asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) Official Report,

I have asked the London advisory group to give priority to advising on the restructuring of the National Health Service in London, and on the pattern of acute and specialist hospital services in the light of the reports of the London health planning consortium.

Will that not be too late for London university to take into account with the Flowers report, the consideration of which must be completed by July? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend be prepared to allow Westminster hospital to continue until the advisory group's report is available and can be taken into consideration?

As my hon. Friend knows, there is a later question on the Order Paper about Westminster hospital. I gain the impression that my hon. Friend may not appreciate the relationship of the London advisory group with the Flowers report, which is concerned with medical schools. The Flowers report is a report to London university. It will be for the university to reach conclusions on the proposals put forward by Lord Flowers. That will be one of the inputs into the London advisory group, which will then advise me on the best way in which to deal with the services in London, in the light of all the facts.

The Secretary of State said that the advisory group's report would deal with restructuring. That will involve medical staff, not least nurses, many thousands of whom are employed within the London area. May I take this opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman when we will have a report on the recent negotiations with the nurses about their pay, and the recent meeting——

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has stretched the question beyond measure.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was making the point that the London nurses, of whom there are many thousands, will be affected by any pay structure that is decided——

Order. That may be so, but there should be a question on the Order Paper on that matter. This question does not deal with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will increase the 1980 Christmas bonus payment for retirement pensioners to make up any shortfall in pension increases.

The question of making good a shortfall in the November 1980 uprating would have to be considered if it arose. But an increase in the 1980 Christmas bonus would not be an appropriate way to make good any shortfall.

Is it not true that the Department has legislated to create a 54-week year, which means that there will be a fortnight's delay in the payment of the increased pension, which in turn means that there will be a shortage in payment to a married couple, for example, of over £12? Does the Minister agree that if he broke into a pensioner's house and robbed him of £12 he would rightly be sent to gaol? Is it not legislative robbery from millions of pensioners that the Minister and his cronies are putting into effect?

No, Sir, it is nothing of the kind. It is a necessary reining back of public spending, to fight inflation. In fighting inflation we are doing the best possible service that we can for the pensioners of Britain.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Christmas bonus, in spite of its extreme unpopularity among Opposition Members, is a popular and much appreciated benefit? Will he assure the House that he will bear in mind that the value of the bonus has not changed from £10 since its inception, and that as soon as economic circumstances permit he will seek to increase it?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The pensioners of Britain will be aware that one of the first measures brought forward by the Government when they took office was to make the Christmas bonus a permanent payment.

Does the Minister agree that he has adopted a miserable device with which to diddle vulnerable pensioners?

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us for how many years the Christmas bonus was not paid by the Labour Government, and what that represents?

For two years, which happened to be early in the Parliament, and they took care to start paying it again as the election approached.

Is the Minister of State saying that an appropriate way to rein back public expenditure, as he calls it, is to rob old-age pensioners? Is it not an example of almost incredible meanness, even for this Government, to make the pensioners pay for their Christmas bonus?

No. I do not accept the word " rob ". These matters were fully debated during the long debates on the Social Security Bills, Nos. 1 and 2. We are hearing the usual performance of the Labour Party fighting yesterday's battles.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received in the last month from outside organisations on the provisions of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill; and what steps he intends to take to satisfy their requests for amendments to the Bill.

I have received representations on the Social Security (No. 2) Bill from 23 organisations, many of which were concerned about the impact of the Bill on the long-term sick. I have already undertaken that, subject to the availability of resources, invalidity benefit and unemployability supplement will be realigned with retirement pension when they are brought into taxation. I believe that this and the Government's acceptance of the amendment to clause 3 of the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) will have helped to allay the fears of the organisations concerned.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel thoroughly ashamed of a Bill that does not have the support of one voluntary organisation that is interested in these matters? Why did he refuse to meet these organisations whilst the Bill was going through Committee, as the organisations told us was the case? What further progress has been made in his consultations with the NUM and the NCB so far as the Bill affects them?

First, I believe that the Government were right to have the courage to bring forward the necessary measures to bring public expenditure under control. I have not refused to meet organisations. I have now met every organisation that has asked for a meeting. Some of those which asked earlier had meetings with my officials, and in view of what they heard, and the representations that they made, they did not feel it right to ask for another meeting.

The National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers schemes are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

I accept that the Social Security (No. 2) Bill represents a sensible allocation of priorities in difficult circumstances, but will my right hon. Friend assure the House that it is the Government's firm intention, as soon as resources become available, to resume progress in providing both cash benefits and services for the disabled?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. The Government's whole strategy is designed to create an economy that will provide the resources to enable us not only to raise our standard of living generally but to afford a proper level of social services. The more we are successful in that object, the more quickly we shall be able to resume the kind of benefits for these people that we want to see.

Has the Secretary of State had representations from organisations representing war pensioners? Is he aware that the announcement by the Minister for Social Security over the weekend of an increase of 16½ per cent. for war pensioners in November will be viewed by both war pensioners and organisations representing them as an absolute betrayal of commitments by successive Governments to give proper protection to those who were wounded as a result of war service? Is he aware that 16½ per cent. in November will be much less than the rate of inflation? Is this not grossly unfair to war pensioners, apart from any others?

My right hon. Friend was well received by the war pensioners' organisations which he met in Scotland over the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman implied that we were in bad odour, but that is not so. My right hon. Friend was well received.

Recent rates of inflation are not expected to continue. We expect a fall in the rate of inflation in the coming months. The forecast at the time of the Budget was of a 16½ per cent. increase in prices between November 1979 and November 1980, the uprating date for the increase. On that basis, an increase of 16½ per cent. in war pensions, as in other long-term benefits, will restore the value of those benefits.

Is the Secretary of State aware that as people become knowledgeable about the Social Security (No. 2) Bill they become appalled that the earnings-related benefits of the sick, the unemployed and those suffering from industrial injury are to be drastically affected? What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about bringing those benefits into line in 1982?

As I said in the debates on clause 4 of the Bill, if, after the earnings-related benefit has been phased out under the Bill, additional resources become available for the improvement of social security generally, a decision will have to be taken whether those resources should be used to restore the earnings-related benefit, but many people could point to higher priorities than that.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the approximate saving in public expenditure by delaying for two weeks beyond the normal date the payment of the annual increase in pensions.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations about the contents of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.

If the rates of benefits proposed for the week commencing 24 November were to be paid two weeks earlier, the additional expenditure in 1980–81 would be about £125 million, of which about £65 million would be on retirement and supplementary pensions.

As to representations from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations, it wrote to my right hon. Friend about the date of this year's uprating, but not about the contents of the Social Security (No. 2) Bill.

Is the Minister aware that this is a peculiarly squalid manoeuvre, even by the standards of this Government? Is it now the Government's intention to calculate year by year a 54-week year for pensioners, so that eventually their uprating arises in the year after next?

The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is " No ". Under the Social Security Act 1980 the uprating cannot be later than the week commencing 23 November 1981. Therefore, the situation envisaged by the hon. Gentleman is avoided.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, despite the fact that the increase is to be delayed, it is the greatest increase ever given to old-age pensioners by any Government?

Yes, in cash terms, it it the greatest increase. I should point out that the increases are still a substantial and welcome help to pensioners.

Will the Minister confirm her colleague's admission a few minutes ago that this is a deliberate intention to reduce public expenditure? Is she aware that this saving is exactly one-twentieth of the increase in arms spending this year—in a single year?

I should point out that an unintentional effect of the provisions of the Social Security Act 1975 has been that the date for increasing benefits has been creeping forward. Any responsible Government would have had to tackle that matter. That is the cause of one week's delay. The second week's delay is to reduce public expenditure.

Does the hon. Lady recollect that in Committee she admitted that this robbing of old-age pensioners was designed to cut public expenditure? Will she now say that she is thoroughly ashamed of what she is doing?

As I said to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), one week's delay in the uprating is to prevent the creeping forward, which any responsible Government would have had to deal with. I have said that the second week's delay in the uprating is, indeed, to hold back public expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what are the most recent figures he has conveniently available for the costs of a patient on renal dialysis; and what figures he has conveniently available for the costs of a kidney transplant.

The capital cost of a kidney machine and associated equipment is approximately £6,000. The annual running costs for a patient on dialysis can be as much as £8,000 if he is treated at home, and £12,500 if he is treated in hospital. The cost of a kidney transplant and subsequent treatment during the first year varies greatly according to the type of treatment and the success of the operation, but it is likely on average to be about £5,000.

Do those figures mean that if significantly more matching tissue was available that would shorten waiting lists, ease suffering, and help the scarce resources of the Health Service?

That is right. I hope that more and more people will use the new kidney card system that was launched last week by my hon. Friend the Minister for Health so that in the event of an accident it will be possible for their kidneys to be made available for transplant purposes. These cards are now widely available, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's persistence in this mattter—which I greatly applaud—will lead the public to make more and more use of them.

Is the Minister aware of the estimate that over 1,000 people will die this year from kidney failure, simply because of inadequate staffing? What urgent action is the Secretary of State taking to tackle this problem? If the Government can give huge sums in tax cuts to the fit and fortunate, how can they possibly deny a lifeline to people who are desperately ill and in need?

We should not be too apologetic for the progress that has been made in recent years to enable additional numbers of people to receive the benefit of renal services. Between 1971 and 1978 the number of patients starting treatment annually rose from 589 to 1,156, and the number of transplants, including live donors, rose from 318 to 930. The number of patients on renal replacement therapy—functioning transplants, kidney machines, peritoneal dialysis—rose from 1,816 at 31 December 1971, to 5,273 at 31 December 1978. That was an average rise of about 16 per cent. a year. If we are to do more—and we all want to do better—the nation must first earn the resources to pay for it. That is what the Government's strategy is all about.

Does the Secretary of State agree that while the new kidney card system is welcome, the whole system could be made more efficient and be revolutionised if a central computerised bank of donors were made available? That would eliminate many of the existing problems.

I am aware of the proposals in that regard. However, such a system would be very expensive to set up. In 1978–79, the estimated costs of setting up such a system were put at £5 million, and it would cost £1½ million a year to run and keep up to date. I suggest that it might be valuable only if we were to use the system advocated by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)—an opting-out system. That raises difficult, sensitive and emotive questions, which no doubt will continue to be debated.

In view of the Secretary of State's desire to make more money available for those benefits, and since the EEC is permitting Britain to keep some of its own money, will he say that he will seek to divert some of that money to these benefits?

As the Minister in charge of a major spending Department, I wish that that were right, but no extra money will come back to Britain until the next calendar year. The overriding nature of the Government's obligation to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement must take precedence. We have published our public spending programmes for four years ahead, and our highest priority is to stick to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future relationship between increases in prices and changes in child benefit.

I am required, under the Child Benefit Act 1975, to review the rate of the benefit each year having regard to the national economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and other relevant matters. Of course we must take into account changes in price levels, but they are not the only factors.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am more interested in the political side of the matter. Would it not be a good idea for my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet to announce a year in advance their intentions about child benefit, so that people with children will know whether they have an interest in keeping down the rate of inflation or helping it to continue on its present course?

That is an ingenious suggestion. Factors governing decisions on increases in the rate of child benefit are considered regularly by the Government, but we have no proposals to change the statutory obligations.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the child benefit is already way behind the increase in the cost of living? Is he aware also that families with children are the poorest in our community? Far from announcing an increase a year in advance, the Secretary of State should announce an increase immediately.

That depends on the point from which we take the base rate. If we start from the last year when there was a mixture of child tax allowances and family allowances, on reasonable assumptions, by next October the great majority of families with children will be better off than if they had remained on child tax allowances and family allowances, adjusted for increases in the cost of living. That is a fact. In addition, the Government have taken particular care to increase the amount and entitlement of family income supplement, which is designed particularly to help those families on very low incomes—families about whom the hon. Gentleman is concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when increases in prices place pressure on family budgets it is better for the economy to relieve that pressure by increases in child benefit than by blanket increases in wages that are bound to be inflationary?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but we would need a fairly cast-iron guarantee that if the level of child benefit were increased to achieve the objective that he is seeking, that would be matched by a corresponding reluctance on the part of trade unions and those for whom they bargain to press for higher wages—for which they would press in any event.

As a result of the failure of the Government to uprate child benefit in April, there has already been a loss on each child benefit of £1.35 in relation to the rate of inflation. What do the Government intend to do to restore the real value of child benefit, which since April 1979 has dropped to such a degree, and is continuing to drop as the rate of inflation increases?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it makes sense in every way to announce increases in the rate of child benefit at the same time as tax changes are announced in the Budget, and for the increases to take effect at the normal uprating date, so that they can be moved in parallel with the corresponding adjustments in the social security and national insurance child dependency additions. That is the sensible and logical way to proceed. This year the increase in child benefit on an annual basis was the same in percentage terms as the increase in personal allowances for income tax. On an annual basis, they moved in parallel.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he remains satisfied with his forecast of price increases for November on which he based the retirement pension increase.

Yes, Sir.

Does the Minister accept that in Committee recently the Secretary of State cast doubt on his forecast of 16½ per cent? Will he accept that if an allowance were made for the shortfall that occurred last November under a law that was not changed until last week, if an allowance were made for the 54-week change, and if an allowance were made to take account of an inflation rate of 24 per cent. in November, a married couple should receive £2.20 a week more in November than they will receive under the Government's proposals?

Most of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question included a series of rapid-fire questions. I shall look at the figures and see whether I can do the arithmetic. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have checked on what my right hon Friend said in Committee. In dealing with the rate of inflation he said that we would have to wait and see. He said earlier today—and I endorse it—that we expect the rate of inflation to slow down between now and November.

Is it not correct that the rate of inflation will be at 20 per cent. in November only if people at work press for large pay increases on a continuous basis? Those who would like the rate of inflation to be at 16½ per cent. in November will do everything that they can to keep down the rate of pay increases.

I agree with my hon. Friend. The best service that hon. Members can perform for pensioners and other recipients of national insurance is to argue strongly for restraint in wage and salary claims in the coming year.

Does the Minister agree that if he has got the inflation rate right at 16½ per cent. in November, he can give a categorical assurance now that if there is a shortfall the Government will make it up, because there would not be any shortfall? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, that must mean that he has no confidence in his estimate of the inflation rate in November, and that all that he wants to do is to delay letting pensioners know by just how much more he will rob them by not raising the rate in line with inflation.

No, Sir. No Government can be absolutely certain in June what the inflation rate will be in November. No Government would make a hypothetical assumption that the existing estimates are wrong, and therefore they must make firm statements about what will happen if they turn out to be different.

Is the Minister not aware, however, that there was a shortfall last November of 1.6 per cent., that the Government are robbing pensioners of two weeks' justifiable increase this year, and that if the rate of inflation is over 16½ per cent. pensioners will be hit again? My hon. Friends are right to press the Government, in view of the treatment that they are giving to pensioners.

Pensioners will be aware that last November we uprated pensions and other benefits by almost 2 per cent. more than the statutory obligation, in order to make good a shortfall that had occurred under the Labour Government's arrangements, so our record on this matter is good. These matters are never the subject of categorical assurances in advance. If there is a shortfall, the matter will be considered when we know about it. We shall know about it by about the middle of December, when we shall have the November RPI figures.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what role he sees for community health councils in the future of the National Health Service.

I am considering with care the many comments we have received on paragraph 26 of " Patients First " about the future of community health councils, and I shall announce my decision next month.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he not consider that even if, at times, they have been a bit cumbersome, CHCs have played a useful role in involving local people in local health and hospital decisions? When the area health authorities disappear, will not this neighbourhood participation in local decisions become even more important?

I am in no doubt that many CHCs have made a constructive and helpful contribution to their local health services. In " Patients First " we acknowledged—indeed, we are grateful for it—the time and energy that many CHC members have devoted to their role. Whether this role remains as valid as it is now, given the proposed changes in the general structure of the NHS, is something that I am considering, and on which I shall announce a decision next month.

Will the Minister consider ameliorating the rather ominous and loaded emphasis in the consultative document " Patients First " on the costs of CHCs?

The point has been made on behalf of CHCs that if they did not exist many of these costs would be incurred by health authorities because they would have to deal with the public and provide information and engage in consultations in the way that the CHCs do. That is a point of which I take note, and it is among the matters that I am considering.

I accept that some community health councils have been more satisfactory than others. However, will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that, possibly suitably reformed, they could be a valuable bridge between patients and the NHS, and that there is a good case for their retention?

I am grateful for that expression of opinion from my hon. Friend, of which I certainly take note. Among the comments that we have received about CHCs there has been general agreement on the importance of the members appointed by the voluntary sector. It may well be that CHCs would stand to gain and that their work would be more relevant if they had among their membership a higher proportion of people from the voluntary sector.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) said, there is a strong case for the retention of CHCs? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view is that at least the patient has the right to go to his CHC, and that on that basis there is direct consultation? If we lose that, patients will feel that they have lost everything.

I take note of that expression of opinion as well. The CHCs were set up not primarily to be patients' friends, but to represent, as it were, the public collectively in relation to the health authorities whose districts they cover, and that function has grown. Many patients have difficulty in finding their way around the administrative system in the NHS, and the CHCs have been valuable in helping them to put forward their complaints.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many persons are on the waiting list requiring surgical treatment at each of the area health authorities in the South Yorkshire district; and what were the comparable figures for the previous three years.

I shall circulate the information requested in the Official Report . The latest centrally available routine return shows that on 30 September 1979 about 20,000 people were waiting for admission to surgical departments of hospitals in South Yorkshire.

Are the figures improving? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that many people on these waiting lists are suffering pain and inconvenience while waiting to enter hospital? When will the Government do something to ensure that patients are taken off the lists in rotation, instead of allowing some doctors, as some are doing now, to recommend to patients that they see a consultant and say that for a sum of between £700 and £1,000 they can have an immediate operation for arthritic hips?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has any plans to reduce the number of beds at the Westminster hospital.

No, Sir.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that a senior member of London university and a Member of the other place is claiming that the decision in the Flowers report

that the waiting list in England for inpatient admission in December 1974 was 517,000. By March 1979 it had risen to 752,000. The latest available figures show a fall of about 50,000, to about 700,000 last year.

On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, the Trent regional health authority has now determined a target waiting list for each specialty, in order to achieve the Department's targets. The achievement of the target in surgical specialties will require a substantial increase in admissions and operations over the next few years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trent region, which includes South Yorkshire, is at the bottom of the league in the allocation of Health Service resources? Is he further aware that the equalisation process begun by the previous Government has come to a stop? What will he do about an area that desperately needs these services, but does not happen to return many Conservative Members to this place?

When my right hon. Friend made the allocations to the regions a few months ago he managed to get a larger-than-average increase to those regions, such as Trent, that were underfunded. If we are to make real progress in the equalisation of Health Service resources throughout this country, we must generate some economic growth with which to pay for it.

Following is the information :

to do away with the Westminster medical school was based on a decision, reputedly from his Department, to reduce the number of beds in Westminster hospital? Because of that, will my hon. Friend take steps today to write a full response to the university, embodying the reply that he has just given to me?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a consultative report by the London health planning consortium. Those views are not the views of Ministers. If and when the consortium's proposals are submitted to us, after consultation we shall ask the new London advisory group, under Sir John Habakkuk, to consider them and any other proposals affecting the level of acute services in central London. Until we have Sir John Habakkuk's advice later in the year, we have no intention of forming a view on any of these issues.

Will the Minister undertake a review of the circumstances surrounding the recommendations that have been made? It would appear that this is confusion confounded. Indeed, if one were to take note of the various inputs one would finish up absolutely confused on all the relevant facts. In those circumstances, will he make a fuller statement to the House?

We had a full Adjournment debate on this subject a few weeks ago, when the matter was ventilated by a number of hon. Members. The London health planning consortium was set up two years ago by the previous Government, and it was the consortium's report to which I think the hon. Member was referring.

With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, will he please make it clear that if it is not the Government's view that the consortium's report is right, that fact should be given the widest publicity? London university is acting on the assumption that it may be the Government's policy, and it is taking its decision in July. It is disgraceful that it should still be under this misapprehension.

Ministers have not yet come to a conclusion on the various issues that my hon. Friend has raised. The views of the London health planning consortium are the views not of Ministers but of the officials who compiled the report.

Will the Minister confirm that the vice-chancellor of the university said, within the hearing of hon. Members from all parties, that it was clear that there would have been no proposal to close Westminster medical school, had it not been assumed that there would be a cut of 400 beds? Does the Minister agree that it would be appalling if the university were to make a decision about the medical school, based on an assumption which he has confirmed has no foundation?

The University of London should be under no such illusion. It should make the changes that it thinks right, in the light of the Flowers report. Both my right hon. Friend and I have made clear that the Secretary of State will not prejudge the proposals for changes in the pattern of hospital services until he has heard from the London advisory group.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many day nursery places for under-fives there are in England and Wales; how many new places will be provided in 1980–81; and how many places will be lost through closures.

On 31 March 1979 there were 28,700 places in local authority day nurseries in England and Wales, and private premises were registered to provide all-day care for up to 22,600 children. Information is not available on the number of new places to be provided in 1980–81, or on the number of places to be lost through closures.

Does the Minister accept that there is an urgent need to provide more day nursery places? Is he aware that Wandsworth council has recently decided to close a day nursery in an area in which more places are needed? Will he urge local authorities not to close day nurseries, but to provide more care for the under-fives?

No, Sir. In general, I do not accept that it is the State's job to provide day care to enable the parents of young children to go out to work. I understand that Wandsworth council has made arrangements for those children who were attending the Nightingdale Lane day nursery. Under a recent phase of the urban programme, several latchkey children's schemes have been put forward by Wandsworth council, and have been approved.

Is there any cooperation between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science on this issue?

I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I keep in very close touch with Lady Young, Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. She is no relation. I have regular meetings with her about provision for the under-fives. Last autumn we jointly met a delegation from the Pre-School Playgroups Association. Later this month we shall make joint visits to schemes for under-fives in Hounslow and Haringey.

Given the Minister's decision to abolish the Personal Social Services Council with effect from tomorrow—despite its excellent record of advice to Governments and despite savage cuts in personal social service budgets—is not the only way that he can maintain credibility to admit that such services will deteriorate steadily under this Government?

With great respect to the Personal Social Services Council, it has not provided any services for the under-fives.

Does the Minister agree with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that the best way to reduce the incidence of child cruelty and abuse is to provide adequate day-care provision? If he agrees with the NSPCC, will he ensure that all local authorities provide adequate facilities?

The Department will shortly issue a circular that will indicate how the register might be put to more effective use to reduce the tragic incidence of child abuse.

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has received the details about Paul Hardman, who has suffered as a result of vaccine damage for a number of years; and what steps has he taken to advise the hon. Member for St. Helens about the parents' right to claim payment under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 on behalf of their son, Paul.

I have received those details. I share the hon. Gentleman's distress that Paul should be so severly disabled. I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's letter. A particular difficulty affecting the case is that many of the medical records are difficult to decipher.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his letter, which I received at 2 o'clock this afternoon. Is he aware that the information contained in the letter is not very helpful in a case in which a child has been severely damaged for the rest of his life, and in which there is no hope of his regaining normal health? A claim is being made under the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979, but it is said that the claim will hang on the question of probability. In a case such as this, where there is some doubt, should not the child be given the benefit of any doubt, and receive damages?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this case has been dealt with precisely in accordance with the Act passed by the last Parliament. The Bill was introduced by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals). First time round, on the balance of probability, the authorities were unable to conclude that Paul's disabilities were due to vaccination. His parents have a right of appeal and they are pursuing that. I hope that it will be heard as soon as possible.

asked the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to Larkhill, Stockport.

I have at present no plans to do so.

From Larkhill the Prime Minister would be able to see four old council estates in Stockport that are in desperate need of modernisation and repair. What advice would she give to the elderly and to those on low incomes living in those houses about how to modernise their homes, in view of the drastic cut back in Government spending on housing and the increasing number of unemployed in the building trade in Stockport?

With regard to expenditure on housing, it is for the local authority to determine its priorities. I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that after quite a long period of Labour government, he must indicate that position.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 June.

In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

How does my right hon. Friend intend to deal with the reduction in the United Kingdom contribution to the EEC? Am I right in thinking that a good part of it will be put towards the public sector borrowing requirement and so lead to lower interest rates? Is not that the key to future progress?

My hon. Friend is right. One of our greatest problems is high interest rates. It is vital that the refunds that we have secured from the European budget should go to reducing the public sector borrowing requirement and, therefore, interest rates.

Since the purchasing power of the pound has continued to fall steadily under this Government, so that the value of the 50p piece introduced in 1969 is now only 13½p, will the right hon. Lady consider commemorating the first year of this Government's term of office by introducing a £1 coin?

I have not considered that. The greater part of the reduction did not occur under this Government.

Will my right hon. Friend take time off today to send a message of support to the British Lions rugby team in South Africa, to encourage it in its games against multi-racial teams in front of multi-racial crowds? Is it not time that we tore up the Gleneagles agreement?

I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend. We advised the British Lions that to go to South Africa would be contrary to the Gleneagles agreement. We also said that when sufficient advances had been made in the present arrangements in South Africa for races playing together we would consider revising the agreement. That time has not yet arrived.

Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that the treatment that she received from some people during her recent visit to Sunderland was less than the courtesy normally given to VIPs visiting the area?

It served her right.

What will she do to alleviate the tremendous problems of Sunderland and similar areas?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment. I had a very enjoyable and valuable visit to Sunderland and Durham. I hope to return to the North-East again. I learnt a good deal about their problems. One problem in Sunderland is persistent unemployment, which results from the great difficulties of the older industries. The hon. Gentleman is aware that subsidies are being given to help shipbuilding. We shall do all that we can. He will also be aware of the proposal in the Budget for enterprise zones. Many people are applying for those zones. I hope that decision will be made within about six weeks on who shall have them.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the new policy document to which the Labour Party has apparently committed itself? Does she agree that it appears to be nothing short of disgraceful that the Labour Party's policy-making has been taken over by the Trotskyite militant faction?

I have not considered it, but I am sure that what my hon. Friend has said is true, and therefore the document will not be among my top priorities for reading.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

If the Prime Minister meets the Chancellor of the Exchequer some time before the end of the day, I hope that they will do something to help manufacturing industry in this country. Are we now positively to discriminate in favour of the producers in our society, or is the right hon. Lady prepared to go down in history as the Prime Minister who allowed more bankruptcies and more closures to take place than at any other time in the last 100 years? What does she intend to do to help our manufacturing industry, faced with an over-valued pound and high interest rates?

I have already seen my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer today, and we discussed just these problems. The greatest help that can come about for manufacturing industry is for wage increases to be related to productivity increases. That is a matter for employees and management to discuss together.

Will my right hon. Friend take time today to ensure that the public are aware of the fact that during five years' of Labour Government no kind of rearrangement with the EEC was achieved, whereas in one year of this Conservative Government a major change has taken place—and the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) was ungenerous enough to carp even at that great success?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The one thing that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) forgot was the Labour Government's lamentable record on this front.

Would the right hon. Lady care to take into account that in two years of Labour government we made a surplus in our dealings with the EEC, which is more than her Government have done? With regard to the general position—with which the question by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is concerned—why does the Prime Minister propose to wait until mid-July to get her Cabinet together to consider the failure of these economic policies? Ought they not to be reversed immediately?

Any years in surplus must have been arranged by the previous Government. The White Paper on public expenditure demonstrates the actual transfers of funds over the past years, which were enormous during the latter part of the Labour Government's term of office and were enormous this year. What has been negotiated now is a refund of some £710 million this year and a refund of some £860 million next year, which is an excellent result, and of course we shall continue with the restructuring of the common agricultural policy and of the EEC budget. Meetings of the Cabinet on economic policy are regular.

What is the status of this Cabinet meeting to be held on 16 July? Is it to reverse these dreadful polices which, after 13 months of Conservative Government, have led to a high rate of inflation and the threat of even higher unemployment? The right hon. Lady knows also that the output of manufacturing industry is going to decline. When will she adopt policies that will reverse these disasters?

The right hon. Gentleman is trying very hard. We have regular Cabinet meetings on economic policy. We do not reveal the agendas. Nor did he reveal the agendas of his Cabinet.

In that case, the right hon. Lady need not wait for Cabinet meetings in order to reverse these policies. It is the disaster that is overtaking Britain and its people that we are concerned about. What is she going to do about it?

One relevant matter that has come up today is that the refund will go towards reducing expenditure, which will help to reduce interest rates. I shall, of course, be very grateful for any help that the right hon. Gentleman sees fit to give in encouraging wage increases to keep step with productivity increases, but I do not expect such assistance from that quarter.

During the course of her busy day, will my right hon. Friend spare a moment to reflect on the sad events at the CEGB power station at Grain, in my constituency, last Tuesday, not in any sense to crow that right thinking overcame violence, but to look at the deeper implications? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 1,600 people who were in work wish to continue working? If the trade unions involved can cobble up their differences, will she please encourage the CEGB to go ahead and complete that power station, thus giving those loyal people the work that they want?

I am glad to respond to my hon. Friend. I think that the state of affairs at the Isle of Grain power station shows two things. The first is the lamentable relationship between the unions concerned, which I hope they will be able to sort out in the interests of all who work in the industry and of trade unionism itself, and the second is the lamentable state of affairs for the people of this country who have put an enormous amount of investment into that power station, which is reflected in their electricity prices. I hope that the power station will be completed and produce the electricity for which it was designed.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 3 June.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave a few moments ago.

Will the right hon. Lady find time to make a statement about reports of Government contingency plans for the use of the Armed Forces in Scottish hospitals in the event of industrial action by hospital workers? Why not avoid the possibility of industrial disputes by giving the Health Service workers a decent wage increase instead of using troops as scab labour to do a job for which they are not trained?

I hope that satisfactory agreements will be concluded, because, after all, those who work in the Health Service serve the people of this country, including Scotland, and I hope that that will be their top priority.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to take account of the anger felt by many people in Birmingham over the recent decision by the Labour-controlled council to end the sale of council houses? Will she give an assurance that when the Housing Bill becomes law no council will be allowed to deny tenants the right to buy their houses?

I am not certain whether that decision is final. If it is, I very much regret it, as do many of the people who live in those council houses. When the Housing Bill becomes law people will have the right to purchase their council houses, and hundreds of thousands of them will take up that right.

Has the right hon. Lady considered the possibility that one policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be absolutely right if only he continued with it? Is she aware that the exchange rate would now probably be higher than it is had he not abolished exchange controls? Will she now suggest to her right hon. and learned Friend that he should carry on with his policy and reintroduce exchange controls in reverse, so that without increasing the money supply he can lower the exchange rate?

Of one thing I can assure the hon. Gentleman—[ Interruption ]. My right hon. and learned Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: " Answer "]. I am trying to.

Order. The noise only takes away from the Prime Minister time for answering questions and makes it harder for her to answer.

I assure the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) that my right hon. and learned Friend will carry on with his present policies.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan a number of Labour-controlled councils in Scotland are giving large sums of ratepayers' money to support the Olympics? Does she regard that as a scandalous abuse of ratepayers' money at a time of restraint?

I am aware of that decision. I join my hon. Friend in thoroughly deploring it.

Will the right hon. Lady realise that this is a comparatively simple question? Will she inform her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) that many councils, both Labour and Conservative, that might, for their own reasons, want to sell council houses will be unable to do so because funds for mortgages are being denied to those councils by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment?

But the funds for the building of the houses have already been borrowed and are then repaid. It is not impossible to transfer that loan to the tenant.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on the New Hebrides.

As the House is aware, the condominium of the New Hebrides is the joint responsibility of Britain and France. Yesterday evening in Paris I met my French colleague, M. Dijoud, the Secretary of State for Overseas Departments and Territories, to review recent events on the island of Espiritu Santo.

M. Dijoud and I agreed that we must discharge our joint responsibility to maintain law and order in the territory. We agreed that we must re-emphasise our joint support for the democratically elected Government of the New Hebrides our commitment to the independence constitution agreed by all parties in Vila last year, and our determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of the condominium.

We further agreed that the authority of the legitimate Government must be restored on the island of Santo as soon as possible, and condemned the actions of those responsible for the armed insurrection on the island.

We agreed that we must jointly make one further effort to persuade both sides to renew, in a true spirit of compromise, the discussions begun in London in March and which have continued until recently, in order to find a peaceful solution to their differences.

In making this appeal, and in urging the Chief Minister to pursue a policy of national reconciliation, we recognised that an essential prerequisite of constructive negotiations must be the reimposition of the authority of the legitimate Government on the island of Santo. In short, those responsible on Santo must agree to return to the legal and administrative position obtaining before the insurrection of 28 May.

M. Dijoud informed me that France was now prepared to agree to the 30 July independence date proposed by the New Hebrides Government. In accepting this date, which is a mere two months away, we recognised that the present problems must be urgently resolved. If no progress is made towards reconciliation, Britain and France will decide jointly on what further action to take.

Is the Minister aware that this weak and vacillating statement is in total contradiction to the pledges that he has given to the House to maintain law and order, which he has undertaken to do on behalf of the British Government? The Minister said that the Government are prepared to take all necessary steps to preserve the peace of the New Hebrides. He said that a joint force of police mobiles was ready to take action is necessary. What has happened to that undertaking?

Have the French Government made it clear to those of their nationals who are reported to be supporting this shabby little manoeuvre that they will not in any circumstances allow them to carry on with this open flouting of the central Government? Is he aware that the Chief Minister has more than once offered talks to the people on Espiritu Santo and that his offers have been openly spurned? Why have the Government climbed down, and what do they intend to do to maintain the peace of the New Hebrides?

I totally repudiate the tone of the hon. Lady's question. The main criticism that I have heard in the past two months about the action of the French and British Governments has been that the independence constitution that M. Dijoud and I worked out together last autumn has worked in such a way as to favour the anglophone Government of the New Hebrides. My French colleague and I issued a statement in January in which we clearly stated our support for the legitimate Government of the New Hebrides and our determination to reject any movement towards secession. If the hon. Lady studies the statement that M. Dijoud made with me yesterday, she will find that it is a very strong statement. I assume that M. Dijoud can be taken at his word.

If the hon. Lady is asking for the use of military force, I must tell her that I agree with my French colleague that for the moment the right course is to make a further attempt at negotiation. As recently as 28 May the Chief Minister called for further negotiation. However, the Government have sent to the New Hebrides two military advisers. They are there now, and they will be able to advise the Government what steps may be necessary, in a military sense, if, regrettably, the peaceful negotiations that we have proposed do not succeed.

This is a total contradiction of the undertaking that the Minister gave to the House. He said that a police mobile force was available, which would take action, if necessary, to restore law and order on Santo. He now says that they are offering military advisers. Will he please give us a clear explanation, or has he backed down in the face of the attitude of the French Government?

No. I repeat that we have not backed down. I have taken the same view as my colleague, M. Dijoud, namely, that for the time being the right course is to press both sides for further negotiations. I remind the hon. Lady that when there were disturbances on the island of Tanna a few days ago we took action with the police mobile forces. That action was successful. Before we go in for military action, we must be careful to ensure that such action will be effective. That is one of the matters on which we shall have advice from the two military advisers. For the time being, we believe that the right course is negotiation, which Father Lin was supporting on 28 May.

Does my hon. Friend agree that he is wise to proceed slowly and cautiously in this particular and peculiar part of the world? Secondly, what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Phoenix Foundation?

I find it somewhat surpriing that the Opposition should be calling, apparently, for military action in such a hurry. It is something that we will wish to remember on future occasions. It contrasts with some attitudes that they have taken in the past.

It is clear from the Phoenix Foundation's own admission that it has been involved in the insurrection. I have agreed with M. Dijoud that we should take action to eliminate the meddling of the Foundation on Santo. At our request, the United States Government have agreed to see whether any United States laws have been violated by the involvement of United States citizens. Yesterday, the State Department issued a statement that it was its intention to prosecute should there be any violation of United States law.

Send in an assasination squad.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us in rather greater detail why the Government have decided to renege on their absolute pledges in the House, on three occasions, to take whatever measures were necessary to restore law and order, and why they have allowed M. Dijoud to issue a statement that only negotiations—that is, ruling out force, as we did over Rhodesia—can solve the problem?

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, although there is a duty to consult in the treaty, as in the Cyprus treaty, there is nothing to preclude the British Government, if necessary, taking unilateral action if they decide that that is proper? Finally, can the hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance that if Mr. Oliver, any other member of the Phoenix Foundation, or any member of the French interests in Paris involved in the coup against the legitimately elected Government of the New Hebrides arrives at Port Vila, he will be sent home on the next plane?

The Government are not reneging on any of their undertakings. I repeated those undertakings in my statement today. We did not say that in the event of the threat of secession, or secession, our first step would be to take military action. We said that we would sustain the integrity of the New Hebrides. Powers exist to keep Mr. Oliver and the other members of the Phoenix Foundation out of the New Hebrides. I have my French colleague's assurance that such powers will be used if necessary. The nature of the condominium is such that it is assumed that the two metropolitan Powers will always act together. The basic constitutional document, which is the document of 1914, is silent on the possibility of unilateral action. I believe that it is essential for Britain and France to act together. That way we have the best chance of success.

As one who was recently airwrecked in the New Hebrides, may I ask my hon. Friend to congratulate warmly the authorities in Port Vila for their prompt action in removing from the area of insurrection people who might have been at risk? Can my hon. Friend assure us that, if necessary, further support will be given immediately to the authorities in Port Vila to mount a rescue operation and put down the insurrection promptly?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks about the British authorities' actions in Port Vila in rescuing people from the island of Santo. I shall see that those remarks are passed to our resident commissioner. They are well deserved. I do not believe that he requires further help at present to continue the rescue operation. I have nothing to add to what I said with regard to the use of force.

As all the problems that we are now concerned with were ventilated in debates in this House, and, I presume, were equally well known to the French Government, how on earth have two such widely experienced colonial Powers got themselves into such an enormous mess?

I do not accept that it is the two colonial Powers that have got themselves into an enormous mess; nor would I describe the situation as an enormous mess. It is a problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that a condominium is not the easiest arrangement to manage. The problems of a country coming to independence from condominium status are greater than those of a country that has been ruled by only one country.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is revealing that the Opposition are anxious to use force only when the enemy is armed with bows and arrows?

I have noted the interesting development of the Opposition calling for the use of force. However, the House should not assume that bows and arrows are the only weapons with which the rebels are armed. They have other weapons. The House should also not assume that a bow and arrow is not a lethal weapon.

Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been rising throughout questions on the statement.

Are senior advisers in the Foreign Office in any way haunted by the rotten advice about Anguilla that they gave to my noble Friend Lord Stewart of Fulham—then Mr. Michael Stewart—when he was Foreign Secretary? If not, they should be. In terms of force, what does the Minister mean by his reference to the Government's determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of the condominium?

I do not believe that a valid comparison can be made between the New Hebrides and Anguilla. We are dealing here with a minority group that lost the regional election in Santo last November. Having lost that election, that group is attempting to gain control by the use of force. The meaning of my statement is perfectly clear. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Will my hon. Friend accept that I welcome his statement that it is the joint responsibility of the British and French Governments to ensure that law and order are restored? Does he agree that it is essential for the future viability of the New Hebrides that its territorial integrity is maintained and fragmentation is avoided?

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's point. A matter also understood by the Chief Minister and hon. Members who know the New Hebrides as well as my hon. Friend is that it will continue to be dependent on France and Britain after independence, as it will require aid from both countries. That is an important factor in the future life of the New Hebrides, and one reason why I believe that it is important for Britain and France to act together.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government appear to be following the same dubious policy in the New Hebrides as that which they followed in the Comoro Islands, which led to international friction? Is he also aware of the involvement of the squalid American business interests in the episode? If so what formal representations have been made to the American Government?

There is no comparison between the situation in the New Hebrides and that in the Comoro Islands. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House when I answered a question about the American business interests a few months ago.

How many people have been evacuated or rescued from Espiritu Santo, and how are they being looked after?

According to the latest information that I received this morning, a total of about 1,400 people have been evacuated from Santo. Among them are 104 people of non-New Hebridean origin, including 21 British subjects. To our knowledge, a few people are left, including one Briton who has chosen to remain, and about 30 other non-New Hebrideans. The people evacuated are being looked after under emergency arrangements. I have had no complaints about difficulties.

Will the Minister now accept that the Melanesian way includes the use of force, as he has been warned on more than one occasion in past weeks? Will he further accept that either local French officials have been misleading the French Government, the French Government have been misleading the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Gentleman has been inadvertently misleading the House? Will he please check his information? Does he believe that Mr. Jimmy Stevens will take notice of the statements that he, the Minister, makes in this House?

We have agreed that the French and British Governments will do their utmost to persuade both sides to agree to the negotiations that we have proposed. I believe that there is evidence that some officials employed by the French sector of the New Hebrides Government have acted in an improper manner. I make a distinction between their actions and those of the French Government. M. Dijoud agreed yesterday to the communiqué contained in my statement. I believe that I am entitled to take him at his word.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the New Hebrides depends on the English—and French—speaking people getting on together? It is therefore most important that the two countries act together and are not seen to be divided. Will my hon. Friend accept that the House does itself no credit by trying to drag anti-French feeling into this serious situation?

I entirely agree. It is very much in the interests of the New Hebrideans that Britain and France should act together. However, I emphasise that the action agreed on yesterday was taken on its merits and on no other criteria.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the reneging by the Government on their absolute pledge in the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to preserve law and order in the New Hebrides and their failure to defend those islands' territorial integrity ". I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, before noon today that I might seek to move the Adjournment of the House to discuss this matter.

Hon. Members will remember the three recent occasions when the question of the New Hebrides has been discussed on the Floor of the House. The first occasion arose from a private notice question by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lester) on 22 November last year. In response to that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—said that he would use the police, and added: We shall go further than that if events prove that further action is necessary. In answer to a later question the hon. Gentleman said that if the police are inadequate, further forces will be sent."—[Official Report, 22 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 561–2.] I initiated an Adjournment debate on 7 December and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)—said: I can assure the House that we are prepared to take all necessary steps to preserve the peace of the New Hebrides as long as we are responsible for it."—[Official Report, 7 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 885.] We heard the hon. Gentleman's statement today alongside a statement by the French Minister, M. Dijoud, which appeared on the Press Association tapes saying exactly the opposite. He ruled out any form of force and said that only peaceful negotiations could solve the problem.

In stressing the urgency of the matter I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that an issue of confidence in pledges given to the House is at stake. It is clear that law and order have broken down and that the territorial integrity of the New Hebrides has been breached.

I remind the House that UDI has been declared on the island of Santo and new documents have been issued to everyone who wishes to remain there. The power of the British half of the condominium has been eliminated, while French policemen on the island are allowed to go about unmolested.

Secondly, it is well known that not only American interests, through the Phoenix Foundation, of Carson City, are involved in the ownership of land in the New Hebrides. That has been confirmed to me in a letter from the Minister of State about the extent of the ownership of land on the island. A total of 3,498.5 hectares of land is owned by the Foundation. On top of that, French interests, which are particularly voluble in the French Senate, are making it impossible for M. Dijoud, the responsible Minister, to take any decisions on his own account. He has to refer everything to President Giscard d'Estaing, because of the French commercial interests that are involved.

There are two issues at stake—absolute pledges given in absolute terms on the Floor of the House and British responsibilities to a condominium for which we still have responsibility. I urge on you, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Minister of State's statement represents a breach of faith with the House on pledges given to it. For that reason, an emergency debate is justified.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, the reneging by the Government on their absolute pledge in the House of Commons to take all necessary measures to preserve law and order in the New Hebrides and their failure to defend those islands' territorial integrity ".

Now read it in French.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should not tempt me. I might go into Welsh, though that would not be very successful.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West and the House know that when an application for an emergency debate is submitted to me I have to take into account the several factors set out in the Standing Order but to give no reason for my decision. The House knows that I do not decide whether the matters that the hon. Member has raised should be dabated, but merely whether they are of such a character that our business should be changed tonight or tomorrow night to allow an emergency debate to take place.

Having listened with care to the hon. Member, I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for local voting on the siting of nuclear power stations, the conduct of that vote, the allocation of press space and television time during the campaign; and for connected purposes. Nuclear power provides 12 per cent. of electricity generated in the United Kingdom, part of the CEGB's 28 per cent. total generating capacity above the forecast of future winter demand. Nuclear power comes from a variety of nuclear power stations, all of which have the common characteristics of widespread technical difficulties and delay in being brought into operation. All Magnox reactors have been downrated and the AGRs have suffered immense delays in being brought into use—Dungeness B 10 years late, Hartlepool eight years late, Heysham A six years late.

Two further power stations of the AGR pattern have been approved and three are close to becoming operational. It seems sensible, therefore, to consolidate our position and improve our existing techniques and safety and evaluate the existing nuclear stations rather than to embark, as the Government propose, on a further programme from 1982 onwards of 10 pressurised water reactors of the same family as the Three Mile Island type in America. It is especially disturbing that the type of reactor favoured is the one in which the GEC has a commercial interest. If that type is chosen, it will give that company an enormous commercial advantage.

It is especially absurd for the United Kingdom to embark on such a programme when we are rich in coal reserves, with at least 300 years' supply, and oil reserves which will make us self-sufficient for at least 20 years.

However, it is also true that fuel is finite. The proposition is put that only nuclear energy can help us to provide the necessary amount of energy resource that we need, but Professor Joseph Rotblat, writing in The Guardian on Thursday 29 May, with a comprehensive estimate of the calculations ascribed to nuclear energy, took a different view. He said: Straightforward calculations can show that we have been misled about the potential of nuclear power and that in reality it can make only a small contribution to the world's energy needs over the next 50 years. The article was a learned and comprehensive exposition of that point of view. If Professor Rotblat is right, by embarking on further new sites we are possibly endangering present and future generations for no possible purpose. My proposed Bill would enable these arguments and those of the proponents to be deployed in a referendum across an area about 30 miles in diameter, and provision would be made for the Home Secretary to accept representations for a larger area to be involved in the referendum.

In my view, referenda should apply only to unusual and special circumstances. Going nuclear in such a massive way is certainly unusual and constitutes special circumstances that demand special consideration. The immediate effect of leaks of radioactivity in the air or on the ground, as at Windscale, is in the area adjacent to the power station. In the Windscale leak, there was a precautionary ban on the consumption of milk within a radius of several miles of the power station. It is in the area in proximity to the nuclear power station sites that there would be the greatest loss of civil liberties due to the movement of nuclear fuel and spent material in the area.

Legislation already gives wide powers to special police supervising the movement of radioactive materials to carry and use firearms. To emphasise further the special nature of the position of people living in the area of a proposed PWR, the notes prepared by the Department of Energy for the Library contains the following comments: The possibility of a serious accident involving a release of radioactivity capable of affecting the nearby population is considered extremely remote. Nevertheless, it is prudent to have measures for the protection of the local community ready against such an eventuality. The operators of nuclear installations are therefore required by the conditions of the nuclear site licences to make preparations for dealing with emergencies. Emergency arrangements are set out in a site emergency plan which each licensed operator is required to submit to the Health and Safety Executive. The plan covers: ( a ) on site organisation and arrangements; ( b ) off site arrangements in an emergency, for example, the evacuation of the neighbouring population, and the monitoring of radioactive levels, and ( c ) arrangements with outside bodies, such as local authorities, emergency services and Government departments. The local emergency services would be able to call on such national bodies as the National Radiological Protection Board and the Health and Safety Executive for help and advice. It is clear that there is in people's minds the possibility of a very real and serious emergency affecting the local population surrounding the site of a nuclear power station. That is made clear by the comments of the Department of Energy. It is interesting that so much responsibility lies on the shoulders of the Health and Safety Executive, which currently has 17 vacancies out of a total staff of 104 at the end of a recruitment drive prompted by shortage of inspectors which led in 1979 to the lowest average number of inspectors per nuclear installation for seven years. At the same time, the Health and Safety Executive faces cuts as part of the public expenditure cuts imposed by the Government.

All these disturbing factors could be made clear during the referendum campaign, which, under the Bill, would last no more than a month. A scheme would be produced by the Home Secretary to provide for fair coverage in newspapers and on television. Newspapers would be controlled in much the same way as television is controlled during a general election campaign in their use of referendum material. This would help to stop the bias and distortion that occurs in the press during a general election campaign familiar to all hon. Members.

A fair allocation of space for each side would prevent any advertising pressure producing bias. Advertising itself in support of a particular view would be curtailed by limitations on expenditure that the scheme would place on the campaigning organisations registered under the scheme. Expenditure outside the registered organisations would be illegal for the period of the campaign.

It may be argued that planning procedures can take care of the views of a locality without the need for a referendum, but planning inquiries are in variably weighted in favour of the Establishment. The Government have enormous financial facilities as do the various nuclear organisations such as the CEGB and the Nuclear Power Corporation. They can afford to employ specialist lawyers and specialists to present the case. Ordinary citizens in the locality have to raise their own money and obviously have difficulty in doing so. Ordinary people feel that inquiries tend to be weighted in favour of the decision made by the Government or the planning body making the application. The referendum would give them a direct and clear voice. Although such referenda are advisory to Parliament, it would be impossible, in practice, for Parliament to ignore the views of the people so expressed.

The Government have expressed the view that for the establishment of trade union closed shops there should be a vote of 80 per cent. in favour among those eligible to vote. I do not share the Government's view of the importance of trade union closed shops, nor do I endorse their determined attack on them. I take the view, however, that nuclear power stations represent a real and continuing potential danger to present and future generations under the wrong combination of circumstances.

Because of the great importance of the issue, I have decided that the voting pattern must demonstrate overwhelming support that a new nuclear power station is desirable. The criterion would be that adopted in the Employment Bill promoted by the Government—that is to say, 80 per cent. of those eligible to vote must vote in favour of a nuclear power station site for it to be approved. People would thus have an opportunity fairly to argue the merits of the case. If the arguments for a new PWR station are overwhelming, the vote would follow. If people have reservations, if they are wary of experts such as those who assured local authorities about Ronan Point-type flats or those who assured the people living near Three Mile Island, and if they do not want to risk radioactive leaks, contamination, genetic damage to themselves, their children and their neighbours, they should have an opportunity, in the absence of conviction to the contrary, to vote " No ". My proposed Bill would give them that opportunity.

4.7 pm

I rise to oppose the Bill. I recognise that the custom of the Ten-Minute Bill is to give hon. Members an opportunity of raising an issue that they consider to be important. Frequently, they do so in the expectation that their legislation will not progress very far. That is not universally the case. Having successfully piloted a Ten-Minute Bill through all its stages to the statue book, I take the view that one should regard an occasion of this kind not as a mere propaganda occasion but rather as the initiating of legislation. It is, therefore, right that the House should refuse to give permission to what I venture to describe as a somewhat mischievious attempt to put forward a view about the nuclear industry that perpetuates popular misconceptions and does nothing to enlarge the understanding of the British people of the great issues at stake in providing for our power needs in an age when fossil fuels are no longer available.

I also oppose the Bill on the ground that a local referendum of the kind advocated by my hon. Friend is a profoundly undemocratic procedure, which in any event would prove unworkable and create considerable anomalies. The fanciful notion that the people who happen to live within 30 miles of a power plant are the only people who would necessarily be affected by it, or should be given a right to pronounce whether or not the plant is to be located there, is one that, on reflection, I believe the House would not wish to support.

The proposition gives further support to the idea that popular local agitation should be encouraged to lead to decisions that may have national importance being overridden. That is in line with the policy that was espoused in Scotland

last week by the Scottish National Party, which proclaimed at its conference in Rothesay that a campaign of civil disobedience should be initiated against the decision of successive Governments to locate a nuclear power station at Torness.

Calls for civil disobedience are, in any language, calls for breaches of the law. I do not believe that breaches of the law should be advocated by any democrat. Equally, I believe that those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy take the view that Parliament is the right place to make decisions of this kind and that Governments must be accountable for these major decisions in this place. Those decisions should not run the risk of veto as a result of agitation in a particular local community.

Local community interests are well protected by the planning laws that this House has passed. Where wider considerations are involved, it is open to Governments to set up inquiries that are analogous to that which was held in the case of Windscale, allowing full considerations of local and national interest to be properly canvassed at great length, and giving local people a full opportunity to express their views on these issues.

My hon. Friend's suggestion is nonsense, and I hope that it will be resoundingly rejected by the House.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 ( Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business ):—

The House divided: Ayes 75, Noes 188.

Question accordingly negatived .