May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I have given you notice, as I have given notice to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)? I raise it at the earliest possible opportunity. I refer to the remarks made by the hon. Gentleman in the House yesterday. I must quote them:

"They are a bunch of crooks who run Lonrho and every one of them ought to be in Brixton Prison."—[Official Report, 5th August 1976; Vol. 916, c. 2165.]

Had I had notice from the hon. Gentleman yesterday that he was proposing to refer to me in the debate, I would have been in my place in the Chamber and dealt with the matter there and then. As it is, I raise this matter with you, Mr. Speaker, at the earliest opportunity.

By implication, the hon. Gentleman's remarks must refer to the board of directors. They plainly refer to me. As a Member of this House and as a Privy Councillor, I cannot allow an unwarranted attack on my personal integrity to go unchallenged. I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that those remarks were unparliamentary and should not have been made and should be withdrawn.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman may have given me notice—I accept that he has—but I have not yet received it. That might be my fault because my mail has not been opened this morning. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman put the notice on the board this morning and it is purely fortuitous that I have the first debate this morning and am therefore present. I leave the rest of the matter with you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) said—he will correct me if I am wrong, because I am speaking without looking atHansard—that the directors of Lonrho were crooks, and he went further. Any reflection on the personal honour of a Member of this House is entirely out of order and should not be made. We can conduct our affairs in this place only if we treat each other as honourable and right honourable Members.

I deprecate any reflection on the honour of anyone in this Chamber. Indeed, I would go a little further and say that I think we ought to be careful about the language we use in respect of people who are not Members of this House because, although we have the privilege of free speech, that imposes a discipline upon us which we ought at all times to exercise.

I accept your ruling at once, Mr. Speaker, and I regret very much what I said. I understand that the matters are in the hands of the Public Prosecutor. I unreservedly withdraw my remarks and leave the matter to him.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your general remarks and also to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, I accept his apology.

I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

It was with mixed feelings that I was notified of the opportunity to raise this first subject for debate today. I had mixed feelings because I would rather that the need to raise the matter did not exist. I believe that this is a problem which is troubling the people of Scotland, and, I suspect, of every other part of the United Kingdom, more than any other problem facing us. I do not believe that they are troubled as much about the machinery of government or the possibility of the establishment of new and separate Assemblies in Wales and in Scotland. Still less do I believe that they are troubled about the need for a separate Scottish foreign policy —whatever that means—and a separate Scottish navy, army and air force. I think that the House would prefer to leave all that irrelevant nonsense to the Members of the Scottish National Party.

Frankly, I shudder to think that, while we should be quite properly concerned with unemployment, inflation and the rest, the greater part of next Session of Parliament will be engaged in discussing devolution—the imposition on the people of Wales and Scotland, and perhaps Northern Ireland, of a further tier of government and the bureaucracy that goes with it. I suppose that the only argument that one could adduce for it is that one might create sufficient additional bureaucrats to get rid of the dole queues. It would not do much for the wealth of the country, and it is on that that our future well-being depends.

The Government and their supporters are concerned to tackle inflation and the effects of the world-wide recession which have brought in their wake a rising tide of unemployment throughout the Western world. Anyone who has listened to Euro- pean politicians, as I have, knows that they have exactly the same problems as we have. This is not a peculiarly United Kingdom problem or a peculiarly British disease. Contrary to what some of my hon. Friends have been saying in recent weeks and months, there are no easy options open to the Government. There is no quick and painless solution to this problem. Nor can we sloganise or nationalise our way out of the difficulties.

Having put the matter in a world context, I hope that I shall not be accused of being too parochial by focusing attention on the problem of unemployment as it affects my constituency, and in particular one part of it, namely, the Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area.

I should like at this point to make another generalisation. A lot of compassion has been shown about the question of unemployment among school leavers and the young. It is absolutely right that that should be so, and it is inevitable in any civilised society. But the tragedy for men and women who suddenly find themselves out of work at 40, 45 or 50 years of age is just as despairing as it is for the youngster who on leaving school finds himself on the scrap-heap. Nothing can be more soul-destroying or more degrading than to feel unwanted by society at the tender age of 16 or 20, or even at the age of 45 or 50. It is a small step from the dole queue to vandalism, anti-social behaviour or perhaps alcoholism, and certainly deep resentment which might expose itself in the form of crime.

We on this side of the House and the Government do not need to be reminded of these matters. Some of us are old enough to have lived through much worse, and we have friends who suffered not months but years of being on society's scrap-heap. I still have at home a pamphlet written in 1936 about the problems of the North-East of England, my native heath. In it there is a long list of villages and communities where unemployment rates were not 6, 7, 8 or even 10 per cent., but 80 or 90 per cent., and not over three months but over five, six, seven, eight or 10 years—men of 20, 30 or 40 years of age who had never worked since they left school. Those days will not be allowed to return. Today society, and certainly the working man, would not tolerate their return.

Statistics in a debate of this kind are dry, inhuman things which do little to tell us about the misery which lies behind them. Nevertheless, they must be used if only to put the problem into perspective. I wish to refer—I hope in not too much detail—to the Department of EmploymentGazette for July. On pages 772 and 773 of that official document there are tables showing the unemployment rates in special development areas and other areas throughout the United Kingdom which receive special treatment because they have special employment problems. In Scotland 20 such areas are listed. According to the list, on 10th June—the latest date for which figures are available—the unemployment percentage among males and females in those 20 areas varied from 2·5 in Aberdeen to 9·6 in Irvine.

I was interested to discover that Irvine's percentage unemployment rate was even higher than that of more remote parts of Scotland. May I say in passing that, as Aberdeen is a highly prosperous area, I see no reason why it should have development area status. The time has come to consider the designation of the whole of Scotland as a development area and, in view of North Sea oil developments and the spin-off which plainly is having a salutary effect in certain parts of Scotland, to be a bit more selective.

According to the figures in theGazette, in the Dunfermline area, part of which I represent, the unemployment rate is 6·2 per cent. In other words, six out of every 100 males and females are out of work. In Kirkcaldy, which also falls partly within my area, the rate is higher at 7 per cent.

Those general figures conceal greater localised problems. The Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area—the centre of my constituency—forms part of the Dunfermline travel-to-work area, and there the percentage rates of unemployment are much higher. The Fife Regional Council Careers Service supplies me with monthly figures for each area in the region, and I am am deeply grateful to it for them. According to the figures supplied for 7th June 1976—I should emphasise that this is the careers service-95 young people were unemployed in Cowdenbeath and 143 were unememployed in Dunfermline. The total figure for Fife was 650, but in June 1975 it was 489. It is getting worse. It has gone up from 489 to 650 in the last 12 months. School leavers are included in these figures.

In June 1975 the number of unemployed school leavers in Cowdenbeath was 43 and in June 1976 it was 55. What the figure will be as a result of those who have recently left school I do not know. In the Dunfermline area, in June 1975 the figure for school leavers was 49. In June 1976 it had more than doubled to 104. Comparable figures for the whole of Fife show a similar increase, from 186 in June 1975 to 376 in June 1976.

The total unemployment figures in the Dunfermline district peaked in January this year at 3,654 and in June this year they were down to 3,100. This seems satisfactory, but one would expect this reduction as we move from the winter months to the summer months. The number is still much higher than the 2,238 of June 1975.

Fife Regional Council produced a report which gave the figures—which are fairly well known—of the number of employees at the Rosyth Naval Dockyard. It states in paragraph 6.18:

"Rosyth Naval Dockyard employs around 8,000 civilians and is of major significance."

I think I am right in saying that it is the biggest single employer in Fife. The report goes on to say:

"The future of all four Royal Naval Dockyards is under review by the Ministry of Defence; in correspondence in connection with the Regional Report it has been stated that the Ministry is aware of the economic significance of the dockyard to Fife and that there are no plans at present for its closure."

We now have two proposals in front of us which disturb me and the people on the spot. The first proposal is from certain hon. Members in my own party who are demanding massive and immediate cuts in defence expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said that if that is the policy that the party wants—these are not his exact words; I am paraphrasing—and it is to be pursued and made effective, it is inevitable that there will be considerable consequences on employment. I think it would be inevitable that one, if not more, of the four dockyards would have to be closed. I would resist to the death any closure of Rosyth Dockyard, because if it were closed it would be nothing short of a catastrophe.

The other proposition which worries me— I suppose it should not, but it does —is that the Scottish National Party has come out in favour of a separate Scottish navy and against the establishment of Polaris nuclear submarine bases in Scotland. The party has not said whether it would prefer the bases to be moved to England. What the morality of that is, I do not know; that is for the SNP to defend.

The Rosyth Dockyard services the nuclear submarines which form part of the North Atlantic defence force. The SNP has admitted that if it were ever to gain control of our destinies in Scotland and removed the nuclear bases, the 8,000 jobs at Rosyth, even supposing that the dockyard were kept open for Scotland's little navy, would go down to 1,500.

I want my hon. Friend the Minister to give me an assurance that the Scottish Office will tell the Ministry of Defence that we are resisting and will go on resisting the closure of Rosyth Dockyard or a reduction of the labour force there, because it makes an invaluable contribution not only to employment in Fife but to the NATO Alliance.

I return to the Cowdenbeath-Lochgelly area, from which a lot of workers at Rosyth Dockyard are drawn. I am told that the male unemployment rate in that area is currently about 15 to 16 per cent. Very nearly two out of every five males in the area are out of work. I rang up the Cowdenbeath Employment Exchange only yesterday and got the latest figures, but I do not need to put them on the record as they will be available locally and, no doubt, in the Department. Whatever the precise figures, they are unacceptably high.

I note that the Government have recently announced that they are to take certain measures to alleviate the problem. It is certainly much too early to judge the effect of the most recent proposals, which are not yet operative. However, there are results and some of them are superficially touching the problem. There is some justification for the charge that all the measures, including those announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment this week, are short-term, palliative and cosmetic measures which are not getting, will not get and are not intended to get to the root of the problem. They are first-aid measures until we get the patient into hospital and properly cured. The real solution is, and can only be, an upturn in the economy, the end of the world recession, an increase in investment, increased training facilities and the like.

I was disturbed, as I am sure the Minister was, to note that, despite what the Prime Minister said a day or two ago about the optimistic forecasts of future investment by the CBI, the Scottish section of the CBI was less optimistic. There could be good and valid reasons why the Scottish section of the CBI should be less optimistic than the English CBI. Will my hon. Friend comment upon that? He was good enough to agree to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) and myself on 21st July to discuss those problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline is not present; he obviously has other engagements. Many hon. Members obviously have other engagements. Perhaps they are already enjoying their holidays prematurely in Spain—including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). But let that pass.

At that meeting we put forward certain proposals. We suggested that this part of my constituency should be given special development area status, which, as my hon. Friend knows, would mean that it would receive special financial aids of one kind and another to encourage industry to go there. We suggested that there should be a priming of the pump by help from the Scottish Development Agency, a new body set up by the present Government. We suggested also that the Department should study the Fife Regional Report, to which I have already referred.

I was informed by my hon. Friend a few days ago that the Secretary of State for Industry was considering the first point, namely, special development area status, but I received a disappointing reply from him dated 5th August—that is, just in the past 24 hours—saying that the Department of Industry rejected the proposal that we should have special development area status. I shall not read the letter in full, but here is the relevant paragraph defending that decision:

"The rates of unemployment in Scotland and the West Central Scotland Special Development area are significantly higher, and in the case of West Central Scotland the problem of higher than average unemployment has, as I know you will be aware, persisted over a very long time. It is this kind of problem that the Government's regional policies are aimed at solving, and while West Fife's difficulties are recognised through its designation as a development area, I think you would accept that these do not approach the difficulties faced by West Central Scotland in terms of duration, severity and scale."

The letter goes on, but that is the relevant passage. There are other parts of Scotland which are worse off, but, as I pointed out earlier, there are other areas which are much better off—in this connection I specifically mentioned Aberdeen —which seems to me to emphasise the need for the Department of Industry to have another look at the whole of Scotland to see whether we can be more selective within Scotland with development aid and our regional policies, consequent on North Sea oil developments.

As regards the role of the Scottish Development Agency, I am glad that my hon. Friend wrote immediately to Sir William Gray and that he was kind enough to send me a copy of the letter that he sent to Sir William. That, together with the fact that Sir George Sharp, the Convener of the Fife Regional Council, is a member of the agency, should ensure that the urgent needs of Fife are not forgotten. I should say, again in parenthesis, that an announcement has been made by the Government recently that more finance is to be available to the National Enterprise Board in England and the Scottish Development Agency in Scotland, but no figures have been given. I do not know whether the Government intend to announce these figures during the recess or whether we shall have to wait until afterwards, but it is of crucial importance that the decision be made as early as possible, because help is urgently needed in areas that I represent.

In the regional report, which was produced in May of this year, there is an interesting section dealing with trends in the total work force in the region as a whole. Between 1952 and 1957 the total work force went up by 4,000, from 114,000 to 118,000. It subsequently fell, reaching a figure of 113,000 in 1961, and then rose, reaching 126,000 in 1974. We are slightly up from the 1957 figure, but the interesting fact is that in the period 1961–74 male employment in Fife Region declined by 9 per cent. while female employment rose by 44 per cent.

The reasons for that are obvious. Fife was, as my hon. Friend well knows, predominantly a coal mining area. The coal mines were closed—I think, with hindsight now, probably prematurely—and we immediately set in motion machinery for bringing in new light industry. That new light industry, however, does not employ the men who lost their jobs when the pits closed; it employs women, who, the employers say, have a manual dexterity which the men do not have. I think that the real reason is that female labour is a damned sight cheaper than male labour, and we are seeking to bring that to an end by our equal pay legislation. The Government are trying to make sure that every employer—and, I may say, every trade union as well—obeys the letter and spirit of the equal pay legislation.

There is some evidence still that a few employers even in Fife are seeking to evade their responsibilities in this matter, by new job evaluations and the rest, and I believe that the Government should be much more firm, through spot checks on employers in Fife and elsewhere, to see that they are obeying the law on equal pay.

I have mentioned the decline in coal mining. Between 1958 and 1972 we lost in Fife alone 17,000 jobs in deep coal mining. In 1954 one in every five male workers in Fife was a coal miner. In 1974 it was down to one in 14, and the figure for deep mining is now stable at round about 7,500.

I shall give only a few more statistics. In the period 1964–74 there was an increase of 13,800—over 40 per cent.—in the number of manufacturing workers in Fife. It is worth emphasising, as the regional report does, that this was the largest increase in manufacturing workers in the whole of Scotland in that period. In Scotland as a whole there was a decline of 18 per cent. in jobs in manufacturing industry.

My hon. Friend is to visit Fife later this month, and I think that he will be impressed—I hope that he will be—by the diversification of industry that we have managed to achieve in Fife through the joint efforts of the new town development corporation, the local authorities, industry itself, and the Government, with their various regional aids. That has been one of the great success stories of the post-war era.

I now return to the main theme of the debate—the pockets of high unemployment. The averages tend to conceal the reality. A figure of 17·8 per cent. male unemployment is quoted in the regional report, which is already out of date. During our meeting my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to study the report and to give it the attention and care that it deserves. He said that he would report to us in due course.

In these times of financial stringency it it more important than ever to get our priorities right and to build for the future. To do that we must invest more in our young generation, not only in industry but within the education system and by means of vocational training. It is the easiest thing in the world to criticise Government policies, but I hope that the people of Scotland and elsewhere are aware of the alternatives. I shall put one or two of them on record, because they have never been spelt out in detail by the Opposition. They have made general statements about the need to decrease public expenditure still further on hospital and house building, and the rest, but they have never done so with precision.

In the debate on the public expenditure cuts on 7th August, however, a former Conservative Minister, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), was specific about what the Conservatives would do—or what they should do—if they were returned to power at the next election. The hon. Member for Honiton let the cat out of the bag with a vengeance. He proposed an immediate 5 per cent. cut across the board in social security expenditure. In other words, he proposed, in effect, that £500 million should be taken out of the pockets of the old, the sick and the disabled—the most helpless in our community, who are the very people that a civilised Government should protect, whatever they do to other people.

The hon. Gentleman's second proposition was that there should be a 15 per cent. cut in unemployment pay. Let him tell that to the 1,250,000 people who are now on the dole. They would face a 15 per cent. cut and would have no recourse to supplementary benefits, because the hon. Gentleman wants an across-the-board reduction in expenditure.

The hon. Member's third proposition was the abolition of the school meals service, which would save another £301 million. He said that all school meals should be paid for at their full economic cost by parents.

Fourthly, the hon. Member said that there should be a 25 per cent. cut in housing subsidies, which would save £331 million. So, the worker in Scotland who is taking home £20 or £30 a week would have to pay for school meals, his rent would go up when the subsidies were reduced, and if he happened to be on the dole he would also face reduced unemployment benefit.

Fifthly, the hon. Member advocated a 10 per cent. cut in National Health Service finances. If the worker to whom I have referred had to go into hospital he would find that waiting lists had lengthened and that the facilities, which are already stretched to an intolerable degree, had declined even further.

Sixthly, the hon. Member, not unnaturally since he was a director of an oil company, suggested that we should get rid of the British National Oil Corporation and hand back to the oil companies all profits from North Sea oil Linked to that was his seventh proposition —that there should be a reduction of £357 million in corporation tax paid by firms out of their profits.

That type of policy is a recipe for increasing unemployment to the dimensions of the 1930s. It is a recipe for revolution, because the workers and trade unions simply would not stand for it.

At the next election, whenever it comes, the Government will be judged on the question not whether they have provided an Assembly in Edinburgh but whether they have provided jobs in Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly, and other parts of the United Kingdom which are now bearing the main burdens of the present crisis. The acid test will not be on the creation of another costly tier of governmental democracy; it will be on the Government's ability to provide job security and to bring inflation under control.

The Government dare not fail to meet those challenges. I hope that my hon. Friend will use the influence which I know he has with the present Prime Minister to drive that message home. Instead of wasting the next Session on the machinery of government we should use our energy, resources and ingenuity to tackle the economic problems on which we shall be judged when we go to the people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has put his case fairly. sincerely and without exaggeration. I am sure that the people of Fife will appreciate the comments that he has made this morning. I have already discussed the problems with him and with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter) and I know how anxious they are about unemployment in Fife in particular and in Scotland in general.

The Government wish to reduce unemployment as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend rightly said that this is a world-wide problem. The recession is a bad one and we cannot look at the situation in isolation. I know my hon. Friend understands that, and I know that he, like myself, hates the thought of unemployment being as high as it is in Scotland at present. We hate it not just because we look at the figures and the percentages but because we both come from families in which we have bitter personal experience of unemployment in the 1920s and 1930s.

That is why we are anxious to get unemployment down as quickly as we can and why we resent the sort of comments we have heard over the past few days about unemployed people being scroungers and so on. My hon. Friend and have people in our own families who are unemployed, decent working people who are genuinely trying to find a job. They are not sunning themselves on the Costa Brava, the Costa del Sol or elsewhere. The people of Scotland want work, and we are determined to do everything we can to ensure that they have it. I shall deal with some of the actions the Government have been taking.

Last week in the Scottish Grand Committee we discussed the whole problem of unemployment in Scotland. I know how disappointed my hon. Friend was that he did not manage to speak in that debate. I know how hard he tried, but we all sometimes have the frustrating experience of trying to make a speech in the Scottish Grand Committee and finding that time does not permit.

I spelt out then the economic difficulties we have faced over the past two years, with an adverse balance of payments, inflation and the need to restrain public expenditure. The balance of payments position has improved, although more needs to be done. With the full cooperation of the trade unions we have seen the level of inflation fall, and we look forward to this trend continuing. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently dealt with the problems of public expenditure. While we all regret the necessity of any cuts in public expenditure, my hon. Friend was right to point out the effect of having a Conservative Government and how much more serious the cuts would be if the advice of such people as the Leader of the Opposition were accepted. It would be serious in employment terms for the people of Scotland.

The object of our strategy is to ensure that we divert our limited resources into manufacturing industry. By such measures in the longer term we shall establish an economic climate which will bring better and lasting opportunities to areas such as Fife. I am aware that unemployment in many areas is a serious problem. We have taken a series of short-term measures, most recently those announced on Tuesday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to alleviate unemployment to some extent. Those measures, such as the temporary employment subsidy, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers and the job creation scheme, have already resulted in over 2,000 jobs in Fife being created or protected. Indeed, I am told that Fife has been one of the leaders in Scotland in increasing employment through the job creation programme. I hope that the new work experience scheme announced on Tuesday will also prove useful to the people of Fife.

We do not pretend that these measures are the full answers to our difficulties, but they show our determination to take such steps as we can afford to relieve unemployment. The measures are properly directed towards helping to deal with the problem of unemployment among young people. My hon. Friend mentioned the tragedy of youth unemployment, which leads to great frustration and difficulty. I am sure that the House will do all it can to ensure that young people are given a start in life and that the training opportunities which my hon. Friend mentioned are taken up by the youngsters.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the problem of Fife and the reduction of employment in our traditional industries, whether in coal mining or similar industries. I am very conscious of this, too, as I represent a constituency which was based on coal and heavy engineering. It is a tragedy that many men who have given a lifetime of service to those industries now find difficulty in obtaining new employment. That is why we have been anxious to create new employment opportunities and why we have used regional policy as one of our main weapons.

Although unemployment is high, regional policy has had two effects for the people of Scotland. These are that the gap in wages between Scotland and England is now much narrower than it was when I entered the House early in 1964 and that the gap in employment opportunities is also much narrower. That is why it is important that we should continue with a useful regional policy, and why I am sometimes saddened that a separatist attitude on employment is adopted by Scottish National Party Members—I was about to say "by those on the Scottish National Party Bench", but they are not here to contribute to our debate. We can have an effective regional policy only if the industrial and economic integrity of the United Kingdom is preserved.

We in the Scottish Office offer advice and encouragement to industry to set up in Scotland. We have an office in Glasgow which offers selective financial assistance to projects which will create new employment or safeguard existing jobs. The full range of other forms of Government assistance to industry is available—the regional employment premium, regional development grants, assistance under the industry modernisation schemes and the accelerated projects scheme. The problem is the absence of new projects at present, but under the Industry Act 1972 13 offers of selective financial assistance have been made to projects in the Cowdenbeath, Dunfermline and Inverkeithing areas involving about 1,400 jobs and a total investment of over £5 million.

There are some encouraging new projects in the area, such as the opencast developments at Westerton and the extension at Westfield, which together are expected to provide 100 new jobs. I am also aware—my hon. Friends will appreciate that I cannot give further details now, but I promise to do so as soon as possible—of plans by various companies which, if they materialise, will bring a substantial number of new jobs to the area. The picture is not entirely gloomy, because we see light at the end of the tunnel. The emphasis of the Government's regional policy on an area such as Fife should ensure that as the economy recovers the region is well placed to benefit.

My hon. Friend mentioned the subject of the Fife regional reports, which I have studied and which I regard as valuable. We shall be responding to those reports in the course of time. They suggested that it was important to attract companies from outside the area to provide jobs for our people. It is important that we should pursue that suggestion, and, indeed, that we should attract companies to come to Scotland not only from south of the border but from the Americas and from Scandinavia.

Scotland has a good record of attracting inward investment of that kind. Because of that factor, many people in Scotland are employed today in some of the newer types of industry providing good skilled jobs. That is a record which we are determined to maintain. Therefore, it is in our best interests as a country to continue to work with our partners and friends in other parts of the world and to encourage them to come to Scotland. Scotland possesses skilled and able young people, and I am sure that companies will take advantage of that talent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has always taken an interest in European affairs and he will agree that we must seek to attract industry from Europe. Once we have built up our connections, we can more easily attract such companies to provide jobs for our people.

It is worth mentioning in that respect that we obtain considerable benefits from the European Community's Regional Development Fund and Social Fund as a result of our membership of the Community. A few days ago I was privileged to be with Mr. George Thomson, the United Kingdom Commissioner, who handed over some valuable cheques which will help Scotland to cope with its problems. We have also received loans from the European Investment Bank for the regeneration of Scottish industry. That again is an important aspect of such contacts.

Many people who want to invest in Scotland are worried about Scotland's future in a political sense. In my last Government post at the Department of Industry I was privileged to act as a coordinating Minister for a group of high-powered American business men who came to the United Kingdom to examine investment prospects. They possessed a great deal of good will towards Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom but expressed fears about Scot-land's future. They were worried that if we were to have a separate Scottish Parliament and all that goes with it they might not wish to continue to show the same interest as they had expressed over the years.

I reject—and I know that my hon. Friend shares this view—the inward-looking attitude of some of the people in Scotland, particularly those who represent the interests of the SNP. They believe that all our problems can be solved simply by the exploitation of oil or the production of whisky. We are thinking of a much broader attitude, and it is our hope that we can encourage industry to come into our country and provide jobs.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the problems at Rosyth, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline has also shown considerable interest on this front. I can repeat the assurances given by my colleagues in the Defence Ministry that the Government have no plans to close the dockyard at Rosyth. We expect that yard to continue to be a major employer in the area.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central said that he was worried about the recent comments in the Scottish Press about defence, particularly about whether Scotland should have a separate army, navy and air force. When I heard that that idea was being put forward, I thought that somebody was pulling my leg. To me, the suggestion was quite ridiculous. When I saw such comments set out in a letter by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), I became particularly concerned. If such a suggestion were implemented, it would undoubtedly have serious effects on employment in Rosyth.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) properly drew attention to this subject in the House the other day. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence said:

"the naval dockyard at Rosyth concentrates on refitting the Polaris submarines, which I understand the nationalists are determined to evict from Scottish waters, and also the expensive nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines which could play little or no part in a separate Scottish navy."—[Official Report, 27th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 593–4.]

Those who make comments about getting rid of some of our defence capabilities obviously have not paid regard to the enormous employment consequences in areas such as Rosyth. We must aim at a balance in these matters. If there were to be a Scottish navy, it would affect the situation at Rosyth Dockyard and also the research establishments at Dunfermline and other important work carried out elsewhere in Scotland by companies such as Yarrow. There would obviously be fewer employment opportunities. The people of Scotland should take full note of that attitude, because those who put forward such views should take the situation more seriously.

My hon. Friend also mentioned special development area status. He mentioned a letter written by the Department of Industry. I wish to make a few general points to the effect that these matters are constantly monitored. We make changes in the boundaries from time to time. We look at the employment prospects and at the industrial structure of the areas, and when required to make changes. But I want to make the more general point that our problem at the moment is not just in designating an area as a special development area, a development area or an intermediate area but in finding the right kind of growth projects which we can assist in going to those areas.

My hon. Friend also mentioned my letter to Sir William Gray and to his chief executive about possible action by the Scottish Development Agency in the case of Fife. The agency is a very powerful organisation. It will play a very important part in the regeneration of industry in Scotland and' in improving the environment. It is worth saying for the record that if the Opposition had had their way there would not have been any Scottish Development Agency at all and we should have been bereft of its services. It was important to set it up because there are a number of Scottish industrialists who have a very poor record in investment, and the agency can play an important part in Scotland's future.

As my hon. Friend knows, I do not take an active part in the running of the agency, and I would not seek to interfere in its day-to-day management. I have, however, brought the problems of Fife to the attention of its chairman, and I am sure that he will pay due regard not only to my letter but to my hon. Friend's comments this morning. The creation and maintenance of employment is of course one of the agency's main functions and I am confident that the agency will give priority, in developing its industrial strategy, to areas like Cowdenbeath and Lochgelly where disproportionately high numbers are out of work.

The agency already has a significant number of factories in Fife. Work is to start on a new factory at Kirkcaldy in the near future, and the agency will, of course, keep under consideration the scope for further advance factory building in West Fife. The agency has approved seven schemes for derelict land clearance and environmental improvement in Fife at a cost of about £700,000. The agency is therefore closely involved in the area, and the chairman has visited Fife. This will be important for the future.

I think, too, that the additional finance which will be made available to the agency and to the National Enterprise Board will be of considerable assistance. After all, we have the example of Leyland. A spin-off from that is that there are jobs for workers in places like Fife. We shall be making announcements about that in due course.

I should inform my hon. Friend and the House that the Manpower Services Commission has accepted, as part of the job creation programme, a scheme drawn up by Fife Regional Council for the first phase of the development of Lochore Meadows Country Park. The scheme, which is estimated to cost about £200,000, is also being supported by the Scottish Development Agency. It will involve the provision of a proper access road, car-parking facilities and the first stage of an integrated building complex comprising changing rooms, equipment storage areas and so on. It will create valuable jobs almost immediately and will add significantly to the amenity value of a very important rehabilitation project on which substantial public resources have already been spent.

The long-term solution for Fife lies, as I have said, in our regional policies and in the strengthening of our national economy. We are determined to see our economic strategy succeed. I join my hon. Friend in trusting that Fife will get its fair share of the new opportunities that will develop.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this very important constituency matter —the proposed closing of Grovelands Hospital. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here for this debate. He is known to have a sympathetic nature, in many ways, and I am sure that he will give close attention to the plea that I make on behalf of my constituents and many others, too. He will appreciate that the impact of closing any hospital is considerable in an area and that a decision to do so must be taken only after the closest examination when there are no other alternatives.

I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I take the view that expenditure cuts are good in principle but wrong when they affect my own area. We know that we have to have cuts in our areas. I do not put that forward as part of my case, although I hope to show that perhaps the economy that it is suggested will arise from closing the hospital will not in fact materialise.

Some of the various bodies that have been concerned have been approached. I appreciate fully that the Secretary of State is in a difficulty here because, as I understand it, his statutory position is that normally he would interfere or give a view only if the local community health council took a different view from that of the area health authority. I admit that it does not in this case. The community health council, I think wrongly, supports the area health authority in the view that it has taken.

In the course of my remarks I hope to show that certain of the information sent by the authority to the health council and to other people concerned, in eluding Members of Parliament, was insufficient. Indeed, I have to go further, because part of the information was inaccurate. Comments were invited to be sent in by the end of July in preparation for a special meeting of the area health authority on 16th August, called to discuss Grovelands Hospital. Normally the authority does not meet in August. However, this was a matter that it was felt should be decided one way or the other, and that is why I was anxious to have this debate today, before the decision was taken.

The information that is being sent out is, in my view, ill informed. As a result, the bodies that have been asked to comment, especially the community health council, are at the moment incapable of taking a decision, because they do not have sufficient correct information on which to base a decision. I feel strongly, therefore, that the decision should be postponed pending investigation of the points that I propose to put to the Minister.

I begin by mentioning briefly the history of the hospital. It is a remarkable building. I wish thatHansard published photographs, because it is a most attractive building. It was built in 1797. The architect was John Nash. It stands in a lovely public park. There is a lawn in front of the hospital, and a public park beyond into which patients can go. It was a private home until 1916. From 1921, it was a convalescent home. Not surprisingly, it is a scheduled building, and it cannot therefore have any major alterations done to it—certainly not to the outside of it.

As for its more recent history, it was until April 1974 administratively part of the North London Group Hospital Management Committee of the North-West Thames Regional Hospital Board. The committee included the Royal Northern Hospital, which is now administered by the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority. Most of the patients up to 1974 came from the Islington area and elsewhere outside my own constituency.

The hospital has 56 beds, although at the moment only 46 are available, because the 10 on the first floor have had to be closed due to possible fire danger. There is some confusion about this. I understand that the matter could easily be put right. Obviously, with the state of doubt about the future of the hospital, even the comparatively small sum necessary for that purpose has not been spent. There is nothing important in that, and I do not put it forward as part of my case. But at the moment there are only 46 beds available.

During last winter rumours began to go round that the hospital might be closed. On 10th February an informal consultation document was sent to Members of Parliament in the area, and to a number of other bodies, by the acting area administrator of the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority. This indicated that, subject to appropriate consultations, it was intended to close the hospital, and comments were invited from everyone on the receiving list by 31st March.

I immediately received, not surprisingly, a flood of letters from my constituents protesting at the proposal. They came from a wide body of opinion—doctors, nurses, former patients, clergymen, hospital visitors, local residents and so on. It seemed to me that my first duty was to visit the hospital and to discuss the position with those in charge there—and with the patients, too. This I did towards the end of March.

Before describing my visit, I refer to one phrase in the consultation document:

"difficulty is experienced in utilising the first floor (or dormitory)"—

this was before the Fire Precautions Act 1971—

"since there is no lift and, in fact, patients have not been nursed on this floor for some years."

That morning I talked to various patients. There was a group sitting at lunch. I asked them in which part of the building they were sleeping. They told me that they were sleeping upstairs. I thought that was odd, in view of what was said in the consultation document. As soon as I got away from them I said to the matron that surely the upstairs part was not used. She said that it was being used and agreed with me that there was a mistake in the document. When I asked her whether there were any other mistakes in the consultation document, she agreed that there were some others.

The document states that

"Grovelands Hospital does not accept direct admissions, all patients coming from other hospitals."

A number of old people living in the district have to be looked after very carefully by their families, with whom they are still able to live. But the families are not able to look after them for the whole 12 months of the year, so that it is a custom for these elderly relations to go to the hospital for about one month each year in order that they may be looked after there while the relations have a well-deserved holiday. If Grovelands Hospital were to close, that facility would, of course, no longer be available.

I come to another mistake which was pointed out to me. The document states that

"Camden and Islington AHA have now confirmed that they will have vacated Grovelands by 31st March 1976."

This date was two weeks after my visit, and it was clear to me, having seen the patients, that they were elderly and that there was no question of their leaving the hospital by that date. Indeed, they are still there now, and, if the hospital remains open, they are likely to remain there for some considerable time.

In view of these inaccuracies in the consultation document, I decided that the only course open to me was to ask for a meeting to be held at the hospital and to ask that everybody concerned should come to it. I therefore wrote to Mr. Alderson, the acting area administrator, who replied immediately, warmly accepting the idea. I make clear at once that my comments about him and the authority are in no way personal. He has always been extremely courteous to me and answered my letters and questions. He has always done his best.

The meeting took place at the very end of March. I now refer to the letter I sent to Mr. Alderson immediately after the meeting. I mentioned the various facts that I had found to be inaccurate. I told him also that the distribution list had not been sufficiently wide, although it covered the Members of Parliament for the area. In my letter I went on to say:

"I was genuinely surprised that so many of those present at the meeting had not been sent copies in their own right, in particular those intimately connected with the hospital. Even if you were not certain yourself whom to approach, I am sure that Miss Pilson as Matron, together with Dr. Morris as visiting Medical Officer, and Dr. Lowy, as Chairman of the Grovelands Sub-Committee when the Royal Northern Hospital was more closely linked with Grovelands, would have been happy to suggest names which would certainly have included, for example, visiting Chaplains and the various social workers with long and close experience of the hospital."

I then went on to discuss the question of the upstairs rooms and the fact that they were being used. I said:

"Dr. Morris told us—and I do not think you questioned this—that there were still 17 elderly patients from that Authority "—

the Camden and Islington authority—

"at Grovelands, and it was out of the question for them to be moved during the next six days."

Then there was a question about the further expenditure of the hospital. I pointed out to Mr. Alderson that there was no suggestion made at the meeting that any major expenditure within the hospital was needed. I referred to some of the points made at the meeting, including the fact that the upstairs rooms were usually full and that there was no equipment for active treatment because the patients there were not in need of it. I referred to the comment that old people sent to Grovelands had lived much longer than expected. Particular tribute was paid to the quality of the food, which I understand is very much higher than in many hospitals.

I mentioned that the point was made about old people coming in for the odd month when their families were on holiday. Reference was also made to the air being very good, the hospital being close to Grovelands Park. It has apparently been particularly beneficial for chest patients and it is ideal for convalescent patients.

Concerning the future occupancy, I suggested that later figures would show that much better use could be made of the hospital.

I also referred to the fact that it was very near to an Underground station and to a bus route and therefore easily accessible to relations, and so on.

I said in my letter that Mr. Moynagh, the orthopaedic surgeon from Chase Farm Hospital, had mentioned the use made of Grovelands, and that I had received a letter from the head occupational therapist at Highlands Hospital urging the retention of Grovelands.

My letter also said:

"You will no doubt also bear closely in mind the Secretary of State's recognition of the need for community hospitals."

I now refer to the report sent to me and to everybody else concerned by Dr. Clayden, who was in the chair at the meeting to which I have referred. He first mentions those who were present at the meeting. They numbered about 90. He also mentions the inaccuracies in the original statements about the hospital. Dr. Clayden's report continues:

"Mr. Berry suggested to Mr. Harrison that in fairness this error should be remedied and that the various organisations that had been circulated with the incorrect information should have it corrected. Mr. Harrison said he would look into this matter. The AHA and CHC members (with the exception of Councillor Connors) presented the case for the closure of the hospital and Councillor Connors and the medical and nursing members of the staff gave their reasons for the continued use of Grovelands as a hospital. The representative of the local preservation society (a local GP) considered that the building was unsuitable for use as a hospital and would be put to better use as an old people's home or for some other purpose. Apart from this all the other people who spoke supported the continuing function of Grovelands as a hospital. In addition the chairman was presented with more than 200 signatures, largely from local residents not at the meeting, protesting at the closure of the hospital."

I have here several papers sent to me, including signed papers from people say- ing that they wished the hospital to remain open.

The next stage was a meeting of the area health authority. Dr. Morris, who was at that meeting, wrote to me saying that he was very concerned. He felt that not enough attention had been paid to the points made at the earlier meeting. He pointed out that Mr. Harrison had been asked at the meeting how long local patients stayed in Grovelands and that the answer was two weeks. Dr. Morris felt that this was incorrect and that a figure of two months would have been more accurate.

The next stage was when I received a letter stating that the area health authority had considered the earlier meeting and decided to proceed to the formal stage of consultation, as required by departmental regulations and I was sent a copy of a letter dated 27th March. Answers were required on this by the end of July.

The circulation list for this document was almost identical to the earlier one. Indeed it had been produced from that original copy because there is a misprint in the first copy which is apparent on the second one. I was approached by some of the people who had been at the meeting at the hospital and asked whether I would send them copies of the document. More people ought to have been sent copies. My suggestion to this effect was ignored. Many right hon. and hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, have taken a great interest in this problem. The Southgate Civic Trust was sent a copy of the document. It put out a statement saying that it felt the information was inadequate and that the distribution list had not been large enough.

The next stage was that the community health council discussed this issue in detail and came out in favour of the closure. I am told that Councillor Mrs. Lyon voted in favour of keeping the hospital open. Everyone who spoke from the floor was in favour of keeping it open. I have received two letters from constituents on the subject. One wrote:

"At the meeting of the Community Health Council in June Dr. Morris drew the attention of the members to a number or errors of fact in the Consultative Document issued by the Area Health Authority. But although a representative of the AHA was present at the meeting the matter was entirely ignored, much to the anger of quite a number of local residents present at the meeting.

The Consultative Document and the list of errors were published in theSouthgate Gazette of 1st July, and I, in common with several other people concerned, have been wondering what could be done."

The writer asked whether something could be done about this issue and whether it was possible to raise it in Parliament.

Another constituent wrote:

"Much discussion took place … members of the public pointed out the great consideration of the staff for the patients, the extreme contentment of the patients and the advanages of the quiet and delightful surroundings. If this unit were moved it is quite obvious the general atmosphere would be totally lost, to the detriment of all the patients, and I am confident one could not replace such an understanding staff."

On 22nd July I wrote to Mr. Alderson and asked him if he would consider having a further look at this document because I felt that there were mistakes in it. I mentioned particularly the question of the upstairs rooms. He said that these had been put into use only in February 1976. I am assured that this is not correct. It was originally said also that patients from Enfield War Memorial Hospital were the only ones who used the upstairs rooms.

Mr. Alderson had said in his letter that he had not meant to indicate the precise location of patients. As we know, the patients were downstairs. He tried to make out that there were only a few people left. There are still six patients who have been there since 1975 or earlier. He also said that by medical definition patients on pre-convalescence would spend an average of two weeks there. He claims that that was the span of time spent by patients from Enfield. Since January of this year over 91 patients have stayed there for two weeks and 14 for over three months. There is clearly something wrong there. He said that if a smaller number of patients from Enfield had stayed for longer periods in the middle of 1975 the figure was so small as not to be worthy of mention. At that time there were 19 who stayed for over two weeks and a further 19 who stayed for less than two weeks.

Mr. Alderson said that the latest occupancy figures were not available. I know that this document was sent out in May so that the only figures which would then have been available would have been for the first four months of the year. In view of the important point about the use of the hospital it ought to have been possible, shortly after, to provide figures for a six-month period. It certainly would have been helpful. They would not have been difficult to obtain. I know that because I have figures for the seven-month period.

I went on 4th August and obtained the figures up to and including the end of July. I will explain what they show. Admissions from Camden and Islington, which were 69 over the whole of last year, have been 90 for this seven-month period. Admissions from Enfield and Haringey, 125 last year, are already 129 this year. The total for last year was 194 as against the figure for the seven-month period of 219. The average daily bed occupancy last year was 43·7 per cent. while for the first five months of this year it was 72 per cent., and in June and July 76 per cent. Surely those are figures which everyone ought to be told about and asked to comment on. Today there are 34 patients out of a possible 56. We are slightly down on the percentage I quoted but it is August and there are various reasons why there are not so many patients.

Let me give two examples of the sort of patients who have come in to Grove-lands recently. An old lady of 73 at Chase Farm Hospital was due to go home on Monday of last week. Her bed at Chase Farm was required urgently for an operation the previous Saturday. The hospital had tried to contact the family but they were away on holiday. If that patient had remained at Chase Farm the operation could not have taken place. At it was, Chase Farm Hospital rang up Grovelands and asked if the old lady could be taken there and it was so arranged. She spent two days there and then went back home.

The week before a young man from Leicestershire who had had a leg amputated was unable to travel back home but was required to vacate his bed urgently at Chase Farm. The same sort of arrangements were made as before. There are many inquiries of this nature, even while the upstairs rooms are closed.

I know that the area health authority has to save £147,000 this year. If Grovelands could be closed it is said that there would be a saving of £130,000. I suggest that an examination of the figures reveals that very little of the £130,000 would actually be saved. There has been a guarantee to the nursing staff that there will be no redundancies if the hospital is closed. A figure of £90,000 in respect of staff costs would therefore remain. There are costs for equipment, laundry, heating, food and so on which would still have to be met. If we add to that those patients I have described, who still live with their families but who might not be able to do so in future, it is obvious that there will not be a large saving. Admittedly there is the cost of repairing the exterior of the building. With a scheduled building of this kind the cost would have to be borne by someone. I suspect that ultimately it will be met by the ratepayers in one way or another. Therefore, I question whether the real saving would be more than £17,000. When compared with all the other factors that I have mentioned, I am not sure that it is relevant.

I hope that I have shown there is a genuine demand in the area for this special hospital. For whatever reasons, the advantages have not been properly explained, nor the details of the uses being made of the hospital. Those who should be in a position to judge and think they are, although they are not, have been gravely misinformed. I do not think that the area health authority has lived up to its usual high standards in the way in which it has acted regarding its proposals to close this hospital. If the hospital is closed, justice will neither be done nor be seen to be done. Therefore, I ask the Minister in the interests of all concerned—particularly patients both present and future—even at this late hour to act. I believe that 'he would be doing so in the best possible cause.

The House and the constituents of the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) will be grateful to him for raising this important matter for debate. The hon. Gentleman's speech reflected not only his sincerity and genuine concern, but how industrious he has been in researching and pressing the value of Grovelands Hospital.

I deeply appreciate the extent of feeling that is generated when a hospital closure of this kind is under active consideration. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has received a petition of some thousands of signatures, which Miss Pilson, the matron of the hospital, has collected. That is a measure of the local support that this small hospital attracts. Local issues are extremely significant in this debate, and I shall return to them later.

The attention of the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority will be drawn to the petition, which will doubtless be taken fully into account in the further attention that the authority will be giving to the future of Grovelands Hospital later this month.

As the hon. Gentleman said, other hon. Members have taken a personal interest in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) is present this morning. I know that he has taken a characteristically close interest in this sensitive and extremely important issue in the area which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend represent in this House.

Before I deal in any detail with the local considerations which have led the area health authority to consider the closure of this hospital, I must briefly refer to the economic background against which these purely local decisions have to be taken. This Government are seeking to improve our health and personal social services, despite the severity of the economic climate in which our country now finds itself. As the hon. Member knows, our first and declared priority is to win the battle against inflation and so to establish a firm basis for economic expansion.

This fight against inflation must mean that there are limits to what we can do in improving social provision. But in this case we are not considering a sought-after improvement, but, rather, maintenance of thestatus quo for a small much respected and, indeed, much loved convalescent hospital. Priorities are changing and the service provided by the area health authority is expanding in other aspects, while the facilities provided from this hospital can now more readily be provided elsewhere.

Opposition Members are often to be heard demanding swingeing cuts in public expenditure. At the same time, we are being continually harried to increase public spending in specific areas. Closure of the this hospital, whose services are no longer needed by the area health authority, would mean that money could be diverted to other and more essential aspects of the health service locally. The problem for the Opposition is not only one of policy but of logic. That may not be true of the hon. Gentleman, but many of his colleagues argue for increase after increase on individual services and at the same time for reductions in public expenditure as a whole, as if they believe that the whole of public spending is less than the sum of its parts.

If economies are not made where priorities in local need have changed, public expenditure cannot even be contained, let alone reduced, if we are to finance the improvements in health care needed for a developing service.

Under this Government, even within the severe restraints on public expenditure which have been necessary in the fight against inflation, we have insisted on giving due priority to the National Health Service. In our first year of office, and in spite of the cuts which were introduced by the previous Administration, the proportion of the gross national product which was devoted to the National Health Service jumped from 4·9 per cent. to 5·4 per cent. This was the largest ever increase in a single year. The expenditure in 1974–75 was then £4·011 million. In 1975–76, this expenditure was still further increased to £5·458 million. Nevertheless, in our present economic difficulties it is even more important that every last penny of expenditure should be made to count. As I have said, the National Health Service must respond to changing priorities, and expenditure must be channelled to reflect those changing priorities.

The Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority is facing some particular difficulties in drawing up its plans for future action. The revenue expenditure available to the region as a whole is to be maintained at the level of last year's spending so as to enable such additional money as is available to be given to less well provided regions. In its turn, the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority has been urged to seek the most equitable distribution of money throughout the region. A working party is considering how this may be achieved.

In consequence, the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority, like the other London areas within the region, has been asked to make savings of 1½ per cent. of its budget. This will provide a pool for essential capital expenditure and also allow for some redistribution within the region. There are, of course, other demands on the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that a new and badly-needed mental handicap unit at Chace Wing is to open at the end of this year. This important new unit will cost the authority about another £600,000 per year, and the extra revenue has to be found from somewhere.

Grovelands Hospital, a building with a long and colourful history, became a hospital through the Middlesex Voluntary Aid Detachment in 1916. The staff at the hospital have provided most loyal and devoted service. Indeed, the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority has paid warm tribute to the skill and dedication which has been shown by the staff. If this hospital closes, the authority emphasises that no redundancies will arise and that transfers to other hospitals will be encouraged and so phased as to cause the minimum possible problem for both patients and staff.

Turning from the economic background to the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority's deliberations and discussions and my assurance on the future of the staff, I come now to the nub of the issue we are debating. This is the importance of local decision-making and of local priorities.

The present Government are dedicated to the strengthening of democracy in the National Health Service. In our document on this issued in 1974, the structure and role of the community health councils is explained. That role is of vital importance. The previous Government extensively revised their original proposals for CHCs so as to make them more representative of community interests. The relevant London borough, county and district councils, together with the local voluntary organisations—selected by the regional health authority after consultation with the appropriate local authorities—now directly appoint five-sixths of the membership of each council.

The councils are also more independent of the area health authority than originally proposed. The CHCs have been given powers to obtain information about the health services in their district and to enter and inspect hospitals. They must be consulted before decisions are taken on any substantial development or variation in services. The district management team, which is responsible to the area health authority for the management of most health services in the district, is expected to establish close working relationships with community health councils, while each CHC has a direct relationship with the chairman and members of the area health authority, who are required to meet the CHC at least once a year.

The CHC makes an annual report on its activities to the regional health authority which the CHC itself publishes. The AHA must publish its comments on the report, including an account of steps taken on advice or proposals put to it by the council. In addition, the meetings of community health councils, area health authorities and regional health authorities are open to the public and the Press in the same way as meetings of local authorities.

These are innovations intended to provide a new means of representing public opinion to the authorities responsible for managing the health service locally and to encourage more public reporting by the Press. The task now is to develop the CHCs into a powerful forum where consumer views can influence the NHS and where local participation in the running of the NHS can become a meaningful reality. It is particularly important that CHCs should be consulted about developments in the services in their districts at a formative stage when their views can influence decisions.

In order to strengthen further the links between CHCs and AHAs, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has decided that in future each CHC will be entitled to send one of its members to meetings of the AHA to act as an ob- server. These observers will have the same rights as members of the authority to speak during meetings, without being able to vote. Neither will observers be automatically excluded from those parts of the AHA meetings which are not open to the Press or the public.

This arrangement for a CHC observer to attend AHA meetings should in no way impair the independent standing of CHCs, but it will ensure that their voice is clearly heard at the point of decision-making and it is hoped that it will also strengthen the development of mutual understanding between CHCs and AHAs. In May of last year further guidance was issued to health authorities on eligibility for membership of CHCs and on the appointment of members.

The position and standing of CHCs is thus clear and the Government are in no doubt that CHCs should have a special responsibility in relation to hospital closures such as the one we are now discussing. The Government decided in 1974 that where the CHC accepts the proposed closure of any hospital, authorisation by the Secretary of State will not be required. In the case of Grovelands Hospital this is the present position.

Informal consultations on this closure were started in February 1976 and, following consideration of all the views expressed, formal consultation on the proposal was started in May 1976. These proposals are not opposed by the Enfield Community Health Council or the Haringey Community Health Council, nor by the two local authorities, the London boroughs of Enfield and Haringey.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of upstairs rooms. This would have been a local decision by the matron for her temporary convenience. I am advised that it does not centrally affect the issue. The upstairs accommodation is not regularly used.

Clearly it is. I gave the Minister the figures to show that it has been regularly used over a long period.

My advice is that it is not regularly used. I suppose that the matter turns on one's intepretation of what is regular. I am coming to the point that everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman in this debate will be very carefully considered by the meeting of the area health authority on 16th August. Clearly, this will be one of the considerations.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to direct admissions. Here local arrangements may be made with the matron. Moreover, I am told that holiday admissions could be arranged with other units if Grovelands were to be closed.

The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to patient transfers. I am advised that patients may be moved to other hospitals at any time. I am informed that there are beds available in Enfield.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to consultation. The proposals were well known locally. No attempt to obtain documents has been rebuffed. I am advised that nurses can always obtain documents from their superiors.

The hon. Gentleman referred to occupancy. Since the proposals were published, a limited increase in patients has taken place. At times this has required more facilities than were available. That is the advice I am given. Filling beds perhaps to the risk of patients may not be laudable.

My point here, as I have said, is that all of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman will be looked at by the area health authority. I understand, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the meeting of the Enfield and Haringey Area Health Authority called for Monday 16th August is a special meeting. There will be special consideration of the views expressed to the area health authority by the many bodies and individuals consulted. It is most unlikely that any reference to the Secretary of State for a decision will be made, but I am sure that all of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman in this debate will be very fully considered.

Perhaps I may put two quick questions. First, will the Minister accept that there are inaccuracies in the document, and that therefore people are being asked to judge on inaccurate information? Secondly, what is the figure for the annual net saving?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that his charge that there are inaccuracies will be fully investigated. My job will be to try to ensure that the area health authority has the most accurate information possible available to it.

I shall need notice of the hon. Gentleman's second question. I shall try to give him the answer at the earliest possible date.

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:

1. Appropriation Act 1976.

2. Drought Act 1976.

3. Rating (Charity Shops) Act 1976.

4. Police Act 1976.

5. British Railways Act 1976.

6. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1976.

Cesspools hardly sound a dramatic and delightful subject, but I think that I can show that consideration of the subject is certainly justified. Up to 2½ million people reside in properties in England and Wales that are not connected to sewers. Most of them are affected by the quite unsatisfactory arrangements that now apply.

The present situation has been brought about by the reorganisation of both local government and the water authorities, followed by the decision of the House of Lords in its judicial capacity on what was not the only recent case in which what may be good law has largely regrettable consequences. I know that many people, including one ratepayers' association in my constituency, believed that the Daymond judgment was a triumph for the individual over bureaucracy but they are silent now that the effect of the decision has been revealed. Certainly there are hundreds of people in my constituency who have come to realise in the last few weeks that the situation could become quite dreadful.

I know that there are people who believe that the present situation is not undeserved, and indeed a few of my constituents demanded that since their properties ate not connected, they should not pay rates for their sewage disposal, but they overlooked the fact that cesspools or septic tanks have to be emptied and this could be very expensive. This service has to be paid for, too.

In my area until recently our local authorities carried out the service quietly and efficiently. I never received a complaint about it. However, in its wisdom, if that is the right word, the previous administration changed the responsibilities and now my constituency is served by two water authorities. The local metropolitan district authority, Rotherham Borough Council, has to make substantial payments to these authorities for the disposal of the sewage it collects. The Yorkshire Water Authority charges my council £4 per 1,000 gallons—the second highest rate in the country—while the Severn-Trent Water Authority charges £3.

The council probably incurs very much greater cost. It has to send out its tankers and its capable and cheerful staff to empty the cesspools at the unconnected properties, and the council believes that the cost will approach about £40,000 a year, in addition to the £25,000 or so that it will have to pay to the water authorities. Therefore, if it were to cover the cost the council would need to charge at least £10 per 1,000 gallons collected.

I wrote to the chairmen of both the Severn-Trent and Yorkshire Water Authorities to ask whether they would reconsider their severe charges. The Chairman of the Yorkshire Water Authority replied quite promptly defending the authority's decision and presenting the case for it. The Chairman of the Severn-Trent Authority has not yet replied, nor have I had even an acknowledgement. This reveals a quite unacceptable attitude. These water authorities are too remote from democratic control.

I do not believe that Members of Parliament should behave arrogantly, but we are entitled to cut up rough if our requests, sensible and reasonable requests, are ignored. I hope that the Chairman of the Severn-Trent Authority will reply to my letter soon. If not, after the recess I shall suggest to my right hon. Friend that his dismissal or resignation is warranted. These bodies can impose high charges and escape criticism, for it is the local elected councils that have to collect the money on their behalf and incur the odium.

My council was informed of these charges some time ago and has spent the intervening weeks in some distress examining the situation and trying to find ways of resolving the problem, because it recognises that the effect could be very severe indeed. To urban man, perhaps to civil servants, perhaps to chairmen of water authorities, but I know not to my right hon. Friend, these charges may not sound dramatic, but they are well over any figure of moderation that I can think of and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will appreciate that ordinary folk cannot bear indefinite burdens.

If the average person in an unconnected property uses a relatively small amount of water, say 25 gallons per day, he will consume 9,000 gallons a year, which means that my local authority will incur considerable costs and will have to pay for those 9,000 gallons £36 to the Yorkshire Water Authority and incur costs directly itself of £54. With that low level on consumption the cost to the individual would be £90 a year, or £1·75 a week. That is what the authorities in my part of the country fear would have to be charged. It would mean that a household of two persons could expect to pay £180 a year, while a family of four would pay £360, or £7 a week for the emptying of cesspits. The Minister will appreciate that if the family has babies or young children the consumption of water will be very much higher, and therefore the costs will be even steeper.

There are families in my constituency who could face a weekly bill of £10 every week throughout the year, and relatively few people in my constituency can afford that sort of charge. In the Rotherham borough there are 780 properties that are not connected to the sewers, the vast majority of them in the Rother Valley. Of those, 324 have rateable values of less than £100, so that the bulk of the occupants in such properties are not wealthy people, but are on average or below average incomes, and literally many of them cannot afford the heavy burden that may be imposed on them by foolish legislation and legal insensitivity.

My local council has been criticised for announcing the charges that it envisages as being necessary. However, the criticism is most unfair, since the council is seeking to find a way out of the present position. The council recognises the anguish and the scale of the anguish involved, and for this reason it voluntarily —indeed, eagerly—decided that if it was to charge £10 per 1,000 gallons it would extend the rate rebate arrangements to these charges.

However, that would involve the council in extra costs, since even if it rebated the charge required by the water authorities those bodies would still require full payment in accordance with the terms of the 1973 Act. The rebate is welcome and will help, but it will still mean a severe burden for some of the worst-off people in my constituency, and others who are just over the rebate level will still be in an impossible situation.

Some of my constituents have been made sick with anxiety. Let me give a couple of examples. Yesterday I met one family of two adults and two children. They have a net income of about £42 a week. They do not qualify for rebate, but can anyone possibly expect them to pay £8 a week for their cesspit to be emptied? The second case is that of a retired couple, he with a small occupational pension which takes them just over supplementary benefit and rebate level. How are they to find £4 a week for cesspool emptying? They would be very reluctant to seek help if it were available, for they are proudly independent, and the recent publicity in the cheaper newspapers conveys to them the impression that social security is only for the dodger and the layabout. Some hon. Members really ought to know better.

The new commitment is frightening. Honest folk, the majority, are anxious about their commitments. They wish to continue to live in acceptance of responsibility, and therefore they ask whether they should sign that they will pay for their cesspits to be emptied when they cannot be sure that they will be able to pay, or do they refuse and watch their cesspools overflow? Can society or their neighbours bear that? Can the local authority be expected to take stern action against ordinary decent people placed in this intolerable situation, not by the council, but by the previous Government and the other place?

At the same time, can society allow any risk to public health to develop? Will the Minister comment on the possibility that these individuals may seek to try do-it-yourself cesspool emptying? If they do, where are they to dispose of the sewage? There is a likelihood of court action against otherwise quite responsible individuals.

In the same vein, can the Minister be certain that we shall not have irresponsible private commercial operations that can undercut the local authority and avoid legitimate disposal to the water authority? The sorely hurt individual cesspool owner may feel obliged to use such operators, but the community as a whole may then be in hazard unless local authorities are particularly vigilant.

I welcome the Government's action in publishing proposals in the consultative document on the water industry. Within this commendable document lies the basis for a sensible future. However, a good deal will have to be done to implement these proposals, and I suspect that the comprehensive legislation that would be required could not be enacted before 1978 or 1979. That is too far away to comfort those with whom we are concerned today. Their plight commands a much more urgent attitude.

We need to return urgently to the preDaymond situation. The emptying of cesspools and septic tanks is essential and and should be regarded as just as much a local authority service as the emptying of dustbins, the maintenance of roads, the provision of public education, the employment of environmental health officers, and so on. That view is logical and eminently appropriate, and therefore I consider that this should be a rate-borne service once again, and the sooner the better.

That is the main point of my argument, and I urge my right hon. Friend to make it clear that the Government agree with that proposition and that they intend to make the necessary arrangements as soon as possible.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give the House some idea of the date when he hopes the change will be effective. If he cannot agree to the particular change that I have proposed, I hope that he can offer an alternative that will not compound the distress of my constituents.

My right hon. Friend will not be surprised that I have one or two other questions. The first arises from conversations that I had with constituents yesterday in the parish of Wentworth. I found three cottages served by one cesspool. Who is to decide on the proportion of the cost to be borne, given families of different sizes and needs in the three households? What is to happen if two of the three families agree to pay but the third refuses when the cesspool is full?

My constituents may not be qualified to sit on the Judicial Committee of the other place, but they can perceive a problem of this kind with greater clarity. I have given advice on many difficult and different matters, but I should welcome my hon. Friend's suggestion on this one which involves complex human relationships, which are often very complex indeed in some of the more remote areas.

The water authorities may be rather removed from this sort of problem and may shelter behind their responsibility for avoiding loss. However, I would urge my right hon. Friend to suggest to the water authorities that they should not only keep Members of Parliament informed but realise that they do not have to make a profit out of every single operation and certainly not by the oppression of rural England.

At the same time that he gives this advice to the water authorities, I would hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider his advice to local authorities and suggest that they reduce charges to the minimum possible within their own financial situations. I know that in my own case the Rotherham Borough Council has no desire whatever to make any profit out of this charge, but some authorities might be tempted to do so. People should realise that in the towns and cities of Britain people may be able to visit a public convenience for a penny but that in some rural areas, in the present situation, the cost of using the toilet is now 2p and, indeed, if a person washes his hands afterwards, the price is increased.

My right hon. Friend will, of course, share my wry sentiments about this whole story. It is often held that the Labour Party is concerned with urban rather than rural England. Yet here we are again with a Labour Government having to retrieve a situation and retrieve a rural problem not of its making. Unless it does so, the previous Conservative Government, and the Law Lords together will have struck a savage blow at the country dweller. I know that some of my constituents are about to apply for council tenancies to avoid the intolerable position in which they are now placed. Rural depopulation is not at all to be desired.

I am confident that the Government will restore justice and maintain the just record of equitable treatment for all people in this country. In that case my right hon. Friend may note that during the last 50 to 60 years there have been 24 Acts of Parliament of particular benefit to the dweller in rural Britain Labour Government have been in power for only one quarter of that period but are responsible for 16 of those Acts. My right hon. Friend can keep up this record by ensuring that this ridiculous situation is resolved and thus help hammer home the fact that rural Britain owes very little to the Conservative Party, certainly not in this century.

There are two further and important problems upon which I should like my right hon. Friend's comments. One concerns the maintenance of public health, to which I have already referred. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether since this situation arose, he has sought further consultations with the medical experts to ensure that there is no new real risk to the community, and certainly to rural villages which are particularly affected?

Secondly, the Daymond judgment has the effect, perhaps not looked for at the time, that cesspool emptying has become a commercial rather than a rate-borne service. As such it became subject to the imposition of VAT. We do not pay VAT for our dustbins to be emptied, nor for the treatment of sewage when properties are connected to the main drains, and we should not expect VAT to apply in this case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree to make representations to the Treasury with a view to removing this burden. If no action can be taken quickly, I hope that he will do so before the next Finance Bill comes before the House.

My right hon. Friend will realise that he has much sympathy among his colleagues, particularly among those of us who are interested in matters concerning the environment and those of us who represent areas and constituencies where there are people living in rather remote circumstances. Those of use who were in the House from 1970 to 1974 will reffect with commiseration upon my right hon. Friend's position. Speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box at that time he subjected the Conservative Government's proposals to shrewd criticism and applied a sensible understanding to the propositions before the House. It is a great pity that he was not listened to more carefully at that time.

His experience then means that he will be even more aware than any other Member—certainly more than I am—of the imperfections of the Water Act and the related legislation which the House passed at that time. Given his understanding and experience, I am sure that he will not need me to say more about the problem, and I hope that he will ensure that the necessary action is taken without much delay.

I am indeed grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal reference and for his most constructive approach to the problem that he has set before the House. He is absolutely right that when this legislation came before the House it was my responsibility from the other side of the Chamber to draw attention to the very considerable shortcomings in the legislation and to what we believed would be the effect upon the public of this country of the reorganisation of water supplies, particularly coming, as it did, close upon the heels of the reorganisation of local government. As I have said before, the tremendously increasing costs of local government services and water services as a result of increasing the bureaucracies and the general wholesale nature of the reorganisation was entirely predictable.

My hon. Friend is quite right in pointing out that we tried to get the House to reject the proposals at the time, but, alas, we were not listened to. I am therefore glad that I have my hon. Friend's sympathy in having to try to deal with the ensuing situation. As far as the regional water authorities are concerned, I would say that we have always accepted, and we did at the time, that the hydrological basin approach to water was correct. It was the structure and and the bureaucratic control about which we were extremely doubtful. But it is right that water should be dealt with on the hydrological basin principle or the river basin principle and that one authority ought to be responsible for providing water and cleaning it and dispensing it back into the river system of this country.

I am delighted to have heard Mr. Deputy Speaker announce that Her Majesty has given the Royal Assent this morning to the Drought Act which is so badly needed and which will cause my Department and Ministers to work throughout the summer to deal with the emergency proposals which will now be forthcoming as a result of that legislation. All this emphasises the vital importance of water to the nation and the fact that we take the supply of it too much for granted.

If that can be said about water, to what extent can it be said that we take for granted the disposal of our waste water? It is nice for most people to reflect that when they pull out the plug or pull the chain, someone somewhere must deal with the consequences of that action.

Because of the difficulties, the Government have had to return much earlier than they thought they would need to do to the reorganisational and structural problems in the industry. Following the consultation document which we circulated at the beginning of the year, some people have written in saying "Good heavens, another reorganisation. What are the Government doing? This is much too soon. Let matters settle down". My hon. Friend will appreciate that we issued the further consultation document because we were sure that matters would not settle down and that in many respects they were extremely unsatisfactory. In particular, we must establish a strong national water authority responsible for drawing up a national strategy for water and asking the regional water authorities to relate to that strategy.

Although I am, and have been, critical of much of the structure, I should like to take this opportunity of putting on record that the regional water authorities are doing a first-class job in a difficult situation, particularly in the drought areas. I have talked to them many times about the importance of their public relations and, in particular, their relationships with hon. Members. I was therefore particularly surprised to hear what my hon. Friend said about his failure to get an acknowledgment or reply from the Severn-Trent Water Authority. I cannot believe that that was in any way deliberate or that the authority intended to be discourteous to him. If he had had an acknowledgement but not a reply, he might have had grounds for complaint; but for someone not to acknowledge an hon. Member's letter is almost so unprecedented that I can only think that it may have been lost in the post. However, I shall cause immediate investigations to be made and a letter to be sent by the Severn-Trent Water Authority to my hon. Friend.

I turn to some of the difficulties which my hon. Friend has mentioned. I agree with him that, if there is a working class family in his constituency which is being charged £8 a week to have a cesspit emptied, that is an intolerable burden and it justifies the consultation document and further consideration of the problem.

We asked for replies to our consultation document to be in by the end of July. Some people thought that that was too short a time, but I put it forward as evidence of the Government's concern about and desire to tackle the matter. We have said in the consultation document that we must do something about equalising charges for Welsh consumers. Without making any predictions, may I say that we hope to be able to proceed on that basis as urgently as we can.

On the question of charges for cesspit emptying, if there proves to be a consensus which leads us to think that it would not be a greatly controversial matter, we would hope to move quickly on it. Possibly there is general agreement about it. However, my hon. Friend will understand that the question of legislation depends on the timetable for the next Session, which, as far as I can see, is likely to be dominated by the question of devolution. Other Ministers in other Departments will no doubt hope to get a look in on the parliamentary timetable. Therefore, my hon. Friend will not expect me to go further than I have gone.

There are about 900,000 properties in this country occupied by 2½ million people, served by cesspools and septic tanks. No one envisaged what would be the consequences of the Daymond judgment, and I regret the position that the country has been put in as a result of that judgment. The division of responsibility between local authorities and water authorities shows how ill thought out was the Water Act 1973. Local authorities empty the cesspits and then take the waste to the water authorities for disposal. As a result of the Daymond judgment, local authorities are saying that they cannot carry out the service at a subsidised rate. We have asked them to be as reasonable as they can, and I am glad that my hon. Friend has confirmed that his authority is being as reas onable as possible.

Water authorities must act according to the law of 1973, which requires them to break even on revenue account, taking one year with another, since the sole source of their income is the charges that they make. Therefore, they, too, are in a difficult position. The Yorkshire Water Authority is charging at the lower end of the scale, as the figures which my hon. Friend read out show, and is treating waste matter.

I understand that the Yorkshire Water Authority charges £4 to receive 1,000 gallons. It is the second highest charge in Britain. It may be an equal second highest charge, but it is too high.

I thought that it was charging £3.

That relates to the Severn-Trent Water Authority.

Then the charge of the Severn-Trent Water Authority is more reasonable.

I should like an examination of the details of the case concerning the family which was charged £8 a week. It is important that they should be examined so that we may see whether administratively we can help.

My hon. Friend also referred to three cottages which were using one cesspool, two families agreeing to co-operate about the charges and one family failing to agree. I do not think the general law helps here. There must be agreement between the three families about sharing the cost. There can be no question of allowing the cesspit to overflow. If that happened, the local authority would have to take action under the Public Health Acts or, if necessary, serve a summons. Presumably it would have to decide where the joint and several responsibilities lay. If my hon. Friend will let me have details of that case also, I shall consider them, because it raises questions of principle to which I should like to give further attention. It is natural to say that we are sympathetic about hardship which may be caused, but the hardship outlined by my hon. Friend is exceptional and it needs to be specially considered.

The whole question will be carefully examined by Ministers in the context of the review of the water industry as a whole. We asked for submissions to be made to us by 31st July. We have not extended the time because we regard the matter as being urgent. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hon. Members may enjoy the period between now and the autumn even more, or possibly less, if you know that my right hon. Friends and I are spending our time analysing the hundreds of submissions which have reached us in an attempt to rationalise them and to draw policy conclusions on which we can make an early announcement. There are many other pressing parts of the consultation document on water, but if we can achieve a consensus on the urgent matters of principle—I see no reason why we should not, because there is general political agreement—it may help us to persuade our colleagues that time should be made available to us for consequential legislation. However, I make no promises about that. My hon. Friend is wise in saying that Labour Governments over the years have produced legislation which has helped rural life. I have no doubt that we shall do so again.

I appreciate the opportunity of raising in the House a matter of great concern to my constituents. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for coming to the House on the final afternoon before the recess to reply to the debate, and I hope that his holiday plans have not been adversely affected thereby.

Proposals have recently been made for the closure of the Tarporley War Memorial Hospital, the Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre and Davenham Hospital, all of which are situated in the Northwich constituency. It has also been reported that a working party set up by the Accident Emergency Advisory Group had recommended the closure of the Northwich Victoria Infirmary's busy casualty department, but I understand from the Minister's reply to my earlier Questions that such closure is not contemplated. Let me say how very relieved everyone in Northwich is to receive this news. It would make no sense for people in Northwich to have to make the 36-mile round trip to Leighton Hospital for casualty treatment. I should be grateful for the Minister's confirmation that there will be no change of mind about the Northwich Infirmary casualty unit.

The arguments which have clearly weighed with the Minister in deciding not to close Northwich Victoria Infirmary's casualty unit are the additional burden on the bus services, the health factors involved in such travel by people in need of casualty treatment, together with the cost of travelling and the immense waste of time involved. These factors have clearly been carefully considered. I hope that the Minister will bear them in mind when he addresses his attention to the question of Tarporley War Memorial Hospital.

The proposed closures take place against a background of grave concern about the centralisation of medical resources at Leighton, near Crewe, to the inconvenience of the Northwich population. In the last 10 years the operating theatre of Northwich Infirmary has been closed, the general medical beds at the Grange Hospital, Weaverham, are no longer available. X-ray examinations of the more complicated type, which used to be performed at the Grange Hospital and Northwich Infirmary, can now only be obtained if the patient makes the round trip to Crewe—and I need not delay the House with a discourse on the adequacy or otherwise of rural transport facilities. Moreover, some out-patient clinics at Northwich Infirmary are now held much less frequently or not at all. Apart from the serious difficulties to patients which the proposed closures, particularly of Davenham and Tarporley, are likely to cause, it is possible that Northwich, and indeed Tarporley, might become considerably less attractive places for young doctors to practise.

May I acquaint the House a little more closely with the situation at Davenham? A particularly disturbing aspect is that the committee which recommended the closure of Davenham Hospital did so at a meeting held on 23rd April 1966 prior to any consultation. So far as I am aware, there has still been no consultation. I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that consultation should, as far as possible, precede decisions rather than consultations being undertaken thereafter to justify decisions which have effectively already been made.

Many local bodies, including the community health council, the divisional local medical committee, the Cheshire Area Medical Committee and the Cheshire Local Medical Committee, have expressed opposition to the proposed closure. In addition, a petition opposing the proposed closure of Davenham Hospital has recently been signed by 9,000 people.

Davenham Hospital has 14 geriatric beds, which have enjoyed an occupancy rate of approximately 98 per cent. over the last four years, and 18 maternity beds, which have enjoyed an occupancy rate of between 31 per cent. and 55 per cent. over the last four years. There is agreement by the community health council that the 18 beds are more than are necessary, and agreement with local general practitioners that the unit should be reduced to six beds. This is a very different matter from saying that the 9,000 or so potential mothers in the Northwich area should be denied the possibility of having their babies near home and under the supervision of their own doctors.

The community health council suggested that the extra space made available by the cutting of the number of maternity beds should be used to increase the present 14 geriatric beds, and that is a sensible solution. The Minister said in reply to a parliamentary Question that in 1975 there were 15 geriatric beds available in the Crewe health district for every 1,000 people aged 65 and over, compared with his Department's norm of 10 beds for every 1,000 people aged 65 and over.

However, that is no ground for satisfaction in the Northwich area, where there is an inadequacy of geriatric beds. It would not be good enough for old people from the area to be accommodated at Arclid, where their relatives would have great difficulty in visiting them if they did not own cars, and where, incidentally, the percentage occupancy last year was 97 per cent. not to mention an occupancy rate of 91 per cent. in the geriatric beds at Leighton. The journey from Northwich to Arclid involves using three buses and the return fare is £1·54.

As the Minister will know, there are about 25 doctors in the Northwich area who, if Davenham were closed, would no longer be able to offer maternity services to their patients. Whilst they would, it is hoped, be offered the use of the maternity services at Leighton, the distance involved would make it impossible for most general practitioners to make use of them. In any event, the waiting list for consultant gynaecologists at Leighton is, according to the reply to my recent parliamentary Question of 27th July, 18 to 28 weeks. Unfortunately, the part of my question on the waiting period for beds was unanswered. At the end of February this year, however, the waiting list for Leighton's gynaecology beds was, I believe, 774 and this would obviously be lengthened if the proposed closure came about.

I am fully aware of the effect of the sharp fall in the birth rate over the last five years on the Department's thinking and of the recommendations of the Peel Report on Domiciliary Midwifery and Maternity Beds Needs published in 1970. I do not think, however, that either of them provides any justification for a complete absence of maternity services in the Northwich area.

I should like to pay tribute to the Crewe Community Health Council, which arranged a public meeting at the Northwich Memorial Hall on Tuesday 20th June 1976. The meeting was widely attended and was almost unanimous in its opposition to the proposed closure of Davenham. I am sure that the Minister will not view the conclusions of that meeting lightly. It would be a serious blow for Northwich if Davenham were closed.

Oakmere Hall was established by the former Miners' Welfare Commission as a centre for the rehabilitation of injured miners. The location was chosen as a central point to service the North Wales coalfields and the Lancashire coalfields being approximately equidistant from the two. In 1973 the properties of the Miners' Welfare Commission passed to the National Health Service on condition that the NHS continued first and foremost to provide a rehabilitation service for injured miners.

The centre now provides physical rehabilitation facilities for many men of working age who have suffered industrial accidents, road accidents and burns and for men suffering from various other medical conditions and the increasing number of young men who have had strokes. Many of the patients have been admitted to Oakmere after long, fruitless periods of visiting local hospitals. As a result of long, concentrated treatment, they have been able to lead useful lives again, supporting thier families, rather than becoming demoralised and feeling themselves to be a burden on their families and the State for the remainder of their lives. Having visited the centre last week, I urge the Under-Secretary, if he has an opportunity to go and see the marvellous work that is being done there and to talk to the patients and staff.

I quote briefly from a letter I received from a mother of one of the patients. She said:

"My son was a patient at Oakmere between 1968 and 1973 and thanks to Mr. Knowles the surgeon and the dedicated treatment staff at Oakmere he is now able to be gainfully employed and lead a normal life. One of the main reasons given for the proposed closure is lack of use. In answer to this I can quote my son's case as an example.

Before becoming a patient at Oakmere, he used to go for physio-treatment twice a week to our local Cottage Hospital. This would involve his being ready for the ambulance at 8.30 in the morning and not arriving back home until about 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Most of this time was spent travelling round the countryside, collecting other patients and returning them home again after treatment After all those hours spent away from home, only about half an hour was actually spent receiving physio-treatment at the hospital.

How many patients in the Cheshire Area Health Authority area have to go through this ordeal week after week, and how many CAHA ambulances and personnel are employed doing this work, when these patients could be given intensive physio and other remedial treatment at Oakmere five days a week, thus benefiting the patients for the reasons stated and saving the CAHA expenditure in both vehicles and personnel?"

Clinical responsibility for the Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre rests with the consultant orthopaedic surgeon based in Wigan who is responsible for admissions. A weekly session is held at the centre, and many of the patients admitted are from the Wigan area. Emergency medical cover is provided by a local medical practitioner. The Cheshire Area Health Authority has expressed concern that, on the retirement of the consultant surgeon this year, difficulties could arise in providing a consultant. However, the consultant surgeon has given ample warning of his impending retirement and has even offered to continue in a temporary capacity until a replacement is found. He has stressed for years that another visiting surgeon should be appointed to broaden the field from which patients can be admitted and has stressed that Crewe, Altrincham, Chester, Warrington and Macclesfield, all within the Cheshire area, are within easy reach of Oakmere so that a doctor from one of those centres, if appointed, would be appropriate.

There is no other centre in the area which provides such a complete range of physiotherapy, gymnasium, hydro- therapy, swimming, indoor and outdoor games and a competitive and stimulating atmosphere. It would be a very great pity not to continue and expand the centre's use, even if modifications may be necessary.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that the statement of the Cheshire Area Health Authority in support of the proposed closure of Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre, following its meeting on 20th February 1976, contains some serious inaccuracies, and I urge him to read carefully the comments by various members of the staff on the consultative document dated 23rd July 1976, a copy of which I have given him.

I urge the Under-Secretary to recognise that the services of the centre are now far more broadly based than they were when it was first set up. While informal soundings which he or his right hon. Friend has made with the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers produced no objections from the industry to the closure, I can assure him that the coal miners whom I met at Oakmere last week made very vociferous objections to the closure. Nor do I think that the coal industry social welfare organisations' present programme for rehabilitation centres, with supposedly more up-to-date facilities, including those for industry retraining, which are not available at Oakmere, is necessarily con-elusive. He will be aware that the mock coal faces elsewhere are shrouded in cobwebs from disuse.

There is no other centre in the area which provides such a complete range of facilities. The cost of conveying patients to and from Oakmere is nothing compared with an ambulance service two or three times a week to local hospitals for very short periods of treatment. Nor are the benefits of the latter experience—including, as it frequently does, a good shaking up during the collection trip in both directions—comparable with the benefits experienced at Oakmere. Moreover, with the closure of so many small hospitals around the country, the problems of obtaining treatment at nearly hospitals will get worse rather than better. Rather than close Oakmere, the Department should concentrate its attention on making sure that its excellent facilities and dedicated staff are much more fully utilised than at present.

The Under-Secretary will be aware that the proposed closure of Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre is being opposed by the Crewe Community Health Council. I have asked his right hon. Friend to receive a delegation of the staff. I and the staff would much prefer that, before he contemplates opposing their view, he or the Under-Secretary will come and see the centre for themselves. If he does so, I am in no doubt whatever that he will ensure that it remains open for many decades to come.

I turn now to the proposed closure of the Tarporley War Memorial Hospital. The House will know that Tarporley is at the centre of a substantial rural area with a population of over 20,000, serviced by nine doctors. The population is still growing. Tarporley War Memorial Hospital was opened after the First World War and was maintained by voluntary subscriptions and the efforts of local organisations. Since being taken over by the Department, it has been a viable unit filling a continuing need in the district. The Minister will be aware that in-patient occupancy rates for the last three years have been well over 80 per cent., and this year well over 90 per cent. The service offered by the hospital is now combined with the community health centre adjacent to the hospital site. The combination has provided an inducement to very good doctors to practise in the area. The closure of the hospital would be likely to have the reverse effect.

A glance at the map will indicate to the Minister that the problems of travelling from the Northwich area to Leighton Hospital would be similar but infinitely worse for people who at present use the Tarporley Hospital were it to close. Bus services are hopelessly inadequate and fares extremely high. There cannot possibly be an economic case for closing the hospital although it would clearly result in a narrowly defined financial saving for the Department. I am in no doubt whatever that its closure would have a very adverse effect on health.

In answer to my Parliamentary Question of 7th July, the Minister stated that no out-patients attended Tarporley War Memorial Hospital from 1972 to 1975. This information conflicts with that supplied to me lately that the figures were as follows: 1972, 4,123; 1973, 3,825; 1974, 4,471; 1975, 4,770; 1976—up to 9th June—2,540. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the discrepancy between the figures for the benefit of the House. I am sure that he will agree that it is essential that the House should be in possession of the right information on such an important matter.

The figures I have given relate to general practitioner consultations—general medicine, accident medicine, the follow up of cases from the main hospital and so on. Perhaps the Minister's figures relate only to consultant statistics. I understand that the possibility of consultant sessions for out-patients at Tarporley is under consideration. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State could confirm or deny this.

The annual cost of the Tarporley War Memorial Hospital is just under £65,000. I am sure that, if the Under-Secretary of State could find time to visit the area, he would not find anybody, not least within the medical profession, who did not regard the hospital as very good value for money and its closure as an extremely retrograde step.

When the Under-Secretary of State or his right hon. Friend visits the Northwich area—I very much hope that one of them will—I am sure that, like me, he will encounter high praise for the staff and standards of Leighton Hospital, although there have been some local difficulties this year, as he will be aware What he will find, however, is that, while we are, on the whole, an uncomplaining lot of people, we find Leighton extremely inaccessible, particularly for those without cars. I can quite see the cost of running Leighton Hospital between 1974 and 1975 having risen by £1·2 million and the number of patients treated having fallen, that there is cause for departmental concern—although I am delighted that the number of patients needing treatment has fallen. I do not, however, think that cuts in vital services in other parts of Cheshire are as satisfactory answer to that particular problem.

In the brief time available to us today, it has been possible to give only an outline of the situation in a very preliminary fashion. I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for the detailed replies which have been given to the initial questions which have arisen from the draft proposals concerning Northwich Victoria Infirmary, Davenham Hospital, the Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre and Tarporley War Memorial Hospital. We have, however, only just begun. I am sure that, as his Department's consultations progress, he will be convinced of the folly of closing down Tarporley, Oakmere and Davenham and further centralising all health facilities at Crewe—a very long way from the homes of many of my constituents and virtually inaccessible for those who do not possess cars. I am sure that he will consider the matter very carefully, and we shall be grateful for any assurances and encouragement which he can give the House today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) on the skill with which he has marshalled his facts and the ability with which he has presented his case. I am also grateful to him personally for giving me notice of the matters that he intended to raise. The House will appreciate the concern which the hon. Gentleman has shown not only today but also in the long series of Questions he has put down on this matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has answered no fewer than 62 within the past two weks.

I must begin by emphasising the competing calls on the limited capital resources which are available to the regional health authorities, and by reminding the hon. Member that the need to undertake even minor schemes of capital development or maintenance in any particular district has to be considered by the RHA in the light of the needs of other areas in the region. The same considerations apply to allocations by the RHA for revenue expenditure.

There are, moreover, particular difficulties to be resolved in the Mersey health region. That region, as hon. Members may be aware, is one of those which was identified in the interim report of my Department's Resource Allocation Working Party as being "over-provided".

We are determined to remedy what we consider to be the unacceptable imbalance in the geographical distribution of health service resources, and, as part of the move towards implementing a fairer distribution and employment of resources, the Secretary of State has for this year held the revenue allocations to the Mersey RHA at the 1975–76 level in real terms, plus an additional allocation for the revenue consequences of major capital schemes coming on stream in 1976–77. But within the health region itself there are marked disparities in the provision of services in the various areas and districts.

Regional health authorities were asked, in determining the distribution of the revenue allocations to the areas within their regions, to make allocations as far as practicable in accordance with the principles observed in determining the regional allocations. Much emphasis was put on the need to ensure that health deprivation in particular localities should be progressively remedied, while recognising that the problem of matching limited resources to unlimited demands is one which faces all health authorities.

Within these allocations, which for the Cheshire Area Health Authority amounted to over £56 million for revenue expenditure in the current financial year, very difficult decisions about priorities have to be taken by those who live and work with these problems from day to day. Within a certain allocation of money it is for the Mersey Regional Health Authority, the Cheshire Area Health Authority, and the Community Health Council to bring the arguments to bear upon this question of priorities. It is, primarily, for them to decide.

I make no apology for spending a little time on reviewing the background of limited financial resources which is so crucial to any consideration of the adequacy of health facilities.

I now turn to a more detailed consideration of the health facilities in the hon. Member's constituency, I think he may find it helpful if I briefly set the scene.

The completion of the new 661-bed Leighton Hospital at Crewe has enabled constructive plans to be developed for a district general hospital complex in Crewe based on Leighton Hospital. The precise pattern has not yet been determined, but the Cheshire Area Health Authority has approved recommendations that Barony Hospital in Nantwich should be retained pending the provision of a community hospital in the Crewe-Nantwich locality and that Crewe Memorial Hospital should be upgraded when resources permit and re-opened for community hospital provision.

The authority's policy is to provide a community-type hospital in the north of Crewe Health District in the Northwich area. The site of the Victoria Infirmary in Northwich is being investigated to see whether it is suitable for development as a community hospital, but there may be difficulties in expanding on that site, because of possible subsidence dangers. In the meantime, the hospital is continuing to provide its existing range of facilities.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of the closure of the casualty department at Northwich Victoria Infirmary. As my hon. Friend explained on 27th July, the Cheshire Area Health Authority has no plans at present to close the casualty department but the decisions about the future pattern of facilities in the area are primarily for the area health authority.

I turn now to the anxiety expressed about Davenham Hospital. At its meeting in May this year, the Cheshire Area Health Authority announced its intention to start formal consultations with all interested local bodies about its proposal to close Davenham Hospital, in accordance with the instructions in the Department's circular HSC(IS)207

"Closure or change of use of health buildings."

The authority has not yet published its formal consultative document setting out its statement of case in support of the proposed closure, but it expects to do so very shortly.

The authority cannot take a formal decision to close Davenham Hospital until the necessary consultations have been undertaken and the views of all interested bodies have been considered. If the local community health council objects to the proposed closure, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State for Social Services for decision.

I turn to the maternity services in the Northwich area. If Davenham Hospital were to be closed, the 18 beds in the general practitioner maternity unit would no longer be available. The nearest hospital maternity facilities would then be at Leighton Hospital near Crewe, where there is a maternity unit with general practitioner and consultant facilities. The distance by road from Northwich to Leighton Hospital is some 12 miles.

The average occupancy rate of the maternity beds at Davenham Hospital in 1975 was 31 per cent., and there were 302 births there in that year. The occupancy rate and the number of births have been steadily falling over the vast few years. In 1972, for instance, they were, respectively, 55 per cent. and 411.

The Cheshire Area Health Authority's policy is to provide a community-type hospital in the Northwich area as and when finances permit. The authority will be asked to consider whether general practitioner maternity beds should be among the services and facilities provided in that hospital.

It is proposed that the geriatric facilities in the Grange Hospital in Weaver-ham should be incorporated in the new community hospital. It is, however, impossible to forecast at this stage when resources are likely to become available so as to permit this desirable and rational development of the hospital services in the Northwich area. The outlook for the foreseeable future must therefore be one of the maintenance and improvement of existing facilities and of the economic provision of the necessary services.

The hon. Member raised the question of closure of Tarporley War Memorial Hospital. My understanding on that point is that the AHA have given preliminary consideration to the future of the hospital but have deferred a decision till early 1977. I cannot anticipate what that decision will be, but no doubt local interests will make their views plain to the health authority.

On the question of statistics there appears to be a misunderstanding between the Department and my hon. Friend. During the period covered by the parliamentary Answer on 27th July there had in fact been many attendances for accident and emergency treatment. The figures of such attendances, supplied by the Cheshire Area Health Authority, are as follows: 1972, 4,311; 1973, 3,835; 1974, 4,471 and 1975, 4,770.

Out-patient attendances are usually taken as referring to attendances at consultants' out-patient clinics. There are no such clinic sessions held at Tarporley War Memorial Hospital. The medical services at Tarporley War Memorial Hospital are provided by general practitioners. I hope that that clears up the misunderstanding.

In June this year, the Cheshire Area Health Authority issued a statement of case in support of the proposed closure of Oakmere Rehabilitation Centre, and requested the submission of comments by not later than 18th September 1976. The proposed closure of the centre will be discussed at the September meeting of the Joint Consultative Committee, which includes representatives of Cheshire County Council and the county's district councils as well as of the area health authority.

Several hon. Members have recently written to my Ministerial colleagues about the area health authority's proposal to close the centre. I fully appreciate the concern of many local people—and of the Crewe Community Health Council—that the useful facilities provided at the centre should not be lost. But in 1974 the 55 places at the centre were only 30 per cent. occupied. The centre was originally established for miners, but I understand that the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation now relies upon rehabilitation centres with more up-to-date facilities, including those for industrial retraining, which are not available at Oakmere. And of the 49 patients discharged from the centre in 1974, only seven were miners.

I have read the staff comments on the AHA consultative document on the proposed closure. There will obviously have to be taken into account before the AHA reaches a final decision.

I must reiterate that it is of crucial importance that national health resources should be used in the most cost-effective manner for the benefit of patients. This consideration is paramount in a period of economic restraint, and it must influence decisions on priorities by health authorities, including those for the continued use, change of use or closure of particular buildings.

The Department's revised guidance on the procedures to be followed when consideration is being given to the possible closure or change of use of health buildings was issued to health authorities in October 1975. The new procedures are aimed at providing for resources to be redeployed quickly and without undue complication, provided that there is full consultation with relevant local interests. If a community health council is unable to agree an area health authority's proposal for a closure, it should submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter-proposal for the use of the building, and if agreement is still not reached, the proposal will be referred to the Secretary of State for Social Services for his approval.

It may be thought, on a superficial judgment, that the closure of hospitals amounts to the squandering of valuable National Health Service assets. But I remind the hon. Member that it is more than ever necessary to keep down recurrent expenditure. It may well be that unwanted hospitals when sold do not realise anything like the capital sum which it would cost to build them, but the saving in revenue expenditure from rationalising hospital services and disposing of surplus buildings can add up to a very great deal over the years.

But I do not wish to end on a depressing note. Many of the health facilities in the hon. Member's constituency are of more than adequate standard, and of course the devotion and dedication of the staff in the National Health Service is something of which we can all be justly proud. We must never take it for granted and it is good to remind ourselves of their worth.

The Cheshire County Council is well to the fore in the provision of community social services. These facilities are an essential back-up to the present and any probable future pattern of hospital services in the area.

When eight days ago I discovered that I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to debate the question of educational maintenance allowance today, it was with mixed feelings, not because I did not particularly want to be among the handful of hon. Members who would be here this afternoon but because I suspected, or almost hoped, that the debate might well be irrelevant. It seemed to me almost certain that some time this week my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Employment would deliver a package dealing with the problems of juvenile employment, and that it would include a reconsideration of educational maintenance allowance. I was extremely disappointed when I listened to my right hon. Friend's statement on Tuesday and when I read it carefully afterwards to find that he had made no mention of the matter.

Therefore, perhaps this debate is even more relevant than it would have been. I hope that during the next two months the Government will carefully consider what contribution can be made to dealing with the present difficulties of juvenile unemployment by encouraging people who would benefit from it to stay on at school.

The topic has traditionally been ignored by the Government. Every so often there is the production of an authoritative report on the subject which makes recommendations, but the Government appear to take no notice. We could go back a long way, but I do not think that it is relevant to go back beyond 1957, when the Weaver Report clearly set out the problems of maintaining young people at school beyond the compulsory leaving age. It stated the cost and recommended grants.

From then on very little happened. One or two local authorities made minor improvements to the scheme, but we never got a national scheme off the ground. In April 1974 the Government carried out a study, but it has not made much difference. In that year the Expenditure Committee of the House of Commons carefully examined educational maintenance allowances and produced a report which was useful not only in its recommendations but in much of the detailed evidence, particularly that submitted by such bodies as the Child Poverty Action Group. The House found time to debate the report, but the Government were unable to comment on it for a long time. It was almost two years before they produced their White Paper on it. It took them 21 months to think about it and to produce their printed response. One might have hoped that after that time they would come up with something worth while, but they produced one of the slimmest documents we have ever seen, taking up some of the space with apologies because their remarks were not even worthy of a White Paper.

The Government's comments were very disappointing. They suggested that they could do nothing to amend the present scheme and that any support would not come from education authorities but would have to come from the Department of Health and Social Security in the context of general family support. It appeared that those concerned with educational maintenance allowance had lost the day. But I hope that it may be only an interim comment by the Government and that they may yet have a change of heart.

It is difficult to find out what changes have occurred in the allowance since the autumn of 1974. Every time I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State Questions about the matter he shows that he still relies on figures for 1974 and says that he has no intention of carrying out a new census of local authorities to discover whether they have increased the benefits or improved the means test provisions. Even when one asks how many sixth-formers are receiving free school meals, to make a comparison and to discover the take-up of the educational maintenance allowance, the Government are again unable to help.

As far as I can discover from information which I have received in Stockport and in Oldham, where I live, and from the Child Poverty Action Group, the situation has not improved since 1974. It has probably become worse, because the allowances and the means tests have probably not been revised as quickly as changes in the rate of inflation.

There were two variables in the 1974 figures—the number of grants by local authorities and the amount, both of which varied widely between authority and authority. Let us first consider the number of allowances paid, which we can take as a percentage of the school population. Knowsley paid out allowances to 9·6 per cent. of the children staying on after the compulsory school-leaving age. Next door in Liverpool only 4·2 per cent. received the allowances. One would have expected the figures to be exactly the other way round, but whichever way round they were, one would not have expected such a big difference.

Both those authorities pay out to quite a large percentage compared with some others. For example, Stockport paid only 2·2 per cent. It uses the same scales as Trafford, which is also within the Greater Manchester area, where 4·4 per cent. received the allowances. It seems extremely odd that there should be such variations.

In Oldham the take-up rate is exactly the same as for Stockport, yet by the criterion of rateable value and other criteria Oldham is a much poorer area, and one would have expected far more educational maintenance allowances to be paid there. Nearly at the bottom of the scale in the 1974 figures was Shropshire, with 0·1 per cent. of its children receiving the allowances. I believe that Dudley was bottom with 0·07 per cent. I assume that both areas have hardly ever heard of the allowances.

There are almost as startling variations between the amounts paid out. In Hampshire—near the top of the list—the average payment in 1974 was almost £200, admittedly to only 3·2 per cent. of its children staying on beyond school-leaving age. Walsall paid £197. In the Isle of Wight, which one would assume to be an area rather similar to Hampshire, the amount was £31, and in Staffordshire it was £39. Even in Shropshire, which paid out a very small percentage, the average amount was only £48. The amounts paid out do not seem to fit into any pattern of wealth or social deprivation. The total amount was not all that large in 1971—£1·5 million—and it involved only 28,000 pupils.

It is clear that there is a wide variation between areas in the number who apply for the allowances and the amount of help they receive. It is also clear that the means test scales have steadily slipped behind increases in wages and even in supplementary benefits. Information that the Child Poverty Action Group has given me suggests that one must now be below supplementary benefits level in some local authorities to receive the maximum educational maintenance allowance.

I wish to deal with the problems that affect those who contemplate staying on at school. They are well aware of the family pressures in terms of income, and they realise that if they stay on at school it will increase the burden in the family. They are also conscious that many of their friends who leave school will have large incomes at their disposal. Probably teenagers at work have more money to spend than many other wage-earners because they have few fixed commitments. Therefore, there is pressure exerted on those pupils who wish to stay on at school from their families and their friends, and indeed there is unintentional pressure in the schools themselves.

Although we talk about free education, there are many aspects of school activities that cost a good deal of money to indulge. Money is required for participation in school sports, functions, and so on, and financial pressures build up in those ways. Pupils who pursue A-level courses in geography are often involved in expenditure connected with field courses. The same is true of some domestic subjects such as needlework and dressmaking, which again involve a considerable amount of expenditure on materials not provided by the schools.

As a result pupils are led to taking Saturday jobs in order to help out with problems at home. That means that they may well neglect their school studies—studies which are necessary if they are to benefit from sixth-form education. Therefore, very real human problems are involved.

There is a strong case for raising the amounts involved. There are wide variations from one region to another. In some parts of the country 50 per cent. of pupils stay on for sixth-form education, but in other areas the figure drops to 10 per cent. The figure varies, not because of the type of school but because of the financial background of parents.

One of the strongest elements in seeking to raise the school-leaving age relates to the question of regional variations. Far too many children left school before they took their O-levels or CSE exams. If that consideration applied in raising the school-leaving age from 15 to 16, it also applies if pupils are to remain at school after age 16 if they are to have the benefit of full-time sixth-form education or of education in a further education college. I am not suggesting that we should raise the school-leaving age again but that we should make the financial provision necessary to enable people to be encouraged to stay on at school.

Comparisons have also been made of costs between those children who decide to leave school to get a job and those who decide to stay on. If they stay on to obtain a further qualification, it may mean that such pupils are more easily able to obtain a job. We must bear in mind the economic consideration that if a pupil leaves school and is unable to obtain employment, he or she is entitled to £6 to £8 a week in supplementary benefit. If we are prepared to pay that sum to a person who is obtaining no education, why can we not consider expenditure of that nature to give encouragement to a pupil to stay on for further education?

In the present economic circumstances, it is no use the Goverment asking the local education authority to increase allowances or to make more generous grants. Any action that is taken should come from the Government. The Government must regard this as a specific problem that is to be dealt with. The unemployment situation can be eased in this way. I suggest that the Government should either take over the scheme in its entirety or lay down the view that for every pound of local effort the Government will match it with grant.

In suggesting a specific action, I suggest that the means test should be at least as good as in regard to free school meals and that the situation should be quickly improved. Far more people if they qualify should obtain not the minimum but the maximum grant. That figure should be raised to around the £7 mark at least. At the same time we should make it clear to schools that they should inform all pupils that, unless they obtain full benefit by remaining in the sixth form, they should not be there. It is important that we should not merely keep pupils on at school but should ensure that while there they are usefully employed.

My time for debate is strictly limited, and there are many more points which I should like to make. I conclude by saying that I am worried by the considerable variation between the system of education as applied to various parts of the United Kingdom. It is odd that the situation in Scotland should be so much better than the educational system applied to English children. Will the Minister possibly announce some firm action on this subject? I hope that, at least in the next few weeks before schools reassemble, he will carefully examine the situation and take action to improve the level and number of educational maintainance allowances.

I suppose it is appropriate on the last day of a difficult parliamentary period that the House should debate once again the subject of education. We have spent more of this Session, whether in the House or in Committee, debating the subject of education than any other single subject.

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) was spared membership of the Standing Committee on the Education Bill. The length of sittings in that Committee put the sittings on the 1944 Education Act to shame. Indeed, they beat that original measure into a cocked hat. Not only were the sittings longer in absolute terms but, measured by the length of debate per clause, they beat that Bill by a multiplier of 12.

What has impressed me most about our education debates has been the quality of contribution from my own side of the political fence. There are hon. Members who are concerned primarily to fight the battles of yesteryear and to be concerned with the maintenance of selection at age 11. I believe that that battle in essence has been won and lost. Although there are still a few dinosaurs in existence—and I gather one or two exist in the Greater Manchester area—they will suffer the fate of all dinosaurs before too long and will be consigned to museums. I repeat that that battle has been won. The real battle for the future is to secure greater equality of opportunity in the 16 to 19 age range and to ensure that there is a much higher take-up in the rate of education opportunities than in the past.

We have raised the school-leaving age relatively recently—indeed, it is the second time that the school-leaving age has been raised since the war. But the answer is not to raise the school-leaving age again. My hon. Friend was right to say that that is not the right strategy. We are talking about extending opportunities and participation rather than about compulsion to remain in full-time education for those who have exceeded their sixteenth birthdays.

I wish to register a note of marginal dissent from what my hon. Friend said in referring to those who remain at school. I am sure that he would share my view that for many young people further education colleges offer more suitable courses and better opportunities.

Perhaps I may draw my hon. Friend's attention to what the Government are attempting to do with the pilot schemes of vocational preparation which we announced recently. I cannot stress too often that they have to be pilot schemes, because this is an area of the curriculum where we have too little expertise, and where, because provision was so deficient in the past, there are few who can claim expertise in devising suitable courses for that very large number of people who hitherto dropped out of education once they attained the statutory school-leaving age.

We very much hope that in future it will be possible to build up those schemes and that this will be one means of attracting back into education and training, not simply for a 12-week period—that is merely an appetiser—many people who hitherto dropped out at far too early an age.

We are very much concerned, then, as a Government with the problems that beset the 16 to 19 age group in both the short term and the longer term.

Concerning the longer-term problems, my hon. Friend may be interested to know that recent surveys show that only 8 per cent. of sixth form pupils and 12 per cent. of further education students come from homes where the parents are partly skilled or unskilled workers. He will be well aware that that is a substantial part of the population—some 23 per cent. But 52 per cent. of sixth formers and 41 per cent. of FE students come from the professional, managerial and senior technical classes. Together those classes form a marginally lower proportion of the population—21·5 per cent.—than the partly skilled and unskilled workers, yet there is this very much higher take-up rate.

There may be all sorts of reasons for this, and I do not want to give any simple or simple-minded explanation of it today, I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right in the general gist of what he said—that relative poverty is a factor here. I think that that is inescapable.

With all the improvements which have been made over the years, and particularly in the last couple of years, in family support arrangements, the problem is clearly much more subtle than simply one of family support. That is why we have a great interest in the area to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. That is why we have a great deal of sympathy with his remarks, and why we shall continue to study this problem in the hope of reaching some solution that would be acceptable to the House.

Apart from these longer-term considerations, there is a short-term problem and a tragic one. My hon. Friend stressed very heavily the argument about youth unemployment. He was right to do so. The current unemployment situation is obviously a threat to everyone, but no one suffers more seriously than the school leaver, not only because of the level of unemployment among school leavers, but because of the argument, which I think is absolutely valid, that to be faced at the beginning of one's working life—or what should be one's working life—with the spectre of unemployment can scar a young person for the rest of his working life. We are determined, therefore, as a Government, to do everything we can to protect such young people from that terrible threat.

The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to which my hon. Friend rightly drew attention, are one aspect of that. None of us would say that that can be the end of the story, although how the story will be developed is as yet a matter for speculation. We shall certainly not rest on our oars.

We are continuing to discuss with the TUC and with the local authorities further proposals designed to help the young. A Press release from the TUC two or three days ago says that

"the TUC is disappointed that the Government has not taken steps to encourage more young people to remain at school beyond 16 years of age by providing financial help to their parents. The TUC will therefore be seeking an early meeting with the Education Secretary to see what action can be taken to Improve and extend the educational maintenance allowances that some local education authorities already make available for this purpose."

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I had a meeting with a deputation from the TUC only yesterday. We had a most fruitful discussion. I hope that discussions will continue—and continue to be as fruitful as was yesterday's meeting. Certainly one of the matters that we shall continue to discuss will be the possibility of improved educational maintenance allowances.

It is tempting to dismiss as inadequate the efforts of local education authorities under the present system of discretionary allowances. My hon. Friend quoted some statistics, upon which I shall not comment in any detail, not least because, alas, my own constituency is part of that county to which he drew attention as having a not over-exciting record—Shropshire.

It is not conventional for Ministers to make constituency speeches at the Dispatch Box, and I leave the subject of Shropshire very rapidly. But I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that there is some educational light shining out of the gloom of that county at least. I hope he will recognise, too, that local authorities are continuing to make grants under the present discretionary scheme despite their gross financial difficulties.

My hon. Friend referred to thead hoc survey carried out in the autumn term of 1974. I imagine that hon. Members will be familiar with that, because copies were placed in the Library of the House at the time. That survey certainly revealed the extent of the discrepancies of provision among education authorities. This was exactly the point made by my hon. Friend.

But the survey also showed, interestingly enough, that the authorities had not a bad track record between the spring term of 1970 and the autumn term of 1974, the period covered by the survey. During that period EMAs increased on average from £72 to £125. I believe that the Under-Secretary of State gave a parliamentary answer on that subject on 7th July. This is an increase of 74 per cent. over the period, compared with a rise of about 54 per cent. in the cost of living.

What has happened since?

I know from the other Questions that my hon. Friend put down for answer on 7th July that he would like us to carry out a further survey. But if my hon. Friend will bear in mind the cost of such a survey in terms of resources and manpower and in terms of other forms of expenditure, and compare that with the value we could expect to gain from it, perhaps he will recognise that we are right to say that now is not the moment.

We are all aware of the defects of the present system. My hon. Friend is aware of them, I am aware of them, and so is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We know what the situation was less than two years ago. It is reasonable to speculate—we have to be careful about using the word "reasonable" in the education world these days—that the situation might well have become worse, given the present economic situation. That was a speculation of my hon. Friend and I am inclined to share it. I do not think that we should gain anything of value from a further survey.

The concept of a fully mandatory system of EMAs has, of course, immediate attractions. But I have to emphasise again the high cost of such a scheme. My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that proposals for substantial additions to public expenditure could scarcely be less welcome than they are at this moment. This is exactly the wrong moment for such a proposition.

Perhaps there is a little more hope in pursuing an examination of a matter to which my hon. Friend drew attention at the very end of his speech—the discrepancy between the provision in Scotland and Northern Ireland and that in England and Wales. In the light of my former responsibilities for devolution, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Scots have a lot to teach us.

The Scots are for ever reminding me that they have had a comprehensive system of education for many years, although I would want to enter one or two caveats to that proposition. It is also true that for 20 years they have operated sensible and practical arrangements which, they might justifiably claim, combine the virtues of a discretionary system with those of a mandatory system.

Indeed, I may say that in the discussions which my right hon. Friend and I had yesterday with the TUC, mention was made of the Scottish system. Let me describe in essence how it works. The decision whether to make an award is up to the local authority entirely. There is no evidence that authorities in Scotland treat this lightly or arbitrarily. But, having taken the decision, to make an award—a bursary, as they call it—they have to pay an award in accordance with scales and net parental income levels which are laid down in regulations by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not suggesting that such a well-established scheme, and least of all, the financial arrangements in it, would read over automatically into the English and Welsh situation. That is quite a different proposition. But at least we can benefit from the study of such a scheme.

I cannot say today whether a substantial improvement in the EMA scheme will prove to be feasible or whether it is the best way to improve the lot of young people above school-leaving age, because there are other measures which the Government will continue to examine. But my hon. Friend can rest assured that this is a possibility that we shall take seriously into account in our deliberations, and I am extremely grateful to him for raising it today.

It may seem ironic, not to say inappropriate, that on the eve of the Summer Recess, in the middle of the worst drought in living memory, I should be seeking the active implementation of flood prevention measures in my constituency. However, by the time that the House resumes its sittings in the autumn, it will be nearly two years since, in November 1974, large numbers of residents and industrial and commercial companies in Mawneys and Collier Row were devastated by flooding twice in the space of one week.

Anyone who has experienced the damage, distress and discomfort of flooding will know what that meant to my constituents. It so happens that I have had the experience twice, and it is not one that I should care to repeat—sodden, ruined carpets, damaged furniture, a smell of dirt and damp that never really goes away, and all the inconvenience that such flooding occasions.

But, in case there should be anyone who does not understand the implications of flooding on this scale for an individual house owner, let me cite one complaint which I have received from a totally disabled ex-Service man on a 100 per cent. war pension. He first wrote to me on 20th November 1974 to complain about these two instances of flooding which had caused such damage and inconveniece to him and his property. Imagine how he felt when he wrote to me again on Saturday 17th May 1975:

"I am sitting amongst a scene of total desolation. New carpets and furniture ripped up and the house invaded by flood water.… This letter is written under extremely trying conditions, perched on a table above the flood waters. To date nothing has been done, no action taken.… Under these conditions my wife is near mental breakdown and I feel like murder."

His letter is headed "Under siege by floods".

His feelings can be well understood when one realises that that letter was written 15 months ago and still the same could be said—that no effective action has been taken, apart from the supervision of culverts and the water course. The River Rom improvement scheme is urgently necessary. It is a matter of acute concern to many of my constituents.

Responsibility for this scheme is divided. Primarily, it is a matter for the local council, the London Borough of Havering. But there are also interested parties in the Thames Water Authority and in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. In any event, where there is divided responsibility there seems almost inevitably to be delay. That in itself is not blameworthy. It is merely an indication of the need to co-ordinate several authorities in a common project. The local council has this scheme under way, and it is in order that it should be implemented as soon as possible that I raise this matter today.

But in the recent past two factors have given me cause for anxiety. When one considers that this is a pressing matter, it is very worrying that there should be any delay at all. Although I have spoken of two incidents of flooding, in November 1974 and in May 1975, there has been flooding on other occasions; for example, in January 1975 and in April 1975. Unfortunately, even the drought is no defence because, a fortnight ago on 20th July, a violent storm once again brought serious flooding to the area. I have submitted photographs to the Minister taken from a local newspaper showing, in North Street, buses and cars proceeding down the road awash in a foot of water and, in the case of a company, Macarthys Pharmaceuticals, crates of their products floating out into their store yard. Such is the devastation and damage caused even in conditions where we have had very little rain.

One does not need to be a qualified meteorologist to observe that there is now an erratic pattern in our weather making us vulnerable to violent thunderstorms, so, in addition to the delay and discomfort already experienced, there is a further risk with which my constituents have to contend, and that is the possibility of such flooding recurring even at the height of summer. I contend that for them this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. It is not reasonable for people, every time black clouds drift over and there is a hint of rain, to fear for their property, especially in a holiday season when they may want to be away from their homes.

There are two factors in the recent past which have given me cause for concern. The first concerns the grant which the Ministry can make towards the cost of this scheme. I say this in no critical sense but merely as an illustration of the time that these matters take that it was in January of this year that application was made by the London Borough of Havering to the Ministry for this grant. Six months have gone by. On 19th July the Minister was able to assure me that a decision would be taken within three weeks, the intervening delay having been caused by the need for certain technical details to be resolved with the different authorities involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to announce some conclusion today.

More importantly, however, the local council announced in a Press release on 17th June,

"Havering may suffer financially because of overspending by other Councils. Expenditure by Havering Council for the last two years has been in line with government requirements. During the present year Havering budgeted to spend just under 11 per cent. in total above the last year's expenditure. This was in line with the government's guidelines, and took account only of inflation, any other increased costs being met by economies in running existing services. However, other Councils last year appear to have exceeded their estimates and furthermore plan to spend this year more than previously agreed. The government has now said that if this is so all local authorities must now keep to a 9 per cent. increase on last year, which would mean cuts of £800,000 in this year's estimates.

"'A cut in our budget of £800,000 this year' said Councillor Jack Moultrie, leader of the council, 'would mean … no capital programme at all.'"

Subsequently the Press release went on to detail the implications for the present capital programme. It mentions, apart from two other projects in my constituency, the River Rom improvement scheme on which design and administrative work is to proceed so that no delay is caused. The scheme is to be reviewed in the autumn. This is what gives me cause for concern.

I wrote to the Department of the Environment and received the following reassurance from the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) in a letter of 20th July. He said:

"I should emphasise that the advice given in Circular 45/76 about a 9 per cent. increase from out-turn 1975–76 to out-turn 1976–77 is no more than a guideline. It is not intended to apply rigorously to each local authority. We know that, for demographic and other reasons, it would be quite in accordance with the Government's policies on individual services for certain local authorities to increase their expenditure by more than 9 per cent. On the other hand we know that there are authorities that should be increasing their expenditure by less than that. But these are decisions which each autthority must take in the light of its own local circumstances and knowing the spirit of the Government's guidance."

I agree with the Department that it would be wrong to interfere with the autonomy of authorities in local government to make their own decisions within their discretion. I hope that this project will be regarded by all concerned as something which ought to have the highest priority for the reasons I have outlined.

We have reached the point at this time in the Session when at least some of the obstacles have been cleared away. The Thames Water Authority has confirmed to me in a letter of 21st June that it has supplied the information necessary to the Ministry. It comprises a report on flooding on all the River Rom and River Beam and a cost-benefit analysis in justification of the Borough of Havering's scheme and future works in the Thames Water Authority's five-year capital works programme. The Thames Water Authority has already approved the technical aspects of the borough's scheme and it is now up to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to decide whether to approve the borough's application.

It is easy to see the amount of coordination and correspondence that is involved. My file on this is one-inch thick. That obstacle is now on one side. I hope that the Minister will have something favourable to report about the awarding of the grant, which will be another aid to the implementation of this scheme. If that is so, it would be up to the council to press ahead with the scheme as fast as possible, given that it makes the decision to allocate the necessary resources. I hope that it will do so and that it will be able to find, within the guidance given by the Department of the Environment, the opportunity to proceed with this scheme, which is in no way an improvement to the amenities but is simply to prevent the flooding of this area which is happening with increasing frequency.

I shall look to the council to take the necessary action as soon as possible. I am grateful to the Minister of State for his attendance and attention to this matter. If he is able to assist by approving a grant for this scheme it will be for the local authority to proceed. It would be intolerable for residents of Romford to have to continue to live under this constant threat of flooding. I shall hope for some encouragement from the Minister. My constituents have surely suffered enough.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Rover Rom improvement scheme. Land drainage is an important subject and does not always receive the public attention that it deserves. The River Rom is a tributary of the Thames at Dagenham and flows through Romford downstream until it becomes "main river" when it is the responsibility of the Thames Water Authority.

Upstream of Romford the river is the responsibility of either the riparian owners or the local authority, which is the London Borough of Havering. As the hon. Member has pointed out, extensive flooding occurred in November 1974 and May 1975 on the borough's section of the river. Previous floods occurred in 1947, 1958 and 1968. In 1970, the Essex River Authority worked out proposals for partially alleviating the flooding but, following the reorganisation of water authorities in April 1974, the TWA, which had taken over the river, decided not to proceed with those proposals.

The hon. Member has already explained in graphic terms the need for a flood alleviation scheme in the area. He has been pressing for some time to get action. Clearly, where there is divided responsibility there will be problems of co-ordination. There has been no undue delay between all of the authorities concerned, including my Ministry. The hon. Member has mentioned some of the problems which have occurred because of the need for these improvement works. He has referred to the distressing cases that have arisen. I am sure that there will be general sympathy with all concerned. Equally, the House will be anxious to know what action can be taken.

The difficulty here has been to find a method of dealing with the problem which did not result in flooding downstream. The London Borough of Havering submitted its proposals to us in September last year. It left a number of questions unanswered. In particular it did not deal with the potential problems downstream. I make no criticism of the borough council about that. It clearly wanted to get ahead with work to protect people and the property in and around Romford. It was not responsible for the downstream works which are the responsibility of the TWA.

Could the Minister expand his reply to take account of this wider problem involving the TWA? It is possible that the TWA might have proposals for making the River Rom part of what it calls the main river and thus taking it within its responsibility. The problem has been that the necessary procedure for doing that would take as long as 12 months. In turn, that would prejudice the likelihood of financial contributions to the scheme since, if the River Rom became the responsibility of the TWA, it would have complete financial responsibility and would not wish to advance money before that time.

Without knowing the exact details of the point to which the hon. Member refers, all I can say is that such approval as has been given has been based upon the proposals submitted to us. The hon. Member will realise that when the Ministry has to consider a scheme for grant aid under the Land Drainage Acts, it must be sure that the problem is dealt with as a whole. We had to wait until the council and the water authority had discussed the proposal in more detail and come forward with a joint scheme covering the whole river.

I should mention that one of the major difficulties was that the Land Drainage Committee of the Thames Water Authority, which is responsible for all land drainage and flood prevention works in the area, had fully committed its capital resources over the next three or four years—mainly on works associated with the Thames barrier—and was unable to undertake any additional commitments. However, the two authorities were finally able to agree on joint action and submitted a comprehensive scheme for approval on 15th June last. That is less than two months ago.

Therefore, the Ministry has had only that short period in which to assess this comprehensive development with the parties concerned and to reach a conclusion. There has not been undue delay there. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has not suggested that there has. The scheme will involve the council in expenditure of £400,000 on that part of the river known as the Cedar Road section, which is higher up than the part which is the responsibility of the Thames Water Authority, and about £150,000 on further work upstream. The authority will then need to spend about £660,000 on work downstream, including a flood reservoir at Dagenham. The total cost of the scheme will be about £1¼ million. The council will be eligible for a grant of 50 per cent. on its share, while the water authority will qualify for a slightly higher rate.

There is one difficulty. As I have explained, it is essential to look at the river as a whole and not to cure flooding in one part at the expense of another. I understand that the council is anxious to get ahead with its work, but, as I said, the water authority will be unable to make a start on the work downstream for possibly three or four years. Therefore, as a temporary measure, and in order to avoid flooding downstream, it will be necessary to construct a throttle device to restrict the flow of water in the event of floods taking place before the water authority's part of the scheme has been completed. Inevitably, that will mean that the full benefits of the council's scheme will not be felt until the water authority's work is completed. We realise that this is not a very satisfactory solution, but, on the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread, it is the best that can be done.

The hon. Gentleman has naturally been pressing us for some time to give approval to this scheme. I fully understand and accept that. Part of the job that a Member is elected to carry out is to prod Ministers and their Departments from time to time. I am sure that for his part the hon. Gentleman will also realise that it is our job to ensure that public money is not spent on work until we are fully satisfied that it will achieve the necessary results. That is why I have pointed to some of the problems. The fact is that work on the Cedar Road part, higher up the river, could create problems for the downstream area unless a throttle device were installed. Therefore, we had to wait until agreement was reached between the borough council and the water authority before we could examine the scheme as a whole.

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that, having examined the scheme, we are satisfied that it is technically sound and fully justifiable in terms of the likely cost and benefit. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in these days that is a matter which needs particular care in the assessment not only of the technical aspects, but of the financial costings, and there is the further complication of the number of authorities involved. Therefore, I am pleased to say that we shall be writing to the authorities early next week giving approval in principle to the whole scheme and telling the borough that it may go out to tender on the Cedar Road section straight away.

I recognise the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the effects of Government guidance on local authority spending. However, I stress, as he did, that the Department of the Environment circular was a guideline only. It is for the local authority to decide its priorities.

I am sure that the news of the Ministry's approval will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents who, as he rightly said, have suffered from flooding over many years. I can only express the hope that the work will now go ahead quickly to afford them as much protection as possible before the next flood occurs.

I am sure that the local authority and those concerned will also take into account some of the other aspects—the price which will have to be paid if the work is not carried out, the effects of flooding, the distress, damage, and so on. That is a matter on which I cannot give guidance. The local authority and those involved must decide their own priorities.

I am sure that there will be general pleasure that, after only two months' assessment by the Ministry of the background, the technical aspects and the general costings, we have been able to give the kind of message that we have given to the House and to the hon. Gentleman this afternoon. I hope that those concerned will go ahead as quickly as possible to assist the people who have been so greatly affected by flooding in the past.

I am glad of the opportunity to raise as a subject the use of the drug Eraldin and its effects. Perhaps I ought to give a brief explanation at the very beginning in order to avoid any confusion. Practolol is a drug sold under the trade name Eraldin. It is a drug used for the treatment of angina and other serious heart disorders. If I may, I shall refer to Practolol by its trade name, Eraldin. It is generally best known as Eraldin, and the trade name will avoid confusion—apart from the fact that it will also eliminate some of my pronunciation difficulties.

Eraldin was first made available for use in June 1970. It has been estimated that the product has been used by more than 250,000 people for a period of at least a year each. In June 1974, four years after it was first brought on to the market, a letter appeared in theBritish Medical Journal relating to the appearance of an inflammatory condition of the eyes together with skin rashes and a suggestion that the only common factor was the use of Eraldin by the patients concerned.

This report was discussed by the Committee on Safety of Medicines and with Imperial Chemical Industries, which was the manufacturer of the drug. A warning was sent to doctors and to pharmacists by ICI on 12th July 1974, with a recommendation that any patients receiving Eraldin and suffering from the eye and skin conditions should have the treatment withdrawn immediately. A request was also made that reports on patients in whom this condition was seen should be sent to ICI and the Committee on Safety of Medicines.

On 9th October 1974, ICI sent a second warning letter. Then, on 21st December 1974, a letter from Professor Reed and others appeared in theLancet about a new side effect, sclerosing peritonitis, which consists, I understand, of a condition in which two layers of stomach lining fuse together. An operation is necessary to separate the tissues, and from a number of reports it is known that 10 people have died from the effects of such an operation.

In January 1975 the Committee on Safety of Medicines sent out a letter to all doctors drawing attention to the connection between certain side effects and the drug Eraldin, and a current, up-to-date position was given then. On 18th April 1975, ICI sent a third warning letter dealing particularly with the sclerosing peritonitis effect. On 30th July 1975, ICI restricted the use of the drug and it was withdrawn front general use. I understand that by 1st October 1975 its use was confined to hospitals and over short periods only.

On checking through this chronicle of events, many questions arise, questions which demand an answer and must be answered.

Why was there the long delay in the side effects being officially reported? Why was it necessary to rely on a letter in theBritish Medical Journal to disclose the side effects of Eraldin? How many reports were sent by general practitioners to the Committee on Safety of Medicines or to ICI in response to the various warning letters and requests for reports? To what extent did the established system operated by the interested bodies substantiate or fail to substantiate the existence of the side effects? To what extent was there a breakdown in communications? When ICI sent a warning letter to doctors and pharmacists on 11th July 1974, why did the Committee on Safety of Medicines not act until January 1975 in the same way?

We have noted that Eraldin was withdrawn from general use in July 1975. Over a year later, on 23rd July this year to be precise, I received a letter from a Birmingham constituent who claims that he was on the drug up to June this year. He states that his prescriptions were mostly repeated by telephone without him seeing his doctor. He discovered the facts about Eraldin from his chemist. He had gone with his prescription to his chemist's shop. For some months, his chemist had queried whether he ought to be on the drug. In June, when he went along to his chemist with his prescription, he was told that the stocks of Eraldin had run out and that he would need some other kind of prescription on future occasions.

My constituent goes on to claim that in June he notified the doctors at the medical centre that he attended about the ban on the drug. I have since spoken to this constituent and he confirms what he stated in his letter.

If these allegations are true, and in the light of these events, efforts surely must be made to improve communications, to find out to what extent the drug is still being used, to ban its use, to determine what stocks chemists still hold, and certainly to take action to get the stocks withdrawn.

In a reply to a Question of mine on 19th July, the Minister of State said,

"I have asked the Committee on Safety of Medicines to look into a number of specific issues related to the restricted us of Eraldin."—[Official Report, 19th July 1976; Vol. 915, c.386.]

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will say what those specific issues are. I appreciate that he is stepping into the breach and that I have not dealt with him on these matters, but I know that he will do his best.

In raising these questions today I feel the responsibility of not being destructive about the close working partnership that exists between the drug manufacturers, the medical profession who prescribe and the pharmacists who dispense. All are people of good will and integrity who save many lives and make life more tolerable for many more. I am not insensitive to the need to maintain public confidence. I have a great deal of respect and understanding for firms such as ICI for the way in which they research and experiment to help their fellow human beings, and it must be said that many have benefited from the drug Eraldin.

I have great respect for the medical profession and the pharmacists, who in turn have the confidence of their patients to a great degree, but eminent people in the medical profession have continually made public statements about the use of drugs. They have said many times that one cannot be certain whether a drug has side effects, and that is accepted. Many drugs are known to have unpleasant side effects but they continue to be used. It is a question of balance and experience in the use of drugs.

Generally, the public accept the reality of the situation, and nothing that I say in this House about Eraldin will change that. They will always allow for and accept a degree of imperfection in this life, but they will not wish to use—knowingly or unknowingly—a drug such as Eraldin with such tragic side effects if used for long periods.

I submit that once the link has been established between the drug and the chronic side effects, any semblance of hoodwinking about the cause and the effect of their medical condition will not be tolerated, and nor should it. Here lies the real threat to the close working partnership that I have mentioned and to public confidence, and that is why I want to say as emphatically as I can that everyone concerned must co-operate fully to bring into the open the true facts about Eraldin, determine what went wrong and establish how many people are affected and to what degree. Some already know that they are affected. Some have come to know in the past few weeks as a result of newspaper reporting. Some still do not know. I say that they have a right to know, and I say, too, that it is the duty of all of us who are concerned to see that they are informed.

I have read newspaper reports that about 500 people are affected. In reply to a Question, again on 19th July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said:

"The Committee on Safety of Medicines comparative index of adverse reactions currently shows 60–70 cases of sclerosing peritonitis and nearly 500 cases of eye reactions and about the same number of skin reaction."—[Official Report, 19th July 1976; Vol. 95, c.386.]

Those are cases known by the committee. I claim that those figures are unrealistic and do not in any way represent the real extent of this tragedy.

I set off with one case in my constituency. Three weeks ago, after an article in the BirminghamSunday Mercury, I soon found six more cases in my constituency. An action group has been formed in Birmingham to cover the West Midlands, and up to a week ago it had found 60 more. Most of them had been alerted by further reports that had appeared in the BirminghamPost and Mail and up to the time of reading the report they had no knowledge of the link between Eraldin and their medical condition.

These newspapers have done a public service for people in the West Midlands. I am convinced that if this were repeated in the towns and cities of this country, hundreds more would be found. The Department or the Committee on Safety of Medicines ought to contact these newspapers or, better still, the secretary of the action group, a Mrs. Trainor, of 261 Barclay Road, Warley, whose mother, a constituent of mine, suffers from side effects. I am sure that it would enable them to bring their numbers up to date, and they would get a better insight into the depth and gravity of this problem. This group has my full support. It is determined to find those who are affected, to find out to what extent they are affected, and to inform them how to proceed.

Many Members of this House, who have constituents who are in particular difficulty, have contacted me. Only this morning my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) mentioned a Mr. Edwards in his constituency, and people are being added to the list day by day. It is also thought that some general practitioners must know of some patients whom they have treated with Eraldin and who still remain on their list and are now being treated for the side effects. It is thought that some doctors can help in this situation.

ICI, the manufacturers of the drug, claim that it has no legal liability to compensate patients who have suffered ill effects. No doubt it holds this view sincerely and, in these circumstances, the company can be said to be acting reasonably well when it has offered to make compensatory payment. It has also advised people who think that they have a claim first to consult their doctor and then to consult a solicitor. ICI has said that it will meet the medical and legal costs of any genuine claim made to head office. That is also a most helpful gesture.

Even so, I am sure that ICI will readily admit that its attitude on liability is based on sound legal advice that it has obtained. While the company feels that this is sound advice, which it can safely accept, it cannot be deemed to be conclusive or final in any way. Advice is never final. There is always plenty about and more to come. I feel sure that ICI will agree that further negotiations between interested parties and their representatives will need to take place about reasonable compensation payments.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on 12th July and enclosed letters from my constituents who have suffered from the chronic side effects of this drug. Their letters tell the story of the misery and suffering caused by the use of the drug, such as loss of eyesight caused by the drying of the tear ducts, severe skin rashes, deafness in some cases, and damage to the stomach, which I mentioned previously. In that letter I asked my right hon. Friend to make an immediate statement which would help and to show some concern for those who are victims of this drug and, in the longer term, to hold an official inquiry into the whole affair in order to maintain public confidence and to ensure justice and fair treatment.

In the short time that I have available in this debate I have raised many questions, but there are many more to be asked. All need to be answered, and the only way that the many vexed questions will be answered is by an inquiry. Any help and advice which is quickly forthcoming from my hon. Friend's Department will not only please the many people who have suffered side effect illnesses from Eraldin—those that are known and the many that are unknown—but will also please many Members in this House who are greatly concerned that their constituents should be treated fairly and justly in the tragic circumstances they endure.

The people of this country are usually reasonable and understanding about these matters when they are properly informed and consulted. They will not be ignored. I ask my hon. Friend to act now and to give all Eraldin sufferers a fair deal.

With the leave of the House, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) has raised an important matter with all his customary concern for the interests of his constituents. He is a constant friend of people in special need, whether they be in his constituency or elsewhere, and it is typical of him that he should be here on the day that the House rises for the Summer Recess to press the interests of people who have sought his help.

May I say at the outset how much share my hon. Friend's concern about the side effects which have now been shown to be caused by the use of Eraldin? I am anxious to ensure that if there are any lessons that can be learned from the history of this drug Ministers and their expert advisers will do so to the fullest extent.

I should like to express my sympathy with my hon. Friend's constituents and all the other patients who have suffered adverse reactions to Eraldin. I know of the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) about the case of his constituent, Mr. Edwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton can be relied upon to do everything possible to help his constituents. He and other hon. Members on both sides of the House will read the report of this debate with a personal interest.

Over recent years ICI has led the development of a new class of compounds which were found to have beneficial effects on the heart in people with faulty rhythms of the heart, or who had angina produced by a disorder of the heart or high blood pressure. These drugs are called beta-adrenergic blockers—beta blockers for short—and have proved to be a major advance in the treatment of patients with these life-threatening heart diseases.

Eraldin was the second drug of the type to be marketed. It represented an advance because, unlike the earlier drug, it could be given to patients with heart disease complicated by asthma or bronchitis. As with all other drugs, Eraldin was subjected to extensive animal tests before it was marketed. It was then investigated in patients in a number of clinical trials.

These studies did not predict the type of adverse reactions that have emerged over the past two years. It was on the basis of these initial investigations that the Committee on Safety of Drugs cleared Eraldin for marketing in 1970. As it was on the market by 1st September 1971, it automatically received a product licence under the Medicines Act 1968 under the provision that all products on the market at that time were eligible for licences of right.

I should explain at this point that when the nature of the adverse effects became apparent it so happened that an additional long-term study in animals was being conducted. The animals in this study were very carefully examined to see whether there were any adverse effects on their eyes or skin, or of any other kind, and no such effects were found.

It is usually possible for doctors to identify a particular pattern of symptoms as being caused by adverse reactions to a drug only when they become aware of an increase in the occurrence of those symptoms in patients for whom the drug has been prescribed. In some cases it is easy to recognise an association. For example, certain drugs which can cause anaemia were fairly quickly recognised as being the cause. But where the reaction is infrequent and is unexpected it may take considerable time for an association to become apparent.

In this particular case, it was not until 1974 that certain specialists, to whom patients suffering from the severer forms of the side effects of Eraldin had been referred, realised that new types of skin and eye reaction were occurring almost exclusively in patients who were taking or had taken Eraldin. When they had seen a number of such cases they communicated with the manufacturers to warn them of their suspicions.

It is customary for doctors to publish series of this kind in the medical Press as well as informing the Committee on Safety of Medicines. A meeting was held in July under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Eric Scowen, Chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, to discuss these reports.

It was then agreed that ICI should write to all doctors and pharmacists drawing their attention to the possibility of such adverse reactions, though the number that had been reported at that time was low. The letter stated that ICI had consulted representatives of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and was working closely with the committee. This co-operation and communication with ICI and the committee has continued up to the present. The ICI letter stimulated doctors to report additional cases and a second warning was issued by ICI in October 1974 which led to still more reports. A total of 460 reports were received in 1974.

The Committee on Safety of Medicines issued a formal adverse reactions warning to all doctors in January 1975. This drew their attention to the incidence of side effects with Eraldin, and recommended that doctors should maintain careful observation of all patients for whom Eraldin was prescribed.

The committee, in the light of additional expert advice from cardiologists, was anxious to avoid the sudden withdrawal of therapy in patients with heart complaints because such sudden withdrawal could be hazardous. The seriousness of the problem became more evident because at around this time a number of reports were received of patients developing an unusual form of peritonitis which caused intestinal obstruction. A number of these patients needed operations, and the Committee on Safety of Medicines has recieved reports on 12 patients who died following surgery.

In view of the incidence of these reactions it was decided in July 1975, in consultation between ICI and the Committee on Safety of Medicines, that Eraldin should be withdrawn from sale through retail pharmacists. It was also decided that it should be supplied only to hospitals for use in the emergency treatment of certain organic heart diseases associated with abnormal heart rythms.

Turning to the question of compensation, I must begin by saying that it is for the courts to determine whether compensation is payable, and this is not a matter in which I could intervene. However, ICI has announced that it has established a scheme under which patients who suffered permanent damage following adverse reactions to Eraldin may be eligible for compensation payments.

The Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation, under the chairmanship of Lord Pearson, is considering the whole question of how those who suffer injury should be aided. I shall ensure that its attention is drawn to this debate so that it may consider the implications of the Eraldin story.

My hon. Friend referred to a constituent of his who continued to use Eraldin until June 1976. It is, of course, for a doctor to decide on the appropriate treatment for each individual patient. However, I am surprised that Eraldin should have continued to be available through retail pharmacy until that time. I shall ask my Department to undertake an urgent investigation and I shall not hesitate to take any necessary action.

Finally, let me try to summarise the important issues that arise. The use of any drug in clinical practice involves a consideration of the relative risks and benefits of using the drug. My hon. Friend readily accepted that point.

The current system of drug registration requires the assessment of a large amount of information on the drug's properties before approval for marketing is given. This enables us to prevent the release of clearly hazardous or ineffective new drugs.

Despite extensive studies with a drug in animal experiments or in clinical trials in patients, there will be occasions when adverse reactions to a drug become apparent only after its widespread clinical use. To detect such adverse reactions before marketing would require clinical trials involving many thousands of patients. Apart from the enormous expenditure of time, money and energy in such trials, there would be a considerable delay in the introduction of the drug into clinical practice. This delay could itself impose a cost in that patients would be denied access to a valuable drug—alternative drugs already available might be less effective or more hazardous.

This then leads us to the examination of ways of detecting any unexpected adverse reactions at the earliest possible moment after marketing in order that doctors can reassess the risk-benefit ratio for the drug. For instance, a monitoring system might be established to record any symptom developing in patients treated with a new drug instead of relying as at present on the suspicions of doctors as to whether a particular symptom was drug-related. My Department, in consultation with the Committee on Safety of Medicines, is giving careful and detailed consideration to the possibility of establishing such a scheme on a limited scale. although, clearly, its introduction would involve considerable consultation and discussion.

My hon. Friend asked me to consider establishing a public inquiry, but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained in his letter to him, it is our view that there would be little to be gained by holding a public inquiry at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has, however, asked the Medicines Commission, an independent advisory body, to consider the issues relating to the use of Eraldin.

My hon. Friend pressed me strongly on the question of a public inquiry. It will, of course, be open to the Medicines Commission to recommend that an inquiry should be held and as to whether it should be conducted by members of the commission or by a specially appointed panel. This would be analogous to the commission's report on the prevention of microbial contamination of medicinal products following the Devonport incident.

In my view, what the Eraldin story shows us is that one can never assume that potent drugs are safe in every instance, but if we can devise systems which would lead to earlier detection of unexpected adverse reactions, at least something positive may have come out of the many individual tragedies which have resulted from the use of Eraldin.

I thank my hon. Friend again for raising this important matter, and I assure him that I shall arrange for him to have any outstanding issues cleared in correspondence with my Department.

I am grateful for the opportunity in this series of debates to discuss the problem of heating costs likely to be experienced by elderly and handicapped people next winter. The House may well ask why, at the commencement of August and the holiday season, I am raising this issue. The point is that last year we eventually received a leaflet OC.2—"Help with Heating Costs". It was due in the autumn, and in October I asked about it. At the end of November, we had a revised draft of the leaflet.

Yet still, at the end of February this year, many of the local offices of the Department did not have copies of the leaflet, and that was when the weather was just beginning to be warmer for a few days. My concern is to give those responsible a sharp reminder here in August, with sufficient time to make preparations so that the elderly and handicapped really do have help with their heating costs next winter, and so that they themselves may be well alerted to the problems which they may well face.

I acknowledge that the Government have been much more active in 1976 than ever before in this respect, and we thank them for their efforts, but those efforts are partly due to the vigilance and constant nudging of organisations such as Age Concern, the British Association of Settlements and the many other groups utterly determined not to let this matter drop and to make sure that provision for the elderly and handicapped and, indeed, all those with heating cost problems in winter time are better served in future than in the past.

I shall deal in a moment with some of the Government's actions so far, but I am more concerned to improve on what we have achieved already and in that way to make matters better next winter. The Minister does not need me to remind him that the problem arises from inadequate heating, from poor insulation and from the lower efficiency of elderly and handicapped people's bodies in coping with adverse conditions.

In addition, there is the effect of their low income, whether it be from pension or other means, and the fact that many people are poor budgeters in these circumstances. We know from statistical analysis that low income frequently correlates with poor housing and also that low income frequently correlates with an inability of individuals to apportion their funds according to real priorities.

For the elderly and handicapped there are additional problems. First, even today there is considerable ignorance about the available benefits. Secondly, help from Government with expensive heating costs is regarded as charity. That is dangerous because many elderly people do not realise how much additional help they might need to deal with the bills with which they will be presented. Thirdly, many elderly and handicapped people have a loss of faculties—either mental or physical or both—which lead to further major difficulties when they live alone.

The solution to the problem is a com-biped assault by the Departments concerned with such people. Government action through the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health and Social Security together with the housing departments and social services offices of local authorities will make a difference to such people next winter. I cite them rather than the fuel suppliers who have another responsibility to Government—to supply fuel to the entire community. There is no reason why those at risk should become a burden on the fuel suppliers when we should be tackling the problem from the other end.

The Department of Education and Science could also help by making young people aware, in the year before school leaving age of priorities in spending in later life. That would instil in them a correct budgeting attitude at the earliest possible opportunity.

In the last four months I have had discussions with various people in fuel supply offices about prepayment meters and the way in which they could help cope with the problems created by large bills. I discovered that there are grave difficulties about cash collections. Prepayment meters may be useful in certain cases, but they are not necessarily the answer to high heating costs. Further difficulties are caused by the necessity of having the right coinage in the house and the inability of an old or handicapped person to go out and get the correct coinage.

We need a new consciousness about coping from both Government and local authorities. That need is highlighted by several examples from last winter.

In one case, a 61-year-old crippled widow who had a bill for only £5, twice asked the Supplementary Benefits Commission for help but was refused. When her supply was disconnected, a community worker intervened and the Department of Social Security denied that her application had been refused.

For six or seven weeks the woman had no heating. Eventually the Department decided that she was entitled to a needs payment which would start from the date on which they made the decision. But that did not cover her previous bill. That illustrates the continuing problem caused by a breakdown in the normal system and the failure to recognise hardship.

A second lady, aged 79, fell over during the winter. She spent weeks in hospital and then went to convalesce with a granddaughter in Kent. When she returned to Newcastle, she found a bill for £10·88 had been overlooked before she became ill and that during her absence a disconnection notice had been sent. She contacted the Benwell community project which immediately telephoned the electricity board. But the community worker was told that the board could not help. The worker was told by the DHSS that it was not its duty to help in such circumstances. Eventually the community worker communicated with the regional office of the Department by standing on the doorstep at 9 o'clock in the morning and eventually the request for help was granted.

There we had a woman whose normal routine would have helped her pay the bill, even if bit by hit, but that routine was interrupted by illness and she did not manage to overcome the hurdles in the system and so sort herself out. She was caused a great deal of unnecessary distress by the failure to respond.

My third example is an elderly couple, one blind and one handicapped, who changed from a prepayment meter to a quarterly bill because they had a new savings system that they thought would help them. Despite repeated requests to the electricity board, their meter was not read for three and a half years. Eventually they received a bill for over £267. Their only income is a pension and supplementary benefit. This was a problem of failure of communication with the electricity board.

The fourth case is that of a thrifty elderly lady who owns her own house and has a private pension which takes her over the supplementary benefit level. She has been bed-bound since last autumn and has been told by her GP to keep warm. In February she received an electricity account of more than £80. She is outside the classification of those to whom help is given by the social services, and charities are trying to help. She did not even need to go into a local authority Part III home for two weeks, which would have cost more than paying her electricity bill for two weeks whilst she lived at home.

There are lists and lists of examples of people on low income, deserted women, poor budgeters. I am concerned with those who would cope if they could, but cannot, the elderly and handicapped. We welcome the plan of the Secretary of State for Energy to help electricity users to the tune of £25 million this coming winter, but this benefit is available only to those on supplementary benefit and family income supplement. Many cases, some of which I have described, are just outside the grounds of such recipients.

The gaps include not only those who are not receiving those two benefits but the elderly in council and other property where there is underfloor heating on combined billing to the whole block, those with gas and paraffin heating, which may be cheap to buy but not cheap to run, and those with prepayment meters for electricity or gas. There are also those who still heat by coal.

The problem is that most of the solutions the Government have so far proposed have been temporary. None answers the long-term problem, which is the control of inflation and better administration in all Government and fuel-supplying authorities so that we may have reduced costs, which will help everybody in all walks of life.

I should like to add some further ideas, which may be piecemeal solutions but which I believe would help. The first is that there should be better insulation. The thermal efficiency of a home has a great deal to do with heating costs. Our programme to insulate lofts, seal doors and windows and lag hot water tanks, should be greatly expanded. Another idea is to have sensible room arrangements for the elderly and handicapped, with the bed put into a recess off the main room, so that they do not become cold at night.

There is also the possibility of giving more advice on types of heating, including revenue outlay as well as capital cost. Here I pay tribute to the Friends of the Earth in Durham, who have done a great deal of good work under the job creation programme since last winter. It is up to the Government to advertise grants for insulation alongside the "Save-it" campaign. They are now beginning to do so. It is also up to them to list insulation as a missing standard amenity under the Housing Act 1974 and to use the job creation programme to help the most needy.

It is up to the fuel boards to institute a system such as the risk-disc suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on the meters of all those at risk. This would require the maintenance of a register of the elderly and the handicapped at risk by the local authority. It would require not only a list to be held on the computer by the fuel supplying authority, but would remove the difference between those who will not pay bills and those who, through no fault of their own, cannot pay them.

We need from the fuel boards a national code of payment incorporating across the country the same method of paying and the same methods and regulation, because at present these vary. The advertising boundaries of newspapers and other media are not the same as those of the fuel supplying boards.

I believe that the right of the fuel supplier to disconnect must be continued, otherwise we shall face an impossible situation. If a bill has a risk disc notification attached to it, it will be up to the fuel hoard to contact the social services and to say "Something is wrong, because this person has a disc. Please investigate before any question of disconnection arises." I hope that that idea will be fully explored.

I wish to mention two further matters. First, I believe that the Department should look at the possibility of variable heating costs by different geographical areas. Parts of the country are colder than others, and obviously the heating bills will be that much greater. Where there are higher bills, there is a greater need for exceptional needs payments. We must also consider those who are ill for short periods. Again, the standard rates of payment do not always take account of individual needs. There is also the possibility of considering low summer heating allowances as against high winter heating allowances. The local department of social services could identify through the risk-disc system those who most need help. Special attention should be given to those cases first. Regular checks by those who service the meals-on-wheels facility and who visit the elderly could notify the social services when things are beginning to go wrong.

We should give our attention to publicity via local radio. Many old people may be unable to read because of bad sight, but they certainly tune in to the local radio. I hope the Minister will consider that avenue of publicity. I believe that firm action must now be taken to prevent real tragedy and hardship next winter. I hope that the Government will respond.

With permission, I should like to reply to this debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) for having raised this topic because it provides an opportunity to discuss a matter that is of great concern to us all.

We have been fortunate in this country in the past nine or 10 years because we have had a succession of mild winters. But as a Minister in the Department which is most intimately concerned with the problems of the pensioner, the disabled and the poorer sections in the community, I am worried that next winter might be a long, cold and difficult one. Therefore, it is as well that we take as many precautions as we can on the lines urged by the hon. Lady.

The general record of the Labour Government testifies to our continuing concern for the elderly and the handicapped. I wish to deal first with pensions—the basic means of income for a large number of our fellow citizens.

We came to office in 1974 pledged to raise retirement pensions to £10 for a single person and £16 for a married couple, and thereafter to increase those amounts annually in line with increases in average national earnings. The pension levels of £10 to f16 were introduced in July 1974—the highest increase in both real and money terms since the present insurance began in 1948.

The statutory obligation laid down by the Social Security Act 1975 is that pensions shall be increased at least annually by sufficient to restore their value in relation to the general level of earnings or prices, whichever is the higher. We have achieved this aim. Pensions were increased in April 1975 and again in November 1975 and, over the period from July 1974 to November 1975, pensions rose by 33 per cent. whereas prices and earnings went up by 31 per cent. In November 1975 therefore the real value of pensions was higher than in July 1974. The further increase of 15 per cent. to be made in November 1976 will, we are confident, be more than sufficient to keep pace with increases in prices and earnings and give the pension an even higher real value.

I now turn to supplementary pensions. The position of those who need additional help through the supplementary benefits scheme has also been protected against price changes, since the scale rates applicable to supplementary pensions are given, and will be given in November this year, the same cash increases as retirement pensions. The scale rates, together with a rent addition, represent the level of income to which the pensioner's other resources are made up. They are intended to meet all normal living expenses, including heating.

There is no fixed amount or proportion of the scale rates allocated to heating. It is left to the pensioner how he allocates his income, but the scale rates vary according to family size. The amount available to a married couple, for example, for living expenses including heating is clearly greater than for a person living alone. But because the scale rates cover all living expenses, increases in them have to be compared with price rises generally rather than with the increase in any particular commodity, such as fuel. Over the period from October 1973 to June 1976 the Retail Prices Index rose by 61·3 per cent. compared with an increase of 68 per cent. in the scale rates for supplementary pensioners up to November 1975.

It is of interest that the proportion of retirement pensioners who receive supplementary pensions has declined in recent years from 29 per cent. in 1966, when supplementary pensions were introduced, to about 20 per cent. This is a cause for satisfaction, and it remains the aim of the Government to reduce dependence on means-tested benefits. But it is a sad fact that throughout the existence of the supplementary benefit scheme a number of elderly people who have been eligible for supplementary benefits have not claimed them. This figure has also declined over the years but it remains significant, being currently estimated at 560,000. Continual publicity and direct invitations to claim have made only a relatively small impact on this problem, and we are currently considering how best to investigate the reasons for not claiming.

I now turn to extra heating additions. The level of discretionary extra heating additions is to be raised at the same time that pensions and benefits go up in November. The new rates of 70p, £1·40 and £2·10 a week will represent additional purchasing power of £36·40, £72·80 and £109·20 a year respectively. The rates of extra heating additions, as the hon. Lady knows, are fixed by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Originally based on the average expenditure on heating of pensioner households, the extra heating additions have been increased by reference to the movement of the fuel component of the Retail Prices Index, but, more crucially, the Commission also takes account, in fixing the new levels of future fuel price rises that have been announced at the time but not yet intro duced. In this way the position of those with special heating needs is fully protected.

The higher rates of heating additions to be introduced in November will represent increases of 133 per cent. since October 1973, compared with an increase of 91 per cent. in fuel prices generally up to June 1976, so that there will clearly be a margin to meet further fuel price rises.

The number of supplementary pensioners in receipt of extra heating additions has increased considerably. At the most recent count, 849,000, or just civet half of all supplementary pensioners, were getting extra heating additions. This compares with a total of 445,000 in November 1973 and 194,000 in November 1972. This increase is the result of both changes in the legislation and easements in the qualifying criteria, as well as increased publicity. Information about extra heating additions is made known in a number of ways. The need for such additions is considered automatically on each new claim for supplementary benefit, and on the review of every existing case which takes place at least annually.

General information about extra heating additions is given in our leaflet SB1, dealing with the supplementary benefit scheme for potential claimants. We also have a more detailed leaflet, mentioned by the hon. Lady, entitled "Help with heating costs", OC2, which should be available from local social security offices. I shall certainly check, in view of what the hon. Lady has suggested, to ensure that there are adequate supplies available of this important leaflet.

Information about extra heating additions is included in our supplementary benefits handbook, which is intended for social workers and others in a position to advise people entitled to supplementary benefit. This information is brought up to date when necessary in SBC Notes and News.

It has been suggested from time to time that we should incorporate the heating addition into the scale rates. This was a recent recommendation of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.

There are currently more than 1 million extra heating additions in payment, of which 541,000 are at the lowest rate—that is, currently 55p a week, to be increased to 70p a week from November. While the proposal to add the amount of the heating addition to the basic scale rate has a certain logic and is attractive in the sense that it would ensure that all beneficiaries who are entitled will benefit from the addition, it must be ruled out on cost grounds. To increase all the adult scale rates by the rate of 70p applicable next November would immediately increase the benefit cost by £70 million a year. It would also leave a very large number still dependent on extra heating additions at other rates.

In any debate about heating costs, the risk of hypothermia to elderly people is bound to be discussed. I do not wish to go into technical detail about the condition and the different factors which may contribute to its development. In any case, I understand there is no firm evidence on what these might be. But it is important to keep the matter in perspective. It is, nevertheless, a matter of great concern that elderly people should avoid the risk. As in previous years, we shall take steps this winter to ensure that health and social services personnel who come into contact with the elderly are vigilant to the dangers of some of them suffering from the effects of cold and do what they can to help within the resources available to them. My Department has asked the Health Education Council to publish later in the year a leaflet giving simple hints on how to avoid the dangers of cold, so that old people themselves may be reminded of the need to avoid getting too cold.

But our greatest concern is to ensure that the elderly, the handicapped and other poor people have the resources to obtain sufficient heating. I have explained how we have maintained the purchasing power of pensions and supplementary benefits. In addition, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy announced on Monday, the Government have decided to allocate £25 million to help those likely to have the greatest difficulty with fuel bills next winter. This scheme will be designed to give to all recipients of supplementary benefit, including the elderly and the disabled, and of family income supplement who pay directly to electricity boards a discount on electricity bills. It is hoped that it will be possible to reduce bills by the equivalent of 25 per cent. of the payment for one winter quarter. Details of the scheme will be announced later when they have been fully worked out but in good time for eligible households to apply for the discount.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy also announced on Monday the Government's response to the recommendations of the review body which he had set up earlier this year to look into payment and collection methods for gas and electricity bills. In general the Government have commended the report of the review body to the electricity and gas industries. With regard to its recommendation that the power of disconnection should no longer be exercised, the Government have agreed with the industries that they should apply a code of practice designed to protect genuine hardship cases from disconnection. The question of legislation will be kept under review in the light of experience of the working of the code of practice. Details of the code have still to be worked out in consultation with the authorities, staffs and unions involved, but when ready it will be published and sent to all electricity and gas consumers.

The threat of disconnection is of great concern to all consumers, and may particularly trouble the elderly. The examples quoted by the hon. Lady were a telling illustration of this. During last winter, a moratorium was declared on disconnections for pensioner households, and I understand that it remains the policy of the fuel authorities in general not to disconnect such households. Under existing liaison arrangements, the fuel authorities notify potential hardship cases, both under and over pension age, to the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and disconnection can then be delayed to see whether they can help. Where help with a fuel debt is sought by a person not receiving supplementary benefit but who could have been entitled if he had claimed it, the Commission will help towards an outstanding fuel bill and encourage the person to accept the continuing supplementary benefit to which he is entitled.

If help is requested by someone already receiving supplementary benefit, the Commission is prepared to provide extra help with a fuel debt where there are exceptional circumstances, for example, where money saved for fuel bills has had to be spent because of illness or some other emergency, or because of unfamiliarity with a new heating system. If there are no circumstances which would justify a lump-sum payment, disconnection can still be averted under arrangements with the fuel authorities whereby part of the supplementary benefit will be paid direct, including a small sum off the arrears.

As with the elderly, supplementary benefit is available to handicapped people whose resources fall below their supplementary benefit level, including any need for extra help with heating. Turning to the help provided specifically for the handicapped, I am sure the House will agree that we have by no means neglected their needs. "Social Security Provision for Chronically Sick and Disabled People"—House of Commons Paper 276, of 31st July 1974—explained that many disabled people already received social security benefits and outlined a strategy for the future which we are steadily implementing. I would like to remind the House that with next November's uprating we shall have added about £550 million a year to the benefits paid specifically for chronic sickness or disablement and £925 million a year to the retirement pensions of 2½ million pensioners with some disablement.

Like the hon. Lady, I should like to refer briefly to the subject of home insulation. For council houses I understand that roof insulation may attract Government subsidy when installed in the interests of disabled tenants. In the private sector grants are not generally available to private owners for home insulation, but local authorities may exceptionally allow grants, with the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, towards the cost of roof insulation in the case of elderly or disabled people.

For those eligible for supplementary benefits, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, while unable to assist towards the cost of major insulation, will help with the cost of materials for simple measures such as draught-proofing round doors. It is also prepared to help with the repair and replacement of heating appliances where these are broken, clearly inadequate for their purpose or excessively wasteful and therefore expensive to run.

The hon. Lady made a number of suggestions and I promise that I will look at them. She will appreciate that we have to bear in mind the need for restraint in public expenditure. I welcome this opportunity to explain the action the Government have taken to protect the elderly and the handicapped, generally, and in the particular area of heating costs. The groups we are considering today are undoubtedly the most vulnerable in that respect and our aim in the measures we are introducing is to provide help where it is most needed. I do not claim that the protection we are providing is yet as good as we would want it to be. That is why we have planned for improved pensions for retirement, invalidity and widowhood under the better pensions scheme. We shall continue to make improvements as the resources available allow.

As the final act before we move into the recess, I am privileged to bring before the House the problem of the non-implementation of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement by the Soviet authorities. On 1st August 1975 the Final Act of the agreement was signed. At that time it was a vision of hope and a symbol of possible freedom for hundreds of thousands of under-privileged people. It has turned largely into a mirage.

Those who are most disappointed are those who hoped for the most from it and who are friends of the Soviet Union—who remember that we were once in battle at their side, as allies against the Nazis. Those who are enemies of the Soviet Union merely say "We told you so." If we are to have detente and good will, this agreement must be adhered to in future as it has not been adhered to so far.

Those of us on the All-Party Parliamentary Committee for the Release of Soviet Jewry—I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—have been trying hard to convince the Soviet authorities—

The Soviet authorities should pay attention to the cries of anger and distress from all parts of this House and not regard them as an interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. They should understand that freedom, justice, decency and commitment to the Final Act are the concern of all of us in every country. No matter where those who are being persecuted may happen to live, freedom to move out of a country is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and and in the Final Act, and it is being abused.

Those of us who have spoken to Soviet leaders and have raised this question have always been told "You are interfering in our affairs." That is a travesty, as they well know. When they rightly complain about the mistreatment of minorities in other countries, they are within their rights and performing their duty.

When we in the House and country complain about interference with the rights of people in the Soviet Union, that is our right, duty and privilege. We live in a land where we are free to speak our minds. We do not speak today on behalf of our own citizens but on behalf of others. That, too, is a right of which we are proud.

As a founder member of the International Commission for Human Rights in the USSR, I have a deep concern for all who are being persecuted in that country. The roll of honour is long. At its head is Professor Andrei Sakharov, whom some of us had the honour of proposing for the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately, he was not permitted to collect that prize in Oslo. I am happy that my wife was present with Madame Sakharov when she received the Nobel Prize on his behalf. He is one of the greatest heroes of this century. Some of us are able to speak to him occasionally by telephone. Often the lines are cut and interfered with.

Dr. Sakharov is too great and too famous for the Soviet authorities to incarcerate in prison. But many of his colleagues, friends and associates are today hidden away in prisons or mental hospitals, or are living in a state of permanent fear.

Others, such as the Ukranians or Baptists, are persecuted for their religion. All whatever their nationality or beliefs, are entitled to have basic freedom under the Final Act. They are entitled in particular to freedom of religion, but in the Soviet Union that is denied them. Names, such as Georgi Vins and Bukovski, are becoming household words in this country as demonstrating the Soviets' inhumanity to their own citizens.

As senior vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I shall present some examples of breaches of the Final Act from the area that I know best—namely, persecution of those Jews in the Soviet Union who seek to leave. I wish at the start to pay tribute to my colleague and friend, Dr. Stephen Roth, whose pamphlet "The Helsinki 'Final Act' and Soviet Jewry" has been read into the records of the United States Congress in a way which is not possible under the rules of this House. That pamphlet has been of enormous assistance to me in the preparation of this case.

One of the declarations on principles guiding relations among participating States is the statement in the Final Act that in part reads as follows:

"VII. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief

The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

They will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person and are essential for his free and full development.

Within this framework the participating States will recognise and respect the freedom of the individual to profess and practise, alone or in community with others, religion or belief acting in accordance with the dictates of his own conscience."

Those Jews in the Soviet Union who seek to practise their beliefs are not permitted to teach their children. There are no Hebrew schools. There is no freedom to import books. In the case of Leonid Slepak, whose barmitzvah was celebrated by people in this House three years ago, over 200 Members on all sides of the House signed a prayer book which was sent to him, but it has come back. The lad was not allowed to receive it. While the heroic Slepak family remains as it still does, incarcerated in Moscow, no one of us can believe that the Soviet Union intends to comply with the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

Parcels of matzot, of unleavened bread, disappear in the post. Ninety per cent. of the 12,000 parcels of matzot sent to Jews in the Soviet Union last year never reached their destination.

Religious services have been interfered with in places as far apart as Zhmerinka in the Ukraine and Kalarash in Moldavia. Religious education of persons under 18 is forbidden.

So much for the Soviet Union's professed compliance with the "respect for human rights", including fundamental freedoms such as thought, conscience, religion or belief.

Then, in science and technology the participating States are to co-operate together so that scientific and technical cooperation will make an important contribution to the strengthening of security among them. We know in this House a great deal of the trials and tribulations of Academician Benjamin Levich and his family. His two sons and their families have been allowed out. Academician Levich and his wife are still held in the Soviet Union.

Not only that, but as has been pointed out so eloquently by Professor Brian Spalding, to whom I pay tribute on behalf of all hon. Members in the House for his battle on behalf of the Levichs, whilst Levich has been invited to various conferences, he has not been permitted to attend. He has accepted a fellowship at University College, Oxford. He is not allowed to take it up. He was promised that he could leave the Soviet Union by last December. That promise has been broken. We in this House do not and shall not forget him. He and his colleagues, Professor Mark Azbel and Professor Brailovsky and the rest, have to hold their seminars in their own homes and to try to keep their scientific skills alive in secrecy and in a brave attempt not to sink into lethargy. They will not allow their minds to rot.

All Jews who seek to leave the Soviet Union to be reunited with their families in Israel, as Professor Levich and his wife wish to do with their sons, and Professor Marc Azbel with his son—whom we have had in this country as our guest on two occasions will lose their jobs. They are not entitled to teach or to use libraries. They are shunned and they are treated as traitors. And this at a time when the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement has been in force for a year.

I turn to another example—human contacts and the reunification of families and the whole section dealing with the opening up of ordinary basic human rights which we here take completely for granted. Instead of the Act being complied with, there are sad thousands of people not being permitted to leave the Soviet Union. Some have to wait for years, never knowing whether they will ever be allowed out.

I wish very briefly to read a list of names of some people who have been waiting for a very long time and whose cases are now under investigation by the United States Congress. I shall read them because I believe that they should be enshrined as a roll of honour of freedom in the annals of this House: Abramovich, Adamsky, Alter, Ass, Professor Mark Azbel, Barras, Begun, Beilin, Bogomolny, Brailovsky, Chertin, Druk, Eidelman, Elistratov, Essas, Professor Benjamin Fain, Feliman, Fineberg, Fish, Fishkin, Flomenblit, Fridman, Frumkin, Gaberman, Gelfand, Gendin, Girshas, Godin, Gofman, Goldberg, Goldenberg, Goldin, Goliman, the brave Goldstein brothers from Tbilisi, Isai and Grigory Gorelik, Goman, Grinshpun, Grober, Gurfel, Inditsky, Iskhakov, Groberman, Kaminsky, Kandel-Kamov, Kazieva, Kerzhner, Kessler, Khess, Kiblitsky, Kislik, Kislyuk, Kosharovsky, Kotonos, Lainer, Lazaris, Leibzon, Lekhtman, Lenchik, and Professor Alexander Lerner—one of the bravest of all and one of the oldest friends of some of us.

The hon. Member for Harrow, East and I and two of our colleagues, one of whom is now Solicitor-General, were refused permission to enter the Soviet Union to see Professor Lerner and his friends. They are not allowed out; we are not allowed in. Is this what the Final Act was seeking to ensure?

The roll continues: Levinson, Liberman, Lifshits, Livchak, Lvovsky, Mikhail, Minkin, Mishiev, Mishiev, Moiseyev, Novikova, Nudel—a committee has been set up consisting of hon. lady Members of the House and wives of hon. Gentlemen to try to help that brave and saintly lady—Ospovat, Colonel Ovsishcher—whom the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and others have been battling to have freed before he, like his distinguished colleague, Colonel Davidovitch, die in captivity—Pavlotsky, Prestin, Raiz, Rosenshtein, Roitburd, Roizman, Shaknovsky, Shekhtman, Shur, the Slepak family, Smelyanskaya, Soifer, Stoylar, Sverdlin, Taratuta, Tsipin, Tsirulnikova, Ulanovsky, Yampolsky, Yankelvich and Zubarev.

From A to Z it is a catalogue of the bravery of people who have risked all. They know that a person who applies to leave the Soviet Union not merely loses his job but risks being locked up in a mental hospital, as Victor Feinberg and his wife have shown. The applicant for a visa to leave for Israel risks being the centre of a show trial, risks becoming another of the prisoners of conscience. There are today some 40 Jewish prisoners of conscience in the USSR. We pay tribute to them. We shall not rest until they are all free to be reunited with their families in Israel. They have committed no crime. They simply wish to enjoy the freedom which we all have and so freely appreciate.

Sons of these people may be called up for military service so as to delay the departure for Israel of their entire families. Conscript Anatoli Malkin is now, I understand, in prison. All applicants for visas risk everything for the freedom which we imbibe in the very air that we breathe.

Apart from not being allowed to leave the country, there is the disgraceful harassment of those who apply to leave. There is meant to be freedom of communication, but in fact there is very little. Telephones are cut off, and letters are interfered with. People are not only treated as pariahs in their own country, but every effort is made to isolate them, so that both the isolation itself and the fear of it will prevent others from following the path that these people have so bravely chosen.

After that catalogue of misery, is it possible that the Helsinki Agreement could have been worth having? I still believe that the answer must be "Yes", because if one does not have hope there is nothing to batten on to. The Helsinki Agreement is an indication that the Soviet Union appreciates that if it wishes to be included in the catalogue of civilised countries it must adhere to the basic decencies of human life. Were it not for the Final Act and for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there would be no such accepted standards. What we are seeking is that the Soviet Union should adhere to the standards that it has itself proclaimed.

What do we ask that the Government do in these circumstances? First, I ask that my hon. Friend will repeat the undertaking given by his colleague the Under-Secretary of State in the House the other day—that he will express the deep concern of both sides of the House and of people outside for those who are still suffering and that he will bring to the attention of the Soviet authorities, publicly and privately, whenever there is a proper opportunity and occasion to do so, this concern which comes from us all.

Second, I invite my hon. Friend to give the most serious consideration to the possibility of setting up a monitoring arrangement such as that created by Public Law 94–304 of the United States Congress which says:

"The Commission is authorised and directed to monitor the acts of the signatories which reflect compliance with or violation of"

the provisions that are listed in the document. The commission includes members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate and appointees of the President of the United States. We in this House should have the same sort of monitoring arrangement within the rules of this House. I know that this is not a matter to which my hon. Friend can agree now, but I ask him to undertake to discuss this with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and his colleagues and give it the most serious consideration.

Third, we should protest to the international telegraphic and postal authorities and demand an end to the restrictions on communications.

Fourth, we should support all organisations in the field of human rights battling for the rights of the persecuted.

Fifth, we should emphasise that detente means the relaxation of strain, which cannot occur while minorities are held in bondage.

Sixth, we should emphasise that the friends of the USSR are most concerned about this matter and warn that Belgrade is less than a year away and when the time comes up for reconsideration of the Final Act it is by no means certain that it will remain in effect.

I end with a tribute to Mr. Victor Feinberg and to his wife, whose stepson Misha, aged nine, is apparently now to be kept permanently in the Soviet Union. We are told that Mrs. Fainberg is to be deprived of her maternal rights. That young boy wrote to his mother a poem, which ends:

"the pen will write

the law of eternal happiness

and then without doubt

unhappiness will suddenly die".

We pray that unhappiness will die for all those who are suffering like that family.

We pay tribute to the brave of every faith and to all those who are seeking to keep alive the embers of freedom in the Soviet Union. We trust that, with the co-operation of the Government and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, the Final Act will one day lead to freedom for all in the Soviet Union.

I must congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on his skilful and moving speech. I welcome the opportunity briefly to support all that he has said and I repeat the requests that he has just made to the Minister for some information about the Government's attitude in relation to the problem of human rights, and in particular on the question of the Jewish minority in the Soviet Union, many of whose members wish to emigrate from the Soviet Union, but have had no success.

There is a story at the height of the Stalinist tyranny about two peasants from the Ukraine who went to Moscow for the first time and paid a visit to the mausoleum. When they came out they asked each other what they felt and one said he was very impressed but the other replied "It is just like us in Russia, dead but not buried." That story may be apocryphal and it is tempting to assume that things are not as bad as they were. And to some extent that is true. But minorities in the Soviet Union are persecuted. There is a special characteristic of one significant minority, namely, the Jews, and that is their wish to emigrate to Israel and go to the ancient Jewish homeland. That is a perfectly understandable, acceptable and justifiable wish. In addition, the idea that families will be divided is particularly horrendous to us who live in a civilised society in the West.

The Soviet Union must provide—the delay is already excessive—ample evidence that in trade, in human rights and humanitarian relations in general it will abide by the Final Act of Helsinki. The Foreign Office and Ministers may ask with some justification, "What can we do? These internal matters are no concern of ours." But they are; they have become internationalised as a result of Helsinki. That is why one inevitably compares the positive action taken in the United States on this matter with the somewhat more negative—I regret to say it—posture adopted by the British Government.

It may be that we are less powerful than the United States but with our traditions of freedom and a free society I believe that we can still apply the pressure to embarrass the Soviet Union far more than many of us believe. That is why I particularly welcome the debate and the initiative of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West in raising the subject and I express the hope that the Minister will be positive this afternoon.

It is a familiar prejudice that the Foreign Office is some sort of ivory tower, not really in touch with the lives and worries of ordinary people. Those who hold that prejudice ought to have sat at my ministerial desk over the last twelve months or so. Over this long Session which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and I now bring to a close, I have been involved in and concerned with some of the most heart-breaking and tragic human events—whether it be the torture of British citizens in Chile; the plight of refugees in Argentina; the worries and fears of parents and relatives of those kidnapped in Ethiopia; the pathos of the mercenaries in Angola; the bitterness of Soweto and the arrest of Dr. and Mrs. Rabkin and Mr. Weech in South Africa; and now the problem of minorities in the Soviet Union, particularly the Jewish minority. It is fitting that I should respond to my hon. and learned Friend on this the last day of term. I hope that it demonstrates that this is not an ivory tower Ministry and that the Foreign Office can be involved in heartaches, life and death.

My hon. and learned Friend has chosen to raise the question of the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement. We are well aware that it is and will be of value, but it is only as valuable as the extent to which the provisions of the Final Act are implemented. With that in mind, we are watching closely the performance of the participating States in following up the Final Act. This is not a negative attitude; it is a realistic one. Inevitably one accepts the elements of participation in which we and every other country involve ourselves by signing the agreement.

As part of the process, we are having increasingly frequent meetings with our partners in the EEC, with our NATO allies, and with other European countries in the East as well as in the West to discuss the progress that has been made so far. In all these meetings, as in our public statements, our stand has been clear and uniquivocal: we shall not be satisfied until all the provisions of the Final Act have been put into effect by all the signatory States. The passage written into the record by my hon. Friend is part and parcel of those provisions.

It is important to understand the process of the Helsinki Agreement and the follow-up to it. We must remember that the Final Act was the beginning rather than the end of a process and that dramatic changes were not to be expected overnight, with a sudden transformation of long-held attitudes, philosophies and approaches to problems of individual rights or to relationships between one State or another.

The participants at Helsinki set the middle of 1977 as the time for striking a first balance and, at a time of reviewing the progress made, it would, in our view, be unwise as well as improper to anticipate the work of the review conference by making a full assessment now. All we can say is that, while some steps have been taken on implementation, much more remains to be done, particularly, as the Prime Minister said in his message of 29th July to the Soviet news agency Tass, in making freedom of movement and the free exchange of information a reality between the Soviet Union and the Western world.

We have made it clear to the Soviet Government, at all levels from the top down, that we attach considerable importance to the early resolution of the various outstanding cases of family reunification. It has for some years been our practice to raise these matters formally with the Soviet authorities where the individual concerned has an immediate relative who is British, even if the individual is a Soviet citizen.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had a discussion on this subject with the Soviet Ambassador on 16th February. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the matter with Mr. Grimyko on 23rd March. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State took it up once more when he saw the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires on 26th July. We shall continue to make representations in this regard to the Soviet authorities whenever necessary. But I should emphasise that, in our view, progress between Governments, as opposed to the representations which hon. Members may wish to make, is more likely to come from negotiation and discussion than from public remonstration. It would not be in the interest of those most directly concerned for the Government to enter into specific details concerning individual cases. However, I reaffirm the assurances which were given to my hon. Friend during the last Question Time in which the Foreign Office was involved. We shall do whatever we can to help.

My hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) have referred to the question of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union. We would make formal representations if an individual had an immediate relative who was British. Her Majesty's Government have no formal standing to intervene in cases in which no United Kingdom citizen is involved. However, we take suitable opportunities—and I ask hon. Members to press me no further than this—when we have access to leading Soviet personalities to convey to the Soviet authorities the strong feelings which their emigration policies arouse in this country. They have been reminded in concrete ways in which the British nation is affected not only by human rights cases involving a British subject, a British citizen or a link with a British subject, but also by the issues which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West drew to our attention and some of the individual cases which he mentioned. We shall miss no appropriate opportunity to speak in a similar vein in future.

The House will be aware of the speech made at the Helsinki summit on 30th July last year by the then Prime Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), which ran as follows:

"I hope that what we have each of us committed ourselves to within Europe, can also apply to those within our countries who want to go to start a new life outside Europe, whether in the Middle East or elsewhere."

Subsequently, my right hon. Friend stated in the House on 5th August 1975 that in this pasage he had in mind Soviet Jews being free to go to the Middle East.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to the cases of Sakharov and Bukovsky and others. The Government are very much aware of these sad cases. The Soviet authorities can be in no doubt about our attitude in these matters or of the strength of feeling which such cases rightly arouse in this country.

My hon. and learned Friend also mentioned the cases of Vladimir Shaknovsky, Nudel and others. We are aware of these cases, and I am sure that the Soviet authorities appreciate the strength of feeling expressed on the individual as well as the collective problem of human rights cases in the Soviet Union.

My hon. and learned Friend said that he has not rejected the Helsinki Agreement and that he does not reject the process of détente that has been furthered by the agreement. We are working, for example, on improving working conditions for journalists, as envisaged in Basket III of the Final Act. We have made progress of this kind which has been described in parliamentary answers, and I need not reiterate it.

My hon. and learned Friend asked whether the Government would consider the possibility of setting up a watchdog group to monitor implementation of the Final Act's provisions. We shall certainly look at the proposal very carefully. There are differences of emphasis and approach between what my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman and others might be able to do in a freewheeling manner to bring pressure to bear and what the Government can do. The manner of approach and the emphasis that we give to matters brought to the attention of the Soviet authorities are best left to our assessment.

It seems more important to look for development and growth rather than to criticise, reject and confront. There is a great deal to be said for trying to create a working relationship through which and by which we can make the representions which my hon. and learned Friend wishes us to make.

The improved political relations that have been created between ourselves and the Soviet Union in the last two years or more allow freer expression of thought and allow us to make representations at various levels more frankly than if there were no worthwhile relations between the two countries. Frank exchange of views is a matter of considerable importance. We are anxious that improved political relations shall result in freer contact between people in Britain and in the Soviet Union, as provided for under the CSCE Final Act. Greater international stability is important in itself, but it has to be complemented by better contacts between peoples. That is what my hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Gentleman emphasised today. Neither of those approaches is possible unless we manage to create a better working relationship with the Soviet Government to enable us to make representations on specific issues.

I hope that the debate will be noted by the Soviet Government and its allies as a reminder of the great importance we attach to steady progress with CSCE implementation, which is as important to individual relationships between people as it is to the relationship between Governments.