This is only the second time in 27 years when I have spoken on the motion for the Easter Adjournment. I assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I do not intend to take the steps that I took exactly 20 years ago when Mr. Peter Mills, as he then was, and I divided the House against the Adjournment because adequate provision had not been made to debate the problems of the west country. Also, I do not intend to petition for a debate on the procedure reports, although my right hon. Friend might expect me to do so. In the past few months I have made my position absolutely clear about that matter. I reinforce the need, however, for those reports to be considered on the Floor of the House as soon as possible.

Specifically, I wish to discuss the aspects and amount of Government financial participation in space research and development. It is important to discuss this matter now because decisions will be taken during the Easter recess and if the subject is not considered fully by Ministers before the return of the House it will be too late for the House to influence the Government's decisions. Certain approaches have already been made whereby Great Britain will not participate in the European Space Agency optional programmes. I believe that that could be terribly damaging both industrially and with regard to the role that we can play in space research.

I believe that it is essential for Great Britain to make a worthwhile contribution in developing the application of space research. Indeed, we led in the past when we made it clear that no European nation could participate properly in such research entirely on its own and that there should be amalgamation and co-operation between European countries. For that reason, we led in the formation of the European Space Agency. Only three years ago, we were responsible for much of the reorganisation in the agency, which was carried out very much to our wishes.

Five optional programmes are now being put forward for British participation. I am not suggesting that we should participate in one of those options, Hermes. The broad capability which already exists in the United Kingdom in earth observation can be applied profitably to a development market which will reach maturity within the mid-term future and has significant export potential for this country. The United Kingdom has a competitive advantage in space-borne radar and it is through development of that all-weather technology that the United Kingdom has the best prospects of successful commercial and defence exploitation of earth observation.

The Government's decision to fund the Data Centre to process data from the ERS 1 satellite is welcomed. That facility will be a cornerstone in achieving the future commercial exploitation of earth observation data and will be the first to attract private investment. It must be developed with that commercial objective in mind.

It is, therefore, an essential ingredient of commercialisation that the United Kingdom has a significant say in the shape and size of the space segment to meet its commercial requirements. Consequently, the United Kingdom must participate at a sufficient level to influence the spacecraft platform design to ensure that those designs are capable of carrying the relevant services, especially radar sensors, essential for commercial exploitation. If we do not participate in the ESA's optional programmes and leave it to our European competitors alone, we are sunk.

Ultimately, commercial viability depends on assured continuity of data from space. It also depends on continuing development of data quality to meet user needs. For the United Kingdom to have the right of access to relevant data at competitive prices, it must participate in the earth observation spacecraft and payload sensor programmes being put forward by the European Space Agency. Industry cannot do that on its own. It can be done only with Government participation. Without that participation, the United Kingdom will not be able to continue even as an intelligent user of earth observation data because it will be increasingly at the mercy of foreign operators of earth observation systems and suppliers of data, who will control the information and prices and inhibit the United Kingdom's access to data to exert commercial leverage, which would benefit their countries.

There will always be a debate about whether we should manufacture our own facilities or use the facilities of others. My hon. Friend touches on a crucial point. If we do not keep up with the highly sophisticated technology, we shall quickly fall behind and be unable to re-enter those markets. If we do not have our own manufacturing capability, we shall have to queue up constantly behind others to use the facilities. In the following years, we shall find that increasingly disadvantageous. I very much support what my hon. Friend says on this matter.

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I could not have done better. He has underlined a major aspect of the argument that I wish to make.

One could give a catalogue of events since The Hague conference last November. It is important that the European Space Agency and NASA have now agreed on arrangements for European participation in the international space station and the ESA is committed to providing a polar platform. There is no doubt, therefore, that the European Space Agency will develop a polar platform as part of the Columbus programme and that this platform will be used for all its subsequent polar earth observation missions.

The position taken by the United Kingdom at The Hague has encouraged the ESA to continue with the polar platform and to reduce its carrying capacity from 3·5 tonnes payload, serviced, to about 2 tonnes payload, non-serviced, thus approximately halving the cost and reducing the risk. The platform will be acceptable to the United States. It will be about two or three times more cost-effective to the users than existing spacecraft and, consequently, will be a good basis for commercial operation. Both the commercial and research aspects must have a considerable influence on the Government's decision.

I believe that the director general of the European Space Agency has persuaded other member countries to keep open until early April the United Kingdom's option to join the Columbus project. Initially, the decision had to be made by mid-March, so we have been given a reprieve.

Alternative proposals from the French on the polar platform are already threatening Britain's ability to influence the ESA's earth observation activities. The United Kingdom's first priority should thus be to join the Columbus programme and to reassert our leadership on the polar platform.

In addition, in the light of uncertainty about the United Kingdom position on space, apparent since The Hague conference, the Canadians have taken steps on the Radarsat programme to establish a possible bilateral alternative with the United States to their present situation and intend to choose between that collaboration and collaboration with Great Britain in their final submission to the Canadian Government in April. Therefore, the decision point for the United Kingdom is immediate.

In principle, the United Kingdom's objectives could be met either by co-operating in Europe or by a national bilateral programme. The former is the less expensive and avoids leaving a vacuum for the French to fill. The latter could perhaps be considered simpler from a commercial point of view, but we would not have the European cooperation that I wish to see, and it must be more expensive.

However, taking note of the activities and decisions since the Ministers' meeting in The Hague, the common view of industry and of the less biased Government advisers is that participation in the European Space Agency polar platform related programmes is essential as a first priority.

Having sketched the background, I wish to make clear one or two points. We already participate in the European Space Agency and, at present, that costs £80 million. That is the basic price of our membership of the space agency. However, the optional programmes will dominate what happens in the space agency and in future space research and development. The Government have objected to making further funds available for those alternative programmes over and above our original £80 million membership on two counts. They considered, first, that it was too costly and without assured returns for the United Kingdom, and, secondly, that British industry was not willing to put its hand into its pocket to assist in obtaining those commercial advantages.

I am raising this matter today because, as of the latter part of the week, British industry is putting new proposals to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister responsible for these matters at the Department of Trade and Industry. I understand that those new proposals do two things. First, they make it clear that, for an additional expenditure of between £10 million and £15 million per annum, we would be able to participate in the schemes that I have outlined and others with which industry is so concerned. It would allow Britain to play a part in ESA and therefore make a contribution which industry is willing to put up money to meet. If the Government were willing to fix a contribution, industry could well be persuaded to contribute between £3 and £4 million towards the £10 or £15 million which it is suggested the Government should provide.

It is clear, therefore, that certain figures that have been bandied about, at levels even as high as the Prime Minister, suggesting that our participation would cost £400 million to £800 million are just not correct. Moreover, we can now counter the argument that is being put to Ministers that industry is not willing to put up the money to participate. Those two shibboleths can now be put to rest.

Can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House give me an assurance that the responsible Minister, and, if necessary, the Prime Minister, will consider these proposals, as this is the very last moment when a decision can be made? If we contract out of these optional programmes, we shall hand over research and development of outer space to the French and Germans, who will dominate ESA. I say that not just as an hon. Member of this House, but as a representative of this House in the North Atlantic Assembly, of which I am the chairman of the Science and Technical Committee. That committee is concerned with some of these matters. We see the enthusiasm of the French and Germans. Some French parliamentarians want us to stay in ESA, but many would be delighted to see us out and cannot believe that we should inflict such an injury on ourselves. They know they could not have made the same decision.

This is our last opportunity for us to stay in the ESA new programmes for space research and development for the next 15 years. If we do not take the opportunity, the consequences will be disastrous for Britain and British industry. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ensure that Ministers consider industry's new approach, as this matter is essential to our continued participation in space.

Before the House rises for the Easter recess, we should debate the Jarvis plc report on the Settle to Carlisle railway.

I hope that my short speech will not be taken for a substitute for a properly organised and full debate, which I hope the Leader of the House will substitute for the Scottish housing Bill or some other wretched piece of legislation that the Government are pushing through. There are several options, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will cast his eye over them.

The Jarvis report was commissioned by the Government and cost the taxpayer a minimum of £5,000. It concerns a line that has been the subject of unprecedented objections to closure, and therefore represents a watershed in the nation's view of our railway network. Many closures have been made, but they should go no further.

I also speak as the hon. Member who, in 1974, obtained consent from the Department of Transport for reuse of the smaller stations on the line for the Dales rail service which was initiated by the Yorkshire Dales national park. I am also the first chairman and founder of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society, a driver on that line for many years and one who is extremely familiar with the operation and maintenance of railways, locomotives and rolling stock. The relevance of that experience is important in view of the Secretary of State for the Environment's remark about finding "a private sector solution."

The report is thorough, imaginative and well written and researched. It suggests using Hellifield station as a gateway to the Settle-Carlisle railway corridor. Retention and development of the line would be of enormous benefit to the people of Bradford, including those in my constituency, because it would provide them with a gateway to the Yorkshire Dales using a method of transport which would not destroy the grandeur of the Dales. We could avoid huge traffic jams on all the roads to the Dales and the resulting car parking problem. The report links road transport to use of the railway in several ways.

The report suggests Manpower Services Commission funding. It lists several projects that have been MSC funded and have been completed successfully. It also says that there is private sector support. The Government attach great importance to that. Included in the report are letters from several sources, including the Great Scottish and Western Railway Company Limited, which provides a private hotel train in Scotland. It says that, in spite of gloomy predictions, the service is doing very well.

The company also says that investing £1·5 million in a new train would be justified if the Settle-Carlisle line were retained and the 80 miles of this beautiful railway were available to the public in ordinary trains and the special, expensive train. The private sector feels that there is potential, but it all depends on the railway being retained.

On page 58, the Jarvis plc report says:

"However as stated at the outset of this study, the corridor is ineluctably linked to the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway, and closure of the line would in our view jeopardise large sections of the proposal and probably call the whole concept into question. The closure issue has generated tremendous energy in opposition to a proposal we would now like to see such energy and enthusiasm metamorphosed to emerge as a proactive commitment to support the corridor proposal. It is our belief that the opportunities presented by this study are unparalleled, and must not be missed."

The opportunities include retention of a beautiful railway and important parts of our industrial heritage, a means o f getting into some fine country, the creation of a large number of jobs and development of the tourist industry —exactly what the Government claim they support.

It is therefore with some dismay that we read in the Yorkshire Post on 23 March—the matter was reported more widely — that the Secretary of State for the Environment, in a leaked letter which the Opposition spokesman on transport published, said:

"I am sorry that we have not yet found a private organisation or trust able to take on the line. I do feel that we must continue to work for this—could we perhaps also give the Railway Heritage Trust the job of identifying, or if need be, assembling the private solution?"

The Secretary of State for the Environment is well known for nourishing a number of foolish illusions, and this is undoubtedly one of them. One of the McAlpine family — a firm not entirely unconnected with massive civil engineering works — has, over a period, been in negotiation with British Rail at Preston. Those negotiations have not reached a successful conclusion. A private-sector solution to take over an 80-mile railway with a huge viaduct at Ribblehead and several others at Arten Gill and Dent therefore does not seem particularly likely.

Five years ago or more, the then Secretary of State for Transport — the self same right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now Secretary of State for the Environment—called in a number of railway preservation societies, and discussed with them the possibility of taking over sections of BR-operated line. I was not present at the meeting, but I understand that the societies made it clear that they could not manage that. Operating a railway is a very difficult task. There are statutory obligations; the maintaining of the fencing at: each side of the track, and rnaintaining the platforms, signalling and track, are very expensive. It cannot be done for 86 miles on the basis of a few of the lads going out with a few keying hammers and seeing whether anything is loose.

There is a strong argument for the Government to face up to their responsibilities and ensure that British Rail has sufficient funds to restore the Ribblehead viaduct. The viaduct has deteriorated purely because of lack of maintenance by British Rail, dating from the mid-1970s when it failed to renew the damp-proof coursing, allowing frost to penetrate and start the erosion that is now at the centre of the issue.

Most people who view the matter reasonably objectively want the Settle-Carlisle line to remain as part of the British Rail national network. The line operates an important diesel multiple-unit service which is financed by local authorities. That service is now covering its costs—despite, I might add, the gloomy predictions of many potential critics of its introduction. The loco-hauled service that operates from Leeds and Hull up to Carlisle should be extended back to Glasgow, where British Rail originally curtailed it. I think it extremely unfair of the Department of Transport to put such pressure on hard-pressed local authorities to provide finance for the reconstruction of Ribblehead viaduct and other major civil engineering works on the line. For that is what they are doing. In effect, they are saying to local authorities, "The decision is yours. If you back out of providing financial support, we are afraid that the closure decision is inevitable, and it will be your responsibility."

It is not the responsibility of local authorities. They desperately want the railway to remain open, but they want it to remain open in the context of a British Rail railway that is part of the inter-city network. While they are prepared to make a contribution, I feel that the entire burden should not be placed on their shoulders, and that British Rail, with Government assistance, should support the necessary expenditure.

The subject is important, because it is a magnificent railway. Some 30,000 objections were made to its closure. The transport users' consultative committees for both Yorkshire and the north-west concluded unanimously that it should be retained. The chairman of the Yorkshire committee, Mr. James Towler, was particularly eager and convinced that the line should remain open, and particularly erudite in his knowledge of the improvements that could be made to the deficiencies of British Rail's operation, because he travelled frequently on trains. Naturally, there was only one solution to that: the Government arranged his sacking, because he had been a bit too diligent on behalf of the passengers.

I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that, on a number of occasions in the past year, owing to either accidents or major emergency work on the west coast line, major inter-city trains from Glasgow to the midlands and south of England have been forced to use the Settle-Carlisle railway. It is obvious that, if the railway were closed, it would not only mean a further curtailment of the main BR network, but, in the event of major engineering works or accidents on the west coast line, cause the service to stop altogether, because there would be no alternative route.

My hon. Friend is quite right. I was coming to that. I do not wish to go into too much historical background, but hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the railway was built by the Midland railway because Midland railway trains were being slowed down by the London North Western railway — in that glorious competitive spirit that prevailed in Victorian values—and passengers were made to get out at Ingleton and walk across Greta viaduct to join a meandering LNWR train to the end of the line.

The route from Clapham junction has now been closed, so that is no diversion. Trains up the west coast route on the electrified section have no other reasonable diversion if that route is blocked—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) mentioned—except the Settle-Carlisle line.

To increase the costs of maintaining the line and reduce the revenue, British Rail decided several months ago to remove all freight traffic from the Settle-Carlisle line. It then decided that it was no longer possible to use it as a diversionary route. Unfortunately, the realities of operating the railway having escaped the board, BR found that diversions are necessary on the line. Since the original decision, there have been hundreds of diversions, and on one glorious day — the day on which British Rail announced the closure proposal—there was a blockage on the west coast route causing all the trains to be diverted over the Settle-Carlisle line. I cannot name the precise day, because British Rail, in its administrative supremacy, had about half a dozen goes at producing a correct closure notice before it was able to do the thing properly and conform to the law. However, the line is certainly used for diversions, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to the House's attention. It emphasises that the line is part of the national network, and that the notion of a preservation group or trust operating it as a separate entity simply is not on.

I hope that the Government will realise the importance of the issue and come forward. They will desperately and bitterly disappoint thousands, if not millions, of their supporters if they allow the line to wither away, or allow British Rail to close it on the instructions of the Secretary of State. My few remarks are no substitute for a detailed debate about the Jarvis plc report, but they are a guide to the Government and the Leader of the House to tell the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement to the House that the railway is to be saved. Between central Government and the local authorities — which have demonstrated over several years by their commitment of cash that they want the railway to function and the passenger service to be retained—a solution can surely he found that does not squeeze local authorities, but puts some Government cash to excellent use. If the Jarvis plc report is brought into operation, jobs and enhancement will be provided on one of the finest and most beautiful railways in our country.

I should also like to intercede with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask him to take up another point with his Department. I hope that not all hon. Members in this debate will raise questions with which the Department of Transport must deal.

Many hon. Members shared the Department of Transport's deep concern at the consequences of increased congestion in the air space over the south-east of England and the implications for air safety and the environment. Those points caused enormous concern in the House at that time. The Minister therefore received wide support when he expressed the hope that future licence applications to serve Manchester and the regional airports would assist in relieving further pressure on the already over-congested south-east.

Those comments were seen by many hon. Members on both sides of the House as further emphasis on the need to reach a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations that took place at the Department of Transport last week between the United Kingdom and the United States. The negotiations were conducted to review the specific applications for air traffic licences to serve Manchester by three United States airlines—American Airlines, North-West Airlines and Pan American— and to provide enhanced opportunities for British airlines to provide direct services to the United States from Manchester.

I do not have to remind transport Ministers that during 1986, the last year for which the Department of Employment statistics are available, 900,000 passengers to the United States from the catchment area of Manchester airport travelled via London or other European airports while only 80,000 were served by direct flights from Manchester. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that less than 10 per cent. of the people from the Greater Manchester area, the areas surrounding Manchester airport, who wanted to fly to the United States, could have flown direct.

The negotiations last week were seen by hon. Members to provide a great opportunity to assist the business and leisure demands of the north of Britain, and to provide considerable relief to the congestion in the south-east through the removal of the completely unnecessary diversion of traffic to the south-east airports. The dismay and disbelief which followed the announcement that the negotiations had failed to reach any conclusion are therefore entirely understandable.

There was a bitter reaction in the north which was not simply confined to the business community, to the environmental and safety lobby in the south, to the tourist industry outside London, to the weary jostled passenger at the London airports, to the unemployed seeking an opportunity in the north or those who suffer from over-full employment in the south-east. It was felt by everyone who recalls the Government's commitment to make better use of Manchester and the regional airports to provide a greatly enhanced service to the passengers and cargo industry and a major stimulus to the economy in the regions.

I pay tribute to what has been done for Manchester airport since the Conservative party was elected in 1979. Anyone who considers the number of flights into and out of Manchester since 1979 and the number of passengers through Manchester over the period will be amazed at the enormous advance that has been made. I pay tribute to what successive Secretaries of State for Transport have done for Manchester airport since 1979. However, I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to bear in mind the fact that the 1985 White Paper on airports policy acknowledged that more than 12 per cent. of the traffic through London airports would be better served by Manchester airport, yet when the opportunity is clearly available the negotiations fail— unbelievably— because of an attempt to trade a request for increased rights into Manchester by United States airlines against further rights of British airlines out of London. I find that completely incomprehensible.

It is widely acknowledged that it is easier for a British airline to fill a plane from Heathrow than it is to fill a new service from Manchester. However, that attitude results in a major distortion in air traffic flows. The fact that 21 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international charter traffic flies from Manchester but only 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom's international scheduled traffic flies from Manchester owes a great deal to a previous era of air travel.

At one time the volume of international air travel was so low that services from Manchester were not viable and it made good economic sense then to feed all United Kingdom passengers into one service from Heathrow. The situation is now different as there are much higher demand levels from all around the country. The fact that six major United States passenger airlines and the two largest United States cargo operators sought to play a role in the negotiation of rights to fly into Manchester is undeniable testimony to the general acknowledgement of frustrated demand.

Why, when more than 20 per cent. of all air passengers to the United States originate in Manchester's catchment area, are there only sufficient services for 2 per cent. to fly direct? I have done a little work on this and I find it quite astounding that there are 360 flights a week from London to the United States, but only 13 from Manchester. Why are so many visitors to the United Kingdom forced to use London as a point of entry when the Department of Employment statistics show that one in three of those visitors do not spend a night in the London area? More fundamentally, why do we forsake the opportunity of an immediate stimulus to the economy of the north of Britain in excess of £100 million a year from the new services requested by United States airlines?

I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will ask his colleagues why we cannot do something positive to alleviate the north-south divide. Things are improving dramatically in the north and more inter-continental flights would give us a tremendous boost. I believe that the answer is that the negotiations focus exclusively on a balance of aviation rights between what United States airlines and British airlines choose to focus their attention on. Surely the overwhelming case for ancillary, economic, environmental and social benefits is such that the Government must act now to bring about an early resumption of the negotiations which will progress the Government's stated objectives to develop Manchester airport in accordance with their commitment outlined in the 1985 White Paper.

Will my hon. Friend urge the Government to recognise that the statistic of one in three visitors not spending a night in London is caused by the fact that those people often travel to other parts of Europe? Therefore, Manchester must be able to coordinate inward flights from the United States with onward flights linking with other European capitals. That would greatly assist my hon. Friend's constituency and those concerned with the problems of the north-west.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. We both became hon. Members at the same time, perhaps more years ago than we care to remember. I am grateful for his support for Manchester airport. Manchester airport is the largest single employer in my constituency, and I feel very strongly about this issue.

What must 20 million people in Manchester airport's catchment area do to enjoy the same travel rights as people living in the London area? All they seek, like Londoners, is the right to fly from their airport direct to their destination. Unless we redress the intolerable imbalance in air services between the south-east airports and Manchester, we can rightly be accused of discrimination and perpetuating the alleged two-nation concept. I understand that a meeting will take place in Washington on 25 April. I understand that the meeting will consist only of officials of the Transport department in the United States and the Department of Transport in this country. I understand that no Ministers will be present. I hope that the issues that were discussed during the negotiations last week will be opened up again and that the case for Manchester airport will be stressed as strongly as possible.

I received a letter this morning from a business man in my constituency which states:

"For many years I have had to visit North America at least once a year. British Airways and it's predecessors have provided from Manchester a stop/go/seasonal service to New York and also to Montreal and Toronto. I suspect that they really want businessmen to fly from London on their main services.

In the last year, American Airlines have run a daily flight throughout the year to Chicago which is ideal for any businessman wanting to visit that area and which provides convenient connections to all towns in central, south western and western U.S.A. A.A. and other U.S. airlines have recently applied for permission to fly similar flights to east coast destinations and these have been refused. B.A. has meanwhile kindly arranged for a flight from Gatwick to call at Manchester, and are alleged to have said that they would withdraw this if they were to have any competition on the run, see attached press cutting.

I suggest that Britain invites A.A. or some other U.S. airline to fly this route as our own national airline has shown so little interest over the last two decades.

Could you please show this letter to the Government Department concerned and let me have any comments, bearing in mind that customer should be king?"

A newspaper cutting from the Manchester Evening News of 19 March states:

"some of the US observers at the talks were dismayed by the evident reluctance of British airlines to actively seek more flying rights out of Manchester.

British Airways chief executive Sir Colin Marshall told Department of Transport negotiators that if American Airlines and Pan Am were allowed to start direct services from Ringway to New York, he would scrap his proposed daily service and the run to Orlando."

I have great respect for Lord King and Sir Colin Marshall. They have done an enormous amount for British Airways, but I remind them that, not so many years ago, the Civil Aviation Authority put forward proposals that would have pushed British Airways out of Manchester. At that time, British Airways was agitated and enlisted the support of Members of Parliament from the north. Northern Members rallied together and fought and won that battle, and British Airways expressed its gratitude to us. I can only hope now that in the north we shall get the support of British Airways in achieving more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester airport.

Before we adjourn for the Easter recess, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give me an assurance that officials from the Department of Transport who go to Washington in April will push as hard as they can the case for the north and for Manchester airport to ensure that Manchester airport continues to flourish.

The Government have made a highly irregular decision in announcing recently a further substantial cut of £5 million from the Northern Ireland housing budget for 1988–89. From time to time we come to the House to hear about the appropriation of moneys for various Departments of Government in relation to the needs of the community. Various amounts are read out for us and that information is given whether we like it or not. We must accept that information without proper debate or allowance for amendment.

The dictatorial decision to reduce further an already under-funded budget is to be deplored. It appears that the Housing Executive is considered to be a soft touch when money is needed. It is important that the House is acquainted with the hardship that the long-suffering people of the Province are forced to suffer because of this callous decision to deny the means whereby the deprivation caused by years of neglect in the provision of much-needed housing can be redressed.

At the end of November 1987 the Government announced the levels of public expenditure on housing over the next three years. In overall cash terms the shortfalls in gross expenditure levels proposed by the Housing Executive for each of the next three financial years are as follows: 1988–89, £24 million; 1988–90, £46 million; and 1990–91, £48 million. After allowance for a £7 million increase in rental income, this represents a £31 million, £53 million and £55 million loss in Government funding. Although the Housing Executive had decided on a rent increase of 4 per cent. in accordance with the Government's gross domestic product deflator in its bid for funds, the Government have proposed, and now assume, an increase of 9·2 per cent. in line with the increase being discussed with the local authority associations in England and Wales.

Normally, Northern Ireland has followed decisions taken on the mainland, if the Government have thought it appropriate, by the making of iniquitous Orders in Council. It seems strange and somewhat sinister that the Government are proposing this rent increase, which is more than double inflation, before it is decided over here. It appears that this is another convenient ploy to extract the maximum from the most deprived in an exercise in figure juggling. The severity of the reduction has meant that housing programmes planned for the next three years have had to be critically reassessed.

During the autumn of 1987 the Housing Executive published its Province-wide housing strategy for 1988–91. Under this strategy the executive had hoped to sustain a yearly new build programme of 1,650 dwellings. It proposed also a rolling improvement programme for Housing Executive-owned dwellings over a 12-year period and to maintain a renovation grants scheme for private home owners at a relatively high level. The executive's preferred strategy would have been a yearly new build programme of 1,750 dwellings, improvements for Housing Executive-owned dwellings over a 10-year period and grant-aid to the private sector comprising some 4,000 improvement grants and 6,000 repair grants per annum.

The housing Executive has now been forced radically to reassess its planned programmes. This will have the effect of limiting even further its ability to meet housing need and reduce housing unfitness. In general, the main effects will be a reduction in the planned new build programme from 1,650 to 1,500 dwellings annually, a slowing down of the modernisation programme, which will now be phased over 16 years instead of the planned 12, and substantially less funding for renovation grants to privately owned homes.

This will mean that, rather than starting improvement work on an average of 8,330 Housing Executive homes a year, the executive will be able to start only some 6,250. In addition, only 3,500 improvement grants and 3,000 repair grants will be available each year to home owners, rather than the 4,000 and 6,000 respectively which the Housing Executive had hoped to provide. It is inevitable that the effects will be felt not only by tenants but in employment terms in the construction industry and by those supplying the Housing Executive with goods and services.

This further substantial cut of £5 million has brought feelings of disgust and revulsion, especially when one considers the circumstances whereby the Government deliberately denude one of their Departments to support another. If financial planning is so poor as to involve this sort of last minute change, I can only assume that there is incompetence at a high level somewhere within the Government.

In terms of activity, £5 million represents about 200 new houses or, alternatively, major improvements to 500 houses, such as installation of central heating, with rewiring or other refurbishments. This means that tenants or new applicants will now be left on the waiting list for a much longer period. When the Housing Defects Act 1984 (Commencement) Order was considered by the House some years ago, it was decided that system-built houses using pre-stressed reinforced concrete would gradually be replaced because of structural defects. There are many such houses in Northern Ireland. A significant number of them are owned by the Housing Executive. I now understand that because of these iniquitous and swingeing cuts the Housing Executive has been forced to abandon its plan to replace considerable numbers of those unsound houses. Naturally, I am concerned at this turn of events, especially in view of the extreme level of unfitness of houses in the Province, which is almost double that on the mainland.

The board of the Housing Executive met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 16 March. During that meeting the chairman emphasised that a strategy had been agreed with the Government as long ago as 1983. That effectively translated the measured housing need into levels of activities and housing programmes. However, increasingly, the Government have failed to fund those levels of activity, and in the published figures for funding for the years 1988 to 1991 there appeared to be no change in the downward trend.

As a result, the Housing Executive was faced with a continuing decline in the rate of progress in meeting the jointly agreed housing needs for Northern Ireland. In fact, improvement work was having to be placed on such an extended time scale as to raise the question whether disrepair and need would begin to rise at a faster rate than the executive could carry out remedial work. That suggested the completely unacceptable prospect for the executive of presiding over a gradually worsening situation.

It was pointed out that if the situation were not to deteriorate in that way, it was essential that the funding promised by the Government should be regarded as an irreducible core that should riot be raided repeatedly for other purposes. It was also stressed that the Government should act with consistency and continuity in the treatment of Housing Executive funding.

I understand that the Secretary of State listened sympathetically to the plea by the Housing Executive board. I hope and trust that he will now take such steps as are necessary to galvanise the Government into effective action to reduce the terrible housing deprivation in the Province.

The prospect of the Easter Adjournment is very welcome to us all. It allows us to go back to our constituencies, in my case to remind my wife and children that they are not a single parent family, to recharge my batteries, to breathe some proper fresh air coming off the sea and to bring all the good news about the measures that we have been taking during the past two months.

That will not take long.

It will take some time. More immediate than that, I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise some east coast problems. By east coast I mean part of East Anglia. To a true East Anglian that means only Suffolk and Norfolk. I am concerned about that part of Suffolk and Norfolk which is Waveney and Great Yarmouth. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Carttiss) is not here to support me, but he is toiling on behalf of his constituents in Norfolk.

I was going to call my remarks "East of Norwich" to place it geographically, but that smacks of East of Suez, which implies pulling out or, "No one goes there." East of Eden might be more appropriate. I am talking about an area that includes the magnificent town of Great Yarmouth and the town of Lowestoft, the premier fishing port of England.

I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) could substantiate that bogus claim. He will know that in recent months the port of Newlyn in my constituency has topped the league in regard to the value of fishing landings.

That may be so. Obviously my figures are not up to date, so I shall reserve my judgment until I have checked those figures.

I wish to raise problems about East Anglia, which is the second fastest growing region in the United Kingdom—and the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimates that births and people moving into East Anglia will make it the fastest growing region in the next 12 years. The average cost of housing is going up £30 per day and unemployment in Waveney is down from 17 per cent. 18 months ago to 11·5 per cent. today. So why are there problems?

The problems are, to some extent, those of East Anglia's success generally, moving across from the midlands and up from London. Milton Keynes, Peterborough, the west of East Anglia and the FelixstoweIpswich-Cambridge corridor have excellent roads, but as yet Waveney and Great Yarmouth do not. A joint representation from the two local authorities will soon be treading a path to the door of the Minister for roads, my hon. Friend the member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). Notwithstanding his best efforts recently on the Halesworth relief road and the recent recognition by the county council of Waveney as the poor relation in Suffolk, it can still take more than three and a half hours to drive or to travel by train from my constituency to London—a mere 119 miles.

One of the best hopes for our economic well-being in Waveney and Great Yarmouth is welcoming more tourists. Every effort has been made to speed tourists into the west country to enjoy the quaintness of the country lanes for a fortnight or so. However, sometimes visitors to the eastern part of East Anglia feel that it takes them a fortnight to get there.

Not unnaturally, visitors to our area occasionally have to use the Health Service. There is a formula for taking account of that in the funding of family practitioner services and hospital services. The Government are undertaking a fundamental review of Health Service funding and organisation, and the East Anglian regional health authority has volunteered itself as a pilot area for an internal market experiment. I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bear in mind that if health planning is to be effective it should move the resources with the people or allow the people to move them themselves, as well as taking account of resourcing in the sparser areas of population.

Equally, in regard to schools, a declining rural population and school roll decline nationally are partly offset by an increase in growth in parts of Waveney, and a decision on the closure of the Reydon high school and two primary schools is with my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), the Minister with responsibility for schools. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has no say in that, but he should remember how important are our rural areas, how vital is space and how essential are parental and community choices.

A maternity unit in my constituency is threatened with closure, as is an old people's home 100 yards outside my constituency in the Suffolk, Coastal constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, services must change, update, modernise and be cost-effective, but let us be sure that we carry the people with us. If a ward, a hospital, three schools, the fire engine cover, the police station cover, and local council depots are all modernised, changed and updated within a few months and within a few square miles, people feel under threat, and the best intentions of the Government are undermined.

Locals and tourists alike come to Great Yarmouth and Waveney and other places to enjoy the coastline. Cleaning up the beaches is under way, but is it urgent enough? Is our attitude to re-education as a nation urgent enough? I have discussed the protection of our coasts against the ravages of the sea with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We have been extremely lucky this winter.

I have said that local authorities should not have to put up swimming pools or sea defences in a capital programme, because one can choose to have a swimming pool, but one cannot choose whether to protect the coast. That is a departmental matter, but I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that if we do not regard coast protection as a national battle, we could have the seaside resort of Birmingham by the year 2050.

I shall not detain the House on the problems of freezing the allocation of non-precious stock fishing licences, or the problems of the pig farmers or those who are worried about VAT on books, newspapers and children's clothes, or anything else from my post bag. I shall say only that the House is ready for the Easter recess to prepare for the good news to come.

The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) made a rather strange speech. He said that he was going home to tell his constituents the good news about what the Government have done, and he then spent the rest of his speech complaining about things that were going wrong for which he wanted help, to which many of the answers lie with the Government. I certainly agree with him that his constituency, as all others, needs things from the Government, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to deliver.

I also agree that not many hon. Members will vote against the motion. After a spell of Committees sitting late into the night, I could defend having a week off—five working days—to even the most determinedly aggressive constituents. It will do us and the country good to have a few days with our families or friends in the fresh air and to come back renewed in about 10 days.

The debate a year ago on the Easter Adjournment motion was started by the former right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, the late John Silkin. I believe that it was his last speech in the House before he died and that it is therefore appropriate now to pay tribute to him for all his services to the House. Until the very end in the equivalent debate a year ago he was arguing for constituency and wider matters of particular interest to him.

I support many of the arguments already made by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who spoke in favour of the Settle to Carlisle railway, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) who spoke in support of Manchester airport and the diversion of air traffic to the north. As someone born in Cheshire and who lived for the first decade of my life next to a Cheshire airfield, although not Manchester Ringway — it was the AV Roe Woodford airfield — I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's decent and proper regional argument. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) rightly argued for more money for his constituents and for Northern Ireland housing in general. It is unfair that that has been cut.

I wish to speak about the crisis in the Health Service in inner London, a subject which formed part of my speech in the equivalent debate last year. I spoke then about the crisis in nursing. It is no better, but today I wish to go slightly wider and I hope that the Leader of the House will give us some fundamental assurances.

Since I spoke from these Benches on health matters last year, I have been dogging the Secretary of State for Social Services with questions about hospital and community services cuts in London. Eventually, after much obfuscation, I obtained the figures. In an oral answer on 12 January the Secretary of State confirmed that between 1981–82 and 1986–87 expenditure in the four Thames regions had dropped in real terms by 2·8 per cent. That was a bigger reduction than even I had expected. The Secretary of State justified those cuts by saying that they were

"more than offset by increased efficiency." —[Official Report, 12 January 1988, Vol. 125. c. 132.]

That gives rise to three questions which I hope the Leader of the House will take away with him. First, what is the basis for that efficiency claim? How do the Government measure increased efficiency for the purpose of that claim? Have they made specific calculations of increased efficiency, or is it a general statement? Are their claims of increased efficiency accepted as valid by anyone but themselves? When the Government's figures confirm real cuts, as they do in London, we need more than a general statement that they have been offset by efficiency.

Secondly, and confirming the worry, the Government say that taking into account efficiency savings, purchasing power in the Thames regions increased by 2 per cent. during those five years. That contrasts enormously with the 2 per cent. increase in services needed annually to keep pace with greater numbers' of elderly people, existing policy commitments such as community care, and medical advances. The Government have accepted that a 2 per cent. increase in services is needed annually. Even taking on board their claims about efficiency, if they acknowledge that there has been only a 2 per cent. increase over five years—not each year—in purchasing power, they must also acknowledge that services have not increased by anywhere near enough to meet the growing demands of people in inner London and the south-east.

By the Government's own admission that a 2 per cent. increase in services is needed annually, their admission in January that purchasing power has increased by only 2 per cent. in total over five years makes it clear that the NHS in London has not had enough money even to stand still. It has been slipping back and services have been declining. Will not the Government at last admit that, I hope as a preface to doing something about it? They will have another opportunity to do something in the next few weeks.

Thirdly, must not the Government acknowledge that because the resource allocation working party formula does not take sufficient account of indicators of social deprivation and therefore, tends particularly to shift resources away from urban areas in the south-east, the cut in London, as opposed to the four Thames regions, which go outside London, will be even bigger than the 2·8 per cent. cut that the Government have acknowledged in the Thames regions as a whole—and that in an area that desperately needs more health resources?

How does that information stand up in the light of the announcement made on Wednesday of additional funding for the Thames area? As the RAWP formula still shows that the Thames region is overfunded, it is difficult for those of us in other areas that have not been so generously treated to accept what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

I understand that point, and I shall answer it specifically by taking an example of one health authority in London.

The principal health authority in my constituency is Lewisham and North Southwark. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), and the hon. Members for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ru.ddock), recently, with me, met our local health authority chairman and officers and were briefed on the exact position in our authority's area, which includes Guy's hospital. In 1988–89, the authority will hand back £2·4 million through the RAWP formula. That will go back from us into the kitty. In 1982–83, the authority's expenditure was 128 per cent. of its RAWP target of 100 per cent. The region set a target for the district of 105 per cent. by 1993–94. It is already down to 108 per cent., so it has managed to cut 20 per cent. off its theoretically excessive allocation and is giving money back. I do not detract from the needs of other regions, but the chairman and officers of the local health authority have reached the stage of saying, "We can take no more." I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that where there is no real increase in funds in parts of the country, at the same time as there is redistribution of resources our way, the result is substantial cuts.

Since 1983, 290 beds have been cut in Lewisham and North Southwark. It will be unable to keep paying back the RAWP money without further substantial cuts. The authority's pay bill is £100 million. If it is not fully funded, and there is even a 1 per cent. deficit, it will mean a £1 million shortfall. Contingency plans have been drawn up for further substantial cuts, should they prove necessary. The authority has already lost £3·3 million because of underfunding of pay awards over five years, and it has lost £12·4 million because of inflation and RAWP redistribution. The total reduction of resources is about £15 million. The House will accept that the officers and members of the health board are impartial in matters of party politics, but they are saying that without additional money our priority care programme will be murdered, our waiting lists will mount enormously and it will be impossible to reach the RAWP target. That is just one health authority in inner London trying to cope with Government policy.

Other health authorities have desperate problems. In relation to West Lambeth authority, which includes St. Thomas's hospital, our local South London Press newspaper said today:

"Hospital bosses claim NHS inflation is running at eight per cent. leaving hospitals short."

Since 1983, the number of beds has been cut from 927 to 632. The number of patients treated has decreased, the number of patients on the waiting list has increased from 5,100 to 8,100, and it is likely to have to cut by 60,000 the number of people who visit hospital clinics and slash staff by one in 10.

I could make a similar argument in respect of all the health authorities in inner London, including Riverside, which covers this area, the City and Hackney, which includes Bart's hospital, and many others. The Health Service in London is far from safe in anyone's hands.

There has been a 24 per cent. increase in people waiting for operations in inner London, and a 9·4 per cent. increase in greater London. In 1987, in the South-West Thames region, waiting lists increased by 1·8 per cent. to 36,391—a quarter of whom had waited for more than a year—and last year in South-East Thames region the waiting list increased by 4 per cent. It would have been greater but for a last-minute cash allowance. We are grateful for the additional allocations of cash, but they have not compensated for the substantial difficulties faced by the Health Service in London.

The result is that health authorities are turning to charity. Great Ormond street hospital has had to have its Wishing Well appeal. Bart's hospital is bringing in Saturday volunteers from the City to help on wards. Ear, nose and throat surgeons are working for nothing. The Imperial Cancer Research Fund has given £25,000 to Bart's to pay for paediatric nurses. At St. Thomas's, doctors are donating their profits from private practice.

All this is happening in some of the poorest areas of the country. In 1986, infant mortality increased from 9.2 per cent. to 9.7 per cent. For some diseases, for example, lung cancer and respiratory disease, the death rate is up to 50 per cent. higher than the national average. Living conditions contribute not only to physical but mental illness. For example, schoolchildren in the Camberwell health authority area, which is also partly in my constituency have three times the rate of behavioural disturbance as children in the Isle of Wight. In the four Thames regions we have 76 per cent. of all the AIDS patients in the United Kingdom. The result of the cutting of acute beds has the greatest effect in areas with a high number of ill elderly, many of whom should be in other than hospital accommodation but are not. In London some 1,400 beds have been cut—50 per cent. of them acute—and 46 per cent. of the people in acute beds are over 65. Spaces are just not available either in the proper places for the elderly or in hospitals for other patients.

I ask the Leader of the House to give assurances on the one thing that the Government can urgently do to come to the aid of the Health Service. Before we leave for this Easter recess, they should announce that they will fully fund the nurses' pay award that is to be recommended by the pay review body. Many in the nursing profession are in a desperate situation. Some 60 per cent. of nurses work overtime. Many work through their lunch breaks and most do another job to help out financially. They have desperate difficulties with accommodation and with travel costs, and they are now facing the threat of the poll tax. Nurses are opting out.

I have a letter from a BA honours student nurse, who says:

"Another disturbing aspect is being in close contact with students who leave in their 1st year … already 3 in my intake have gone away … or 2nd year, or as soon as they qualify because they are disillusioned and dissatisfied. It does not take the student nurse long to discover the reason why nurses are so disheartened and why morale is so low! … As a member of the Royal College of Nursing I would find it very difficult to contemplate striking, but I am filled with anxiety about how I will be able to survive physically, mentally and financially in the years ahead … I wish to remain … please make it possible for me to do so … by speaking on behalf of nurses in the house of commons."

I was intending to do so anyway, before the letter came, but it confirms the crisis and the need. The Lewisham and North Southwark area is between 250 and 400 nurses short of establishment. The Government must come to our rescue. They will have an opportunity to do so when the pay review body reports.

Easter should be a time for rejoicing. I hope that the situation in the Health Service will not be as bad as it was over Christmas at the end of last year. I have here a copy of a letter, sent to the Prime Minister since the new year, by a nurse working at Guy's hospital. It is about the situation at Christmas 1987 in London in the Health Service. It says:

"Understandably the operating theatres are always shut over Christmas and consequently some of the surgical wards, but this year to save money three medical wards were also closed. Unfortunately the local population did not cease to be ill. This meant that acutely ill patients were admitted onto already overstretched surgical wards. It became increasingly difficult to get doctors to see patients they had admitted, as instead of having all their patients on one or two wards, some had patients on eleven different wards. The geography of the hospital meant that it took some of them all day to complete their rounds.

On one ward an elderly lady died alone as the four nurses working on that ward were too busy looking after the twenty-six other patients, to sit with her. She then lay on the ward for four hours until a nurse had been around several other wards to be a sheet to wrap her in. To make matters even worse, the mortuary porters informed us she would have to be placed in cadaver bag, as the mortuary fridge was full!

Another demoralised colleague, along with a student nurse on her first ward placing, discovered a man vomiting copious quantities of blood. They had several other patients all calling for their attention, including an infectious patient lying on the floor of a side-room demanding to see a doctor and be discharged.

Surgical wards do not have the facilities to deal with the medical patients. For example, they do not have a large supply of incontinence aids or hoists to lift heavy immobile patients into the bath. These problems were compounded by the acute shortage of linen—presumably due to some other cost cutting exercise. By Sunday 27th December the wards were even running short of paper sheets and pillow cases. By the following day, nurses in charge of wards were refusing to admit patients until linen had been found to make up the beds for them. Excellence of care is stressed by the School of Nursing. I do not feel I am meeting this by nursing very sick people between two paper sheets on top of a plastic mattress.

How would you feel if a relative of yours was admitted to a top London hospital, only to find staff were too busy to meet all his needs and he was expected to sleep in a bed improvised from drawer sheets and pieces of paper!

Struggling to give the care we have been trained to give under the limitations imposed by financial constraint is only a further stress to an already demoralised profession."

That was the Health Service only a few short months ago. It is not acceptable to go on like that. The Government must say, through the Leader of the House, that they have a new commitment, which means more money and more support for people who are trying to keep our National Health Service up to the standards for which it was founded.

I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely into the problems of the Health Service in inner London. However, I can assure him that dissatisfaction with the working of the RAWP formula is not confined to London. As far away from London as my constituency in Cornwall there is a feeling that the formula does not reflect needs accurately and nor is it a good measure for allocating resources. No doubt, as he said, inner London has particular problems, some of them stemming from deprivation and urban difficulties, but the other side of the coin is that areas such as mine suffer from difficulties such as that which has become known as the rural scatter—the long distances between hospitals and patients.

Another of the difficulties in Cornwall is the inherited situation of a large number of old hospitals. I am convinced that in order to rationalise them there will in some cases have to be increases in capital spending. Cornwall also suffers, which is fortunate in some ways, from a very high incidence of old people, which puts a big burden on the NHS, yet RAWP does not take account sufficiently of such a factor. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I would side with him in his eagerness to have a thorough look at the working of RAWP, and the Government are doing just that.

As the hon. Gentleman has outlined the difficulties facing the NHS, he will welcome the fundamental and thorough review of it that is being carried out under my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. This is a sign of the seriousness with which the Government are taking the issue of the NHS. I join the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Government will fund in full the nurses' pay award. However, he will accept that it would be irresponsible of any Government to give an assurance that they will do that. This award in particular looks like being extremely complex, and I have no doubt that the Government will have to look at it carefully. I hope that they will be in a position to fund in full, but it would be unwise for anybody to give that assurance in advance of receiving the report.

I wish to make two particular points, one about a national issue, and one of relevance to my constituency and the county of Cornwall. The national issue is one that has dominated this week's news—Northern Ireland. I say that it is a national issue because it affects everyone of us, wherever we live. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) here. Although it impacts enormously on Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, it affects us all, because at some time or other we have had service men from our constituencies serving in Northern Ireland, and what happens in Northern Ireland cannot be ignored by the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I was dismayed earlier this week, following the brutal murders of the soldiers, at the reluctance of the broadcasting authorities to hand over all the untransmitted film of part of that attack.

I speak as one who has journalistic experience of covering events in Northern Ireland. I spent a number of years visiting the country on behalf of The Daily Telegraph to cover politics there. That gave me many opportunities to see the situation on the streets and the difficulties faced by soldiers, the police and my fellow journalists, especially those who worked for television, and their camera crews. I accept that camera crews are often in the front line and in considerable danger, so I understand the stance adopted by the broadcasting authorities — the BBC and Independent Television — who are trying to do everything that they properly can to protect their crews when they cover events in Northern Ireland.

However, overriding all other considerations, it is of paramount importance that the broadcasting authorities make available the evidence that they have to the RUC and the prosecuting authorities, who are trying to bring to justice the people who committed the vile murder of those two soldiers. If the broadcasting authorities say that they are reluctant to hand over film because they want to protect their staff, that merely serves to reinforce the problem of television coverage by the BBC, ITN and RTE of IRA-inspired events in Northern Ireland. The review of such coverage should have taken place even if the tragic events of last Saturday had not occurred. The broadcasting authorities need to consider how professionally and to what extent they cover IRA-inspired funerals, demonstrations and so on.

I have no doubt that there must have been an clement of collusion between the broadcasting authorities and the agents or representatives of the IRA for covering some of these events. I am thinking particularly of the pictures that we have all seen in newspapers and on television in recent weeks, of IRA firing parties letting off volleys of shots over a shrine around the corner from the funerals. As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in the House the other day, that might be preferable to filming a firing party performing such a ceremony—if that is not too dignified a word—over a grave at a funeral, but when filming these episodes the broadcasting authorities, at least to a certain extent, play into the hands of the IRA. They should think long and hard about whether being sucked into a propaganda exercise by the IRA should constitute part of the news.

As a journalist, I know that this is a difficult area. It is always difficult to draw a line between naked propaganda for an organisation and genuine news. However, my plea to the broadcasting authorities is that they should give urgent and deep consideration to these difficult issues.

I turn now to a couple of issues that affect Cornwall in particular. I noticed this morning in The Daily Telegraph a report headed:

"British regions get no priority in rush for EEC millions".

That relates to an apparent decision by the EEC Commission to try to give priority through the structure funds to certain regions — Greece, Portugal, Ireland, southern Italy, parts of Spain, French overseas territories and Northern Ireland. In so doing, the Commission is trying to exclude all other parts of the United Kingdom: for example, Wales, parts of northern England and the assisted areas of Cornwall and. Devon. If the report is true, and I suspect that it is, that is a matter for concern. Of course, there will still be access to other European funds in other circumstances, but the first priority for the structure fund will be the areas I have listed—the others will come behind.

I do not expect my right hon. Friend to comment on this today, but I know that he will draw it to the attention of the Ministers concerned and ask them to renew the attempts that the Government have already made in Brussels to ensure that areas of the United Kingdom outside Northern Ireland that have high levels of unemployment are given as much priority as other parts of the European Community. European funds play an important part in providing the infrastructure of parts of the United Kingdom that have high levels of unemployment. They are beginning to have an impact on Cornwall and I do not want such areas to be deprived of the funds. I hope and believe that that will not happen, but I want an assurance that Ministers will fight this issue strongly in Brussels.

Talking of infrastructure and development in development areas, I and most of my hon. Friends very much welcomed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 9 March about local authorities' expenditure. The purpose of the statement was to clamp down on irresponsible local authorities that were going in for creative accountancy and other like devices, such as doing deals with Japanese banks—and others—to get around the Government's proper restrictions on capital expenditure. However, there appears to be a possibility that some genuine attempts to carry out redevelopment by responsible local authorities might get caught.

I refer to a report that appeared in The Morning News a week ago today. It echoed the concern of a number of councils, including Penwith district council about the possible ramifications of my right hon. Friend's statement. The report points out that a £2 million scheme for Truro city hall—I can vouch for its being much needed— may be at risk; so may a £5 million leisure centre at Falmouth and a harbourside car park for Truro. A £5 million harbourside redevelopment at Penzance in my con-stituency is also under threat. Most of these redevelopment schemes involve some sort of deal with developers, under which land may be made available to them. They will carry out the work and the community will get the benefit.

That is the proper way to proceed. It is not in the same category as some of the antics carried out by councils such as Brent and others, which we all read about. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reassure the House without delay on this matter, and that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey the anxieties of responsible local authorities to our right hon. Friend so that an early statement can be made to clarify the position.

I take considerable hope from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that he would

"consider issuing additional capital allocations where we arc satisfied that the agreements were not entered into for the purpose of evading capital expenditure or borrowing controls." —[Official Report, 9 March 1988; Vol. 129, c. 327]

The answer lies in that sentence, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will lose no opportunity to reply to the letters which I, and no doubt other hon. Members and councils, have sent to him. I hope that we can be reassured that sensible projects, such as the ones that I have mentioned, are not at risk and that they will go ahead.

I should like to take this opportunity to raise in the House and place on record so that, one hopes, the Government and others will carefully examine it, the importance of immediate action over the treatment of people, especially Kurdish people in Iraq, and the need to bring an end to the horrors of the Iran-Iraq war. This war has been going on for twice as long as the second world war and hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of this appalling conflict. The most unspeakable horrors have been perpetrated on people in villages in Iran and Iraq, and people who have differences of opinion with the respective regimes are suffering under the most appalling prison conditions.

The Governments of Western Europe and, indeed, of virtually every country are conniving at the continuation of this war. This is because they do not do enough in the United Nations to bring the war to an end, and almost every Government in every industrial country is guilty of directly providing arms to one side or the other. Many Governments provide arms to both sides. Governments who are not providing arms are certainly providing sufficient equipment for the manufacture of arms. Some provide chemicals and pesticides that can be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons that are as awful and as crude as those that were banned by the Geneva convention after the first world war.

The House should not adjourn for Easter without at least protesting against the continuation of the war, and it should do everything that it can to bring some humanitarian assistance to the victims of the war. If we do not do that, we will allow hundreds of thousands of people to go needlessly to their deaths in this appalling conflict. I shall not speak at great length about the basis of the conflict, because that would take up a great deal of time. Instead, I wish to draw attention to specific aspects.

It is important to note that this is not just a conflict about the delineation of the frontier of the Shatt-al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq, but that it is fuelled by outside forces who want to get their hands on the oil in both countries. The war also demonstrates the humanitarian and political bankruptcy of both regimes, because they seek to repress their own people by means of an attack on a neighbour. This tactic has been used by dictators for centuries who have tried to unite their people against an enemy in order to prevent the people from rising up and protesting about the appalling conditions in which many of them have to live.

I shall illustrate the dangers that are implicit in the continuation of this conflict by quoting from "International Relations" dated November 1986. It carried an article entitled "The Middle East and World Peace" written by Sir Anthony Parsons, who was at one time the British ambassador to Iran. The part that I shall quote comes after Sir Anthony has discussed the possibility of an Iranian invasion of Iraq and the likely reaction to that of other Arab states, and the implications of an invasion of Iran by Iraq and the reaction to that of nearby states, particularly the Soviet Union.

Sir Anthony said:

"The point is that the threat to world peace will persist for as long as the Iran/Iraq war continues and we should not be lulled into false security by the long-lasting military stalemate which could at any time be broken."

Those important words should be remembered.

I should like to draw attention to one aspect of the war and to the problems implicit in the middle East—the treatment of the Kurdish people there. It is important to remember that in Iran the regime led by Ayatollah Khomeini is as brutal and repressive against dissidents as any regime in the world, and the testament to that is the number of people who have fled from that country to seek political asylum. In Iraq there is almost a Fascist regime, which has instituted virtual genocide against the Kurdish people. The vast numbers of people in political prisons in Iraq testify to that. The long arm of Iraq's security services extends to Britain, where one finds Iraqi refugees, who have sought and obtained safety, afraid to march openly on the streets to protest against the Government of Iraq because of reprisals that might take place against their families. They have to march on the streets of Britain with their faces covered so that they cannot be photographed.

Turkey also contains many Kurds. In the Kurdish areas of eastern Turkey there is virtually a civil war and many Kurdish people are in prison in Diyarbekir in eastern Turkey. I understand that during the Easter recess, or shortly afterwards, the Prime Minister is to visit Turkey. I hope that if she goes ahead with that visit she will carry very strong messages. First, she should convey the message that Turkey is not a democracy, and cannot be, because of the hundreds, if not thousands, of political prisoners in that country. People are on trial because of their political beliefs, and the general secretaries of the Communist party and the Workers' party, Mr. Kutlu and Mr. Sargin, are in prison. Secondly, she should tell the Government of Turkey that their country cannot be looked upon as a free democracy while military rule still applies in some of their provinces and while Kurds are being oppressed. The Kurdish language is banned in Turkey, and the word "Kurdistan" is also banned. The invitation to the Prime Minister to visit Turkey is part of the attempt by the Government of Turkey to cover up their crimes so that they can gain entry to the European Community.

I shall give another quotation to show how awful the positon is for the Kurds, particularly in Iraq. I shall quote from a letter delivered yesterday to the Prime Minister by the Committee for the Defence of Kurdish Nation and by Kurdish Organisations in the United Kingdom. The letter says:

"We, the people of Kurdistan in exile in Britain, appeal to you as a world leader to intervene and publicly condemn the wholesale slaughter of the innocent Kurdish people and the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi Government on the innocent Kurdish inhabitants of Halabja. This is not the first instance of the use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Tonight we have received private telephone calls from reliable sources in Iraq revealing the full horror of what has happened this week: we are told that about 21,000 ordinary men, women and children from the Halabja population died immediately under the cyanide bombardment. Another 20,000 have been fatally affected and between 300 and 500 are now dying each day.

We believe that as a world leader—and in the pursuit of world peace and the right to self-determination of all peoples … you will share our despair and understand our desire for an immediate end to this appalling and barbaric genocide."

The letter continues by asking that the Prime Minister intervene immediately and personally and that the

"United Nations … send a … fact-finding mission to Kurdistan to establish the full facts and the extent of this tragedy which is without precedent since Hiroshima."

The letter concludes:

"we appeal to you … to use your prestige as a world leader to demand that the Government of Saddam Hussein immediately cease these atrocities against our defenceless people."

That letter emphasises the horrors that the Kurdish people are going through in Iraq at present.

It is also important that the House understands the background to the way in which the Kurdish people have been treated, and their fate. Kurdistan was first divided in 1514—this is not a new problem—between the warring Ottoman and Persian empires. It was not until 1920 and the treaty of Sevres that the Kurdish nation was recognised, but the treaty was never fully carried out or established because of the rise of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey, who ensured that it was never brought to fruition. The treaty of Lausanne in 1923 superseded the earlier treaty and set the seal on Kurdish hopes for independence.

Today the Kurdish nation is divided between Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. For all that time there has been oppression at one time or another, of differing severity, of the Kurdish people in all four of those countries. At the moment the most awful oppression is in Iraq and Turkey, but in the past it has been in Iran, and sometimes in Syria. The desire for a Kurdish nation and for recognition of Kurdish culture is at the heart of the present oppression against the Kurdish people in Iraq. In Iraq, Kurds constitute the largest group. Over 20 million people have been victimised by the political and ideological turmoil of our time. They are the fourth largest ethnic group in the middle east and have suffered very badly.

I want to draw attention to the way in which the Kurdish people are being treated in Iraq. The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein has for some years sought to oppose Kurdish culture and the use of the Kurdish language, and to oppress Kurdish people in those areas. It has sought to do so by Arabising the areas and moving large numbers of people into those areas to minimise the strength of Kurdish feeling. Of course, the areas into which they have moved people are rich in oil and fertile. They have also deported and evicted large numbers of Kurdish people from their villages. Since 15 April 1987, 700 villages have been bulldozed, set alight and destroyed. A new eviction drive has affected over 140,000 Kurdish people.

That is not the first time that this has happened. Indeed. 2,000 villages were destroyed between 1975 and 1979 in an earlier attack against the Kurdish people. About 8,000 Kurdish people have disappeared since 1983, when the Iraqi secret police or the Iraqi army arrived and simply took people away. Large numbers of people have been killed during that period.

The most shocking and appalling thing has been the use of chemical weapons and chemical warfare against the Kurdish people. It is clear that the Iraqi Government are using poison gas against the Kurdish people in Iraq. Since mid-April 1987—just less than one year ago there has been continued shelling with mustard and diphosgene gases, which have been used to kill people. This week some disturbing news has arrived, which has been adequately reported in some newspapers. Anyone who doubts the existence and use of such chemical weapons—the Iraqi ambassador in this country denies the use of chemical weapons—is referred to a secret document that has been smuggled out of Iraq, from the general commander of the Erbil district, which clearly confirms the existence of those weapons. The document is headed:

"Subject: Control over distribution of biological and chemical (materials)".

It goes on to ask for a half-yearly stock-taking of those weapons and gives guidance on their use.

I refer the House to the news reports that have been received this week that emphasise the horror of the gas attacks that have taken place. I refer to the first part of the article by Nicholas Beeston, reporting from Halabja in occupied Iraq. He is writing about people who have died as a result of a cyanide attack:

"Like figures unearthed in Pompeii, the victims of Halabja were killed so quickly that their corpses remained in suspended animation.

There was the plump baby whose face, frozen in a scream, stuck out from under the protective arm of a man, away from the open door of a house that he never reached.

Near by, a family of five who had been sitting in their garden eating lunch were cut down—the killer gas not even sparing the family cat or the birds in the tree, which littered the well-kept lawn.

Their neighbours had had the foresight to hide in an underground shelter. It became their mass grave with 10 men, women and children huddled together in the darkness surrounded by their best carpets and the family's valuables."

The report then lists the horror of the cyanide gas attacks that had taken place in the past week in Halabja. It seems that 20,000 people had been killed as a result of those gas attacks, in the most appalling and unspeakable crime that can be imagined.

If anyone has any doubts about the methods that the Iraqi forces are using in Kurdistan, I refer him to orders that were sent out to the armed forces in June last year, concerning army activities in Kurdish areas. They state:

"1. All remaining villages declared out of bounds for security reasons will be considered as areas containing saboteurs, agents of Iran and traitors of Iraq.

2. No humans or animals are allowed in these areas. Shooting is unrestricted in these areas, unless on orders issued by us.

3. All travel to and from these areas, and all agricultural and industrial activity within them is forbidden. All concerned authorities and apparatus will monitor these issues rigorously.

4. Your command will carry out special strikes against the largest number of those present in the exclusion zones periodically, using artillery, helicopters and aeroplanes, and at any time day or night.

5. Anyone found in these villages will be detained and interrogated by the security apparatus. All those aged 15–70 inclusive to be executed after making use of any information obtained off them.

6. The relevant body will interrogate those who surrender to government of (Ba'th) Party apparatus for 2 days, or up to 10 days if necessary. If more interrogation is needed, permission must be obtained from us by telephone or telegramme."

One can only assume that those people who are not interrogated are shot immediately, or shot after interrogation.

Amnesty International has issued numerous reports on the situation in Iraq. It reported last February that hundreds of people, in some cases children as young as 14, had been executed in Iraq. It calls again for action on this matter.

I hope the House will understand that the full horrors of the Iran-Iraq war have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, but within that conflict the most appalling savagery is being perpetrated against the Kurdish people. This week's cyanide attacks have at last hit the world's press headlines. It is time for the Government to act by doing what is requested by the Kurdish people, which is, first, requesting that the United Nations immediately sends observers to ascertain the full extent of the attacks that have taken place; secondly, demanding that the Iraqi Government allow the International Red Cross into the country to take medical and humanitarian aid to those people; thirdly, and above all, demanding a complete stop to all arms and chemical sales to either Iran or Iraq. They should also stop propping up the Iraqi Government by the use of trade, aid and credits, which I am afraid the British Government have been doing in the credits that they have passed on to Iraq. This House should make its views clearly known on this appalling matter.

No one could fail to be moved by the humane way in which the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) discussed the tragic circumstances arising from the awful conflict of the Iran-Iraq war. I congratulate him on drawing the attention of the House to some of the details which, sad to say, have been emerging in our press and other media.

I, too, wish to raise a moving matter concerning the elderly. In particular, it relates to the provision of their housing in private sheltered accommodation. A constituent, Mr. Lawrence Lewis, came to see me and drew my attention to a matter which has now reached national proportions. For the benefit of the House I hold up a envelope containing letters from well over 100 people from all over the United Kingdom, telling me of their problems with sheltered accommodation for the elderly.

Accommodation of this type will fulfil a vital function as our population continues to age. It is already providing a much-needed dynamic to the housing market by allowing people to move from traditional forms of accommodation to accommodation more specifically provided for the needs of the elderly. The market is large. It is worth some £2 billion a year and there are about 7,000 units of this type of accommodation being built every 12 months. Clearly, problems are emerging in this area, which, at present, has no trade association and no form of regulation against possible abuse of the elderly.

My constituent purchased his sheltered accommodation as a result of some fairly persuasive advertising material. He was particularly attracted to the words used which related to service and maintenance charges. That is the provision of common services, such as gardening, window cleaning, cleaning of common parts and so on. Mr. Lewis felt from the advertising literature which showed that those charges would not rise sharply, so he would be in for no nasty shocks, that this was a good way to live economically. Sadly, that was not to be the case.

My constituent came to see me and showed me the literature for his accommodation and that from the developer of the same accommodation about five miles from my constituency in Blackpool for another development in which the developer's claim was even more specific about service and maintenance charges. It stated:

"We do not expect those to rise by any more than the rate of inflation."

My constituent could not square that claim with the large increases which he had experienced.

As a result I took up the issue with the developers. I choose not to name them deliberately, because my intent in taking up this matter has been one of good faith in the interests of the individuals, and not in any way to have a witch hunt against any one developer, builder or managing agent in this sector. I have been so careful that when I was approached by "That's Life" to open my files to reveal information from those who had written to me, I refused. I do not believe that it is right to break the confidence of those who approach me, including right hon. and hon. Members. With the exception of a factual press release about holding a meeting in the House to discuss the matter, my public comment has been in response to interest from the press.

My constituent drew the matter to my attention and I discussed it with Age Concern which told me that the problem was widespread. As a result of that, the subject got into the newspapers through completely independent means. The Daily Telegraph had an article covering the issue. The paper asked me what I would do about it and I said that I wanted to look carefully at the law, particularly as it affects the statements in the literature on service and maintenance charges because through the Housing Bill or the Consumer Protection Act 1987 or even through a review of the Trade Descriptions Act there might be methods to address the clarity with which information is put across in the sales literature.

As a result of that first article I received 40 letters and The Daily Telegraph received 30. I shall summarise the issues raised with some quotations. A lady in Wye in Kent wrote:

"We did all our 'sums' before we took over our properties and if"

the managing agents

"had kept their word about increasing charges none of us would find ourselves in the financial difficulties which we do at present, many of the residents are contemplating having to sell out and move, but even that would impose an impossible burden on many."

A gentleman from Solihull wrote:

"From conversations I have had with residents, many accepted these bottom line figures in good faith and budgeted accordingly. There is now alarm that they might prove grossly inaccurate within 12 months."

In a most moving passage he continues:

"It does seem there is a group of elderly people with genuine fears but who might feel themselves constrained from voicing their concerns too publicly because they do not want to come into conflict with the company that is managing the property where they had hoped to spend their retirement free of worry."

A letter from Cornwall tells me that a group of people found that their service and maintenance charges had risen by 70 per cent. in 18 months.

Finally, on an issue of a wider nature, a retired squadron leader in Seaford, Lincolnshire wrote:

"Can you imagine what might happen when the builder of sheltered housing goes into liquidation? Can you imagine the doubtful characters who might be attracted to these situations?

I would be the first to admit that while I have given albeit a selective flavour to some of those problems, there are also many customers satisfied with this type of accommodation. Clearly, the market is growing and we must face the fact that many elderly people see the excellence of the standards that this type of accommodation offers, are seduced by the sales literature and do not ask the pertinent financial question: Can I afford to meet those regular service and maintenance charges? Many of them are living on fixed incomes and they cannot easily adjust to sudden unthought of expenses.

Earlier I mentioned what service and maintenance charges covered. Many people have suddenly discovered that they are also liable for sinking fund payments to cover the depreciation on items such as lifts. Moreover, if the developer or managing agent got his sums wrong in estimating the cost of the charge in the run-up to the sale, the residents are visited with a bill. Such bills can go on, compounded by the natural increase in charges, and present them with financial difficulties.

My intent was to find some simple way, without creating a new quango or vast regulatory body, to help these people and any others who will enter this market. I contacted the National Consumer Council which drew my attention to section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. What I am about to say has the favour of the Office of Fair Trading, my Lancashire trading standards office and others in this area. The NCC legal officer, Mr. Guy Dehn, drew my attention to the fact that the Act deals with what is called "misleading price indicators". In other words, if one sets out to mislead or give inaccurate information on the price of a service, section 3 of that Act will help those who suffer.

The Act goes further. It provides for the creation of codes of practice which govern the whole operation, not only of sales literature, but of other statements about services and obligations for residents in this type of accommodation. It is high time that the House had an opportunity — I urge my right hon. Friend to take up the matter with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry — to consider carefully the possibility of applying a code of practice dealing with these matters under the Consumer Protection Act. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends for such a code of practice.

The National Consumer Council in a letter to me said:

"Misleading or insufficient information about future levels of maintenance charges will disrupt budgetary planning and can clearly cause considerable distress."

With regard to the customers of such accommodation it says:

"It is unrealistic to expect them to forage about for further information or to challenge figures on the basis of a calculation."

I have studied the sales literature for such sheltered accommodation and many different words and phrases are used to try to say the same thing. There is no uniform description regarding what the service and maintenance charges mean. Some companies mean the narrow management charge — the administrative expense of providing communal services. Other descriptions go as wide as the water rates and all other expenses. It must be confusing for potential purchasers to be confronted by such a wide range of definitions, and that obviously gives rise to misunderstanding.

The National Consumer Council believes:

"A code of practice dealing with claims about maintenance charges would be in everyone's interest. A good code should help prevent the problem from recurring. The providers of sheltered housing would have guidance as to what information to provide and how to present it. The Government would be able to promote desirable practices in this area. Pensioners would not be misled. The application of the new law in this field would be clearer."

I can think of no finer recommendation than that the House gives some form of approval to that course of action. To that end I organised a working party, including representatives from the trade, and we had a meeting in the House. Leading developers and managing agents attended as well as an observer from the Department of the Environment, and representatives of the Office of Fair Trading, Age Concern and Help the Aged. As a result of its good will that working party will meet in the House on Monday to develop further its thoughts on the matter. I hope that not only will it recommend a code of practice, as I have outlined to the House, but that the group will form a trade association to deal with wider issues covering the quality of service, training of staff, facilities offered by wardens and so on.

If that group established a trade association it could also introduce a code of approval for each individual developer and stop maverick developers entering the market and misleading elderly people. I trust that the House will support the initiative, which I have taken in good faith, as I believe that it will do much to safeguard the future of accommodation for the elderly.

The House of Commons is the most sophisticated political prison in the world. It makes strong men and determined women impotent with the minimum of brutality yet with the maximum of effectiveness. Such is the confidence of the system that even the doors are not locked. Indeed, for most of the working day there is no obligation to attend—if the usual channels will permit me that indiscretion.

Parliamentary democracy and the holding to account of Government and the Executive is now little more than a sham as practised in this Chamber. The anarchic and archaic procedures that dominate our proceedings seem to give a few perks to buy off individual Members, but fail to direct the efforts of either Government or Opposition Members in the job that Parliament was set up to do.

One of the most obvious and striking examples of that failure relates to the hours of sitting of this place and it is that to which I wish refer to today. There are many other examples that could be drawn, notably the length of the parliamentary sessions. The House of Commons meets for more days than any other legislature in the civilised world. Our recesses—today we are debating the Easter recess—seem to bear no rhyme or reason to contemporary politics. Certainly the summer recess is far too long for the purpose for which it was originally intended. I believe that a system of proper holidays, which any self-respecting trade unionist would certainly support, could be arrived at by negotiations with the relevant parties, perhaps even through Mr. Speaker's Office. Such holidays could then become a normal part of our environment instead of the current practice.

My major argument relates to the length of the sitting that we have each day. On average we sit beyond 12 o'clock at night twice a week. It need not always be like that; indeed it was not always like that. The great reforming Government of 1945–50, as I understand it from the record books, had only three sittings after 12 o'clock. There has developed, however, for no reason — an organic growth—a series of sittings well into the night. Therefore, the House now has an average of two sittings per week that go beyond 12 o'clock.

The answer to the problem rests with Members of Parliament. The Economist stated:

"MPs, though individually they had succeeded in becoming more independent of party whips, have not yet learnt to act collectively in their own interest against the interests of the frontbenchers of both major parties. If ever a man has suffered through not belonging to a trade union it has been the modern British MP."

That comment, made over a decade ago, is just as true today. The power of the Government and in particular the Front Benches, as exemplified by the whipping system, has meant that we have been lumbered with a system without any forethought or planning. That system imposes upon hon. Members a great many burdens. Such burdens are self-inflicted because, until the Back Benchers of both parties realise their self-interest, the system will continue.

It would be idle to waste too much sympathy on Members of Parliament, but there are others who must be taken into account, notably the families—the husbands, wives, children, girl friends or whatever. They suffer because of the idiocy of the system under which we attempt to work. There is a great deal of statistical evidence about the divorce rate among hon. Members, and those statistics need not be repeated.

I hope that we would all wish to encourage more women to become Members of Parliament, but added to all the burdens that male Members of Parliament face are the burdens that families and society place upon women as mothers and, in a sense, home makers. Those burdens are in excess of those that we should reasonably place on Members of Parliament. Such burdens could be removed if we had the will.

Other disadvantages in our present system include the effect on the decision-making process. How can Ministers effectively perform their duties the next day if they have been at the Dispatch Box or sitting on the Front Bench into the small hours? There is a great deal of anecdotal and written evidence from Members of all parties—whatever shade of Government have been in power—that has outlined how performance has been impaired because this place has taken its toll of Ministers.

Members of Parliament have a macho tendency to prove their toughness by sitting through the night, but that is also a costly exercise in terms of keeping staff on duty and awake when any self-respecting person would be at home with his or her family and relaxing for the day ahead.

I have tabled a motion referring to that problem in which I suggest that the House should rise automatically at 10 pm, thus returning to the system which existed just after the war when business appeared to be conducted as expeditiously and efficiently as it is today, perhaps even more so. If there were a national crisis, there would be a fallback provision under which a given number of Members of Parliament could request the sitting to continue, but that would occur only in extreme and emergency cases. To compensate for any loss of time, the House would meet at 1 pm every day, except Friday.

Given that the television age is about to come to this place—not before time—the Adjournment debate would not take place at the last knockings of the parliamentary day, but would begin the day. The superstars on the Front Bench, who will no doubt monopolise the television cameras, would experience competition from any hon. Members who are allocated an Adjournment debate and would therefore earn a place in the public eye. Between 1 pm and 1.30 pm, they could speak about an important issue during prime time television.

I do not anticipate instant acceptance of that proposal by the House, but, having looked through the press files, I am encouraged to see that many highly respected and distinguished parliamentarians from both sides of the House, including former Prime Ministers, but unfortunately not yet including the Leader of the House, have suggested that the way in which we work is unplanned and unco-ordinated and suits only the Government, not Parliament.

A major restructuring of our work needs to take place under the auspices of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that the Leader of the House will make the necessary arrangements so that the Procedure Committee can consider that matter again. It has discussed the matter in the recent past, but there are many new Members of Parliament who are keen and fired with antagonism towards the way this place works. I hope that that strengthens the feeling that we must put our own house in order by ensuring that we sit at proper times of day and that the business of Parliament, which is to hold the Executive to account, can take place on a far more sensible basis than at present.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) suggested that Members of Parliament should be represented by a trade union. All I can say to that is, God forbid.

Today is a sad day in the history of the trade union movement in this country. We have had the humiliation of seeing trade union leaders returning from a visit to Ford in the United States with an empty bowl. It is a particularly sad day for Scotland, but also for industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. The Government have endeavoured to make the economic climate of this country one of the best in the world in which people can come and set up a business. The Budget has gone a long way towards helping that recently with a nice taxation policy which should be a positive encouragement to people overseas to invest in the United Kingdom.

There is no doubt that Ford did a great deal of market research before selecting Dundee as the place to set up its new plant. It evaluated a labour force which I am sure is second to none. I am sure that the people of Dundee would give faithful service and do a good day's work for a good day's pay. There are many other elements, for example, communications, to encourage business.

Despite Ford's decision, the United Kingdom is perhaps the best country in the world in which to set up a business at present. I hope that Ford will reconsider its decision. As a former, fully paid-up member of what is now the Amalgamated Engineering Union, I am embarrassed to think that my former brothers and sisters have created such a climate and refused to accede to the company's request, albeit reluctantly and after a narrow vote.

Companies come here and set up business to make a profit. They are not Oxfam or some charitable institution. Ford has a tremendous commitment to the United Kingdom. It has been here for many years and the plant in Dundee would have reinforced that commitment and provided the company with a gateway into Europe. It must have been reflecting on the future of the Channel tunnel.

I find it humiliating that we shall lose this valuable plant because the trade unions cannot get a firm agreement among themselves. When a pit closes, we hear cries about the social consequences for surrounding villages. We hear of the spin-offs of the earning power of employees and the company. Ford employees would spend an enormous amount of money in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and the company would be a major purchaser. Others would supply components. It is sad to think that all that will be lost because trade unions cannot get their act together.

It has been said that that is not the true reason for the decision, but the exchange rate between the pound and the dollar is about the same now as it was in the autumn when the decision to open the plant in Dundee was made. The exchange rate is no more favourable compared with the other countries where Ford is considering establishing a plant.

I remember when I was a training manager responsible, among other things, for the training of about 100 school leavers each year throughout the country. The trade unions renegotiated their rate of pay and sent us a communication to the effect that we would have to put up our trainees' salaries. We felt that we could not possibly do that, so the regional trade union leader came to see the managing director. I have never forgotten the scene. At the end of a long meeting, the trade union man and his team walked along the corridor rubbing their hands, and he said, "Well, brothers, we screwed them into the ground, didn't we?"

We were left with no alternative. We were told that we would be blacked and that nobody would use our services if we did not pay the demanded rate. The young people: who worked for us had motor cars or motor cycles, dressed well, seemed reasonably happy with the money that they earned and enjoyed their recreation at the weekend with their girl friends.

The result was that we had to sack or give redundancy notices to 100 school leavers within a fortnight and, for years afterwards, we took on only about 20 school leavers a year. That was the trade unions doing something for their members. I vowed that I would get here so that I could do something to restore the balance. Since 1979, I have played my part in trade union reform. We have to restore the balance between management and the rights and privileges of those who work for a company.

I believe that there is a role for trade unions, but there must be teamwork with management. Unions should fight for the good of their members and give value for the membership fee. That has not happened in Scotland. It has been a complete disgrace.

The big fear is that other companies that have been thinking of investing in the United Kingdom will see that Ford has pulled out, and will say to themselves, "Ford is not silly. That firm knows what it is up to, and if it is not good enough for Ford, perhaps we should not come to the United Kingdom as we are proposing to do." I hope, however, that those companies do not think like that, and that the trade unions will knock their heads together round the table and say, "We must sort this out". These jobs are vital, not only to Dundee or to Scotland, but to the United Kingdom in general.

When I woke up this morning, switched on the "Today" programme on Radio 4 and heard the news that the trade union leaders were coming back with an empty bowl, I was very sad indeed. I am not being vindictive, or trying to make too great a political point; I am merely saying that the United Kingdom depends on sensible trade union leadership. Union leaders are paid enormous sums. They are given expenses, large office accommodation and often a very nice executive car. In return, they ought to be responsible — responsible for the interests of their members. That is what the members want, and that is why the Government have been intent on giving rights to trade union members. We have recognised that bad union leadership, like bad management, can sometimes be very costly.

We have given power to the parents in the Education Reform Bill; power to the council tenants to buy their houses; power to the consumers, with the privatisation of electricity. Now we have given power to the trade union members. It is terribly important to get this right. I do not wish to elevate my importance, but I hope that my small contribution will put out a hand of friendship to Ford. Ford will be loyally served in Dundee; it could not have chosen a better place. As for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State far Scotland, he could not have done more. Only the Opposition's embarrassment leads them to suggest that he did not do enough. That is dishonest politics. If the Opposition examine the history, they will find that my right hon. and learned Friend has been in there right from the off, battling to get plant into the United Kingdom.

Ford could do without the aggravation. The firm wants stability and continuity; it does not want plant shutdowns. If it comes here, it will want to get on with the job, and I think that it is entitled to that. In return, the TUC must meet and sort out the differences, and deliver a unanimous vote—not the silly voting that we have seen recorded—to allow Ford to come here and get on with the job.

I believe that Ford will still come, but it will want a lot more from the TUC, and if it does not come it will not be the Government's fault. The Government have a tremendous record for job creation. This was an instance of that, and it is sad to see it slipping away. I very much hope that Ford will reconsider.

The main theme of today's short debate has been neglect. Every hon. Member who has spoken has drawn attention to the Government's neglect of one aspect or another of our national life.

First, we heard about their neglect to put enough money and effort into the space programme. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) told us about the neglect by British Rail, because of short-term financial considerations, of the Ribblehead viaduct, which consequently endangers the future of the Settle-Carlisle railway. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) followed that with a reference to the Government's neglect of the needs of air safety by not putting enough money into providing air traffic controllers with the technical equipment that they need to keep up with the increase in air traffic. In other words, there is obviously an absence of intelligent anticipation of what everyone knew was likely to happen.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) drew attention to the Government's neglect of the housing needs of some people in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) drew attention to the neglect of the needs of people relying on the National Health Service in his constituency and in inner London in general. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) drew attention to the neglect of the employment needs of people in the south-west. In particular, he stressed that there were not enough regional funds entering the area. It is always worth remembering that the south-west peninsula is one of the poorest, lowest paid areas in the EEC. Women's pay in the area is absolutely appalling and 164,000 people are out of work there. The area deserves a great deal of attention and it needs much more money from the Government's and the EEC's regional policies.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) drew attention to the horrifying events in Iraq and the treatment of the Kurdish people. He drew attention to the Government's neglect to do anything, make representations to provide an element of protection, or persuade the Iraqi Government to behave more humanely towards people living within their boundaries.

The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) drew attention to private sheltered accommodation for the elderly, which the Government have promoted, and to the Government's failure to anticipate the need for measures to ensure that old people were not conned rotten by people establishing private sheltered housing. Perhaps the basic law in that regard is satisfactory, but I rather doubt it. If it is, the necessary codes of practice have not been drawn up, yet the Government have been promoting private residential accommodation since 1979. They should have made some progress with the codes of practice. I suspect that it would be better if they had used a little of the enormously long Housing Bill which is presently before the House to provide an element of protection for people living in sheltered homes for the elderly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred to our activities. It must be a question of self-neglect to the extent that there is anything wrong. We all know that there is quite a lot wrong with the terms and conditions of work in this place and with the facility to scrutinise the Government's activities. However, that is self-neglect. It is entirely our own fault that we do not have a better system of running this place at more reasonable hours.

I was interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and particularly his suggestion that there should be a trade union for Opposition Members. If the proposals were introduced does the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) expect that the leader of that union would be elected for life, or would he be subjected to occasional competition?

Members of Parliament are not elected for life. Unless the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should all be elected for life—which at this time might be a good idea for me, but not for anyone else—his proposal is not on.

One of our problems in considering our activities as a legislative body is that the whole matter is dominated by theorising from a not particularly observant Frenchman in the 18th century. He concluded that Britain was ruled under a system involving the separation of powers of the Executive from the legislature and from the judiciary. He failed to observe that the person who chairs the meetings of another place takes part in the legislature and is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet. That suggests that some observers of our constitutional scene have not been too bright, although they have managed to dominate the intellectual approach to Government for nearly 200 years.

The other problem is the failure to recognise that, provided the Government party has a substantial majority, the theory that the House of Commons controls the Executive is not true. The Executive controls the House of Commons unless there are marginal majorities of parties in the Commons.

On the Executive's control, does my hon. Friend know that the important decision in Brussels on agriculture and stabilisers is to be agreed by Her Majesty's Government next Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, but they have not yet arranged a debate on it? They should have done so before the recess. The Government have neglected to observe the spirit of the resolution of the House of Commons on 30 October 1980. There would have been time before this week was out for such a debate. Its lack is a constitutional loss to the powers of the House over Ministers.

I agree that the House is not strong enough in relation to Ministers. In terms of the strength of the House in relation to Ministers participating in the EEC's activities, it is weaker still. I make an offer to the Leader of the House: if he wants to make room for the debate which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) suggests and which would meet the requirements of past undertakings, the Labour party will happily forgo the debates proposed on the Housing (Scotland) Bill. That measure could be postponed or totally abandoned and there would be time to discuss that EEC matter next week.

The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens), who seems to have disappeared, referred to the decision of the Ford Motor Company not to go ahead with its plant in Dundee. There has been neglect there by the Government.

Nonsense.

Since the Ford Motor Company said that it would not build the plant there, the only action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland has been to go round, in and out of the House, denouncing the trade unions. So far as I know, he has not said a single word to the Ford Motor Company to ask the company to reconsider its decision. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were serious about getting that plant in Dundee, he could have gone with the people from the TUC to the United States to discover whether an agreement could be reached.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall not give way.

It is unlikely that what has happened with this plant will have any effect on inward investment by other companies. Not many other companies already have 20 plants in this country and a recognition agreement that applies to those and to any future plants, and then want to say, "We want to open one plant that is entirely outside those national arrangements." The Government should sort out whether they are in favour of single-union agreements. After all, this Government wished two unions on the Nottingham coalfields. They say that they want a no-union agreement at GCHQ. They have insisted that the negotiating bodies recognise organisations such as the Professional Association of Teachers in the existing negotiating machinery. There has been considerable Government neglect in all the spheres mentioned this morning, including neglect by the Secretary of State for Scotland in sticking up for the interests of Scottish people and the people of Dundee concerning the Ford plant.

I shall raise another point which relates to neglect. It was raised indirectly by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who mentioned the state of the Health Service in inner London. I have to declare an interest in that most of the area that I represent is covered by the Bloomsbury health authority, which has the longest hospital waiting list in the country. This year, its income falls short of its expenditure by no less than £4 million, and it is estimated that next year the shortfall will be £5 million.

As a result of that shortfall, the health authority is contemplating closing the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Harrow and the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital for women, which was saved partly as a result of intervention by the Prime Minister. Last week, it considered, as an alternative way to save those enormous sums of money, closing all its hospitals for all purposes save emergency admissions. At present, the Bloomsbury health authority is spending more than £1 million a month on hiring expensive agency staff because the pay, accommodation and living standards that it can offer its own staff mean that people will not work for it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the major problems for Health Service staff throughout inner London is the extraordinarily high cost of purchasing property or acquiring private rented accommodation and the loss of nurses' accommodation because of the asset-stripping activities of a number of health authorities? Does he agree that the Government must address the urgent problem of accommodation for NHS staff as it is more important that they, rather than a bunch of yuppies, should be in inner London.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In my constituency newly qualified nurses earn about £4,500 a year. A privately rented one-bedroom flat in my constituency costs about £100 a week, and that is for a very rundown one bedroom flat. In some parts of my constituency there are one-bedroom flats for sale for more than £95,000. Can the Leader of the House suggest how a newly qualified nurse from the Middlesex hospital or the University College hospital training schools can continue to stay in the area and try to provide a service for people who live in my area or who come from outside for treatment.

I have a copy of a letter from the professor of medicine at University College hospital medical school to one of his patients. In addition to being the professor of medicine, he is also an active clinician. He says:

"Present Government policy n this field is dominated by the determination to save money. It will either continue the serious underfunding which has led to a worsening series of crises in the hospital sector over the last two or three years, or will shift much of the cost for the Health Service away from direct taxation, which would mean that availability of health care would depend on each person's ability to pay. The option of increasing direct financial support of the NHS to the level that other European countries find necessary has been discounted by the Government, apparently as this would threaten its plan to reduce the top level of income tax."

The professor has to live with the daily consequences of turning patients away as he and his colleagues cannot deal with them because of the massive shortage of funds in that area. That epitomises the neglect and the lack of foresight, anticipation and investment that has characterised the comments expressed in all today's speeches.

We should remember that this is in a country where, for the past eight years, we have had the bonus of North sea oil. That oil has brought profits, bumped up Government revenue by more than £60,000 million and made it relatively unnecessary to buy oil from abroad. It has been like a continual pools win for the economy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in any country with a sensible Government that one-off, golden windfall would have been invested in the future in plant and equipment, education and training and research and development.

But under this Government the money has been squandered. Far from increasing investment in manufacturing industry, investment is still down on 1979 levels. Since 1979, our share of the world market in manufactured goods has decreased by 20 per cent. Our manufacturers' share of the home market is down by 30 per cent. compared with 1979. Our imports have increased by 50 per cent.

Dundee will not help.

If the hon. Gentleman is so perturbed about 400 jobs in Dundee—

The figure is 1,000.

No. If hon. Members check carefully, they will find that 400 jobs are at risk—[Interruption.] I will concede the figure of 1,000. How many Conservative Members have protested about the proposal of the South of Scotland Electricity Board to buy coal from abroad? That would put far more people out of work in the Scottish coalfield. If they are worried about jobs in Scotland, they should be worried about all jobs in Scotland.

Despite the benefits of North sea oil, we have the biggest trade deficit in our history. A country that was once the workshop of the world has become the warehouse of the world, importing for the first time ever more manufactured goods than we export. Our young people are the worst trained anywhere in the developed world. We are just about used to our young people not getting the sort of training that is available in Germany, France or Holland, but now they are not getting the training that is available to young people in Taiwan and Korea. Yet the Government believe that we can compete—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh at the idea that young people in Taiwan and Korea get better industrial training than our youngsters, but it is a fact and we shall suffer in the end.

The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned science. Our scientists have been starved of funds for research into space, information technology and agriculture. Even medical research has been cut. It used to be said that one of the great British embarrassments was that we invented all sorts of things but did not develop them ourselves and they were developed by industries abroad. The Government seem to have established a think tank and have come up with an idea to get rid of the embarrassment. Their answer is not to improve our development of inventions but to stop the inventors inventing them in the first place. That is an absurd way to get out of bother.

The Government have no long-term plans for anything other than filling the pockets and feathering the nests of their friends. The country is suffering now, and will suffer more in the future.

No one seems to be against our taking a few days' holiday, and the whole House will have shared in the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) to John Silkin, whose last speech in the House was in the equivalent debate a year ago. He was a wise man, a tough politician and a great exponent of what are known by some as the black arts of the usual channels, but I can say from my experience that when he did a deal he stuck to it, in the highest traditions of the House.

It seems a long time since Christmas. We have made good progress with our legislation—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

The hon. Gentleman has already taken up some of my time. If I am to reply to the debate, the hon. Gentleman should sit there quietly and let me get on with it.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In rightly paying tribute to John Silkin, the Leader of the House said that the former right hon. Member never went back on bargains into which he had entered. There seemed to be some suggestion that I might have done so, and I would like to make it clear that I have not.

I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman in any way, shape or form. He seems to be a little sensitive about this, but there is no such suggestion. I was just saying that John Silkin, the former right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, was a man of the highest integrity. He was Chief Whip of the former Labour Government through difficult times and had a high reputation for sticking to his word. I would have thought that that was acceptable to all hon. Members.

We have had some good speeches raising many national, international and constituency issues. The only time that the debate became heated was when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) got a bit excited about Dundee, but I can understand his embarrassment about that. I will do my best to reply to all the points that have been made. I do not have much time, so I will do so as quickly as I can. If I have not answered all the points, I shall write to the hon. Members concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made a strong case for the United Kingdom's participation in the optional programmes of the European Space Agency. Space plays a part in the development of Britain's science and technology base and can lead to profitable economic activity, but we have to balance the long term benefits of investment in space projects with investment in other industries and technologies. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 10 February announced that we would not be joining the polar platform programme in its proposed form. However, since then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said, there have been discussions between the European Space Agency and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration about modifications to the configuration of the polar platform. We are reconsidering our position and I shall see to it that my hon. Friend's views are passed to my right hon. and learned Friend so that they are properly taken into account before any final decision is made.

I thank my right hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), not for the first time, and not even for the first time this week, raised the question of the Settle to Carlisle railway. Whatever the outcome, it could not have had a better and more persistent supporter than the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is actively considering British Rail's closure case. It is a complex case needing careful consideration and he hopes to make an announcement soon. The recent Jarvis plc report is a helpful contribution to the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take it fully into account.

Local authorities have said that they will be able to help with the cost of repairs to the Ribblehead viaduct, but they will be confirming the position after a meeting in Carlisle on 12 April. The Government cannot guarantee that any particular local authority contribution will be enough to save the line. There has been some private sector interest, but no one has offered to buy the line. I take on board the hon. Gentleman's points, and I will see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sees them before he makes his decision.

My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) raised what was both an important constituency interest and an important national interest—Manchester airport. This is a major airport and it continues to have what many people would consider to be a phenomenal growth— by about 15 per cent. in 1987 over 1986, with 8·5 million passengers a year. Since 1986, 30 new scheduled services have used the airport and now it is possible to travel to over 70 destinations from Manchester. The Government were disappointed that agreement was not reached at the talks with the United States delegation on 17 to 18 March to discuss increased access for United States airlines to Manchester. The contacts are being maintained and it is hoped that an agreement will eventually be achieved. My hon. Friend's strong words will encourage everybody to recognise that the travelling public, particularly those engaged in commerce and business, should be considered, and we should not take a narrow and restricted view of the matter.

The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) raised matters to do with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I listened carefully to him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attaches great importance to the maintenance of a housing programme in Northern Ireland, but it must compete with other priority programmes for resources within the overall Northern Ireland public expenditure programme. I noted his careful analysis of the problem in his constituency and I shall see to it that the Secretary of State understands and studies the points he made.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) raised a series of questions about his part of the world, and I would not disagree with his view that they are important, although I might slightly disagree with the way in which he managed to exclude Essex from the east coast of Britain. Coastal protection there is an important issue to my constituents, and I have received a number of representations trying to improve it. I tread carefully here because my wife was born in Norfolk and many members of my family live in Suffolk.

The key to many of the transport problems that my hon. Friend raised about East Anglia is the M11-A11-A47 route to Great Yarmouth. Fifteen schemes from the M11 are currently planned or have been recently completed, to a value of £130 million. They will result in three-quarters of the route being dual carriageway by the early 1990s. At the London end, we have proposals for the Hackney—M11 link road, a £125 million scheme that will enable quicker access to the centre. I am sure that my hon. Friend will keep pressing us, but we are making good progress with some of the problems he raised.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised many questions about the Health Service, and in the few minutes that I have he would not expect a full answer to them all. However, I refer him to Wednesday's announcement by the Minister for Health, which was another sign of the Government's concern to improve services in the inner cities. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced on 24 February that, provided the various review bodies' reports were received during the first part of April, the Government would hope to announce the decision on nurses' pay by the end of that month. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot anticipate the Government's decision on the reports, but I repeat our pledge that we shall implement them unless there are clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) raised a number of important.issues. All journalists should read what he said about the difficult situation in Northern Ireland. Everyone, including the media, must do all that they can to assist the RUC to bring to justice those responsible for the crimes of last week.

I have taken on board my hon. Friend's points about the EEC's structure plan, which I shall refer to the Secretary of State. I shall also refer to him the point my hon. Friend made about local authorities such as his, which are behaving perfectly properly but getting caught up in the necessary restrictions that the Government have had to bring in on creative accounting. I am sure that the Government do not intend to stop activities of councils such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the other day about this matter.

I do not always agree with everything that the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) says in the House, and I did not agree with everything he said today but I agreed with much of it. He rightly raised matters that are of concern to every decent person in the world and which relate to some of the terrible things happening in the middle east. I share his concern about the use of chemical weapons. Over a long period the British Government have sought to eliminate their use.

The Government remain deeply concerned about the continuation of the Iran-lraq conflict and the tense situation in the Gulf. We are particularly dismayed at the loss of life of so many innocent civilians as a result of the "war of the cities". We have played a leading role in the United Nations and are currently working closely with other Security Council permanent members on an arms embargo to enforce compliance, should this be necessary.

As I said to the hon. Gentleman yesterday, I have a deal of sympathy for the early-day motion that he drew to my attention about the plight of Kurdish people in Iraq. I deplore the denial of human rights wherever it occurs arid the difficulties faced by the International Red Cross in trying to get there to give humanitarian assistance to the people who are suffering.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) raised a matter that started as a constituency problem, but he was right to bring it to the attention of the House. It is about the provision of sheltered housing for the elderly. The Government welcome the discussions that are taking place about establishing a trade association and a code of practice to help elderly people who are contemplating taking on properties in sheltered housing schemes. We support such moves and think that success will best be achieved by the self imposition of a code of practice by the industry and the dissemination of information rather than by the use of legislation. By raising the matter my hon. Friend has done the House a service. The hon. Member for—

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8770/87 on the establishment of a Court of First Instance; endorses the view that the setting up of this Court is necessary to relieve the Court of Justice of some of its workload; and supports the Government's intention to work for the early adoption and implementation of the proposal.

The motion deals with the setting up of a new court for the European Communities. In order to set this proposal in its context, it is helpful to look at the work so far of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. I shall take a few moments for a historical look at that before turning to the details of the proposal. I shall refer generally to the court's work under the treaty of Rome, which established the European Economic Community, not forgetting that the court has separate jurisdictions under the Coal and Steel treaty and under Euratom.

The European Communities are based on law, which is established by a treaty, which is not simply an agreement among sovereign states, but which has created for those who live and work in its 12 member nations a new legal framework. That is the Law of the Communities, and it is superimposed upon, overlaps, and to some extent remoulds, the law of the individual member states. The authors of the treaties rightly saw that one cannot create a new supra-national legal order without providing a means whereby those new laws are to be interpreted and enforced. It was to this end that a wholly new court was created, the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

That court has three principal areas of jurisdiction and they are very important. First, at the instance of the Commission, or of a member state, the court may declare that a member state has failed to fulfil its obligations under the treaty of Rome. Secondly, it may review the Acts of the Community institutions— the Council, the Commission and the Parliament—and it may declare them void. In other words, the court has power of what we would in Britain term judicial review over the actions not only of member states, but of the institutions of the Community itself.

The court has a third role, and this is the interpretation of Community law at the request of the national courts where a question of Community law arises in the course of domestic litigation. That, one might say, is the link between the private litigant and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

I should mention two other areas of jurisdiction that come into the discussion of the jurisdiction proposed for the new court. The Court of Justice has to deal—this has proved time-consuming — with disputes between officials of the Communities and their employers—the so-called staff cases. It also deals with cases where the Community itself is sued in damages for non-contractual liability. A good example is the case of Mr. Stanley Adams, which is a well-known illustration of that type of case.

In fulfilling its obligations under the treaties the Court of Justice has been at the centre of the development of Community law. It might be said that it has acted as the flywheel in the Community engine, maintaining the development of the Communities, despite an occasional misfiring in the political mechanism. It has developed a number of fundamental principles, not expressly found in the treaties, providing for or safeguarding the rights of individuals and corporations. Among these principles, and perhaps the most important, is the concept of direct effect—that is the idea or concept that certain provisions of Community law create rights on which individuals can reply and which they can enforce in their national courts, even in the absence of implementing measures apparently required to be taken by member states.

Also well known are the principle of proportionality — that is, the means to achieve a particular objective should be proportional, they should be no more than is necessary to obtain that end — and the principle of legitimate expectation—a concept that now finds a place in our own domestic law of judicial review.

The court's work has been fundamental to the functioning of the Community. It may be asked, "Why is it necessary now to transfer part of the court's own jurisdiction to another court?" The answer lies partly in the increasing role played by Community law in the affairs of everybody in the Communities, and partly in the fact that the Community itself has been enlarged to double the size of its original membership. The result has, of course, been increasing difficulty for the court, as presently constituted, to cope with its enlarged work load. In 1970, for example, the number of cases of all kinds that were brought to the court was only 79. In 1985 that had risen to an absolute peak of 433, although the rise may more representatively be seen by the figures for 1986 and 1987, which were 329 and 395 repectively.

The court has done its best by adapting its procedures to deal with that increasing work load. In 1970, 64 judgments were delivered. Fifteen years later that number had increased to no fewer than 211 judgments. However, it is clear that the court has been falling behind and that has shown up in delays between the commencement of a case and the time of judgment.

In article 177 cases, those where questions are referred by national courts, that delay is now averaging 15 months, while in other kinds of cases the average is 21 months. In this, as in so many other legal areas, it can properly be said, "Justice delayed is justice denied."

I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for volunteering those periods. Is he saying that when a case is thus referred under article 177 the British domestic court—whatever level is may be—adjourns the case for a period either side of the average that he mentioned—some, of course, will be longer than that—and reconvenes the case to give judgment only after the receipt of the opinion, which may be well over 24 months later?

Yes, indeed. That highlights the problem and the danger of justice delayed being justice denied for those in our domestic courts, whose issues raise questions upon which the treaty and the law of the Community bear. This increasingly difficult position has been evident for several years and everyone agrees, as the hon. Gentleman's intervention makes clear, that it is unacceptable. A number of ideas have been floated to resolve the problem, but none came to fruition until, during the negotiations leading to the Single European Act, the Court of Justice proposed the creation of a court to be attached to it and to act as a Court of First Instance. This was agreed and the provisions were incorporated into the Community treaties by the Single European Act.

The relevant provision from the EEC treaty is in article 168A, and reads:

"At the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament, the Council may, acting unanimously, attach to the Court of Justice a Court with jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance, subject to a right of appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law only and in accordance with the conditions laid down by the Statute, certain classes of action or proceeding brought by natural or legal persons. That Court shall not be competent to hear and determine actions brought by Member States or by Community Institutions or questions referred for preliminary ruling under Article 177."

The remaining paragraphs provide for amendment of the statute of the Court of Justice, the appointment of members of the new court, and establishment of rules of procedure for the new court.

Thus, the Single European Act does not itself set up a Court of First Instance, but confers power on the Council to do so. Furthermore, it confines the potential jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance to proceedings brought by natural or legal persons, thus excluding from it actions brought by member states or Community institutions and references from national courts under article 177. Subject to these limitations, however, it is left to the Council to determine the precise scope of the Court of First Instance's jurisdiction

To complete the history, hon. Members may recall that the ratification of the Single European Act was delayed by court proceedings in the Republic of Ireland. Nevertheless, pending ratification, the court presented an informal draft proposal for consideration by the Council. It was this informal proposal that was considered by the European. Communities Committee in another place, but the Committee was also able to take account of the formal proposal presented to the Council in October.

May I remind the House briefly of the conclusions reached by that Committee:

"The establishment of a Court of First Instance broadly on the lines proposed by the Court of Justice could provide a major step to solving the endemic problems experienced by that Court: inadequate time and judge power for fact finding processes and an excessive workload. Given a judiciary of high calibre and flexible procedures, the new Court should improve the administration of justice and take a considerable load off the Court of Justice."

So we now have a formal proposal for the establishment of the Court of First Instance. Subject to some relatively minor points both of substance and of drafting, the Government welcome the proposal.

In considering the proposal it is important to appreciate that no new jurisdiction is being proposed. The treaties do not permit this. What article 168A does enable is the transfer of a part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to the new court, but with the provision for appeals to the Court of Justice on points of law. Secondly, there is no creation of a new institution. There will be a new court, but, as article 168A makes clear, that new court is attached to the existing Court of Justice. Essentially the proposal is to provide a redistribution of the existing jurisdiction and work load of the Court of Justice with a view to speeding up justice.

The proposal itself is in the form of a draft Council decision including amendments to the statute of the Court of Justice, and additional rules of procedure for the hearing of appeals from the Court of First Instance. Article 2 of the draft decision deals with the composition of the new court and provides for seven judges. While this has its attractions from the point of view of economy, it is not likely to be acceptable. The Government recognise the importance of there being represented in the court the juridicial traditions of all the member states and have therefore suggested — in line with the report made in another place — that the court should consist of 12 members.

There is no provision in the draft for advocates general. The Government believe that the provision of advocates general would generally be unnecessary and would also increase the time for the court to deal with cases. However, it is possible that there might be some cases where the services of an advocate general would be desirable: for instance, in a long and difficult competition case an advocate general could assist the court considerably in teasing out the strands for the benefit of the court. So it may be appropriate for advocates general to be appointed from among the judges of the Court of First Instance on an ad hoc basis.

The Court of Justice has proposed that the new court should always sit in chambers and that each chamber should be composed of three judges. The Government agree that there seems no real purpose in providing for the court to sit in plenary session, but there is a case for allowing flexibility in composition so that, when appropriate, the court could decide to select a chamber larger than three. In particular we consider that competition cases should normally be heard by chambers of five judges.

The jurisdiction of the new court is set out in article 3 of the draft decision. It is to deal with competition, antidumping and steel matters and also with certain non-contractual liability claims and with staff cases. It is clearly right to remove from the Court of Justice the burden of staff cases. The other categories are suitable for transfer, in particular, because they often call for detailed and time-consuming investigation of questions of fact which, because of the pressures of other business, the Court of Justice has not always been able to handle satisfactorily. On points of law there will be a right to go the Court of Justice on appeal. As I have mentioned, cases brought by member states or the Community institutions — as opposed to private individuals or corporations — and cases in which questions are referred by national courts will continue to be dealt with by the Court of Justice alone.

The jurisdiction proposed could be wider than that now proposed, with the aim of relieving the European Court of Justice of part of its case load to the maximum extent possible in one step, though it must be borne in mind that the extent of the jurisdiction cannot exceed the limits set down in article 168A of the treaty. But what is proposed is, in the Government's view, about right as a first, and substantial, step. We would expect the Court of Justice to keep this matter under review and, if experience shows that other classes of case could with advantage be heard at first instance, to bring forward a further proposal to amend the scope of the new court's jurisdiction.

If the objective of relieving the work load of the Court of Justice is to be achieved, the judgments of the Court of First Instance need to be of a high quality and so command respect. This will help to minimise the number of appeals on points of law from that court to the Court of Justice and will also facilitate the handling of the appeals that are made. It is therefore essential that the members of the new court should be of the highest calibre. The Government consider that it may be appropriate to provide for a Council minutes statement pointing out that all member states have agreed on the importance of this point. We have made a proposal to this effect in the Council working group, which is it.

The remainder of the proposal consists of additions to the statute of the Court of Justice and its rules of procedure providing for the circumstances in which an appeal lies and how it is to be made. The Government are pleased to note that article 48(3) of the statute provides for a right of appeal for member states and the Community institutions whether or not they took part in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. This is important, as it represents a change from the court's informal draft proposal. The Government consider this matter to be important, since there could be a decision of the Court of First Instance with which the parties to the case itself were content but which raised a point of Community law of wider application which a member state would see the need to contest.

The proposal does not deal with the rules of procedure of the Court of First Instance. Under article 168A of the treaty, these rules will be established by the new court when it comes into existence. However, the rules require the agreement of the Court of Justice and also the unanimous approval of the Council. The House will therefore have a full opportunity to scrutinise the proposals for those rules.

I shall not detain the House on drafting points, except to mention two matters where the present draft in English hides a possible point of substance and which, in any event, only serves to confuse. The first point relates to article 113 of the additions to the rules of procedure, which concerns the order that a party may seek on appeal to the Court of Justice. This speaks of "conclusions" and "grounds" which a party must "maintain" in his appeal. What is apparently intended to be achieved by these provisions is that the appeal should involve the same subject matter and cause of action as did the hearing before the Court of First Instance. In other words, an appellant should not seek to mount an entirely different case on appeal. That must be right and the Government are seeking to refine the English draft more accurately to reflect that idea.

The second point arises out of article 120 of the additions to the rules of procedure of the Court of Justice and relates to oral hearings. The opportunity for the parties to urge and reinforce their case by oral argument is of great importance in the United Kingdom's systems of law. The court modified its informal proposal to the extent that the court now proposes that an oral procedure will be dispensed with only where the parties have, had a full opportunity to state their points of view in the written procedure. This must be right.

We have, I am glad to say, persuaded the court to accept a further amendment to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to make representations as to whether they would like an oral hearing before the court decides whether to hold one. The parties should by the close of pleadings at the appeal stage have had ample opportunity to set out their submissions and meet the submissions of the other parties, but they should nevertheless be able to seek a hearing when appropriate. We believe that the Court of Justice now accepts this and that an appropriate provision will be added to the proposal.

Does my hon. and learned Friend regard that as something new? He said that the individuals concerned may apply for the right to an oral hearing. Does he regard that as entirely satisfactory?

I understand my hon. Friend's point. We regard it as the best compromise that we could achieve. I have already emphasised the importance of the oral tradition in English proceedings. Initially, the proposals to allow an oral hearing were more restrictive. We have made some progress and it will be possible for the parties to urge forcefully on the court the desirability of an oral hearing before the court decides to dispense with one. Although that does not provide an absolute right to an oral hearing, it is a significant improvement.

There are many other rather more technical points, and if any hon. Member wishes to raise any particular concern on the technical aspects, I would be very grateful if he or she would write to me, but I hope that I have made clear the general thrust of the proposal.

I have not yet heard a definition of who is a natural and legal person. I am sure that anyone who appeared before the court would have a great shock if he was told that he was unnatural and illegal. Will my hon. and learned Friend tell us to whom that definition applies?

My hon. Friend will he comforted to know that he is a natural and legal person and so, as it happens, is a corporation. I hope that that will assist him for the time being.

To sum up, the Government welcome this proposal. We believe that it will improve the speed and quality of the administration of justice in the Community. We are participating actively in the Council working group with a view to resolving the remaining drafting difficulties, and we are doing all that we can to ensure that the Court of First Instance is established at the earliest opportunity. I commend the motion to the House.

I had expected to hear a contribution from this side of the House, but 1 am pleased to follow the Solicitor-General, who introduced the motion. Although it is concerned with the extension of the European Court of Justice to a Court of First Instance, it gives us an opportunity to review the work of the court from which it springs and the need for it.

Those matters have been outlined by the Solicitor-General. In his initial remarks, he emphasised the superimposition on the institutions and courts of this country of the decisions of the European Court of Justice. We have had a relatively dramatic example of that recently in respect of spectacles, and we expect a fairly controversial judgment in the next few months.

The Select Committee on European Legislation summarised the proposals for an extension to a Court of First Instance in its report, HC43-VIII. As the Solicitor-General said, the other place did a more extensive investigation. Its report — House of Lords 20, in the Session 1987–88—goes into even greater detail, including witnesses' comments and more history of the court. There is the Government's explanatory memorandum signed on 23 November 1988 by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. EEC document 8770/87 is in the form of a draft decision, and I take it that it is that base document in respect of which the working party to which the Solicitor-General referred is dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

This development springs from the Single European Act, which will become better known than when it was debated two years ago under one of the most stringent guillotines ever seen in the House — and that on a constitutional matter. The contents page of the Single European Act, as published in Cmnd. 9758, are scrutinised in vain for any reference to the establishment of the Court of First Instance. The provisions are interlarded into Single European Act articles 4, 11 and 26, which write subsidiary articles into the main treaty of Rome arid expand on the three communities to which the Solicitor-General referred, inserting the relevant paragraphs relating to the powers of the Court of First Instance.

The treaty of Rome, as originally adhered to by Britain, is printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, but it has not yet managed to print the treaty as amended by the Single European Act. A few weeks ago, I had a letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office telling me that that is indeed so. I regard the delay as unfortunate, unnecessary and semi-constitutional. The Single European Act came into effect last summer after a delay, and I should not have thought that it was beyond the wit of man for the presses to have been set up some time ago and for the consolidated law, which applies as a written constitution to the United Kingdom, to have been printed.

A volume has been produced in Europe, but I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House would not regard that as a satisfactory solution to an increasingly important matter.

What I have said so far is fully compatible with my being Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, but anything that I say henceforth will not be in that capacity but by way of personal comment. The establishment of the Court of First Instance, though it is only an extension of the existing court, marks an extension of the constitutional role of the EEC in the life of our country and the degree to which its findings and recourse to it will be important for corporations and other courts. It will not perhaps be so important for individuals.

In response to an intervention of mine a few moments ago, the Solicitor-General confirmed the degree of delay. In an answer given to me yesterday, which can be found in column 181 of the Official Report for 24 March, the Foreign Office listed no fewer than 23 occasions on which the Commission has taken the United Kingdom Government to court. In column 177, the Attorney-General said that since accession to the treaty of Rome the House of Lords has had to seek an opinion from the European Court of Justice on six occasions, the Court of Appeal on six and other courts of the land on no fewer than 64.

Although the Court of First Instance may not be fully involved—as we have heard from the Solicitor-General, it is not involved in article 177 consultation—that at least shows the importance of the institution. The court does not only give verdicts when we have been party, or there has been an appeal or at least a reference from our own courts. There is, I understand, a growing body of case law in which different firms or organisations — or, indeed, different states—are involved in the European Court of Justice, and the findings of that court are applicable to us through case law, just as case law in our own courts has been applicable to jurisdiction subsequently. The European Court of Justice is important for that reason alone.

I do not know whether any organisation other than the commercial publishers—I shall not name them; they are very well known—is producing volumes of case law from the European Court of Justice. No doubt the Court of First Instance will be producing some of its own, and the House should pay some attention to the increasing documentation that will result.

Another consequence of the European Court's jurisdiction is the importance of determining cases on article base. We are becoming used to operating within a written constitution—or perhaps we are not becoming used to it, as the case may be. If we are not becoming used to it, we must do so pretty quickly, because it runs counter to most of our instincts and assumptions in Parliament, and those of Ministers in Whitehall.

A current instance of great importance relating to the Court of Justice lies in the interpretation of the treaties, and the question of which articles should be taken into account as the basis of law. That is particularly important in regard to articles 100 and 100A, which are important for the harmonisation to which we move as we approach 1992. Article 100, as it stands and as it was, requires unanimity for matters of harmonisation; article 100A, as introduced by the Single European Act, requires only majority voting. It may be asked why, as virtually everyone agreed with that, it cannot be speeded up. The point at issue is whether a particular matter should be regarded as a matter of harmonisation according to the aims of 1992—in which case jurisdiction should be based on article 100A—or whether it is a matter outside harmonisation for the purposes of achieving a common market, and should be based on some other article of the treaty, perhaps agricultural or industrial, or indeed, on article 100.

There is, of course, a big difference. If the court determines that the article used should be 100A, then the House, the nation and indeed the courts will be subject to a majority vote; whereas if it is subject to article 100 or article 99 — which, as the Prime Minister has often reminded us, deals with matters of taxation — it is a matter of unanimity. Perhaps those matters will not arise in the Court of First Instance. I think that they probably will not. However, it is important when considering the powers and responsibilities of the European Court of Justice that those matters are made clear.

There may be problems over a topical subject such as summer time and its dates and hours. Some people might argue that jurisdiction on that matter should be based on article 100A. In that case, a majority view must prevail in the Council of Ministers to which this nation, House and people will be subject. On the other hand, it might be contended, no doubt by the Government, that other articles are more appropriate because the case involves matters of social and economic affairs as well as harmonisation. In that case, the determination would be consequential upon unanimity and the agreement of the Government, possibly with debates and decisions in this House. If in due course the European Court of Justice has to make an adjudication not on the merits of the matter, but on the basis of the article on which a decision is made, the powers of the House and the Government may or may not be circumscribed.

Another matter in relation to the European Court of Justice about which the House should be aware is the appropriate juncture at which to bring it to the attention of the House. I want to consider the responsibility of the court to make judgments in accordance with the treaties. That is a sine qua non of the situation. People may not be aware of the fact that, unlike our statutes, where a court must take account only of the sections of the relevant Act, the European Court of Justice takes into account the context in which treaties have been made. It therefore takes into account when interpreting argument the preamble of the treaties concerned.

We are aware that the European Communities are essentially a centralist organisation. I want to put on record some of the criteria that the European Court of Justice would need to take into account when reaching a decision. There are a number of preambles to the treaties, not least that to the Treaty of Rome. The most recent preamble, the preamble to the Single European Act, contains two paragraphs which should be placed in the Official Report. First:

"Convinced that the European idea, the results achieved in the fields of economic integration and political cooperation, and the need for new developments correspond to the wishes of the democratic peoples of Europe, for whom the European Parliament, elected by universal suffrage. is an indispensable means of expression."

In other words, the expression of view by the European Parliament should be taken into account in the interpretation of treaties.

I should explain that I am not quoting from the whole of the preamble, but simply from the final two paragraphs. The second paragraph states:

"Determined to improve the economic and social situation by extending common policies and pursuing new objectives, and to ensure a smoother functioning of the Communities by enabling the Institutions to exercise their powers under conditions most in keeping with the Community interests. Whereas at their Conference in Paris from 19 to 21 October 1972 the Heads of State or of Government approved the objective of the progressive realisation of Economic and Monitary Union."

That is a second area in which the criteria of judgment of the European Court of Justice at any level will have to refer and on which it will ultimately have to depend.

I should also emphasise a point which I believe was mentioned by the Solicitor-General with regard to the nature of the European Court of Justice. The court is not adversarial. It is not in general a place where cross-questioning takes place or where witnesses appear. As I have understood and observed it, it is a court in which argument is made on points of law by depositions of papers, usually preliminary to any oral hearing, and that is normal in continental practice. I make no complaint about it in terms of the task that the European Court of Justice has to fulfil in respect of its constitutional interpretation of treaties.

Whereas dealing with technical opinion and the witnessing of experts is common in our courts, I surmise that that will not apply to the Court of First Instance. It will mirror decisions, with simplifications and without the opinion of, for example, the Advocate-General. It will, I hope, speed up the process. If the range of cases with which the new court deals involve great technical detail and witnesses, I am not convinced that the paper method, used by the existing European Court of Justice, will necessarily be adequate to do what the Solicitor-General said was its aim—to see that justice is done, swiftly and adequately.

The Lords report touches on this matter to some extent, but I am not convinced that the new court will do its task to the extent that we would wish. The rules will be drawn up by the European Court of Justice. The treaties give the European Court of Justice the power to originate proposals for its extension. That was agreed—wisely or unwisely—some time ago by the House. I should have no objection to those who run the existing court saying to the Council or the Commission, "We suggest that we expand our activities in this, that or the other way." That is consultation and would be acceptable. To require the existing Court of Justice to provide the draft of the decision—in other words, to write the Bill for its own future expansion — and to give the framework for its activity, is outwith, to use an old-fashioned but well-known phrase, the experience, tradition and expectations of our constitutional development.

This is instanced by the fact that consultative document 8770/87 is

"from: Mr. A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities."

It is almost like a new legal Bill coming before the House, having been drafted and presented by the Lord Chief Justice. We must be aware of that aspect and of the general manner in which the Court of Justice operates. There must be observation of how the court works.

I have referred to the probable increase in the scope of the court's work load. I concede that the articles relating to the Court of First Instance do not expand the court's jurisdiction, but the Single European Act certainly increases the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, because it significantly extends the European Community's scope and powers into matters concerning the environment, economic and social cohesion and defence procurement, which involves Foreign and Commonwealth Office co-operation, although I think that that is less likely to feature in a legal case.

Therefore, by automatic escalation, the scope of the European Court of Justice, not just the Court of First Instance, must also expand. That is where matters of detail, witnessing and argument may cause some difficulties. In future people may look back with some astonishment to the fact that the matter was taken on a quiet Friday, and that the original intention of the Government was that it should be discussed in Committee.

The amount of legislation which is creeping up the creeks and estuaries of Britain from across the water is growing daily. The areas of our social, domestic and economic life into which that legislation is penetrating are increasing. It is clear that not only will the scope and activity of the European Court of Justice increase and loom larger in our national life, but by definition so will the activities of the court that we are discussing today.

The only obvious thing about these proceedings is that very few hon. Members wish to talk about this issue. I have only a few brief questions for the Minister after his courteous and helpful speech.

Perhaps the Table will give some consideration to the formula of the papers which are presented for debate and perhaps at some later stage will decide whether any rules have been breached. I draw attention to the explanatory note to article 120 which has been referred to by the Minister. It includes some very long foreign words which do not mean a great deal to me. I have never experienced this before in the House, and I wonder whether it is strictly in order or whether it is a precedent for long foreign words which have no meaning to the great majority of people who do not have a widespread knowledge of foreign words to appear in official papers presented to the House for discussion and which will affect almost all our constituents. I do not expect more than general guidance, but I hope that the Table will consider whether is in order that long foreign words which the majority of people simply do not understand should be inserted in papers which are directly relevant to our discussions.

The Minister is always extremely courteous and he is an extremely good Solicitor-General. I should like him to comment briefly on a number of questions. He has expressed hope, expectation and optimism about the operation of the new court. He has explained that the European Court of Justice it getting busier. I am well aware from my research that, for example, the number of cases brought before the European Court of Justice has risen from 79 in 1970 to 329 in 1986. The number of cases brought each year has more than doubled from 200 in 1979 to more than 400 in 1985. We are also aware of the increase in expenditure. About £3 million has been added to the annual budget of the court by the creation of this new mini-court.

First, is the Minister aware, is he worried and is he concerned about the fact that Ministers, including himself, regularly come before the House to give optimistic and hopeful indications about future policy in relation to the Common Market, and in almost every case those expectations and hopes sadly are not accurate. For example, we were told by the Government and by the Civil Service that Fontainebleau would reduce the United Kingdom's net contribution. So far we have had three revisions of that figure, yet this year, despite all the hopeful conclusions, our net contribution is the highest ever and is still rising.

In previous debates, hopeful statements were made about Britain's trade with the EEC, and documents were presented for consideration by the House which we were told would improve the position. But our trade with the EEC in manufactures is the worst in history, with a net deficit of more than £11,000 million — something that could have an effect on the Government's economic policies.

Recently the Prime Minister came before the House with the results of a European Community discussion which she said would have a marked effect on agricultural spending, yet in the past few weeks agricultural spending has rocketed, exports from the EEC are cheaper than ever and we are flooding the Soviet Union with butter at 6p a pound and beef at 11p a pound. I am not being critical, especially of this most courteous and helpful Solicitor-General, who has an extremely good reputation in Government, but I suggest that in presenting this document Ministers should be suspicious about the optimistic noises that are made about the limited effects of the measure.

The Solicitor-General said, and gave me a kindly look in so doing, that the court will not create a new jurisdiction. On reflection, does he not consider that by offering new facilities for making decisions on complex matters he is extending the operation and jurisdiction of the institution of the EEC? He will be aware that, apart from the many cases that are presented to the court, even during the past few days many problems affecting the details of Government policy have been caused because of possible applications to the court. I mention only a few.

The other day, the unfortunate Secretary of State for Enterprise, as I think he is now called, was summoned by the Commission and told that his exciting new deal to merge the Rover company with British Aerospace was causing a problem. We were told that it had to be sorted out by next month, but he was hastily summoned over by the Commission and told that, sadly, this could not happen because the European Community wanted to examine it first to see whether the figures added up and were acceptable, and that it would take six months to do so. I understand that the Government took legal advice on what would happen if they went to the court, and were told that they did not have a hope. So that vital and urgent decision will have to be delayed because of a possible application to the European Court.

Some of my hon. Friends are careful with their purchasing and wish to ensure that they buy goods from particular countries. They are worried about origin marking, which the Government said was vital to protect the consumer. But recently we had to pass a law to ensure that origin marking, as we know it, will disappear—not because the Government want it, but because the Government's solicitors were told that if they resisted that proposal from the Common Market we could be taken to court and would lose the action. There has been a flood of transfer of sovereignty, not because of decisions of the European Court but because of potential decisions on applications that are undermining the freedom previously enjoyed by the House.

My third question to the Minister is this: will the new court deal with the policies of Governments as opposed to individuals or organisations? Many of us are becoming worried by the extent to which new powers are emerging that will affect Government policy. The other day the court told us that we shall have to charge VAT on spectacles and hearing aids whether we want to or not. We cannot discuss that in this debate. Very soon the European Court will tell the Government whether they will be obliged to levy VAT on electricity and gas for industry and on new commercial and industrial building. That could involve and extra £350 million in building costs.

My fourth question is about costs. I am well aware that industry and commerce, particularly small firms, are often worried about going to court because of the costs involved. We have a fair idea of what is involved with British courts. Several people, particularly in Southend, have expressed to me a concern about costs in the event of an application to the Court of Justice or to the new court. We have just been told that we must charge VAT on spectacles. Our application against that was turned down, and we have to pay costs. Could my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General give us some idea of the costs in European Community courts, perhaps by telling us what the costs in that case were?

Finally, in drafting this new court extension, did the Government give any thought to implementation? Quite a few of us are worried that, while the United Kingdom consistently agrees to decisions of courts and obeys them because of our traditional respect for the courts, in other countries decisions are not being applied because the domestic Governments concerned have to apply the law. Are the Government satisfied that other member states are applying the decisions of the Court of Justice as fairly and equitably as we are? Will the creation of this new sub-court include an additional clause which could have the effect of ensuring that these clauses are applied honestly and fairly in every respect?

Quite a few of us are beginning to get worried that in these various measures we are seeing part of a pattern of agreements which are basically taking away powers which have been traditionally enjoyed by this country. We know, for example, that my right hon. Friend the excellent Home Secretary has just brought in proposals to reinforce the gun laws and we now find that under article 100A the EEC is giving careful consideration to a proposal that would ensure that any person from a European country could walk up and down Oxford street with a Kalashnikov rifle as long as he had a certificate from his own country—in other words, a mutual recognition of firearms licences.

We also know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is concerned about the independent television companies. Our traditional patterns could be overturned or undermined by a majority decision in the EEC. Summer time will no longer be our decision but that of others. Even this morning, there was an alarming report in The Daily Telegraph that these wonderful new structural funds of over £10,000 million will benefit only one part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland. That decision in not taken by the people or by democratic Governments—it is purely a decision by the EEC Commission.

I suggest that this court is not such a positive move and might not be as easy for Britain as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has suggested. I hope that he will at least give us the clear assurance that in this matter, as in all others, he will approach European documents, whether written in English or any other strange language, with caution and reserve and read them carefully.

The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked the Solicitor-General a question, which the hon. and learned Gentleman will no doubt answer, about whether individual Governments are likely to have actions brought against them in the Court of First Instance. My understanding is that only natural and legal persons—that is to say human individuals and corporations—will be subject to proceedings before the court, although, once the Court of First Instance has come to a decision, it would be open to the Government or the Commission to intervene by way of appeal to the European Court of Justice.

I do not entirely share the hon. Member's emphasis on Community matters. His views are well known. However, I agree with him that there seems to be a contradiction in that the instrument before the House has as one of its objectives the escalation of hearing cases relating to competition matters. Once the competition directorate comes to a decision it will be possible to appeal in the Court of First Instance against its findings of fact. We are lending our hand to speeding up the operation of competition policy on one area, but there is no similar degree of urgency for dealing with the most anticompetitive part of the European Community—article 86 calls it an abuse of dominant market power—the common agricultural policy. So we are accelerating competition in industrial and commercial matters, but doing little to accelerate a balance of the market in agriculture. As we know, surpluses often damage not only our pockets but the operation of agricultural systems in other parts of the world—particularly South America and west Africa.

As a solicitor who specialised in competition matters, I should declare an interest when a new court that might deal with such matters is established. I endorse and underline what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He asked whether we could have annotated and updated copies of the treaty of Rome, which it is not possible to obtain in the Vote Office. Indeed, I am told it is out of print. An essential part of the British constitution is not available to hon. Members, and the book in the Library on the treaty has not been annotated or updated with the amendments that resulted from the Single European Act. When we debate these matters in the House, we labour under the difficulty of not having the relevant statutes before us. I hope that the Solicitor-General and other authorities will ensure that the articles of the treaty that we are discussing today — 100A and 168A — are available to Members of Parliament. It is unfair to ask us to debate European legislation without having it before us.

The treaty of Rome is part of British law and is directly applicable in some cases, as it is in other member states. It is no longer imposed by European courts or institutions. It has been adopted by the British Parliament and some of the amended articles of the treaty are directly applicable to the United Kingdom. It is important that the Court of Justice should be able to deal quickly with matters of law that are referred to it by national courts. The Solicitor-General said that jutice delayed is justice denied. Admittedly, there are occasions when it is to the advantage of one of the parties to proceedings to have a long delay. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southend, East might say that VAT was a case in point. However, it is wrong that proceedings in domestic courts can be delayed for some years as a result of being referred to the European Court of Justice, which finds itself with so much work that it cannot give a quick decision, and then having to return to a domestic court for a final decision in this country.

Speed and consistency of approach in different countries and in their domestic courts are important. I shall give a couple of examples of what I mean. Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which deals with equal pay, is directly applicable in member states. That was established by the Sabena case, in which an employee of that airline took proceedings in the Belgian courts to show the direct applicability of article 119. The employee won the case for equal pay, and that led to a directive by the Council of Ministers to member states so that they could legislate on the matter and create some certainty. I know it very well because I negotiated it.

Having negotiated the directive on equal pay, which we thought was already implemented by the Equal Pay Act 1970, we then had a challenge which established that our legislation was insufficient because it provided for equal pay for the same work, whereas the treaty provides for equal pay for equal work. That was interpreted as being work of equal value. I think that I am right in saying that the issue eventually came before the European Court of Justice which established that throughout the Community there should be equal pay for work of equal value. As a result, further amending legislation had to be passed by this Parliament.

An issue that began as a domestic one where somebody pleaded article 119 of the treaty of Rome led to the conclusion that it would be wrong if workers in one Community country had rights different from workers in another. Not only would that distort the terms of trade between Community members, but it would be a denial of basic rights granted to workers by the Treaty of Rome. It would be wrong for the Court of Justice to delay for some years adjudicating on that kind of dispute.

I shall give a second example of the direct applicability of the Treaty of Rome. Article 86 deals with the dominant power of a commercial institution, a power that affects trade between member states. That may be of considerable interest to the small business man or the small manufacturer—people who are very much bounden to those who have great commercial power inside the Community. In British law there is no absolute bar to a refusal to supply goods and services or on compulsion to take.

Article 86 of the treaty of Rome may make refusal to supply or compulsion to take illegal if an abuse of dominant power is involved and if it distorts trade between member states. There was an example of this when brewers in the north-east of England tried to compel their publicans in tied houses to take one kind of amusement machine, much to the chagrin of the suppliers of other machines — if I may use the word chagrin in the presence of the hon. Member for Southend, East. A supplier sought an injunction in the British courts to restrain brewers in the north-east of England from compelling their publicans in tied houses to obey their orders. The injunction proceedings were successful, because it was held as a result of the direct applicability of article 86 that a brewer was engaging in conduct that was an abuse of a dominant position. Thus the supplier of the amusement machines had his remedy.

It would be wrong if overseas suppliers of equipment — amusement machines, cars or anything else — were able, because of the United Kingdom interpretation of article 86, to operate with a greater facility in the United Kingdom than United Kingdom suppliers could operate in countries such as France or Italy. That is where the importance of the Court of Justice comes in, because in accordance with the British tradition of developing precedents, it can apply consistency as well as these directly applicable articles. A distinguished Scottish judge presides over the Court of Justice, although that in itself does not commend the proposals to the hon. Member for Southend, East.

I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that it is not unusual for the courts themselves to take the initiative on procedural matters—for instance, rules of conduct—but I agree that when it comes to substantive matters, the initiative might better come from another source.

As the Solicitor-General said, the problem is that the Court of Justice is cluttered with staff cases and to a lesser degree with competition cases that involve much complex elucidation and foundation of facts. I understand that not half the time, but half the cases that come before the Court of Justice involve staff. That makes the European Court of Justice the most expensive, prestigious, multinational and multilingual employment tribunal in the world. It is ludicrous that staff cases should come before a court which is so expensive to operate and has such a big bench.

It seems sensible to establish a Court of First Instance to deal with matters of fact and where, for the time being, those matters will be related to staff, competition, dumping and certain matters involving the coal and steel communities.

I have one reservation about staff cases, which for two reasons, has been intensified by what the Solicitor-General said. I should have thought that the most appropriate way of dealing with staff cases would be to have some kind of staff employment tribunal, rather like our employment tribunals in this country.

First, from my experience of dealing with staff cases, such as unfair dismissal cases, it is often the cross-examination and oral evidence of the parties that is important. We are told by the Solicitor-General that in the proposed court the proceedings may be entirely written. There is a right to apply for an oral hearing, but not a right to have one. In staff and employment cases, the essence of the matter is often to cross-examine and to convince the court or the tribunal of the good faith, or otherwise, of the parties involved. It is extremely difficult to do that when somebody is not under cross-examination or giving viva voce evidence. That seems a good reason—made even greater by what the Solicitor-General said—for having a staff tribunal. However, I do not urge that as a reason for holding up the establishment of a Court of First Instance.

Secondly, and perhaps more important, now that it is proposed that a Court of First Instance will sit in chambers of five judges, rather than three, we are getting back to almost exactly the same problem as we have with the Court of Justice at the moment—

Only for competition cases.

I am corrected, it is only for competition cases, so I withdraw that objection.

It seems sensible to enable the speed of proceedings of the Court of Justice to be made greater by establishing a Court of First Instance to deal with matters that are largely of fact.

I suppose that this is a fairly unremarkable debate on what is, at least on the face of it, an uncontested matter, dealt with in a House that is largely unattended. However, in a way that makes this proposal more remarkable because we have a Community of 12 which, if one talks linguistically, joins Celtic and Greek, Germanic and Romance, Hispanic and Nordic, and people of different nationalities, races and religions in an atmosphere of tolerance and harmony. It is a Community of rivals, and in some cases of former enemies, which in an uncontentious way, is taking a further stride towards the establishment of an international judicial system.

Can anyone imagine that 50 years ago in March 1938, on a deserted Friday afternoon we would simply be taking note of a proposal that applied a judicial process to the behaviour of the Governments of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar and Metaxas, who, I remind the House, was also a dictator, alongside the democracies of Western Europe? Five decades ago, or even less, the proposition would have been impossible, but it now fails to ignite even much concern. It is a remarkable achievement that a fairly uncontentious, relatively minor change in the procedures of the Community will be endorsed. It is as well to reflect that it is a sign that, in part, Europe is now a safer, more democratic and law-abiding place.

With the leave of the House, I shall answer this short but interesting debate. If I may say with some humility, the contributions, albeit limited in number, came from hon. Members — I absolve myself from this—who clearly have a deep knowledge of the European Community and its workings outside what might be provided for the purposes of this debate.

First, I shall respond to the anxieties expressed by all three hon. Members about the availability or non-availability of the treaty of Rome and the relevant treaties in the Vote Office. I have received information that the treaties, as amended, are available from the Office of Official Publications of the European Community and that the volume may be obtained through the Stationery Office. An application through the Vote Office to the Stationery Office for the updated volume can be made. I appreciate that there may not be copies in the Vote Office now, but I hope that that information will offer some comfort to hon. Members who take a great interest in the matter.

I shall take the several points in order. The House will welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It is well known that he is the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and that is no easy task. We have learnt to respect his knowledge of this detailed area in several debates. He rightly emphasised the consitutional role of the European Court of Justice and drew attention, as he has done in recent days, to the delays that have arisen, as highlighted by the answers to his parliamentary questions.

It is important in this debate and in the context of the hon. Gentleman's point that articles 100 and 100A on the effect of harmonisation and the important questions of whether or not a particular change requires unanimity, or is available for the majority voting system, to emphasis that the Court of First Instance is not directly affected. But it is right to say that the establishement of a Court of First Instance will make available more time and judge power within the European Court of Justice to concentrate on the extremely important issues that come before it.

All contributors to the debate have emphasised what certainly is not as widely understood as perhaps it should be, and that is the seminal importance of the European court as the supreme court of Europe and its ability to rule on these supra-national matters which affect every country in the Community.

The hon. Gentleman went on to draw attention to the fact that the Single European Act has a premable and to draw upon his knowledge of the development of European law as developed by the Court of Justice. He pointed out that the principles applied will mean that it will study the preamble carefully in deciding questions in future. I am sure that he is right to make that point.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the work of the court will loom larger over the years, so he is right to welcome the Court of First Instance as making available to the appellate court—the European court—more time and opportunity to devote its attention to these matters.

I am not sure that "welcome" is the right word. I omitted by error to include in my speech an important point. If individuals are involved in the Court of First Instance, what will be the effect on the legal aid system of taking cases to or being a respondent in, the Court of First Instance? It may be that this has not yet been worked out, and although it is not part of the document that we are considering, I think that it should be given quick and close attention if it has not been considered.

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter to which I freely admit, at this moment I have not given my mind. It may be that I can give him some guidance before the termination of the debate, but if I cannot I shall write to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has a knowledge of these matters that is unsurpassed by anyone on the Conservative Benches. I thank him for his kind remarks, but whether my ability to answer his questions will justify those remarks remains to be seen. I well understand his chagrin—

My what?

I knew that I would raise a smile from my hon. Friend by using that word. It has already been used in the debate, although with a better pronounciation—I believe that it is an English word—and it describes how my hon. Friend felt about finding the word "Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde" — I cannot do it justice — in the explanatory note to article 120. I am happy to say that the explanatory note precedes that word with its meaning—it is German for "leave to appeal". I hope that that will mollify my hon. Friend in his proper desire that we use language that is at least intelligible to a British audience when we speak in this House.

I have been rapidly assisted on the subject of legal aid, which was raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South. It has been brought to my notice that legal aid before the Court of First Instance will become a matter for the rules of procedure of that court — it is master of its own procedure. It is expected that legal aid will become available in the same way as it is already available for those who have to go before the European Court of Justice. I hope that that will be a comfort to us all. If there is any modification in that position I shall inform the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for raising that matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East took the opportunity to mention matters of grave concern to himself and to other hon. Members the trade deficits; the effect of Fontainebleau; agricultural spending; and the effect of the Community on mergers policy. Although those matters do not arise directly in this debate, and while I hesitate to apply the word "welcome", I believe that my hon. Friend will recognise the advantages that obtain as a result of the European Court of Justice, which has such a powerful, overall constitutional position in such matters, having its time more freely available for careful consideration of them. Its time will not be taken up with matters that can properly be directed to the Court of First Instance.

One may or may not like European developments, but, whatever one's approach, they are of huge importance to everyone in this country and to all member nations of the European Community. Therefore, it must be a matter of welcome that the court that has played such a developmental role in the concept of the Community should have adequate time and judge power to give fundamental matters the most careful attention.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East I should emphasise that matters of Government policy, as opposed to matters for individuals and corporations, are not for the Court of First Instance. Should a case raised by an individual come before the court and give rise to a judgment that affects the Government, the Government have the right to take the matter on appeal to the European Court of Justice.

The precise figure of VAT on spectacles is not immediately available to my officials, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and let him know what it is.

My hon. Friend concluded by referring to the implementation by other countries of their obligations under the Treaty of Rome and the other two treaties. Although I do not wish to go overboard on optimism, on a number of occasions this country has exercised its right as a member state to bring matters before the Court of Justice and, therefore, cause our fellow members to implement their obligations under the treaty. The fact that the court is freed of more minor cases will make it easier to consider those matters quickly. In some of the cases that my hon. Friend has in mind, speed will be of considerable help to people and businesses in this country.

I wish to turn now to the contribution of the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser). As I said, copies of the updated treaty are available, albeit from the Stationery Office. The hon. Gentleman again emphasised his deep personal knowledge of a number of matters that have come before the European Court of Justice, particularly in cases in which the treaty has a direct effect upon the rights of individuals. He emphasised the importance of justice not being unduly delayed, particularly in those matters concerning individuals. I agree with him about that. I should like to join him in paying tribute to Lord Mackenzie Stuart, the president of the European Court, in whose name these proposals stand.

The issue of staff cases has been of real concern over the years because of the amount of time that they have taken up with the Court of Justice. The number of staff cases in 1984 was 43, out of a total of 312. In 1985 the figure was 65 out of 433, and in 1986 it was 57 out of 329. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman's point is well made, as those cases represent a significant proportion of the work of the European Court and it is right that they should be dealt with elsewhere.

The question of a special tribunal has been discussed, but it has not been possible to reach agreement on setting up a separate and special tribunal. The beneficial effect of sending cases to the Court of First Instance is enhanced by the fact that this court can sit in chambers of three for such cases. A tribunal of three should provide a very much more satisfactory method of dealing with those cases than has applied hitherto.

The hon. Gentleman concluded by emphasising the importance of this international legal tribunal. He drew to our attention the fact that within Europe matters of supranational importance can now be decided carefully by a European court in a way that would have been unthinkable 50 or 60 years ago. That is a major change. Of course, it has its controversial aspects, but we can join in commending this motion in the thought that adding a Court of First Instance to the European Court of Justice will enable that very important court to do its work better in the future. I commend the motion to the House.

My understanding is that the motion permits one and a half hours' debate on Tuesday on the important issue of televising proceedings of the House of Commons. I and many other hon. Members of all parties fully support the principle of televising the House and, since the decision in principle was made, many who opposed the idea have begun to see some of the advantages and many who were in favour are perhaps more aware of the disadvantages. One and a half hours is insufficient time to consider such issues.

I have in mind two points. The first concerns Select Committees. Perhaps the majority of hon. Members feel that the hard work of Parliament goes on there as opposed to the glamorous air of the Chamber. Some of us may feel that a built-in percentage of television time should be allocated to coverage of Select Committees. The Public Accounts Committee is dear to my heart, but no doubt other hon. Members feel that other Committees merit coverage.

Secondly, control has been mentioned. One proposal was for the equivalent of a Hansard office to control the pictures that are given to the various channels, at least until hon. Members are reassured about the future.

One and a half hours is one and a half hours more than nothing, but is it within the remit of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) to extend the time available so that more Back Benchers can be called to speak?

The House may remember that, during the debate on the principle, one hon. Member took about 40 minutes, others took a long time, and some, such as me, were involved in important Committees and were unable to participate. I fear that if only one and a half hours is granted, we may find that only five or, at best, six or seven hon. Members are called to speak on an issue about which genuine differences of opinion must be aired. For once, moreover, many hon. Members would be listening to the arguments.

I understand that the motion has been agreed through the usual channels. If the motion is not passed, it will not be possible for any debate to take place on this business unless it is reached before 10 pm — it is not exempt business.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has raised two matters which I shall ensure are passed to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. I remind him that the debate will take place on a motion on the setting up of the Select Committee and on its composition. I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned that the Committee be set up as quickly as possible.

I had not intended to involve myself in this debate, but there are two aspects of the reply of the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) which require some comment.

When, no doubt, the history of the televising of Parliament is written, those involved will examine what was said in our previous debate and that which is to take place next week. Conceivably, they will consider this brief procedural exchange. It is on matters of procedure that greater matters grow.

The hon. Gentleman says that informal agreement has been reached on the motion. I have no objection to such agreements being reached for the convenience of the House, but it is questionable whether such an agreement should be prayed in aid. I may be wrong—if I am, no doubt I shall be corrected— but my understanding is that the motion is about the membership of the Committee, about which there has been some controversy, and the Committee's terms of reference. That is open to amendment. I suspect that those are separate but important issues. There has been some discussion about membership, but I think that terms of reference relating to how the Committee goes about its work—apart from the principle—are also important.

It may assist the House if, while recognising the hon. Gentleman's concern, I direct his attention to motion 23 in the Remaining Orders of the Day. He will then realise, if he has not already done so, that the terms of reference for the Committee are not contained in the motion, but were contained in the resolution on 9 February.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I should have been a little more circumspect. The formal terms of reference are, of course, there, but—I shall modify what I said—expressions of view on how the Committee goes about its business, and some of the ideas and suggestions that it might bear in mind, need some formal expression. The debate would enable that to take place.

I entirely understand that if this motion does not go through the matter cannot be debated at all, as it is not exempt business. I have no doubt that, if it had been tabled for debate late at night, an amendment might have been put down to increase the one and a half hours to two or two and a half, but that did not happen. We have what is before us now, and it may in effect have already been arranged. Probably, when we reach the end of the debate on Tuesday, some hon. Members will be creating that there was not sufficient time for what will be quite a significant and important debate in an important series of debates leading to important innovations.

It is a great stroke of fortune for any Back Bench Member to succeed in the ballot for Adjournment debates. I aim to add to that fortune the great privilege of speaking up on behalf of pensioners, and not only those in Nottingham, for much of what I say will, I hope, be relevant to pensioners throughout the country.

A civilised society should ensure that its elderly live an independent and secure life, enjoy the love of the community and receive whatever care they require, as a right rather than a privilege. By that standard, Britain is no longer a civilised society. Under the present Conservative Government, the elderly in Nottingham and throughout the country are not so much a respected and valued part of our community as a persecuted minority.

In a society that exalts greed and admires ruthlessness, the elderly are at best cast aside, and at worst treated as a captive market to be exploited by the new generation of Arthur Daleys created in the competitive climate of Thatcherite Britain. The treatment of our pensioners is a savage indictment of this Government. Let us examine their record on various issues in turn.

In 1980, the Government broke the link between pensions and earnings. If that link were restored today, the pension of a married couple would rise by £14·65 a week, and the single pension by £9·20 a week. Week in, week out, married pensioners are robbed of £14·65 through the callous, repetitive, inescapable mugging of the elderly by a Government who, in last week's Budget, gave their richest friends over £2 billion in tax handouts. In Nottingham, it has been received less as a Budget from Robin Hood than as one typical of King John at his worst.

Whatever else we do by way of concessions and additions whenever there is a change of Government, a decent pension will remain the cornerstone for older people, enabling them to choose for themselves how they wish to meet their needs. It is important to stress that fact, because this year is the 80th anniversary of the old-age pension — not the Lloyd George pension, but the pension created as a result of great pressure from charities, the trade union movement and the Labour movement. That mantle is being carried now by bodies such as Age Concern. I pay tribute to the work of Jack Jones in fighting for pensioners' rights. I hope that we will all be able to contribute to that work.

In my constituency, one third of pensioners live below the official poverty line. People who gave their lives to local pits, local textile, chemical, tobacco and cycle industries in Nottingham have been thrown on a scrap heap and draw a pension equal to only 17 per cent. of gross average earnings. That pension is one of the lowest in Europe. We frequently receive some of the garbage from Europe. It would be fitting if we now adopted a similar pension level to that in France where the level is set at half the average wage.

I also want to consider what the Government intend to do to pensioners on 1 April 1988 when the great counterrevolution of the welfare state takes place. Ten days ago the Government presented the Budget for the rich. On 1 April we will see the budget for the poor. Next week's budget for those on pensions and benefits will hit the elderly in particular. In common with many other hon. Members, I have already had a procession of desperate, anxious pensioners at my surgery, worried sick about their income after 1 April. I want to use two examples from my postbag and my surgery this week.

Mr. T of Strelley in Nottingham has discovered that his industrial disablement pension will henceforth be taken into account when his housing benefit is calculated. Previously it was disregarded. Mr. T worked for most of his life down the pit and he was injured in an accident in a pit in Nottingham. He receives industrial disablement pension which is currently discounted in calculating his £54·14 housing benefit. After I April without any change in Mr. T's means or circumstances he will discover that his housing benefit is reduced to £15·95 a fortnight. In other words, he will lose £38·19 a fortnight or £19 a week without receiving any additional income. He has committed no offence. He has not carried out a robbery or any outrage in society. On the contrary, he has contributed sweat and blood to this country for many years. On 1 April he will be fined £19 every single week that he remains alive.

My other example concerns a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. P who live in Cinderhill in my constituency. Mr. P suffered an industrial accident and completely lost his hearing. As a result, he was awarded the maximum industrial disablement pension of £67·70. Hitherto that was disregarded when calculating housing benefit. After 1 April it will be roped in with any other income that that pensioner couple has. They will totally lose their housing benefit. Every fortnight £32·59 —£16 a week—will be taken from that couple, despite no apparent change in their way of life. They will suffer a week-in, week-out fine of £16 a week for the rest of their lives. Just a few days before this decision, billions upon billions of pounds were given away in tax handouts to those who could well afford to do without that additional income. In addition, those people whom I have mentioned will have to pay, perhaps for the first time, at least 20 per cent. of their rates. They are just two examples of how the changes on 1 April will affect many of my constituents.

Those on housing benefit will have benefit reduced by £1 for every £250 over £3,000 that they have in the bank and no housing benefit will be payable if they have more than £6,000 put aside. We exhort people to make proper provision for their old age, yet those who can afford to put a little money aside will find that they have done so just to save the Government money. The Government through the local authorities, which they are subtly using as agents, will recoup a large amount of that money. One Conservative Member has proposed, as perhaps some sort of tax dodge, that these people should pay in advance for their funerals as a way of getting some of that money out of the bank. That sort of callous, hard-hearted attitude typifies the way in which the elderly are viewed.

Overall, the changes on 1 April will leave the average pensioners, aged 60 to 79, £1 a week worse off. In my constituency, notably in Bilborough, many pensioners are the unsung, unheard of victims of the right-to-buy policy introduced by the Conservative Government. They live in British Iron and Steel Federation houses which were owned by the city council and they are now stuck with those properties, unable to sell them because building societies will not lend money to prospective buyers, but the Government will not declare those properties defective.

Some people cannot get a mortgage to buy these properties and there are no grants available to bring them up to mortgageable standard.

The city council— a Conservative council—will not buy back the properties. On the contrary, it is continuing to sell properties that it well knows people will not be able to sell on. It may sound strange to some hon. Members, but many of these people are first-time buyers at the age of 60, 65 or older. They do not know the way in which the system works. Many are buying a pig in a poke which they are not able to sell. They could be the very people hit by the changes in the social fund on 1 April.

Social fund help for large one-off expenses such as roof repair — some roofs in Bilborough are thought to contain asbestos—will be given in the form of a loan or grant, and pensioners in particular will be worried about their ability to repay the loans. Equally, for people in that position, as a result of the Budget no tax relief will be available for home improvement grants. To add insult to injury, at the end of the equation, the Tory poll tax will mean that even pensioners on the lowest incomes will have to pay at least 20 per cent. of the full poll tax charges instead of getting the current rate rebates.

One of the most obvious, and most easily avoidable tragedies that could beset the elderly is death or discomfort through lack of proper heating. More pensioners die of cold in Britain than in Canada or the Nordic countries where winters are far more severe, yet the insulation programme, which could play such a vital part in easing that problem and saving old people's fuel bills as well as saving their lives, has been cut to one seventh of what it was in 1979, during its first full year after implementation by the Labour Government in 1978.

Standing charges for gas and electricity still bite a disproportionately large chunk out of the fuel bills of the elderly. The most contentious part of the old and the cold story is the confusing severe weather payments which miss many of the most vulnerable people. Last year, only one in 10 pensioners received any payment at all, and I understand that the average payment was just £10. That must be wrong. It must be replaced by a flat-rate winter heating allowance which is paid automatically when it is needed and not long afterwards when old people have decided not to switch on the heating because there are too many forms to fill and too much bureaucracy and they take the risk of dying of hypothermia, or at best suffering terrible unnecessary discomfort in the cold.

Another issue that has been raised with me on a local basis concerns television licences. This morning 1 had the privilege of presenting a petition to the House from Mrs. Hunt and 400 local pensioners who ask that the House consider bringing in concessionary television licences. The Labour party's position is clear and simple. We consider that all pensioners should be given free TV licences. We fought the last general election on that promise and I hope that we shall do so again until we can deliver.

The television is a friend and a comfort and a source of pleasure and entertainment to many elderly people, yet at £62·50 for a colour licence the price is prohibitive to most pensioners. However, when I raised this matter with the Minister of State, Home Office, he said that any scheme of concessionary licences would be expensive in terms of lost revenue. Indeed, it may, but when the Government hand out billions of pounds to their friends and to people who are not in need, surely some concession can be made to help the elderly when they get so much pleasure from such a small amount as would be provided to them through such concessionary licences. However, the Minister of State ruled out any changes.

I ask the Minister to consider the matter again and make representations to his colleagues at least to extend the system of 5p licences which currently applies to sheltered housing for all other pensioners in Britain.

In addition to the difficulties that pensioners experience because of Government policies, the elderly in Nottingham suffer the burden of an extremely dogmatic Tory council which tries to mimic, outdo, and impress its national mistress as if it were some sort of brainless lap dog. The clearest evidence of that ruthless approach has been the selling of the council's purpose-built houses for the elderly and disabled. As more homes are flogged off, there are fewer to go round because the council has stopped building such homes. A lengthening queue of people in pain and need—people who have the medical criteria necessary to be selected automatically for a purpose-built bungalow — cannot obtain such accommodation because the homes have been sold. That Tory local authority should be held in contempt by all right-minded Members on both sides of the House.

In the past week, Nottingham has been selected for the experimental selling-off—

Nottingham has been selected for the first trials of a new scheme that will result in the sale of council estates. The research programme being undertaken by a market research company on behalf of the Department of the Environment involves interviewing groups of eight to 10 people on estates in Nottingham—in Bestwood Park, Top Valley Bestwood and Broxtowe in my constituency—for one and a half hours trying to find the best gloss to put on the sale of council estates to private landlords.

Needless to say, the elderly in Nottingham remember well the era of the private landlord. My family came from an area that was dominated by private landlords. It was an area of high rents, lack of repairs, no modernisation programme and, above all, fear because of no security of tenure. Elderly people who have been council tenants for 30 or 40 years fear for their future, because a small minority of tenants could, with the inducements offered and the attractive way in which a scheme may be promoted, sell their birthright in council estates. There will be no going back. Once those estates are sold, the asset-strippers will ensure that they never return to public ownership.

All that is taking place despite the fact that the Housing Bill has not yet completed all its stages through Parliament. Groups of people are scouring the country conducting interviews so that they can sell estates when the legislation is passed. Not only is that unconstitutional, but I fear the drastic consequences if people are lured into accepting apparent bargains and are then trapped by private landlords—perhaps even slum landlords—who may not take their responsibilities seriously.

Nor can a shortfall in assistance for the elderly be made good by the county council. It has to make resources for social services stretch further than ever before. The county council has one of the best records in the country for inspection of residential homes. It is rightly proud of that record, but is is now restricted from carrying out that important function.

For those who depend on residential care, and for those who may do so in the future, the picture becomes bleaker. Private homes for the elderly have expanded massively as support from the Government — subsidy by the Government—has increased from £10 million in 1979 to £485 million last year. The Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, has considered the matter and will report on it soon. The Thatcherite entrepreneurs have seen a killing to be made from the slogan "care in the community". In many cases, the elderly have become like livestock, pulling in up to £220 a head each week from DHSS payments to private nursing homes. At the same time, local authority provision is static or running down and our long-stay hospitals are asset-stripped by hard-faced private sector managers and the cosseted consultants who now direct the NHS.

The Griffiths committee was set up to look at the issue and it suggested that one of the answers was to give more control and direction to local authorities. That in itself was enough to condemn it, within days, to the Government's shredder. I ask the Minister to make clear when the Griffiths report will go out to the widest possible consultation, and when the Firth and Wagner reports will also go out for consultation. Is there any time scale for action on those three reports? Many of us fear that all three reports will be consigned to the back shelf to gather dust, because they are unpopular with certain sections of the Government.

The elderly, more than most, depend on the Health Service, and yet the Government have stopped the supply of NHS spectacles and soon will impose charges for eye tests, deterring early detection of glaucoma, diabetes and cataracts which are common among the elderly. Pensioners were particularly hard-hit when the Government's limited list stopped doctors prescribing free many of the drugs that pensioners were used to.

Now, the junior health Minister talks of giving low priority to the elderly who need treatment. So often, the elderly are at the end of the queue. It is not glamorous to be involved in his replacement and it is far easier to spend money on services other than those that are vital for elderly people, such as chiropody. In Nottingham, to balance the books, the geriatric ward at the City hospital has been closed over the past three months, with the prospect of at least a further six months' closure.

Today's old people are no ordinary generation. They survived the war and defeated Hitler's Nazi tyranny. They went on to found the welfare state and the National Health Service. They deserve to be treated better. "Honour thy father and thy mother" is a reasonable command when they have done so much for us.

The recent Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph showed that the Labour party had a 30-point lead over the Government on pensioners' issues. Some 52 per cent. of those polled said that Labour would be the most likely party to look after Britain's pensioners, compared with 22 per cent. opting for the Conservatives and 12 per cent. for what was then the alliance. That trust is hard-won and richly deserved. It will be reinforced when this disrespectful, hard-hearted, mean-spiritied, cheeseparing Government have been thrown out. For many pensioners, that day cannot come too soon.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. I happened last night to be in a Birmingham television studio, at Central TV, where a little feature on the hon. Gentleman was put together. I am not sure whether he is aware of it. A computer print-out of all the occasions when he has spoken in the House was produced, and it was a long document. I think I am right in saying that this is the first occasion on which he has had an Adjournment debate.

No, the second.

The second occasion. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on it and on his many other interventions.

In, the previous debate, the hon. Gentleman referred to the glamour of debates in the Chamber. I am not sure whether he and I together constitute a glamorous debate, but we shall do our best.

I take issue with the hon. Gentleman on a number of points. I begin by addressing myself to one that was foremost in what he said — the living standard of pensioners. He will recall that in our last manifesto we pledged ourselves to continue to maintain the value of the retirement pension. We also said:

"retired people value their independence. They do not want to rely on the state alone for their income. nor, increasingly, are they doing so. We share Beveridge's original goal of a good basic pension from the state, together with a second income from occupational and personal pensions and savings."

Over the past nine years we have worked steadily along the lines of that pledge. We have protected the value of the basic state pension, and it will rise again in a few days' time by £2·65 for a couple and £1·65 for a single person.

More important, through our economic policies we have provided a climate of growth for the non-state portion of pensioner's incomes. Unlike the Opposition, we have always sought to recognise that only half of pensioners' incomes comes from state provision. The pensioners can be done no good by increasing the state pension and ignoring savings and occupational pensions that are now such an important part of their income. That was tried by the Labour Administration, and I remind the House of its results.

Between 1974 and 1979 pensioners' total incomes rose by a miserable 3 per cent. in real terms. In this Government's first six years pensioners' total incomes rose by 18 per cent.—almost as much every year as during the entire period of the Labour Government. Pensioners have improved their position relative to the working population as well, whereas under the Labour Government their relative incomes fell. Those contrasting figures help to put the hon. Gentleman's remarks into context.

The growth that we have prompted in pensioners' incomes applies fairly evenly to all groups of pensioners, younger, older, less well off and better off. We have every expectation that the trend will continue as more and more pensioners retire with second pensions. Seven out of 10 newly retired married couples have occupational pensions now, as do half of all pensioners. The steps that we have taken to stimulate the development of occupational pension schemes will, we hope, further increase the proportion with this form of additional income. Already more than 85 per cent. of pensioners have pensions from work, or savings income, or both. We look forward to a society in which every elderly person has income in retirement over and above the state pension.

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's European comparisons were misplaced. Spending on the elderly in the United Kingdom is now the third highest in the European Community as a proportion of gross domestic product, at 9·6 per cent. that is based on 1983 figures, which are the latest definitive ones that we have. However, the partial figures for 1984 show that spending in the United Kingdom was rising as a proportion and falling in other countries. The comparisons on that basis of GDP are the only measure of pensioner support that the European Statistical Bureau can confirm as accurate.

It is in the light of some of those figures, and the reduction in inflation that has enabled pensioners to benefit so much from their savings, that we must view the reforms in social security to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. He called them a counter-revolution. In the coming year we shall be spending almost £1 billion a week on social security, which is not a counter-revolution in the sense that he meant. It may go further than Beveridge had in mind, but it is not a counter-revolution.

We shall be spending rather more, in effect, on income support—the benefit that replaces supplementary benefit — than on supplementary benefit, which is a complicated benefit with more than 20 extra weekly additions that depend on detailed questions about individual personal circumstances. It is a confusing, outmoded benefit and it does not have many friends left among the public or staff who try to administer it. Income support is a simpler system that gives better service to the public. It directs resources more effectively to the groups of claimants who face the greatest pressure—the people whom we have identified as being families with children, and the sick and disabled.

We have put another £220 million into income support to help us achieve some of our objectives. We put a similar extra sum into the new benefit of family credit to help working families with children. However, that is by the way, because this debate is about the elderly.

Between 1979 and 1985 pensioners' total net incomes increased, and it is only by remembering that that we can begin to address the question of the reforms. We must recognise that the base line is very much higher than it used to be and that it is fully protected in our reforms. The rate for a single pensioner between the ages of 60 and 79 is £10·65 more than the support for an unemployed man of 55. That is within the new income support system and reflects the priority that we give to the elderly in that system. That new premium covers the old standard heating addition in supplementary benefit, the long-term rate under supplementary benefit, average water charges and 20 per cent. of average rates.

Will the Minister tell the House why the Government broke the link between pensions and the rise in earnings?

I think that I have explained that to the hon. Gentleman, because I said that what matters is what the pensioner ends up with. Under this Government the pensioner has ended up with a 3 per cent. increase over the years. The Government formed by the hon, Gentleman's party tried to sustain the link between the pension and earnings but could not quite do it because one year they had to change the method of calculation and some money got lost on the way through. Under that Government the income of pensioners improved hardly at all, despite valiant efforts to keep it up. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that what matters is the outcome. There is no point in enormous pension rises if there are also enormous rises in inflation. One may be able to keep pensions in line with inflation, but nothing can be done about savings that are losing their value behind the scenes. That is the point that we have addressed.

We have doubled the maximum amount of savings that a claimant may have while still qualifying for some benefit under income support as compared to supplementary benefit. We estimate that this change alone will mean that a further 10,000 pensioners will be able to qualify for income support. We are also told sometimes that although we have established this pensioner premium, it does not cover people who receive payments for a large number of additional requirements. That might be so in particular cases, but the effect should not be exaggerated. The receipt of these additional requirements under supplementary benefit is frequently overstated.

Three quarters of those eligible for pensioner premium under the new system received no more than one additional requirement under the old system, and only 5 per cent. received three or more. The majority of these additional requirements are more than covered by the pensioner premium. The reform will result in 61 per cent. of pensioners getting more or being unaffected by the changes. The remaining 39 per cent., who would otherwise have received less, will under the new system, receive transitional protection and about £200 million will be spent on maintaining that benefit income. That means that no one transferring from supplementary benefit to income support will lose as a result of the introduction of the new income support scheme.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about housing benefit. That is also being restructured in the same way to give the greatest help to people who are in the greatest need. About 620,000 pensioners on housing benefit will gain, and most pensioners remaining on the benefit will see a cash increase in April. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the capital rule and I know that he is interested in equity. It is difficult to justify to taxpayers on the 25 per cent. rate who are perhaps paying 9 per cent. in national insurance, and who may have no savings whatever in the bank, why they should pay taxes in order to provide benefit to people who have more than £6,000 in the bank. The hon. Gentleman needs to address that problem.

I recognise that there has been some uncertainty among claimants about the effects of the April changes. The campaign mounted by some people in the hon. Gentleman's party has not always been very accurate and must have added to the anxiety and the difficulties that people have in understanding the system. When all the reforms are taken together, nearly nine out of 10 people will be no worse off the day after the reforms than they were on the day before them, and many will be better off.

I should like to make just two brief points. The first relates to the £6,000 rule. I made the point that the Government are now discouraging people from saving and putting money aside because they will be penalised. Surely that goes against any sensible economic policy.

Secondly, I must pick the Minister up for implying that the anger in the community especially among the elderly, has been generated by a campaign either by Opposition Members or by people outside. People come to surgeries in droves. They do not need to be inspired or incited to do so, because they are people who will suffer. I gave the Minister two examples. The first was of a couple who will lose £16 per week, and another was of a gentleman who will lose £18. Those people do not come to surgeries because of a great campaign; they come because the Government's policies are hitting and hurting them.

I do not dispute that a small minority will lose, but I advise the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority will either remain the same or gain. Many of those people have been stirred up to anxiety or worry, and even though those anxieties will prove groundless, I am concerned that they are being put through such distress at the moment.

As for capital, apart from housing benefit, there has always been a capital rule for other income-related benefits. What discourages thrift in the first place is having a benefit system. One must recognise that as soon as there is a benefit system there is less reason to provide for one's future than there was before. That is a problem in itself. If one is to direct benefits to the people who need them most, there must be some sort of rule about the level of income at which they cease to qualify and at what amount of capital they cease to qualify. We think that we have got that about right with the important advantage that now, in all three income-related benefits, the same rule on capital will apply. That will be less confusing and lead to fewer perverse results than we have sometimes had in the past.

I am anxious not to intervene too often, because I am sure that the Minister will say "no" on one occasion. If, on average, half an elderly person's income conies from sources other than the state pension, there are clearly a large number of people, the majority of whose income does not come from the state pension, but, equally, there must be a large number of people who are almost entirely dependent on the state pension. I urge the Minister to address his remarks to those people and not to a mythical average. I urge him to address the people who are at the sharp end of the cuts, the counter-revolution, or the reforms—whatever one wishes to call the changes of 1 April—because, by and large, those people are working-class pensioners who are dependent on the state pension, and it is they who will suffer the most, especially in relation to housing.

I am content to address myself to that, because the pensioners who are most in need are those who currently receive supplementary pension on top of the state pension. There are about 1·8 million such pensioners. They will receive full housing benefit, which is 100 per cent. of rent and 80 per cent. of rates because they receive supplementary benefit at the moment, which means that they have capital of less than £3,000. More pensioners will qualify for income support because the capital rule for income support is more generous than that for supplementary benefit. That is why I said earlier that about 10,000 more pensioners will qualify for income support. This means that 10,000 more people coming on to income support will qualify for full housing benefit, whether or not they qualify at the moment for partial housing benefit.

The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about residential care. I shall not spend long replying to that. I have watched with interest the line of questioning that he has been pursuing in the Public Accounts Committee. He was extremely unfair in his remarks about the private sector. I ask him to recognise that there are many excellent private homes, doing a very good job, although there are some homes in which the standards are poor, and which have caused a great deal of concern, but those homes are in both the private and local authority sectors. We have had some bad instances in the local authority sector.

The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the Griffiths report, which is now out for consultation. The Wagner report is also out for consultation, and the Firth report has been out for quite some time. We look forward to comments on those. Obviously I cannot in any way prejudge what the Government will say about that. We will bring forward our proposals in the light of the Griffiths, Wagner and Firth reports, and the reactions that we receive to them, in due course. I am afraid that I cannot yet give the hon. Gentleman any sort of timescale on that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to health care in Nottingham. I shall not pursue him far down that road, not least because it is not my area. Nottingham has the City hospital, which is all new except for one ward, the University hospital, which is new and the General and Highbury hospitals, both of which have recently been refurbished. Only the Basford is an old hospital, and I understand that it is satisfactory.

May I briefly correct the Minister? It is proposed that the General hospital should be closed, so the picture may not be as rosy as he paints it.

I give the hon. Gentleman the last word on that.

If the television licence fee is reduced for some, it suggests that it should increase for others. That would mean that other people, many of whom may be poor, would pay a much higher fee. The elderly as a group are not all poor, which is why it would be ill-directed to give people a concessionary television licence simply because they are elderly. The hon. Gentleman understands the Government's position on that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to winter warmth. He will know that under the supplementary benefits scheme about £400 million was spent on heating additions. That was intended to provide people with money all the year round, not just in winter, to help them with their heating needs. In the income support system we are directing the premiums towards groups, such as the disabled and the pensioners, and those premiums more than cover the heating additions and some other aspects of the supplementary benefit system. So there continues to be that particular help all year round.

I could not establish the accuracy of what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the draught-proofing programme. Although the supplementary benefit arrangements cease in April, the Government have kept their pledge to continue to give help with draught-proofing From April this will be channelled through the Department of Energy's grants towards community insulation projects by Neighbourhood Energy Action. Government support for community insulation projects is £45 million this year and will rise to between £55 million and £60 million in 1988–89.

The hon. Gentleman will know of our efforts last winter to set up a "Keep Warm Keep Well" campaign, which has been a considerable success, although this has not been a cold winter. Nevertheless, the campaign has involved the co-operation of Age Concern, Help the Aged and several other organisations. The freeline phone service has received 4,000 calls. The Government have produced publicity material for television and radio broadcasts and have extended the programme of press advertising.

Will the Minister explain why proportionately more people die of hypothermia in Britain than in Canada and the Nordic countries where winters are so much more severe?

The pattern of hypothermia from year to year is confusing. It is not clear why the figures vary. Speaking from memory, it has been decided that the chief medical officer should prepare a report so that we can consider it. I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that the excess winter mortality figures, which are another measurement, are falling steadily from decade to decade. The latest figures for 1987 are encouraging. Although one should not place too much emphasis on any single year, the trend is downwards.

Finally, we must get away from the notion that elderly people are simply the passive recipients of services. Many have a good deal to offer society and there is a challenge for all of us to help and encourage them to do so. Britain has a proud and long-standing tradition of charitable voluntary action. For many old people voluntary action provides an opportunity to give and to be involved, arid for many others help comes from those activities.

Voluntary organisations also have a vital role to play in helping the elderly, but to play that part to the full, they need the co-operation of the statutory services and to share their ideas and plans. That is the real challenge for all of us, because that is the way to keep the elderly involved in society. That, as well as their financial well-being, is important to the elderly.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to 3 o'clock.