in the democratic Commonwealth without domestically enforceable political and civil rights. Perhaps all the other countries are wrong. Perhaps we have found the answer, and perhaps everyone else in the world is wrong on these matters.

Labour believes that, if people have rights and freedoms as individuals—we certainly believe that people have those rights—there is no problem about writing them down. If an individual's right as a consumer can be expressed in a citizens charter, why cannot his or her rights as a citizen be expressed clearly in a Bill of Rights? All schoolchildren should carry in their pocket or purse a list of their rights as individuals. They should grow with those rights, and knowing those rights, so that they can become full citizens of our society.

The justification that is often offered by those opposed to incorporation is that, in Britain, every citizen is protected by rights and freedoms under the common law. But those rights and freedoms are ill defined and incomplete, and are not accessible to or understood by the average citizen. One needs a law degree to have even an inkling of the challenges that can be made, let alone of the detail of the rights. The extent of such rights is controlled by the judges and not by Parliament. That is unacceptable. The job of judges is to interpret and apply the law and not to make it.

Some claim that incorporation would create a political judiciary: it would not. Many judicial decisions made today could be viewed as political, but are made outside the framework of a statute explicitly defining people's rights. Far from politicising judges, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights and a subsequent British Bill of Rights would enable the judiciary to make decisions free from political pressure, thus guaranteeing its independence.

It is not as though our judges are incapable of deciding rights cases—indeed, many are themselves in favour of a Bill of Rights. The judiciary already makes decisions based on rights-oriented legislation, such as sex and race anti-discrimination laws, and there is no reason to suppose that it would be incapable of handling decisions once the European convention was incorporated.

If the Government are wary of granting judges the right to make decisions on basic rights, why do they not revoke the right of individual petition by a British subject to the European Court of Human Rights, where European judges make decisions? Perhaps the Government lack confidence only in British judges.

To suggest that incorporation would destroy the political impartiality of the judiciary is to display a shameful lack of confidence in those to whom we entrust the administration of the law. That suggestion is certainly odd coming from a Government who once sought to style themselves the Government of law and order.

Labour has no such worries about incorporating the European convention on human rights, although we accept the need for changes in methods of judicial recruitment and appointment and for an improved continuing education programme for the judiciary I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department will take those comments to heart.

It is not as if the European convention is some wild, radical, untested code. It is a mature statement of rights that has been interpreted and applied for many years. The United Kingdom has in reality been subject to its provisions for more than 45 years, and its incorporation into United Kingdom law as a first step to a home-grown British Bill of Rights would merely ensure that all could quickly have the benefit of its provisions. It would make rights in the United Kingdom a matter for United Kingdom citizens and the United Kingdom courts, and would prevent the perpetuation of the notice that rights are some strange foreign European concept.

Incorporation would not be particularly complicated. Parliament would merely need to pass an Act incorporating the convention into British law and giving citizens the right to have the rules enforced in court. In that context, I hope to be presenting to the House within the next couple of weeks a Bill that would make incorporation a reality.

All Acts, previous and subsequent, would be stated to be consistent with the provisions of the convention. The exclusion of any Act from those provisions would require an explicit statement of intent. That would allow a Government—for example, at a time of national crisis—to pass legislation curtailing individual rights, but would also ensure that no legislation could be interpreted as breaching the convention unless that was specifically stated.

Incorporation will take place speedily under the next Labour Government and will be just a beginning. We shall then need to examine—perhaps by means of an all-party commission—a home-grown British Bill of Rights. I suspect that that will have to be the subject of my next Adjournment debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

For the past 14 years, we have watched the Government ride roughshod over our rights. It is time that the balance was redressed. Our current constitutional system of checks and balances is in no way adequate for what is allegedly a modern democracy. We need to re-establish the fundamental pillar of democracy—the separation of powers. We need to consider once again the balance between the powers of the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary, and a Bill of Rights will be central to such a re-examination of political and democratic theory.

Far too much power is placed in the hands of the Executive, without adequate restraint being exercised either by what is now a client House of Commons or by a House of Lords with a built-in majority in favour of one party. I take this opportunity to remind my hon. Friends that, although there is a tendency to regard the House of Lords as a quaint institution that has occasionally overturned minor matters of Government policy in the past 14 years, it defeated the last Labour Government 350 times.

We need to examine that situation before we allow ourselves to let pass any commitments on an elected second Chamber. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said a week ago; the second House should be elected under a regional list system on the basis of proportional representation. The sooner that happens, the less likely it is that the will of the people as expressed in the House of Commons will be subverted.

Ministers have suggested that Parliament is best placed to protect the rights of the individual. At best, that is wishful thinking; at worst, it is worrying political naivety. We should remember the local government legislation, what happened at GCHQ, Zircon, the "Spycatcher" debacle, the broadcasting ban, deportations without trial: all are instances of the way in which individual rights have been diminished, ignored or abused. That list is in no way definitive; time dictates that I curtail it.

The fact that all the abuses that I have mentioned have occurred under the Conservative Government should not be taken to mean that rights need protection only under an arrogant Conservative Administration, grown fat from being in power for too long. Our rights should not depend on who wins a general election.

The rights and principles enshrined in the convention are far too important to be subject to the whims of temporary majorities—even Labour majorities—in the Commons or to unnecessary interference by public officials. Without the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, our citizens' rights cannot be guaranteed. That is the essential first step.

In the country at large, there is a feeling that Britain's archaic and dusty formerly democratic structures are no longer capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens. Nowhere is that more obvious than in the lack of protection for our individual human rights. The time has come for fundamental change, and incorporation is just one part of Labour's radical agenda for the democratic renewal of Britain.

Incorporation will come—either from a reluctant Conservative Government or early in the lifetime of a new Labour Government. Thereafter, we hope to build upon incorporation and ensure that we have a genuine well thought out British Bill of Rights, which I hope will command a consensus in the Chamber. If we can achieve that consensus and build human rights into our domestic law, our country will be far stronger and our democracy will find deeper roots—roots that will stretch to every citizen in the United Kingdom, who will then have a stake in defending and extending our democracy.

May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on his success in obtaining the first of this morning's Adjournment debates? There was a stage earlier this week when I thought that he and I might be debating immigration and asylum matters, as we have done on so many recent occasions. However, I am absolutely delighted about his choice of subject.

I listened with some incredulity to his description of a pliant House of Commons. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past month or two with regard to the Chamber. I am aware of all his hard work off the Committee Corridor, but anyone who listened to the Maastricht debates or to some of our other recent debates would not consider this House to be a pliant House.

The hon. Gentleman referred to complacency about rights, and I disagree with him fundamentally on that. I believe that we treasure our rights in this country. The basic difference between the hon. Gentleman's proposition and the view of this Government and of successive Governments relates to the supremacy of Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman asked why some cases were referred to the European Court and why we were content with that procedure. Any decision taken by the European judges which requires changes in legislation here must still be considered by the House and agreed by this Parliament. That thereby maintains the constitutional position of Parliament and its supremacy.

The hon. Gentleman has shown that he attaches great importance to the protection of the rights of the citizens of this country, and I cannot disagree with him on that. The possession of rights and freedoms by our people has been fundamental to our democratic traditions reaching back over the centuries. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would ignore that at our peril. I suspect that the entire House would agree with him to that extent.

However, it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I disagree strongly with his basic proposition. In summary, his argument is as follows: that the rights of individual citizens in this country are being systematically undermined, that there are no adequate arrangements for the protection of those rights, and that that can be resolved only by what would amount to far-reaching constitutional changes.

The hon. Gentleman made much of comparisons with other countries and specific examples of what he claims to be domestic human rights abuses, of which he listed a number. I will attempt to consider one or two of those later. However, it is worth placing the whole question of human rights in the United Kingdom in a proper constitutional context.

I thank the Minister for his usual courtesy in giving way. He said that we treasure our rights in this country. Will he tell the House what those rights are?

They are the rights enshrined in our parliamentary democracy; I will seek to expand on that. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may feign surprise, but as he has been a Member of this House for some years, I think that he understands precisely what I mean.

Contrary to the impression given by critics of the present arrangements, this country's approach to rights and freedoms is more permissive than that found elsewhere. The possession of rights and freedoms is assumed. It is not dependent on their enshrinement in statute or through some other constitutional device. That means that only through specific action by Parliament—this relates to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention—can those rights be curtailed.

There is an important and underlying principle here —that rights and freedoms are, in general, the property of individuals. They are not something to be bestowed by the state. We have heard criticisms that that approach to human rights in the United Kingdom is both ineffective and inappropriate to modern circumstances.

I do not believe that those who argue in that way have begun to show their case. Nor have they convinced me of the argument, which inevitably follows, that the only certain way of protecting the rights of our citizens is through some form of Bill of Rights, perhaps incorporating the European convention on human rights, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, and possibly entrenched in a written constitution, as some have suggested.

I express it in that way because many of those proposing such a measure tend to be less than clear about the form that it will take. The Government do not believe that one can guarantee rights by the enactment of broad propositions. This is more a question of political culture, as can be seen by the prevalence of human rights abuses in certain parts of the world which nevertheless can boast a Bill of Rights on the statute book.

It is perhaps worth recalling that, in 1978, the House of Lords Select Committee on a Bill of Rights concluded that, in any country, whatever its constitution, the existence or absence of legislation in the nature of a Bill of Rights can in practice play only a minor part in the protection of human rights. That Committee also concluded that it had received no evidence that human rights were better protected in countries which had a code of basic rights embodied in their law than they were in the United Kingdom. In spite of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, I can see no reason to think that things have changed since 1978.

Will the Minister give way?

The hon. Gentleman knows that I am good-natured. Although I am watching the clock, I will give way.

I thank the Minister once more for his typical generosity in giving way for a second time.

I agree that, to write down rights, as I said when I began my speech, is not a panacea, and it guarantees nothing. It simply provides a framework, which is helpful, and accesses rights to the ordinary citizen. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

The Minister will have heard me say that I will be introducing a Bill which will incorporate the European convention. The Minister was right to say that such things are very often vague. Will he therefore, with his normal generosity, allow me to send him a copy of my Bill for him to peruse and amend, without of course committing himself to accepting it, so that we can have a less vague document before the House and have another productive and constructive discussion like the one that we are having this morning?

All I can guarantee is that, as usual, I will consider very carefully any representations that the hon. Gentleman makes. I cannot guarantee what the response will be, and he is aware that I am not in the business of making such promises.

I want to make progress, because I want to answer the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. The political culture of the United Kingdom, with its strong system of law and parliamentary democracy, is soundly based. An essential part of that is an assumption and expectation on behalf of our citizens that certain rights and freedoms are theirs. Governments must seek to achieve a balance whereby the individual enjoys the optimum level of freedom.

Clearly it is necessary for the Government to strike a balance between the rights of the individual and of society at large and on the conflict of rights between various groups in society. However, given the nature of our society, to restrict the rights of our citizens is not an easy matter. Any Government seeking to do that would need to satisfy both public opinion and, beyond that, Parliament itself. I find it strange that those who argue for a Bill of Rights are so ready to dismiss the role of Parliament in this important area.

It is surely more consistent with our democratic traditions that decisions on crucial issues like this, which will affect the lives of many people, should be taken by those whom the people of this country have elected to represent them rather than placed in the hands of the judiciary, who after all are not elected.

I also find it surprising that it is suggested that a Bill of Rights would somehow be more sensitive to the changing needs of our people than Parliament would be in fulfilling its traditional role of enacting legislation in specific areas. A Bill of Rights, after all, can only embody the values of the time when it was drafted. The whole purpose of a Bill of Rights and its entrenchment into law, by whatever means, is to offer some permanent benchmark by which the actions of Government and the freedoms enjoyed by citizens can be judged.

However, public attitudes, and therefore the attitudes of society, are capable of change. We only have to consider how public opinion on a number of social and moral issues has developed over the past 50 years, 25 years, or, as some would say, the past decade. A Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom drafted 25 years ago would be most unlikely to reflect fully the aspirations and views of people today. However, any Bill of Rights that was subject to frequent amendment, if that were constitutionally possible, would surely defeat the object of the whole exercise.

The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the possible incorporation of the European convention on human rights into domestic law. I shall deal with some of the points that he raised about that.

As the House knows, the Government are firm believers in and supporters of the European convention on human rights. The United Kingdom was closely associated with the convention at the outset, playing a major part in its drafting in 1950. We accepted the right of individual petition to the Commission in 1966 and agreed to be bound by the judgments of the court. We have been diligent in observing the court's judgments, as even our most diehard critics would acknowledge.

It has been claimed that we compare unfavourably with other countries in the number of findings of violations being recorded against the United Kingdom, and that that demonstrates the need for more effective domestic protection of the rights of our citizens. But taken at face value, the available statistics in this field give a misleading impression.

Other factors need to be taken into account. For example, the United Kingdom has accepted the right of individual petition since 1966, whereas a number of other countries did so much more recently—France and Spain in 1981, and Turkey as recently as 1986. Since it can take up to five years for an application to be decided by the court of Committee of Ministers, it is not surprising that fewer violations have been found in the case of those countries which came to the table more recently, as it were.

The other important point that our critics choose to ignore is the difference in population size of the member states of the Council of Europe. If we had regard to violations per head of population, the United Kingdom would be ninth in the convention league table as at 30 April this year. Therefore, we regard as fallacious the argument that breaches against the United Kingdom demonstrate the need for incorporation, as some have argued.

rose—

I want to make progress. I have already given way and tried to be as generous as possible to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will allow me to continue.

It is true that the delays in resolving cases before the Commission and the court are unacceptable, and that the machinery needs reform. The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the current work that is being undertaken to find ways of reforming the machinery while maintaining the quality of jurisprudence.

However, it is wrong to suggest that those delays bear uniquely on United Kingdom applicants, because, in the absence of incorporation, they have no opportunity to test their cases domestically. The fact is that, even where countries have incorporated the convention, their citizens can and do apply to the Commission in large numbers once they have exhausted their domestic remedies before their constitutional courts.

Judges have a vital role in the enforcement, application and development of the abstraction that we call the rule of law. It is the Government's firm view that imposing on the judges a duty to interpret the convention, or broad principles in a Bill of Rights, would add an unwelcome new dimension to their current role. That new role would be to decide broad issues of policy.

It is worth contemplating for a moment what that would mean in practice. A Bill of Rights would enable Parliament to pass a law, which could, the next day or next year, be struck down by a judge who, acting in good faith, took a different view according to his own perceptions of the public interest.

Not only would that undermine the sovereignty of Parliament—it would bring the judiciary into the political arena. The more we draw judges into political matters, the more we shall create problems for them in terms of the general public's attitude and respect for them. The point is not that our judges could not do the job—our fears are that such a job would damage their reputation and standing.

That is not to dismiss the important role that our judges can play in the protection of our citizens against the actions of Government. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has drawn a picture of an Executive out of control, with no effective check on its actions. I have heard him talk about that before. The readiness of the citizens of the United Kingdom to seek judicial review of Government actions, and of the courts to entertain such applications, gives the lie to that argument.

This is an important safeguard against the unreasonable exercise of discretion by the Government. But what it does not do, which their interpretation of a Bill of Rights would do, is seek to challenge the merits of the broader policy issues.

I do not accept the proposition that these cases demonstrate that there has been some general erosion of human rights in this country. On the contrary, an objective examination of the record in recent years would show many areas in which rights have been extended. That has been achieved usually through Parliament, whose role the hon. Gentleman has lightly dismissed today. It is disappointing that there was in his speech, no recognition of the role of Parliament as he is such an active member of the House.

We can honestly claim to have a more open Government than ever before. That is the result of measures that have been initiated in recent years. The Data Protection Act 1984 provides a good example of how Parliament can legislate to afford rights in specific areas —in this case, access by individuals to information held about them on computers. Legislation has also been enacted in respect of information held by local authorities.

The Official Secrets Act 1988 cut back the information that is protected against disclosure by the criminal law. It replaced the previous casual provisions of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 with a narrowly targeted scheme that penalised only an authorised disclosure of official information which would give rise to a serious degree of harm to the interests of the country. More generally, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to open government, and have done more than any of their predecessors to open the processes of government to the scrutiny of Parliament.

There are other examples of Parliament acting to enhance the rights of individuals. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was one such measure. Measures such as that—there are many more—are often ignored in any discussion on human rights in the United Kingdom. Yet, in terms of practical consequences, they have more direct relevance to the lives of our citizens than a list of broad principles set out in a Bill of Rights.

Parliament devotes much care and attention to measures of this kind. In doing so, it properly exercises its role, for which its Members were elected, of determining how to respond to the changing needs of society. There is no evidence to suggest that the absence of some overarching Bill of Rights—

Order. I call the Rev. Ian Paisley.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hesitate to raise this matter, but you will have noted that the Minister was unable to finish his brief. I wonder whether you will deprecate the fact that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) delayed the commencement of the Adjournment debate by raising a long point of order on an issue which we know he feels strongly about.

Madam Speaker allowed the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) because it was in order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is doing exactly what he is complaining the hon. Member for Antrim, North did earlier—taking time out of the next debate.

The Chair should rule that what happened earlier was wrong. My point of order did not last five minutes and effectively terminate unnecessarily early a debate that was taking place, which was of interest to a number of hon. Members.

That matter has already been dealt with.

In opening this debate today, I shall emphasise what was emphasised in a leader in the Belfast Newsletter yesterday. The leader said that the first thing that should be taken as read is our support for the security forces in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, those of us who have been discussing security in the aftermath of the bombings have been criticised and attacked by Northern Ireland Ministers as though we were attacking the security forces. I should like to record our support for the security forces. That cannot be challenged.

The leader said:

"There is simply no use in Ministers hiding behind a smokescreen of jingoism or patriotism. They are the last refuges of the incompetent and uncaring members of the Cabinet. In the context of Northern Ireland, official smokescreens, indecision, procrastination and a lack of care and courage in high places inevitably leads to more deaths of innocent people, and more destruction."

I hope that the Minister will not tell us that, because we have raised these matters of grave concern, we are in some way undermining the authority and morale of and support for the security forces.

On Wednesday 19 May, the Northern Ireland electorate went to the polls in a local government election. Many people, including Northern Ireland Ministers, wanted to see the party I lead whipped in that election. I am glad that my party increased its share of the Unionist vote by 2 per cent., and that in Belfast increased 3·28 per cent. in the total overall vote. I am satisfied, therefore, that I have a mandate to speak in the House this morning.

Sinn Fein candidates ran in the election. It is a disgrace that the Government permit the IRA to use the guise of democracy to bring legitimacy to their organisation. Sinn Fein-IRA should be proscribed. The Government should have the moral courage to take that action.

Of course, Sinn Fein now has further legitimacy from the talks being conducted by the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and Sinn Fein-IRA. In the election, 77,984 people voted for Sinn Fein. Those people are by no means ignorant of the consequences of their actions. They sent a message to the IRA leadership that they found the campaign of violence, destruction and murder acceptable. The vast majority of people find it unacceptable. They want the Government to take action against the men of violence and the apologists for violence.

On 20 May, the IRA showed where its preference lay. It was in the blitzing of Great Victoria street in Belfast. That bomb exploded at 8.30 am. It contained 1,000 lb of explosives. The Belfast Europa hotel, the Grand opera house, the Ulster bus station and the offices of the Ulster Unionist party were all seriously damaged by that bomb. Twenty people were injured. It is only a miracle that people were not killed. The cost of repairs to Belfast stands at about £6·5 million.

Not content with that horrendous scar on the face of the city of Belfast, the IRA exploded a second bomb in Portadown town centre, a predominantly Protestant town, at 11.26 am on Saturday 22 May. It also contained 1,000 lb of explosives. Last year, the IRA attacked the Protestant areas surrounding Portadown, when it exploded a 1,000 lb bomb in Lurgan and a 2,000 lb bomb in Craigavon in 1991. A 60-year-old woman was seriously injured in Saturday's bombing by a piece of shrapnel. The cost of repairs to Portadown stands at £8 million.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would underline that misleading and inaccurate telephone messages were given about the location of the bomb in Portadown and that the behaviour of the IRA in that respect was consistent with an intention to cause considerable civilian casualties. It was only as a result of the good fortune that the police spotted the bomb long before the warnings that casualties were avoided.

I accept what the hon. Gentleman, who represents that area in the House, has said. When the votes were counted in that area, and one of the Sinn Fein candidates was defeated, from the agents of Sinn Fein around the table there came the words, "But we have a buster for this town." That buster was the explosion of the bomb.

I understand that, when the Prime Minister spoke to Congressmen in America, he emphasised the close relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. If he is prepared to say that, in America, I do not know why he does not take instant steps here to have Sinn Fein outlawed.

Not content with the destruction in Portadown, and undeterred by any security presence, the intensity of the bombing was stepped up. Once again, Belfast was the target for the illicit activities of those encouraged by the Sinn Fein voters. At 1.26 am, a 200-lb bomb devastated the Drumkeen hotel in Protestant east Belfast. The bomb also damaged the housing surrounding that business. I visited those houses early on Sunday morning, as I represent that area in the European Parliament.

I spoke to a mother who told me that no warning whatever was given to those houses. She said, "My child cried to be taken to the toilet. I lifted him from his bed. When I got to the bathroom door, I was lifted by the force of the blast, and we both found ourselves in the bath. When I came out of the toilet afterwards to take my son past the bedroom where he had been sleeping, a large piece of glass like the head of a spear had pierced through the pillow where that young child had been lying half a minute before." So it was only a miracle that there were not terrible casualties in that bombing.

It is the fourth time in 12 months that the IRA has bombed the Drumkeen hotel. Three people are in hospital as a result. A newly-wed couple had their wedding reception shattered to pieces by the explosion. The damage is estimated at £2·5 million.

Sunday was once again desecrated by bomb No. 4, in Magherafelt town centre at 10.21 on Sunday night. A 300-lb bomb blitzed the centre, and 20 shops and offices in Broad street were destroyed. The bus station, which had been rehabilitated, was annihilated and the two main banks in the town are practically rubble. The cost is estimated at £5 million.

That quartet of destruction costing £22 million in four days has been an attack at the heart of the Province. My colleague who sits on Magherafelt council and represents the Mid-Ulster constituency around which Magherafelt is spread—Magherafelt itself is in the East Londonderry constituency after the last border changes—is in America seeking business for the town. But what success can he possibly have in meeting companies when the heart of Magherafelt has been destroyed?

I understand that it is estimated that last year investment programmes worth £10 million did not come about because of the absolute terror that the name "Northern Ireland" brings to people's minds. The current blitz reinforces those attitudes, and well Sinn Fein-IRA knows it.

What then is to be done? Will we simply repeat, "Business as usual", as we must often do? Will we simply pay the higher insurance premiums? Will we see a cosmetic security presence for three weeks run down and retreat? If that is all we get from the Government, the IRA will be bombing as usual, in the business of terror as usual, and the security forces will be on a reactive course as usual.

Over a year ago, the leaders of the official Unionists and the SDLP and I had a unique meeting with the Prime Minister, when we discussed the then deteriorating security situation. Once again, I put to the right hon. Gentleman the proposals contained in my party's security document, which calls for an offensive against the IRA. By that we do not mean what the Secretary of State has interpreted it to mean. He slanders us when he says that we want to remove all restraints from the security forces so that they can be let loose to break any law they like, as long as they get the IRA.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is an ambiguity in the statements of successive Secretaries of State that the full rigours of the law are being used against the IRA? In fact, the previous Secretary of State admitted that the Government were not using the full rigours of the law. We are calling not for the removal of restraints but for the forceful use of the law.

I accept that. It is wrong that the representatives from Northern Ireland have to answer to the people when the Secretary of State makes such a statement about security. The Secretary of State should face up to those people. He should try to explain why he is not prepared to follow the course that we are advocating. Instead, he puts up a straw man of his own making by claiming that we are advocating that the security forces should act exactly as the IRA does and kill, maim and bomb. That is not what we are suggesting.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to refer to my constituency and the terrible bomb at the Drumkeen hotel. Does he recognise that the people in that area view with utmost horror the response of the Secretary of State who, when asked after four days of bombing, whether he would change the direction of the failed security policy, said that he was quite happy and content with that present policy? People have no confidence in a Secretary of State who behaves in that manner.

Yes, I accept that. That reaction has been fed to me by those people, because I visited all the affected areas. The present security policy is not succeeding. We should open our eyes to that.

The Minister need only consider what has happened in this part of the United Kingdom to understand that the security policy has failed. I have a list of all the acts of terror that have been committed on the mainland since 17 December. Those who have been brought to court are just a mere handful of the culprits. That action has solved nothing. Matters have not been resolved on the mainland, but we in Northern Ireland are receiving the full brunt of the IRA attack.

Unfortunately, I must tell the House that that attack will continue; it is not a one-off. It is encouraged by what Mr. Spring said down in Dublin when he was briefed on the talks that had been held between Gerry Adams, the IRA-Sinn Fein president, and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). Mr. Spring stated:

"They know what they have to do to be part of the process. I believe that"

the hon. Member for Foyle

"is trying to get these people into the peace process by ending the violence, and I hope he succeeds in that."

The Minister should tell us whether that is the policy of the Government. If Sinn Fein states that it intends to call a ceasefire and to stop the violence, will its representatives be invited to the table for talks? Will such a ceasefire make it clear that the IRA must hand in its weapons, its stocks of bombing material and completely repudiate violence? I want to know from the Government what their policy is.

Those of us from Northern Ireland are aware of the mounting campaign of propaganda to get Sinn Fein to the table. What conditions would be set if, tomorrow, the leaders of Sinn Fein and the IRA said that there would be a ceasefire? It is not satisfactory to the people of Northern Ireland that the people who perpetrated all the acts of violence should be able to sit at the table simply by making a pronouncement that they intend to call a ceasefire and give up violence.

The Unionist people are alienated, whether the Government like it or not. That is a fact, and the Minister must face up to it. Every day, that alienation is increasing, and every day that alienation is taking a turn down the road that we all dread. As a representative of the people of Northern Ireland, I would be failing them and myself if I did not warn the Government that we face a grave, serious situation.

I have told the Government over and over again that they should decide whether they would prefer to talk to elected representatives or to people who are not elected but who are prepared to bomb, kill and main. I refer to people on the Protestant side, although I refuse to lend them the right of the name "Protestant".

We are faced with a serious, gloomy, dark situation, to which the Minister must face up. The Government must stop alienating the Protestant people, and they can do so by dealing effectively with the IRA. They should spell out that any announcement of a ceasefire is not enough. It is not enough for people to pose and say, "We will give up violence." Those very men could then say at the table, "All right, if you don't go the way we want to go, we can turn it on again." How can anybody have peace in those circumstances? Those people need to bring forth fruits, meet for their repentance.

It is dangerous for Mr. Spring to encourage the IRA in the belief that, if it announces a ceasefire, it will be able to join the talks. I trust that the Minister will rebuke the southern Minister and make it clear that that is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government. If that rebuke is not forthcoming, the people of Northern Ireland will be alienated still more.

I do not understand why the business community of Northern Ireland should be held to ransom by a security system that stops all traffic from entering the commercial centres in the mornings and sometimes in the evenings. The security forces know the areas in which the bombs are made and from where they are transported, and I do not understand why they are not given the task of blocking the exits from those areas so that the bombs cannot be transported.

Why should the law-abiding citizens and the business community of Northern Ireland be held to ransom? No wonder the ordinary man in the street believes that the policy after each bombing is that of locking the stable door after the horse has gone. The Minister must take that on board. The only way in which to deal with the problem is by blocking their exits from certain areas so that people cannot transport their bombs to anywhere they like.

Did the police have certain intelligence on Friday evening that a bombing might take place in Portadown? That is generally said to be the case among the business community in Portadown. Was there a relaxing of security in that area as a result of a police directive some weeks ago? Is it the case that, on Saturday, the police in Portadown were hard pushed and reserves had to be called in from elsewhere which would not usually be used? Will the Minister answer those questions, which are disturbing the minds of many in the business community to whom I have spoken?

What is the Government's attitude to the border? Will they seek to seal it off? It is to the Government's shame that, every time the Secretary of State attends an Anglo-Irish conference, the Government issue a statement saying that the relationship between the police and the Garda was never so good. They have said that at every meeting. It must surely be through the heavens by now. All the Irish papers today report that the relationship was never so good.

The hon. Gentleman will recall that a number of police officers have been murdered by a sniper using a telescopic lens operating from the other side of the border who has not yet been apprehended.

The hon. Gentleman is right. But the Government's comment is that there never was better security and co-operation. The country of the south of Ireland hides the men of violence.

What about Angelo Fusco, the IRA murderer? He has been sentenced to three life terms for murder. He is not in jail. He is free in the Irish Republic. He is not even in hiding. The local council pays him £140 per week in benefits for his wife and family and has provided him with comfortable furnished accommodation in Tralee, where he spends his days fishing, riding his imported American motor cycle and acting as a pretentious godfather of violence.

Another convicted IRA killer, Paul Magee, was freed on bail by the Irish courts in April. Where is this co-operation? Nothing is said about those men at the Anglo-Irish conferences, or nothing is done, and the people in Northern Ireland are asking the simple question, "What on earth are the Government playing at?"

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the worst example of the lot is that the IRA headquarters issues its statements from an office in Dublin?

Yes, I accept that wholeheartedly. I also accept that the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party used the same machine that is used to send out reports of the bombings to issue a report on his talks with Gerry Adams. The release was headed "Sinn Fein". I have a copy of that. The two leaders put out their information together in that way.

Today I read more disturbing information concerning a republican business man in Northern Ireland who runs several lorries round Northern Ireland distributing the goods that he manufactures. He said that he has contacted the RUC and told it that, if any of his business transactions were delayed due to traffic hold-ups at checkpoints, he would sue the RUC for damages. Where are we getting to in our Province? I should like the Minister to say that such requests, if they can be called requests, will be met with the reply that, if we need to take security actions, we will take them irrespective of what happens.

Terrorism in Northern Ireland has cost 3,056 lives, and IRA bombs have cost £1,000 million in two decades. Death and destruction have become a way of life. Today, Northern Ireland has a simple message to the House—enough death, enough destruction and enough ineptitude by the Government.

I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I understand and share his anger and distress, and that of the other hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies who are here this morning, at these cowardly and cynical attacks. The sympathy of the House goes out to those whose homes and livelihoods have been wrecked and to those who have been injured, and we send our best wishes to them for a safe and speedy recovery. Were it not for the alertness and quick response of the security forces, to whom the community is so much indebted, casualties might have been much higher.

I have seen for myself the damage caused in Belfast. I was due to go to Portadown on Tuesday but, as hon. Members will know, I was detained here for the debate on the Railways Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has visited Magherafelt. The terrorists of the Provisional IRA, like their loyalist counterparts, debase the causes by their barbarity and criminality that they claim to represent. But even by their standards, the attempt to dignify the shattering of the livelihoods and homes of hundreds of ordinary citizens, Protestants and Catholics, Unionists and nationalists, by describing them as attacks on economic targets is despicable in the extreme.

Schools—secondary, primary and nursery—have been damaged, as has a home for the mentally handicapped and more than 300 private dwellings. Where do they figure in the terrorists' definition of legitimate or economic targets? We hear so much about the IRA's so-called concern for the unintended victims of their attacks. We hear of their hypocritical apologies. They disgust me and will disgust all Members of the House.

Let no one be deceived: the terrorists cannot cloak their deeds in any false legitimacy, attempting to justify their actions as assaults on a British war machine. As on so many other occasions, including the bombing of 1,000 homes last September at Newtownbreda, they care not whom they hurt.

The fact is that many ordinary people—men, women and children—are targets for the terrorists on both sides. The fact that those attacks have been deliberately timed to take place in the immediate aftermath of the local government elections serves simply to underscore two points—the terrorists' contempt for the democratic process and their misunderstanding of the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland.

Terrorism will not prevail. I simply state the inescapable truth. The resolve of the Government and the people during the past 23 years has been tested by evil assaults from terrorists of all kinds. That resolve has not weakened, nor will it. Those who think otherwise mistake the character of the people of these islands. They particularly mistake the mettle of the people of Belfast, Portadown and Magherafelt. The fact that, despite the bombing, the traditional may fair was successfully held yesterday in Magherafelt is typical of the resilience and courage of the whole community in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about Sinn Fein and the IRA and a ceasefire. I repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said some months ago. A cessation of violence, for whatever reason, would be welcomed by all hon. Members. But simply to say that there will be a ceasefire does not give anyone who espouses violence the right to come to any conference table or to be accepted. That is the British Government's position.

There would have to be not only a cessation of violence but a renunciation of violence as a means of achieving political ends. That is the sine qua non; that is the dividing line that has to be crossed by the men of violence before those who want to see change, or want to see life pursued by democratic means, will talk to them. Until that has happened and has been shown to have happened, there is no question that this Government or, I suspect, any other will deal with the men of violence.

The work of clearing up and restoring the damage so wantonly caused is well under way. Following all four incidents, the emergency services and Government bodies —including the Housing Executive, Compensation Agency, civil representatives, social workers and social security staff—were quickly on the scene to help begin the process, by carrying out repairs and providing advice. That work is continuing, with the local authorities playing a vital co-ordinating role. Wherever we have gone, the people seem to have been very pleased with the way that the authorities have responded.

I share the Minister's tribute to the response made by different agencies, but can he assure us that, in speaking to his alter ego, he will ensure that money will be forthcoming to get businesses back in business? Above all, will he ensure that the security presence is not removed because of lack of overtime payments?

I certainly give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance in respect of his latter point—that has never been the case, and never will be. As to his other point, we always do our best. However, the Compensation Agency is spending Government money, and the rules for the disbursement of taxpayers' money must be observed.

I have made every effort, and I know that the Compensation Agency will continue to make every effort, to make interim payments as quickly as possible. The legalities arise with final payments, and sometimes they do get held up—but that is for reasons by which we are all bound, because we are paying out taxpayers' money.

The security of the realm and the safety of its citizens are duties all Governments must make their first priority. It is the first priority of the Government in Northern Ireland, who set the policy and provide the resources. To confront and defeat terrorism is also the overriding concern of the Chief Constable, supported by the General Officer Commanding, who directs the operations of the security forces to achieve that goal.

We each bear responsibility for it, in different ways; and so does everybody in society. We each have our part to play in protecting those most fundamental human rights —the right to life, and the right to live free from fear and intimidation and the destruction of one's home and livelihood. The threat to those rights comes from terrorism, and we are committed to overcoming that threat, from whatever quarter it comes.

The security forces carry out and will continue to carry out a whole range of operations, including patrolling, checkpoints and searches, to disrupt and deter the activities of the terrorists. The House will know that the police and the Army continue to achieve very significant successes. To the beginning of May this year, 136 people have been charged with terrorism-related offences, and 84 firearms, 20 rocket and mortar launchers and large amounts of explosives and bomb-making equipment have been recovered.

Let me give some specific examples. Since the middle of March, four bombs in transit, containing over 300 kg of explosives, have been intercepted, resulting in several arrests. More than 6,500 kg of fertilizer, used in the manufacture of explosives, have been recovered. A range of other weaponry has been seized, and several other murderous attacks by paramilitaries on both sides foiled, with the capture of republican and loyalist gunmen en route to commit murder. As a result, those charged since the end of March include two with murder, two with attempted murder, two with conspiracy to murder and possession, and two with possession of weapons or explosives.

The publication this morning of the Chief Constable's report for 1992 provides further evidence of the excellent work which the RUC has carried out during the year. As the Chief Constable brings out in his foreword to the report, the RUC, with the Army in support, has continued to maintain the essential stability of the Province.

Day in and day out, the security forces work ceaselessly not just to respond and react but to be a step ahead of the terrorists. They make real inroads into terrorist operations. They aim to deter as well as to detect.

Much of that work is necessarily unpublicised, but it may give some idea of the scope of the operations if I say that, in addition to the numerous patrols of various kinds operated by the RUC each day, the Army undertakes hundreds of patrols in the Province day in, day out. Let no one doubt that many more prospective terrorist operations fail or are aborted than come to fruition. That may not be newsworthy, but it is vital to the safety of every member of the community in Northern Ireland.

But let there be no suspicion that there is any complacency, either in Government or in the security forces. The Chief Constable keeps constantly under review the pattern of security force operations in the light of the prevailing security situation. He is not only responsible for all security operations but is also the Secretary of State's principal adviser on security matters, and the Secretary of State met him for a full review of the security situation earlier this week.

The security forces will continue to receive all the support that they require from the Government. Sometimes, I get the feeling that Ministers can say that until they are blue in the face but will not be believed, so perhaps the House will be interested to know that the Chief Constable had this to say at his press conference to launch his report this morning:

"When a terrorist outrage occurs there is often a reaction suggesting that the handcuffs should be taken off the police and the Army—that our hands should be untied from behind our backs. There are no restraints on the security forces save those imposed by the law and by the very nature of our democratic society. There is no political restraint stopping us from doing our duty or doing our best. What we have asked the Government we have received, and if more is needed at any time we shall ask for more and expect to receive it."

I know that, coming from my lips, those words may be greeted with cynicism, but I hope that they are not greeted with cynicism when they come from the lips of the Chief Constable.

There are no operational options from which the security forces are being held back for political reasons. The only constraint, as the Chief Constable said, is that they must operate within the law. The Government's security policy is clear: terrorism will be met with stern and unyielding opposition, by forces that act proactively as well as defensively. The operation of that policy by the security forces must be both within the law and effective, in the sense of leading towards a lasting peace, as well as affording immediate protection to people from terrorist attack, and bringing about the capture of terrorists and their conviction in the courts.

That aim cannot be achieved, in any real or meaningful sense, by the use of measures which step outside the law, or which seek to impose, through draconian force, an artificial "peace". Even if such an approach were sucessful in creating a temporary calm—and that is open to question —it would not be a lasting one. The damage which such measures would cause to the integrity and credibility of constitutional politics, and of the institutions of the state, would be irreparable.

To do so would not only be wrong—it would, I believe, be ineffective. Civilised society must deal with terrorism effectively and decisively—but within the law, or else the divisions which the terrorists feed off may simply be deepened. As I have said, we all have a part to play in defending our society and the lives of our neighbours.

The Chief Constable has emphasised the importance of close co-operation between the police and the community they serve in isolating arid defeating the terrorists. The RUC does not, and cannot, operate at a remove from the community. If loss of life is to be prevented, we must use our sense of right and wrong, take our responsibility as citizens of a civilised society, and act upon it in support of the law.

To quote the Chief Constable's report once more, recent events

"point clearly to the pressing need for a positive, concerted, cross-community alliance against violence with unequivocal support for firm and impartial action by the police and Army".

Co-operation with the police is the wedge that will isolate the terrorists.

The Government for their part are committed to providing the security forces with the resources they need to undertake their difficult and dangerous tasks. In the past two years, the establishment of the RUC has been raised by 441 officers, the recruitment and training of whom has now been completed, while two reinforcement battalions of soldiers have been deployed in the Province for over a year and will continue to be deployed there for as long as they are needed, despite the many other pressures on the armed forces.

But the resources that are needed go beyond manpower and equipment. The other side of our determination to defeat terrorism within the law is the need to provide the security forces with a legislative framework which gives them the powers they need to tackle terrorism effectively.

While on the subject of legislation, it is appropriate to pause briefly to note that Lord Colville's report on the operation in 1992 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act was published yesterday. The debates next month to consider the renewal of that Act will provide an opportunity to consider Lord Colville's report and the recommendations in more detail.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the great contribution that Lord Colville has made as a reviewer of the emergency legislation over the past seven years. His constructive and penetrating commentary and his contribution to the form that the legislation takes have been invaluable.

Our response to terrorism must and does include a recognition that terrorism can be brought to a permanent end only if security policy and security measures are complemented and reinforced by effective political, social and economic policies and programmes. Terrorist violence cannot be dealt with in isolation, because terrorism takes place not in a vacuum but in a society on whose political divisions the terrorists try to feed.

Our commitment to the defeat of terrorism, and to securing a just and tranquil future for the courageous people of Northern Ireland, is undiminished. I believe that the message is getting through to the terrorist godfathers on both sides that the security forces will continue to pursue them with unremitting resolution.

We have heard all this from the Government before. They have offered Northern Ireland nothing new this morning. The Minister's deplorable reply will increase the distaste for his system of government in Northern Ireland among the majority community. We were hoping for a change of direction in security policy, but nothing new has been announced. The message for the people of Northern Ireland is that they must continue to suffer at the hands of the IRA, who are now winning the battle.

I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about an important matter that affects my constituency. I thank the Minister for coming to reply on behalf of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Baroness Cumberlege; I also thank a consultant at the Stobhill hospital, Dr. Matthew Dunnigan, who helped me with my research, and Dr. Frank Dunn, who is a specialist at the hospital.

Last Sunday, an impressive gathering took place in the grounds of the hospital, which is in my constituency. Six thousand people assembled at 1 pm. They had one thing in common: they were all protesting at the possible closure of Stobhill. These were not the kind of protesters who normally become involved in rallies and demonstrations; they were simply men and women who live in my community and the neighbouring constituencies, and who use the hospital.

As I made my way to the demonstration, I was impressed by the number of friends and neighbours, including pensioners, who were heading for the hospital grounds. By any standards, it was a most impressive turnout. Those people spoke with one voice: they all said that they did not want the hospital to close. It was a massive gathering. At exactly 2 pm, they all linked hands and surrounded the hospital to show that they were not happy with what was proposed by the bureaucrats in the Scottish Office and Greater Glasgow health board. My thanks must go to Sam and Jeannette Watson for their excellent work in organising the demonstration.

I do not want Stobhill hospital to close. Everyone in the north end of Glasgow, and the surrounding areas, has a high regard for it; and I have a close link with it. My son Paul was born there, my daughter Mary was treated there not long ago, my wife—also called Mary—was treated there, and 10 years ago I received treatment. I can testify to the hospital's dedication: it is first class.

According to the Government, who have plucked an arbitrary figure out of the air, 1,000 beds must go in the Greater Glasgow area. The health board, however, seems determined to carry out the Government's wishes. As the Minister will know, every member of the board is hand-picked by the Government. Solid medical evidence from people who are highly regarded in the profession suggests that the loss of 1,000 beds will severely damage the health of local people.

Dr. Matthew Dunnigan, whom I mentioned earlier, presented a paper to the health board. As he explains, it is proposed to close Stobhill and amalgamate its service with that of the Royal Infirmary. Even if the Government were to do that tomorrow, the hospital would be needed for five to 10 years. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.

There is talk in Government and health board circles of building a mega-hospital—an amalgamation of Stobhill and the Royal Infirmary. That would mean a reduced service for those who currently use the Royal Infirmary, which—in terms of discharges—is the second largest hospital in Scotland. Stobhill is the fifth largest. Those in the north end of Glasgow would be particularly affected by the resulting disruption. Moreover, although the amalgamation could not take place overnight, Stobhill would be expected to maintain its high standards despite the sentence hanging over it.

Dr. Dunnigan states:

"A combination of rising demand, current saturation of hospital bed capacity at peak demand and the absence of forward planning to provide compensating capacity in the community make it unlikely that there can be any significant reduction in Glasgow's bed capacity within 5 years and possibly within 10 years. However, Greater Glasgow Health Board … is under pressure from the Management Executive to announce plans to reduce bed capacity and to close two hospitals before funds are allocated for hospital redevelopment and rebuilding in the city.

It seems likely that GGHB will announce a strategy for acute beds within the next few months, possibly in June 1993. No hard information on a final decision is yet available but it seems probable that GGBH will opt for option (c) of their discussion document 'Review of Acute Services and Maternity Services to the Year 2001'. This will result in an announcement of the closure of Stobhill General Hospital and the amalgamation of the Victoria Infirmary and Southern General Hospitals on a single site. Hospital services will be concentrated on three sites in the Western/Gartnavel complex, the Royal Infirmary and in a combined hospital on the south side of the City.

As discussed in detail elsewhere, this scenario will not be in the best interests of Glasgow's hospital services and will run contrary to national trends in planning hospital services in the next century. The immediate result of a decision to close Stobhill General Hospital when circumstances permit will be to place a sentence of death over the Hospital. The Hospital is currently operating at full capacity and there is no prospect of Stobhill's present capacity being taken up … The combination of announcement to close the Hospital in the face of a continuing need for its services over this time scale will produce a potentially destabilising series of developments for the Hospital and its efficient functioning in relation to its catchment area.

Once the closure announcement is made public, all staff will immediately, in their best interests, seek to obtain employment elsewhere as and when the opportunity arises.

Employment will be easily obtained in shortage specialties such as Anaesthetics, Psychiatry and Geriatrics, and by highly trained senior technicians in laboratory specialties whose services are easily transferable. Hospital secretaries are in short supply and will also find it relatively easy to find alternative employment. Once the closure of the hospital is announced, suitable replacements will prove difficult to find, other than by locum appointments and poorly trained staff who cannot obtain employment elsewhere. Loss of staff and shortage medical and surgical specialties (already evident in the loss of a Senior Radiologist and an Anaesthetist) and natural wastage due to retirement, sickness and normal job turnover will make it progressively more difficult to find replacement staff in all categories. It would take only the loss of several key personnel in shortage specialties and laboratories to produce a situation in which the Hospital cannot offer an adequate or safe standard of care to its catchment area of 200,000. This potentially disastrous scenario is already the subject of widespread speculation in the Hospital.

The Hospital's difficulties in finding staff replacements will be compounded by the advent of self-governing hospital Trusts. Before the advent of Trusts it would have been possible to offer long-term security and redeployment in the Board's Hospitals or within the National Health Service in Scotland. Since there will be few or no directly managed hospitals within a relatively short space of time this prospect may be removed with the coming of self-governing Trusts who will have their own priorities and will be unwilling to guarantee employment for staff outwith their own hospitals. Thus, the coming of trusts will increase insecurity in Stobhill Hospital's medical, nursing and ancillary staff and accelerate their desire to find secure employment outside the hospital as soon as possible.

GGHB must ponder carefully the consequences of announcing the eventual closure of Stobhill Hospital while dependent on its efficient functioning for the next 5–10 years. The Hospital serves one fifth of the population of Glasgow and currently discharges 68 per cent. as many inpatients and 60 per cent. as many outpatients as the Royal Infirmary. The Royal Infirmary is totally unprepared to cope with this demand in the foreseeable future if Stobhill's capacity to manage is compromised by an exodus of key staff.

A similar situation may be created by the announced amalgamation of the Victoria Infirmary and Southern General Hospital since rationalisation may be required at all grades of medical, nursing and administrative staff in the combined hospital. The prospects of staff losses with a failure to recruit suitable applicants will make the prospects for the effective staffing and management of all three Glasgow hospitals in the short and medium term highly uncertain."

Dr. Dunnigan makes four points in summary:

"Demand for acute hospital beds in Greater Glasgow Health Board continues to rise each year. On present evidence, based on trends analysis for acute medical and surgical specialties, the claim that 30 per cent. fewer acute beds will be required by the end of the century is difficult to sustain.

At present, there is no evidence of significant under-use of acute hospital beds in Glasgow hospitals. On the contrary, bed capacity in most acute specialties is fully occupied at times of peak demand. With pressure on beds, difficulty in accommodating patients at such times is leading to patient inconvenience and distress and impeding their efficient management.

District General Hospitals of moderate size such as Stobhill General Hospital (about 500 beds) provide optimum geographical and functional relationships with primary care and community services in catchment areas which do not exceed 200–250,000 and should not be closed. Stobhill hospital is currently working at full capacity with winter bed occupancy rates approaching 100 per cent.

For a city of Greater Glasgow's size, tertiary (supra-area specialty) referral services and the University's clinical academic unit should be concentrated on a single site to reduce the present dispersion of the scarce resources on several sites in the city and create the potential for a 'centre of excellence' in post-graduate teaching and research."

Dr. Robbie Robertson, the representative of Springburn health centre, supports Dr. Dunnigan's view. Dr. Robertson and his staff, including clerical and auxiliary staff and GPs, marched from Springburn health centre last Sunday to join the campaign at Stobhill. Dr. Robertson states that his centre alone has 30,000 patients, many of whom live in highly deprived areas, and there is an aging population in his catchment area. He has nothing but praise for the service that is given by Stobhill hospital to the health centre and GPs operating in the area. He says that laboratory specimens are lifted twice daily and that, if they reveal abnormal results, consultants will, if necessary, offer advice on the same day. There is a special coronary care hot line between the centre and the hospital, which has saved many lives.

I mentioned the aging population. Geriatricians in Stobhill have a feel for the community. Consultants and GPs have an excellent relationship. Adjoining the grounds at Stobhill hospital is Hunters Hill hospice, an excellent hospice, with which the Minister will be familiar, that is run by the Marie Curie organisation. I have visited it several times, and it must offer the finest care in Scotland for cancer patients. It depends heavily on assistance that is given by Stobhill hospital. If it were to lose Stobhill, it certainly would experience many difficulties.

The hospital, as the Minister knows, has 600 general beds and 174 long-stay geriatric patients. It serves 200,000 people in the north of Glasgow in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). It also serves the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg). It reaches out to widespread rural areas. It is also used to teach medical students from Glasgow university.

There are pockets of severe poverty in my constituency. As the Minister knows, poverty leads to a higher incidence of heart disease, chronic chest complaints and, unfortunately, drug abuse, which can cause terrible side effects that only a hospital can seek to repair.

I wonder about the Government's argument that there are too many beds, especially when one expert at Stobhill states:

"On many occasions this last winter elderly patients with medical conditions have been transferred to surgical wards or even by taxi to other hospitals to make way for the winter peak of admissions. Consultant medical staff and hospital management have walked the wards together. They looked for patients who were in hospital but should be at home. They found almost none. On this audit, Stobhill needs the beds it has to meet the needs of a particularly needy population."

The Tomlinson report on London stated that hospitals should be located where people live, not in the city centre but out in the community. In that case, why are there proposals for mega hospitals in Glasgow when the population has moved out of the centre and has been doing so since the 1950s? The Minister will know that his own constituency has expanded immensely, especially the districts of Newton Mearns and Giffnock, due to the arrival of people who formerly lived on the south side and in the centre of Glasgow but have moved out to the areas that he represents.

In the old days hospitals were in the centre of cities because that was where the population lived. However, we are keeping hospitals there although the population has moved out. There is no economic argument for that, although economics is the case usually put forward by the Government. Every Minister, including the Under-Secretary, speaks about costs, but it is cheaper to keep and care for patients at Stobhill than at the Royal Infirmary or the Western Infirmary. The population of Bishopbriggs is expanding and the population in my constituency is increasing due to a great deal of redevelopment.

There is a similarity between our previous housing problems and the problems that we are now experiencing in the health service. When Springburn had terrible redevelopment problems, it was known as planning blight. Shopkeepers would not invest in their shops because they did not know what would happen in the future. Young people moved out because the factor would not carry out property repairs as he did not know whether there was to be redevelopment. The young people moved to Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and East Kilbride. There was a general blight over the area because people were uncertain about its future.

That blight is now coming to Stobhill because people there are uncertain. As Dr. Dunnigan said, if bright and talented people are uncertain about their present place of employment and are offered a more secure job in a hospital that is not the subject of such speculation, they will move on. The Minister knows that that can lead to difficulties.

I cannot see the case for closing a hospital that is highly efficient and sits in the most beautiful grounds overlooking the Campsie hills. It provides a very pleasant environment for people in need of care and attention and in which to work. I mean no disrespect to the Royal Infirmary but, as the Minister knows, the buildings are old with little room for expansion. Any expansion would be expensive because of the historical nature of some of the buildings. However, there is plenty of room for expansion at Stobhill. I hope that the Minister will give me, the community and the dedicated staff of Stobhill some hope for the future because the speculation has led to a sad state of affairs.

I also hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that medical evidence suggests that the loss of 1,000 beds in Glasgow would be damaging. There is also concern that the people making the decisions about the future of Stobhill are the political appointees of a Government who, admittedly, went to the people on the basis of cuts in public expenditure. Nevertheless, there is some distrust of people who have been appointed by the Government and who have the same political leanings. Perhaps it would be better if Greater Glasgow, like London, were the subject of an independent public inquiry into hospital and medical needs. Everyone in the community is worried about the hospital.

My neighbour, Sophie Anderson, aged eight, was so impressed by the demonstration on Sunday that she sent me a poem for the debate. It is called "Stobhill Hospital" and reads:

• "Today we stand around Stobhill
• To try to stop it closing,
• We want to let the people know exactly
• What they're losing.
• I think it would be a terrible shame
• Because lots of people use it.
• We want the Health Board our plea to hear
• Keep it open, don't close it!"

I congratulate the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Martin) on securing the Adjournment debate and on speaking with his customary knowledge and eloquence on a matter that is undoubtedly of great importance to his constituents. As Hansard will attest, he has asked about the future of Stobhill more than once during Scottish Question Time. I shall try to answer his questions but I hope that he will understand that I am not in a position today to make any announcements about its future.

There is no formal proposal from the health board to Ministers about the future of Stobhill or any hospital in Glasgow. The board is conducting a review of its future requirements for acute beds and their distribution throughout the city. That process is well advanced but it will be a while before the board is able to put firm proposals to Ministers and some time thereafter before final decisions can be taken.

However, I repeat my pledge to the hon. Gentleman that before any final decisions are taken my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will be happy to discuss the issues fully with him and other hon. Members involved.

Let me describe some of the background. The final decision on closures or major changes in the pattern of health services is a matter for Ministers, and I must re-emphasise that no decisions have been taken about Stobhill or any other hospital in Glasgow.

The hon. Gentleman referred to investment and the use of public resources. It is perhaps worth emphasising that over the past 10 years or so the hospital capital building programme for acute services has been directed at building district general hospitals outside the main centres of population.

The past 10 to 15 years have seen major hospitals in, for example, Dumfries, Inverness and Melrose—the list is quite long. The Princess Royal will be opening the new Queen Market hospital in Dunfermline at the end of next month and new hospitals are under construction in Oban and Campbeltown. I must resist boring the hon. Gentleman by continuing, there simply is not time to list all the new developments.

Since taking office, the Government have spent more than £512 million on 91 major national health service capital investment projects in Scotland; 21 of those projects, totalling £86 million, were in Glasgow.

As I have said before, that programme of creating new district hospitals outside the main centres of population is coming to an end. We now need to turn our attention to the main centres of population, where the acute hospitals are generally old and in an unsatisfactory condition. Our first priority for the remainder of the decade is to create modern and efficient acute hospitals in our main centres of population to produce a pattern of acute care which best meets the needs of our population.

The hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is vital that we get the process right. I shall now respond to his more detailed points by setting out the factors that we need to take into account and explaining why we believe that the number of acute hospital in-patient beds will fall.

There are four main factors which will influence the number of acute hospital beds that we shall need in future: first, the number of patients who need to be treated as hospital in-patients; secondly, how long they stay in hospital as in-patients; thirdly, the efficiency with which acute hospitals use the beds available to them; and fourthly, how medicine and surgery will be delivered in future. Those factors were at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's argument and I shall deal with them in turn.

Since the mid-1970s, the number of patients treated by the acute services has increased from around 615,000 to nearly 870,000—the hon. Gentleman referred to the figure for Stobhill. That represents an average annual growth of 2·3 per cent. and that figure has not changed very much over the years.

Increasingly, not all patients will be treated as hospital in-patients. Within the overall figures that I have quoted, there has been a marked shift towards treating patients as day cases. In 1975–76, only 8·3 per cent. of patients were treated as day cases. By 1990–91 that proportion had increased to nearly 18 per cent., and it will not stop there, as recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit have predicted. They found that the use of day surgery is well below its estimated potential and concluded that up to 30,000 additional cases a year are possible for the 20 procedures covered by the study. That represents a 90 per cent. increase on current levels.

We expect health boards and hospitals to expand considerably the use made of day case treatment and that it might be possible to increase the number of cases by at least 75,000 over the next few years. I believe that that trend will be generally welcomed.

The shift away from hospital in-patient treatment or treatment by general practitioner is not about saving money; it is in the best interests of patients. It means that the medical or surgical treatment that the patient receives is less drastic. That reflects medical advances.

The Minister is making a lot of the increasing number of day cases. How does he know that the trend will continue? Has he carried out surveys about whether patients want such treatment and has he studied issues such as the higher rate of post-operative infection in day-case patients and the increased numbers that have to be re-admitted? If he is supporting the trend towards day cases, is he putting more money into care in the community?

As I have told the House, the basis of my case is the recent studies by the Audit Commission and the Scottish Office Audit Unit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question, we have indeed substantially increased resources for care in the community. The shift to local authorities has been accompanied by considerable increases for care in the community.

I now turn to length of stay. For some of the reasons that I have just mentioned, the average length of stay for those patients who have to be hospital in-patients has also declined dramatically. In the mid-1970s the mean length of stay for all acute specialties was 10·7 days. By 1990–91, that had fallen to 6·7 days and it continues to fall.

In our planning we have assumed that length of stay will continue to fall, but at a slower rate than in the past. We have assumed an annual rate of 2 per cent.—a cautious assumption compared with the recent rate of more than 4 per cent. I accept that the figures that I am quoting are averages and will vary in different parts of the country. The hon. Member for Springburn was quite right to mention that there are problems of deprivation in some areas of Glasgow and that may well mean that planning has to assume a slightly longer length of stay than in other areas. However, that has been taken into account in our planning.

I now turn to occupancy rates. Acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent. With the move to hospital trusts and the associated increase in efficiency, it is reasonable to assume that that figure will rise to about 80 per cent. Again, that is an overall average.

Will the Minister give way?

I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Springburn, but I shall give way.

The Minister said that there could be a dramatic increase in occupancy. Have the Government made any estimate of the number of staff that would be needed to cope with that increase?

First, may I warmly welcome the hon. Lady's intervention in a Scottish debate. Of course, the House will generally appreciate the fact that this is a United Kingdom Parliament, and we are all delighted that the hon. Lady, who represents an English constituency, has taken the opportunity to avail herself of her right, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament, to intervene in a Scottish debate. I warmly welcome the assertion from the Opposition Benches that this is a United Kingdom Parliament.

I am half Scottish, actually.

Indeed, but the point is that the hon. Lady is here in the House as a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to her for asserting her right, as an English Member, to intervene in a Scottish debate.

Secondly, in answer to the hon. Lady's detailed question, what I was saying did not have staffing implications. I was emphasising the fact that at the moment acute hospital beds have an occupancy rate of just over 70 per cent., and that, irrespective of staff numbers, we believe that increased efficiency could increase that figure to 80 per cent.

When we consider medical advances, we sometimes assume that medicine and surgery will be delivered in the future in pretty much the same way as they are delivered now. That assumption seems increasingly questionable. Because of the advent of, for example, keyhole surgery, and the work of leading authorities such as Professor Alfred Cuscherri of Dundee university, patients recover much faster. The implication of that is that lengths of stay in hospital will fall quite sharply.

What do all those factors, taken together, mean for I he planning of acute hospitals? Our best guess is that the need for acute in-patient beds across the whole of Scotland will fall by 3,000 to 5,000 by the end of the decade. I can reassure the hon. Member for Springburn that those figures have been discussed with many people in the medical profession. Of course, what I have said does not mean that fewer patients will be treated. We have assumed that the number of patients treated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and elsewhere will continue to grow by between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. a year.

Does the Minister still maintain that 1,000 beds must be lost in the Greater Glasgow catchment area?

The figure of 1,000 or so was arrived at through various planning models. It has been discussed and generally agreed with many clinicians through the internal consultation process, and it is in line with the overall Scottish figure to which I have referred.

In the two minutes or so remaining to me, I emphasise that the whole exercise is not about saving money—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) laughs, as part of her continued and welcome intervention in Scottish debates. But the exercise is not about reducing the scale of the national health service in the sense of treating fewer patients; it is about getting the size of the hospital sector right so that resources are not wasted on providing in-patient beds when they could be better used —for example, by providing day surgery facilities, by supporting the development of primary care, by providing high-technology operating theatres to allow minimal access surgery, or by doing a dozen other things that will provide a better service to patients than providing hospital beds that are simply not needed.

The cost of achieving those better services will be high. We are talking about investment in new and improved hospitals in Glasgow, which will cost between £200 million and £400 million. The easy option would be to leave everything unchanged. That would save the Government money. It would not only be cheaper, it would avoid a lot of fuss and bother, but I emphasise to the hon. Member for Springburn that that would not be the way forward.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly a major reshuffle of the high offices of state is taking place at this moment. I understand that the former Home Secretary is to become Chancellor—

Order. That is in no way a matter for the Chair.

I just wondered, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of night flights at Heathrow. This is part of a wider problem of aircraft noise. Aircraft noise is a curse and a pestilence. It ruins people's quiet enjoyment of their homes, especially in spring and summer, when they are more likely to have a larger proportion of their windows open. It interferes with people's private lives, with their telephone conversations and with their opportunity to listen to records or to television. It spoils their pleasure in their gardens; it interrupts the work of schools, hospitals, churches and offices. It can even interfere with people's sleep at night. That is the main subject of my debate.

It must be said that there are some people who do not mind aircraft noise very much. But to a large proportion of the people living around Heathrow—perhaps 1 million people—it is a considerable nuisance. To many people it is a major nuisance. To some it causes actual suffering and even mental ill health, as has been shown in research by the West Middlesex University hospital. That is especially true of night noise disturbance.

There are already 1,000 flights per day at Heathrow, so that at times aircraft come over every two minutes. It is not enough to say, as British Airways and the airports authority do, that there should be "no increase" in noise. The present noise level is unacceptable. My constituents and others around Heathrow require a substantial and permanent reduction in the volume of noise. It is not enough to say, as the consultation document says, that the noise problem should merely get no worse.

People can look to courts of law for protection against other forms of noise nuisance, but in the Civil Aviation Act 1949 Parliament expressly ruled out that protection in the case of aircraft and helicopter noise. That being so, people can do no other than look to the Government and to Parliament for protection against the nuisance of noise which, in other cases, is enshrined in English law. The Government, therefore, have a special duty to have regard to the impact of aircraft noise on householders, as does Parliament.

There is no subject on which I have had more letters from my constituents who are resident in Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons and Whitton. But it is not confined to my constituency. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and many other hon. Members in west London will bear out what I say. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), a Minister from another Department who therefore will not speak in this debate but who is here today, is also lending his support by being present. He has his own channels by which he can make his views known, and I have not the slightest doubt that he has already done so with considerable force. His concern is shared by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction, and by all right hon. and hon. Conservative Members who are present.

The Conservative Government's record in the field of aircraft noise has so far been really rather good. In 1985, the late Lord Ridley, then Secretary of State, refused planning permission for a fifth terminal at Heathrow. When the M25 motorway was built, he stopped the Heathrow to Gatwick helicopter link as some of us had asked. Over the years, some—I repeat, some—quieter aircraft engines have been brought in and, up until now, the Government have curbed any increase in the number of night flights. Lord Ridley and Lord Parkinson as Secretaries of State for Transport did so, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). All of them consistently refused to increase the quota for night flights above the average of 16 per night for the summer

In the face of enormous commercial pressure, those Secretaries of State were absolutely right to be firm, resolute and strict in protecting the people on the western side of London from any increase in night flights. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who will reply to the debate, will reassure me that the present Secretary of State will not weaken and will be equally strong in protecting the people. If he does not, I for one will take an extremely dim view and so, I believe, will my right hon. and hon. Friends and large numbers of people in all the constituencies on the western side of London.

The peace, the quiet and the health of millions of people must be placed above commercial interests. It is absolutely intolerable to contemplate that thousands and thousands of people might be woken up at night for the convenience of a few hundred travellers in aeroplanes above. My constituents simply will not accept it. They are angry at the very thought of it. What they want is a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies. I hope that the Government will listen carefully, pay heed to what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are saying and take a robust view. After all, there are only 16 night flights per night now and even if that number were doubled, with 1,000 flights every day, it would only increase the total number of flights through Heathrow by 1·5 per cent. Yet it would be doubling the number at night.

If people wake up for any reason in the middle of night, perhaps because they have overeaten and are suffering from indigestion or because they want to go round the corner, they then go to bed again. They may have been worrying about something and then, just as they are drowsing off to sleep, an aeroplane—a so-called "quiet" aeroplane—comes over. That will wake them up again and they may not be able to get back to sleep for an hour or so. If they have read that the Government have allowed an increase in the number of night flights, they will blame the Government for the fact that they cannot get to sleep—and that will be a perfectly reasonable assumption for them to make.

Millions of people throughout the country suffer from the effects of aircraft noise, but none suffer more than those on the west side of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be absolutely firm in resisting any increase in the number of night flights. Indeed, I hope that there will be a total ban on all night flights except in emergencies.

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie) are hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. I am grateful to you for calling me, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing the debate, which is extremely valuable—indeed, crucial—to the people of west London.

In referring to the interests of the people of west London, I shall bear my own constituents most particularly in mind. I am sorry to say that air pollution in Ealing is among the most serious in the country. Ealing is a beautiful place and is rightly known as the queen of the suburbs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful to my hon. Friends. Air pollution is serious in Ealing mainly because aircraft flying overhead pollute the atmosphere and because of the huge amounts of traffic that are sucked through my constituency because of its proximity to the airport, from which people want to catch aircraft to fly to various parts of the world. Add to that air pollution the serious noise pollution from which my constituents suffer by day—and which they could suffer by night—and the House will see why I am so keen to support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent constituencies in west London.

At present there is an almost universal ban on night flights and it is important that that should not be relaxed in any way. The Local Authorities Aircraft Noise Council, which represents all local councils in the areas surrounding Heathrow, is firmly opposed to any relaxation of the ban, but the consultation paper recently issued by the Department of Transport implies that, as most aircraft are now quieter, a relaxation of the present restrictions on night flights would be justified. It is certainly true that the latest generation of aircraft are considerably quieter than the earlier jets, and successive Conservative Governments must take credit for that. With the strong support of its members, the European Commission, too, has been heavily involved in persuading manufacturers to introduce quieter planes—indeed, that is one of the good things that the Commission has done.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that people would be seriously disturbed at night if the present night flight ban were relaxed in any way, and such a relaxation would bring justifiable fury to my constituency. Why should the people of west London be disturbed in this way? The House will understand why I am so keen for the night flight ban to be retained. If there is anyone in the land who takes seriously the suggestion in the White Paper that people may not be disturbed by certain aircraft, I should like to meet him. I do not think that anyone who studies the question in any depth can take seriously the argument that aircraft can be made so quiet that they will not disturb people at night. That simply can never be true. However quiet aircraft become, people will always be disturbed by them. It is bad enough for that to happen by day, but it would be totally unacceptable for it to happen at night. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham in respect of a relaxation of the ban on night flights.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter today. He has been absolutely tireless in his pursuit of this issue in the nigh on 20 years that he has represented his constituency.

Twenty three years.

Well, there you are.

My hon. Friend pursues this matter not through a fixation with the issue, but because his constituents demand it. It would be absolutely impossible for him and for some of us to represent our constituencies if we did not take the view that we do, so all-pervasive is the concern about the issue. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will be aware of that.

It is significant that we have gathered here this morning, not the usual lonely vigil of the initiator of the Adjournment debate, the Minister and the poor old Whip, but several other hon. Members because this is such a significant and substantial matter. It is particularly noteworthy that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is present. Although he is a Minister and unable to speak in this debate, I know that he passionately believes that enough is enough in respect of Heathrow airport. That is the cause that we advance today.

I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London—this is not empty piety on my part because I am not terribly good at empty piety—that I pay him a genuine tribute because this very week he has announced an extremely politically sensitive decision in my constituency when he rejected plans to expand the A3 beyond the Robin Hood roundabout although being under great pressure from the roads lobby to do that.

My hon. Friend the Minister decided to reject the scheme because he knows full well that the political controversy which the scheme would engender does not make the project worth while. It is therefore a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Minister in the Chamber today because I am sure that the same considerations will weigh heavily with him when he broods on this particular matter.

I believe that our case can be stated simply. Heathrow airport is one of the great airports of the world. Whatever the extent of the suffering that it causes to local communities represented by my hon. Friends who are here today, and by others who cannot be here, we all recognise the pressures on my hon. Friend the Minister from the airline companies, the British Airports Authority and others to ensure that Heathrow keeps that competitive edge.

I recall Douglas Jay once telling me how Heathrow was set up. One afternoon towards the end of the war, a few civil servants decided that that marshy place on the wrong side of London should be Heathrow airport. How very differently things are done today, when we can spend 30 years deciding, through endless public inquiries, whether something should be built.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that those civil servants in that room after the war, who took that decision without reference to Parliament, could never have foreseen the massive growth in demand for air travel or the development of noisy jet engines?

I suppose that if they foresaw anything I would probably be a good deal less cynical about the whole process of decision making. Let us assume that they thought about things carefully, even if that assumption is misguided.

The plain fact is that Heathrow exists. It is a great airport. We all use it and I have nothing against its excellent facilities. However, the communities of southwest London suffer intolerably because of the airport. The appropriate way to consider aircraft policy is to say that we all have the benefits of air travel and we should all share the suffering. We cannot have more suffering lumped on to the communities around Heathrow when Stansted was supposed to be London's third airport, although there is precious little sign of that, when there is Gatwick and when the regional airports are getting down on their knees to beg for more business.

Night flights are a thorough nuisance. I live happily—or not as the case may be—in that part of my constituency that is overflown by aircraft coming in, so I am not raising an academic matter in the House. Every morning, I get it. If my humble home were big enough, any number of civil servants from the Department of Transport could come and share that night-time vigil so as to be acquainted with what it is like.

I do not want to take up time that we do not have. It is clear that the Government, under pressure from the industry, are floating a proposition that is not acceptable or saleable and will have to be rejected. The proposition is that there is such a thing as a quiet or non-intrusive aircraft. That is nonsense. There are, however, quieter aircraft. I am grateful for the efforts that Governments have made over the years to prohibit the noisy clapped-out old 707s of emergent African dictatorships from coming into Heathrow. That has all been stopped—and a jolly good thing too.

The mere fact that some aircraft are quieter than others does not mean that we live in the world of the quiet aircraft. There is no such thing as a quiet aircraft. The assumption which underpins the document produced by the Department of Transport is that, if further pressure is exerted on noisy aircraft, our communities will accept that two or three quiet aircraft are worth one noisy aircraft, and even erect a statue in the centre of Putney, Richmond or Twickenham to the beneficent Secretary of State for Transport who has given them three times as many quiet planes. That is nonsense and it would be helpful, especially in the Government's present state, if that nonsense were realised before rather than after any blood needs to be shed. On that basis, I make this genial speech today.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) for securing this debate and the speeches that have been made. The key point for my hon. Friend the Minister to bear in mind is that in no way has the case been made for any change in the present situation. A ridiculous and thin piece of research has been done into sleep patterns. If the Department wants to do something proper in that area, it could revisit that whole question and do a proper study over a long period. But nowhere to my knowledge has the commercial case been made by any of the airlines for any relaxation in the current regime. It would be interesting to speculate that, if the British Airports Authority believed that relaxation in the regulations was an absolute sine qua non before they began the procedure for terminal 5, they would not be spending tens of millions of pounds going through application and planning procedures for that development and all of the surface access that is needed.

Hon. Members whose constituents are most seriously affected by the proposals want to see at least the maintenance of the existing regime. We would like to see monitoring equipment for landings put sensibly into position. In the past, the emphasis has been on monitoring take-offs, not landings. A lot of research needs to be done so that the Government can be satisfied that any proposals that they may bring forward in the future could possibly command an element of acceptance. These proposals would command no support whatever in our constituencies.

I echo the appeal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) that in the present state of affairs it might be wise for the Government to take the sagacious view of spending a little more time cogitating and working out what would be acceptable, bearing in mind the fundamental point that quality of life is important to our constituents and should be weighed at least equally with the commercial development of the airport.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on raising an issue of vital importance to anyone who lives in the west of London. It affects my constituents as much as those of all my hon. Friends who are present and many who would have liked to be here today to debate this important issue.

My constituency is slightly further from Heathrow than other constituencies, but that is not to underestimate the disturbance caused by flights to and from the airport. The disturbance is serious. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friends this morning. My constituents are worried about the proposals, especially the proposal to increase the number of night flights into Heathrow.

It is clear that sleep patterns are seriously disturbed by night flights. They are disturbed by the current number of night flights. To suggest that quieter aeroplanes disturb less is perhaps true if windows are double glazed and it is not the summer months when windows are left open. Through great parts of the year, my constituents like to sleep with their windows open. They like to benefit from the fresh air and enjoy the pleasures of bird song in the early morning.

A quiet plane going over in a background of relative silence in London at night is as disturbing to the sleep of my constituents as a noisy plane going over. Whatever the cause, if people are woken from their sleep, especially in the early hours of the morning, they find it difficult to go back to sleep again. So the suggestion that many more quieter planes equal one noisy plane is so ludicrous as to have brought into question the basis upon which the consideration document issued by the Department of Transport was produced. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will therefore review that document and consider whether it would be appropriate to reject its suggestions. I hope that he will also reconsider night flights into and out of Heathrow. As my hon. Friends have said, our constituents are perhaps prepared to tolerate the status quo, but that does not mean that the status quo is acceptable.

Ideally, the current number of night flights into Heathrow, especially early morning flights, would be reduced. As has already been said, the expansion of Heathrow is unnecessary, given the alternative airports into which those flights could go. I should like the Department of Transport to give that serious consideration. I should also like the overall study to include overflying of our constituents by helicopters. Helicopter flights are a particular problem in my constituency, as in any constituency along the River Thames. Helicopter flights are as much a nuisance—indeed, sometimes more of a nuisance—as other flights. They are controlled, but they are not controlled as effectively as they should be.

A great deal more could be said on this subject. I do not want to take up any more time because I want to give my hon. Friend the Minister ample time to answer the real anxieties of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends and to explain exactly how he intends to ensure that my constituents get a good night's sleep.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on securing the debate. I have been left in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling among my right hon. and hon. Friends on this important issue.

If it is not too churlish, I should like to make one point at the start of my reply. We had excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham, for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie). My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) is also in his place. Sadly, that is it. With the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who has an interest in this matter as well as being a member of the Government Whips Office, not one Labour or Liberal Member is in the Chamber to discuss this important issue. I have heard about pavement politics, particularly from some Liberal councillors who make so much of their interest in such politics in some parts of the city, so why is it that not one of their representatives was able to be present for this important debate?

Had I thought that I had a minute or two longer in which to speak, I might have dilated on the point which my hon. Friend has properly raised. It is even worse than my hon. Friend suggests, as those of us with long memories will know. The late Stephen Ross, whose death saddened me because he was a nice man, although I did not agree with everything he said, helped to prevent the passage of an aviation Bill that we attempted to get through the House. That Bill was designed to restrict the number of flights into and out of Heathrow, but it was aborted because of the efforts of Liberal and Labour Members and, sadly, one or two Conservative Back Benchers. The Liberals speak with a forked tongue on this matter because they say one thing in Parliament while trying to assert other things in the affected communities, where they try to pretend that they are on the side of those who are concerned about the Heathrow expansion.

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. Let us not dwell on that rather sad aspect of the debate, but let us concentrate on the substantive issue.

I should set in context what the consultation exercise is all about. Five objectives lie behind the new proposals. First, they are designed to revise and update the current restrictions to take into account the types of aircraft that are flying today—or, if I may say so, tonight—and to encourage airlines to choose the quietest possible types of aircraft for their operations. That is the most important principle. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney is right, of course, that there is no such thing as a silent aircraft, but he was generous enough to acknowledge that technical progress has been made. It is therefore obviously important that, whatever regulations might be appropriate in the future, we should take into account that technical progress.

It is also important to bear in mind that the need for the consultation exercise stems from the fact that, unless new restrictions are in place, the existing ones will lapse at the end of the summer season—technically, on 24 October. It is therefore important that that exercise should take place.

The second purpose of the new proposals is to introduce common principles for arrangements for night restrictions at the three major London airports. The third objective is to honour our commitment in the 1985 White Paper, "Airports Policy", to establish further night restrictions at Stansted. The fourth important objective is to continue to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at night. The fifth objective is to ensure that the competitive influences affecting United Kingdom airports and airlines and the wider employment and economic implications are taken into account. That is the background to the consultation exercise.

My colleagues who are present are experienced Members of the House and I am sure that they will understand what I am about to say. The underlying objective must be to try to strike a reasonable balance between the needs of the commercial operators at Heathrow and the needs and concerns of those who live around the airport and who are anxious about its operations.

Let us be in no doubt that Heathrow is a major national asset. It continues to be the largest international airport in the world. In the past 12 months it has catered for more than 45 million passengers. Perhaps more importantly, it serves as the workplace for some 50,000 people directly and for at least 20,000 others indirectly in terms of facilitating passenger, freight and postal services.

I believe that not only hon. Members but the vast majority of people, not just in London but in the United Kingdom, accept that Heathrow is of immense strategic importance to the nation. Against that has to be balanced the needs of the local community and the need to protect it from the excesses of night flying beyond the limit of that which is tolerable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North started with the correct observation that noise is a pollutant. It is as much a pollutant as any pollutant. The purpose of the proposals is to encourage quieter aircraft, and that encourages those aircraft that are more fuel efficient and produce less particulant emission. Therefore, there is that incidental benefit to be derived from a better night noise regime.

No one questions the tremendous importance of Heathrow to Britain, to our national economy, to trade, industry, tourism and to London's position in the world. All of that is practically self-evident. But why cannot the work of the large number of people whose employment depends upon it be concentrated, as far as possible, by day and not at all by night?

I was about to come to that precise point, which is obviously germane to the debate. Let us start with the straightforward proposition that I believe my hon. Friends will accept, which is that the vast majority of flights take place during day-time hours. We are talking very much about flights on the margin. The new proposed definition of night time runs from 11 pm until 7 am and the new quota system from 11.30 pm to 6 am.

The purpose of that—the difference between the definition of night time and the quota regime—is to allow a buffer during which no noisy aircraft can be scheduled and therefore eliminate the risk that aircraft which would otherwise be scheduled close to the point at which the night quota regime came into effect might, for operational reasons, stray into the night quota regime, thus vitiating the purpose of having a quota regime in place. That is a sensible move. Harmonisation on the question of hours makes a great deal of sense.

I am clear that we should be sure that those movements which are allowed to operate at night are justified in terms of their strategic and economic importance to Heathrow. My hon. Friend makes the perfectly fair point that we should apply some fairly stringent tests to any proposals for night flying.

I am mindful of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton on sleep research. I appreciate that neither he nor others in the House may have treated that work with the seriousness that it deserves. The research has been carried out by teams led by Professor Jim Horne from Loughborough university and others from Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Southampton under the overall direction of Dr. John Ollerhead of the Civil Aviation Authority's department of safety, environment and engineering. It is a creditable piece of research into a most difficult subject.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham is right. One may wake up in the middle of the night because, as in my hon. Friend's case, one is suffering from dyspepsia. My other right hon. and hon. Friends may do so because, as they are all distinguished chaps, they are worried about the possibility of the telephone ringing the next morning—particularly on a day such as this—or of it not ringing, which might cause even more sleeplessness. Whatever the reason, it is difficult to get back to sleep, and in those circumstances even so-called quiet aircraft can be an absolute bane. I spend my week in central London, as do most right hon. and hon. Members, so I have some experience of night aircraft noise, although I cannot claim that it is particularly upsetting.

It is an important part of our case that some people are such light sleepers that they wake up at the slightest sound, be it aircraft noise or anything else. We cannot put the whole of west London on sleeping pills.

I believe that my hon. Friend is supporting me. If I am wrong, I apologise—but it would be characteristic of him, as a generous hon. Friend. to be supportive.

Some people are extremely light sleepers and almost anything will wake them, but it would be unreasonable to take measures to control such an important activity as international flights into our major airport on the basis that every person in this city must be guaranteed uninterrupted slumber. I look forward to the day when every resident of the metropolis enjoys an uninterrupted night's slumber, but I doubt that I shall live to see it.

It is important not to confuse annoyance with disburbance. We all get annoyed at different things. The research had the serious purpose of distinguishing between annoyance and disturbance. There is a threshold at which a person is awoken from his or her normal sleep pattern. When that level of noise is reached, we are in important territory that is quite different from the sort of background noise that is part of every major city.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney represents a most attractive part of London, but it is not immune from other noises—if only that associated with the festivities and general merrymaking that my right hon. and learned Friend has done so much to promote in his years as Putney's Member of Parliament.

I will conclude with a serious point. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends accept that it is a question of striking the right balance. I make it clear that the proposal is not something new in terms of permitting night flying but relates to extending the controls over night flying which currently exist to protect residents. It is perfectly open to right hon. and hon. Members to complain that that control is currently not sufficiently stringent. I undertake to hear their comments in mind very carefully —but the Government, in acting responsibly, must bear in mind the balance of advantage which must lie between Heathrow's promotion as a vital part of our economic, tourism and business infrastructure and the rights and needs of local residents.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is most concerned about the representations that he received. I will certainly study them closely to ensure that proper weight is placed on all the arguments that my right hon. and hon. Friends adduced. They have left me in no doubt about the importance that they attach to the issue. Let us hope that, when the new arrangements are finalised, we shall strike the desired balance, benefiting all interested parties—enabling Heathrow to take its rightful place as the world's premier international airport, and allowing our constituents to enjoy a reasonable night's sleep.

I am grateful for this timely opportunity to raise important issues relating to the fire service.

No doubt the Minister was among the many Members of Parliament approached yesterday by a large lobby organised by the Fire Brigades Union and attended by many firefighters and ambulance and emergency rescue staff. I am grateful to him for representing the Minister of State, Earl Ferrers. He and I are much more used to corresponding regularly on immigration matters: I would guess that he receives more letters and representations from Members of Parliament than any other member of the Government. I am glad that he has been able to drag himself away from pressing matters in his office; no doubt they are even more pressing than usual this morning.

I wish to concentrate largely on the turmoil surrounding the threat to the firefighters' pay review formula, agreed after the damaging strike of 1977. However, I shall also press the Minister on some of the technical issues that I raised in an Adjournment debate on the emergency services in London some 18 months ago. I hope that he will be able to demonstrate that some progress has been made, although I must admit to a certain scepticism which I hope that he will be able to overturn.

The 1977 fire service strike evokes in all of us powerful memories of service men and women providing a vital emergency service, and of "green goddesses" on the streets of our towns and cities. The current dispute has brought us lively television footage of that period, dubbed with assurances that, if necessary, the Army fire tenders will be taken out of their mothballs and made ready for action.

The 1977 dispute was resolved by the adoption of a nationally agreed pay formula: that complex formula, based on the upper quarter of the average manual worker's pay, was agreed fully by the employers and union negotiators. It had the tacit support of the Government of the day, and has remained in place ever since. It has cross-party support in fire authorities up and down the country; indeed, the Home Office working party report produced in 1990 and signed by Earl Ferrers went further by explicitly recognising that the fire service and the public had been well served by the formula.

Since 1977, the pay year has run from November to November, following shortly after the annual publication of the Government's new earnings survey. For each of the past 15 years, the annual pay round has been settled amicably and speedily by application of the formula. I understand that industrial relations involving pay in this vital public service have remained second to none. Surely the Minister agrees that the morale of members of a service that is called routinely to deal with life-threatening situations is of paramount and obvious importance.

Last year, the formula resulted in a pay rise of about 4·9 per cent., which is readily comparable to the increases paid to other sectors. In fact, that comparability is built into the formula. I hope the Minister will accept that, because the formula is—by definition—time-lagged by a year, any pay freeze imposed by the Government will affect firefighters' pay twice over. Should the pay freeze be lifted next year and the formula reintroduced, firefighters will still receive a rise of only 1·5 per cent. or less, as it will be based on current public sector pay round settlements.

Where a comparable worker may have received, say, a 5 per cent. rise last year, 1·5 per cent. this year and—who knows?—3·5 per cent. next year, a firefighter will have received approximately 4·9 per cent. last year, 1·5 per cent. this year and 1·5 per cent. again next year. With the reimposition of the lagged formula, they will therefore be hit twice. Cannot the Minister accept that the easy and fair way out is simply to leave the pay formula in place and therefore let firefighters make their contribution to the Government's pay squeeze next year rather than this year?

I shall not trouble to ask the Minister whether the Government plan to impose a pay freeze next year, as we have not yet managed to get a straight answer from his Cabinet colleagues, but perhaps I should try to seek an unguarded response from him as by the time the debate is over his new boss may feel differently about pay freezes than his present boss, who will be responsible for them. I hope that, if the new Chancellor has learnt anything from his responsibility as Home Secretary, it will be the dedicated and valuable work of firefighters.

Are the Government seriously prepared to jeopardise the smooth running of this emergency service just to force down an independently worked out pay settlement from an expected level of between 2·5 and 3 per cent.? All this is being done merely so that the Government can impose their collective muscle on workers a year earlier than would otherwise happen automatically.

I shall not allow the Minister off the hook lightly with a bland assurance that it is not for the Government to intervene in the independent pay negotiations between employer and employee. The Minister seeks to give a straight answer to a straight question, and I hope that he will continue that habit this afternoon.

We all know perfectly well that the imposition of a 1·5 per cent. limit to the pay element of the standard spending assessment completely ties the hands of employers. A refusal fully to fund the independent pay formula rise in the SSA is effectively an edict from the Home Office that the formula must be abandoned.

That attack on the pay formula has already damaged morale. The damage must be placed in the context of the increasing demands that are being placed each year on an already overstretched service. Calls rose by 64 per cent. in the 1980s, but staffing rose by only 2·5 per cent. Without digressing too far, I say only that, for whatever reason and doubtless against the advice of fire inspectors, the House is a firefighters' nightmare. As a royal palace, and so exempt from health and safety regulations, it is a terrible accident waiting to happen.

Up and down the country, fire stations are being closed for reasons more to do with making cuts than with efficiently continuing the service assessed as being needed. In places, minimum standards of fire cover are arguably no longer being maintained. For example, the 890-bed Norwich hospital, formerly served at first call by three fire engines and a high-rise ladder, now looks set to be downgraded to be covered by only one fire engine.

I understand that the Public Accounts Committee found our record for fire deaths per head of population to be the worst of any of our partner countries in the European Community. That appalling slip in such a critical league table is evidence that Britain has lost its place as a world leader in fire service cover, not because of a lack of commitment, courage or innovation by firefighters and fire authorities, but simply because of a lack of cash.

I invite the Minister to tell me what progress has been made since I last raised certain issues in late 1991. I have given the Minister prior notice of my questions and I hope that he will be able to respond. First, what progress does he envisage making towards the adoption of the urban C risk category, tailored to the specific needs of a modern inner city? Secondly, will he make the welcome announcement of an exemption from the SSA of the increased revenue spending required by unavoidable pension liabilities? That would recognise the fact that the services provided in, for example, London may otherwise be cut by £2 million in real terms to cope with the 6 per cent. rise in pension costs for former officers.

Thirdly, when will the Government get around to amending the Fire Services Act 1947, which restricts the fire service's duties to firefighting? We all accept that firefighters have so many other essential calls on their time, as I outlined earlier. At this point, I pay tribute to the firefighters in Northern Ireland, especially in light of the recent terrible bombings in Belfast, Portadown and Magherafelt. Anyone who saw the firefighters being interviewed would also want to pay tribute to their dedication in dealing with the many difficulties they face. They often work in the areas in which they live and have to deal with incidents which greatly affect their part of the community.

I also applaud the region's Fire Brigades Union, which is able to bring together people from both sides of the community to fight the terrible atrocities. I of course pay tribute to firefighters in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially in view of the recent increase in terrorism. I hope that the Minister will join me in paying that tribute to them, not only for their commitment to saving property and life and for their dedication, but for the respect that they have accorded to the pay formula.

In 1991, the service received more than 1 million calls. The incidents involved the loss of 861 lives, including those of two firefighters. Insurance costs for the damage involved exceeded £1 billion. Over and above the individual misery, it is estimated that the cash cost of treating a child with severe burns can be more than £200,000. Does not the Minister realise that the contrived savings which the Government are trying to make cost more in cash and human suffering than we should be prepared to pay? Our firefighters deserve more. They have the full support of the people of this country, but they need the full support of the Government.

With the leave of the House, I shall speak again. As the House may be aware, I spoke earlier and shall be seeking leave to speak yet again before the day is over.

I thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms Hoey) for her opening remarks. I must also point out that it is not for me to speculate on any rumours that may be flying around the Westminster and Whitehall grapevine about changes in ministerial responsibility, but before the day is through we shall no doubt learn whether her assessment of the situation is correct.

I shall try to address some of the points that the hon. Lady raised, but it gives me considerable pleasure to be able to respond to a debate on a subject which the hon. Lady has addressed before, and I know that she takes considerable interest in the work of the fire service. Hon. Members will know that the fire service is not a subject on which I normally address the House, but it is well respected in the community.

A few weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary addressed a meeting of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association and made some remarks about the fire service. It was a private meeting and his speech was not widely reported, but it would riot be inappropriate to repeat to the House what he said on that occasion. He said:

"It goes without saying that the Government, like the general public, has a high regard for what the fire service does and the professionalism and bravery which we associate almost as a matter of course with the men and women in it: in particular when they undertake fire fighting duties or expose themselves to danger in other kinds of emergency. They, and you, do a good job of which we can feel justifiably proud.".

I should like to take this opportunity to endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and the praise offered by the hon. Lady. I should like to acid my endorsement to what she said about the fire fighting services in Northern Ireland.

The fire service also has a good productivity record, as the Fire Brigades Union has not been slow to point out. In the period between 1980 and 1991, the number of fire calls attended by the fire service increased by 23 per cent., the number of false alarms to which the fire service has to respond increased by 109 per cent. and the number of special service calls, which include road accidents and a whole range of other non-fire situations, as the hon. Lady suggested, increased by no less than 128 per cent. All that was achieved with an increase of only 2·5 per cent. in the numbers of personnel. It is a powerful and eloquent statement of the achievements in productivity.

There are, of course, reasons why the fire service has been able to achieve those apparent increases in productivity. The primary reason is that the disposition of fire service resources throughout the country is determined according to nationally recommended standards of fire cover which are determined by the risk presented by each part of the country. In other words, the same number of fire appliances may be needed in an area where there are two calls or 10 calls a day, but even if that is so, the work load on the firefighters has obviously increased during the period; we acknowledge that.

The fire service is local authority service financed by central and local government, and, like other public services, it cannot be immune from change or from the need to ensure that it delivers its services in a most efficient and cost-effective way. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear on several occasions that he does not intend to recommend that standards of fire cover should be reduced, but that does not exempt the fire service from the need to examine itself and to consider, like all public services, whether the service which it delivers is being delivered in the most cost-effective manner and to the greatest benefit of the community at large.

HM inspectors of fire service who advise the Secretary of State on matters of efficiency of the fire service are very conscious when they inspect brigades of the need to ensure that brigades are delivering their services efficiently and economically.

There are a number of current issues of concern to members of the fire service which I should like to mention in responding to the hon. Lady. She mentioned pay and pensions, and I shall respond to both those subjects, but there are other issues too, and it would be helpful to touch on one or two of them to make sure that the Government have absolutely no hidden agenda for the fire service.

One example is the effect of the current review on the organisation of local government in England and Wales on the fire service. There are fears that the reorganisation of local government areas will lead to wholesale reorganisation of the fire service in England and Wales.

My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he does not consider that the current review of local government is a suitable vehicle for any general reorganisation of the fire service in England, and he has made it clear to the Local Government Commission that he does not expect local government reorganisation to lead to any fragmentation of the fire service.

If some of the existing counties are broken up, it may be necessary to resort to combination schemes to maintain the size of existing fire brigades, and there may be one or two cases in which some further reorganisation is necessary because of significant changes in the structure of local government in particular areas. But apart from that, we see no good case for reviewing the organisation of the fire service in England until the process of local government reorganisation is complete and the building blocks of the new local authority structure are clear. The position in Wales is slightly different, but I do not think that it would be helpful for me to reiterate the arguments set out in the White Paper on Welsh local government reorganisation, with which I know that the House will be familiar.

I know that the level of finance available for the fire service is a matter of concern to chief officers and to elected members of the fire authorities both in the metropolitan areas and in the counties. But public expenditure is under pressure, and the fire service cannot expect to be exempted from that pressure. We know that, in some county areas, expenditure on the fire service has in some places exceeded the fire service element of the standard spending assessment. However, I think that we can say that there were fairly realistic settlements in 1991–92 and 1992–93, which helped to narrow the gap.

In the current financial year, fire authorities have been provided with an overall increase of 3·1 per cent. over last year, a reflection of what can be afforded by central Government, and an amount in line with the increase in the support for local authority expenditure generally. There are pressures on the financing of the fire service, but they are no greater than those being experienced by other local or central government services.

The hon. Lady raised the subject of fire service pay. Hon. Members will know that the Government have decided that there should be a limit on public sector pay in the current pay round and that pay rises for those working in central and local government—and indeed for hon. Members—should be contained within a maximum of 1·5 per cent. We have told all public sector employers that we expect them to have regard to that maximum in reaching any settlements in the current pay round, and funding for all services, including the fire service, has been determined on that basis for the current financial year.

For the past 15 years, fire service pay has been determined according to a formula contained in an agreement between the firefighters and their employers, which links the pay of a qualified firefighter with five years' service to that of the upper quartile of manual workers' earnings.

The Fire Brigades Union has asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to give an assurance that its pay agreement will be honoured. I can only repeat to the House what my right hon. and learned Friend said to the union when its representatives came to see him on 17 March. If the Government's pay policy is to be applied fairly, there can be no case for making an exception for firefighters, any more than for police officers, doctors, nurses, or any other category of personnel.

The Minister says that everyone should be treated fairly, but does he not agree that, in a sense, the members of the Fire Brigades Union would not be being treated fairly, because they would suffer doubly? If we return to the national agreement next year—presumably the Government would like that to happen—again, firefighters will not be in the same position as everyone else.

As the hon. Lady said, that is because of the timing of the pay round. I shall deal with timing in a moment.

It is not the Home Secretary who determines fire service pay: the pay agreement is a matter between the firefighters and their employers. As the hon. Lady said, the next fire service pay settlement will be in November. The employers have wisely said that it is too early at this stage to say whether the firefighters' pay formula will produce a figure higher or lower than 1·5 per cent. in the current pay round. The House would not expect me to speculate on what may not be the effect of applying the pay formula in 1994.

The Government have said that the objective of the 1·5 per cent. limit on public sector pay will be defeated if there is a series of catching-up settlements next year. How that will impact on the fire service in 1994 or, indeed, on any other public service can at this stage be no more than a matter for speculation. The hon. Lady talked about straight speaking. I shall not enter into such speculation.

For the fire service to be considering industrial action now on the application of its pay formula in 1994 is both premature and irresponsible. It is quite unrealistic to expect local authority employers to commit themselves to pay levels in 1994 when no decisions have been taken on the level of public sector funding for any central or local government services for the next financial year.

In my view, the union is asking for an impossible commitment from fire authority employers. It is plainly stirring up its members, for what must be political motives, to convince them that they are being singled out, unfairly treated or compared unfairly with other public sector employees. That simply is not the case.

I hope that the union does not resort to industrial action, of which there has been some talk. Firefighters are well paid. It is quite right that they should be well paid for the job that they do. I hope that their sense of responsibility will remain with them if they are asked to consider industrial action at some point in the coming months.

The hon. Lady mentioned fire service pensions. There is increasing pressure on the fire authorities caused by fire service pension liabilities. The fire service pension scheme, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is responsible, is not ungenerous, because it recognises, as if should, that the physical demands of firefighting will not permit firefighters to serve as long as is the case in some other professions, and that there are risks of injury or even death for which the scheme must provide. The firefighters' pension scheme is very similar to the pensions scheme for the police and the problems associated with the increasing pressures on the scheme are very similar.

We have no immediate plans to examine or to revise the firefighters' pension scheme. The scheme for the police will undoubtedly have been looked at in the course of the current review of police responsibilities and rewards which is being carried out by Sir Patrick Sheehy. The Sheehy inquiry is not looking at fire service pensions, but we shall need to look at any recommendations that Sheehy makes on police pensions if it appears that those recommendations, if accepted, could also be relevant to the fire service. At this stage, it would be wrong to speculate on whether there will be any such recommendations, what they will be and whether they will be relevant to the fire service scheme. We shall have to wait and see.

The hon. Lady mentioned special services, and also asked whether the Fire Services Act 1947 might be amended so that fire authorities have a duty to respond to special service calls. At present, they may at their discretion respond to such calls and they may charge the recipient for doing so, but they have no duty to respond to calls other than fire calls. We have no proposals to change the statutory basis on which special services are provided.

The hon. Lady also referred to the urban C risk category and to a new definition for that. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has put to the Home Office proposals for the division of the existing C fire risk category into urban C and rural C, with enhanced initial responses in terms of weight and speed of attack. The proposals arise from concern about loss of life and injuries in property fires in areas of C risk, taken together with the fact that the national fire cover standards recommend an initial attendance of only one appliance at fires in areas of C risk.

We have, of course, given careful consideration to the proposal, and we have looked at both the incidence of injuries and fatalities in fires in areas of C risk and the actual practices of fire brigades in responding to fires in those areas. The association's proposal would entail substantial additional resources for the fire services in England and Wales. Fire cover standards were reviewed in 1985 by the joint committee on standards of fire cover, and we have no proposals to conduct any further review.

I know that the Fire Brigades Union has also attempted to link the issue of pay with closure or downgrading of fire stations. Let me make it absolutely clear that a fire authority wishing to close or downgrade a fire station must seek the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend. It is his practice to grant approval only when he is satisfied that national fire cover standards will be maintained. The national standards were agreed in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, on which fire authorities and fire service employees are represented. However tight the pressures this year, all authorities in England and Wales have been able to set budgets that allow them to comply with the national standards.

I have been able to speak on only some aspects of the fire service in this debate, but I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the subject. We regard the fire service highly, and we wish to see it maintained as an effective and professional organisation.

Thank you for allowing me to raise this subject today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to say that much has happened since I first sought to initiate the debate. There has been a considerable amount of contact between immigration department officials, senior officials and the management at Prestwick airport and that has been paralleled by my discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister. I thank my hon. Friend for agreeing to reply to the debate. Having listened to his comments in a previous debate, I congratulate him both on his productivity and on his efficiency: I understand that this is the third debate to which he has replied today.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend at this early stage for his recognition of the serious implications of the incident at Prestwick last week—a recognition of the importance of commitments made and which, it has to be said, failed at the first time of asking.

The incident to which I refer occurred last Thursday, 20 May. An aircraft carrying 180 passengers—customers —from the United States was diverted to Prestwick airport. It was two hours before immigration officials dealt with the first passenger. It took immigration officials one and a half hours to get from Glasgow to Prestwick whereas others who were advised of the diversion arrived in just over 40 minutes. Clearly, something was seriously wrong.

A doctor who had crossed the Atlantic for a 9 o'clock meeting in Glasgow was clearing immigration at Prestwick at that time—despite special arrangements made some time before, which failed to be recognised by staff in the Glasgow immigration office. The whole thing was a shambles. Those visitors to Scotland were not only inconvenienced but disillusioned. Business men were delayed and all concerned regarded the incident as a bad advertisement.

To understand the incident, we must review the history of Prestwick airport. Before March 1990, Prestwick had gateway status: it was the gateway to Scotland from across the Atlantic, and from the United States and Canada in particular. At that time, there was a monopoly, albeit a monopoly that was in the ownership of the British Airports Authority, which also held monopolies over other central belt airports—at Glasgow and Edinburgh. Before March 1990 there was considerable passenger throughput at Prestwick and a full customs and immigration service was in operation.

On 6 March 1990, the then Secretary of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson, who visited my constituency last week and was warmly welcomed, announced the inevitable: an end to Prestwick's gateway status following a court judgment in a case brought by Air 2000 in May 1989. The then Secretary of State suggested that that action was taken because competition must be allowed to flourish. I approved of that. But that competitiveness has depended to a degree on Government services and on Government regulations to which I shall refer later.

At the time of that announcement, the then Transport Secretary said that Prestwick had to be allowed to compete fairly. As I have said, the BAA already owned Glasgow and Edinburgh airports. Inevitably with common ownership, there had to be rationalisation. Prestwick did lose out in the short term with respect to passenger transport as expected. It lost out with regard to transatlantic scheduled flights and charters. I believe that that might well be only in the short term and I believe that the charter operators realise that.

To be fair, the BAA recognised the freight potential of Prestwick, but it did not maximise the opportunities. I am pleased to say that the circumstances changed again in April 1992 when Prestwick international airport, under the ownership of PIK Holdings Ltd., took over. That company was a combination of individuals involved in local and international business and local authority and enterprise company activities.

Since then, that company has enthusiastically and determinedly taken steps to boost freight business in particular and to make inroads into passenger transport. In the latter case, there has been some success with services established to Jersey and to Viga in the former USSR. There are only glimmers of prospects for the future.

The good news is that the airport is in profit, although it has been stunted given the excellent facilities that currently exist. Those facilities are enhanced by unusually good weather conditions. Prestwick is always open when other nearby airports are closed. For whatever reason, fog does not settle over Prestwick airport and that is a very important consideration. It gives Prestwick a major status as a diversion airport. That means that the airport must man all its services to cope at short notice with diversions.

On Thursday 20 May, PIK certainly coped admirably, but with one exception. As I said earlier, it took one hour and 30 minutes for immigration personnel to get on site at Prestwick. In February of this year, the full-time presence of immigration services at Prestwick was withdrawn. In February and March, I received assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister and from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary that all would be well when diversions occurred and that immigration services would be on site within the hour.

The following points were pledged. First, that scheduled and charter flights would be covered. I have no complaints about that particular aspect. Secondly, that business and general air traffic passengers could be dealt with by remote. To date, I cannot complain about that.

However, we then come to diversion flights which, I was assured, would receive top priority treatment with immigration officers on site within the hour; an early morning call by an immigration officer on a daily basis to confirm that there were no diversions liable at the transatlantic peak arrival period of 7 am; and that a remote information transfer system, dependent on electronic mail and fax facilities, would ensure specific passenger needs would be met as they arose.

On 20 May every category failed the test. On learning of that early in the morning of 21 May, I contacted the Home Office and I pay tribute to the Home Office civil servant who responded most positively. On Monday and Tuesday, I had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister. At the same time in Prestwick, senior officials met the airport management. I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for his extremely positive interest and response. A mutually satisfactory agreement has been reached. While it perhaps falls short of a full day time immigration service 365 days per year—which would be ideal but not sound in economic terms—it is not justified, given current passenger usage.

We have reached agreement on the methods by which the needs of the airport can be met to cover diversions. It will ensure a daily presence at the critical times and that is most important. It goes further in an innovative and imaginative way with regard to the use of personnel from Customs and Excise for clearing general traffic at the airport. That says a lot for the co-operation between Government Departments and the flexibility and attitudes of staff at Prestwick for whom I have the highest regard.

While eagerly awaiting my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on these issues, I take this opportunity to seek his much-appreciated support and assistance. In that regard, I refer to freight use at Prestwick airport. In Scotland, the key industry is the electronics industry. Major companies from across the international scene participate in the silica glen, as it is known. IBM, Digital, Compaq, Motorola and Prestwick Circuits are just a few. They have a key requirement for international trade. They must get components in quickly and on schedule and get added-value products out. That means jobs in Scotland and a boost to Scotland's economy and—as part of the Union—the United Kingdom economy. It is not simply value for the companies but provides such services for the nation.

Prestwick has the opportunity to play a vital role in the European Community and beyond. Currently, we lose opportunities because of restrictive rules set by the United Kingdom Government. I am aware that major international electronic companies scratch their heads when they realise that freight liners flying into Prestwick can deliver components but cannot pick up products to distribute elsewhere, even though it is on the aircraft's run. There is something wrong with that. Of course, I am referring to the issue of fifth freedom rights.

I would be obliged if my hon. Friend will pass on my comments to our mutually right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and suggest that he have a chat with the United States Transport Secretary, Frederico Fena, about a true open-skies policy in the United Kingdom, the United States and beyond. Such a policy should be imposed on Prestwick for advantage in the longer term. If the United Kingdom and the United States take that step, other nations will follow. That would be of great advantage to the United Kingdom manufacturers, United Kingdom airlines and, most importantly, Prestwick airport.

If my hon. Friend passes on those thoughts, he will be a true friend of Prestwick. He has certainly advanced the interests of Prestwick in the past few days. Recently, Prestwick has been boosted by the Government's actions and, to some degree, local authority actions. There have been moves to upgrade access to Prestwick with regard to the A77 and M8 links and the M77 projections for the future. Moves are being made which could well result in a rail halt at Prestwick and trunk road status for the A70, improving access to Prestwick still further.

There is an innovative idea to provide combined air and rail tickets for those who use Prestwick airport. I understand that the idea is unique in the world. We do not want Government regulation which stops such good ideas being used to Prestwick's advantage. I remind my hon. Friend again that fifth freedom rights and an end to current restrictions would certainly give Prestwick and the United Kingdom trade a great boost.

The message that I hope to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister is a clear statement which all airlines can sign on to that Prestwick is open for business—quality business —and that there will be no future delays as a result of Government agency problems. Sadly, when I leave the Chamber today I will fly back to Glasgow. I shall be happy to return to Scotland, but I look forward to the day when I can fly from London to Prestwick airport. I look forward to my hon. Friend's words.

With the leave of the House, I shall speak for the third time in today's debates. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend on raising this important subject today. I thank him for his strong and articulate advocacy of the interests of Prestwick airport and his general constituency interests. In the past year or so he has represented his constituency interests on several occasions in the most powerful and constructive fashion.

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks about the immigration service and officials in the Home Department. I accept entirely his constructive criticism of the event which he outlined, which I shall deal with in a moment. Before I do so, I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have noted carefully what my hon. Friend has had to say.

It may be helpful if I first explain the background to the decision to withdraw the permanent immigration service presence from Prestwick airport and provide immigration control coverage for that airport from Glasgow airport instead. Over the years, in particular since Glasgow airport was opened to transatlantic flights, there has been a decline in the volume of traffic at Prestwick.

As my hon. Friend reminded me, the management of Prestwick airport has many plans to increase the traffic at Prestwick, but in recent years the volume has declined. For example, in 1988 more than 162,000 passengers arrived at Prestwick. Last year that number was just fewer than 10,000, of which more than 7,000 were European Community nationals. For some time, the only traffic has been business or military, apart from the occasional diversion of scheduled flights from other airports, which my hon. Friend described. Hardly any of the passengers on those flights need extensive examination under the terms of the Immigration Act 1988.

The immigration service had run down staff levels at Prestwick over a period, but the point was reached at which the three immigration officers and one chief immigration officer who remained were spending little time on passenger work. The immigration service has a duty to provide its customers with an efficient service, but also a responsibility, of which I am mindful, to employ its resources in the most efficient manner.

The levels of passenger traffic simply did not justify the retention of a permanent immigration presence at Prestwick, at least for the time being. PIK's traffic forecasts did not point to any significant increase in the immediate future. The immigration service could not justify the retention of four staff to deal with what amounted to one arriving and two embarking on commercial services a week.

The decision was therefore taken earlier this year, as my hon. Friend reminded the House, to transfer the four officers to the immigration office at Glasgow airport, which carries out a greater volume and range of immigration work, and provide immigration coverage for Prestwick from that office. As my hon. Friend is aware, that decision does not affect Prestwick's status as a designated airport under the Immigration Act 1971. That status means that the immigration service is bound to provide coverage and it has assured PIK that regular services will be covered. I should mention that Prestwick is not the only designated port of entry in this country where the immigration service does not maintain a permanent presence. Southampton, Liverpool and Teesside airports are all designated ports at which immigration cover is provided from neighbouring offices. It depends on the regular volume of traffic.

I accept what my hon. Friend says, but none of those airports has the diversionary role of Prestwick.

My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely where I have reached in my speech.

I am aware of Prestwick's role as a diversionary airport. The majority of diversionary traffic which it receives is from Glasgow. Last year only six flights were diverted to Prestwick from either Heathrow or Gatwick. Prestwick was not previously staffed on a 24-hour basis and many diversions arrive out of hours. It is, of course, difficult to cater for infrequent and unpredictable occurrences. Not all diversions require the physical attendance of an immigration officer, but when required, the immigration service promises that an officer or officers will be sent as quickly as possible.

On the morning of 20 May the immigration service at Glasgow was first notified by PIK of the possible diversion of two wide-bodied aircraft from Glasgow at one minute past 7 in the morning. At quarter past 7, it received confirmation that flight NW34 from Boston would divert to Prestwick. Two immigration officers were immediately despatched by road to Prestwick.

The shortest distance between Glasgow and Prestwick is about 35 road miles, which normally takes, with reasonable driving conditions, about an hour. The officers expected poor traffic conditions and fog on the usual route, with which my hon. Friend will be familiar, and accordingly decided that, on balance, they would be quicker and safer to take the longer coastal route. Unfortunately, that assessment proved to be wrong and their journey was hampered by heavy local traffic. They did not arrive at Prestwick until shortly before 9 o'clock when they immediately began clearance of the flight's passengers. Clearance was completed by 9.30 am.

I understand that, initially, the passengers were kept on board the aircraft awaiting the arrival of the immigration officers. The Northwest Airlines station manager has confirmed that he boarded the aircraft as soon as it came on stand at Prestwick and announced to the passengers that he intended to keep them on board. He took that initial decision because he still had to assess whether to disembark at Prestwick or part refuel and continue to Glasgow. He also wished to confirm, the immigration position. At no point did the immigration service suggest that the passengers should be held on board the aircraft.

At 8.40 am an officer from PIK telephoned to complain that the immigration officers had not yet arrived. He asked if he was expected to continue holding the passengers on board the aircraft. He was advised that there was no need for this and that the passengers could disembark, provided that they were kept airside until seen by an immigration officer. That practice has been followed on previous occasions, when passengers were able to wait in comfort in a transit lounge, until the immigration service was ready to act.

I regret that the passengers on NW34 were delayed longer than would normally be expected in the circumstances. The immigration service is reviewing its procedures for responding to diversions in future. The Glasgow office car is to be fitted with a radio link. Meanwhile, an instruction has been issued to all staff travelling to Prestwick to take a mobile telephone. Officers have also been instructed to report immediately any delay. Communications will, therefore, improve.

The immigration service has always made it clear that it cannot guarantee immediate attendance at Prestwick for diverting flights without at least some advance notice, but the improvements should ensure that the system is better managed and reduce the scope for error. I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern, however, that the level of immigration coverage at Prestwick should not be detrimental to the airport's development.

I am pleased to say that there have been some useful discussions this week between the immigration service and senior representatives of PIK which should ensure prompt coverage of diverted flights arriving in the early morning, the usual time of arrival for flights diverted from the trans-Atlantic routes, and generally improved communications, with the aim of securing a reasonable level of service with a reasonable level of resources. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this explanation and apology for what happened.

This is a good opportunity to make some more general remarks about the immigration service. It is an encouraging sign of economic recovery that the number of passengers arriving at our ports and airports has increased substantially in the past year. I am now taking a countrywide view in which I know that my hon.Friend will be interested. That must be good news for Prestwick airport and for all other airports and seaports as well as the airlines and ferry companies which operate the services.

The growth is significant. Just over 54 million passengers arrived in the United Kingdom last year compared with some 46 million in 1991, an increase of about 16 per cent. Heathrow remains by far the busiest international airport in the world and Gatwick is the third largest. The position of the United Kingdom as a destination for travellers, a base for overseas business men and a hub for airline transfer traffic to destinations all over the world is of great economic importance and a matter in which we should take real pride.

The debate reminds us that it is not only London and the south-east that are welcoming overseas visitors. Airports in other parts of the United Kingdom are expanding and adapting to provide more and better services. Scotland has seen substantial growth in traffic, Birmingham opened a second terminal a couple of years ago and Manchester opened a splendid second terminal in only March this year which I look forward to visiting shortly. We all wish such enterprises well. They provide jobs, status and prosperity to the local area and bring in much needed overseas business.

It is particularly encouraging to note that the number of foreign visitors to the United Kingdom is increasing rapidly. There were some 6·5 million foreign visitors to Britain last year compared with 5·7 million in 1991. That figure does not include EC nationals who are not counted by category but who might well double the figure of 6·5 million. Tourism and leisure is Britain's largest industry, employing 10 per cent. of our entire work force. How important it is then that all concerned should make every effort to attract visitors here.

At a time when we are facing increasing competition in tourism from many other countries it is essential that the immigration service can respond to the upturn in passenger numbers. The travelling public must be given a high quality of service but, at the same time, we must ensure that nothing is done to diminish the effectiveness of our controls against illegal immigration.

I also hope that hon. Members who have taken their cars to the continent, returning through Dover's eastern docks, will be aware that the world's busiest international ferry terminal shows a marked improvement in the time taken for people to pass through immigration control. The introduction of car channelling at Dover's eastern docks last year, based on EC and non-EC passport lanes, resulted in only 2 per cent. of all arriving cars waiting more than six minutes, whereas during the same summer peak period in the previous year 10 per cent. of all cars were waiting for more than 18 minutes. That is a considerable achievement on which I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the local immigration staff and managers.

The processing rate at Dover can now reach 1,000 cars an hour. It is all the more creditable that immigration officers managed at the same time to detect more forged documents in all that traffic and in the first quarter of 1993, in the south-east district, they detected 215 forged documents which were presented at immigration control. That is an increase of 25 per cent. over the same period last year. It is essential to preserve the effectiveness of our immigration controls, whether at sea ports or at airports, at the same time as improving their efficiency.

Improvements in the quality of service offered by the immigration service are not confined to reducing delays at airports and ports. I am pleased to be able to report that the public inquiry office in Glasgow, which deals with applications for extension of stay, was reopened last month. That is another subject on which my hon. Friend has made representations to me in the House.

The office was closed for some time, but improvements were made to the premises and it is open again—providing an improved service to customers, with staff specially recruited for the work. I hope that that development will be welcomed by people in Scotland, and I look forward to seeing that facility myself fairly soon.

I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate a short but important debate on public transport in London. I understand that not many yards from here, a Whitehall shuffle is going on. Ministers are going to Downing street with one job and coming out with another. This debate is about shuffling the people of London around, and I venture to suggest that the same principles apply in both cases.

It is no use shuffling people around if the policies are not right and unless everyone ends up going in the same direction, on the right track. I hope that today we shall touch base across the Floor of the House and identify the breadth and common nature of concern felt by those of us who represent not just London constituents but those who visit and work in London that we must get a grip on the way London's public transport is organised and run.

My first point is not a new song for me. We must end the uncertainty about the Jubilee line and at last get that line and its extension going ahead. Earlier today, I was briefly optimistic that an announcement might be made in the midst of all the other activity over the road. Yesterday, an unstarred question was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), asking the Prime Minister

"if he will make a further statement on the Government's commitment to making a contribution to the Jubilee line extension."

I telephoned the Department of Transport, but someone there said, "The reply will not come from us—that question is to be answered by the Prime Minister." For a moment, I thought that the Prime Minister would say, "Done—you've got it today." Sadly, that was not the case. The Prime Minister's reply, given just a matter of minutes ago, was:

"The Government, and I personally, remain committed to the Jubilee line extension as a major addition to the infrastructure of docklands and of London's transport. We have earmarked public funds for the line. As soon as negotiations with the companies involved in the financing of Canary Wharf have been concluded satisfactorily my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport"—

whoever he or she may be now—

"will authorise the start of construction and the first tranche of those funds will be made available. The line will then be built within an estimated 53 months."

I pause, because this last sentence is important:

"The draft funding agreement specifies that swingeing penalty payments will come into force if the line is not completed seven months after that."

We are very near, but not quite there—and it is about time that we were. I hope that the Minister can say how many centimetres from the line we are, and how we are to get from here to there without tripping again.

My second point is really a response to events since the last general election. I welcome the appointment of a Minister for Transport in London and that there is a Cabinet Committee for London. However, London does not have a co-ordinating forum in which to discuss transport issues. I will not argue today—because I know that I would not receive a response—for a regionally elected, democratic body, but that is what I want and it is something for which my party argues. The Government do not endorse that proposal. I argue instead for an alternative which I hope that the Government will find acceptable, and which I believe all right hon. and hon. Members will consider something better than we have now.

My suggestion picks up on a request made only this week by business leaders in the capital. I refer to the establishment by the Minister of a body that I shall call for the sake of today's debate the capital transport forum, which would meet regularly to bring together representatives of both Houses, local government, statutory undertakings, users and the business community.

I hope that we start to discuss the strategic development of the transport service, rather than relying on announcements about crossrail one week, about the Jubilee line the next week, about travelcard the week after that and about potential British Rail changes the following week. With the best will in the world, I do not believe that that is the way to run a system. The railways, the buses, the tubes, the river and the roads are all part of the whole, and should be seen as such.

I know that others want to speak about specific issues; let me make some general points. I believe that the future of London's transport has reached a crucial and critical point, and that there is a danger of a crisis of confidence in the system and its continuation, because of the projected reduction in capital from the public purse owing to public expenditure restraint. That, by definition, will inhibit investment. In 1991, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated that, if the capital was to have the decent, modern metro system that it needed, we should have to spend about £750 million a year. We are nowhere near that level of commitment.

I do not dissent dogmatically from the idea that it is possible to seek partnership funding for certain projects, but I do not believe that it is possible to plan on the basis of partnership funding that is not secure. We cannot announce project X, Y or Z as agreed, firm and secure when there is no guarantee that the money will be forthcoming. The Jubilee line was the best and, indeed, the first example of that—an example that has prompted the concern that some of us feel about private money coming into crossrail and other parts of British Rail. At present, there is no guarantee of funds.

I do not object to the range and number of initiatives that are currently in hand, but they do not add up to a coherent whole. Too many appear to be the result of dithering or muddle: certainly that is the impression gained by many Londoners, including constituents who have written to me on the subject. In the past year, I have received more letters from constituents about transport issues than I received in my previous nine years in the House.

The Government say that they intend to introduce legislation in the next Queen's Speech to deregulate buses in London. There are serious and justified doubts about the benefits of deregulation, based on evidence. I was present during Transport questions on Monday, when Ministers tried to rebut that suggestion; their arguments do not stand up. Since 1982, bus patronage outside London has declined by 25 per cent. in the metropolitan areas and by 18 per cent. in the shires. In London, it has increased by 10 per cent. During that period, bus deregulation applied in the areas outside London, but not in London. In 1991–92—the last full year for which figures are available—bus patronage in the country fell by a further 4·5 per cent., and it has fallen by 10 per cent. over the past two years. In London, it has fallen by only 2·5 per cent. over the past year, and by 3·3 per cent. over the past two years. Again, deregulation has applied only outside London.

The Government will say that people are using public transport less, but that is generally true both inside and outside the capital. I believe that deregulation poses the risk of a substantial reduction in the number of people who travel on London's buses.

Interesting cost-analysis comparisons can be made between deregulation and the continuation of tendering. Let me stick my neck out: I accept that tendering has cut costs significantly. I believe that, to date, the figure is 15 per cent.; that has been confirmed by the Department of Transport, although I gather that, according to London Regional Transport, it may be nearer 30 per cent. Its prediction—it is important to separate the two—is that by 1998, without the distraction of deregulation but with 100 per cent. tendering, we could go from a £30 million deficit to a £10 million surplus. If it is possible to achieve that, we should seize the opportunity with both hands. Our bus network could break even without deregulation, and surely that should be our aim.

I beseech the Government to change course on deregulation now, and that is different from privatising and selling off bus companies in London. Serious concerns have been expressed about the continuation of loss-making services and overcrowding on profitable routes.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and other hon. Members that we need to upgrade our underground system, and some lines more than others. The Northern line from Barnet to Southwark is such an example. In its present state, people will not be encouraged to use the underground.

During the Easter recess, I went to speak to a conference in Mexico. I had never visited Latin America previously, but the underground system in Mexico City was a delight. It was clean, efficient, well lit and fast. We need such a system.

I want to allude to the controversy about concessionary fares and travelcards. There is a genuine and valid fear that the present concessionary fares schemes will not continue after deregulation or privatisation of British Rail because it is a matter for negotiation with London boroughs. At the very least, it will be extremely difficult because of the additional number of operators who will be part of the negotiating process. There is a severe risk, although it has not been alluded to as such, that we shall lose half fares for children, which form an important part of the system. Yes, it could be imposed on the boroughs, but unless we are clear that that principle is accepted by the Government we are at risk. In the week when the Government did a U-turn —or gave clarification, to be more generous to them—about the railcard, I hope that a similar guarantee will be given about the future of the travelcard. We must not have continued wranglings between British Rail, London Transport and the Government. We must have a guarantee that the travelcard and concessionary fares, including children's fares, will continue.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is his debate, but it is on London's transport. I have a letter that was signed by the Minister only yesterday on the issue of travelcards. He says:

"In the forthcoming legislation … all operators in London—rail and tube as well as bus—have the right to participate on fair terms in any multi-modal or multi-operator ticketing scheme."

That sounds okay, but it offers only the opportunity for many of the operators to participate and denies present owners the right to issue such a ticket, which may not exist in future. He goes on about stored value tickets, which are a different thing and would be a step backwards.

I hope that the Minister will deal with the hon. Gentleman's valid point. There is no doubt that concern is being expressed across London. For example, I was with pensioner groups yesterday and I know that it is not a party or borough-based matter. It is a London-wide matter.

I wish quickly to talk about rail and tube and the two projects that have hit the headlines. I have made the point about the need for the Jubilee line extension to go ahead. We have been plagued by uncertainty and businesses are going under because of the blight of not knowing whether the extension will go ahead. Having got so far, however, it would be madness not to ensure that all the people concerned deliver the goods so that we can get on with it. Not only is it holding up interests such as development of the parliamentary buildings but it is affecting the link between Waterloo and London Bridge, the link to docklands, the east Thames strategic plan and the link to Stratford. Many strategic objectives will be attained, and if docklands is not to be the white elephant that it could still be, the sooner the Jubilee line extension is announced the better. We must be at a minute to midnight, but we must get over the line. I sincerely hope that we will not back off that.

In declaring their support for crossrail, the Government have not thought through the way in which it links with the channel tunel rail link. It affects east London and is a good example of how the strategic view of the Paddington-Heathrow line, crossrail and the channel tunnel rail link need to be co-ordinated, otherwise we risk finding a simplistic or wrong solution even if we pay a great deal for it.

I shall conclude because I wish to leave the Minister plenty of time to respond positively. I hope that we shall receive reaffirmation of the Government's support for a riverbus, eventually—as I have heard the Minister say in private—as an integrated part of London's transport system. At the moment, the scheme is guaranteed only until the end of the year, and then only because of the private sector. We need to move quickly to decongest our roads through the schemes that the Government have now accepted, such as road pricing and other systems being piloted in the boroughs.

We need a fair decision on taxis and minicabs. The issue, which I know presents some difficulty, has been sitting on the Minister's desk for months. I hope that we can reconcile the different interests for the benefit of the passengers.

Lastly, we need a cordon sanitaire—a phrase used in a letter to me—around London to protect the centre from helicopter flights other than for the emergency services. That is preferable to having each application dealt with separately and then knocked on the head. It cannot be good for the quality of life in the capital to have helicopters flying in and out and overhead.

Transport could be the issue which determines what happens in next year's local elections in London. If the Government score own goals, they will be in worse trouble because of their policies. I hope that the Minister's experience since the general election will mean, first, that he will keep his job when the reshuffle is sorted out later today, whoever his Secretary of State may be, and, secondly, that he will give all those who share his interest in getting it right the opportunity to sit around a table regularly to put their arguments, to win the case and make London a city in which we do not shuffle around but move around with a common objective—the prosperity of our city.

rose—

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman begins, may I ask whether he has received the assent of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermonsey (Mr. Hughes) and the Minister?

Both have agreed that I may speak because both will hear words with which they can agree.

As a Member of Parliament representing a London constituency, I welcome the Government's commitment to the deregulation and privatisation of London's buses which, I believe, will lead to greater investment and innovation, both of which are needed in our capital city.

My main reason for speaking is that I represent Hendon and many of my constituents use the Northern line daily. The line is celebrating its centenary, but its passengers are not celebrating. The trains are frequently ancient, frequently graffiti-ridden and, all too often, they are less frequent than they should be. The stations are uninviting, security is inadequate and there is a clear need for massive investment if the line is to be adequate for the 21st century. I hope that the Minister for Transport in London will assure the House that the Government are strongly committed to modernising the Northern line and providing an adequate system for my constituents and the many others who travel on it.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—

Order. The Minister will need the leave of the House.

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had forgotten the pleasure of speaking earlier this morning. How remiss of me. It was indeed a pleasure although not under your Chairmanship—perhaps that is what caused my momentary lapse of memory. With the leave of the House, I shall speak again. I know that the packed House is keen to make progress but I hope that the hundreds of hon. Members here will allow me to say a few words.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey must be congratulated on securing the debate. He and I have had a number of discussions about transport in London. I recognise his genuine interest in the matter and, although we do not always agree, he sets out his arguments fairly. I am also pleased to acknowledge the interest of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who is also an assiduous correspondent of mine on transport issues—and long may he continue to be so, provided that it is as a member of the Opposition while I am a Minister.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) also intervened. Before addressing the points made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, let me say that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South is immensely assiduous in pressing the case for early improvement of the Northern line, and he has every reason to do so. I should draw his and the House's attention to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the Underground, which specifically drew attention to the fact that, by management action, London Underground has been able substantially to improve the quality of service on the Northern line, which no longer deserves the tag of "the misery line" that it once had. That in no sense diminishes the importance of an eventual programme of improvement and refurbishment on the Northern line and I hope that, with London Transport, we can embark on that as soon as practicable.

My concern about the otherwise excellent speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was that he covered so much ground. He managed to cover a new forum for London, the Jubilee line, crossrail, bus deregulation, river bus money, taxis and helicopters. That is my list and it seemed about enough.

What about travelcard?

I had travelcard under the context of bus deregulation. That is about enough to keep us going from now until about 10 o'clock this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I know that you will allow me only another 10 minutes, so I will have to pick some large bones out of an extremely complex fish.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman needs and deserves some explanation, first on the Jubilee line. He quoted from the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a question literally a few minutes ago. There is no doubt, and that answer underlines it, of the Government's commitment to their contribution of what is essentially, and always has been, a joint venture. It is a developer contribution project in which the developer, originally Olympia and York, recognised that the extension of the Jubilee line linking Canary Wharf with somewhere that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows too well—the Ritz, Green park and all stations thereafter—would substantially enhance the value of that development, not just by a few millions, but by hundreds of millions of pounds.

It was not an act of charity but one of sensible and careful negotiation when Olympia and York agreed to make a substantial developer contribution, in addition to that of the taxpayer, to the creation of the new line, which has real benefit for the hon. Gentleman's constituency and for all areas of docklands through which the new extension will pass.

I find it immensely frustrating that we are not already digging that line. However, I do not believe that I am alone in that. It is equally frustrating not only for London Transport, but for the creditors of Olympia and York and for the many peope of docklands who would welcome the arrival of this valuable amenity. I can say to the hon. Gentleman only that our negotiations are continuing, and that my own view is that good faith is crucial in these matters. If one can actually see expressions of good faith on all sides—and I do—I very much hope that we shall be able to bring the negotiations to a speedy conclusion.

I sought a metaphor which was neither sexist nor sizeist, but I am driven none the less to the old phrase that the opera is not over until the fat lady sings. What I believe is meant by that aphorism is that one can never say that something is done until it is done. I am sorry that that is unsatisfactory and recognise that it echoes words I spoke to the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber some months ago. Suffice it to say that, with good will, progress is being made.

I would make one more point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept it. There is, of course, another way. I do not believe that he is counselling it on me as it would be a variation from his original position, but there are those who counsel on me abandoning the idea of a private sector contribution and going ahead with the line. They must understand that that is suggesting that we let the taxpayer pay an extra half a billion pounds—I ought not to overstate the case; it is £400 million—because we are not prepared to pursue the developer contribution which is a reflection of the development gain from which that project will benefit. I believe that it is my job, and the job of Her Majesty's Government, always to protect the interests of the taxpayers—the interests of those who can ill afford to find the taxes that they are currently charged. I see no merit whatever in simply and easily passing that extra burden on to them.

rose—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only six minutes left.

The hon. Gentleman raised the subject of bus deregulation. I am sorry that he and I are likely to disagree in the months to come about its merits or otherwise, but we may as well get some things clear now. If we consider the different rates of decline in bus patronage inside and outside London—those figures go back to the second world war—we see that there has been a consistent decline, related more than anything else to the development of the private car, and to its increased ownership in the population and the ease with which it can be used by commuters to travel to work. The figures are interesting because they show a fairly steady decline outside London where, with some notable exceptions, there is still no great difficulty in parking fairly close to work. People come in from outlying rural areas and they can park in the centre of town.

If people have the choice, they generally use their own private cars, even if that is marginally more expensive, because of the convenience, the safety and the ability to control one's own travelling temperature, noise level, type of music, and so on.

Significantly, in London the rate of decline in bus patronage has been lower, for no better reason than the fact that in London what matters is not what one pays for one's car, or who is paying for the petrol, or even the city congestion charge; as every Member of the House, including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker, knows only too well, what really determines whether one uses a private car in central London is whether there is somewhere to park when one gets to the centre of London. Of course, in central London there is much less chance of that. It is no accident, therefore, that 86 per cent. of those who come into London to work every day do so by public transport.

When we consider what has happened under deregulation, let us first set entirely to one side the initial fares hike which resulted from a rapid reduction in subsidy by some local authorities faced with capping problems. That happened to coincide with deregulation. However, as the hon. Gentleman was kind enough to acknowledge, deregulation itself has produced a sharp reduction in operating costs and an increase in bus mileage. The effect on fares is arguable, because of the relationship between fares and local authority support, but it is interesting that over the past four years fares have gone up faster in London, where fares have been controlled by the state and by a nationalised industry, than outside London, where fare increases have been lower. That has been due in no small measure to competition in the marketplace, which has held fares down.

I have three minutes left in which to say some important things to the people of London, via the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry to have to say this, but if, for whatever reason, scare stories are put about, I must rebut them. First, we have committed ourselves to supporting unprofitable but socially desirable services, and that support is to be provided by the central bus authority, which is now sometimes referred to as the London bus executive. The body will subsidise those routes, as happens now with subsidy and support of unprofitable routes.

The concessionary fares arrangements will continue. Of course, there will be a new pattern for negotiation, but they will continue to be funded by the local authorities. As before, it will be for local authorities to determine what should be the rate and what should be the pattern, and who to include and who to exclude—children, elderly people, and so on.

The hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in relation to the travelcard during the passage of the Railways Bill about the franchising director's ability to direct appropriate franchisees to enter what would effectively be a travelcard scheme. I assure him that I am in no doubt whatever about the importance of travelcards in London. London is my city, as it is the hon. Gentleman's. I have used the travelcard for many years and I know that I shall continue to do so. I have no doubt that our arrangements will ensure that travelcards continue.

I am sorry not to have had the time to respond on other matters. On the point about a forum, we have a multiplicity of forums available to us. I hope that we shall not descend to the level of a talking shop. I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Just for the record, expenditure in real terms was £249 million when the Government came into office. It was about £300 million in real terms in the last year of the Greater London council. This year, excluding the mega-projects, the figure is more than £500 million and that level of investment is continuing.

I am sorry not to have been able to answer more of the hon. Gentleman's questions. I shall, of course, write to him if he wants urgent answers. I look forward to more, inevitable debates on this important subject. I understand the importance of the issue.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for being present to debate what I consider to be an important subject, not only for my part of the world, but for the United Kingdom consumer and for the United Kingdom poultrymeat industry.

I have a constituency interest relating to a successful concern known as Sun Valley Poultry. It hides its light under a bushel, as it does not advertise on television in the same extrovert manner as other poultrymeat producers, but it is a success story. The poultrymeat industry as a whole is a success story. The figures show that in 1981 it accounted for 21·9 per cent. of total meat consumption; in 1991, 10 years later, it was 30·1 per cent. and the figure is still increasing. I admire Sun Valley for the way in which it has developed its business, and for the way in which it has survived and continued to perform steadily throughout the recession. It is a success story without doubt.

The national poultrymeat industry employs some 50,000 people and a further 150,000 people depend on it for their jobs. Almost as importantly from an agricultural point of view, when agriculture is under distinct stress, the industry is a massive consumer of feed wheat. Considering the amount of cereals grown in Herefordshire, my farmers are greatly indebted to Sun Valley and to the poultrymeat industry for enabling them to grow a crop for which there is a market. They are very effective, as is Sun Valley, and that success is reflected across the country.

Having shown that the industry is such a success story, one might ask why I should raise the subject at all. Normally, the purpose of Adjournment debates is for a grievance to be raised, not for a success to be praised. However, there are important reasons for raising the matter this afternoon. On the positive side, I am raising the matter because I want the industry to be able to build on its success. There are storm clouds around, to put it mildly. In 1988, only five years ago, imports of poultrymeat into this country comprised 7 per cent. of consumption. By 1991, imports had gone up to 18 per cent. By 1992, if one extrapolates beyond 15 September, we see a figure of 20 per cent. Even after the devaluation effects, we find that imports are sustaining a level of 18 per cent.

If we have a success story, we should be trying to create a climate in which the industry can deploy the results of that success. We should build up our exports and be positive in the Community, rather than being seen as an export opportunity by fellow members of the EC. It is right that we should ask why it is not happening in that way. Why are we sustaining an import level of 18 per cent. when, given how successful we are, we should really be a net exporter?

A straw in the wind—a straw in the storm, perhaps —was the decision by Cargill to locate its new plant just south of Orleans in France. As the House knows, Cargill is the owner of Sun Valley Poultry. It is very big internationally in the poultrymeat and cereals market. It is a multinational company and it knows its business. It has decided to put a plant down in France even though the expertise that led it to purchase Sun Valley Poultry in the first place lies here in the United Kingdom. Why? The answer lies in a letter sent to me by one of my constituents, which I have passed to Ministers. Apparently, the vice-president of Cargill reflected to a study group of United Kingdom farmers visiting Minnesota that Cargill was a world trading organisation but that—and here is the crunch—

"nowhere in the world had Cargills encountered so much self-destructive bureaucratic red tape, which was rapidly strangling the United Kingdom poultry industry."

That is the view from outside and it has made capital investment move out of this country into another country. However good a European I may be, I feel that the home team is being deprived of an opportunity and that we ought to address ourselves to the reasons why.

Without doubt, the answer lies here in the United Kingdom. Nowhere in the Community is legislation as rigidly and nitpickingly interpreted as it is here. There is no reason why legislation should not be interpreted and followed, but, if it is not, once again, one must ask why. I know full well that my hon. Friend the Minister has been engaged in a consultation exercise with the poultrymeat industry with the objective of getting rid of unnecessary regulation wherever possible. The poultrymeat industry has responded with a long list of niggling points. I emphasise that I shall not go through them all today.

I want to make absolutely clear the commitment of the United Kingdom industry to quality. In his letter to me on 19 January, my hon. Friend the Minister referred to his reluctance and, indeed, determination not to compromise

"the high level of protection at present afforded to consumers of United Kingdom poultrymeat".

In that, my hon. Friend and the industry are on entirely the same wavelength. There is no way that the industry wishes to compromise its standards. In fact, it has been ahead of the legislation for 20 years. It has not waited for legislation but has got on with the job. The industry is also fully committed to the implementation of the Food Safety Act 1990. I make that clear because it is easy to misunderstand the poultrymeat industry.

Poultrymeat inspection has to be the first handicap that the industry faces. I congratulate Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on having used the United Kingdom presidency of the Community last year to secure a new poultrymeat hygiene directive. In a letter on 23 March, I was told:

"We will be announcing in due course our plans for implementing this new Directive."

Having been told that the directive is being worked out and implemented, I am concerned to discover that it will not come into force this year or next year. In fact, it will not come into effect before 1995. That is an extraordinary length of time when we consider that we continually face the threat of imports. We should not doubt the fact that French producers look to the United Kingdom market whenever there is an opportunity.

If the poultrymeat industry is at least a generation ahead of the red meat industry, why must we wait for the red meat industry? As the mechanisms are already in place for the poultrymeat industry when they might not be for the red meat industry, why can we not establish the necessary arrangements to enable the poultrymeat industry to get on with the job, on an equal basis with its Community competitors, without having to wait until 1995?

The local authorities involved face difficulties. I am given to understand—that is probably the best way to put it—that they are not receiving advice from the Ministry about what they should be doing. They are therefore reluctant to compromise their arrangements. Indeed, the agendas of many local authorities are different from that of the industry.

For example, Hereford city council has a major responsibility for poultrymeat inspection. I am pleased to say that even now, at 2.10 pm, the local authority is discussing with Sun Valley the arrangements that it might be appropriate to establish. I am pleased that that is happening. That has come about as a consequence of prodding from the company, from me and from my hon. Friend the Minister.

However, certain local authorities are not rushing to sort out the problem. They take a view, like Hereford city council takes a view, that there should be a policy of no redundancies. That is not necessarily the industry's view and it is not necessarily the correct view. We should consider the industry which should be served.

I should like confirmation from my hon. Friend the Minister that the arrangements for the poultrymeat industry will go ahead flat out to remove the handicap from United Kingdom producers in terms of the poultrymeat inspection costs. My hon. Friend the Minister is as aware as I am that the problem is urgent. The charging directive is not being implemented evenly throughout the Community. It is cost neutral in the United Kingdom and, as such, I am given to understand that it works out at twice the standard figure set out in the directive.

The French, however—and I must always look across the channel because that is where the immediate threat is —are talking in terms of only 64 per cent. of standard charges. Germany, Belgium, and Holland take a standard view and pick up the difference if there is any. Spain, which is quite capable of looking to our shores to place products, implements the charging directive only in certain regions. In Ireland, the cost is below standard.

Furthermore, the directive is not even implemented in Italy, Greece, Luxembourg or Portugal. I have been assured by industry representatives—a view wider than simply that of Sun Valley—that the product in Italy is good. The inspection is good, but it is not carried out with the same bureaucratic cost as it is here. The product is not necessarily bad because it does not have the same inspection costs. It is simply cost advantaged.

I want now to consider the Medicines Act 1968 and press my hon. Friend the Minister on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and its terms of reference. Under the 1968 Act, drugs or vaccines should comply with safety, quality and efficacy requirements. However, I find that the requirements in other countries apply only to safety and quality. Surely it is for the industry to determine what is effective in terms of cost efficacy; it is not for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The VMD can say whether something is safe and has the right quality, but, if it has a lot of cost, producers can make up their minds whether to use it.

At present, the United Kingdom industry is at a disadvantage in terms of Marek's disease and has had to stampede the Ministry to take steps to overcome the problem. The Minister has responded by giving the vaccine an animal test certificate, but it does not have anything more than provisional approval. With regard to Gumboro disease—we are talking about losses of broilers of 1 per cent. plus a year—the VMD is reluctant to clear the hotter vaccines that are more effective and in use in the Community at present.

With regard to infectious bronchitis and the chick anaemia virus, there is always a delay. At the same time, our competitors are able to get a better crop by using vaccines that our producers are not permitted to use. Similarly, we find that the Zoonoses directive is not in place. What pressure is being brought to bear on Community countries to put the directive in place? Sometimes we are two years ahead and that involves costs which our competitors do not have.

Those matters are important in the single market. My hon. Friend the Minister was dismissive of the report by David Gosling and published by the Templeton Fellowship. We have a price disadvantage. The Ministry estimates that to be 3·5p and the industry estimates it to be between 4p and 6p. The report cannot be neglected. The market for whole frozen birds is driven purely by price. It does not matter whether birds are marked grown, produced or whatever in England or Britain—price rules the consumer in that sector. Two items of product can be side by side on a supermarket shelf with one labelled "grown in Britain" and the other "import". The imported product does not necessarily carry the same cost as the United Kingdom bird. Different vaccines are used and that is not necessarily wrong. Different qualities of inspection are used and that is not necessarily wrong, provided the product is up to the mark. However, the price differential cannot be ignored. I make a strong plea to my hon. Friend to get the matter sorted out.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an industry about which he knows a great deal and in which he is a formidable representative of the interests of an important corporation in his constituency, which, as he rightly said, provides in knock-on terms a vast amount of prosperity in the farming community of Herefordshire. The poultrymeat industry is unassisted in a way which many other parts of the industry are and it deserves every credit in sight. My hon. Friend made a forceful case on the industry's behalf and I propose to deal with that.

The poultrymeat industry is a significant sector of our agricultural industry—indeed, it can serve as a model for other sectors. Since the second world war, poultrymeat has moved from being an occasional treat for the consumer to part of our everyday diet as the volume of production has grown and prices, relative to other foods, have come down. The industry has also been highly innovative in introducing a wide range of value added and convenience foods based on poultrymeat, which has also improved the consumer's lot and range of choice. My hon. Friend was right more generally to praise the size, breadth and scope of what is an extremely important industry in our agricultural infrastructure.

As my hon. Friend said, the United Kingdom industry earned more than £100 million in exports last year. We also benefit from thriving ancillary industries, especially our producers of breeding stock who are world leaders. British poultrymeat companies are also venturing abroad to increase their sales or engage in joint ventures. All that has been achieved without the market support mechanisms that are available to other agricultural sectors.

Of course, the industry—as my hon. Friend knows better than most of us—has not been immune from the difficulties that all businesses have experienced in the past couple of years. But just as the economy generally is looking up, so, too, are the prospects for the poultry industry. Imports, which have been a growing competitive threat in the past year or so, appear to have fallen back in recent months.

Increasingly, the multiple retailers are stocking British chicken and other poultrymeat marked as such. Feedstuff prices have also risen in sterling terms, due to devaluations in the green pound, but market prices have firmed considerably since Christmas so that margins are currently healthy.

We also have the first benefits of the CAP reform package to look forward to in July when, as my hon. Friend knows, the prices of feed grains will fall by about 25 per cent. This will mean a significant fall in the price of poultry feed and, I hope, an improvement in profitability for a hard-pressed industry.

We are concerned to create the right environment in which the industry can flourish. My hon. Friend rightly lobbied vigorously in his speech for that to happen. We accept the importance of everything that he sand. For example, the poultry industry continues to benefit from our research and development programme, with particular emphasis on animal health and welfare matters.

My hon. Friend's remarks about Cargill moving to open a factory in Orleans, I understand largely to supply chicken for McDonald's, is indicative of the itinerant nature of a sophisticated industry.

The point is that the French market is currently being supplied effectively from Hereford. Why on earth should I see it go to Orleans?

I agree with my hon. Friend. My point was that we have to create the environment to make it simply not worth Cargill's while to do so. But Cargill is a major international corporation. It is an extremely successful, well-run company. It will rightly make a shrewd commercial judgment based on several factors. I take my hon. Friend's point that the environment in Britain must be in every way conducive to Cargill not only to remain in Britain, but to enhance its investment and open other factories here.

Will the Minister give way?

No. The hon. Gentleman must forgive me. This is an Adjournment debate.

As my hon. Friend will know, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is actively taking forward the Government's deregulation programme by looking to see where legislation is either unnecessary or excessive. He can be assured that we shall seek to make appropriate changes, where this is found to be the case.

There is a commonality of interests, as my hon. Friend rightly said. Our aim is to protect the rights and proper concerns of the consumer as well as those of the industry, which wants only to produce a high standard product. As he knows, we have to bear in mind the need to protect the consumer and others. So there are some areas in which the industry has to, and indeed does, accept a degree of regulation. I know that that can be seen as a problem by the industry. My hon. Friend forcefully mentioned Cargill's vice-president's remarks about regulation in Britain. But clearly in these cases the Government and industry need to work together to seek solutions to these problems. We spend a great deal of time listening and taking an interest in how we may better create a proper environment for the growth of businesses.

Two areas of particular concern that my hon. Friend mentioned are the meat hygiene inspection arrangements and the approval of veterinary medicines. The control dealing with poultrymeat hygiene lays down the responsibilities of the industry and the Government. That ensures that poultrymeat is produced under hygienic conditions and is inspected before it reaches the consumer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford will know that the old EC directive on poultrymeat hygiene, dating from 1971, was replaced last year by a new directive as part of the single market programme. The United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating what I believe are significantly improved requirements, which were welcomed by many when the directive was agreed last Christmas. Under the old directive, every bird was required to receive an official inspection by a trained poultrymeat inspector. In the United Kingdom we have abided by this requirement, but I believe that it has not always been so scrupulously observed by our competitors on the continent, as my hon. Friend said.

The new directive, however, recognises the central role that industry plays in ensuring the safety of its product. Trained members of company staff will be able to carry out on-line inspection, under the supervision of an official inspection team employed by the local authority. I noted what my hon. Friend said about Hereford city council and perhaps we can have a chat about that on another occasion. Suffice it to say that my Department is, as my hon. Friend is aware, in touch with that council.

I hope to receive very shortly the detailed recommendations of a working group, on which the industry and those responsible for enforcement were represented, on how the new arrangements should operate in practice. I hope that it will be possible to take much of what they recommend into account. When we draw up our proposals, we will ensure that their opinions are included in the directive. We will, as my hon. Friend requested, press ahead with the new arrangements with great vigour.

I understand that there have been anxieties, both in the industry about the continuing burden of inspection costs, and among poultrymeat inspectors and local authorities over the reduction in jobs which will occur in those plants where company staff assume responsibility for inspection work.

I am anxious that we should proceed with care—my hon. Friend must allow this to happen, if he will—taking account of the discussions that have already taken place, to produce detailed proposals. Those will provide a basis for producers to begin the training of their staff. They will also provide an opportunity for local authorities to discuss with their own employees, the Government and the industry how the new arrangements will be phased in and the numbers of official inspection staff who will be required in the future.

Can we be certain that when our arrangements are put into operation equivalent ones will be enforced in other European countries?

My hon. Friend has my unequivocal guarantee that that will be our aim in all the talks. There is no point in having the single market rules unless they are enforced across the Community. He may be assured of our determination to see that that happens.

My hon. Friend also spoke about production costs being cheaper in other EC member states. He will be aware that the industry has made estimates of that sort, despite the difficulty of comparing like with like. We do not take lightly the figures that were given to us, but they are rather on the high side and include costs that are not due to Government regulation. Nor do they take account of all the costs in other member states, such as French social security charges. They take no account of the action that we have taken to eliminate the differences, such as the recently agreed directive on Zoonoses, to which my hon. Friend referred, which harmonised the testing of broiler breeding flocks, or the work that we have done on meat hygiene inspection.

My hon. Friend also referred to important issues relating to veterinary medicine, Gumboro disease and other diseases. I share his concern about the losses that those diseases can cause and the distress to the birds that can result. There is a view in the industry, however, that there are wonder vaccines out there waiting to be taken up—in some cases they are apparently already available across the channel—and that only our licensing system stands in the way. Unfortunately, that is not true and, as is so often the case in life, it is rather more complicated than that.

For more than 20 years, the need for drug companies to meet the internationally recognised licensing criteria of safety, quality and efficacy has proved its worth. That is recognised in the harmonised licensing arrangements applicable in the Community from 1 January 1993. They require that no veterinary medicines may be marketed in a member state unless a licence has been issued against those criteria by that member state. Animals and producers alike have benefited from the knowledge that licensed veterinary medicines are of good quality, safe and do the job that they are supposed to do.

By their nature, vaccines are more hazardous than other medicinal products and it is therefore essential that we establish the benefits under United Kingdom circumstances to set against any potential risks. For example, with Gumboro vaccine real safety fears still exist —the products being tested are not called "hot" vaccines for nothing. If we get it wrong, we may find that the birds' immune system is irreparably damaged—the vaccine organism spreads in large quantities to unvaccinated birds on neighbouring farms, which would make matters far worse—and that birds are subject to other harmful effects.

Not everyone agrees that those risks are worth taking. Representations have been made recently by poultry experts to the effect that Gumboro disease can be controlled by the correct administration of less virulent vaccines, together with good husbandry conditions, and that hot vaccines should not be licensed.

Nevertheless, the Veterinary Products Committee, the independent scientific body which advises Ministers, considered last week whether the existing small-scale trials with hotter vaccines should be expanded. My right hon. Friend is considering the committee's advice on this question and expects to make an announcement very shortly.

Believe me, we understand the industry's concerns. Staff at the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are committed to assessing any applications where a disease problem is known to exist as quickly as possible, and have demonstrated that in practice.

I cannot accept any criticism of the slowness of either the directorate or the licensing system. The issues involved are not straightforward and need careful consideration. There are limits to the short cuts that can and should be taken.

The Government are in no doubt, as I hope that my hon. Friend is aware, about the importance of the poultrymeat industry in his constituency and throughout the country, whether as an employer, or, as my hon. Friend eloquently said, as a major consumer of cereals. Certainly it represents a significant part of the economy.

I am confident that the industry, as it has proved in the past, has the expertise, commitment, drive and entrepreneurial flourish to continue to build on its achievements. As the economy revives, and with the forthcoming fall in feed prices, the opportunity is there to do all this. We, for our part, will do all that we can to ensure that this opportunity can be taken.

In the time remaining to us, may I say, on behalf of the great unreshuffled, what a pleasure it was to have this opportunity to debate these matters with my hon. Friend. I hope that Cargill will go from strength to strength in Herefordshire.

I had a few words with the permanent secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department earlier today and he told me that the Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education would be replying to the debate. It may be that, following the previous debate, the Lord Chancellor's Department is chicken, but the subject I wish to raise is of great interest to the Department for Education and the Lord Chancellor's Department.

It is a commonly held perception that entrants into the legal profession come from a financially privileged background. Historically. that is true, but that damaging imbalance was addressed during the latter part of this century with welcome results.

I am a solicitor by profession and, by happy coincidence, if a little stage managed, I am wearing the Gwynedd Law Society tie today. I am proud to wear that tie as a past president of the society, but I come from anything but a financially privileged background.

I hasten to say, however, that I do come from a privileged one since I was brought up to respect all members of society, irrespective of colour, creed, religion or one's place in the peculiar class structure that is perpetuated in the British. Isles. I was taught that there is good and bad in everyone and, if nurtured, the good will prevail. That thought has helped me immensely during my years in practice.

My late father was a police sergeant who left school at 15. I recall many an occasion when he told me, with a degree of touching embarrassment, that he had no formal qualifications because his parents could not afford o keep him at school. That angers me. I find the notion offensive. That unfortunate chapter in my late father's life made him determined that his children would receive a full education, come what may. My late father and my mother ensured that I went to university and law college, for which I am eternally grateful to them.

The problem that I wish to highlight in this debate is the absence of mandatory grants for students attending vocational courses to quality as solicitors and at the Bar. When I attended law school in the mid-1970s, the situation was far from rosy. Even in those days, grant funding was somewhat hit or miss.

As I have mentioned previously, my Machiavellian nature got the better of me and between university and law school I married a young teacher. In all honesty, I am not that ruthless. That was 20 years ago and that teacher is the ever-caring mother of my children and a long-suffering wife since I entered the hurly-burly of this place. Seriously, however, I know that without her salary at that time I should never have been able to enter the legal profession and I would have harboured a great sense of loss as a result.

Two weeks ago I tabled an early-day motion on the subject. It states:

"That this House notes the findings of a survey by the College of Law into students' funding and finance on the Law Society's final course 1992–93 at the College of Law showing that 48 per cent. of the respondents have less than £25 per week to spend on food, books and incidentals; further notes that the percentage of students receiving final course funding from local authorities has declined from 64 per cent. of students in 1989–90 to 24 per cent. of students in 1992–93; believes that cutbacks in local authority discretionary grants to final course law students enforces students to either self-finance their coursses or seek sponsorship from firms in the middle of a severe recession; further believes that local authority discretionary grants were and are vital to ensure that prospective law students from less well-off family backgrounds can embark on final law courses; recognises that the demise of local authority discretionary grants to final course law students may lead to a narrowing of the social class base for prospective members of the legal profession currently at law colleges; and calls on the Government to make increased funding available to local authorities to ensure that such discretionary grants are paid to final course law students."

That early-day motion bears 72 signatures drawn from all Opposition parties. A similar motion tabled recently by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) was also well supported by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

There are numerous arguments for mandatory grants. Over the past three years, discretionary grants for solicitors' final examinations have fallen more than 70 per cent., and currently 80 per cent. of students have to self-fund, using their own, their parents' or their firms' resources. As a result, students incur large debts.

The Trainee Solicitors Group recently surveyed institutions offering solicitors finals courses to determine levels of student debt. The group circulated 3,500 questionnaires and received 2,201 replies—an extremely large response, and indicative of student concern. Of those surveyed, 709 had debts of more than £5,000, with 145 having debts of between £5,000 and £7,500, and 147 had debts of more than £10,000. Only 61 respondents had no debts.

Another argument in favour of mandatory funding is that the current situation denies access to justice. Without adequate finance, students will be unable to practise in non-commercial areas of the law, typified by work qualifying for legal aid. Firms which practise in such areas are unable to offer salaries high enough to service or pay off large loans. Consequently, fewer new solicitors will practise in such firms, and the workload of those who remain will increase, leaving them less time to concentrate on each case. The public will have fewer firms from which to choose, and less attention will be paid to their individual cases. In my view and that of the TSG, that will deny the public access to justice and to their rights—and we cannot tolerate that in a democratic society.

The prospect of large debts will make it more difficult for those of modest means to enter the profession. Without independent finance, many students will be unable to secure the loans that they require in order to undertake professional courses and may in effect face a pre-qualification test. The legal profession must be representative of the public that it serves, but a financial pre-qualification will promote the mediocre rather than the best.

I ask for equal treatment with other professions. Doctors, architects and veterinary surgeons are guaranteed payment of their university fees during training—but not lawyers, whose funding ends after their undergraduate studies, as a consequence of the Education Act 1962. Under that legislation, all undergraduates were guaranteed payment of their fees, but postgraduate work was made the subject of discretionary local education authority grants.

Barristers' and solicitors' finals after graduation, therefore, do not qualify for mandatory grants. That militates in particular against ethnic minorities and those who want to enter the profession in maturity. Recently, the TSG lobbied Parliament and I was privileged to be one of the Members of another place who addressed that group. It is clear that the Council for Legal Education and the College of Law are desperately concerned about the issue, and rightly so. The tendency to draw lawyers from privileged backgrounds will be not only perpetuated under the current system but accentuated.

The Lord Chancellor's Department is working hard to appoint the judiciary from across the social spectrum and among ethnic minorities. However, it is painfully clear that its efforts are bound to fail in the prevailing circumstances. The pool from which it can draw members of both branches of the profession has already been subjected to a process of selection, in that many potential entrants simply cannot afford to undertake legal training.

A gentleman from the Crewe area wrote to me recently, saying that he was desperate. He had obtained a master's degree in law, and had arranged to take articles with a local firm of solicitors. However, although a sparkling career doubtless lay ahead of him, he could not afford to attend college, and was therefore unable to proceed any further. I find that appalling, and I feel that I owe it to that person, and to the tens of thousands of others who have been denied their vocation in the same way, to raise this all-important shortcoming in the grant system.

Martin Wedge of Brighton is 40 and married with a small baby. He spent 15 years as a British Telecom engineer before obtaining an upper second-class law degree at Sussex university. Sussex county council refused him a grant, and the banks refused him a loan. Having failed to fund his final course, he returned to his job, but has recently secured a new job in the industrial relations department of a local firm. He writes:

"Sussex County Council has a rule that anyone above the age of 22 who has received the mandatory first degree grant should not get any further money. I wouldn't mind if the position was the same all round the country but it's down to where you live. I didn't manage to get articles, though I applied to 30 medium-sized firms … I wanted to be a solicitor specialising in helping people with their industrial relations problems—giving the benefit of my expertise. I feel that I myself haven't failed, but the required financial help wasn't forthcoming. Out there there are other people who, like me, have put in a lot of time and effort. Not to get help at this last stage is a bit hard to take. Perhaps there could be a four-year package whereby the whole degree including the College course was included in the grant."

My local authority, Gwynedd county council, has a policy of paying £792 per annum towards tuition fees or 50 per cent. of the fees, whichever is the higher. It also pays a maintenance grant of £1,500 per annum, means tested on the basis of parents' income, with a £200 weighting allowance if the college is in London. The council tells me that it is constrained owing to a lack of Government funding. I have a sense of déjà vu when I utter those words. I could relate a hundred case histories involving people who, having excelled at university and obtained excellent degrees, wished to become lawyers and could not do so. The position is intolerable and unacceptable; the Government must think again.

Why should entrants to the medical profession be treated differently? Why should not lawyers have a guaranteed four years of grant funding? What is the rationale that prevents that? Is the Treasury once more wreaking havoc on the lives of thousands of people in the British Isles? If so, it behoves the Minister to tackle the Treasury and put paid to this gross injustice.

We in Wales have a highly developed sense of social justice, as well as a high regard for the benefits of education. We are always ready to make sacrifices for our children. I remind the House that no less a parliamentarian than Mr. David Lloyd George came from an ordinary background, and was in no way financially privileged. The sacrifices made by his family, particularly his brother, ensured his entry into the profession and, ultimately, the House. I had the privilege of serving as an articled clerk with Lloyd George's nephew—I nearly said, "My father knew Lloyd George", but that would be rather misleading.

I am making a serious point. I am sure that many parents are willing to make sacrifices, but, owing to severe cuts and other financial pressures, they simply cannot do so. That angers me. Parents whose children are set on a legal career, but whom they must deny that opportunity, are heartbroken and demoralised. This is clearly a retrograde step. We are back in the days of my father's youth. God forbid that legal education should be denied to the poor and open only to the well off. If that is where we are heading, the legal system will soon be brought into disrepute. The administration of justice will falter, and the rule of law itself will be threatened.

I ask the Minister to re-examine this serious problem in the interests of many thousands of people in the British Isles. If the Treasury is not forthcoming, I urge him to tackle it on the matter because that is his responsibility and that is what he is here for.

If, after liaising with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Minister concludes that he cannot deal with the problem, he will be doing a grave disservice to the public at large. I urge him to discuss the matter with the Lord Chancellor's Department and I sincerely trust and hope that he will be able to find an answer to this extremely serious problem.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on his good fortune in the ballot and on the clear and forceful way in which he put his arguments. He has recently been active in the subject of financial support for law students and he has now had a reasonable chance to expand on his concerns.

Before I get into my reply, perhaps I can clarify two points. First, although I am answering for my Department, we have been in close touch with the Lord Chancellor's Department and I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to its attention.

Secondly, and perhaps rather unusually from these Benches, I must properly declare a personal interest in the subject because my elder daughter is currently taking a law degree course. However, because it is her second such course, as I shall explain in a moment, she is not personally eligible for a mandatory award. She intends to go on into the legal profession.

I begin with the legal position and record, for the hon. Gentleman's benefit, as he has already acknowledged, the fact that a number of other hon. Members have recently shown a considerable interest in the subject, both in the early-day motion and in -correspondence, with particular reference to the vocational training that law students must undergo before they can practise as solicitors or barristers.

It would be helpful and fitting, given the subject, if I began with the current legal position on support for law students from England and Wales. There is an important distinction to be drawn at the outset in the support arrangements for students in higher education. In general, personally eligible students on full-time and sandwich courses at first-degree level are entitled to a mandatory award from their local education authority and can apply to the Student Loans Company for loans. These entitlements arise from the Education Act 1962 for mandatory awards and the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 for loans. They apply to students on full-time courses leading to the so-called degree comparable qualifications—the diploma of higher education and the higher national diploma—and to all courses of initial teacher training. For both awards and loans, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes national regulations that govern the rates and conditions.

Other students in higher education—those on courses above first-degree level, most of those on part-time courses and students in further education—do not have those entitlements. Students who, after their first degree, take professional law courses—the Law Society finals, the legal practice course for those intending to practise as solicitors and the vocational course for intending barristers at the inns of court school of law—come within the latter broad category. Students taking higher degree courses at masters level and beyond can apply for a competitive postgraduate award from one of the national award-making bodies, such as one of the research councils, depending on subject. For courses not covered by these national selective schemes, which include professional law courses, students can, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, apply to their local education authority for a discretionary award.

Students on post-graduate courses at institutions that receive recurrent grant from public funds can apply for help if they are in serious financial difficulty from the post-graduate access funds held by the institutions.

There are no national regulations for local education authority discretionary awards. It is for each of the 117 LEAs in England and Wales to decide its own policies on which students and courses to support and the amount of support to offer in each case. Hon. Members will recall that these are, after all, discretionary awards. Ministers do not, as a matter of principle, seek to influence LEAs' decisions or policies on them; they would cease to be discretionary if we did.

I have explained the current legal position in some detail so that the House can see what is the practical scope for action within it. Of course, I concede that it would be open to the Government to contemplate bringing the necessary legislation before Parliament to change the current position. We would, however, need to consider the substantial cost to the taxpayer of extending mandatory awards and student loans across the whole range of students taking postgraduate courses. Clearly, any such extension could not be confined only to postgraduate law students. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we have no plans to make such a costly change.

There are some very important points which I should like to make about mandatory support. First, it is available to eligible students on first degree courses, irrespective of the subject they are studying. Secondly, it is available in accordance with the relevant regulations until the course has been completed, regardless of the course length, but it is aimed at enabling each eligible student to undertake one higher education course up to first degree level. It is not intended to finance students to undertake a succession of courses to reach the level of education or qualification which is needed to enter their chosen profession. As I said in my opening remarks, my own daughter is affected by this policy.

It is misleading to suggest—as I am sorry to say that the Trainee Solicitors Group seems to be suggesting—that law students are somehow singled out and do not have the same entitlements to mandatory awards and student loans as first degree students in other subjects. Let me say clearly that that is not the case. Students taking first degree courses in law are treated absolutely on a par with their peers in other subjects. Most of the law students who go on to take postgraduate law courses of the types that I mentioned earlier will have already benefited from their entitlement to mandatory support while taking their first degree. However, like some other professions, any professional training that they undertake after their first degree falls outside the scope of the mandatory scheme.

I know that some universities and the Law Society itself are currently looking at new structures for first degree law courses. More widely and in the longer term, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct is reviewing the structure and funding of training for barristers and solicitors. Universities are considering new four-year integrated degree courses which will include the vocational training element currently taken as a separate course after graduating.

As the regulations currently stand, such courses will attract mandatory awards and student loans in the same way as medical courses, which incorporate some professional training en route to the first degree. While acknowledging that it is for universities to decide which courses to offer and how to construct them, I make two points.

First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often expressed his concern about the trend towards longer degree courses. It is a trend which reduces the number of people who can enter higher education within the available resources. He has asked the Higer Education Funding Council for England to advise him on funding measures which would remove any incentive to lengthen degree courses at the expense of student numbers. The council has recently issued a circular to institutions indicating that it proposes to put in place from 1994–95 an element of output-related funding to discourage the lengthening of courses.

Secondly, we would be concerned if these integrated degree courses in law—or, for that matter, any other subjects—became widespread as a device to obtain mandatory support for postgraduate vocational training. That would be contrary to the intentions of the current legislation and it would replace private or discretionary funding for vocational training with automatic Exchequer support. I am not convinced that such a switch is a desirable use of taxpayers' money.

Concerns have been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and others about the narrow social base for law students and the low numbers of students from ethnic minorities on postgraduate law courses. These are primarily matters for the profession itself to tackle. While I understand the concerns, there are other and better ways of resolving them than through the national arrangements for student support.

I deal now with discretionary awards. There have been recurring press reports in the past two or three years that LEAs have cut, or even stopped, discretionary awards. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some evidence from the Trainee Solicitors Group. I have not yet seen it, and I should be grateful if he would submit it to us for consideration. There have already been surveys and reports by a number of interested bodies, including the Law Society and the College of Law, which have highlighted the effect of cuts in support for their students. I am bound to say that a somewhat different story is told in the figures which my Department routinely collects each year from local education authorities. They show a steady rise each year in LEAs' expenditure when one looks at the national aggregate totals. And there was a sizeable rise in expenditure nationally for the academic year 1991–92.

I accept that the Department's figures are, in the nature of things, collected after the end of the year to which they relate. It is true that national statistics can conceal wide variations at local level. The position on the ground at the moment is varied and unclear. There is anecdotal evidence that some LEAs are reducing their discretionary awards provision generally. Others are said to be selectively withdrawing support from more expensive courses, including perhaps postgraduate law courses. In contrast, some LEAs are actually increasing their overall awards budgets, while others are continuing to grant awards at about the same level from year to year. We have yet to see firm evidence of the overall picture.

I am pleased, therefore, that the Gulbenkian Foundation and the Sir John Cass's Foundation, with financial support from my Department and the Further Education Funding Council, have commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to conduct a survey of local education authorities' discretionary awards policies and practices. It will provide up-to-date information about the full range of their discretionary awards provision, including that for postgraduate law students. The results of the survey should be available to the foundations later in the summer and I look forward to seeing them.

Concern has been voiced that some LEAs may be withdrawing entirely from making discretionary awards. We shall continue to monitor the situation. In my view, it would be unlawful for an LEA to adopt such a policy because this would amount to fettering its own discretion. A policy of "no awards come what may" is not acceptable. Nor, in the Government's view, should there be any need for such a policy in a properly managed authority and I shall explain why.

It has been suggested that, in some way, Government funding—or the absence of it—has forced LEAs to cut back drastically on their discretionary award provision. I cannot accept that. The Government already contribute large sums from taxation to local authorities for them to use throughout the educational field, including discretionary awards.

Taking my responsibilities for education in England, the 1993–94 local authority finance settlement allowed for a 2·6 per cent. increase over the previous year's settlement after changes in functions have been taken into account. The figure for Wales is somewhat different, representing an increase in provision of 20 per cent. over the two years 1991–92 and 1993–94. Given the prospect of low pay settlements and low inflation, it is a fair increase.

Of course there are many pressures on the education service at present, and an endless succession of bids for more funding. However, any authority which manages its affairs well and achieves efficiency in its administrative costs should be able to continue to provide a high quality education service which meets the needs of the people of its area, including their needs for an appropriate range of discretionary awards.

Within the national funding framework that I have just described, it is for each LEA to set its own budget and to decide how to allocate it between the various elements of the service, including discretionary awards. If some see fit to alter their priorities and redeploy funds from one area to another, that is their decision, but in considering restructuring their spending they must consider where economies may best be made, taking account of the likely effect on pupils and students.

Let us also not lose sight of the fact that support for students is not confined to cash from the public purse. There are other sources such as charitable foundations, professional bodies and grant-making trusts which are prepared to help students. Some commercial organisations offer sponsorship and bursaries to those, including their employees, on certain courses. High street banks are often prepared to help, and there is the possibility of career development loans sponsored by the Department of Employment.

Of course, I am sure that the law profession itself—the Bar Council, the Law Society and the practitioners—will want to do as much as it can to help law students, if only from enlightened self-interest. I understand that both branches of the profession have already demonstrated their concern that young lawyers at the start of their working careers should have an adequate income.

Even so, it is interesting to note the findings of a survey by the College of Law earlier this year into its students' finances. It found that only a minority of respondents received support from their potential employers. It also found, tellingly, that the majority of students applied for help to their LEA and that almost half of them received some assistance.

I believe therefore that there is proper scope for public and private funding to continue to work together to help law students to undertake the vocational training for entry to the profession. I have taken careful note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I can assure him and the House that I shall keep a careful watch on developments in that important area.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Charities Act 1993
• Clean Air Act 1993
• Radioactive Substances Act 1993
• Carrying of Knives, etc. (Scotland) Act 1993
• Disability (Grants) Act 1993
• Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1993
• Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Act 1993
• Non-Domestic Rating Act 1993
• Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Act 1993
• Midland Metro Act 1993
• Midland Metro (No. 2) Act 1993
• London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) Act 1993
• London Docklands Railway (Lewisham) (No. 2) Act 1993