Mr. Speaker, you charged us with an important mission: to present, on behalf of this House, Speakers' Chairs to two newly independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean. I pay tribute to my travelling companions, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and our senior Clerk, Mr. Anthony Barrett, who observed all the niceties for us and established excellent liaison with out hosts. Both truly entered into the spirit of the occasion. The wit—I use the word advisedly—of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East charmed our hosts and opened all doors to us.

We travelled through three countries, took eight different flights and had five separate resting places. Despite this, we never had fewer than two passports between us, and sometimes we had three. This happy coincidence greatly improved our progress.

Our first visit was to Belize, and we found it highly stimulating. We met the utmost friendliness from a people who are peaceful, but have a commendable pioneering spirit. Belize is poor by our standards, but it has plentiful natural resources of timber, fishing grounds and potential ranching land for cattle which can be developed. The country is stable, its legislature is based on the Westminster system and the Head of State is the Queen, but its neighbours the Guatemalans lay claim to part of its territory. Hence, there is a small contingent of British troops to act as a deterrent against aggression. This presence adds greatly to the country's stability. Belize is one of the few true democracies in the American continent. Belize, for its part, offers our troops an incomparable training ground in real operations.

The Prime Minister, the Hon. George Price, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Hon. C. B. Hyde, received us with the utmost kindness and made us feel at home. We delivered your letter, Mr. Speaker, to Mr. Speaker Hyde, and I have his reply. We presented the Speaker's Chair of English cherry wood, which looked very fine in its new setting. The House of Representatives tabled the following motion:

"That this House records its deep gratitude for the Independence Gift of a Speaker's Chair from the House of Commons of the United Kingdom to the House of Representatives of Belize and that a message conveying Belize's appreciation and gratitude be sent to the Speaker of the House of Commons in pledge of the close and friendly relations which exist between our two Commonwealth Countries."

I think that I have said enough to give an impression of Belize and its friendly and generous people. Britain's contribution to its defence is a great mutual advantage, and I hope that it will continue for some time.

We then visited Antigua and Barbuda, and once again we were made most welcome. The acting Prime Minister, the Hon. Lester Bird, and the Speaker, the Hon. C. L. Murray, received us most courteously. The programme was planned with meticulous care. They were anxious for us to see and enjoy everything. Antigua has played a vital role in our history. Great naval battles of the 18th century occurred there, as witnessed by Nelson's dockyard at English harbour, which has now been beautifully restored. The riches produced in Antigua helped to finance our industrial revolution. Antigua is naturally apprehensive about Communist penetration in the Caribbean area and very much values its strong links with the United Kingdom.

The ceremony was carried out in true parliamentary fashion. I was able to refer to the six table lamps in oak which the Leeward Islands gave us following the destruction of our Chamber. The Chair that we presented was of English cherry wood and complements the Members' desks, which were a gift from Canada. The following motion was tabled:

"Be it resolved that we, the Members of the House of Representatives of Antigua and Barbuda, convey to the House of Commons Parliament at Westminster our nation's sincere thanks for the gift of the Speaker's Chair and Table presented to this Honourable House to mark the independence of Antigua and Barbuda."

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I did not take your name in vain during our visit when I referred to your earlier profession and the fact that you carry a thimble, and a needle and cotton behind your lapel. When I described in graphic terms how you had been dragged to the Chair, they quite understood that immediate repairs might have been necessary.

It had been an immense honour for me and my colleagues to carry out the task on behalf of this House, and to be concerned in the fostering of those links that we all hold so dear and that we shall sever at out peril.

It is an extremely pleasant duty for me to report to you, Mr. Speaker, and the House on our visit to Belize and to Antigua and Barbuda. The gifts of the Speakers' Chairs were graciously accepted in very dignified ceremonies, and it was a pleasure to be able to speak in two Commonwealth Parliaments. Your letters, Mr. Speaker, to the Speakers of those Houses were carefully read and appreciated. The whole visit was memorable because of the great welcome that we received in both countries. We were treated with the utmost warmth, hospitality and generosity by everyone.

Belize is, of course, in central America, and we are painfully aware of the tensions, troubles and turbulence in that area, where there are some unsavoury regimes and brutalities. But there is none of that in Belize, which is a democratic, peaceful corner in an area of turbulence.

I should like to read one sentence from the speech of the Prime Minister at the ceremony:

"We have fundamental treasures in common — the language, the tradition, the parliamentary system, the common law, trial by jury, and the mixed economy."

We know that there is a territorial claim against Belize by Guatemala, and a British military presence. That presence is universally welcomed by all in Belize. We had the opportunity of visiting the British forces there and I was much impressed by their discipline and morale. They keep a very high visibility. If the right signals are given to Guatemala, the evaluation of those present was that there would be no risk of an attack. But if we were to withdraw those troops, or if they were not so highly visible, the opposite could be the case.

As the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) has said, Belize is a developing country, with the problems of developing countries. We can help her in two ways—by trade and aid. Often trade is the more important. The theory of trade is that countries should do what they are best at, and countries such as Belize are best at growing sugar. It is most inappropriate for our continent to overproduce sugar and then subsidise its dumping on the world market, which makes life impossible for countries such as Belize. If there is one way in which we can help Belize it is by diminishing the European production of sugar beet and by opening our markets freely to cane sugar from the Third world.

I thank the Hon. Florencio Marin, the Minister for Natural Resources, who took us on a visit to the country's agriculture. I thank particularly the Hon. Fred Hunter, Minister of Works, and Mr. Monsanto, the Clerk of the House. They were two very agreeable companions who accompanied us to Ambergris cave and gave us a very pleasant time there.

Antigua and Barbuda are islands of great charm and character. Our connections go back many centuries, as we were vividly reminded by the sight of Nelson's dockyard and the fortifications he built there. I was particularly pleased to see the renovations taking place to the dockyard. We were received there with equal warmth and hospitality. I should like to mention in particular Mr. Stevens, the Secretary to the Cabinet, who went out of his way to make us feel at home.

My pleasure in undertaking the task was enhanced by my two travelling companions, who were extremely agreeable and amiable to me—the hon. Member for Esher and our Clerk, Mr. Barrett. I believe that Field Marshal Montgomery, when asked what he thought of Mao Tse Tung, said that he thought he would be a very good man with whom to go into the jungle. I can certainly say that the hon. Member for Esher is an excellent man with whom to go into the jungle.

I had one brief encounter with the local mosquitoes. At the time I was sitting on the back of a truck, clad only in a bathing suit, thus presenting a visible target. The creatures pressed home their attack with great resolution and within three minutes I thought there might be a by-election pending in Newham, North-East. But the hon. Member for Esher was equal to the occasion, and his experience of soldiering in foreign parts stood him in good stead. He had the appropriate medicaments and virtually saved my life. I am extremely grateful to him. He became my doctor and medical adviser and ensured that I survived the trip.

Mr. Barrett was extremely helpful in ensuring that we kept to our schedule and got to all the right places on time.

I think we can say that we carried out our task, in accordance with the traditions of this House, primarily because of the excellent leadership of the delegation by the hon. Member for Esher.

I am sure that the House will wish me to thank both hon. Members for the way in which they discharged the task that was entrusted to them. I shall ensure that the resolutions of the Houses of Representatives of Belize and of Antigua and Barbuda are entered in the Journal.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the future of Ravensbourne college of art and design. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science for attending the House for a debate at what is, in parliamentary terms, a relatively early hour.

Ravensbourne college is housed at Chislehurst in purpose-built premises constructed about eight years ago at a cost of £1·6 million. It offers CNAA BA(Hons.) degree courses in fine arts, fashion, graphic design and three-dimensional design. It is one of only 10 institutions in Britain offering those four main art and design disciplines, and one of an even smaller number which offer them on one site. The college also has an annexe, some distance away, where there has been developed a higher diploma course in communications, engineering and television broadcasting, providing training for the television industry.

The National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education — the NAB — was set up by the Secretary of State to advise him on provision of local authority higher education and the consequent allocation of funds. In his letter to the college dated 30 July 1982, the secretary of the NAB wrote:

"The Government's expenditure plans in the 1982 Public Expenditure White Paper call for a reduction in expenditure on higher education of at least 10 per cent. in real terms between 1980–81 and 1984–85 and, further, imply that the total cash available to higher education institutions will be about the same in 1984–85 as in 1982–83. In other words, on reasonable assumptions about pay and price increases, institutions' expenditure on higher education will fall on average by about 10 per cent. in real terms between 1982–83 and 1984–85. In this situation the Board and Committee of NAB have decided that a major part of their discharge and responsibilities must be a detailed planning exercise, to be carried out between September 1982 and July 1983, and leading to advice to Government on the distribution of the AFE pool in 1984–85 and to local education authorities and institutions on future student numbers and course provision."

In addition to considering the extent, size and geographical location of courses, the NAB has to assume a reduction of 10 per cent. in expenditure. The body has, therefore, asked local authorities responsible for colleges of further education to state what would be the effect of a 10 per cent. reduction in expenditure.

Some institutions may have scope for substantial reductions in expenditure by making a series of economies here and there on staff, materials, administration and so on. Indeed, I have reason to believe that there are a number of institutions of which that could be said; but Ravensbourne college is not one.

Statistics can be interpreted differently, but by most normally accepted criteria Ravensbourne is an efficient and well-run institution. Of course, that is not to say that there is no scope for further economies, but staff there were told that the maximum saving that could be obtained without placing whole courses in jeopardy was 4 per cent. That is the problem facing Ravensbourne. The only way in which it could meet the NAB's request for a reduction in costs would be by closing a department. The local education authority, the London borough of Bromley, made it clear to the NAB that that would not be acceptable, but it was told that it must offer a course to be discontinued.

The initial suggestion was that the communications and television broadcasting course, which, as I said, is on a separate site, should be discontinued. That was advocated both by the academic board of the college and by the board of governors, on the latter occasion by a vote of eight to one, with the five local authority members abstaining.

However, at the end of May, the education committee of the borough changed its mind and decided that, in the event of a 10 per cent. cut being imposed, the fine art course should be discontinued. I should make it clear to the House and to the Minister that the decision was not taken easily or lightly. The director of education wrote to the NAB:

"At the end of the debate the Education Committee asked me to convey to you their unanimous conviction that a 10 per cent. reduction in expenditure, or a reduction in course provision, at Ravensbourne college of art and design is neither necessary nor desirable. Members would wish me to draw your attention again to the fact that over the past decade the college has progressively become more and more cost effective. Members nevertheless felt it right that they should indicate a preference between the alternative proposals put forward should it in the event prove to be absolutely necessary to look for a reduction of the order specified in your exercise. I have been asked to point out that members found this a most difficult and agonising decision. They found the arguments about the need for the continued provision of a fine art degree course alongside the degree courses in the other three design disciplines very strong indeed and had much sympathy with those who advanced these arguments. At the same time members also recognised the importance of the course in communications engineering and the contribution which, in the future, it will make nationally as well as to the design courses at the college. In the event, the decision on the preference to be put forward to you was by no means unanimous and I have been asked to tell you that the voting was 13 to 8. On the basis of that voting, the Education Committee's decision is that they would wish to see the fine art course offered up for closure if there really does need to be a reduction of the order specified in your exercise. I think I should conclude by saying that the members here in Bromley are very strongly of the view that in effect the savings which the NAB exercise is looking to find in expenditure on advanced further education have already been identified over the past decade by this authority as far as its colleges are concerned."

It should be noted that the voting on the education committee was 13 to eight, with eight abstentions. In other words, 13 supported the proposal, albeit reluctantly, and 16 did not.

The college and the borough have been pushed into an unacceptable situation. Of course arguments can be adduced in favour of closing the fine art department, if the college is obliged to discontinue a course, and arguments can also be advanced for and against the continuation of the television course, but the choice is one which neither the college nor the authority should be forced into making because of a rigid adherence to a 10 per cent. formula.

The arguments against the council's recommendation are strong. First, the closure of the fine art department would effect not merely a 10 per cent. saving, but a saving of about 17 per cent. or more. As a cost-cutting measure, it would be excessive.

Secondly, one of the great advantages of Ravensbourne is that not only does it run the four courses to which I referred— fine art, fashion, graphic design and three-dimensional design—but there is a close relationship between the staff and the students on the four courses, and the college was deliberately designed by its architect to encourage cross-fertilisation. People can see each other at work as they move around the building. The value to students and staff of that easy interchange of ideas and the integration of the four departments into a whole cannot be exaggerated.

The closure of the fine art department would, therefore, be not only a loss in itself, but a loss to the other departments and might be likened to amputating one leg from a healthy four-legged animal. The character of the college would certainly be markedly changed and there would be bound to be a question mark over its long-term future as a college of art and design.

Thirdly, however strong may be the arguments for the retention of the television course—I am not seeking to dispute them, because I do not wish to be forced, as Bromley council has been forced, into advocating the destruction of one good course or another—there would be no point in closing the fine art department unless the television course was transferred to the Walden road site to occupy the vacated part of the premises; I understand that to be the intention.

However, the fine art department was, as I said, purpose-built and its layout and dimensions are ideally suited to its purpose. Much work, at an unspecified, but I suspect substantial, cost, would be needed to adapt the building to meet the technically demanding needs of the television department.

There is no doubt about the quality of work done in all four sections. I have visited the college several times to see exhibitions of the work. The fact that I find some examples more enjoyable and easier to understand than others may reflect more on my lack of appreciation than on the artists themselves. In any case, freedom of expression is of the essence in the art world. Without it, there would be no originality.

It can be argued that fine art is a luxury which we cannot afford, but I dispute that. Fine art has a considerable influence in commercial and industrial design. It provides an important, if intangible, element of the quality of our life, and a fine art training can be as valuable to the student and the community as training in philosophy or higher mathematics.

Nor can it be argued that there is disproportionate provision for higher education in fine art. On the NAB's own figures for November 1981, of students in higher education other than teacher training, 37 per cent. were pursuing social, administrative and business studies, 26 per cent. engineering and technology, 12 per cent. science, and 7 per cent. music, drama, art and design. As for demand, this year Ravensbourne has received 43 first-choice and 73 second-choice applications.

The students and staff in all departments at the college naturally are very concerned at the prospect of the fine art department closing, but the concern goes far wider. I have received scores of letters from ex-pupils, artists, local teachers who have benefited from the college, art critics, architects, art galleries, the principals of many colleges, the directors of the arts departments of the British Council and the Arts Council, the president of the Royal Society of British Artists and the registrar of the Royal Academy of Arts. All speak of the very high quality of the work carried out at Ravensbourne and urge that the fine art department be retained. In addition, the Minister no doubt will have seen a letter in The Times last Saturday signed by a number of distinguished people including Sir Richard Attenborough, Sir John Betjeman, Mr. Henry Moore and Miss Marghanita Laski. No doubt he will also have seen the response from the director of education which, with impeccable timig, appears in The Timestoday.

I realise that Ravensbourne is just one of a large number of colleges whose future is being considered by the NAB and in due course by the Minister and, since a final decision rests in my hon. Friend's hands, I do not expect him to give me any firm commitment today. I ask merely that he and the NAB realise that, if the fine art department at Ravensbourne closed, not only would it effect a saving far in excess of that called for but it would deprive future generations of artists of a superb training and represent a permanent loss to the artistic life not simply of my constituency but of our country.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important matter and on the cogent and persuasive way in which he presented his case. Despite its name, the Ravensbourne college of art and design is in his constituency and not mine, but I am glad briefly to support his strong plea for the retention of the fine art department at the college.

As my hon. Friend said, ever since the threat to the fine art department became known, he and I have been deluged with correspondence. The fact that the letters have come not just from Bromley or from London but from all parts of the country is eloquent testimony to the standing and the achievements of the college and its fine art department.

It seems that the governing body of the college, together with Bromley education committee, has faced an impossible choice because of the demand from the national advisory body for this quite arbitrary cut of 10 per cent. I have no doubt that in some colleges and areas cuts of this size could be achieved without undue hardship or difficulty. It could be done by reductions in costs and by changes in the staff-student ratios.

As my hon. Friend said, this is not the case in Ravensbourne. The cost-effective measures have been taken already. I draw attention to the letter in The Times this morning from the director of education in Bromley, Mr. Grainge. He writes that the college

"as a matter of deliberate policy has, over a period of some eight years, become progressively more cost-effective and can now claim to be as cost-effective as any comparable institution in the country."

I hope that those words will be noted both by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and by his national advisory body. A further cut of 10 per cent. now would be disastrous. It could be achieved only by the closure of courses, which would be a most regrettable and retrograde step. It is my firm belief that if the fine art department at Ravensbourne college were singled out for closure it would be an act of vandalism and would destroy the character and status of the college.

In the light of this debate, I hope that the national advisory body will be more flexible in its approach and will move away from this rigid insistence upon a 10 per cent. cut across the board in every college and institution. If it does not show that sense and sensibility, I hope that my hon. Friend will not hesitate to throw out its proposals and tell it to think again. After all, it is only an advisory body. If it gives the wrong advice it should be rejected. I hope that my hon. Friend will do that.

My first pleasurable task in responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) is to thank him for raising this most important matter and to congratulate him on having secured the opportunity to open the main batting on this final day before the summer recess. It is entirely characteristic of my hon. Friend's assiduousness in support of his constituency that he should have done both so effectively. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) for being here in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.

I have an even wider reason for appreciating the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. By raising a specific case relating to higher education he has enabled the House on the last day before we rise to illuminate a more general process of education planning which is going on and which will have advanced significantly before we return in the autumn.

As my hon. Friends made clear, the future of Ravensbourne college of art and design cannot be looked at in isolation. It is one of 360 or so local authority institutions which provide higher education. Between them these institutions offer more than 10,000 courses in a whole spectrum of subject areas. Developments at Ravensbourne need to be set in the context of developments across the sector as a whole.

Local authority higher education is facing a period of major readjustment and change. The main impetus for change has been the Government's drive to reduce public expenditure. Both my hon. Friends have served in the private sector of the economy and will be well aware of how times of constraint compel any organisation to examine the validity of all that it is doing and, in the process, to recognise that some of it is less relevant or less valuable than the rest. None of this applies necessarily to specific cases per se, but it is true of the total Government-inspired review.

The search for savings in the education budget focused attention on the lack of co-ordination of provision in polytechnics and local authority colleges. Courses have sprung up rapidly over the past decade to meet growing student demand. The unwelcome side effects of this fast expansion were unnecessary duplication of provision and wide disparity across the country in the costs of providing particular types of work.

The Government concluded that there was considerable scope for economies and improvements in efficiency in this area of provision and asked the local authority sector on higher education to contribute to the overall savings required in public spending by reducing its expenditure by 10 per cent. over the period from 1980–81 to 1984–85.

In imposing cuts in spending we have been concerned that the range and quality of provision should not suffer. A general squeeze, applied year after year, would have a paralysing effect on institutions, damaging standards and stifling new initiatives. It is clearly essential to be able to distribute the resources for local authority higher education selectively, rather than spreading them more and more thinly.

My right hon. Friend therefore set up the national advisory body for local authority higher education, which has come to be referred to as the NAB in education circles, with the task of advising him on the best pattern of provision in the local authority sector within the resources available. The NAB took the view that an across-the-board restructuring was needed if provision and resources were to be spread in a way that made sense in terms of national and local priorities. The NAB also felt that institutions and local education authorities should play an active part in the planning process.

The outcome was the launching of a major planning exercise to take effect in 1984–85 — an approach welcomed by my right hon. Friend. Institutions were asked to draw up academic plans, broken down by main subject area or programme, on the assumption that they would face an average reduction in spending of 10 per cent. between 1982–83 and 1984–85. This assumption is broadly in line with the Government's expenditure plans for local authority higher education over the period. Local education authorities were then asked to assess and amend their institutions' plans in the light of the wider priorities of their areas.

This brings me back to Ravensbourne college of art and design. My hon. Friend set out the background. The London borough of Bromley, which maintains the college, has submitted to the NAB its view of what provision the college could and should make in 1984–85 if it were to receive the average reduction in funding. I understand that in making its submission the Bromley local education authority made it clear that it was its education committee's unanimous conviction that a 10 per cent. reduction in expenditure, or a reduction in course provision, at Ravensbourne college was neither necessary nor desirable, and pointed to the cost-effectiveness of the institution. Given the requirement that it should express a preference between the alternative proposals put forward should it be necessary to look for a reduction of the order specified, it came to what was for it the very difficult decision that it would propose the fine art course for closure, while preserving the college's special diploma course in communications engineering for the television industry.

I am aware of the letter in The Times today from the director of education in the London borough of Bromley setting out the background in response to a letter in The Times last Saturday from a number of distinguished signatories.

I stress that the proposals which Bromley has made are entirely its own affair. There were no fixed rules for the completion of returns to the NAB. It was for each authority to determine, in the light of its priorities and knowledge, the plans which it put forward. It would be quite wrong for me—or anyone—to intervene in what Bromley has proposed. However, this is, of course, not the end of the story.

The plans which Bromley local education authority has submitted are now being considered by the NAB alongside the plans of all the other authorities involved in local authority higher education. The NAB is assessing authorities' submissions in the light of regional and national needs for particular subjects, their relevance to industry and commerce, the quality of provision made by individual institutions and those institutions' relative cost-effectiveness. The NAB has been guided in its consideration by my right hon. Friend, who has made it clear that he attaches special priority to scientific and technological subjects which are relevant to the country's future economic development.

In assessing institutions' and authorities' plans for art and design the NAB will be assisted by one of the first of its working groups to be established. The working group on art and design was established in March 1982 under the chairmanship of Mr. Patrick Nuttgens, the director of Leeds polytechnic, and with a membership drawn widely from industry and the education sector.

It is worth remarking that causes which prompted the early setting up of that study group were the high costs of art and design and perhaps higher costs nationally than are justified, the employment opportunities of those emerging and the relative fragmentation of the education provision. Another working group—the industrial professional and commercial liaison group under the chairmanship of Sir Henry Chilver, the vice-chancellor of Cranfield — will advise on the needs of employers.

The NAB will be producing provisional institutional plans at the end of August and will be consulting institutions and authorities where there are radical changes to be made. Following the consultative process the NAB will be giving further detailed consideration to the plans before advising the Secretary of State later in the year on the patterns of provision at each institution and the allocation of resources which should go with it.

As to resources, the NAB is in the process of reviewing the funding mechanism. The most important change is likely to be that allocations from the quantum will be based for 1984–85 on student target numbers for that year, and not as hitherto on historic student data. Methods are being examined of refining the allowance made for courses in the more expensive areas of provision, including those for art and design.

One of the considerations in the longer term will be the regional spread of provision. There is, of course, a large concentration of art and design provision in the south-east and in the Greater London area. There are 38 BA in fine arts programmes in the public sector overall, 19 in polytechnics and the same number in mainly monotechnic colleges. Provision is afforded by four polytechnics and 11 colleges in London and the south-east, of which 10 institutions are in Greater London. My hon. Friends can see the heavy weighting in this part of the country.

Hon. Members will be aware that the ILEA is in the process of conducting a major review of the whole of its higher education provision, including its art colleges. The outcome of that will be a factor in the consideration of overall provision in the region.

In drawing up plans for Ravensbourne the NAB is fully aware of the representations which have been made about the future of both the fine art department and the communications engineering course. The thrust of my right hon. Friend's guidance to the NAB on priority subject areas is in the same direction as Bromley's proposal—that is, towards provision which is of direct relevance to employers and away from more generalist work. However, there is still a place for the latter—albeit in reduced quantity—and it is open to the NAB to recommend preservation of the fine art department at Ravensbourne at the expense of similar courses elsewhere.

I would not, however, want to pre-empt the NAB's recommendations in any way. It is important that the NAB should be able to work in an open and independent way. The NAB would certainly be receptive to the views of the relevant interests as to what the best pattern of provision should be, but its impartiality should not be prejudiced simply by the pressures of special pleading. If this were to be the case, the confidence of the sector in the NAB's ability to plan fairly and sensibly would be undermined to the detriment of provision as a whole.

Nevertheless, as I have said, the NAB is conscious of the representations which have been made about the future of the college, and I shall bring to its attention the views expressed today. The NAB and my Department have received representations on behalf of the communications engineering television course. I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is apprised of these views when he comes to consider the NAB's recommendations on provision and funding.

I thank my hon. Friend for initiating this debate at this appropriate time.

I welcome the Under-Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It is not the first time that he has held a position there, but his is the first time that we have met on this subject. I have had the privilege of crossing swords with every Tory Minister responsible for health over many years, and I hope to continue the process over the next five years. As Lord Shinwell once said, "Although I do it with as much force as I can command, I always do it in a very civilised manner."

This debate is about injustice and unfair discrimination against women. It is about a basic injustice which the Government impose on 30 per cent. of all patients under medication. I remind the House that 70 per cent. of patients who take prescriptions through the NHS are exempt from charges because of age or for some other reason. The prescriptions are given by a qualified medical practitioner and are vital for the patient's health. Therefore, it is an injustice that there should be a further payment.

However, this debate concerns the second injustice that is piled upon the chronic sick who, if they are to remain alive, will take medicines for the rest of their lives. I also draw attention to a third injustice that falls on that group. For obvious reasons, the second tax applies only to women who are receiving treatment for breast cancer in the form of chemotherapy. I invite the Minister to imagine the trauma suffered by a woman who has had a breast cut off. With the utmost good will in the world, neither he nor I can really plumb the emotional depths or stand in the same shoes as that woman in our search to understand her problems. That grand canyon is the raison d'etre for maintaining the South London hospital for women and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital. Such hospitals start from a different viewpoint.

To the malignancy of the cancer, and the fears created by it, is added the feeling of being mutilated and of losing basic femininity and attractiveness. The House will know that more people recover from cancer than die from it. However, it is unfortunate that cancer should, like a disease that occurred during my younger days, which carried with it a stigma—tuberculosis —stir up such a depth of shame and fear within emotional feeling. One reason for the lack of early diagnosis is that people fear a disease that is, after all, only another major illness that is quite capable of being dealt with these days.

To that emotional background we must add the cost of paying £1·40 every three weeks, or an annual prepayment, for which the certificate will cost £21·50 a year. The issue is particularly relevant today, because of advances in pharmacology. We all rejoice that in recent years doctors have often been able to treat the proliferation of cancer cells by chemical means instead of by radiology. Radiology is far more hazardous than chemotherapy, and so that advance is to be welcomed. Chemotherapy can also do a far better job and give a much longer life expectancy. However, with radiology, the patient pays nothing, while with chemotherapy she pays for the rest of her life.

I should like to deal with the injustice of the prescription charge itself. In 1982–83 the average taxpayer paid £1·35 per week for medicines, regardless of whether they were used, and regardless of the fact that he may not have taken medicines for 20 years. It is a form of insurance payment. The citizen pays it while he is working, but he does not see why he should pay a second time. In 1982–83, the cost of providing National Health Service pharmaceutical services amounted to £1,497 million. The source of that figure is the "Health and Personal Social Services Total Costs of Services" and the "Sources of Finance" FBI June report. With an estimated 21·4 million income tax paying units, that represents £1·35 per unit per week. Therefore, we have all paid for our medicines.

The only people to pay twice are those in need, and those who are sick. That is a grave injustice. I would not take out an insurance policy on something if I was told that there would be an additional payment to make when I wanted to claim against it.

Perhaps I could remind the House of the history of such charges. Those who are students of the Labour party's political history—and in recent weeks everyone seems anxious to look into its political history—will recall the great split of the Bevanites in 1951. Although prescription charges were first put on the statute book by a Labour Government, it was not a Labour Government who imposed them. We lost the election as a result of that split. It was one of the great Conservative statesmen, the late Iain Macleod who had the task of imposing prescription charges on patients.

When we won the general election in 1964, the first thing that we did was to remove all prescription charges, in accordance with our election pledge. That job was undertaken by the Minister at that time, the right hon. Kenneth Robinson. Alas, it proved to be short-lived happiness for me. On 1 February 1965 we took them off, but on 1 February 1966 we reimposed them, although the Minister pledged to the House that the chronic sick would be exempted.

In the event, that did not happen and he apologised to the House for that. The reason was that the British Medical Association refused to designate which illnesses were chronic and which were not. However, over the years there was some negotiation, and a slight change was brought about. The BMA agreed to designate eight chronic sick conditions, which are now exempt from the payment of prescription charges. The conditions that are exempt are permanent fistula, Addison's disease, diabetes insipidus, diabetes mellitus, hypoparathydroidism, myasthenia gravis, mixoedema, and epilepsy.

Every hon. Member must know someone who has suffered a coronary thrombosis and who will be on medication for the rest of his life. However, such people are not exempt. Another permanent condition, Parkinson's disease, is not exempt. To some extent, that is understandable because the severity of the illness can alter and therefore it may prove difficult to argue for an exemption. However, I submit that there is no difficulty about being able to know whether a woman has had a breast cut off. She is easy to diagnose, and thus to designate. The crux of my argument is that the Minister should enter into immediate discussions with the BMA with a view to adding breast cancer to the list of diseases that are considered chronic and that are exempt from prescription charges. Why should a woman who has paid her taxes, and who often continues to pay them, suffer that additional outgoing from her purse for the rest of her life?

Recently, I asked a question in the House on this issue. However, the Minister for Health dodged it by using a trick that is not peculiar to the DHSS, but is common to all Ministries. Departments hate precedents. Therefore, they argue that if they do one thing, it will enlarge to something else. They then explain how much it will cost to enlarge the scheme, instead of responding to the specific request. This is precisely the sort of answer that I got from the Minister for Health, who told me that it would cost a great deal of money.

Let me give the Minister some figures. The latest statistics of cancer that I can get are for 1980. The provisional figures show that in England and Wales there were 21,700 newly diagnosed cases of female breast cancer. If my arithmetic is correct, to carry out my suggestion would cost less than £500,000 out of a budget that is running at £2 billion a year.

There are possible savings on the drug itself, and we must use our resources to the best of our ability in a hard-pressed service that is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The drug is called Tamoxifen or, to give it its group name, Nolvadex and is made by Imperial Chemical Industries. I believe, although I cannot verify this, that there is no competition as there is a monopoly. Because of the way that the compound is made there is no way, even if the House accepts my private Member's Bill on generic substitutions of cheaper commodities, of doing that in this case. Therefore, will the Minister get his Department to study the high cost of this important drug, check its cost under his price regulation scheme and consider, if he finds that there is no way in which the cost of the drug can be brought down, whether he will use the Secretary of State's powers to bypass the patent laws and purchase it on behalf of the taxpayer, doing so more economically by purchase as a "service for the Crown"?

I am only a layman in this matter and I have to seek advice where I can get it from the professional. Therefore, I take this opportunity of thanking the BMA for the help that it has given me in trying to get this case into shape, and particularly Dr. Bramwell who, in a very busy day, took the time to come down to the House yesterday to give me further information. Dr. Bramwell made a suggestion that is worthy of future consideration—the possibility that, in view of the difficulty of exemption on grounds of chronic illness, the Department should look at exempting a life-saving drug itself rather than the patient and the case. In this case, Tamoxifen could be listed as a drug for which prescriptions would be free.

I regard it as the height of meanness that the Government have raised the pre-payment certificate, which affects only those on permanent medication, from £3·50 in 1979 to £21·50 now. This stands on its head the basic principle on which the NHS was built. Instead of the healthy paying for the sick, the sick contribute to the Exchequer on behalf of the healthy. What is more, the more sick one is the more one contributes.

The administrative costs make nonsense of much of the 30 per cent. of charges that are falling on sick people. It was only after the second increase, in 1981, that there was breakeven between the running cost of the scheme and the level of income. The Government want fewer administrative staff and more resources for patient care, and this is an aspect of the service that could be examined. I forget how many millions of pounds are involved in checking the prescription forms, but in each regional health authority, and in the Minister's part of the Department, officers are paid large salaries to do the administrative work.

Although I am an optimist, I am afraid that I do not expect this Government to do anything much for the poorer section of the community or for the sick or the disabled. I talk as one who is facing huge cuts in my inner city constituency. I make a special plea for a special case, for women who have had the misfortune to contract cancer of the breast, who, as a result, have had a mastectomy and, as a consequence, will be paying into the Exchequer for the rest of their lives.

I thank the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) for his courteous remarks on my translation from Stormont castle to the Elephant and Castle. In both cases I have been concerned with matters of health care and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's persistence and consistency in these matters and his robust line of questioning, which is important in the conduct of proper debate about the right levels of health care.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points of wider interest than that encompassed by the title of the debate. He talked about the history of prescription charges, about the general issue of prescription charges, about the problems of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, which is being rebuilt, and about the possible closure of the South London hospital for women. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow the subjects that he has opened up for me, but—to follow the cricketing metaphor of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who answered the previous debate—prefer to keep my eye on the ball and address my remarks entirely to the issue of breast cancer and chemotherapy.

I welcome this debate, as we all do in the Department, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about breast cancer, a disease which, as he said, kills large numbers of women every year. I should perhaps correct him on one point. The disease is not restricted entirely to women, but can also affect men—there were 84 deaths from breast cancer among men during 1981. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are injustices, they are not restricted entirely to women.

On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman's concern is wrongly directed. The diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer present patients and those treating them with many problems. However, I have no clear evidence that the payment of prescription charges is a particular burden for women suffering from breast cancer, or that it is a barrier to their receiving the most appropriate treatment.

I shall first dispense with what I feel is the largely irrelevant issue of exemption from prescription charges. The hon. Gentleman is right in one respect — breast cancer is not one of the specified medical conditions that confer exemption from charges, and I can confirm that his list of those that do so is correct. The list was drawn up on 1968 by my Department in collaboration with the General Medical Services Committee. The criteria for inclusion in the list then were that the conditions should be readily identifiable and call automatically, in virtually all cases, for prolonged continuous medication. To include other conditions where the need for medication varied from patient to patient according to the severity and stage of the illness would have meant doctors deciding which patients should be exempt. This is obviously unacceptable to the medical profession because of risk of damage to the doctor-patient relationship, about which the BMA is particularly concerned.

The hon. Gentleman criticised my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in that connection, and I shall reply to his charge. My hon. and learned Friend gave the hon. Gentleman an exact and precise answer. He did not attempt to dodge the issue. The hon. Gentleman may not like the answer, but it was based on the fact that, clinically, the situation has changed since 1968. We accept that, in isolation, a good case can be made for the inclusion in the list of many other conditions—not just those treatable by chemotherapy, for example. Hon. Members on both sides have argued for inclusion in the list of a range of conditions—for example, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis and glaucoma. Taken in isolation, a good case can be made for all those conditions. However, as a Government we cannot consider them in isolation. In fairness, we have to consider together all the claims for inclusion. They would cost a great deal of money, and we have to look at the cost of extending the list in relation to the needs of the NHS as a whole.

It is not true that the specified medical conditions are the only way to gain exemption from charges, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise. Exemption is available automatically to people under 16, to women over 60 and to men over 65. There are also low-income exemption arrangements. Overall, as the hon. Gentleman fairly said, more than 70 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed without any charge. In addition, a further 6 per cent. or so are dispensed to holders of prepayment certificates—the "season tickets" to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Taking those together, there is no reason for anyone to be deprived of medicine on financial grounds. Moreover, when drugs are administered in hospital, as they generally are with breast cancer, under the care of a consultant, to patients who are either day patients or outpatients, no prescription charge is properly payable.

That is at the beginning of the treatment. Once the treatment is over, the woman returns to the general practitioner. She still has to have an FB10, and it means that for the rest of her life she goes back to hospital only for a check-up, first of all every six months and later yearly, but her medication comes through the family practitioner.

Most of the expensive medication comes when the patient is treated in hospital, in the charge of a consultant, when the patient is either an inpatient or an outpatient. At that stage, there is no prescription charge. So the question of exemption for those people should not normally arise during the acute stage of the treatment for breast cancer, whether by chemotherapy or by any other means.

Of course, 70 per cent. of the patients, who are predominantly female, are exempt from charges if they continue under the care of the general practitioner. With the great advances that are being made in chemotherapy, the question of prescription charges is largely irrelevant. It should not be thought that prescription charges are likely to deter women, or the occasional man, from being treated in hospital. The hon. Gentleman's approach to this issue represents perhaps a misunderstanding of the nature of the disease and the developments that have taken place in the treatment. He and I are both laymen, but we are both interested in the subject because we are Members of Parliament. I am interested because of my ministerial duties. To a certain extent, we both are affected by the medical advice that we receive from experts.

I do not say that the hon. Gentleman's concern about breast cancer is misplaced. It accounts for the largest number of deaths from cancer among women—more than 12,500, tragically, in 1981—and it is the leading cause of all deaths for middle-aged women. It is estimated that any woman has a 1 in 14 lifetime chance of developing breast cancer. More than 20,000 new cases were registered in 1979, and that is over one fifth of the total female cancer registration. It is difficult to interpret trends in the incidence of the disease. The number of breast cancer registrations rose steadily up to 1974. Since then, the figures have varied, but they have stayed below the 1974 level. It is difficult to explain why. The concern that surrounds breast cancer, as with most other forms of cancer, is because we do not know what causes it. Despite much research, many basic questions about the origins and nature of breast cancer still remain to be answered.

Research is continuing into the cause of breast cancer and its treatment in laboratory experiments in medical schools and universities throughout the country, and through clinical trials. In 1981–82, the Medical Research Council, the main Government-sponsored research body, spent just over £17 million on research related to cancer. Research into cancer is extremely expensive. The cost of the drugs used in the treatment can also be extremely expensive, particularly when the drugs are new. I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the drug that he named, but I hope that he will forgive me if I cannot answer his question about it today. However, I undertake to write to him on the matter.

When I was a member of the Medical Research Council, there was never any problem of shortage of funds for cancer. There was shortage of funds for rheumatology and elsewhere, but the public subscribe generously to cancer research. It is a question not of shortage of funds, but of new areas to research.

The hon. Gentleman is right. He bases his remarks on his distinguished service as a member of the MRC. More and more money is spent, but we sometimes seem despairingly far from a solution to finding the causes of cancer.

I come now to the different treatments for breast cancer, so as to set chemotherapy in a wider context. There are three main methods of treatment—surgery, radiotherapy and drug treatment. Each different type of cancer— there are 200 or more different pathological entities—has its own treatments. Many cancer patients receive not just one form of treatment, but sometimes two or all three at different stages of treatment.

Until now, the main surgical treatment of breast cancer has been radical surgery—the mastectomy—with all the surgical and emotional problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That treatment often goes alongside radiotherapy. However, in recent years there has been an important movement away from such radical surgery. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to the emotional side effects of radical surgery and the total removal of a breast, but recently there has been a more conservative approach in surgery. This trend exists and there is now a major school of thought which prefers more localised surgery, followed by an extended course of radiotherapy, for the treatment of early breast cancer.

Clearly, such treatment has major advantages for the patient, not least in the emotional advantages after the condition has been stabilised. However, the long-term effects of this more conservative surgery on the survival of patients, compared with mastectomy and other treatments, are not yet known. A number of trials have been organised by clinicians in the United Kingdom to compare mastectomy with the removal of the tumour by local excision combined with radiotherapy.

Clinical trials are continuing and it will take some years to know what effect that has on the long-term prognosis of breast cancer patients. If it can be shown—I stress the word "if"—that the conservative approach is at least no worse than radical surgery, the former is likely to become the preferred treatment. I am sure that women sufferers would say that that was a jolly good thing too. However, as with all such clinical trials in the cancer field, it will be some time before we know of the impact of new forms of surgical treatment, related as they are to radiotherapy.

Chemotherapy is one of the more recent innovative developments in the treatment of cancer. Again, I stress how recent such research is. It involves the use of systemic drugs to kill cancer cells which have spread throughout the body. Many drugs are highly toxic and it is important to say that that can have painful and distressing side effects. Sometimes those can be just as distressing emotionally as radical surgery on the breast of a woman can be. Nonetheless, chemotherapy has greatly improved the survival rates for some cancer patients, particularly those suffering from, for example, the leukaemias in their different forms.

The impact of chemotherapy on the course of commoner forms of cancer such as breast cancer has so far been disappointing. I must report that. However, the feasibility of eradicating widely disseminated cancer has been demonstrated and it is likely—no more than that—that more cancers will prove susceptible to this form of treatment in future. We shall await those developments with considerable interest.

There are in progress throughout the world a large number of clinical trials of the use of particular chemotherapeutic agents in the treatment of breast cancer. While there is evidence that chemotherapy may improve the outlook for some patients, none of those trials has yet shown a major role for chemotherapy in treating breast cancer. Some treatments would be lengthy but it unlikely that many patients would require such treatment for the rest of their lives.

In chemotherapy the superiority of one form of treatment over another may be small but the marginal improvement may be beneficial to many. Therefore, it is essential in the next few years that the evaluation of chemotherapy should continue with the greatest possible care. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his service on the MRC, that can only be conducted through properly conducted and controlled clinical trials. Trials are of considerable importance in the evaluation of treatment in many fields of medicine. They are of particular importance in relation to cancer chemotherapy because, as I mentioned earlier, of the high toxicity of the drugs and the need to be able to identify clearly any improvements that are made as being related to the drugs themselves. Therefore, ideally all chemotherapy for cancer should be given within the framework of clinical trials and proven protocols—all the sort of things with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar from his time on the MRC.

For all those reasons—the aggressive nature of the treatment and its side effects, the need for close control and observation of the outcome—I expect that normally chemotherapy would be administered while a patient was still under the direct care of a hospital consultant.

As I said, there is still considerable ignorance of the cause of breast cancer. That being so, there is little that we can do in the way of prevention. In the little time that is left to me I shall not be able to deal with screening, although that was not a point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that we have both made a strong case on the importance of this subject. Will he agree and reiterate that, as more people are cured of breast cancer than lose their lives, there should not be any undue pessimism? I do not want it to go out from the House that the concern was such as to add to the fears of people who, instead of going for early diagnosis, defer doing so because they fear the fatal nature of the disease that they have contracted.

I could not agree more. Early diagnosis and early treatment, whether by chemotherapy or other forms, is a life-saving development in the treatment of breast cancer, and I urge women, and the occasional man, who fear that they may suffer from this condition, to seek at the earliest possible time clinical and consultant help.

It is understandable that interest has turned to the early detection of breast cancer in the hope that an improvement in that direction will lead to more successful treatment. Although we know that cancer is best treated early, we, do not know with sufficient certainty that a breast screening programme would always discover those early cancers in sufficient numbers. None the less, where screening is available, I urge women in particular to make use of it.

Looking to the future, major problems confront those suffering from breast cancer and they cannot be underestimated. There are also major problems for those involved in its treatment. The problems are not only those raised by the hon. Gentleman. We cannot predict the impact of preventive and early detection measures. Similarly, we do not know at this stage how treatment for breast cancer will develop. I stress that surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy are complementary in the management of cancer. It seems likely that that pattern will continue in the foreseeable future.

What I can say at this stage is that in the light of present medical and surgical knowledge it is unlikely that any single successful treatment will appear in the near future. Experience suggests that there will be advances in cancer treatment, but that they will be slow and dependent on continuing and painstaking research. That research will continue to receive the support that it already gets from the Government.

No doubt every area believes that it has unique problems to which the Government are oblivious. Nothing is easier than to stand up in the House and denounce the Government for turning a deaf ear. Nothing is easier than to join a delegation to put just such a unique case to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that in his time he has received many such delegations. But at the end of the day probably nothing is so futile as special pleading, especially if it comes from someone who supports the general tenor of the Government's approach and who could, therefore, rightly be accused of hypocrisy. He could be accused of backing up the Government in general terms but not supporting the particular application of their approach to the interests of his area.

I am not here to indulge in special pleading on behalf of the Bradford area. Rather, I want to put my comments in the context of a situation in which many people now recognise that present regional policy is not necessarily giving the taxpayer the best value for money and in which the Government, by establishing an interdepartmental review, have shown that they, too, are prepared to consider that. Thus, although my constituency of Keighley happens to be outside the assisted area and does not therefore benefit from the status enjoyed by the rest of the Bradford metropolitan district, I am not specifically asking for Keighley to be added, even though it might not be too difficult to make out a case for that to be done. Rather, I want to look at some of the ways in which the Government endeavour to assist the regions. Could we do it more effectively?

It would be appropriate if, at this stage, I took my hon. Friend on a short verbal tour of the local industrial scene to ensure that we are all talking the same language. It was soon after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister became leader of the Conservative party that, as Leader of the Opposition, she first set out the virtures of those Victorian values for which more recently she has been disparaged. She made that speech in St. George's hall, Bradford.

Bradford's success was built on the achievements of successful business men. Its name became synonymous with the heart of the world wool textile trade. For a long time everything seemed to be going right and few could anticipate what changes lay ahead, but the world has changed and the challenges that we now face are dramatic. Emerging semi-industrial nations can go into textile manufacturing more easily than into high technology electronics. Those of us who wish the disparities between the Third world and the most highly developed nations to be reduced can hardly deny those nations their ambitions. It is true that whenever wool men meet the view is always expressed that European competitors, whether or not they are in the Community, are given advantages by their Governments that are denied to our industry, but that is not the main thrust of my argument today.

The area has not resisted change. On the contrary, it has embraced it. A generation and more ago Bradford people could and did solve Bradford's problems. Building societies, car and television companies and mail order firms developed in the area. In the early 1970s Government initiatives such as the wool textile schemes helped to restructure parts of the textile industry. It appeared that market forces were enabling the local economy to restructure itself from its historic textile and manufacturing industry base to one with a broader foundation.

However, unfortunately, since 1978 there have been massive job losses while at the same time the demand for jobs has increased. The district's unemployment rate has moved from 20 per cent. below the national average in 1974 to 20 per cent. above the national average in 1983. That change was indeed recognised by the retention of assisted area status for the Bradford travel-to-work area.

Bradford's job losses do not receive the same national coverage or attention as those in other centres of population, because the changes have taken place much more gradually. Other parts of the country, such as the west midlands, recently had a more rapid increase in a short space of time, encouraging talk of a special Minister for the west midlands, just as we had a special Minister for Merseyside.

Bradford has the equivalent of a major plant closure every year. Although it does not make national headlines, the local social and economic consequences are the same. A typical firm in Bradford employs fewer than 20 people. It is increasingly rare for any closure to attract national exposure. However, last year Bradford lost 4,752 jobs and since 1978 the metropolitan district has lost as many as 21,354 jobs.

The population structure of Bradford, including my constituency of Keighley, is such that, unlike most other urban areas, we shall need more jobs in future, not fewer. Bradford has a relatively stable population. While people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan make up 11 per cent. of the district's population, 28 per cent of all the births in the district come from that section of its inhabitants. The effect of this change in population structure is that roughly 3,000 more people will he looking for jobs in Bradford in five years' time. Bradford needs to gain 600 jobs a year just to stand still. Over the past decade Bradford has lost an average of 600 jobs a year. Last year only 7 per cent. of ethnic minority 16-year-old school leavers obtained jobs, compared with 28 per cent. of the indigenous population.

Despite the adaptation that has taken place, like many other northern industrial areas the district is overdependent on manufacturing industry. In 1978, 41·1 per cent. of people in the district worked in manufacturing industry, compared with only 32 per cent. nationally. Conversely, only 54·7 per cent. worked in service industries compared with 59·7 per cent. nationally. Bradford has 4 million sq ft of empty industrial floor space, most of it formerly in use in the textile industry. Much of it is partly derelict, but it does not qualify for the derelict land grant, which was devised for mining areas.

It is a great mistake to talk of the textile industry as if it were doomed. Some people like to say in one breath that the industries of the future are only computers, micro electronics and fibre optics, and in the next that we must abandon industries that are rooted in the past. I am not only secretary of the all-party wool textile group, but also treasurer of the parliamentary information technology committee, so I have a foot in both camps. Despite the job losses, textiles are still one of the biggest employers in the country and make a valuable contribution to our export performance.

The pessimists point only to the number of job losses, but that is not necessarily the only or appropriate criterion of the success of an industry. As I said during the debate on the multi-fibre arrangement on 18 June 1981:

"I do not believe that the number of job losses is a fair criterion of the health of the industry. It is true that some of the jobs have been lost because of an overall decline in the size of the market and the loss of market share, but others have been lost because of the very necessary process of modernisation, which has reduced the amount of manpower needed.

The companies that have survived have tended to be those that took action early enough and efficiently enough to stop the decline."

Of course, not all the firms that disappeared were bad ones. In a period of recession, and because of the interrelationship of business activities in so diverse an industry as wool textiles, the most efficient companies can easily be dragged down by those that are less able to compete. In the past few months the textile industry has seen a welcome revival in its fortunes. Although it is too early to throw our hats in the air, there is cause to believe that we are over the worst.

There has been a shakeout in the industry and the leaner, fitter firms that now exist are better placed to take advantage of the opportunities that are coming than they would have been a few short years ago. We should not forget that the textile industry does have protection. As I said in the debate on 18 June 1981,

"a renewed MFA should not be a blanket for stifling change but a vehicle for encouraging controlled development, both at home and in those countries throughout the world with which to a great extent our fortunes are bound up."—[Official Report, 18 June 1981; Vol. 6, c. 1241–42.]

Now that we have a renewed multi-fibre arrangement, I hope that those objectives will be realised.

Neither Bradford nor Keighley is founded on textiles alone. We also have a major commitment to engineering. In many parts of the engineering industry, any signs of recovery are much more difficult to discern. The picture is patchy. If we examine the results of the most recent economic survey by the Bradford chamber of commerce for the quarter ending 30 June 1983, we see qualified signs of recovery, which must be encouraging. Slightly under one fifth of the companies taking part are in the engineering sector and one must assume that they are still finding the going tough. While slightly over half the responses show that companies expect home market conditions to remain constant in the next three months, more than one third expect them to improve — three times as many as the ones that expect them to decline. About 64 per cent. of companies now have a fuller order book than a year ago, compared with 17 per cent. with a shorter order book. As many as 53 per cent. of companies have seen the volume of their goods and services delivered in the past three months increase, compared with only 10 per cent. that saw them decline.

Unfortunately, developments, as far as jobs are concerned, are lagging well behind, as one knew they would. The recession indicated to many firms that they were previously overmanned. They are determined that as recovery comes there will be fewer employees than before. That trend conforms with the need for greater efficiency and productivity, which the Government rightly seek. A visit to a factory today can be a revelation. In the textile industry, for example, one man or woman can now oversee a cluster of large machines, whereas in the past it would have taken one operative to look after each small machine. It is hardly surprising that during the past three months the survey to which I referred shows that only 22 per cent. of companies have increased their work force while 11 per cent. have seen it decline. In as many as 67 per cent. of the companies it has remained constant. The problem is a particular one for Bradford where, as I have suggested, there is too great a dependence on manufacturing industry and a shortage of jobs in the service sector.

I pay tribute to the efforts which the city of Bradford metropolitan council has made to respond to change. Not so long ago many people might have laughed at the idea that Bradford would be seen as a tourist centre, but last year over 15,000 people bought Bradford-based package holidays. The council has won the Sir Mark Henig English tourist board award.

In partnership with the science museum the council has developed the national photographic museum in the city. I consider myself fortunate to have in my constituency not only the beautiful village of Haworth, with its famous Bronte connections, but the attractive town of Ilkley, whose moor is certainly one of the best known features of Yorkshire. At this time of the year the area is crowded with holidaymakers. Bradford has also made a submission for the 1989 national garden festival. Many other new developments are taking place.

To assist the unemployed the council has developed benefit shops, which present a more informal approach to the formidable problems which claimants may encounter. The council is also exploring area management proposals in an attempt to encourage local democracy. There have been firm responses to Government initiatives. Bradford has responded to the concept of information technology centres, the youth training scheme and the Manpower Services Commission community programme. It has also given widespread publicity to the availability of urban development grants.

Why, then, is regional policy not as effective as it should be? I believe that in some ways the thinking behind it is more relevant to the last century than to this. The concept that assisted area status should be related almost solely to unemployment figures at some time in the recent past means that we pay insufficient attention to the precise industrial structure of an area or to the changes needed in the next few years. Trends are just as important as the position at any given moment.

Keighley is not looking back to the 1970s, but ahead to the 1990s. Industry in the area is traditionally based, largely on textiles and engineering. Despite recent encouraging signs, those industries will employ fewer people in the future. Indeed, it is only by becoming more efficient, which unfortunately often means employing fewer people, that industries such as textiles will prosper. Keighley needs new jobs to replace those which have been lost, and those jobs must increasingly come from newer industries, particularly in the service sector. Regional policy as presently constituted, however, is founded almost entirely on manufacturing industry.

Keighley is outside the assisted area, so it does not have the benefits enjoyed by Bradford. I am asking not for Keighley to be included in the assisted area, but for a new approach which tries to prevent future problems rather than looking back nostalgically to the good old days. Metaphorically speaking, we need more preventive emedicine and health education and not so much drastic surgery designed to save a patient who is already practically dead on his feet.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) used a similar analogy when introducing the debate on regional industrial policy on 22 July. He said:

"One is drawn increasingly to the conclusion that the whole system of zones, intermediate areas, development areas and special development areas tends to amount to sticking plasters on sore spots wherever they arise and wherever the pressure groups press hardest."—[Official Report, 22 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 695.]

Bradford's main need is not just to attract more manufacturing industry, which may produce only a relatively short-term benefit, but to encourage the growth of new embryo service industries to broaden the economic base of the area. We need to attract providers of employment with good long-term prospects. If Bradford's prospects are to be closer to those or the south-east of England, its employment structure must be very different in the future. In reality, current regional policy is in many ways counter-productive to its stated objective of helping areas with high unemployment. Regional policy is a short-term palliative, rather than a long-term cure.

I do not disagree with the Government's view that the proportion of the country with assisted area status should be substantially reduced. It was reasonable to wish to concentrate scarce resources on the areas of greatest need. Thus, the percentage of the working populaton covered by assisted areas fell from 44 to 27 per cent. between 1979 and 1983. The only trouble is that that has in some ways accentuated the differences between the assisted and the non-assisted.

It has been said that the assistance offered is not, in any event, a major factor in determining location but rather an additional benefit to be considered at the margin. Where it has been a factor, it might be said that the result has been merely to transfer employent opportunities from areas which are by no means prosperous to otters which are little different, with little tangible benefit.

The Bradford travel-to-work area has assisted area status while Keighley has not, although its unemployment figure is only about 3 per cent. lower, but this broad brush approach disguises substantial differences within the areas concerned. A couple of weeks ago I was approached by a constituent in Tekley who was interested in establishing a manufacturing base within about five miles of his home. He wished to remain within the Bradford metropolitan district, and I had to admit that he might get more assistance by locating in Shipley, which is in the assisted area, than in Keighley, which is not, but which in many ways probably has a greater need for the new jobs that he could provide.

When I spoke in the debate on 4 March, on employment in Yorkshire and Humberside, when I still represented the Brighouse and Spenborough constituency, I referred to a study by researchers at Leeds university showing that of 57,000 job losses between 1975 and 1981, just over half occurred in factories owned by firms based outside west Yorkshire. I pointed out that almost 30 per cent. of them were controlled by firms based in the south-east. Speaking of firms with subsidiaries in west Yorkshire, I said:

"These companies, unlike those based in the county, are easily able to consider in what part of the country they should locate plants. They very often do so".—[Official Report, 4 March 1983; Vol. 38, c. 513.]

This introduces the danger of the branch factory syndrome.

If a manufacturing company experiences difficulties, the easiest solution is often to close down an outpost and concentrate production centrally. The closure of the Thorn electrical factory in Bradford is one example. Renolds is a more recent instance. The amalgamation of local textile firms has progressed similarly, and Bradford now has far fewer centres of decision making than it had three decades ago. Regional policy has not helped to reverse that trend.

In addition to the traditional forms of regional policy, the Government have introduced a radical newcomer—the enterprise zone. One is aware of the benefits that may flow to a rundown area of high dereliction, devastated by the loss of major manufacturing industry. Nevertheless, I cannot deny that I have been worried by the distortions that that has built into the system—the possibility, even the likelihood, that processes and jobs will simply be moved over an artificial boundary, putting competitive companies in the vicinity at a severe disadvantage.

Bradford was invited last year to put forward a submission for an enterprise zone, but the concept of an enterprise zone as at present defined would be of little help to that city, or indeed to Keighley. As I have explained, job losses have not been concentrated in tight pockets, but have been spread throughout the area. Moreover, the topography of the area, in which factories and settlements have grown along valley bottoms surrounded by steep slopes rising to the nearby moors and the Pennine foothills, means that no suitable site exists for an enterprise zone. The Government's enterprise zone concept could, if anything, merely put Bradford and its surrounding communities at a greater disadvantage than before.

Bradford metropolitan council therefore responded with an idea described as the Bradford enterprise zone experiment. Perhaps it would have been better to have given this package of initiatives a different name which would not have confused it with the much more tightly-drawn version devised by the Government. The council's view was that the enterprise zone was inappropriate to Bradford's needs and that, rather than cobble together an inappropriate answer to the area's problems, it would be better to propose an alternative. Although the submission was made about nine months ago and circulated to several Government Departments, including the Department of Industry, no considered response has been received.

Bradford wishes to spread the benefits of the initiatives throughout its entire area rather than try to find a part of the district which would fulfil the necessary criteria. It said in its submission:

"A job created for a new tourist activity in Ilkley or Haworth is one less unemployed person in Bradford M.D.C."

The four major aims are to encourage existing industry, to encourage our best job growth sector, to clear obsolete industrial areas and to try to bring in new companies which might otherwise consider going elsewhere.

One of Bradford's problems—this applies equany to Keighley — is that little industry is moving into the district from outside, and almost none is moving in from outside west Yorkshire. Therefore, a narrowly defined enterprise zone could cause imbalances in the local economy by encouraging firms merely to move from one location in the district to another.

Help is especially urgently needed to convert obsolete mills to new uses. The restrictions on area are not helpful. Some of the old mills are extremely large and the existing limits that restrict units to a maximum of 1,250 sq. ft. are somewhat unrealistic. Moreover, the purposes for which new units are needed are diverse. A recent report by Coopers and Lybrand found that demand for small premises derives from a variety of needs, including activities other than manufacturing. The report recommended that a liberal view be taken over user restrictions. That conforms with the theme that I have already developed about service industries.

It so happens that 1984 is industrial heritage year. There could be no better time for providing adequate capital grants to assist the subdivision or conversion of vacant industrial buildings so that they are suitable for modern use, while retaining their character. A permanent home should be found in the area for a museum of Asian history. As Bradford has such a large population of Asian origin, no better site could be found, as attendances at recent pilot exhibitions have demonstrated. The Victoria and Albert museum lacks space for a permanent exhibition in London, but a permanent site in Bradford or Keighley could easily be found in one of the redundant mills. That would be to the ultimate benefit of the tourist industry.

We must also encourage the distributive and retail trades. Bradford is deeply involved in the mail order business, but most people still wish to buy at a traditional point of sale. Many people now come to Bradford at the weekends. The Shops Act 1950 is not helpful in that regard. I drew attention to the illogicalities inherent in that Act when I spoke during the Second Reading debate on the private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in the previous Parliament. Of course we must respect the feelings of those who want to ensure that Sunday remains a special day, but we must rationalise and liberalise the laws. That is a responsibility which the Government cannot shirk. I hope that the Home Office will respond without recourse to a commission or a committee of inquiry, which would delay the matter. It is urgent. Were my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) present, he would no doubt refer to the Piece hall in that town, where the lively market and, therefore, jobs were threatened by existing legislation.

Urban development grants can play a useful part in attracting new industries. Indeed, they have already done that, but I hope that the Government will consider tax-free bonds issued by local authorities, which have worked well in some American states.

We welcome the expansion of the enterprise allowance scheme, which greatly benefits unemployed people who want to establish their own businesses. Removal of uncertainty about the future of the scheme would be a great help now as Bradford could then plan ahead on firm ground. There are many people with initiative in the area and an assurance about the future of the scheme would be of tremendous benefit.

Although derelict land grants are extremely helpful, they could be re-examined to see whether they might be improved. For example, some complexes contain some useful buildings but others which are clearly incapable of adaptation. Perhaps derelict land grants could be redefined so that grant could be claimed for parts of industrial complexes.

With many changes taking place, the area urgently needs training and retraining facilities. Because the district has so many small traditional firms, the local authority has felt it right to respond unusually positively to the Government's call for a commitment to the youth training scheme. Unfortunately, it now seems that, because of that necessary additional commitment, the ratepayers will be penalised. Although Bradford is not a high-spending authority, resources devoted to the youth training scheme will help take it above its targets and involve it in penalties. That will drive rates up and discourage local industry further.

Perhaps the Treasury is now learning the lesson that expenditure cuts have bitten far too heavily into the capital side, as it was far easier to do that than to control current costs. What must still be learnt is that not all capital expenditure is equally good. The Humber bridge, with its legacy of high interest charges which will never be covered by revenue, should be a lesson to us all. Many other capital projects commit us to high maintenance and staffing costs for ever and a day. The Government should now concentrate on capital projects which will produce a clear return.

Communications are vital and many capital projects that will produce a clear return relate to transport. They offer the prospect of employment during construction, and also long-term benefits. The north-east main line is one such project. It is worthy of early electrification, the go-ahead for which would give a psychological as a well as tangible boost to Yorkshire and the north-east. I hope that the Government will respond positively when British Rail advances its plan for the future of the inter-city network.

The Aire valley road will benefit Keighley and the surrounding area by forming an essential link with the national motorway network. However, the inspector's decision to drop the section between Cottingley Bar and Shipley creates new uncertainties, which must be resolved.

We should very much like my hon. Friend the Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to visit Bradford to see what is happening and to meet local people. We do not ask for a Minister for Bradford or for a Minister for Keighley—each area has Members of Parliament who are capable of standing up for their interests. We ask that the needs of the area be considered most carefully during the review of regional policy. At the moment we have what I can only describe as a shotgun approach to regional policy. We need a revised system which tailors aid much more closely to the needs of the areas involved. Why, for example, is part of the district which has the best tourist potential—it is within my constituency—in that part of the metropolitan district which is ineligible for aid from the regional development fund of the EC because it is not Government assisted?

In March I said here that only industry can turn hope into reality. That remains true, but we must get the framework for success right. It is not right at present. It is not the prerogative of industry or of Bradford council to alter that framework. That remains the task of my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues. We look to him for support, encouragement and, above all, a positive response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on an outstanding and extremely interesting speech. It gave me an insight into the problems of his constituency. I strongly agreed with and approved of what he said about how we should not judge the textile or any other manufacturing industry solely on the criterion of employment. He emphasised employment being provided by the service industries and tourism. As my hon. Friend said, for manufacturing to become efficient, it must shed some of its jobs.

My hon. Friend asked whether I would visit Bradford. My visits are obviously like those of ships in the night with the lights off, because I visited Bradford just a few months ago. I enjoyed my visit greatly and was impressed by what I saw. I am certainly prepared to go there again. I should be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about that.

While in Bradford, I visited the chamber of commerce and John Foster, the mohair spinners, where I was presented with a handsome piece of mohair cloth which I hope to have made into a suit soon. I also visited Allied Colloids which is an outstanding example of the marriage of entrepreneurial spirit and scientific knowledge to create a company that has become a world beater. Happiest of all, I was presented with some tapes of the Black Dyke Mills brass band when I left. I enjoyed and was much impressed by what I saw in Bradford.

Bradford is one of the country's great Victorian cities, a monument to the Victorian values to which my hon. Friend referred. It is cities such as Bradford that must revive and prosper if the country is to reverse its industrial decline. Cities such as Bradford must found the new industries and services. Visiting the city, and receiving delegations from the Bradford district council, I have been impressed by the willingness of local businesses and the local authority to take the initiative in improving conditions and in starting this difficult task, rather than just looking to the Government.

In some ways the problems of Bradford are typical of those in other parts of Britain which have worse unemployment problems. The traditional manufacturing industries have been declining, and the job opportunities in new industries have not grown fast enough. My hon. Friend correctly emphasised the population growth in his area, which makes job opportunities scarcer.

Bradford, the capital of the wool textile industry, has been hit by foreign competition and worldwide recession, which have led to the closure or contraction of many old-established firms. The area has suffered other setbacks, including some major reductions in the engineering, vehicle components and tractor industries. Unemployment in the Bradford travel-to-work area is 15 per cent., which represents more than 25,000 unemployed people. This has been accompanied by urban decay in the inner city, where there is a large representation of ethnic minorities with their own needs and difficulties. It is encouraging that relationships among the different commulities in Bradford have been so excellent.

In recognition of those problems, the Government allowed Bradford to retain its intermediate area status when they reduced the geographical coverage of assisted areas. The Bradford travel-to-work area is the only part of west Yorkshire that now enjoys that status. Keighley, which is part of the Bradford metropolitan district but a separate travel-to-work area, suffers many similar problems, but perhaps not to the same extent. In the past, although not today, the area has appealed for the restoration of intermediate area status.

The Government are committed to maintaining a strong regional policy but we wish—my hon. Friend supported this—to concentrate scarce resources on the areas of greatest need. The Keighley unemployment rate is 13·3 per cent., which, although serious—with about 4,000 people on the unemployment register—is well below the average of 14·2 per cent. for intermediate areas. It is only about 1 per cent. above the average unemployment rate for the country as a whole.

What have the Government done to provide direct assistance to industry in the Bradford metropolitan district? Since 1979 companies have received about £7 million in regional selective assistance which has been used for expansion and modernisation. It is estimated that as a result of that assistance about 6,000 jobs will be created or safeguarded. The older-established industries have received a share—Weavercraft Carpets was offered £270,000; William Hutchinson, yarnspinners, £261,000; and New Plan Furniture £270,000. In engineering, Hepworth and Grandage, vehicle engine component manufacturers, was offered £1·5 million as recently as May this year. Outside the traditional industries, there have been offers to support television manufacturing, turbo chargers, visual display units, electronic components and computer software services. As my hon. Friend is aware, discussions are taking place between a consortium of business men and the Department about a proposal to revive tractor manufacturing at the International Harvester factory, which closed last year. I do not believe that my Department has turned down any eligible proposal in providing assistance to a company in Bradford if the project has had reasonable prospects of viability and a genuine need of Government help. That shows that the Government believe that regional policy is crucial in achieving the industrial regeneration of areas such as Bradford, and that it can be applied effectively. It cannot be denied that regional policy has had some effect in Bradford.

A range of Government schemes is available to encourage innovation and enterprise. Support for innovation can be given to improve products, processes and the use of new technology in traditional industries well as the sunrise industries. One of the moves that we would most like to see would be a greater take-up of those schemes in Bradford. The regional office of my Department will do everything it can to publicise the schemes and to give assistance if there is anything that people do not understand. It is disappointing that there has not been a greater take-up of the schemes in the Bradford area, although I understand that duringthe past 18 months grants offered by the Department for support and innovation totalled more than £1,200,000 for 42 projects.

Another important incentive that we have provided to stimulate high technology development is the newly completed high technology units which were built by English Industrial Estates at Listerhills on the Bradford university campus. I visited this science park, which I thought was an impressive development. It is the first project of its kind undertaken by EIE, the Government's industrial property developer. The first tenants to move in are a group of academic entrepreneurs develcroing computer graphics software. That is interesting and exciting.

My hon. Friend made some general points about regional policy, and what I regard as the valid point that regional policy in the past has concentrated too much on manufacturing industry and not enough on services. We have been trying to publicise the offices and services industries scheme more, but I accept my hon. Friend's argument. I have pointed out that it seems wrong, when so much of employment growth is expected to come from services, that our regional policy has been heavily weighted towards manufacturing. That is a major issue which we shall consider in our review of regional policy.

I agree with my hon. Friend that there are too many branch factories in the regions. If regional policies are to be effective in creating indigenous jobs and not just moving jobs round the country, it would be a good idea if more of our major companies had research and development policies. We tried to do that in our OSIS scheme. This is a major requirement in achieving an effective regional policy. I agree that some regional policies seemed only to shift jobs around the country. That might have been justified when there was fuller employment, but it is less justified today when unemployment affects much larger areas. That is one reason why we tightened the criteria under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 for selective regional assistance, so that industries were not eligible merely because they were moving jobs around the country. That is another issue that we want to examine in our review of regional policy. My hon. Friend's points are well taken.

Anyone who believes that Bradford is just clinging to the old industries, without moving forward, is wrong. Many science-based companies are realising that Bradford has facilities to help development, including one of the country's leading science-based universities, and the best parts of an industrial heritage on which to build. A core of companies give the potential for growth, such as Lucas Aerospace, Microvitec, Filtronic Components and Tatung Research, all of which have been assisted by the Department.

Bradford has always had many small firms. My hon. Friend needs no reminding of all that the Government and the previous Conservative Government have done and are doing to help small businesses. I give the local authority credit for what it is doing to encourage industrial development.

My hon. Friend mentioned tourism. That is of particular interest to me as I have just taken on tourism in addition to my other responsibilities in the Department. Bradford has shown great imagination in encouraging the growth of tourism in the district, making known the attractions of the Bronte country, Ilkley moor and the industrial heritage.

The lord mayor of Bradford was recently in London promoting tourism. He asked unsuspecting travellers at Kings Cross station how many tourists Bradford received last year. I do not think that many people were able to answer, or that many hon. Members would have guessed the correct answer of 15,000.

My hon. Friend inevitably mentioned the textile industry, and I agreed very much with what he said. It is entirely wrong for the textile industry to be thought of or described as a dying industry. It is one of our most important industries, accounting for 9 per cent. of our employment in manufacturing industry. Its sales are equal to those of the motor industry and are twice those of the steel and coal industries. There has been a contraction of employment, although, as my hon. Friend said, that is not the only way to look at the industry. There are some encouraging signs, as there are also in the wool textile sector. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles recently said that output was between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. higher than a year ago.

My hon. Friend made the valuable point that we should not simply contrast old and new industries. There are tremendous opportunities for the application of new technology in traditional industries, and that applies to the textile industry. Some of the modern mills are equal to the best in the world. As long as they keep advancing and applying new technology, they can meet the competition from the low-cost countries. They can be as efficient and competitive as the mills of Taiwan or anywhere in the Far East. There are many opportunities for the application of new technology in the industry, such as the use of robotics and mechanical handling. The handling of soft fabrics is a difficult problem and the Department is sponsoring research into it.

Textiles is not a dying industry. I am convinced that we can compete. There is no reason why we should not compete very successfully. It is not an industry that has had bad industrial relations or excessive wage claims. It has been a model in that respect. As elsewhere, good management and modern technology are needed, but also the proper use of design. It is not enough just to rely on traditional products or the good name of the past.

I have recently seen some incursions by the Italians into the wool industry. I know that it worries people, and we shall investigate any instances of unfair competition. The Italians show great flair in the application of design. We also need to show that sort of flair. There are bright spots in the textile industry and in the wool textile industry, and I am convinced that we can take on and beat the world.

There are now signs of recovery in Bradford. As I have said, the wool textile industry is showing an improvement. Exports are being helped by the decline in the value of the pound, the fall in inflation and the reduction in interest rates. British Mohair Spinners increased sales last year by 20 per cent. and profits doubled to £2 million. Stroud Riley Drummond and Parkland Textiles and other companies are reporting order books at much higher levels.

The reversal of Britain's industrial decline is a daunting task but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall do our best, through the instruments that we have available in the Department, to help firms in Bradford. I shall see that he gets a copy of the reply from the Department of the Environment to the Bradford district council's request for its own form of enterprise zone. I shall be very pleased to visit my hon. Friend's constituency and see some of the problems at first hand. There are solid grounds for believing that Bradford can prosper and that many firms will do well.

This is a debate about people whose employment has left them stricken by asthma, which, as sufferers from that condition know to their grievous cost, can be one of the most distressing and disabling of all chronic illnesses: ask any sufferer from baker's asthma, which is in its way the pneumoconiosis of the baking industry.

The debate has been welcomed, outside the House, as an opportunity to focus public attention on a disturbing example of ministerial complacency and meanness. It is a debate, long overdue, about the Government's stubborn refusal to ensure fuller take-up of the compensation available to victims of occupational asthma.

It was in January 1981 that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the IIAC, published its report on occupational asthma. It recommended that it should be prescribed as an industrial disease and the scheme, listing the causes of asthma among workers in seven groups, came into force on 29 March 1982. Since then, notwithstanding very strong pressure to do more to publicise the compensation now available under the scheme, the Government have rejected every call for an effective take-up campaign.

It was anticipated in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report that, in respect of three of the seven causes of occupational asthma listed in the scheme—platinum salts, isocyanates, and animals and insects in laboratories — between 30,000 and 40,000 workers would be covered from whom perhaps 7,250 claims could be expected in the first year. In the case of flour and grain dust, around 100,000 workers were estimated to be at risk of occupational asthma, leading to very many more claims. Quite apart from the thousands of people expected to be entitled to benefit from the outset in March 1982, an authoritative estimate in the June 1981 edition of Industrial Safety put the number of new claims to be expected annually at 1,000.

Yet how many claims have so far been made? In the first full year of the scheme, only 549 claims were made, or 7 per cent. of the HAC's estimate. Of the 549 claims received, 303 were processed and only 152 were successful.

In the light of that not just dismal but shockingly low figure, there should clearly have been a critical examination both of publicity and of the monitoring of the scheme. But the Government have evinced nothing but complacency and thousands of workers whose employment has left them with asthma go without their rightful compensation.

In response to a plea that I put to him from Nigel Bryson, the national health and safety officer of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, the BFAWU, for the scheme to be made more widely known, the then Minister for Social Security, with responsibility for the disabled, wrote to me on 17 March 1983 about the publicity given to the scheme since its inception. He said:

"When occupational asthma was prescribed as an industrial disease last year, the department issued a press notice which was sent to the Trades Union Congress for distribution to interested unions, as well as to the news media and specialist journals and publications."

The issuing of a note to the TUC and the press can hardly be described as a publicity drive. The plain fact is that the Government have made no real effort to let possible beneficiaries know of the scheme and the House will not be surprised to hear that so few claims have been made. Indeed, the Government have spent so little on publicising the scheme — I shall be grateful if the Minister will say just how much has been spent—that the only surprise is that even 152 people have been helped by a scheme which it was expected, only last year, would benefit many thousands of workers who suffer from asthma because of their employment. Nor can there be any doubt that most of those who are now being helped by the scheme heard of its existence not from the DHSS, whose responsibility it is to inform people of their social security entitlements, but from the efforts of the BFAWU, among other unions, and the TUC.

That is well illustrated by a case brought to my attention by the BFAWU. A member of the union recently went to his local DHSS office in Stockport for a claim form so that he could apply for benefit under the occupational asthma scheme. Staff at the office had difficulty in finding a form for him. They said that forms for claims were not put on display, because, to use their own words,

"not many people know about it."

The member only knew of the occupational asthma scheme through reading his union's health and safety bulletins. Had he relied on the DHSS, he would almost certainly still be unaware of the scheme's existence. Like the appallingly low take-up figure which I have given the House, that case strongly confirms the compelling need for the scheme to be more widely publicised. Yet the Government refuse to act. They still insist that the unions must be mainly responsible for promoting the scheme. In a letter to me dated 12 May 1983, the former Minister wrote:

"The Trade Unions in the industries where the prescribed agents are used should be best placed to alert their members to the scheme."

This is a spectacular case of Ministers trying to shift to others their responsibilities under the law.

Whether or not they are trade unionists, workers still have to contribute to the national insurance scheme, and they are entited to know of, and to receive, its benefits. The DHSS thus undoubtedly has a clear duty to inform likely claimants of their entitlements under the occupational asthma scheme—the OAS.

As the whole House knows, DHSS Ministers never tire of talking about people who try to abuse the social security system by claiming more than their entitlements. Yet, while they pump ever more resources into the hunt for people who overclaim, they never speak of those who underclaim their entitlements. In a parliamentary reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Short) on 4 February this year, the Minister informed the House that no less than £410 million was unclaimed from the DHSS at the latest date for which figures were available.

Invariably, the main reason for the low take-up of social security benefits, especially new benefits—I speak as a former Minister who introduced four new cash benefits for disabled people from 1974 to 1979 — is a lack of awareness of their existence. That, in turn, usually derives from inadequate publicity. In 1981–82, while spending an estimated £33·4 million on fraud investigations, DHSS Ministers spent only a paltry £714,000 on advertising all social security benefits. As the OAS so plainly shows, official silence about the new benefit can condemn many thousands of needy people to the loss of vital financial help.

I repeat my request to the Minister to say unequivocally just how much has been spent by the DHSS in publicising the occupational asthma scheme. I ask him also to tell the House how much more DHSS Ministers have spent in the past year on their campaign to reduce the overclaiming of social security benefits. It will be helpful if, at the same time, he will update the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East about the benefits that go unclaimed by people who are entitled to them.

The negative and parsimonious approach of DHSS Ministers to spending on publicity for the OAS contrasts sharply with that of Ministers in other Departments in furthering the Government's objectives. One example is the £1 million earmarked by the Secretary of State for Defence for the promotion of "more positive" attitudes to nuclear weapons. Also, the Secretary of State for Employment allocated £39,000 for a national press campaign to publicise the compensation available to people who break their contract of employment by refusing to join a trade union.

Even more striking is the Government's budget for informing small enterprises of the assistance available to them. I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the cost of the Government's television advertising campaign about help for small businesses. His reply was:

"The estimated cost of the television campaign, which began in March and is planned to run in April, May and June, is £1,546,000."— [Official Report, 15 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 471.]

To compare the spending by other Departments of taxpayers' money on projects that are regarded as ideologically sound with the pittance spent by the DHSS on promoting the OAS is the best possible guide to the Government's priorities.

Asthma is created and aggravated by dust in the lungs. It makes the sufferer gasp for every breath. He or she is wracked by wheezing spasms which, as the excellent guide to disabilities published by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation explains, can be

"frequently frightening and disturbing to the individual and to others present."

By their priorities ye shall know them. I hope that those who learn of the occupational asthma scheme for the first time because of this debate will contrast the £2,585,000 earmarked for the national publicity campaigns about nuclear rearmament, union busting and cash for small businesses with the cost to the DHSS of the few stamps, envelopes and paper used to publicise the OAS.

Nothing more strongly confirms the judgment of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) that we now have a Government who help first those who are in the best position to help themselves. This Government give priority to the strong and fortunate. Look at the facts. They gave no less than £1,500 million in a single day to the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers. To the weak and vulnerable they offer sympathy more than real support, even in discovering the help to which the House has entitled them.

It is disgraceful that the Government refuse to spend more than the cost of a circular letter to publicise help for people who have to gasp for their breath and who suffer hardship on a scale that more fortunate people can hardly begin to imagine. The Government's approach inflicts unmerited further suffering on people whose employment has cost them their health.

In the first year of the OAS, only 55 per cent. of claims were processed. This implies that there are not enough resources available for the job. In fact, if 303 is the maximum number that can be processed annually, it will take until the year 2007 to clear even the initial estimate of claims. With an estimated further 1,000 claims a year to handle, another 80 years will elapse before the backlog is cleared. Here we come to what is, from the Government's viewpoint, the most compelling reason why there should not be much more publicity for the scheme. Given more publicity, the medical panels would quickly be faced with ever-lengthening queues for assessment. To avoid that happening, and as the Stockport case shows, the scheme is not being actively publicised by the DHSS even on its own premises.

The Minister really must accept that a press notice is not an acceptable way to publicise the scheme. While unions, notably the BAFWU, have striven to make the scheme more widely known—and, indeed, have spent much more than the Government in giving it publicity —it is just not good enough that trade unions should have to be the main source of information about the scheme.

I have heard recently from a number of trade unionists who are deeply concerned about the very low number of successful applicants for help under the OAS. I must tell the House that, quite apart from bitterly criticising the lack of official publicity for the scheme, they make a further indictment of the Government. They point out that, with mass and still rising unemployment, there are now many workers who fear that to disclose chronic illness such as baker's asthma could cost them their jobs. I understand that the BFAWU knows of at least two cases in Manchester of people who, having contracted baker's asthma, have decided not to claim compensation under the scheme because they are afraid of losing their jobs. There can be no doubt that the grim statistic which prompted their decision is that they live in a city in which there are today 35 men out of work for every vacancy.

More publicity for the occupational asthma scheme will not, of course, change that sombre reality for working people in Manchester and other places, all over Britain, who are as badly stricken by unemployment. Nevertheless, it is a matter of the utmost urgency that the scheme should be more widely publicised. The former Minister wrote to me to say:

"I fully admit that the level of claims so far is much lower than anticipated."

That was his comment on the fact that only 7 per cent. of the claims expected have, in fact, been made. Moreover, he would still not agree to provide more publicity for the scheme. The success rate of 7 per cent. was, therefore, tolerable to him. I hope that the Minister replying today will see it as intolerable and will agree to take remedial action.

I have spoken of the urgency of the need for more publicity. There is an urgent need also for more investment in research to ensure that health hazards at work are not only identified, but removed. This is an area in which prevention is infinitely better than cure. I refer not only to occupational asthma, but to other and potentially even more dangerous diseases. Members of the BFAWU often work in extremely dusty conditions and it is believed that, in addition to baker's asthma, dusts from materials used in baking may also cause nasal cancer. In fact, a detailed study is now being undertaken to identify whether bakers face a higher risk of cancer than other workers.

Here I pay tribute to Terry O'Neill and Joe Marino, the national president and general secretary of the BFAWU, together with Nigel Bryson, and their colleagues for their leadership in encouraging all possible research. They take the view, as I do, that questions of occupational health and compensation for occupational disease must be given the highest priority. I honour them for the humanity of their concern for the least fortunate of their members. There are still many instances of damage caused to the health of working people for which they are not compensated, and the BFAWU is to be congratulated on insisting, first, that workers are entitled to know the whole truth about the effects on their health of their employment, and, secondly, that any damaging effects must be quickly and fully compensated.

For their part, the Government seem content merely to pay lip-service to the promotion of occupational health for working people, while inflicting cuts that damage its achievement. They have cut the staff of the Health and Safety Executive. In the Employment Medical Advisory Service, doctors are being dismissed. The number of doctors and nurses employed in the EMAS fell from 179 to 98 in the last four years. Only one of the doctors now employed is a trained epidemiologist who can specifically identify occupational diseases.

What chance, therefore, is there of the Government being able to give any real help in discovering whether nasal cancer is, in fact, another industrial disease to which bakers are more exposed than other workers? I shall welcome the Minister's comments on whether there is any help that he can give to hasten the important research in this field. I feel sure that he will want to if he can.

I put it to the Minister that he should look to the energy and enthusiasm shown by the Secretary of State for Employment in responding to my appeal to him to find and inform every possible beneficiary of the occupational asthma scheme. In seeking to track down employees who, by refusing to join a trade union, had Deen dismissed for breaking their contract of employment, the Secretary of State for Employment spared no expense. He instructed his researchers to find everyone who might qualify for the compensatory payment he was providing. At the same time, he authorised a £39,000 national press campaign.

The House must mark the contrast with the effort and finance provided by the Government to inform workers with the debilitating disease of asthma of their rights to compensation. It is a contrast that has caused a deep sense of injustice among people who know the facts about the appallingly low take-up of compensation under the occupational asthma scheme. I hope the Minister will recognise that it is a well-founded sense of injustice and that he will make a positive response to the case I have argued in this debate.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for raising this subject, because I know that he is very concerned personally about the occupational asthma scheme. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the debate, because we in the Department are concerned to ensure that the help which Parliament has made available should reach as many as possible of those for whom it is intended.

Asthma is a distressing and often disabling condition that has many causes. I have some indirect but fairly close personal experience, since some members of my family have suffered asthma attacks. One of my children suffered quite seriously from asthma when she was very small. It often starts in childhood because of sensitivity to house dust, pollen, animal hair and so on. With my daughter it turned out to be rabbits and guineapigs, as we discovered rapidly as soon as she came in contact with either.

In adults, asthma can sometimes be caused by substances encountered at work. The sufferer becomes sensitised to these substances and has asthmatic attacks, which are characterised by wheezing, coughing and shortness of breath, just like attacks of non-occupational asthma. The symptoms can continue over several years even when the sufferer is no longer exposed to the substance in question.

Since 29 March 1982, asthma caused in this way—occupational asthma — has been prescribed as an industrial disease for which disablement benefit can be paid under the industrial injuries scheme. This followed recommendations by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the independent body which advises the Government about changes and additions to the schedule of prescribed diseases. Now that the scheme has been in operation for just over a year, this is a good time to look back and take stock of how it is working.

The scheme is quite limited at present. A great many substances— some people say as many as 150—have been suggested as possible causes of occupational asthma. However, under the present scheme as recommended by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in the report to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, coverage is restricted to seven groups.

It might help the House if I list the seven groups. They are isocyanates, which are used for making plastic foams, synthetic inks, paints and adhesives; platinum salts, which are used in refining workshops and some laboratories; acid anhydride and amine hardening agents, including epoxy resin curing agents, which are used in a wide variety of industries and include adhesives, plastics, moulding resins and surface coatings; fumes arising from the use of rosin as a soldering flux, which is met with mainly in the electronics industry; proteolytic enzymes, used mainly in the manufacture of biological washing powders; animals or insects used in laboratories for research or education; and the one to which the right hon. Gentleman paid specific attention, dust from grains or flours.

The restriction of the scheme to these seven groups of substances follows the recommendations by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council in its report on occupational asthma which it submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in July 1980. the council's view, these seven groups of sensitising agents are the most clearly established causes of occupational asthma and it recommended that initially coverage should be limited to workers exposed to one or more of them. The intention is that the council should continue to keep the subject under review, however, so that the terms of prescriptions can be extended when there is sufficient evidence. I understand that a further investigation is now being mounted by the council. It is currently seeking evidence of occupational links with any sensitising agents not at present covered. It will be looking particularly at pharmaceuticals — especially antibiotics — wood dust, formaldehyde and other chemicals, and exposure to animals and insects outside laboratories.

One of the problems is that because asthma is such a common condition, affecting about 5 per cent. of the whole population, it is far from easy to identify cases caused by exposure at work and to distinguish them from asthma caused in other ways. The advisory council gave some valuable advice on this in its report, which is now used in the assessing of claims. To help shed more light on this problem and to provide a source of expert advice the DHSS has made special funding available for an occupational medicine unit at the Brompton hospital. The unit is concerned with identifying and preventing acute respiratory diseases caused by occupation, in particular the diagnosis and assessment of occupational asthma. The unit was set up in May 1982 and I look forward to receiving a report on its first year's work, I hope before the end of the year.

It follows from the difficulties that I have described that when new measures such as the occupational asthma scheme are introduced it is bound to be difficult to estimate in advance exactly how many additional claims for benefit will result. The council had considerable difficulty in obtaining any firm information about the likely number of cases of occupational asthma and sometimes could not even make any realistic estimate of the number of workers exposed to a particular substance.

One of the points which the right hon. Gentleman underplayed was that the figures quoted in the council's report are rough estimates of the maximum number of people who could be suffering from occupational asthma as a result of exposure to the agents discussed.

In its report, the council emphasises the difficulty that it has had in obtaining reliable figures. In, for example the case of isocyanates— probably the largest group— the estimates of the workers sensitised to that substance vary from 5 to 25 per cent. of the total number exposed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts as fair comment that the figures that he used are drawn from the upper end of that wide span of estimates. If the figure is 5 per cent., not 25 per cent., the right hon. Gentleman's figures would have to be revised downwards. The trouble is that not one is absolutely clear what the figures might be.

Page 12 of the report says of bakery workers:

"It is estimated that up to 100,000 people might be exposed to flour dust in the course of their work, but continuous improvement in processes with the enclosure of machinery has so reduced the levels of flour dust in concentration that few people now develop asthmatic symptoms."

That shows how difficult it is to arrive at precise estimates.

My figures were based on information from people who are extremely knowledgeable about the realities of work in the baking industry. What does the hon. Gentleman say about the expectation of 1,000 new claims every year? That estimate is well based and comes from a most authoritative source. Does the Minister have anything to say about that?

I am coming to that. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is seriously quarrelling with me. We must agree that neither of us knows the precise figures. With so much uncertainty about how many people might be exposed to asthma-creating agents and who might respond so that asthma is caused and therefore might be expected to claim, whether initially or after the scheme is under way, it is difficult to make estimates. I put it no stronger than that. I hope that I can carry the right hon. Gentleman with me to that extent.

Apart from the uncertainty about the numbers who might be suffering and therefore might be expected to claim, we must remember that some people exposed to the prescribed substances will not be in employed earner's employment and so will be outside the scope of the industrial injuries scheme and therefore not covered. Others, as the right hon. Gentleman said, are likely to be reluctant to admit to their employers or workmates, or even to themselves, that they are suffering from a work-related illness. That phenomenon is not associated only with a high unemployment level. Many people would have doubts about admitting to such a disease in any circumstances. Others may have different reasons for not claiming, or they may simply not bother to claim.

In the first 15 months since the scheme has been in operation, just over 650 people submitted claims for occupational asthma. My figures slightly update the right hon. Gentleman's figures. Decisions were made on 358 of these and benefit was awarded in 190 cases. It is difficult to put the figures in context because the scheme is new and an initial flood of applications could be expected. To put the figures in some kind of context it might help, for the sake of comparison, to explain that during 1982 733 new cases of pneumoconiosis, which includes asbestosis, and 133 of byssinosis were diagnosed by pneumoconiosis medical panels. That can be regarded as roughly comparable, although the figures are a little higher for pneumoconiosis and byssinosis. The right hon. Gentleman expressed concern that there had not been more claims and urged that more be done to make sufferers aware that they might be eligible for benefit.

For the reasons that I have given, I am not convinced that underclaiming for this condition is as great as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. As he said, when the scheme was introduced it was announced in a press release which went to all the news media as well as to specialist journals. Leaflets were made widely available through DHSS offices, hospitals, citizens advice bureaux and other outlets and the TUC was asked to alert trade unions in the relevant industries. I remain sure that, given that we can define fairly clearly the target industries and target workers, that approach was the best way of conveying information about the introduction of the scheme to those likely to make use of it.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific statement on expenditure on publicity. Identifiable expenditure so far is about £2,000 — the cost of producing the special leaflet. That may seem a fairly small sum. However, I want to emphasise that, for reasons which I have just mentioned, effectiveness in this area is not necessarily in proportion to cost. Indeed, in trying to promote the take-up of social security benefits in general it is often much more effective to mount a relatively low-cost operation directed towards those who might be expected to benefit than to spend large sums of money on massive press or television advertising campaigns, which are inevitably a very inefficient way of reaching a relatively limited number of people.

I continue to believe that the trade unions and employers in the relevant industries are best placed to alert workers to the coverage of the industrial injuries scheme.

I was troubled to hear the Minister say that only about £2,000 was being spent. I have been a life-long sufferer from asthma and am very concerned about it. I never realised the implications of the scheme until I came into the Chamber, purely by accident, and heard about them. I appreciate that trade unions and employers should be told, but it would help if doctors were also told. I keep my ear to the ground as much as I can, but I had never heard of anything like this until I did so, by accident, today. If I have not heard about it, what about those whom I represent? Doctors' surgeries and so on should be given more information.

That is a fair point and I hope that it will become clear that I am not in any way seeking to say that it would be wrong to seek further ways to bring the scheme to the attention of those who might benefit from it. But, to put it in a nutshell, it is more sensible to spend £2,000 on leaflets that are firmly put into the hands of all those who might be helped than to spend several hundred thousand pounds on advertising on television to the entire population. However, we are arguing about what we can best do to ensure that the information finds its way to those who, like the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. MacKenzie), have a particular interest in it.

I do not want to indulge in a party political punch-up in a relatively low-key debate, but I regard the comments made from the Front Bench by the right hon. Member for, Wythenshawe about the Government's attitude towards the problems of social security take-up as extravagant in the extreme. As he well knows, the number of claims for attendance allowance and mobility allowance is rising very sharply. I think that the figure last year was 16 per cent. in one case and 22 per cent. in the other. If I remember the figure rightly, we spent£250,000 last year, or at least a sizeable sum, on writing from Newcastle to all those whom we could identify, in a fairly closely targeted way, as possible recipients of one-parent benefit but who nevertheless were not claiming it. We have spent money on putting new inserts into child benefit books and on advertising family income supplement on television. Indeed, that is a more widespread problem and cannot be targeted as closely as an industrial injury scheme.

There is no evidence that the Government are failing to encourage the take-up of social security benefit because of a shortage of resources, a desire to save money or anything else. I shall not attempt to debate the matter further in the few minutes left, but I do not accept the observations made by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe.

The figures that I gave were taken from parliamentary replies. I pointed out that £33·4 million was spent by DHSS Ministers on fraud investigations against a paltry £714,000 on advertising all social security benefits. Again, I informed the House on the basis of information provided by Ministers themselves that £410 million went unclaimed in social security benefts in the last full year for which figures were available. That must be a cause for very deep concern. I very much hope that more will he done to emphasise the problems of under-claiming. I am deeply disquieted to learn that only £2,000 has been spent on publicising the occupational asthma scheme, and I am sure that many people outside the House will share my concern.

I have great respect, as we all do, for the right hon. Gentleman's interest in, and concern for, the disabled, but some of his comparisons are ludicrous. I do not have all the details in front of me, but to compare the amount of paid advertising — which I think is the £714,000 figure—with the total cost of staff used on investigating fraud and abuse is to make a bogus comparison. Any figure for the full resources employed by the Department on take-up would have to include virtually the whole of the salary bill for the staff in our local offices and the many people who spend their time working with citizens advice bureaux, local authority social services departments, writing and producing leaflets, and improving and simplifying forms. A proper figure for the effort that the Department puts into take-up would certainly far outweigh that which the right hon. Gentleman said was put into investigating fraud and abuse. His comparison simply does not stand up.

I should like to reduce the temperature and return to the points which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe raised. For reasons that I have already given, I do not accept that a large-scale, expensive and poorly targeted national publicity campaign is the right way to approach the problem. As I have said, I am concerned to ensure that those who could and should benefit from the scheme are aware that they might be entitled to do so, and are encouraged to submit claims. We shall draw the problem once again to the attention of the TUC, because unions have an important part to play. We shall also approach the CBI along the same lines, because employers, too, have a part to play. We shall contact the Asthma Research Council and the Asthma Society, which are in touch with many sufferers from asthma, and which may he able to alert some of them to the possibilities of the scheme. We shall certainly welcome suggestions from other organisations and individuals, including the right hon. Gentleman, about other ways in which we might be able to contact the appropriate people. I am happy to say that officials of the Department are willing to meet those to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred from the bakers' union to discuss positive and concrete ways in which we can collaborate in helping with the problems of their industry.

In those and other ways we shall continue to do everything we can, in a targeted and effective way, to draw the scheme to people's attention. At the same time, we shall take every opportunity to publicise the scheme where possible through the press and the more specialised television and radio programmes, which offer a more closely targeted method. I also welcome the chance of making the scheme more widely known through debates such as this.

The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred to nasal cancer and to the investigation mounted by the bakers' union. I was interested to hear that the incidence of nasal cancer among its members is being looked at. That form of cancer — carcinoma of the nasal cavity or associated air sinuses to give it its full title—is already a prescribed occupational disease for workers engaged in the manufacture or repair of footwear made of leather or fibreboard or in the manufacture of wooden furniture. With effect from 3 October 1983, in accordance with regulations laid earlier this week, the occupational cover is being extended to include the manufacture or repair of any wooden goods. Carcinoma of the mucous membrane of the nose or associated air sinuses is prescribed for work in the production of nickel.

That change will extend the coverage of the scheme into aspects not related to those upon which the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe touched, and it is a demonstration of our continuing concern and that of the advisory council. If the bakers' union has, or comes up with, evidence relating to any other occupations, I am sure that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council will be glad to consider it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the end this is a matter for the advisory council to consider, but the very fact that we now have the occupational asthma scheme and that we have had this debate this morning is a sign of our concern and that of the council to make sure that the spread of industrial injuries coverage is as good as we can make it. I shall continue every reasonable effort to make sure that the benefits go to those who are entitled to have them.

It is appropriate that, just two days after the announcement of a new system of pay determination for nurses, attention should also be focused on the conditions in which nurses' accommodation is provided by the NHS. We have been reminded in the last couple of days of the fact that the members of the Royal College of Nursing do not as a rule go on strike; were it not for that honourable provision, I wonder whether some nurses might not have been driven to consider action over the state of the hostel accommodation provided for them in the NHS.

The importance of the issue can be judged by the fact that some 48,000 nurses live in accommodation provided by the NHS. Of that large total, some 80 per cent. are learners involved in study, who therefore have a particular need for accommodation that allows them to carry on their studies in addition to their normal work.

I commend the "homes fit for nurses" campaign that has recently been launched by the Nursing Mirror on the subject. The survey that the Nursing Mirror carried out in connection with the campaign has uncovered some alarming statistics. No fewer than 79 per cent. of those who responded to the survey have experienced the theft of possessions from their accommodation. Some 29 per cent., more than one in four, have been attacked and some 32 per cent. have discovered electrical wiring faults in their rooms.

These bare facts are alarming enough but there is plenty of additional anecdotal evidence to support the concern shown by the Nursing Mirror. I shall quote a letter that I have received from the parents of two daughters, both of whom trained at one of the better-known London teaching hospitals not far from here. The letter said:

"We have ourselves seen all their accommodation in turn. The…hostel is part of an old disused hospital, empty (we believe) for some twenty years, dirty and sordid.

As far as we are concerned, our main complaint, as parents, is lack of security—both as regards fire risk; and as regards intruders. Communal telephones on the landings were frequently either vandalised, or out of order—we understand due to the fact that the money was not emptied. It was therefore very difficult for us to get in touch with them; and of course left all the girls in an isolated situation, should any emergency arise…

Further dissatisfaction was caused by inadequate kitchen and food storage facilities. We were fortunately able to provide both our daughters with small fridges; others doubtless are less fortunately placed; and cannot afford this expense themselves. The final straw which drove our younger daughter to seek alternative accommodation was the perpetual presence of cockroaches, one of which turned up in her bed."

The position in my constituency is no more satisfactory. An example is the Walnut Tree hospital in Sudbury where 11 to 15 nurses are required to share a bathroom, a figure that compares with the guideline of four to six nurses to a bathroom. Security at the hospital is unsatisfactory. There is no warden or house sister there and there have been allegations that the letters that nurses receive are being opened. I stress that I do not seek to apportion blame for this appalling state of affairs, but I use it to illustrate the seriousness of the problem.

Against this background, there is a real danger that girls may be deterred from entering the nursing profession; inevitably, parents of children who are considering taking up this profession may be concerned that they are putting their daughters at unnecessary risk. A consequence of the poor NHS accommodation for nurses may be to force nurses prematurely into apparently more suitable accommodation outside, which may have more particular hazards and disadvantages. We should ensure that the National Health Service accommodation provides an adequate environment for the nurses to give the standard of work that we expect of them in their crucial role of delivering patient care.

What can we do about the problem? The guidelines about the necessary standards in nurses homes were issued as long ago as 1908. They covered such matters as adequate cooking and recreational facilities. However some 75 years later we do not seem to have reached those targets.

I want to put it on record that the guidelines have been updated from time to time since 1908.

I am coming to the more recent guidelines.

In 1943, the Nursing Mirror published further guidelines, which were laid down for the King Edward's hospital fund in London for the supervision of nurses' health. They included the importance of diet, of three good meals a day, and said that every nurse should have her own room, preferably with her own wash basin. At that time a ratio of five to six nurses per bathroom was recommended, and proper recreational facilities were reiterated.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health, in a recent written answer, said that the most recent published guidance from his Department on the subject was issued in a hospital building note in 1964. The guidance included recommendations that each nurse should have a bed-sitting room and an individual washing facility, and that bathrooms, kitchens and loos should be available in a ratio of not more than four to six nurses for each facility. Today, unfortunately, as I have already shown with the case in my constituency, those standards are not being met in many parts of the country.

I understand that it is intended to update and reissue the guidance notes this year. Accordingly, I wish to suggest some items for inclusion. First, I hope that we shall reexamine the ratios of nurses to the facilities that I mentioned—kitchens, bathrooms, and so on. Secondly, we should look at the essential need for basic items of equipment such as a desk in each bedroom for study purposes, and proper equipment in the kitchens.

Thirdly, guidance on electrical standards should be issued. At present, old and inadequate wiring constitutes a fire hazard, and the lack of equipment in many kitchens means that nurses are encouraged, in effect, to bring appliances into their rooms which may overload the system and cause fuses, and lights may go out causing other nurses' study periods to be interrupted.

Fourthly, attention should he given to noise levels in the hostels. If nurses are to study satisfactorily, it is essential for them to have reasonable peace and quiet, without undesirable and unreasonable restrictions being imposed on the noise that other residents can make.

Fifthly, the problem of security is becoming increasingly urgent. A mechanism should be devised to prevent unauthorised entry into nursing accommodation, without infringing the reasonable freedom of nurses to entertain visitors. We must recognise, of course, that standards have changed since the time when I was familiar with nurses' accommodation in Cambridge. I accept that it is a difficult line to draw, but it is not impossible to have adequate staff and a system of signing guests in and out that would meet security needs without discouraging hospitality.

Sixthly, nurses should be encouraged to participate more in the running of their hostels. Provision already exists for residential committees, but few of them function. That facility should be made much more common.

Improvements of that kind have significant resource implications. I acknowledge that there could hardly be a less favourable time for us to be suggesting improvements which will cost money, but part of the cost of those improvements could perhaps be recovered from higher charges because many nurses would be happy to pay a little more if the standard of accommodation could be regarded as decent. As those would be improvements to the estate of the NHS, it would be fair if, where possible, they could be financed in part by the sale of surplus NHS land and assets. It is also likely that if nurses could have a bigger say in the administration of their hostels that would encourage more freedom for individual nurses to embellish and redecorate their accommodation. Thus, some improvements could be achieved, at minimal cost to the relevant health authority.

The new guidelines that I have suggested will not be entirely effective unless some provision exists to en force them. No doubt many health authorities operate perfectly satisfactorily in that respect, but an enforcement procedure with some inspection facility would be the only way to avoid wide variations in standards in different parts of the country. I appreciate that it would be unrealistic to expect the Department of Health and Social Security to supervise standards in every nurses home in the country, but to confine the DHSS monitoring to an examination of the design of buildings costing more than £5 million, as is presently the case, is entirely unsatisfactory. Therefore, I hope that when the guidelines are reissued next year they will be implemented more widely in areas with which the Department concerns itself. Easing the financial burdens by introducing better standards could be achieved by phasing in those improvements over a period, perhaps making certain improvements mandatory over five years.

A serious anomaly is that existing nurses' hostels run by the NHS are classified as Crown property. That means that they are not subject to inspection by environmental health officers. Visits from the Health and Safety Executive are confined to work places and so do not cover domestic accommodation. That anomalous lack of scrutiny means that hostels in which nurses live have no regular inspection and are not subject to enforceable safety precautions. I ask my hon. Friend as a matter of urgency to investigate the ways in which that loophole can be blocked.

Concern for this issue is widespread. Nursing is an honourable vocation and those who follow it are dedicated people committed to delivering a high standard of patient care. It is unlikely that nurses themselves will become noisy or militant on this subject so it is all the more important that the House and the Government should put matters right.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) for having raised this matter. I intervene briefly, first, to declare an interest in that I have a daughter who is a qualified NHS nurse and, secondly, to support everything that my hon. Friend has said.

I welcome most warmly the Government's review of the nursing profession. I want to emphasise to the Minister—on this issue both Cambridge and Oxford are united—that priority should be given to the problems of not only student nurses but nurses in junior grades. Under the present arrangements they do not have the support and facilities that their dedication and hard work fully deserve. I am glad to support my hon. Friend.

I am glad to have the chance to reply to this Adjournment debate. The subject was to have been aired during the Consolidated Fund debate on Monday but it was withdrawn. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity now to put on record the other side of the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo). I welcome the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) in the debate. I always treat his interventions with great respect, not just the respect that is due from the Member who represents Oxford, West and Abingdon to the Member for Cambridge, but because he has a fellowship at an Oxford college and is therefore allowed to vote in my constituency should he choose to do so at some future date. Therefore, I need to cherish my hon. Friend's opinions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South spoke on a subject that has attracted a great deal of publicity lately—rightly so. It is good that such subjects should be aired publicly. They are matters of public concern. I should like to set his remarks and the facts and figures that he gave, from none of which I dissent, against the background. The NHS owns about 20,000 houses and flats and additionally provides about 60,000 residential places, normally bedsits in hostel blocks, which are often in converted houses and blocks of flats. It is about the latter category of accommodation that most concern has been expressed in recent months and years.

Most types of NHS staff live in such accommodation. The most numerous are nurses, of whom about 48,000 live in. However, that figure is important in the context of the debate because there is a danger that it is thought that we are talking about the living conditions of all NHS nurses and that we are making assumptions about what all nurses can or cannot do. The figure of 48,000 nurses means that we are talking about one nurse in 10. Argument that I have read in the press, on the lines that salary levels in the nursing profession leave nurses with no alternative but to live in NHS accommodation, do not stand up. The vast majority of nurses live in owner-occupied or rented accommodation entirely unconnected with the NHS. It is important to say that we are talking about the living conditions of not more than one in 10 nurses, although those one in 10 of all nurses employed in the NHS must be considered carefully —48,000 is a considerable number of people, even when spread across the country.

My hon. Friend made an important point about regional variations. The NHS estate is a considerable size. Inevitably buildings in different parts of the country will vary, just as hospitals and social services accommodation vary. My Department does not routinely collect information about the condition of nurses' accommodation. I cannot offer now or later in writing a critical assessment of the position in the different regions. We feel that the issue is best dealt with on a local basis by district and regional health authorities, although the charges that are applied are determined nationally.

The disparate nature of nurses' accommodation is recognised by the way in which charges are made. That is another important point. Charges are not imposed by the Government, the DHSS or individual health authorities. Lodging charges for nurses were determined by the nurses and midwives Whitley council, which is a management and staff body. In other words, there has been agreement between the management and the staff side. In 1981 the council reached agreement on a revised system of charges that for the first time related them to the costs of providing the accommodation. That new system is being phased in by 1984.

There are many abatements. Just as accommodation varies in standard, so charges vary within regions and within district health authorities. I wish to put a few facts on the record. First, student nurses, about whom my hon. Friends are concerned and who make up the great majority of the 10 per cent. of nurses who live in residential accommodation, receive an automatic abatement of 40 per cent. of any charges.

Secondly, the agreement endorsed by the Whitley council recognises explicitly that some accommodation may fall below standard and provides for further abatements up to 40 per cent. That figure may be exceeded in the event of a temporary deterioration. A student nurse in substandard accommodation can thus obtain a considerable abatement of charges.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South and I agree that it is undesirable for student nurses to live in such accommodation, but there is a clear link between charges and value for money in the accommodation provided. It is for the health authorities, in consultation with local staff representatives, periodically to review nurses' accommodation and to agree the extent of the abatements, taking into account the quality of the accommodation.

My hon. Friend rightly argued for an increase in provision and for better accommodation. The intention throughout is to try to provide better value for money. My hon. Friend properly referred to a recent survey undertaken by the Nursing Mirror in which 70 per cent. of respondents said that their accommodation provided fair to excellent value for money. That is a substantial number of those living in this form of locally provided National Health Service accommodation. That is the other side of the coin.

I do not wish to open up the issue of pay, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge briefly referred, but we estimate that, taking into account the new charges agreed by the Whitley council, the latest pay award will improve the take-home pay of the average student by about £12 per calendar month. It is important to bear that in mind. I hope that my hon. Friend does not object to my setting his perfectly valid argument in a broader context.

I stress that nurses' accommodation is a matter for local decisions. It has been suggested that my Department should undertake a survey of nurses' accommodation or that there should be some form of central funding to raise standards. I reject both assertions. Individual health authorities have the responsibility for providing residential accommodation of a reasonable standard and for inspecting the premises and ensuring that they are up to standard. My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South raised an important issue in that respect. That responsibility, of course, covers proper levels of safety and security, both personal and against theft. We look to regional health and district health authorities to consider the pressing needs of young student nurses, the majority of whom are female, in this context. The authorities are responsible for determining levels of spending on new provision and for the maintenance of existing buildings, whether they provide separate accommodation for student nurses or accommodate them in existing buildings such as hospitals.

I have listened to my hon. Friend the Minister with great interest, but I must say that he sounded rather complacent. I understand the difficulties of regional and area health authorities, as I have been a member of both. Will the Minister give them a really good prop? Some of the available accommodation is of an extremely poor standard. Every time nurses receive a modest rise, up go the charges for their accommodation and facilities but the increase in charges does not necessarily relate to value for money. As I know from my experience as chairman of Gloucestershire social services committee, that is a bone of contention. If every time a person gets a rise of £3 a week half is taken in increased charges for accommodation without the increased charge relating to the value of the accommodation, that is inequitable.

I respect my hon. Friend's considerable experience. We are constantly prodding authorities about a range of matters including that one. They occasionally find the prods irritating and uncomfortable. We are also constantly told by members of local health authorities that they want more local determination. It is a case of trying to strike a balance.

The recent pay award and the recently introduced scale of charges should leave the average student nurse who lives in NHS-provided accommodation £12 a calendar month better off. Blanket central monitoring would be difficult. However, it is important that there should be central guidance about the overall provision of accommodation when new accommodation is being built. I warmly welcome the highly constructive checklist that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South suggested we might consider when we redraw the guidance that we shall issue next year. I assure him that we shall take into account and examine positively the points that he made when, next year, we reissue advice to district and regional health authorities concerning new buildings that might involve nurses' accommodation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South made several detailed points. It is difficult to give precise answers as much of the updating work is going on. Now is a sensible time for my hon. Friend to raise such points. He has got in at an early stage of the process. It is thought that standards that are set out in the existing guidelines are probably still applicable as regards the standards of such things as individual rooms and provision of an adequate number of bathrooms, lavatories and showers. We shall consider detailed matters such as security, theft, access and the social regime of the homes. I was interested to hear what I thought was the beginning of some illuminating reminiscences of my hon. Friend's time at Cambridge when he visited some nurses' homes. Our London flat is opposite Westminster hospital nurses' home. I have learnt a great deal about the social regime of such homes by watching the comings and goings there. I do not believe that we want any more high rise blocks for nurses' accommodation—it is simply not what they want. We will give positive guidance about the updating of existing buildings.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and I regularly conduct reviews of the 14 regional health authorities when we get the opportunity to discuss the issues that my three hon. Friends have raised today. Nurse accommodation is always on the agenda. The matters of concern that my hon. Friends have raised will be highlighted in an important Rayner study of the NHS which should be published within the next few weeks. Its main subject is NHS staff accommodation. It has been conducted in my own regional health authority's area. It will be timely and pose some provoking questions to health authorities.

I appreciate that my reply has not answered all of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. I remain convinced that provision of nursing accommodation is best examined locally but that it needs national guidance. It will continue to get such guidance.

I am pleased to have the opportunity before the House goes into recess and its Members go on holiday to draw attention to the epidemic of deaths in the Algarve region of Portugal of tourists from Britain, Germany and the Netherlands because of defects in the flats, apartments and villas which were supplied to them.

It is time for the Government to conduct a full review into the circumstances and to apply pressure on the Portugese authorities to ensure that all the apartments used by British visitors are safe and of a proper standard. It is time also for the travel agents and tour operators to put their businesses into order by ensuring that they do not sell holidays to any British tourist unless they are satisfied that the accommodation is safe, and are prepared to give a written undertaking to their clients that they will enjoy their holiday and, so far as is possible, will return in good health and not be asphyxiated by fumes in their apartments.

This is a large problem. There have been 18 deaths of British tourists in the Algarve, but it is not appreciated that there may be many more. The death certificates of those who are known to have died of asphyxiation have not in all cases given asphyxiation, and certainly not carbon monoxide poisoning, as the cause of death. Some death certificates have referred to food poisoning, others to butane gas, which is not poisonous, and still others to excessive sexual activity. That is a curious form of death for people on holiday.

The time has come for the Government to insist upon proper autopsies being carried out on those who have died. The Portuguese authorities, being unable or unwilling to open the past, have not yet investigated a backlog of about 4,000 deaths, not just in the Algarve, but all over the country. We do not know how many of those deaths were of people on holiday in the Algarve, or who died because of defects in their accommodation. We know of 18 deaths, and there may be several hundred others. We know that at least 24 British citizens were revived after they had been gassed. We must protect those who are at risk.

When this matter was brought to light, largely through the energetic efforts of The Sunday Times and its reporter Robin Morgan, the Portuguese authorities set up a limited investigation. I have no wish to harm Portugal or its tourist industry, and still less our important and excellent travel industry, but I am anxious to ensure that British citizens holidaying in the Algarve are safe. I hope that the Portuguese authorities, the travel industry, tour operators and the Government share that anxiety and will take steps to ensure that the problem is resolved.

Unfortunately, we are told that the Portuguese authorities are inspecting only those flats and other accommodation that are registered with the Portuguese travel authority, which is at most only about one third of the accommodation available. Therefore, it seems that the Portuguese authorities will not inspect about two thirds of the available accommodation. Even if they inspect the premises, it seems likely that the inspections will not come up to our standards.

The local authorities produced nine written reports which did not approve of the gas heaters, but they were overruled by the tourist department. Ten days before the tragic death of John Oakden, the local authorities found the apartment in which he was staying to be safe, which it was not.

The Portuguese authorities have taken about three months to provide certificates for 100 flats in Ben Pesta and Vila Real. Not only is the Portuguese Parliament in recess until mid-September, so that until then owners have no duty to have their properties inspected or registered, but even the limited inspections will not be completed until 31 October. I suggest to the Portuguese authorities that that is not enough. They have made a beginning, but there could be tragedy not only for the people who go to the Algarve but for the tourist industry, on which the Portuguese depend so much.

It is true that in the summer months there is less danger because people keep their windows open, but surely it is not right to say to travelling Britons, "However much noise there is outside, and however chilly it is at night, please keep your windows open, otherwise we cannot guarantee that you will survive." I submit that the time has come for all apartments to be closed until the Portuguese authorities, for a start, have declared the apartments safe to be opened, and that meanwhile the British travel industry should not sell accommodation in such uninvestigated and uncertificated apartments.

I have received a most courteous delegation from the British travel industry. I asked them what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question. I said, "Are you prepared to advise your members to provide for their clients a certificate that the accommodation to be occupied is inspected and safe?" I also said, "Are you prepared not to sell accommodation until it has been inspected and certificated? Will you provide written guarantees to your clients that they will not be asphyxiated in accommodation occupied by your members?" The answer, I regret to inform the House, was no. They thought the questions were unreasonable and that it was not practicable to do what I suggested. They added that there was already Portugese bureaucracy to deal with, that the time scale was difficult, and that anyway it was the summer.

I ask the travel agencies and tour operators, and those who represent them, to reconsider the position and provide guarantees. I advise all Britons who have booked or who intend to book holiday apartments in the Algarve to insist on written certification and not to accept any accommodation until they have the written assurance of those who are selling it that the accommodation is safe.

I do so having particular regard to a statement which is quoted in The Sunday Times and which was made by Travel Club of Upminister, Essex, which is said to be Britain's biggest tour operator to the Algarve. The club refused the services of Mr. Adam, a person who was being sent out by another tourist firm, John Hill, as a gas expert. Mr. Harry Chandler, the chairman of the club, when asked why it refused Mr. Adam's services, said:

"I thought at first it was a good idea. Then I thought of his going among my pensioners and putting the fear of God into them. I have 800 out there now. We are as sure as we can be that our apartments are OK. I have written to all owners asking them to inspect them immediately."

I suggest that that is a wicked and irresponsible attitude, and that anyone who travels with the club should demand written certification of the premises.

It is not enough to ask the owners of premises to inspect them. It should be done by an independent body. To turn down an independent inspection is in itself an indication of fear—which the club's many pensioner clients ought indeed to have if those who send them are not even prepared to have the apartments properly inspected.

I ask the Government to inquire into the ownership of premises in which British citizens have died. I understand that inquiries have been made in certain cases—among others involving Mr. Chandler—as to which premises were owned by them or by other British citizens, and that answers have not been given.

The Association of British Travel Agents has circulated a couple of pathetic circulars, one of which concludes:

"Members are reminded of the general advice previously given to the effect that they should take steps to ensure that all accommodation and ground services contracted abroad in connection with package holidays meet national and local standards and regulations for fire and general safety."

That is not good enough when 18 British citizens are known to have died, others may have done so and all tourists are at risk, more in the winter than in the summer, but even now.

The time has come for the Government to take action. It is not enough to rely on such excellent bodies as the British Safety Council to distribute circulars or to rely on the excellence of some tour operators who are carrying out inquiries and certification procedures. Some are prepared to give their clients the guidance, information and, above all, certainty which they deserve. It is not enough for the Government to ask, as I understand they have, that safety measures should be translated from Portuguese into English and pinned up in bedrooms, with tourists being told to keep their windows open.

We are dealing with a grim matter of life and death. The action taken by travel agents and the Portuguese Government is not enough and nor, I regret to say, is that taken so far by the British Government. I ask the Government to note the words of Mr. Drury, a chartered engineer from Leicester who has been involved in the inquiries in the Algarve. He says that the Portuguese authorities

"have refused to disclose any details of the standard to which premises are being compared."

What are those standards? The Government should demand that the Portuguese authorities provide that information.

I ask the Government to note the miseries of the families who have been bereaved in this series of tragedies and who are not satisfied with the inquiries that have been made. I ask the Government to review the information in their possession—they have much such information—and to hold an inquiry into the circumstances of the awful and tragic deaths in the Algarve.

Circulars, pamphlets and beautiful brochures are still being distributed. They advertise the Algarve as, for example, a place of

"Scenic beauty, friendly people and superior accommodation."

It is only superior accommodation to which our citizens should go. The tragedies of the past must not be matched by deaths in the future.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for allowing me to take part in the debate. I went to the Algarve in February this year, while working as a reporter for the current affairs programme "TV Eye", to investigate five of the deaths to which my hon. and learned Friend referred.

My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that there have been many more deaths than those brought 10 the attention of the authorities. One problem is that the Portuguese are not competent to recognise carbon monoxide deaths. General practitioners fail to recognise the cause of such deaths and ascribe them to various other causes. In addition, the Portuguese forensic services have a four-year backlog.

Anyone who has been to the Algarve will understand the second problem. There has been an explosion of building work. People who, a generation or even only a decade ago, were illiterate peasants are being taken on by the building industry and constructing buildings at a tremendous rate, with little regard for safety standards.

The third problem is a technical one. With due respect to Robin Morgan, who deserves great credit for raising the matter, he did not take the issue far enough. Too many people are left with the impression that the deaths occurred because of the occasional defect in water heaters or the use of inappropriate materials in flues.

The problem is much more serious and arises because the Portuguese do not understand the dangers of carbon monoxide. Even in this country there are scores of deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning every year, but at least we know that proper fluing is required as a safety measure and that atmospheric and temperature conditions can make an enormous difference.

We discovered that five of the deaths of British holidaymakers in the autumn of last year occurred on the coldest nights of that year, and there is no doubt that the new practice initiated by the British travel industry of letting accommodation during the winter has exacerbated the problem. During the summer, ventilation has managed to avoid some of the difficulties which might arise.

I believe that the Portuguese are now aware of the problem, but they lack the medical, administrative and technical expertise to grapple with it. It will take years, if not decades, for them to look at the thousands of flats and holiday villas in the Algarve in each of which a chimney or a flue may not be adequate for the purpose for which it has been installed. For that reason, since I know that the Portuguese have been to London to discuss these matters with our Government and with the industry, I believe that the proper response from the Minister is to offer the Portuguese not condemnation and browbeating but a real measure of practical co-operation so that British expertise can be put at the service of the British travel industry but most importantly of British holidaymakers who otherwise are at considerable risk.

The House and all potential British holidaymakers owe the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) a debt of gratitude for, if I may use the word appropriately, ventilating this very important and serious subject. I am also grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

While I recognise the gravity of the subject and the fact that it is important that the Government should understand their responsibilities in that area, I suggest that we must not fall into the trap of becoming too alarmist and exaggerating what is, I accept, a serious problem. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West spoke of 18 deaths in the Algarve. I accept his statistics, because I am sure that he has done his homework. However, the British community in the Algarve is made up of a large number of retired people, and it is obvious that deaths from natural causes figure largely in the statistics quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman. His suggestion that there are several hundred other deaths verges on the alarmist. That is not to take away from the seriousness of the problem and the Government's approach to it.

When the first tragic information became available following the postmortems carried out in this country, the Government, through our embassy in Lisbon, immediately took action and transmitted the information to the Portuguese authorities asking them what action was being taken to investigate the deaths.

The Portuguese sent an inspector from the Department of Tourism to the Algarve with instructions to make a report as soon as possible. The Portuguese Secretary of State for Tourism, who has a very deep interest in the reputation of his country as a tourist attraction, also commissioned a special investigation into the deaths by the Portuguese national civil engineering laboratory of the Portuguese Ministry of Housing and Public Works. I am glad to confirm in response to the hon. Member for Dagenham that we sent a British expert to assist in that investigation.

Tests showed that the gas heating and cooking facilities had unacceptable levels of carbon monoxide in some of the apartments. The report also made the criticism that the equipment had not been installed in accordance with Portuguese Government standards, and evidence that heaters were poorly maintained and serviced was produced.

Although the report did not reach any substantive conclusion or make specific recommendations, the Portuguese Secretaries of State for Tourism and Energy set up a special commission to supervise measures relating to the installation and checking of this equipment in designated tourist apartment blocks.

It was announced that after a satisfactory check a safety certificate of guaranteed maintenance would be issued for public display in the villas and apartments affected. At the same time, two other investigations were set in hand by the Portuguese authorities. The public prosecutor in Faro, the regional capital, started an investigation into the deaths of the British subjects. The results of the investigation, which was in place of that normally carried out by individual local authorities, are due to be issued by the end of July. A second investigation has been undertaken by the Institute of Legal Medicine in Lisbon. We await that report. We have formally requested the Portuguese Government to make the reports available. We continue to make the Portuguese authorities aware of our concern, most recently on 20 July through our ambassador in Lisbon.

Today we received reports on the progress that the Portuguese are making in putting this worrying situation right. Teams of technicians have been sent to all the properties in the Algarve registered with the Ministry as holiday homes to identify gas installations that do not meet Portuguese safety regulations. That has been completed. All the owners of installations identified as substandard have until 15 December 1983 to bring the equipment up to safety standards. The problem arises mainly in the winter. The standards are new and higher. I cannot give details, but competent authorities will keep a close eye on them.

The arrangements relate only to properties which are officially registered with the Ministry of Tourism. Perhaps other problems must be solved in non-registered accommodation, but I am confident that the Association of British Travel Agents is well aware of the problem. I am sure that the British tour operators will try to ensure that they make contracts only with the owners of property holding the safety certificates.

Is the Minister planning to advise British citizens not to go to any property in the Algarve unless it is registered and has been inspected?

I take a more restrictive view of the duties of the British Government towards citizens. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to ventilate the problem and I hope that what has been said will be made clear to all tour operators and all those considering a visit to the Algarve. I believe that there should be strict limits on the amount of direction that Government should give to the public. The British public are well aware of the problem, thanks to The Sunday Times and the hon. Member for Dagenham in his previous and present incarnations.

The role of the tour operators is important. I have no doubt that they will take note of today's debate and in particular the hon. and learned Gentleman's characterisation of their status as "pathetic". As he says, he is in touch with them and will have made his points directly to them. For our part, we shall keep the problems that he has put forward closely in mind. As so many efforts are being made by the Portuguese to get the thing right, it would not be justified at present to go fully down the road proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, I assure him and the House that I and the officials concerned will keep the matter under close review. We shall summarise all the information available to us. Indeed, I have touched on some of it today. We shall review it and take a final decision as winter approaches, which would seem to be the right time. The hon. and learned Gentleman's points are well appreciated and, with the co-operation and good sense of the British public, I trust that it will be possible to avoid any other problems.

The all-party safety group has taken on, as its first project, the holding of an inquiry into those deaths. Is the Minister willing not only to hold an inquiry and a review in order to reach a conclusion—which would be most welcome—but also to undertake to make the results available to the House and the committee?

I am certainly happy to keep in touch with the hon. and learned Gentleman. If there are any positive points that it would seem advisable and right to communicate to the House, we shall certainly do so. At this stage, I do not want to give any other firm commitments, because the situation is developing quickly. The information available to me shows that it is also developing in the right direction, in the sense that the Portuguese authorities are very well seized of the problem. I repeat that they have a clear and obvious commercial interest, quite apart from their other responsibilities, to put matters right. They are working hard at it and I am confident that progress will be made. Therefore, I hope that this may well be the last time that we need to take such a serious view of what is, nevertheless, an important issue.

Once again, I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for giving us all the opportunity to examine the problem. The problem has proved serious, but has perhaps not been anything like as serious in numerical terms as he suggested at some points in his speech. However, the Government believe that their approaches to the Portuguese authorities and the response that has been made means that, if British visitors to the Algarve take the safeguards now available to them, they should have much less cause for concern than before.

One of the great tragedies of modern life is the high number of divorces, though after a sharp increase up until 1977 it seems that the number of petitions has now levelled off. I invite my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, whom I welcome to the debate, to consider how best we can ease the trauma of the difficulties that result frorn divorce. That is way I have initiated this debate.

We have recently seen published the report of the interdepartmental committee on conciliation. The Law Commission has given approval to the concept of conciliation in matrimonial disputes, where parties can come together and resolve their difficulties with some degree of amity, and so achieve a settlement that is likely to last longer than one resulting from an order of the court.

Indeed, the Lord Chancellor's legal aid advisory committee said in its thirty-second annual report:

"Parties to matrimonial disputes, unlike those to most other forms of litigation, are likely to be involved in some form of relationship with each other, even after the legal issues have been dealt with. We believe that relationships founded on agreement between the parties are more likely to be workable than those imposed by a court. The interests of children, in particular, are more likely to be served by a relatively harmonious agreement between former spouses than by a protracted legal battle."

There are now more than 50 conciliation services of all types in existence, but the longest established has been running for only just over four years, and that is the Bristol courts family conciliation service.

The definition of conciliation should be placed on record, and the inter-departmental committee and those who study these matters in detail have yet to come forward with a better definition than that set out in the final report on one-parent families, which said that

"by (conciliation) we mean assisting the parties to deal with the consequences of the established breakdown of their marriage, whether resulting in a divorce or a separation, by reaching agreements or giving consents or reducing the area of conflict upon custody, support, access to and education of the children, financial provision, the disposition of the matrimonial home, lawyers' fees, and every other matter arising from the breakdown which calls for a decision on future arrangements."

The inter-departmental committee added:

"In more general terms, and borrowing the language of litigation, conciliation means some kind of structured scheme or facility for promoting a settlement between parties."

We live in a time of change in matrimonial law, far more so than in any other period in the history of the law's intervention in matrimonial matters. We have the committee of Mrs. Justice Booth considering matrimonial procedure, which will report fairly shortly. We also have the Lord Chancellor and his Department looking at a reorganisation of the family jurisdiction of the High Court and the county court system with a view to what I hope to see emerge—something along the lines of the concept of a family court. However, I suspect that that will not be as anticipated or hoped for by the Finer committee.

Why do we need conciliation in matrimonial cases? It is perhaps best set out in the inter-departmental committee's report, which says:

"We take it to be axiomatic that it is generally better for parties to civil litigation, or indeed any dispute, to settle their differences rather than fight them out to the bitter end. In practice this is what happens, without there being any machinery for the purpose, in the overwhelming majority of civil actions started in England and Wales."

It goes on to discuss the way in which, in industrial relations and employment law, there is the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Why, when there are so many facilities for conciliation in other aspects of life, should there not be in matrimonial matters?

Although many civil cases are settled before getting to the stage of litigation in forum, nevertheless, if conciliation helps to achieve a settlement, it should be welcomed and espoused. I restrict my remarks to matrimonial matters, where conciliation is particularly necessary.

How was the report greeted by the media? I fear not particularly well. The Guardian called it

"A report that puts the family last."

It went on to say:

"Over 100,000 divorces this year will involve children under the age of 16. Over 1,500,000 children will suffer from the divorce of their parents in the next decade … Having concluded that the State should be concerned, the committee went on to reject the best way of providing help: a national conciliation service for separating couples."

I have received communications from Gwyn Davis, research fellow at Bristol university, Mr. Wells, the assistant chief probation officer of Avon probation service, the Swindon family conciliation service and others. They all expressed concern about the way in which the interdepartmental committee's report seemingly dismisses out-of-court conciliation services. They all believe that we should have a national conciliation service out of court, and they welcome the in-court services.

I do not wish to digress by giving a definition of in-court or out-of-court or pre-court conciliation systems. Essentially, the difference is that the in-court system is staffed by experienced court welfare officers, all of whom are probation officers. The learned judge or registrar who is involved in the arbitrament of a dispute between the parties can refer the matter to that system. By the very nature of their great experience, those officers act with great understanding, not least because they are responsible for the preparation of court welfare reports. Then there is a myriad of out-of-court or pre-court conciliation services, which are staffed largely by social workers, many of whom are extremely experienced in dealing with matrimonial disputes. Of course, there are many more of those services.

The inter-departmental committee's report welcomes the concept of an in-court service. I am glad of that, because it seems to endorse what many of us have been saying about the need to foster in-court services of conciliation, as it eases the burdens of people who are suffering the trauma of matrimonial breakdown. The report speaks of the need for

"an amended divorce system in which a place is expressly provided for the conciliation process so that it can be used when it is needed and by-passed when it is not".

That points to an in-court service. It is interesting that the report also says:

"We emphasise, however, that we do not suggest that out-of-court schemes should be discouraged".

However, the conclusion seems to be that that there should be no national conciliation out-of-court, pre-court service; that there should be only the in-court service.

I welcome the suggestion about procedural change, although I shall have to look more carefully at the details before deciding whether I fully endorse them. However, I welcome the idea of introducing in-court conciliation as a recognised part of matrimonial procedure. I also welcome the conciliation project unit which is suggested in the inter-departmental committee's report.

We must look again at an out-of-court service. We should not allow this to be the final word on the matter. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have much to say on this matter when he replies to this debate. Although the inter-departmental committee did a fine job in amassing evidence, it suffered, as it acknowledged, from a lack of evidence on out-of-court schemes. It could concentrate only on the Bristol scheme, because few schemes have operated for more than a year. Indeed, many of them have started since the inter-departmental committee first sat. Only the Bristol scheme has been properly funded by the Nuffield Foundation and then, fortunately, by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office jointly.

The report talks about the lack of referrals to an out-of-court service. It should be said that in the Bristol service, out of some 3,000 petitions in a year, 350 referrals were made to the conciliation service. That is more than 10 per cent. We are talking about a national scheme which would cost no more than £80 million, and which might well save much in financial terms, because of the absence of the need for court welfare officers' reports when conciliation is being effected, and the great saving in emotional stress, particularly when children are involved.

I hope my hon. and learned Friend will say that there will be further research into out-of-court schemes and that that will not be allowed to fall flat altogether as a result of the report. After all, the report did not give any accurate definition of a pre-court conciliation scheme and perhaps we should look more carefully at that. When the Booth committee reports later this year, as I hope it will, it may well recommend in its first pronouncement the advisability of conciliation. I hope that no definitive judgment will be made on out-of-court conciliation services until we see that report.

There are savings to be made in pre-court conciliation, even if it is no more than identifying the issues at stake so that the court's job is rendered that much easier. If a judge or registrar is able to identify the issues because the parties have been through a conciliation process, that has its own inherent cost saving because the litigation is likely to be less protracted than it might otherwise be.

I have already mentioned an important aspect, but one which is unquantifiable in financial terms — the reduction of tension and stress for the parties if they are capable of coming together and conciliating their differences by coming to an agreement over the points of conflict between them. One should not minimise the ability of conciliation to lead to reconciliation—in other words, the dropping of divorce proceedings altogether. Indeed, the experience of the Bristol courts family conciliation service is that one in six referrals resulted in reconciliation and therefore divorce did not follow. One cannot treat conciliation and reconciliation as separate concepts. The two go hand in glove and I should like to think that the inter-departmental committee acknowledged that in paragraph 5.10 of its report.

The best people to know whether costs will be saved are the lawyers who are involved. I am somewhat surprised that the inter-departmental committee did not see fit to consult the Bristol law society. After all, the lawyers might have been able to give a fair assessment of what savings were made as a result of referrals to the Bristol courts family conciliation service. That was a common criticism made to me by Mr. John Westcott, a solicitor who practices there.

There is a saving in that court welfare officer's reports no longer need to be provided if conciliation is being effected. In paragraph 4.8 the report says:

"The pattern of bills"—

legal bills—

"is such that there is little prospect of savings unless a small number of cases which are likely to be very expensive are identified at an early stage … and successfully conciliated."

That must be an endorsement of the concept of early conciliation — perhaps a pre-court conciliation service rather than just an in-court conciliation service.

The report goes on to say:

"Accordingly, it would seem that the best hope of achieving substantial legal aid savings lies in developing court procedures that promote as many settlements as possible without recourse to Conciliation and facilitate the timely identification of potentially expensive cases that are amenable to Conciliation, and relatively cheap arrangements for Conciliation which are capable of achieving a high success rate in potentially expensive cases."

I do not quarrel with that conclusion. All I say is that one needs to look carefully at whether the greatest savings can be made at an early rather than a late stage.

I mentioned court welfare officers' reports. A senior probation officer at Leicester's family court unit made the following comment in a letter to the inter-departmental committee. He said:

"We have been able to contain the voluntary sector of our work without any increases in resources in our Unit. Needless to say this may well become necessary in time, but our reasoning is that one man's voluntary conciliation would be another man's court report (eventually)."

That clearly establishes that there are savings there.

I wish to conclude by drawing a few threads together. The inter-departmental committee's report suffers from a lack of clear evidence. I make no criticism of it for that, because it was dealing with new pre-court schemes. It is only since 1 January' this year that we have been gathering national statistics on the domestic jurisdiction of magistrates' courts, something that should have been done long ago. It is perhaps in line with the present fluidity of this branch of the law and the way in which it is evolving that we are suddenly discovering that all sorts of statistics that we need to come to a proper conclusion on these matters are not readily available or not available for a significant period in the past.

We need more statistics on conciliation schemes. That is why I hope that there will be funding not only for the project unit of an in-court scheme, which I welcome and with which I have no quarrel—it is superior to other court schemes and we need a project unit for that—but for research into pre-court and out-of-court schemes to ascertain their true validity.

The responsibility for providing help for couples being divorced falls between the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office. That cannot be satisfactory. I hope that when departmental responsibility is considered something will be done to ameliorate that in the near future. There is a difficulty in distinguishing between in-court and pre-court schemes, because some are combined. Therefore, there is a penumbra—a grey area in which one links with the other.

When we talk about conciliation we should be talking about a change in attitude to matrimonial breakdown by the parties and by the law. That change of attitude needs to be just as fundamental as the change from the concept of matrimonial offence to the concept of the no fault irretrievable breakdown of marriage enshrined in the 1969 Act. That was the most fundamental change in divorce law that we have ever seen. Conciliation is another fundamental change. It has to be accepted as such, not just as a by-the-way matter or a procedural innovation that may be of slight assistance, but as a brand new attitude towards the way in which we treat divorcing couples.

That fundamental change must be to effect conciliation wherever possible and I hope that ultimately it will become the way in which divorce law deals with matrimonial matters. We can all agree on one thing, which is that if parties can come together and settle their disputes amicably, particularly in the minefield of matrimonial law, there will be many more lasting settlements and we shall have made a major contribution to the development of the law and to the health and happiness of our people.

There could be no more authoritative and persuasive advocate of the cause of conciliation in matrimonial disputes than my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best). He has long had a great interest in that subject. He submitted most valuable evidence to the interdepartmental committee of which he spoke. He made his views helpfully known to the Lord Chancellor. I know that my noble and learned Friend will wish to study my hon. Friend's speech carefully as a further contribution to the issue.

I entirely agreed with my hon. Friend when he said that we all had to seek the best means of easing the trauma of divorce. He referred in conclusion to the enormous contribution that conciliation could make in easing unhappiness and smoothing the entire process of matrimonial litigation. That subject is still in its infancy, so we must examine all the evidence and approach the subject with an open mind, as I believe that the interdepartmental committee did in producing its recent report.

The object must be to reduce areas of conflict, and I express my admiration for the increasingly large number of volunteers who do their best to achieve that in out-of-court schemes. The wider the variety of schemes about which we have experience, the better. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom and knowledge. We must examine closely the full range of experience. The interdepartmental committee has done just that, but the door is not closed for further consideration of evidence as it becomes available.

The interdepartmental committee consists of officials from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Treasury, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Central Policy Review Staff. Its terms of reference required it to review current arrangements for conciliation, to report on the nature, scope and effects of existing services and to consider whether, and if so how, these or further facilities might be promoted or developed within existing resource planning, taking into account any consequential changes in law and procedure. The report was published on 15 July.

In recent years there has been a considerable growth of interest in matrimonial conciliation as a means of reducing conflict between the parties to actual or potential matrimonial proceedings. I have already referred to the proliferation of conciliation schemes, of which the best known is in Bristol. They take various forms but they have the aim of assisting the parties to deal with the consequences of the breakdown of their marriage by reaching agreement or reducing the area of conflict in matters such as custody and access to the children.

Broadly speaking, the schemes fall into two types, one of which is usually known as the out-of-court scheme. That scheme is run independently and outside the court, often providing a service at an early stage in the breakdown of a marriage. How early it should come into play is a matter of judgment, and I note my hon. Friend's comments on that. Some of the schemes are completely voluntarily run and funded. Others are organised by divorce court welfare officers. The other type of scheme—the in-court scheme—generally forms an integral part of the divorce procedure for certain cases and involves the participation of divorce court welfare officers or registrars or both.

The committee invited written submissions and received 104 from a wide range of individuals and bodies. It also set up a full-time study group to make a representative sample survey of conciliation schemes. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, however, the newness of virtually all the schemes meant that the amount of reliable information that could be obtained was limited. One of the committee's recommendations was, therefore, that certain matters should be investigated further.

Those matters were the variations in settlement rates between different county courts and the connection between these differences and variations in operating efficiency, the reasons for the high level of first use of certain magistrates matrimonial courts and the effect of this high use on the workload of county courts, the other disadvantages and possible drawbacks of magistrates courts being the courts of first resort in cases of matrimonial conflict, and the reasons for variations between courts in the ordering of welfare reports. My hon. Friend will agree that we must find out as much as possible about the reasons for the variation because much of value can be learned.

The study group examined a sample of in-court and out-of-court schemes. On the out-of-court schemes, it gathered as much information as possible from the Bristol courts family conciliation service, which is the longest established scheme of its type. From its findings at Bristol, the study group established that the cost of providing a publicly funded out-of-court service would be between £125 and £135 per case and that if such a service were extended to England and Wales its annual cost would be between £6·6 million and £8·7 million. The study group also estimated that in-court conciliation services cost about £51 for a half-hour appointment and that in-court services extended throughout England and Wales would cost £2·4 million a year.

The committee considered the argument of many submissions that conciliation services could be funded by savings that were generated by their own activities. It examined the effectiveness of schemes to assess what savings might be made. It found that out-of-court schemes have an agreement rate of between 27 per cent. and 38 per cent. In-court conciliation was found to produce a similar agreement rate. Conciliation by welfare officers in the course of their welfare reporting duties was found to produce an agreement rate of 50 per cent. of referrals amenable to concilation.

Based on the appropriate foundation for such a calculation, the committee concluded that an out-of-court conciliation service in England and Wales could not be funded by savings generated by its own activities and that it was far from clear that in-court services could be so funded.

However, the committee's evidence showed that there might be scope, because of the benefits of shared overheads and the possibility of savings to the time of divorce court welfare officers, for in-court schemes to be developed within existing resource planning.

The committee recognised that the objectives of conciliation are constructive, largely derived from compassion and a desire to improve the human condition, and that more should be done to achieve them. It was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of those who work for conciliation, by the many who freely give their services for no material reward and by the speed at which new schemes and services are growing all over the country.

The committee was, however, obliged to consider how those objectives might be achieved within existing resource planning and to what extent improvements to the existing system, rather than a new service, were needed.

On the evidence available, the committee was persuaded that conciliation is valuable in some cases. It concluded that out-of-court schemes did not, overall, save money and that they appeared to be less cost effective than in-court schemes. The committee was not able to establish sufficient grounds to justify Government funding of out-of-court schemes. It also concluded that conciliation was best provided as an adjunct to the court system, but that the many different types of in-court schemes and their costs and effectiveness should be examined more rigorously.

The committee accordingly recommended that such examination should be carried out by monitoring the operation of some different types of in-court conciliation scheme and that, for this purpose, a small unit under the guidance of an advisory committee should be created.

The committee made further recommendations for consideration by the committee under the chairmanship of Mrs. Justice Booth which is reviewing procedure in matrimonial cases in the High Court and county courts. They were that changes in the courts' procedure should be considered with a view to making provision for conciliation and that procedural changes should be geared to exploring the possibility of early settlement.

The committee made two subsidiary recommendations about legal aid procedure which I shall not deal with in detail as they are adequately dealt with in the report. I welcome and am grateful for my hon. Friend's approval of the in-court services for conciliation. I entirely agree that it is desirable that such a scheme should be organised so that it can be used when it is needed and bypassed when it is not. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the fact that the committee's report did not suggest that out-of-court schemes be discouraged. However, not enough is known about them to warrant a decision at present — I do not hold out any hope of a change of heart in the foreseeable future—about Government funding of them.

The Government share the committee's view that the objective of conciliation is desirable and well worth achieving, if necessary, by innovative means. In that spirit, the Government are considering closely the conclusions and recommendations of the committee.

The role played by consular services has grown considerably in recent years, especially in their responsibilities towards holidaymakers. Few people embarking on a journey overseas expect to call upon our consular services while they are abroad. Therefore, it is all the more important that the services should be adequate and efficient. This responsibility must relate not only to dealing with problems that have arisen but to providing a protective barrier against matters that might cause difficulty or danger to those visiting a country, perhaps for the first time.

I draw the Minister's attention to two types of problem experienced recently by my constituents. In the first case, Mr. and Mrs. David Peacock of 23 Brixham gardens, having saved up for some years, took their young family—a girl of four, Kelly, and a boy of two, Mark—on a package holiday to Minorca arranged by Cosmos. They stayed at the Pinguinos hotel, which was specially recommended by the tour company as a place for children. On Tuesday 7 June, the family had a traumatic experience. They left their hotel at 10.45 am to take their daughter to a children's club in a nearby hotel. When they arrived they found that there had been a postponement until 11.30 am, so they waited for their daughter to be collected to go to the beach.

Mr. and Mrs. Peacock then returned to their hotel to collect their son's swimming things so that they could go to the beach to watch the older children. They entered the lift at about 11.45 am. Mark Peacock was holding his father's hand. As the lift began to move upwards, the boy slipped on the floor, which Mrs. Peacock had noticed was wet. The boy put out his hand to stop his fall, and, since the lift was three-sided without a door, be touched the lift shaft wall and his arm was immediately dragged between the lift car threshold and the lift shaft, despite Mr. Peacock's attempts to hold him back. Mrs. Peacock pushed the red emergency button, which did not stop the car. In desperation she began to push all the floor buttons, and the lift stopped at the sixth floor where the father managed to free the child's arm, which was badly lacerated and bleeding heavily. Mr. Peacock attempted to check the bleeding while the lift returned to the hotel reception area.

After first aid with a towel, the family were pushed into a taxi and driven to Mahon where a family doctor sent them immediately to a residential hospital. A solution and dressing were applied to the child's wound while a theatre team was assembled during the time needed to allow the child's previous meal to be digested. At 2.30 pm, Mark was taken into the operating room, where his muscle and arm were stitched back. Mr. Peacock was subsequently advised by the surgeon that his child was exceptionally lucky because two other children had lost limbs through similar lift accidents earlier that month.

As soon as the child could leave hospital and arrangements could be made, the family returned to England. On their return they immediately consulted a surgeon to establish whether the accident had been dealt with adequately and whether permanent damage was likely to result. It is important that they then set about preparing their insurance claim to recover the losses that they had suffered. In doing this, they were fortunate because they had taken the trouble to insure themselves for the visit, so their medical and other incidental expenses should have been covered. They had insured themselves with the Home and Overseas Insurance Company through Europ Assistance, and I understand that that action has considerably alleviated the worries that might have ensued if they had not had adequate insurance. However, in order to recover the costs of their holiday and the expenses of various taxis and other charges that fell upon them, they had to get a report from the hospital surgeon and also a report on the tests subsequently carried out on the lift.

When the accident took place, the lift was, very properly, shut off, and no further inspection could be made until a Government-authorised inspector had carried out an inspection, although I understand that the inspector was in fact selected by the lift maintenance company. One would not expect that to happen in Britain, where an entirely independent body or organisation would carry out such an inspection.

It would appear from verbal accounts that the report gives the lift a reasonably clean bill of health, and that the questions concerning the slippery floor and the operation of the lift emergency button were both cleared. Whereas one might readily accept the report that was given, certainly in Britain one would expect a Government inspector to carry out such an inspection, so that there would be no question of the inspector having any interest as between the company and the people who suffered a nasty accident.

Obviously, there were severe translation difficulties throughout the incident. My constituents believe that some of their distress could have been alleviated if the tour operator's representatives had done more to help in that regard, and also in expressing interest in my constituents' subsequent difficulties. Since their return, the company has been more helpful, but it is anxiously directing any claim towards the Spanish hotel company and the lift operators. There, of course, lies a major problem because of the difficulty of establishing what rights there are in a Spanish court and the kind of treatment that might be expected. If one were operating entirely within Britain, one could easily obtain in any town legal advice and satisfactory opinions on which an action could conveniently be started.

People do not go abroad expecting to have to enter into a legal contest. Therefore, I assume that one should expect to be able to turn to the consular services to look after and protect one's interests.

I have spoken on the telephone to the tour company. and its Miss Horsfall, who deals with queries of this sort, was most helpful in answering my inquiries. She has promised a good will offer to my constituents of a 20 per cent. reduction on a future holiday. Whether my constituents will feel able to take advantage of that remains to be seen.

The incident gives rise to several questions that we ought to ask our consular services. Do they look forward to the problems that could arise or do they just look back to the problems which have arisen? Do they advise tour operators on what action they should take and on the sort of services that holidaymakers should expect?

The Cosmos advertisement said that the hotel selected by my constituents was considered suitable for children and family holidays. The possible problems presented by three-sided lifts had been overlooked, because we do not have such lifts in this country.

The surgeon told my constituents that two children had lost limbs in similar accidents in the previous month. That suggests that those children probably also came from countries that are not used to such lifts. It would have been helpful if the consular services had drawn the attention of tour operators to the problem and had advised them against describing holidays in hotels with three-sided lifts as being suitable for families.

The consular service ought to bring such matters to the notice of the general population as well, and I should like them to give greater support to those pursuing claims. My constituents wrote to the consul in Majorca on 5 July—they have not yet received a reply—asking for help in obtaining the report that they require from the hospital to lodge a claim for the refund of the cost of the part of the holiday that they lost and for the reimbursement of incidental expenses. As time passes, it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain such information and to lodge legal claims against the hotel or the lift company.

Some other constituents of mine are also having a traumatic experience. They are visiting Sri Lanka and face different problems. Several are of Tamil origin and frequently return to Sri Lanka. They had great difficulty discovering what transport was available when they arrived. Information about rail and road services is hard to come by and stories emanating from that sad country show that the situation there leaves much to be desired.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has heard reports of passengers being burnt to death in buses and schoolchildren being raped at the road side while waiting for transport and the allegations against the armed forces, who have been accused of murdering children and elderly people in that troubled land. It is alleged that one village has been wiped out by the Sri Lankan air force. I am told that people in refugee camps in Colombo have been attacked by Sinhalese mobs, in spite of being under the control of the security forces.

Those are matters of great concern to the traveller. I do not need to underline the importance of the situation and how much we rely on the professionals in the consular offices on the scene. They have a very important role to play and it is not one which can be tied purely and simply to history. Their responsibilities must be constantly brought up to date, and we must conscientiously consider what new measures are required to take us into the 21st century and whether a different type of response is needed from these officers.

It is extremely important to know what staff numbers are available to assist our constituents when they are, for example, in Minorca or Sri Lanka. It is especially important to ask ourselves whether the consular services provided by Her Majesty's Government are adequate to meet today's demands.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for introducing the debate. His constituents are to be congratulated on having a Member of Parliament who takes such a close interest in their welfare.

Before dealing with the more general subject of the consular provision offered by Her Majesty's Government, I take up the two specific matters raised by my hon. Friend.

I was sorry the hear of the dreadful tale of the Peacock family, and I offer my personal sympathy to them for what occurred to their son, Mark. I understand that a report of the incident has not been received in London, but I note that Mr. Peacock has written to our consul in Palma, Majorca, and I have no doubt that the consul is investigating the matter to see what more we can do to help.

I must make it clear that there have to be strict limits to what consuls or honorary consuls can do. They are not lawyers, and it would be wrong for them to give legal advice, but they can tell constituents, as an example of the consular services that are provided, where they can obtain advice. In this case it is probable that a lawyer should be brought into play with a view to making an approach to the Spanish authorities or to the hotel. I shall be surprised to learn that it is not happening already. However, I shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that every assistance that is legitimate within the realm of consular service is given so that the family may be provided with the information that they need to pursue their insurance claim.

I am very glad that the Peacock family were wise enough to take out insurance. We hope that all holidaymakers have sufficient foresight to do the same.

I am also glad to hear that the tour operator is now taking a positive interest. It is obvious that tour operators have a direct responsibility, for narrow commercial reasons if for no other, but I think that they accept generally that they have a wider and deeper moral responsibility.

Sadly, there is little that we can do about the injuries to Mark Peacock, but we shall offer every assistance that we can with the formalities of the insurance claim.

Would it be a good idea if the tour operators themselves had to take out a form of third party insurance so that they were able to cover any claims? This would obviate a great many of the problems. I have in mind the average motor car accident. If two vehicles collide, normally the insurance companies take over the responsibility of the insured for any subsequent court action. The claim is met by the insurance company and legal proceedings are pursued on its behalf. Can we not encourage tour operators to take the responsibility for pursuing that action off the shoulders of the holidaymaker?

That sounds an interesting and positive idea. I am no expert in tour operation and perhaps there is already some such scheme. Perhaps my hon. Friend will make his suggestion to the Association of British Travel Agents. My hon. Friend will agree that there must be a strict limit to Government intervention, because we are talking about a private choice for individual holidaymakers. I should be interested in hearing the tour industry's response to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I can say nothing more about the Peacock family. The incident was not reported to us at the time and therefore there was no question of consular help not being available on the dreadful day of the injury. We shall follow up the case to see what help can be given over insurance. I recognise the time element.

My hon. Friend asked about provision in Minorca. An honourary consul has recently been appointed for Minorca. He is an experienced retired member of the diplomatic service. I am sure that he will give any British holidaymaker who gets into trouble good service. I shall deal later with the general question of staffing, because there is a limit to the number of consuls that we can appoint.

Events in Sri Lanka are sad. The country has close links with Britain. Many of us feel close to all our Commonwealth friends because of historical links. The communal disturbances are not a new phenomenon there. We believe that the Government of Sri Lanka are taking all the necessary steps. Throughout their history they have made a number of moves towards lessening communal tensions. Sri Lanka has a parliamentary democracy. When Her Majesty the Queen visited Sri Lanka in 1981, it was to celebrate 50 years of constitutional government in Ceylon, now Sri Lanka. That is a splendid record, but it is under threat by communal violence.

Sri Lanka is an independent and democratic country, but it has a serious communal problem. Friends of Sri Lanka sympathise and we are doing all that we can to help and support efforts to restore peace and human rights. The Sri Lankan Government are dedicated to human rights and have signed the human rights convention. I very much hope that they will look into the reports that we have had. I should be very surprised if some of them do not turn out to be exaggerated. Sadly, all democratic Governments and others are growing only too accustomed to the terrible problems of terrorism and violence. Violence produces repression, which in turn produces more violence. None of us can safely escape that dreadful vicious circle.

My hon. Friend referred to the professionals, or, in other words, to the British high commission in Colombo. It is taking a close interest in the way in which affairs develop. As the position develops hourly, the BBC and the media will keep the British public informed of what is happening. For the time being, we would advise people not to travel to Sri Lanka until the situation has become clearer and has settled down. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that that is the best advice that we can give.

My hon. Friend most opportunely raised some wider questions just when most of us are going off on holiday. He referred to the role of the consular service in helping British holidaymakers abroad and to the possibility of anticipating problems that could arise. With respect, there must be limits to such a happy state of affairs. Would that we could all anticipate the problems and difficulties of life. It is not very realistic to expect us to go far down that road. The fact is that going abroad presents special problems. One of the charms of going overseas is that it is not Surbiton, or, for that matter, Norbiton. We all want to go somewhere that is different. The pressures and difficulties and even, for example, the lift designs may be different, and may give us all special problems.

The consular service cannot be expected to provide quite such an all-embracing service as my hon. Friend might wish. Tour operators also have a large part to play in ensuring that the conditions their customers find at the resorts are as advertised. On the whole, the travel agents have taken that message on board. Again, there are rather strict limits to the degree to which the Government should, or could, intervene.

I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that there has been a tremendous increase in the number of British tourists overseas, and that has put a great strain on the consular service. In 1967, I think that there were about 7 million British visitors overseas, compared with 20·5 million last year. Thus, in 15 years the figure has almost trebled.

During that time the consular service has been reduced by about a quarter. As my hon. Friend recognises the need to conserve public resources, I hope that he will applaud that decision. Although we have reduced the numbers by 25 per cent., we have increased consular cover from 128 countries to 158 countries. I have already cited Minorca. The cover is therefore wider, and the consuls are working harder as, indeed, they should do. On the whole, the service that they provide is very well appreciated.

When there are 20 million people going overseas every year, things have to go wrong. I am glad to say that the bouquets that arrive at the Foreign Office for the service provided by our consular service significantly exceed the brickbats. There will always be brickbats, but we shall continue to investigate all of them, and all complaints. Where they are justified and well merited we shall take action to cure the problem. I thank my hon. Friend for giving us this opportunity to examine the consular service, which is adequate for the people of this country.

I am doubly grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate as it enables me to make my maiden speech on the last possible opportunity before the long recess and gives me the chance of raising an issue that is of great importance and concern to my constituency.

First, I pay tribute to my predecessor as Member of Parliament for St. Ives, Sir John Nott. He served the constituency and the country with great distinction for 16 years and he and Lady Nott are held in the highest regard in the constituency. I am delighted, as everybody is, that they are continuing to live in St. Ives.

I know that it is customary for new Members making their maiden speech to overegg the pudding in describing the beauties and characteristics of their constituencies. However, representing St. Ives as I now do, there is no need for me to do that. After all, St. Ives is known and loved by many holidaymakers. Looking around the Chamber, I suspect that some of our colleagues have already headed for that constituency or other parts of Cornwall.

The constituency is very much dependent on the tourist trade. It is well known for the Isles of Scilly, for landmarks such as Land's End, for small businesses, farms and fishing ports. No doubt, right now, it presents an idyllic picture to those on holiday there. However, we have only to think back to the Penlee disaster to realise how that picture can change with dramatic effect. On that night, a hurricane force gale swept along the Cornish coast, with terrible results.

The exposed nature of the coastline and the intensity of shipping, both local and international, around it make my constituency worthy of special consideration for emergency services. My plea to my hon. Friend today is that he should give us special consideration in the provision of emergency services both in regard to coastguards and the Land's End coastal radio stations.

I shall deal first with the coastguards. Just before the Penlee disaster, a major reorganisation of the coastguard services in the south-west came into effect. As a result, the new rescue co-ordination centre at Falmouth came into full operation, the previous coastguard substation at Land's End lost its earlier role, and control was transferred to Falmouth.

Let me make it clear that I am in no way knocking the Falmouth co-ordination centre or the dedicated staff who man it. My object today is to try to focus attention on the continuing role of the three coastguard stations that remain in my constituency — St. Ives, Gwennap Head, or Land's End as it is more popularly known, and the Lizard. Following that reorganisation, these are now manned by auxiliary coastguards, who are volunteers who deserve our thanks and support.

In the light of the Penlee inquiry I am asking for a sensible, calm review now that the inquiry is over of the exact relationship between the Falmouth maritime rescue co-ordination centre and the three coastguard stations manned basically be auxiliaries in my constituency. Those coastguard stations have a vital role to play, because of the exposed geographical position. I hope that there will be a review to ensure that they get the resources—which are important — and the authority — which is equally important—to enable them to continue to fulfil that role. As the Minister knows, there has been considerable concern about the matter in our part of the world.

If the Minister agrees to a review, I urge him to involve the informed local interests. Those will, of course, include the Royal National Life-boat Institution. Incidentally, to underline the dangers of that coast, there are no fewer than four lifeboat stations in my constituency. Of course, other informed local interests would need to be involved.

The other linked subject that I want to mention is the future of the Land's End coastal radio station. For many years that station has played a crucial role in providing an emergency and safety service, not only for local boats, but for the international traffic that moves up and down the western approaches. It is an area of heavy shipping, both local and international.

Under the reorganisation proposals of British Telecom International, coastal radio stations in this country were to be put on remote control, and the system was to be centralised on two centres for the whole country. That has caused alarm, certainly in my part of the world. Land's End radio station is probably the best known of all the coastal radio stations. It is highly respected by the lifeboatmen, local fishermen and the international shipping lines which pass up and down the channel.

My plea, of which I am completely convinced, is that the Land's End coastal radio station must continue on a manned basis to provide the distress radio watch, which is funded by my hon. Friend's Department. I have visited the station, I have met the men who man it, heard their reasonable views, and admired the responsible way in which they put forward their case. I have also consulted the lifeboat coxswains in the area, the fishermen and the local council. As a result, I am convinced that the station must continue on a manned basis.

I ask my hon. Friend to look into this matter. I hope that he can find the money to enable the distress watch to continue at Land's End on a 24-hour basis, despite what might happen to the commercial side of the station. It is the emergency side of the station that concerns me primarily.

Those are my pleas today. I appreciate that they involve complex matters, and that time does not allow me or the House to go into them in greater detail at this stage. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to meet me and perhaps other interested bodies to explore these matters further. If he could do that, I should be extremely grateful.

I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the other hon. Members who are here today. I thank you and them for your indulgence in this my maiden speech, and I am grateful to have had this opportunity to raise these important issues.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on his maiden speech, which he has made after 19 years of watching the House from the Press Gallery as a political correspondent and after four years as a Member of the European Parliament. I think that I express the view of all hon. Members who are present in congratulating him on the clarity and fluency with which he introduced the subject and on the way in which he paid tribute so genuinely to his predecessor. I know that he will have found an echoing note in many when he described the beauties of his constituency, with which many of us are familiar.

My hon. Friend is also to be congratulated on the service that he has done for his constituency and the public by referring to the work of the coastguards. It is right that he should do so not only because of his constituency interests, but because it is holiday time and many hon. Members are preparing to leave for their holidays. Indeed, looking at the Benches, I think that some have already left. It is well that they should know that the coastguards are watchful and ready to help. I am glad that my hon. Friend praised the work of the coastguards and I agree with and endorse his remarks.

I shall deal first with the coastguard service in the St. Ives constituency. The coastguard, understandably, is usually thought of in local terms. My hon. Friend has asked me to review the relationship between the three stations in his constituency and the Falmouth rescue centre which is responsible for them and for 23 others in the south west. The service is organised on a national basis and its operation must be looked at in that context. I am sure that my hon. Friend will allow me to set it in that context at the beginning of my reply.

Until the mid-1970s, the regular coastguards were scattered in small numbers at about 150 stations round the United Kingdom coast. They maintained a routine, localised radio and visual watch, generally during daylight hours only, but that was neither efficient nor cost-effective. That is because a visual watch is necessarily limited by physical conditions. Darkness, mist and lines of vision are the most obvious constraints. There is evidence, too, that it is difficult for anybody to maintain full alertness for long periods. On the other hand, experience shows that the public and vessels at sea can be relied on to report a high proportion of all the incidents that occur and which are seen by the coastguards on watch.

Against that background, a fundamental reorganisation was put in hand in 1978 and is now virtually complete. Four fifths of the coastguards' regular resources have now been concentrated in 26 rescue centres. I must make it clear that that has not resulted in a reduction in the number of coastguards. It was a matter of deciding on the most efficient way of making use of modern facilities in their work. Each of those rescue centres is responsible for the co-ordination of maritime search and rescue over an extensive sea area. On average, each rescue centre is responsible for about 80 miles of coast, although those in the far north tend to have much more and those in the south rather less, reflecting the pattern of shipping activity round the coasts.

The rescue centres do not keep a visual watch unless circumstances in the immediate vicinity make it sensible to do so, but they maintain a 24-hour vhf radio watch over their sea area through an effective radio coverage system. That is now being supplemented by direction-finding equipment and the coastguards are linked to the 999 system. Therefore, the centres can deal swiftly with incidents as soon as they are reported, calling on the lifeboats of the RNLI, the helicopters of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force and such other services as may be needed.

As was always expected, in nine cases, out of 10 reports of incidents come from the ever-watchful public, using the 999 system. I take this opportunity of reminding the many people who are now going on holiday that that is the quickest and most effective way to summon assistance if they see someone in distress. In addition, there is direct radio from vessels in distress or others which observe them. Any responsible person who goes out to sea in a boat—I mean out to sea—no matter how small, should regard it as essential to carry a radio in addition to flares and safety equipment. VHF radio is no longer a luxury. It costs only a tiny fraction of the price of a boat—somewhat less than a colour television—and could make all the difference between life and death to those who are alone at sea when trouble blows up.

The coastguard reorganisation entailed the transfer of the great bulk of the responsibility for the maintenance of the visual watch from the regulars to the 9,000 or so auxiliary coastguards, 2,000 of whom are unpaid volunteers. I pay tribute to them and to the work that they do as well as to the public, who bring incidents to the attention of the service.

The auxiliaries are an admirable body of volunteers with considerable local knowledge. Some of them work in the rescue centres, supplementing the regulars, but the majority are organised in teams that work under the surveillance of regular officers, each responsible for a group of three or four such units within a section.

The principal work of those teams, apart from cliff and coastline rescues, is to mount a visual watch when circumstances make it justifiable, for example, when bad weather is forecast or when there are a large number of amateur sailors at risk in the immediate vicinity. The three stations in the St. Ives constituency fall into this category. The duties that fall to them are carried out most efficiently and enthusiastically and in the best traditions of the coastguard service. I am sure that that standard will he maintained.

The need for routine visual watch at those stations is kept under continual review. It is now no longer maintained along the United Kingdom coast except at Margate and Portland Bill, where we expect it to be reduced to the normal standard by the end of the year, and the three stations in the St. Ives constituency—at the Lizard, Gwennap Head and St. Ives itself. There are no present plans to change the number of hours watch involved at those stations. I can repeat the assurance given by my right hon. and noble Friend when he was Secretary of State for Trade and had ministerial responsibility for the coastguard, that prior notice will be given of any change that is contemplated in the existing watch arrangements.

With regard to the authority exercised by those stations, the coastguard's operations rest on the principle that co-ordination of search and rescue can be conducted most effectively and efficiently only by concentrating the bulk of regular coastguard resources into the rescue centres.

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend by explaining that. If there is one man on duty at the old-fashioned type of coastguard lookout station, not backed up by the concentration of people that we now have at the other stations such as Falmouth, he has to cope with the vigil watch, radio communication and people who come to the station to say that they are worried or that an incident has blown up. He cannot do everything at once as effectively as a team of three people on full-time duty, which is the arrangement in most of the stations in which there is a concentration of personnel.

Each of the centres has responsibility for a stretch of coast and the task is roughly of the same weight in each case, although Falmouth has special duties in relation to satellite information. It would be a retrograde step to reverse those arrangements, and I am satisfied that it would be quite wrong to make any change in the present relationship between Falmouth and the stations for which it has responsibility. I have every confidence in the ability of the Falmouth centre to operate with full effectiveness and efficiency.

I refer now to the Penlee inquiry, which took place after that unhappy and disastrous incident. In reaching the conclusion to which I referred I have had close regard to the findings of the court of inquiry into the loss of the Penlee lifeboat and the Union Star.

The court sat for 29 days. It spent a substantial part of that time examining allegations about the conduct of individual coastguards and in hearing evidence on coastguard organisation. The court's finding was that all proper steps were taken by those concerned, and no blame was placed on any person or organisation. I see no reason to entertain any misgivings about those conclusions.

I fully appreciate that witnesses at the inquiry expressed great concern about the conduct of the coastguard's operations and about the transfer of the maritime rescue co-ordination responsibility from the centre at Gwennap Head to the newly built centre at Falmouth shortly before the disaster, but the court found that this transfer of responsibility did not affect the outcome. The court pointed to the desirability of improving liaison and procedures between the coastguard and the lifeboat authorities — a review of these arrangements is well advanced — but made no criticism of the coastguard organisation.

I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about the court's findings—I intended to mention them myself — but the court stressed the need to improve liaison between the coastguard service and local agencies such as the lifeboats. On that aspect, I seriously ask my hon. Friend to conduct a review of the relationship between the coastguard co-ordination centre at Falmouth and the three important local stations.

I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. A review of those arrangements is well advanced. The coastguards have been in touch and have explained the issues as they see them to the Royal National Life-boat Institution and we are expecting progress very shortly.

My officials have acted with urgency on all the other recommendations that the court made in its report. On the loss of the Union Star, the court was unable to ascribe a definite cause for the introduction of water into the fuel system. But it thought that the least improbable explanation was that the water had entered through the vent pipes and into the fuel tanks, thereby disabling the vessel.

My officials are in contact with the shipping classification societies in the first instance with a view to seeking amendment to their rules. We shall seek subsequently to amend the legislation to ensure that vent pipes are located clear of places likely to retain water on the deck, and we shall initiate action to achieve international agreement to similar corrective measures.

The court recommended that distress call procedures should be reviewed and we are considering how best this can be implemented internationally.

The problem of securing salvage assistance needs wide consultation with the shipping industry and with organisations representing owners of small craft. We are looking, too, at improved arrangements for securing contacts with ships' owners. My hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of that.

I know that there has been a good deal of public concern at the idea, mentioned in the Rayner report on the coastguard's use of resources published earlier this year, of charging people who have been rescued. I take this opportunity to say that I have firmly decided that any such action would be unacceptable.

My hon. Friend sought an assurance that the Land's End coast radio station would continue on a manned basis. The station is owned and operated by British Telecom and is one of a network of 11 such stations which BT maintains to provide a commercial and distress and safety service for ships around the coasts of the United Kingdom. BT is currently incurring a substantial financial loss on this network and is looking into ways of redressing the situation and improving the finances of its maritime services generally. It has prepared a number of proposals, each of which involves a degree of centralisation and provides for the introduction of remote control facilities.

BT provides the distress and safety service for my Department on an agency basis and is therefore consulting us closely. Its proposals are not yet fully developed and further consultation will take place. My hon. Friend has urged that a locally manned service is essential for emergency services. That is not a matter within my control, but the Department's objective will be to ensure that current safety standards are satisfactorily maintained, that there is no fall in performance or reliability and that the radio distress watch is provided in the most efficient and economical manner. We shall be seeking clear assurances on all these points before agreeing to any changes. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be relieved to have that assurance.

Under the present arrangements, Land's End Radio provides a watch on the international distress medium frequencies for radiotelephony and radiotelegraphy. These provide coverage up to 150 miles from the coast, whereas the vhf watch maintained by Her Majesty's coastguard is effective up to about 40 miles out and is particularly intended to give satisfactory inshore coverage and to take account of the effects of coastline topography on radio transmissions. The primary role of the BT operators in emergency situations is to maintain contact with the vessel in distress and to relay the distress messages and traffic to and from the coastguard, which is responsible for co-ordinating the search and rescue services. It is important that changes to the BT network, which will not be fully effective before 1986, should take full account of the respective roles of the two organisations and ensure that there is full liaison between them. However, I have no reason to think that satisfactory arrangements cannot be made or that mariners will not continue to enjoy a service of the standard to which they have long been accustomed.

I hope that what I have said has given my hon. Friend the assurance that he requires. If, on reading the record, he feels that there is any aspect of the subject that he would like to discuss with me personally, I assure him that my door is open and that I shall be happy to do so.

Order. Before I adjourn the House, may I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on his maiden speech and wish him and the whole House a very good summer recess. May I also bid farewell to Sir Charles Gordon, our distinguished Clerk, on this, his last day at the Table of the House.