With your per-mission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by no fewer than 50,000 people in the west London area complaining about the closure of four hospitals in west London.

The petition is organised by CAMDOR—the campaign for the defence of Riverside. Carol McDonagh was one of its organisers, and it reads:

"That we object to the plans by Riverside health authority to totally demolish St. Stephens hospital in order to make way for a new hospital which, if built, will lead to the permanent closure of Westminster hospital, West London hospital, St. Mary Abbots hospital and Westminster Children's hospital.

Wherefore our Petitioners pray that your honourable House will call upon members of Riverside health authority, North West Thames regional health authority and the Health Ministers to call a halt to these proposals and to argue that Riverside health authority be properly resourced to ensure a free and comprehensive Health Service, serving both the local community and the many visitors to the area."

It is estimated that £25 million would have prevented this proposal from going ahead. The petition shows the extent of the concern in my area.

I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the environmental and economic needs of south Yorkshire. It would be inappropriate to go into recess without the House having some idea of the grave problems and difficulties that my constituency and neighbouring constituencies face.

The matters that I seek to raise fall within the responsibility of three Government Departments. I suggested that it would be appropriate for three Ministers to be present this morning. The enormity of our difficulties would have justified their presence. Perhaps it would have been unrealistic to expect three Ministers to be here, but I am relieved that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), is here. I intend to refer to a matter that I raised last week at Question Time and to the answer that he gave, which appeared to suggest that the door may not be firmly locked. That door needs to be opened rather wide and rather quickly.

The debate is about the economic and environmental problems of south Yorkshire. I shall deal with the problems in my own constituency, which is in the centre of the former metropolitan county. Barnsley is to the west, Doncaster is to the east and my constituency is largely to the north and east of Rotherham. Sheffield is to the south. I understand that Sheffield's case was presented yesterday at considerable length, so I shall not stray too far in that direction.

The northern part of my constituency includes part of the Dearne valley. It is a geographical area that, as its parliamentary representatives, I share with my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), who support the case that I shall be presenting today. I am grateful for their support and encouragement.

I welcome the debate. The scale of the problem and the intensity of the need that we face requires parliamentary attention and high ministerial priority. My constituency and several parts of south Yorkshire suffer from some of the worst unemployment problems that are to be found in England. I understand that of all the travel-to-work areas, the Rotherham and Mexborough travel-to-work area's unemployment ranks about seventh. Our unemployment levels are dreadful.

I do not propose to refer to precise figures because an obsession with detail may cloud the issue. There is also the suspicion that the official statistics are somewhat less than accurate. I believe that in areas of high unemployment. the numbers that are excluded from the official figures are much higher than average.

One third of the unemployed in my constituency and in neighbouring areas are young people and 40 per cent. of the unemployed in the unemployment black spots in south Yorkshire have been out of work for over a year and, in many cases, for over three years. There are about 30 or 40 unemployed for each vacancy in most of the south Yorkshire area.

I suggested not long ago that the unemployment figures, grave as they are, do not represent fully the reality. It might be highly desirable to look not at the statistics for those who are unemployed, but at the statistics for those who are economically active, who are in full-time employment. Such statistics show that the position in south Yorkshire is grave. Unfortunately, the employment statistics are not available, apart from the 1981 census, which presents in detail the proportion of the population in full-time work. However, in south Yorkshire we have suffered many grave economic blows since 1981 and that census is not relevant to the present position. I should hate to have to wait until 1991 and then find that we have not made the progress that is so desperately needed.

The situation is deteriorating. The Minister may tell the House that, as a result of local and public and private initiatives, a number of jobs have been created. Indeed they have. Several part-time jobs and low-paid full-time jobs have been created, reducing the net disposable income of south Yorkshire because those part-time jobs are counted as having replaced full-time jobs in better-paid and traditional industry.

There has been a dreadful deterioration in my constituency this year. I have lost two collieries and the Canning Town glass works so far this year. That represents over 1,000 jobs. On several occasions in the House I have told the deplorable story of the closure of Canning Town Glass—a story of deceit which shows the integrity of British commerce in a poor light. Canning Town Glass was closed despite my constituents and me having been given firm assurances and although the local authority was persuaded properly and lawfully to make grants from the rate fund towards the maintenance of those works. Yet 500 jobs went. At the same time, Manvers colliery and shortly afterwards Kilnhurst colliery were closed. Those are not the only two collieries that have gone in south Yorkshire. Two or three months ago, in Prime Minister's Question Time, I recited a list of colliery closures in recent years.

I now have one colliery in my constituency, Silverwood, a successful colliery with a long and profitable record. It demonstrates what wise investment and good leadership can achieve. Although the prospects for that colliery, which has substantial reserves, should be satisfactory, the demoralisation in the industry leads some people to suspect that it may be in danger. Recently I looked at the plans for the colliery. I do not share that anxiety, although if the plans to develop ports on the Humber come to fruition successful and potentially profitable collieries are likely to be in peril.

That anxiety follows the rapid contraction of the coal industry in the central part of south Yorkshire and the Dearne valley. That valley was once green. As I have said before in the House, if one looks at the early ordnance survey maps published in the middle of the 19th century, one can detect the attractive quality of that valley, with osier beds, duck decoys and a fish population that included an abundance of salmon and trout. Although there have been modest attempts to improve the river Dearne, like the Rother and the Don, it is still more like an open sewer than a satisfactory water course. I am concerned about that because in the early 1970s, when I first became a Member of the House and campaigned to secure a much higher priority for the rivers of south Yorkshire, I was assured that I could expect them to be brought up to recreational standard by the mid-1980s. Last year I was told that they might reach that standard by the year 2000, so we seem to have made remarkably little progress.

As I live within my constituency, in the middle of south Yorkshire, and as I was a local representative in the Dearne valley area before I became a Member of Parliament, I have long been convinced of the fact that we need to ensure that our environment is properly protected and improved. I now believe it to be an urgent necessity. If we do not improve our environment, we shall not attract the incoming investment that is now an absolute necessity. For that reason, I was pleased when the planning department of Rotherham borough council, which is extremely competent, as the Minister may know, produced its concept for the improvement of derelict land in our part of the Dearne valley. The Minister has seen that plan and I believe it to be not merely desirable but absolutely essential.

As the Minister knows, there are 675 acres of land associated with Manvers and Wath collieries that are now derelict. Under the present rules governing the application of derelict land grant, there is no prospect whatever of one square inch of that land being improved. The land adjoins a substantial acreage occupied by the former railway marshalling yards close to Brampton Bierlow but within Wath-upon-Dearne. The area borders the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). It was a hive of activity when the coalfield was centred more towards the east. On several occasions during the war, the German English-language broadcasts promised to obliterate the Wath hump, as it was popularly called. It is now a wasteland.

Under the derelict land grant rules, it seems that the area would be unlikely to qualify for grant, although I was relieved to learn in a letter from the Prime Minister the other day—I shall refer to that correspondence—that the recent application from Rotherham borough council for derelict land grant to treat the Wath marshalling yards has not been absolutely rejected. Under the derelict land grant, I had thought that there was a possibility that the application would be approved because the council could demonstrate that some of the land at least would be subject to hard use after the dereliction had been cleared.

I understand that the Minister may tell the House that the Government have helped Rotherham by supporting the Temple borough project in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther). I wholeheartedly support it because it will clear up some of the appalling dereliction between Sheffield and Rotherham. Once, 25,000 or 30,000 men worked in the steelworks area between Sheffield and Rotherham. Now there may be more estate agents' notices than jobs. It is an area which provided the sinews of material during the first and second world wars. We could certainly not have won those wars—if anyone can win a war—if we had not had the output from those plants. It is necessary for the project, of which the Minister is well aware, to go ahead, but it would not be helpful, for it to go ahead and other projects of equal necessity to be delayed.

People who read my speech may think that I am asking for a great deal, but I believe that we are one nation. That may not be a fashionable concept and Conservative Members may not endorse it entirely, but the country has a profound obligation to these areas.

I recall in the 1960s, when I was a young councillor, the chairman of my party in Wath-upon-Dearne and a schoolmaster, being extremely angry that the girls whom I taught and whom I represented had to travel by coach to work in the woollen mills in Bradford and Halifax. Girls who left school had to get up at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning and would not get home until 8 or 9 o'clock at night. That was the only work available because there was a substantial lack of jobs for women in those days.

The local authority made efforts to stimulate and diversify the economy, but not enough was achieved, although we made some contribution. We were up against an almost structured disadvantage in that from the 1950s to the early 1970s the national strategy was that areas such as mine should not be encouraged to engage in economic diversification because the coal industry was far too important. The National Coal Board, as it was then known, built several housing estates in south Yorkshire to accommodate miners from other areas in order to guarantee south Yorkshire's coal output. We were up against objections and difficulties in seeking to ensure that we had rather more eggs in our economic basket, and we were prevented from doing so.

Then in the 1970s, when some of us were worried about the age of some of our collieries and saw how, as a result of investment, technological advance was demonstrably successful in the steel industry, although jobs were beginning to go, we pressed the case for greater economic assistance to stimulate the economy. We were told that the Department of Trade and Industry was absolutely confident that Yorkshire could generate its own prosperity from within, that we did not share the same economic difficulties as other parts, and that internal generation of wealth would meet the regional need. That was certainly not the case. With about 100,000 people unemployed on the Governments figures, the need is demonstrable.

Earlier I referred to correspondence with the Prime Minister. About four years ago I sent her a carefully considered assessment of the plight of my area. She dismissed it rather lightly and suggested that I should see about 2,800 new jobs in the mining industry. Far more jobs have gone in the period since that correspondence and we have had other blows and difficulties. About four months ago I again wrote to the Prime Minister urging her to pursue a multi-departmental study of the Dearne valley and the surrounding areas. Her letter in reply was somewhat careless—that may be a gentle word to use— and said that unemployment was falling. She was using the March rather than the April figures which was just before we lost jobs in the Canning Town Glass plant. She said that we were enjoying special priority under the urban programme. That was quickly checked and we discovered that we were not. I hope that the Minister is not unduly bored because he is aware of my point.

On balance, the three metropolitan districts of Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham are receiving about £6 a head in the current year under the urban programme, whereas other areas with less than half our unemployment are receiving urban programme funding twice or three times as much. If that is special priority, I would rather not have it. I do not mean that I would rather not have the fund—[Laughter.] The Minister must not misinterpret my comment. I would rather not have special priority if it will give us only a third as much as areas with a third or half our unemployment.

The Minister should also bear in mind that the value of our urban programme has been affected by inftation, Since inflation may be rising, albeit not vastly at this stage, the urban programme may not be as good as it should be. I was rather relieved last Wednesday when, in answer to my question, and without bidding, the Minister provided additional funding for a housing scheme in the Rawmarsh area of my constituency. If I have to ask a question a week to elicit that sort of response, I shall be happy to do so.

I am concerned about the need to enhance our environment because we shall not see economic recovery without that. My local authority, Rotherham, has not taken an absolutely hostile view to opencast mining. Several projects in Yorkshire are proceeding and some, such as the Rother valley country park, can make a useful contribution in the end. I am worried that the environmental problems are severe. We should not allow any opencast mining, whether for the benefit of British Coal or for the Government to pursue their reckless way of private profit, if it brings serious disturbance and environmental difficulties for my area.

To the north of the Wath-upon-Dearne-Rawmarsh-Swinton area we have the Dearne valley, with 1,000 acres of derelict land. If immediately to the south of Wath and Swinton and close by Rawmarsh we see the Warren House opencast site development, we would be placed between the upper and nether millstones of ugliness and squalor which would bring the population into a state of fury which I would certainly share. I hope that Conservative Members who are often concerned about the environment in the south-east—I sought to speak in a debate about housing development in the south-east merely to point out the environmental needs in other areas—will have some sympathy with the view that we should not be surrounded by dereliction from 19th century industry on one side and ill-considered insensitive development of opencast mining on the other.

In recent weeks my attention has been drawn to the case for a long-term study about the health effects of opencast mining. The other day I noticed an article in the New Statesman and correspondence in The Times which suggested that that study should begin without further delay.

Other urgent needs, which relate to environmental requirements, concern the infrastructure, and transport in particular. I know that the Minister is in the Department of the Environment, but I hope that the Department of Transport has provided him with some briefings on my next point. A new Al-Ml motorway link is needed to give the northern half of south Yorkshire a chance of achieving economic growth, development and, perhaps, eventual prosperity. I believe that it is not high enough in the programme and it does not command sufficient priority from central Government. However, I consider that that development is a necessity. I qualify that by saying that, if and when the road is built, it must be built in such a way that existing or potential railway lines are not rendered valueless by a failure to provide an adequate number of bridges. There is at least one potential railway line that would justify building a bridge where the road goes over the course of the proposed railway. We must maintain adequate rail and road networks. I hope that the Department of Transport will consider that point in due course and give it much higher priority.

The case for Sheffield was made at length in the House last night, so I shall not deal with that. However, the four local authorities in south Yorkshire—Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield and Doncaster metropolitan authorities—have together produced a document that I should like to draw to the Minister's attention, although it would not be appropriate to read out great chunks of it today. I hope that the Department of the Environment and any other relevant Departments are aware of the document, which was produced by the planning departments of the four local authorities and is entitled "Unitary Development Plans in South Yorkshire: Advice on Strategic Guidance from the the South Yorkshire Planning Conference". We have identified the needs of the area, which are acute, grave and vast.

I believe that we have at least begun to convince Ministers of the appalling conditions that face the area as a result of the movement of the coal industry to the east and the technological change—despite record-breaking achievement—within the steel industry. Our economy needs to be diversified if our environment is to be enormously improved. That improvement must be on a generous scale and it must be pursued with enthusiasm and without further delay.

I am delighted to respond to the matters raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and I congratulate him sincerely on obtaining the opportunity to air again his concern about the economic and environmental problems suffered in south Yorkshire, particularly by his constituents and others living in the Dearne valley. I know that he is an able advocate for those whom he represents.

The hon Gentleman's concern is shared by the Government. We are, and shall remain, fully committed to helping local communities tackle the problems of unmployment and environmental deprivation by maximis-ing whatever mechanisms are available—not only through measures targeted specifically at the area, but through policies being pursued generally throughout the United Kingdom, some of which I now intend to cover in more detail.

Before I move on to that detail, I must say that it occurred to me while the hon. Gentleman was speaking that it might be appropriate for me to pay yet another official visit to Rotherham or the nearby area, perhaps later in the year—if the hon. Gentleman would like that. Such a visit could be helpful for both of us and perhaps for the local authority. I visited the area about two months ago, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is no great hardship for me because the journey only takes me an hour and a half from my home. I am a Lancastrian, but that does not seem to bother south Yorkshire people, and from my point of view I would see such a visit as missionary work.

It was remiss of me not to have conveyed an invitation in my speech. I intended to do so and to ask the Minister to visit the site where we should like to see the garden festival held in the 1990s. My only reason for hesitating is that most of the Ministers in the Department of the Environment who have been up to see us seem to have lost their jobs shortly afterwards and I would not want that fate to befall this Minister.

I have visited the area before and I am still in the same job after the recent reshuffle. I shall be delighted to respond to the invitation. Such a visit is no hardship to me and I should like the hon. Gentleman to be there as well as representatives of the local authorities.

The level of derelict land grant assistance is, I know, a subject that much concerns the hon. Gentleman and which I know more than a little about. At Question Time recently, I undertook to look again at the criteria which govern the derelict land grant regime.

I fully appreciate, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that there will be cases where hard end use schemes are, for one reason or another, not appropriate to particular locations such as areas of colliery dereliction and areas where greening is considered essential to create the quality of environment to attract investment in development. I thought that what the hon. Gentleman said on that was right. I told the hon. Gentleman at Question Time that once I have the results of the derelict land survey which will come out after I visit his constituency, if it is appropriately timed I shall be in a much better position to undertake the review of the derelict land grant guidelines.

The local authorities are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, responsible for the collation of the derelict land information which, for the Yorkshire and Humberside authorities, is due back to my regional office in Leeds by 31 October 1988. It would therefore help if the hon. Gentleman could ensure that for the Dearne valley authorities, with whom he has close contact, these important survey returns are not delayed unnecessarily. The sooner I have the facts about the current state of dereliction the sooner my officials and I can begin to analyse them and consider whatever policy changes may be necessary.

The Yorkshire and Humberside region has received an initial public sector derelict land grant allocation of £7·2 million for 1988–89. Of this, almost £4 million has already been earmarked for the four south Yorkshire authorities. Rotherham alone has been granted rolling programme status for the Templeborough regeneration project, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and £2 million has been earmarked for this year and again for next. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the area is receiving a very considerable level of financial assistance through DLG although, no doubt, he will press me for more when I visit him. I should also add that invitations to local authority chief executives to make their bids for DLG resources for 1988–90 schemes will go out shortly. I suggest that those bid documents might be a useful vehicle for putting the fullest possible case of increased DLG assistance.

There will, however, always be a limit on the amount of DLG resources. The hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that. He would say the same if he were standing here. It is important that other means of funding the reclamation of despoiled land should be fully explored. The private sector can help and is willing to help, often in partnership with central and local government. A number of major private sector schemes have had financial assistance from my Department, such as the Parkgate retail centre in Rotherham, and I recently announced a private sector derelict land grant of almost £3 million for the Meadowhall retail complex in Sheffield, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar. The Government have, moreover, recently simplified the grant assistance available to the private sector in the 57 programme authority areas.

It is important that I should stress that the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Gentleman made the point that, of some 450 local authorities, only 57 attract the additional form of resource through the Department of the Environment's urban block. That was the special assistance that was made available to those areas—which is denied to the other areas. Four south Yorkshire local authorities are among the 57 authorities. Their inclusion must be justifiable otherwise they would not have been shortlisted in the first place.

City grant was introduced on 2 May this year and my officials are already dealing with several applications from south Yorkshire. This is a golden opportunity for me to suggest that the hon. Gentleman might try to act as a catalyst to attract interest from the private sector, with the support of the local authority, for city grant applications. Such an application would have to meet certain criteria, but I would consider it as favourably as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have already approved a number of schemes for urban regeneration grant and city grant.

With regard to the urban programme, in 1987–88 the three authorities straddling the Dearne received £5·5 million, plus an end-of-year windfall of £210,000. Their initial allocation in 1988–89 is again £5·5 million. It is, of course, for the local authorities to decide where they wish to target those resources. The hon. Gentleman will be most concerned about his own constituency, which lies within the Dearne valley, and I leave it to him to press the authorities there.

Doncaster, in particular, has decided to focus on the Dearne, especially the towns of Mexborough and Conisbrough. These received considerable help last year and there are more good schemes in the pipeline which should greatly benefit the local economy. For example, in 1987–88, £200,000 was allocated to create a tourist centre at Conisbrough's impressive 12th century castle. Work there is now well under way and is complemented by English Heritage funding and a massive tree planting scheme undertaken by the Countryside Commission at the former Cadeby colliery.

This year, I approved more than £300,000 for the first stage of the conversion of the former Mexborough grammar school to workshop and business units. It is expected that this scheme will create some 250 jobs and help the local entrepreneurial talent to stimulate the economy. A recent small grant to a local business man under the urban programme is expected to create another 50 jobs in Mexborough as the former Royal Electric theatre is converted into a restaurant and leisure centre.

I am endeavouring to explain that the environment has not been neglected. Mexborough town centre will benefit greatly from a £250,000 pedestrianisation scheme. The urban programme also supports two members of staff co-ordinating British Trust for Conservation Volunteers initiatives in Mexborough and Conisbrough. This not only improves the local environment but offers useful training and experience to young people in the area.

Support for projects in Rotherham's part of the Dearne valley has been going on for some time as well, both under the urban programme and before, when Rotherham was classified as an ODD, or other designated district. Very substantial amounts of money have been put into large economic schemes. For example, £1 million went into the Swinton bridge at the edge of the Dearne which, with derelict land grant, opened up industrial land and safeguarded hundreds of jobs at Morphy Richards as well as allowing valuable new developments. Again., at Brampton Ellis, over the past. two years well over £500,000 has gone into converting a former school into some 68 small and medium-sized units for new and expanding businesses which offer the hope of real jobs for hundreds of people in the area.

In Barnsley, the story is much the same, with particular emphasis being placed on the environmental schemes and with more than £200,000 in the past two years going into the Dearne valley park—a major project which has also received funding in previous years. The latest stage involves the landscaping of a former maggot farm, and applications for further schemes are still arriving in our regional office in Leeds.

I repeat that we can approve schemes within the Dearne only if they are submitted to us. It is up to local authorities to prioritise, but it is as well not to be too parochial as the Dearne will also gain from the the new initiatives in nearby Sheffield. The urban programme funded science park and new employment park, the improvements which will follow rapidly now that the urban development corporation has been established in the lower Don valley and private sector projects such as the one at Meadowhall will all improve the economy of the whole of south Yorkshire. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that there will be a knock-on effect. Especially heartening for me are the two major developments at either end of the lower Don valley, the urban development corporation giving the area a head start in the type of urban regeneration that we wish to see, with the physical transformation of the landscape and the reduction of the unacceptably high unemployment in the area. I genuinely hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituency will benefit as a result.

Although the hon. Gentleman asked for higher ministerial priorities, I have attempted to show that the area already receives high priority. As a result of the important oral answer that I gave last week and my offer to revisit the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I am endeavouring to meet his request.

I am grateful for this opportunity to refer to the situation in Palestine and to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his new appointment, which I know he will enjoy and in which he will certainly excel.

It is now eight months since the commencement of the current unrest in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza—the "intifada" as it is known by the Palestinians. The unrest in December was spontaneous, but it had been long predicted. Since Israel replaced Jordan and Egypt as the occupying power in 1967, the Palestinians have become increasingly frustrated by the lack of any prospect of a settlement which would respect their right to self-determination. Demonstrations, the detention of young Palestinians and curfews in the refugee camps were nothing new, but when last year's Arab summit in Amman and the super-power summit in Washington appeared totally to ignore the Palestinian cause, the situation was ripe to explode.

Today, following 200 deaths, thousands of injuries and thousands more people detained without trial, the uprising is becoming organised—by Palestinians internally, by the Palestine Liberation Organisation externally, but more worrying in terms of the future stability of the middle east, by Islamic fundamentalist groups for whom this is the beginning of a long overdue Jihad, or holy war, inspired by the Ayatollah and aimed at the destruction not just of the Jewish state of Israel but of King Hussein, President Mubarak and the Arab kings, most of whom were touring the capitals of the world earlier this year urging a settlement. The need for a settlement has never been greater. Ironically, despite the failure of the Shultz initiative, the prospects for success has never been greater because it is in everyone's interests.

While the intifada has kept Palestinian demands in the forefront of the world media, as it is designed to do, the situation of the real, innocent victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict—the 2·2 million registered refugees—has re-mained much the same for the past 40 years. These are the families who were first displaced in 1948. Some of them have been displaced several times since. They inhabit the most basic accommodation—shelters which can be regarded only as temporary—and are therefore homeless and stateless. They are denied effective freedom of travel, to the continuing distress of families who remain divided. Their situation can be described only as a continuing international scandal and immediate responsibility lies with the countries involved which have failed to make a settlement possible.

Last year, the Council of Europe committee for migration, refugees and demography appointed me its rapporteur on the subject of the Palestinian refugees and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. In March this year I visited 10 refugee camps in Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. A visit to Lebanon was clearly impossible at that time. I had meetings with Israeli and Jordanian Ministers and officials, the International Committee of the Red Cross, officers of the Israeli defence forces, who are the civil administration in the occupied territories, the PLO representative in Amman, as well as numerous briefings from UNRWA staff in the host countries and later at its headquarters in Vienna. I also had informal meetings with other Israelis and Palestinians and with the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem. I visited the Maqassed hospital on the mount of olives in east Jerusalem and the Ahli Arab hospital in Gaza, where the victims of the violence are being treated. Earlier this month, I presented my report to the committee. My hon. Friend the Minister has a copy of it. Its recommendations will be discussed in September and put to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe in October.

Needless to say, during my visit to Palestine I was able to see at first hand the results of the uprising in the occupied territories, and I did not like what I saw. I saw the hardship experienced by refugee families. The curfews are causing unemployment, loss of income, shortages of food and acute pressure on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's relief services. The prevention of out-patient services leads, for example, to the denial of medical treatment for diabetics, or psychiatric services or other social support for families who are suffering from understandable anxiety and depression. The breakdown of municipal services in the camps, such as refuse and sewage collection, is leading to growing squalor, and that is threatening hygiene.

The schools on the West Bank were closed in February and opened briefly in June, only to be closed again. The closure is keeping children at home, and anyone seen looking out of a window at curfew risks a beating or worse. In the hospitals, there are patients with broken arms and other limbs as a result of beatings. The victims include young children. In the hospitals one sees the effects of rubber bullets with metal cores that have disfigured babies. There are shattered limbs and paralysed bodies of young men who have been struck by high-velocity M16 bullets. One sees the effects of CS gas on mothers, such as premature births or abortions. For babies there is death by asphyxiation or the longer term fear of paralysis.

Many of the victims are people who have chosen to demonstrate or who are being exploited to demonstrate and who know what they risk. I am aware of that. The others are innocents who merely got in the way. I saw for myself how quickly a demonstration could explode into violence, but for the prompt action of UNRWA officials. It was an extremely frightening experience, and it is one that is happening every day. I have some sympathy for the Israeli soldiers who face these conditions. Soldiers in that sort of environment require proper training in riot control and the right equipment. It requires immense discipline and self-control. As we know, that is not always evident.

In my report, I have no hesitation in paying tribute to the professionalism and dedication of UNRWA, without which the situation for the refugees would undoubtedly be many times worse. Without its stabilising influence, the presence of so many Palestinians in the host countries would be the cause of even greater tension and confrontation, especially in the Lebanon and the occupied territories. I look forward to learning whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) shares my views, should he catch your eye during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

There are four other observations that are highly relevant to any political solution to the Palestinian problem but which appear to be overlooked. First, in the occupied territories and in Jordan, 40 per cent. of the population is under 20 years of age. Unemployment is rising and job opportunities are falling. This is caused in the West Bank and Gaza by the unrest, and in Jordan by the effects of the recession in neighbouring Arab oil-producing countries. Moreover, the Arab birth rate is 3·5 per cent. That means that there is a demographic time-bomb ticking away, which Israel especially ignores at its peril. Thus, there is an immediate need for international economic aid and initiatives for the area.

Secondly, I was extremely impressed by the experience and professionalism of UNRWA's Palestinian staff, which represents by far the majority of its work force. These are the administrators, teachers, doctors, nurses, medical officers, social workers and engineers. Thus, there exist, together with those Palestinians who operate the Israeli agriculture and rural development services, and those Palestinians who undertake the non-military activities of the PLO, such as education and health programmes, and others who run the factories in the Lebanon, many thousands of experienced personnel who would be available immediately to run the civil services and local government services of any new Palestinian state, autonomous, demilitarised or otherwise, that arises from a settlement.

Thirdly, during the past 20 years of occupation, Israel has improved the education, health and employment opportunities of the Palestinians which it had inherited from Jordan and Egypt. Israel has encouraged the Palestinians to administer the municipalities. It has pursued, without much recognition, a programme of resettlement for refugees with the aim of replacing the camps. However, I could not fail to note the stark contrast between the affluence of the recently established Jewish settlements and the poverty of the refugee camps nearby. To me, that was not acceptable. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who has visited the area, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Finally, I cannot ignore what I have heard from every Palestinian whom I have met, refugee or resident, or UNRWA official in Syria, Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. It is said that the PLO, for all its faults, speaks for them, and that only the PLO will be allowed to speak for them and to represent them at any attempt to produce a settlement. In other words, the PLO is the key to any settlement; and, if it is sincere, it should publicly abandon its covenant and commitment to terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist, from which so much can follow. I shall be glad to learn the views of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on this issue, should he catch your eye during the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

What now are the prospects for a settlement? Regrettably, it appears that the Shultz initiative has failed. We should pay tribute to the dogged refusal of the American Secretary of State to accept defeat, and the tireless energy and diplomacy he has displayed during his many visits between Amman, Cairo, Damascus and Jerusalem. It would seem now that there can be no progress until Israel's general election in November, following which a new American Administration will be elected, which is bound to have other priorities next year. The immediate humanitarian problem cannot wait that long. There are initiatives that can be taken now to relieve the situation for the refugees, which my report recommends.

First, there should be immediate support for UNRWA's plans to improve infrastructure, such as drains, roads, health services and relief for hardship families in the camps in the Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, which the United Nations Secretary-General urged on 21 January.

Secondly, there should be an immediate response to the Secretary-General's request for a commitment on the part of United Nations member states to a small but regular increase in their contributions to UNRWA's budget so that it can plan ahead more effectively. Council of Europe member states, the United States and Canada contribute almost 70 per cent. of UNRWA's budget. We should be urging the Arab oil-producing states to increase their contributions, which now total 2 per cent., and appeal to the Soviet Union, to Eastern Europe and to all the other industrial states which contribute nothing to recognise the current situation and to reverse their policy on humanitarian grounds.

Thirdly, we should urge Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva convention of 12 August 1949, to which it is a high contracting party, fully to comply with its obligations to ensure the protection of civilians, including UNRWA staff, in the occupied territories.

None of this, of course, can be any substitute for that comprehensive and lasting political judgment that is necessary for a just resolution of the refugee problem, or, indeed, for peace, security, stability and co-operation to be established in Palestine for the first time.

Earlier this year, the standing committee of the Council of Europe agreed to the holding of a parliamentary conference in Strasbourg early next year, with representatives of all the countries that would be participating in a possible middle east peace conference. Employing as it would the Council of Europe's own special parliamentary relations with the Knesset, the United States Congress, its long established contacts with Arab states and organisations and its recently established relationship with the supreme Soviet, it was felt that such a European initiative could overcome existing reservations and help to create a climate of confidence necessary for talks to convene.

It is the policy of all parties in this House that such talks should take place within the context of an international conference, but, of course, for that to take place the presence of Israel is required. We should not ignore the reasons for the Israeli Prime Minister's refusal to put his country in such a dock of world opinion or not even to contemplate the withdrawal from the occupied territories. After all, he may well remain Israel's Prime Minister after November.

We should not ignore that what the Camp David process achieved before, when it brought peace between Israel and Egypt and withdrawal from Sinai, can be achieved again as it already provides for peace with Jordan and an autonomous state of Palestine.

If an international conference proves impossible, let us recognise that a prospect for success exists through lower profile, low-level negotiations between Isreal, Jordan and Palestinians, acceptable to Israel and the PLO—such people exist—to produce a programme of measures to bring the present unrest to an end. Such a programme would restore Palestinian administration to the area and replace the present Israeli civil administration—the Israeli defence forces—with a United Nations one. We should remember that the UN is already present in the area because of UNRWA. The negotiations should seek to establish an economic development area with international aid and support from which a confederation of states could be built. I believe that that may well prove to be the practical way forward to restore confidence between Arab and Jew which will, in due course, lead to a lasting peace in the middle east.

I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) not only for raising this matter, but especially for kindly sparing me a little of his time to put a case that might otherwise not be heard and to raise a voice from the Labour Benches.

First, I join the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East in welcoming the appointment of the new Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I, too, believe that he will approach middle east problems with the recognition that they are complex, difficult and anxious. At the same time, I express my unreserved delight at the departure of the hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) from the same job. His going is greatly welcomed by all who are friends of Israel. If a Minister wishes to contribute to diplomacy, he must do so with understanding, with tact and even with a little affection for the country and for the area. When dealing with Israel, the hon. and learned Member for Putney showed that he had none of those qualities.

I join the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East in expressing my anguish at the misery of the people who live on the West Bank and in Gaza. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the refugee camps in which Palestinians are condemned to be born, to live and often to die, were not the creation of Israel. The continuation of the camps is not the wish of Israel and their operation is not in Israel's hands. I wish that something had been said about the absorption of many thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries by and in Israel. I echo his call for Arab nations to provide far more aid for their own brethren than they have seen fit to do in the past. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the riots that have taken place, but I am sure that, in fairness, he would recognise that no country, including our own, could allow unbridled riots to continue within any country, area, or territory under its control, for whatever reason. Certainly, we are not in a good position to preach to others about the control of riots and death when we have signally failed to do so in Northern Ireland, part of our own United Kingdom.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to seek for peace in the region and to do what we can to contribute towards it. As the hon. Gentleman hinted, he understands that one needs partners to a peace process, that all must be prepared to speak to the others. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the PLO can expect to be a partner in the peace process only if it is prepared to recognise the right of Israel to exist in security and if it will renounce violence against civilians as part of its policy. No country, including our own, would negotiate with any organisation which was not prepared to behave in that way. We will not negotiate with the IRA for precisely that reason.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East was right to point out the problems created in any country by elections and, not least, by the forthcoming ones in Israel. Elections produce results that a nation must accept, even if—in common with the British Labour party—we do not like what we have got.

I am aware that Conservative Members in the Chamber have visited the West Bank. When the House rises, I shall go to Jerusalem to the wedding of my daughter to a young Israeli. They and all who live there want peace more than anyone else. They, as much as anyone else, are anguished by the miseries of those who live on the West Bank and in Gaza. But they, as well as myself and the rest of the House, wish that an understanding of the complexity of the position should permeate our debates. In that way an understanding of the problems of Israel should follow in the speeches made in this House as it did not do in the speeches or in the behaviour of the previous Minister of State when he visited that area.

How singularly appropriate that the House of Commons should have this chance to debate this grave issue before rising for the long summer recess, and how appropriate it is that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) should have an early chance to sample the flavour of the biggest problem that faces him at the Foreign Office. His Conservative predecessors were noted for the clarity of their perception and the boldness of their speech regarding intolerance, oppression and injustice. I have faith that my hon. Friend will follow that admirable tradition.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for kindly giving me a few moments in this debate. I congratulate him on the rational, sensible way in which he set about preparing his report. It was no easy task, as some of us know. I also congratulate him on the admirable way in which he addressed the House this morning, and I agreed with so much of what he said.

Edmund Burke wrote:

"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again; and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered."

I believe that, at this time, Palestine is perpetually being reconquered. The House is aware that Britain has a special responsibility in this matter because our predecessors twice promised the land. We are now faced with a double tragedy—the plight of the Palestinians and the present enormous damage being done to the reputation of the Jewish people.

I visited the West Bank and Gaza two years ago. The despair and degradation, mud and misery, and the loss of hope amid those sorry shacks of exile, made a very deep impression on me, particularly when I spoke to the extremely well-educated people I met there. UNRWA has done a marvellous job in that direction. The people there did not believe that they or their contemporaries had any future, apart from following the sorry path of violence.

I cannot claim to be surprised at recent events on the West Bank and Gaza where 270 people have been killed. The explosion had become inevitable. It so happened that the year I visited the West Bank and Gaza I also visited South Africa. In both countries there was dreadful repression of one community by another, the laws were framed to discriminate and that discrimination was backed with brutal force. I commend the work of UNRWA to the new Minister. Britain has a good record of supporting it financially. We supply many of its staff, some in high places. I hope that we will continue to fund it, perhaps on an increased basis.

I wish my hon. Friend the Minister good luck in achieving a slightly more realistic attitude towards the PLO. I blame the politicians, not the Foreign Office. I know that one of my hon. Friend's predecessors actually met the so-called Foreign Minister of the PLO. But whether I, my hon. Friend or the House like it or not, nine out of 10 Palestinians look to the PLO for support. If Britain is to play a serious part in the peace process, we must understand the arguments put forward by the representatives of the Palestinian people.

We would be wise to distance ourselves further from the United States in this matter. I am a great supporter of the United States, but its record on Palestine is most unfortunate. Without the vast sums of money which it gives to the state of Israel, particularly in regard to defence, that country would have had to design a foreign policy that encouraged it to talk to the Arabs on a proper and peaceful basis.

Finally, this seems to be a year in which peace is breaking out in Afghanistan and hopefully in the Gulf and in southern Africa. I hope that Britain will play a part in encouraging peace to break out in this area and that a Palestinian homeland will be created.

I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for allowing me some time. I am very grateful to him. I also extend my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I spent 175 hours on the Housing Bill Committee earlier this year. I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench.

My interest in the problems of Palestine began soon after my election. Before then I had very little interest in the matter, and I have tried to approach it in an objective way. I went to the occupied territory in February and saw things there that I did not like. When I came back I went to the Israeli embassy and said to the deputy ambassador that I would be happy to go out to Israel and see things from Israel's point of view. I am very disappointed that he did not take up my offer.

During my trip to the occupied territories I saw a great deal of misery. I cannot report anything else. The group of hon. Members from both sides of the House with whom I travelled were attacked and stoned in Gaza when we were mistaken for Israelis. A rock smashed against the windscreen, and I believe that had the window been open one of us easily could have been killed. We were held up by road blocks, and the general feeling in the occupied territories was of repression and fear. It was a most unpleasant experience.

I am delighted to hear that the daughter of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is getting married in Jerusalem. I extend congratulations to a colleague from Leicestershire. I fear that he will not be able to take his daughter to many parts of Jerusalem. Because of the situation there, Israelis fear to venture into some parts of the city.

Many comparisons have been made. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West made a comparison with the situaton in Northern Ireland. I served in Northern Ireland in the late 1960s and I was there a few weeks ago. The situation there is entirely different. The community is basically peaceful, with a few exceptions. The cities are beautiful and people can move around freely. In Northern Ireland there are local elections and hon. Members represent Northern Ireland in the House. That is more than can be said for the occupied territories. Hon. Members may recall that the last elections held in Gaza were in 1945 under the British mandate.

I was in East Germany last year. One could draw a comparison there, but I found the movement of personnel around East Germany a great deal easier than it was in the occupied territories. The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Minister referred to South Africa and drew some comparison there. I thought that that was misguided. I went to university in South Africa. I was at business school there in the 1970s, and my friends there tell me that the situation has eased enormously. Hillbrow district in Johannesburg and parts of Cape Town are now multi-racial. That is in stark contrast to the situation in Israel and the occupied territories, where the demarcation lines are tighter than ever. When I was there, the demarcation line was rigidly enforced and only so called "settlers" from Israel crossed into the occupied territories.

Does the occupation make any sense for Israel? It costs a fortune and it stretches Israeli forces. The military increasingly believe that it is unnecessary. Indeed, 75 to 80 per cent. of the present general staff believe "that the danger to Israel from maintaining control of the territories and their population is much greater than the risk involved in surrendering them." The long-term implications are disastrous for Israel. Demographically, if Israel hangs on to greater Israel it will be outnumbered and, of course, that will create a very serious problem for it. If it reduces that demographic imbalance it will have to "transfer" Palestinians. "Transfer" is a euphemism for transportation, and I should have thought that that was deeply repugnant to anyone with any Jewish sympathies.

Altogether, the negative impact on Israel at home is far outweighed by the negative impact that has been created for Israel abroad. Never mind what is happening in the occupied territories; consider what it has done to Israel's reputation abroad. I am told that at Foreign Office Question Time in the House Israel used to make all the running, but now most Members believe that Israel is wrong.

The British press is respected worldwide and its attitude permeates across the world. I spoke to a senior British diplomat serving in our Washington embassy and asked him about the state of opinion in the Jewish community in America. He said that it was one of "anguish."

I believe that a Right-wing Government will be elected in Israel. In the short term that will be bad for the occupied territory, but in the long term it may be for the best. Only a Right-wing Government can commit the disastrous policies necessary to generate the kind of change of American public opinion that is needed to force a solution for the West Bank. That has to be the withdrawal of Israeli forces.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for initiating the debate and giving me such an early opportunity to join this passionate discussion. I must be forgiven just a touch of nostalgia as I listened to my hon. Friend for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) winding-up the previous debate for the Department in which I served for five years, and expatiating on the redevelopment of maggot farms in Wakefield—a very different matter from the debate to which I now have the privilege to contribute.

My Department greatly values the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East in the Council of Europe. The debate will be a very useful part of my education in these matters, and I warmly commend it to the House. I am grateful for his careful and constructive analysis. My hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), have with admirable brevity, outlined the underlying issues and the passions that lie behind them. I cannot yet match their knowledge and experience, but I look forward to visiting the region before too long.

All right hon. and hon. Members who visited the occupied territories—the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West will not disagree with this—were shocked by the conditions there, especially on the Gaza strip and in the camps. The Government share the concerns that have been expressed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East was right to acknowledge that matters have improved in some respects since the Israeli occupation began in 1967. Universities have been established on the West Bank and health services have been extended. Despite the evident need and misery in the occupied territories, the Israeli authorities have allocated Iand—including one third of the area of the Gaza strip—and immense resources to the establishment and expansion of illegal settlements. My hon. Friend referred to the stark contrast between the Israelis' affluence and the neighbouring camps' poverty.

I join hon. Members in paying tribute to the vital work done by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency in providing services—mainly health and education—to the 2 million registered refugees and the professionalism and dedication of its staff, which includes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said, many Britons. They have carried out their duties faithfully in extremely difficult and often dangerous conditions, notably in Lebanon and more recently in Gaza and the West Bank.

We fully support the recommendation of the United Nations Secretary-General for an expansion of UNRWA's work, and we shall be establishing a new unit in UNRWA to assess that requirement. New resources will be required. We have increased our direct contribution to UNRWA's annual budget to £5·25 million, in addition to our contribution of almost £5 million through the European Community.

Our main objective, during our presidency of the UNRWA Advisory Commission, which began this month, will be to encourage others to contribute generously and to support the efforts of the commissioner-general to persuade those who do not contribute to do so.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East knows, we are already giving bilateral aid, which last year amounted to about £840,000, to the occupied territories through non-governmental organisations of one kind or another, and we are contributing to European Community programmes. Our focus has been on the training of Palestinians and health and welfare projects in co-operation with NGOs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has announced a new grant of £100,000 to the St. John's eye hospital, to which my hon. Friend referred. That has been made for outreach services in Gaza.

We are encouraging Palestinian businesses by supporting a programme run by the non-governmental organisation, Cooperation for Development, to provide loans for small businesses. The organisers report that demand for loans has increased as conventional commercial sources of finance have dried up.

We should, however, like to do more. The disturbances in the occupied territories have delayed our plans to disburse additional aid through Jordanian institutions. We are reviewing how that aid can be effectively disbursed.

We played a leading role in promoting preferential access to the European Community for Palestinian producers. We welcome the assurances that Mr. Peres gave at the Europan Co-operation Council in May that the remaining difficulties have been resolved. Some contracts have been signed to supply produce from the occupied territories to outlets in Europe. We shall monitor closely how these arrangements work in practice.

Although those improvements in economic conditions are important, they will not reduce the deep despair and frustration of Palestinians in the occupied territories, which led to the present disturbances. No one doubts that the stifling of economic activity, to protect Israeli industry, and the innumerable restrictions and petty humiliations —which my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East said were being inflicted on people who are regarded as second class; in short, the occupation itself—provoked the inevitable reaction. We do not believe that the uprising was organised from the outside, and the extent of outside influence should not be exaggerated. It was a spontaneous and inevitable upsurge of protest aganst the occupation. Its momentum is maintaned primarily by young people in the occupied territories. This problem has been compounded by Israeli tactics, such as excessive use of force by soldiers who are not trained for such tasks and deportations and collective punishment contrary to international law. We surely all condemn such measures.

We acknowledge Israel's responsibility, pending its withdrawal, to maintain order in the occupied territories, but the responsibility must be discharged in accordance with international law and human rights standards. The Geneva convention applies to the occupied territories, and Israel should observe its provisions. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East that we have raised these problems with the Israelis on many occasions and they are well aware of our views. It is ironic that the Israelis should campaign, with our full support, for the human rights of Soviet Jews—I am aware of the honourable role that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has played in the campaign—but Israel must surely apply the same criteria to its treatment of Palestinians.

The suffering must be ended. Over 230 Palestinians and three Israelis have been killed since the uprising began. Many more have been injured, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East gave a graphic account of the horrors that he saw.

Thousands of Palestinians have been detained without trial. Personal grievances and hatreds are multiplying; violence breeds violence. If the extremists have their way, violence will continue. Violence and repression will never solve the underlying problems of the region.

The uprising has surely forced all concerned to accept that the status quo is unsustainable. Israelis and Palestinians are fated by history and geography to live together. If they are to do so in peace, it will have to be on a basis of mutual recognition and respect. Each side must be prepared to accord the other the rights that it claims for itself.

Nothing could make a greater contribution at this stage —I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West about this—than unambiguous acceptance by the PLO leadership of Israel's right to a secure existence, of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, and of the renunciation of violence. We welcome the recent paper by Bassam Abu Sherif, who is a PLO spokesman, as a constructive move in the right direction, especially its acceptance of Israel's right to exist and, conditionally, the Security Councils resolutions. We regret that it has not yet been endorsed.

We hope that the PLO and the leaders of the uprising will grasp the nettle and commit themselves wholeheartedly to the search for a negotiated solution. We recognise that the PLO commands widespread suppport among Palestinians, and we said in the Venice declaration that it should be associated with the peace negotiations. The Israelis cannot be expected to accept the PLO as a negotiating partner while the PLO's policies on the key issues of violence and Israel's right to a secure existence remain ambiguous.

We look to the Israeli leadership to develop forward-looking and constructive policies that will lay the foundations for a proper and peaceful relationship between the people of the region. The electorate will shortly have an opportunity to signal a clear interest in peace; it is vital that they take it.

Our own views are well known. A just and lasting settlement of the Arab-Israel conflict must be based on the right of all states in the region, including Israel, to a secure existence within recognised borders and of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. We continue to believe that the best way forward is an international conference, under United Nations auspices, as a framework for the necessary negotiations between the parties directly concerned. It should not have the power to impose solutions or to veto agreements between the parties. Such a conference would offer an opportunity to negotiate a just and lasting settlement. It is not a trap and no man of good will need fear it.

The understanding last year between Mr. Peres and King Hussein offers a good foundation. The need is to build on that and to persuade others in Israel and the Arab world not to squander the opportunity. King Hussein's commitment to the search for peace is not in doubt and Jordan's role, given the length of her border with Israel, will remain crucial. A lasting peace will require Palestinian and Syrian participation. The time has come for both to accept the challenge of making peace.

Israelis must be prepared to make some concession and accept the principle of territory for peace. Peace will require compromise from both sides, and both will have to give up long-cherished but unattainable objectives. Neither historical Palestine nor Eretz Israel can be the basis of a modern state, except at the price of perpetual conflict.

The American role—in this context, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East to some extent—is clearly vital. We warmly welcomed its active re-engagement in the peace process earlier this year. There are many constructive elements in Mr. Schultz's proposals, including a commitment to an international conference and proposals for early elections in the occupied territories. His proposed timetable for negotiations was rightly ambitious, and has not been implemented.

I welcome the initiative by the Council of Europe to hold a parliamentary conference in Strasbourg next year. Such contacts between parties can only be helpful. We affirmed as long ago as the Venice declaration in June 1980 our willingness to participate in guaranteeing an eventual settlement. We stand by that commitment. In the last resort, peace must be made by those directly involved. They will have our full support as they face that challenge. We know how difficult it will be, but that difficulty is no reason to postpone the necessary action.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received notification of an application for a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment concerning the employment implications of the announcement made this morning of further redundancies and closures at Corah plc, which is a major employer in my, constituency? Corah announced 750 redundancies just a short time ago, it has announced 200 more today, and there is no guarantee that there will not be further redundancies in the future. As that major company, which was once a great and stable family company, is suffering in a way that is symptomatic of the general misery and continued recession in the hosiery and knitwear trades and industries in the east midlands, surely there must be some statement from the Government before the House rises.

:Mr. Speaker has received no application for a statement to be made. However, I have no doubt that the hon. and learned Gentleman's points will be noted.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that employees at Corah in Leicestershire come from areas beyond Leicester city. My constituency of Bosworth, with its principal town of Hinckley, has many hosiery and knitwear workers who share the concern about circumstances at Corah. I am concerned that there may be a disturbing ripple effect in Hinckley.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's points will be noted.

It is with regret that, as a graduate of Hull university, I am raising this subject today. It is also a matter of regret for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). It is a duty imposed upon me by virtue of the fact that Hull university is in my constituency and that one of the characters involved in the tragedy is one of my constituents.

It has been a feature of British universities for many years that each institution is able to offer its students a wide choice of major academic disciplines. From the time of Socrates and Plato one of those major disciplines has been the study of philosophy, and it is natural to expect each university to have a philosophy department that offers teaching and research to the highest levels.

The Government's successive cuts in university funding began in 1981 and have continued, regrettably, ever since. They have taken a heavy toll of such academic traditions. Several universities have lost their philosophy departments. Most universities have lost eminent philosophers, and many degree programmes have been curtailed or closed completely.

That situation is duplicated in many other academic disciplines, particularly the humanities, but also, to some extent, in the sciences. For example, the department of earth sciences at Hull university is about to close. That has forced the University Grants Committee to undertake far-reaching national reviews of many subject areas. In all cases, that has led to departmental closures and a reduction in the choice of courses for students.

The UGC has pursued a policy of "concentration" of resources. More often than not that has worked to the detriment of smaller universities, which have lost one department after another. It has also frequently accelerated early retirement among academic staff in those departments, and for many younger staff the reviews have produced virtually enforced transfers between institutions.

Earlier this year the UGC instituted a national review of the teaching of philosophy, led by Professor Hepburn of Edinburgh university. The review committee is due to report by the end of the year. Professor Hepburn has already expressed his concern that because so many philosophers have retired early or left the country his review will suffer from a lack of "spare bodies" available for transfer between universities, which would help to facilitate the closure of some departments in order to strengthen others.

Professor Hepburn's comment is particularly ironic, since it is a philosopher who has recently become the first tenured academic in the United Kingdom to be given notice of dismissal because he has been declared compulsorily redundant. It appears that, in universities with serious financial problems the imminence of UGC reviews can place staff, particularly the older ones, in a form of double jeopardy. They are not allowed to remain in their posts and, while the review is in progress, they cannot transfer to another university.

The present case, which occurred on 30 June at Hull university, has attracted wide attention and carries grave implications for the future of contracts of employment for many academics and also for reviews of courses by UGC committees. In its action, Hull university goes even further in its attack on academic tenure than the Government have gone in the Education Reform Bill, which regrettably receives its Royal Assent today. The council of Hull university is attempting, retrospectively, to deny tenure to its existing staff.

The need for academic tenure as the most effective means of protecting academic freedom in our institutions of higher learning is recognised in all civilised countries. That is apparent from the horror and amazement with which overseas academics have reacted to the Government's proposals to abolish tenure in the United Kingdom. Academics representing professional organisations in the United States, Canada, Germany and the Scandinavian countries have filled the letter columns of the press with their anxious protests. The president of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said in The Times on 16 May that his members

"can see no good reason why our British colleagues should have any less protection"

than Canadian academics. He said that Canada found it easy to provide contracts that contain a legal definition of academic freedom—something that the Secretary of State conceded only when beaten in the other place.

The president of the American Association of University Professors went further. On 27 June Professor Julius Getman, a distinguished labour lawyer, contrasted the curtailment of academic freedom inherent in the Education Reform Bill with the extension of freedom now apparent in the Soviet Union and called tenure

"an important safeguard of the integrity of the academic profession."

He said that it remains the best protection of the academic freedom so eloquently described by Lord Jenkins's successful amendment of the Bill. That is one of the few words of praise that I shall ever have for the Chancellor of Oxford university. He warns of a renewed brain drain that could result from the destruction of tenure and from the

"cavalier attitude to higher education exhibited by the British Government."

He insists that

"neither Britain nor the global university community can easily afford the losses this entails."

The Government have certainly been cavalier in their treatment of the anxieties of many of the groups that have warned of the damage that the Education Reform Bill will do, and of the organisations that represent academic staff in particular. They have even ignored the UGCs concern that the removal of tenure from staff who transfer between universities under the committee's various subject "rationalisation" schemes would seriously threaten the planned restructuring of our universities, to which the Government are supposedly committed. They were deaf to the arguments from the Association of University Teachers, which said that to remove tenure from staff when they are promoted would lead only to bitterness and frustration and would further encourage able staff to leave Britain.

None the less, despite their determination to end tenure as rapidly as possible, the Government stopped short of attacking the tenure granted to academics under existing contracts. Among those who called for retroactive legislation to wipe out all job security for all existing academics were several university vice-chancellors. No doubt they needed to out-Thatcher the Secretary of State and were eager to use the opportunity to restructure their institutions in their own images or that of the Prime Minister.

The vice-chancellor of Hull university, Professor William Taylor, has now persuaded Hull university council to act as if tenure never existed at Hull, despite the provisions of the charter and statutes of that university. The council decided that the staff of the department of philosophy had to be reduced by one during 1987–88 while the UGC review was taking place. The only sin that the unfortunate philosopher lecturer concerned, Mr. Edgar Page, had committed was to be 57 years old. That is a sin which some of us may yet hope to commit, and which some of us may have already committed. One wonders how Socrates or Plato would have fared if they had been teaching in the department of philosophy at Hull university in their advanced years.

Mr. Page was singled out in what is euphemistically called an academic plan designed by the vice-chancellor, who at the age of 58 is at the peak of his career. Mr. Page was told to take early retirement by the end of the current academic year or be dismissed. It would appear that the vice-chancellor has committed the same offence of being over 50.

Mr. Page made it clear that he would not consider early retirement under the threat of dismissal. Professor Taylor then persuaded Hull university council, at a special meeting hastily convened on 29 June, to authorize Mr. Page's dismissal. At a meeting of the committee of vice-chancellors and principals on 1 July, the implication of Professor Taylor's actions were not lost on his colleagues, who were all anxious to shed staff at minimal cost.

The continued decline of university funding by the Government has driven vice-chancellors to the point where they are willing to renege on binding contracts made with their staff many years ago. None of them wanted to be the first over the brink; one might even say over the cliff edge. However, many are now watching the position at Hull very closely, hoping that Hull will suffer all the damage, ignominy and shame that comes from being the first to remove tenure from existing staff while others reap the benefits of Professor Taylor's foolish and precipitate action.

Professor Taylor's action is foolish, because it is clearly quite unnecessary. While Hull university, like other universities, has had financial problems, the sacrifices of a great number of staff who have retired early since 1981 have considerably eased the problem. Under the previous vice-chancellor, Sir Roy Marshall, well over 100 academics retired early. From 1985, under Professor Taylor, the academic plan called for a further 139 staff losses, most of them academic, by 1989. At the same time, Professor Taylor is now actively recruiting new staff. Nine new professors are currently being appointed and several lectureships are being filled. More than 60 academics aged over 50 were individually targeted last year to lose their jobs under the Taylor plan because they were in subject areas which he wished to contract. Most of them retired early, though many would have preferred to stay.

Professor Taylor's hire-and-fire policy has caused great unease and bitterness among the staff at Hull. In the case of Mr. Page, it reached a logical conclusion. Mr. Page was sacked, not because Hull could not afford to keep him, but because the managerial style with which Professor Taylor expects to impress the Prime Minister demanded it. In fact, Hull university seemed to be keen to keep Mr. Page's expertise in his field of medical ethics and offered to re-employ him after compulsorily retiring him, with the proviso that he would develop money-spinning courses from which the university would pay his salary. It wanted to sack him today and re-employ him tomorrow. Mr. Page argued that he was pleased, delighted, happy, ecstatic to develop such courses, but while in his present permanent post, not on a basis where the university had transferred the cost of his salary to his pension fund and the UGC restructuring scheme.

It is clear that Mr. Page's expertise is highly sought after. The University of Bradford, which has suffered as badly as Hull under the Governments cuts, was nevertheless keen that Mr. Page should be transferred to Bradford to develop new courses. Here Mr. Page became the victim of Professor Taylor's rigidity and the chaotic state of our university system which the Government have managed to create. Because of the current UGC review of provision in philosphy, no UGC-funded transfers can take place. Therefore, an immediate transfer was impossible to arrange. On the other hand, Professor Taylor insisted that Mr. Page be off the pay roll by the end of the session. There was a stalemate, or "Catch-22."

Through his Association of University Teachers representatives, Mr. Page sought to persuade Professor Taylor that no final decision should be made until after the review of the provision of philosophy at universities had been conducted by Professor Hepburn. That should be completed at the end of year. Professor Taylor would agree only to defer the implementation of an application —if such it might be called—for early retirement until that date. He insisted that Mr. Page had to sign for early retirement there and then, at the last meeting, and that the university should have total discretion whether it would accept any transfer proposal after the review. The only parliamentary parallel to that would be members of the old Irish party who, when they were elected, gave their dated application for the Chiltern Hundreds to Parnell.

Mr. Page declined Professor Taylor's proposal because it constituted a second "Catch-22". He knew that Hull, among all United Kingdom universities, operates a curious form of age discrimination. Any staff over 50 who wish to transfer can do so only if the transfer results in the full saving of the salary costs. Transfers between institutions, so vital for the UGC's restructuring plans, cannot take place on that basis if the member of staff to be transferred is over 50. That is a new academic criterion for appointments on an age basis.

A member of staff from a university normally takes eight funded students with him or her on transfer, that being the unit of currency in the UGC funding formula. Because of Mr. Page's eminence in his field, Bradford was willing to accept Mr. Page with fewer funded students, since it hoped for income-generating forces arising from the appointment of Mr. Page at Bradford. Professor Taylor's insistence that no funded student numbers could be afforded would therefore probably scupper any future transfers. There is a precedent involving not only the removal of tenure, but the transfer at an age over 50 and the removal of the UGC currency formula of funded students places with the transfer.

Professor Taylor's reasons for his actions are simple. He calculates that the UGC currently pays the full cost of early retirement of all staff who leave under approved academic plans. It therefore costs Hull university nothing to sack such staff or to pressure them to leave voluntarily, as Mr. Page's colleagues have done at Hull.

It therefore benefits Hull university to sack staff rather than to transfer them, as the latter involves the notional loss of students. It is easy to see the origins of this distorted logic in the Government's efficiency drive in the universities. It is equally clear that such a policy leads to needless conflict and serious losses of experienced academics—losses that Hull university and the rest of the country can ill-afford.

The conflict which this managerial disaster has caused in Hull and in the universities generally is considerable. Mr. Page has referred the matter to the University Visitor, the Lord President of the Council, as the civil courts are still barred to academics in such disputes. Mr. Page expects to be reinstated, and he is represented in his petition by the solicitors acting for the Association of University Teachers.

The association has also called for an effective academic boycott of Hull university until the university council decision is reversed. Already serious damage has been done to Hull's academic reputation by the Council's action. Several external examiners have resigned, at least one national conference due in Septermber has been cancelled, public lectures may need to be cancelled and several job applicants who were shortlisted have withdrawn. The boycott will be taken seriously by the many academics who are appalled at Professor Taylor's action and who recognise that their own job security is now threatened by this case. Hull academics are planning prolonged industrial action to persuade the council to change its mind.

Academics do not take such action lightly. Indeed, it is difficult in any university common room to get them all to agree on one set course of action, without the writing of half a dozen theses and about 500 footnotes. Nevertheless, they are united in their action in Hull on this matter. They are concerned at the damage that their students will suffer, but they are determined that the Governments dirty work will not be executed by hyperactive vice-chancellors, who seem unconcerned at the damage to academic standards that such heavy handed management will cause.

National officers and officials of the Association of University Teachers met the university management on 20 July in a last effort to avoid this confrontation, but Professor Taylor's position remains unchanged. It now looks as if Hull university will damage itself quite needlessly, because of a combination of managerial inflexibility and the constraints imposed by UGC reviews and Government under-funding.

I am sure that Socrates would have had scathing words to describe the harsh treatment that his fellow philosopher has received. As Professor Getman of the American Association of Professors has pointed out, Britain and the world academic community are the losers from this Governments careless stewardship of our intellectual heritage.

I should therefore like to put the following proposals to the Minister. First, he should write to all universities where subject provision is the subject of UGC decisions and review, saying that nothing should be done to prejudice those subject departments or people in post until the completion of such a review. That already meets the problems that Professor Hepburn has identified in his review of the teaching of philosophy in these islands. That would ensure that Mr. Page's position was protected until the end of the review, and the argument over tenure could then be overcome if there were a satisfactory resolution of the matter by Professor Taylor, the university council altering its decision or by a transfer to Bradford university.

Secondly, the UGC should look at the arbitrary insistence on the age limit concerning transfer between universities' staff proposed by Professor Taylor, to consider whether it is both a restraint on trade and a breach of normal good practice between universities. It is certainly an amazing decision for a university to take that the age of 50 prevents transfers between universities if one is teaching, but if one is a vice-chancellor, such as Professor Taylor, one can transfer willingly to another position as vice chancellor above that age.

Thirdly, if the Minister is not prepared to take any of those courses of action, he should write to the UGC and Hull university pointing out that Mr. Page's case is now before the University Visitor and no action should be taken by the university until the University Visitor has made a judgment on the issue.

I was lucky enough to be awarded the Adjournment debate, but it is with great sorrow that I raise this issue. I never thought that a university which had been a place of great academic freedom, which had a great reputation among universities in this country, and which has sent many of its members to grace the Benches of the House —quite amazing in number compared with the age of the university—should be the first university to deal with a member of its staff, guaranteed by contract tenure, by dismissing him in such an arbitrary and high-handed fashion because of one single error on his part—his age of 57.

I declare an interest in the debate, especially relating to tenure, as, before coming to Parliament, just over a year ago, I was a lecturer at Sheffield university, and have just under two years before I may return to the university if I wish. At that time I will be almost 54, so the points that have been made about Hull's policy, if transferred to Sheffield, would affect me.

My university branch, which is the academic section of MFS, is also a body that fights to preserve tenure, as does the Association of University Teachers. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, I studied at Hull university in the politics and philosophy departments. Part of my teaching on access courses at Sheffield university was in philosophy, and one of the last students that I taught attained a place at Hull university as an adult student to study in its philosophy department.

Tenure is not the same thing as a sinecure. There are high standards of research, publication, administration and teaching that need to be met by university lecturers to comply and continue with their contracts. Those standards are supervised by university authorities and they are seriously examined. It is a life that calls for people who have a commitment to intellectual pursuits and, who, unless they come to Parliament, normally devote their lives to such activities. The atmosphere of the market place and of the stock exchange is quite inappropriate to such a lifestyle of study. The pressures of one's peer group are also considerable in an academic institution and mean that standards are maintained collectively by members of the academic community.

It is especially typical of our enterprise culture—a culture of Philistines—that the first move against tenure is to take place in a philosophy department. Philosophy is not some esoteric activity. It is not a matter of people contemplating their intellectual navels. Modern philosophy is about the development of reasoning skills. It concerns areas such as logic, the implication of arguments and consistency between arguments. It is concerned with crucial distinctions between analytic, empirical and evaluative forms of reasoning. It investigates and, above all, questions those distinctions.

Philosophy is the antithesis of teaching by rote, by dogma and by pre-packaged building blocks of information. Unfortunately, the Government in their education plans and their attitudes towards universities advance exactly those dogmatic pre-packaged positions that philosophy asks us to question and challenge. Philosophy is needed in society generally, so that it can develop its educational skills.

Those with a philosophical bent are less likely to make dogmatic, all-or-nothing statements about the characteristics of nations, races and social classes. The making of qualified statements is easier to defend in argument than absolute claims, unless those absolute claims are in the sphere of mathematics or the physical sciences.

Politicians would benefit from regular acquaintance with the modern philosophical techniques of language analysis. So, for that matter, could university students and other academics. Rather than cutting back on philosophy, it should be our major intellectual growth industry. I suggest that all students should come into contact with some of the language analysis techniques of modern philosophy within foundation courses. Whichever area of study people are engaged in—history, the sciences, religion or mathematics—there is a philosophy that is appropriate for the language, the skills and the arguments that are used in those areas.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on raising this important and interesting subject on the Adjournment. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on his thoughtful contribution to the debate.

I shall start by emphasising the importance of the study of philosophy. I draw the attention of the House to a speech that the Secretary of State recently made to the British Academy on the subject of the humanities. It was a speech which, unlike so many of our orations, really deserves reading, because in that speech he set out the grounds for his personal belief, and the Government's belief, in the importance of this branch of study.

Philosophy is an important intellectual discipline in its own right. It is fundamental to the higher level study of all disciplines, because the role of philosophy, as described by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, is identifying and analysing presuppositions of all forms of knowledge.

Philosophy is, or at least ought to be, a valuable training for life and work. The achievement of intellectual coherence should lead to that coherence and integration of personality and judgment which is the highest fruit of high culture and high learning. I hope that that is a consideration that modern philosophers have well in mind. At a more mundane level, philosophy gives rise, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, to skills in analysis and argument which are necessary in many areas of work.

Strictly speaking, however, none of this is the Governments business, and rightly so. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, will find, and I hope he appreciates, that it is this conviction, and the constitution-al conventions associated with it, that will prevent me from giving him full satisfaction on some of the points that he has raised.

We are living in the tercentenary of the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. It was an event in which philosophers played an eminent part in every party and on every side. One of the chief consequences of 1688 was the replacement in Britain of a form of state associated, as we can see from the continent, with an ambitious and wide-ranging concept of the role of the state in controlling and determining the life of the arts and the intellect.

In 1688, we in Britain rejected absolutism in the political and cultural spheres, whether in the form of Catholic integralism or in the form of Protestant Faustianism. The concept of the state which prevailed in 1688, and which established the British tradition in these matters—which happily continues to reign—was that of a limited state with a limited role in relation to great institutions of civil society, not last in relation to those associated with the life of culture and of the intellect.

We have inherited, and will continue to live within, a tradition in which, apart from generalised good will and respect for the plurality of ideas, the Government have no especially strong view about philosophy and its study. Rather, in our tradition, these are matters for civil society, for our autonomous culture and especially for our autonomous institutions of higher learning.

I am arguing that responsibility for the pursuit and development of philosophical studies in Britain has been, and should remain, with the academic community and the republic of letters. The role and responsibility of the Government is rightly very limited. In essence, in this century, that role has been to levy the taxpayer to provide public support for the work of our universities and colleges. That support is not, and I hope never will be, directed by the Government in such a highly specific way as will require the Government to develop their own policy about, for example, the academic study of philosophy.

It would not be appropriate for the Government, in the light of what I am saying, to take up a position on the case of an individual such as has been raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. Our role is simply to provide financial support for the republic of letters on whatever scale seems appropriate and within the limits of affordability—a central matter of political argument. We do that. After the Netherlands Britain spends the highest proportion in Western Europe of national product on higher education. Conditions in our universities and colleges in terms of, for example, the staff-student ratio are among the most generous in the world.

I recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, is saying—that all is not well today in the study of philosophy in Britain. We recognise that. On the credit side, however, it is worth observing that the number of students who study philosophy as their main subject has risen from 1,296 in 1979 to 1,349 in 1986. The number of new entrants to philosophy courses has increased by 9·3 per cent. during the same period. That is an impressive increase.

I suppose it could be said that there is a debit side, in that the number of academics who teach philosophy has dropped from 425 in 1981–82 to about 374 in 1986. It would be fair for me to say, however, that there are probably about as many full-time philosophers practising in 1988 as there were during the whole of the 17th and 18th centuries, when Britain made her greatest contribution so far in this branch of study.

At the same time as the quite small, but nevertheless significant, reduction in the number of staff who are teaching philosophy, accompanied by a substantial increase in the number of students of philosophy—what in industry would be regarded as an improvement in efficiency—there has been a weakening in the processes of academic renewal. This is the most important problem. There has been a steady rise in the average age of our academic philosophers, and there have been few opportunities for new entrants to bring new blood and, perhaps, we hope, new ideas to the study of the subject.

There has been a tendency, from which I do not think the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North escaped, to approach this problem mainly in terms of blaming. There are those who say, and I think that the hon. Gentleman said it, that the problem would never have arisen if the Government had poured in the money—taxpayers' money—to keep everything going at its highest possible level to enable people to recruit their successors at the highest possible level.

I have to reply, quite smartly, that resources have always been limited—even when the hon. Gentleman supported a Government of his own persuasion. I have already demonstrated that resources continue to be generously provided, but the central point of my speech is that matters remain as they always have been. It is the responsibility of the academic community to sustain and carry forward the disciplines it professes, of which it is the custodian and with which it has been charged.

In short, responsibility for the effective management of the resources that are available for higher study cannot be evaded. It is not for me, a member of the Government, to specify the measures of which more effective management will consist. These matters are the responsibility of our autonomous, self-governing and self-directing academic institutions.

I should like to say something about some of the features which, happily, are emerging and to which the hon. Gentleman referred. First, there is a recognition that the more effective stewardship of the public resources provided for scholarship require a reduction in the job protections that have built up excessively—notably during the 1960s, when too little regard was paid to these matters.

I must say in response to the hon. Gentleman's quotations of overseas critics of our abolition of strict academic tenure—I say it charitably—that they struck me as typically ill-informed. Recognition of the need to reduce the level of job protections is reflected in the Education Reform Act, as I think I may now call it. It is this morning that Her Majesty signs it or, rather, I believe, taps it with a wand saying, "La Reine le veult." That need is also reflected in the policies that are now being pursued by universities and colleges, which are seeking greater flexibility. They are reviewing the quality of their academic staff. I hope the hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that that is not a relevant consideration. They are also reviewing their priorities in teaching and research.

I should like to offer my congratulations to the University of Hull and its vice-chancellor on the determined and effective way in which they are attempting to tackle their problems.

A second feature of this more effective stewardship by the academic community has been the recognition that the health of certain branches of study depends not only on institutional pluralism and initiative—these are important considerations, to which I fear the hon. Gentleman's proposals pay too little regard—but on such features as the size of academic departments, or what might be called their critical mass, their relationship with other departments, and the condition of a branch of study when viewed in a national perspective. That is the basis of the series of subject reviews that have been launched by the University Grants Committee. Those reviews are being carried out by the academic community, as is appropriate to the philosophy that I have set out, and they aim at the nationwide redeployment of resources between institutions, to enhance the overall quality of our national contributions to each subject.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North told the House that it had recently been decided that philosophy should be the subject of one of the reviews. It was set up in March under the chairmanship of Professor Hepburn of the University of Edinburgh. The House and the Government will want to wish Professor Hepburn and his colleagues well in their sensitive and important task. We look forward to their considered conclusions.

It has sometimes been said that the Government have an exclusively utilitarian and materialistic approach to higher education. There was more than a hint of that in the speeches of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Derbyshire, North-East. That accusation is often associated with a good deal of muddled thinking. Do those who make that accusation think that considerations of utility and return on investment should have no place in the Government's thinking about how to make best use of taxpayers' money?

If it is accepted that such considerations are appropriate and relevant, on what principles would those who assail us propose to establish a balance between the values of utility and other values that we all agree to be important? As one who has tried to think as deeply as I can about these matters, I do not believe that our critics could do better than we have done, but I have an interest in making that assertion. Perhaps the most convincing statement that I can make in the Government's defence is that for my part I should be happy to remit the question to the highest court of philosophy.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on his promotion to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He deployed considerable skills when he was responsible for housing matters in the Department of the Environment and I have no doubt that he will bring his many fine qualities to his new post. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is to join us shortly. I hope that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later in the debate.

Last week I took part in a joint Anglo-American delegation to the Soviet Union, with the express purpose of trying to persuade the Government and officials to release religious prisoners of conscience. The trip was organised by that most excellent organisation, Christian Solidarity International, under the United Kingdom chairmanship of Mr. Mervyn Thomas and the American chairmanship of Mr. Stephen Snyder. The American delegation was superbly led by Congressman Frank Wolf and his wife. We were joined by Robert Pittenger, Michael Farris and Scott Flipsy.

I had never visted the Soviety Union, and Moscow came as a great culture shock to me. That feeling was heightened when I learned from what I believe to be a reliable source that the Soviets spend on average 70 billion hours a year queueing and that—again on average—every woman in the Soviet Union has three abortions.

One of the longest queues was for Lenin's mausoleum, a queue that I joined. I shall always remember seeing the never-ending queue of people waiting to see the wax figure of a man who died in 1924. Many brides and bridegrooms found time during their wedding day to take flowers to his tomb. That picture was often in my mind during our many meetings with Soviet Ministers and officials, since I believe that life for the average citizen in the Soviet Union is very tough. It struck me as extraordinary that people could so easily be pleased. Also, I did not forget that during the last war the Russian nation lost about 20 million people, a most terrible price to pay.

I shall give the House some details of the various meetings that we had during our week in Moscow and what we asked the Soviet authorities to do—and what I shall now ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do. We were given great assistance by both the American and British embassies. Unfortunately, our ambassador was in London that week, but his staff were extremely helpful to us during our stay. The American ambassador, Mr. Matlock, who I believe speaks better Russian than the Russians themselves, gave a dinner party for Soviet Ministers and officials, at which a number of very important, hard-hitting speeches were made. However, I felt at the end of the evening that the thoughts of all three parties had drawn much closer together.

At our meeting I stressed that we had absolutely no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union. However, we had come on a special mission to express the concern of Christians about the plight of fellow Christians who are being held in prison. I argued that Christianity transcends international boundaries. I believe that that point was accepted. A number of attacks were made on the Americans' record in that area. From the British point of view, I was quick to point out that we long to solve the problems in Ireland and that the British Government would welcome any sensible, practical suggestions that might help us to solve that difficult problem.

Our delegation was invited to the Soviet Union by Mr. Burlatsky. He is the vice-president of the Soviet Political Sciences Association and chairman of the Commission on Humanitarian Co-operation and Human Rights. He is one of the key figures in the glasnost process. Our meeting with him was one of the highlights of our week in Moscow. We wanted to obtain information about certain prisoners of conscience and we presented him with a list of approximately 200 prisoners of conscience whom we believe are being detained in the Soviet Union. We also wanted to obtain information about new laws that are being introduced by the Soviet Government for the protection of individual human rights. We wanted information, too, about the functioning and the property of churches and religious associations.

On 15 June, Mr. Burlatsky made an important speech in which he said that, 70 years after the revolution, there is a need to establish a stable constitutional order. He said that there was a need to reconstruct the political system so as to set up reliable guarantees against the revival of

"an authoritarian regime of personal power and the mass reprisals which would follow it."

Mr. Burlatsky went on to say that to make the state an efficient instrument of accelerated development is to overcome what Lenin called the bureaucratic distortion of Soviet power. He said that it was important to guarantee not only socio-economic but human and political rights and freedoms. Mr. Burlatsky sympathised with many of the points that we made about prisoners of conscience and suggested that we should take up our points with the Ministers whom we were to meet during our week in Moscow.

Our list of prisoners was disputed at practically every meeting that we attended. The point was made that many prisoners had already been released and that a number of those who remained in prison were there for charges unconnected with their religious beliefs. I made a commitment that I would publicly apologise if, after consultation with Keston college, the Soviets verified that the prisoners in the list that we gave them were not being detained in prison as a result of their religious beliefs.

However, there was one prisoner about whom there was no controversy—I refer to Deacon Vladimir Rusak, who graduated from the Moscow Theological Academy and became a deacon in the Russian Orthodox Church. He worked for many years in the editorial office of the Journal of the Patriarchate of Moscow, the official journal of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union. In 1982, Rusak was removed from the clergy list by the Council for Religious Affairs for preaching a sermon analysing the Russian Orthodox Church before and after the revolution, mentioning the heavy losses that the Church sustained in the 1920s and 1930s. Deacon Rusak had already been removed from his place of work when it was discovered that he was writing a three-volume history of the Orthodox Church in the Soviet Union.

In 1983, Rusak entered Western consciousness with an open letter to the assembly of the World Council of Churches, which was meeting in Vancouver. On 22 April 1986, Vladimir Rusak was arrested. He was tried on 27 September and sentenced to seven years' strict regime camp followed by five years of internal exile, the maximum sentence possible under article 70 of the criminal code of the Russian republic, for allegedly distributing anti-Soviet religious literature in the Belorussian town of Gomel. Rusak was sent to a Labour camp for political prisoners in the Perm region of the Ural mountains. He is frequently put under intense pressure to renounce his Christian faith. In 1987, when partial amnesty was announced for those sentenced under article 70, Rusak was pressurised by the authorities to sign a statement of recantation to secure his release. He refused.

We raised Father Rusak's case at subsequent discussions with Konstantin Kharchev, the chairman of the Soviet Council for Religious Affairs, with Boris Kravtsov, the Soviet Minister of Justice and with Alexander Vlasov, the Soviet Minister of the Interior. We were led to believe by all those to whom we spoke that shortly we could look forward to a positive outcome concerning Father Rusak.

I was especially pleased to meet Alexander Ogorodnikov because I and other hon. Members had an Adjournment debate on his imprisonment only last year and we had adopted him as a prisoner of faith. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), responded to the debate. Many Christians throughout the country prayed for his release. In late 1987 I visited someone who had been fasting in a London church for Alexander's release.

Alexander became a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was arrested in 1978 because he participated in the publication of a religious journal and in organising a religious philosophical seminar. He was re-arrested in 1979. He was sentenced to six years in a Labour camp and to five years in exile. He was re-arrested in 1985 and became a prisoner in the notorious camp 36. Alexander, who, when I met him, did not look in the best of health, described terrible conditions in camp 36. It is a great wonder that any of those prisoners survive the severe climatic conditions in the winter.

We all celebrated Alexander's release in February 1987. Hon. Members can imagine my slight amusement when I sat with Alexander in a KGB car which was doubling up as a taxi to earn a little bit of money on the side.

We also had the pleasure of meeting Father Gleb Yakunin, a Russian Orthodox priest, who was suspended in 1966. In 1975, he appealed to EEC delegates in Nairobi, giving details of the situation faced by the Russian Orthodox Church and the believers. In 1976 he founded the unofficial Christian Committee for the Defence of Believers' Rights in the Soviet Union. He was arrested in 1979 and sentenced in 1980 to five years in labour camps and five years in exile. I am delighted to say that he was released in 1987, reinstated and given a parish in a Moscow region in August 1987. Father Yakunin was absolutely overjoyed when we met him in a tiny apartment and he was presented with a Bible. It is a miracle that he survived his time in camp and I am delighted to say that his spirit has certainly not been destroyed.

The case which I particularly want to bring to the attention of the House is that of Vasili and Galina Barats. I had adopted them as prisoners of faith and with my constituents celebrated their release. The House can imagine my horror when I arrived in Moscow and found I had been given inaccurate information. Vasili had been sent into exile and Galina was being held under house arrest. I have photographic proof that on 4 July, pentecostal emigration activist Vasili Barats was removed from a train bound for Moscow and detained for several hours. Barats who was forcibly taken from Moscow to the western Ukrainian Trans-Carpathian region on 8 May, was attempting to rejoin his wife in Moscow. Although she was also ordered to leave Moscow, she has refused to leave the flat there she is staying with friends and so far the militia has not attempted to remove her by force, although the flat is under constant surveillance. The ticket to Moscow was confiscated from Vasili and the KGB told him that he would be prevented from leaving, although there was no legal ground for his enforced exile in the western Ukraine. He is now under 24-hour surveillance by the militia and the KGB and he is unable to make even the shortest telephone call to his wife.

Barats has appealed to Mikhail Gorbachev to allow him to return to his wife in Moscow and for both to emigrate. In the late 1970s, Vasili and Galina were prevented from emigrating, on the grounds that they had no close relatives in the West. Now it is said that Vasili is party to military secrets which he acquired in the early 1970s when he was an army officer. Vasili denies that he has any knowledge that would be of any use whatever to a foreign power as all the equipment he used is now obsolete. Vasili was invited to petition for release from his labour camp sentence early in 1987 and he specifically stated that he was asking to be released to emigrate and Galina signed a similar statement, but all their attempts to emigrate have been frustrated and they have remained in an extremely precarious position ever since.

On 27 May, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Richard Shifter, was able to visit Galina, who handed him a statement for President Reagan containing the list of 4,000 pentecostals who wish to emigrate from the Soviet Union. When Congressman Frank Wolf visited Galina, the KGB scattered from outside her flat. I visited her separately and found her in a highly emotional state. She has not been out of her flat, which is on the 25th floor of a depressing tower block, for two and a half months.

Galina is under virtual house arrest. Crazy as it seems, on many occasions food has to be raised in a bucket up to the 25th floor of the tower block. She is staying with a young couple whose 10-month-old child died last year. They have one remaining child, a five-year-old daughter named Lisa, who has a heart complaint, and the operation to rectify that can be carried out only in the West.

At every meeting we attended, we put the Barats's case. The American delegation wanted to take Galina home with them when we left last Friday. Unfortunately, we were not given entirely satisfactory answers to the questions that we posed about the plight of the Barats family. The other members of the delegation and I are determined to obtain the release of the couple and ensure that they should be allowed to emigrate. We had a meeting with several pentecostals who—except for one person— are all emigrating to America. That one person needs all our help and support in the West.

During our first visit, we were taken to the Danolov monastery, where President Reagan gave his now-famous address. We were warmly welcomed by the clergy, but I must tell the House that I left with the feeling that the monks were overdependent on the state and that the monastery had somehow been compromised.

Most prisoners are detained under article 70, which concerns anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, or article 190. Soviet law states that sentences are not only imposed as chastisement for the crime but are a time for correction and re-education in which the state will try to alter the moral outlook of the prisoner and his or her attitude to society and to work.

We are told that glasnost has resulted in a reduction in the number of religious prisoners from 380 in January 1987 to 177 today. However, it is suspected that many of the prisoners are re-arrested on various civilian charges. The number of new arrests on religious grounds has, I am pleased to say, been reduced to five this year. According to Soviet law, all religious groups must be registered with the state. The only type of actitivity that is officially allowed is the holding of services of worship in a building that must be registered officially for that purpose. Other activities are generally forbidden, such as Sunday schools, bible classes and evangelical events. It is hardly surprising that many Christians feel unable to abide by such restrictive practices.

At meetings with Ministers and officials, we emphasised the Helsinki accord and said that they should comply with it. We asked for bibles to be made freely available, and the Americans have offered to send 1 million bibles. We also asked that religious education be given to young people because there is a marked absence of children in the churches that we visited.

Keston college has done excellent work in supplying information about prisoners of conscience in the Soviet Union. We are also indebted to Hans Stuckelberger the president of Christian Solidarity International, who was, unfortunately, refused a visa to join us on the delegation. I also pay a warm tribute to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has worked so very hard for human rights in the past few years.

It was clear to me that the Prime Minister's stand on these matters has produced positive results and is widely respected in the Soviet Union. I met Mr. Gorbachev when he visited the United Kingdom three years ago. I was impressed by him; to echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, he is someone with whom we feel we could do business.

I want finally to quote the words of four people whom we met during that week. Father Gleb Yakunin said:

"This improved situation for believers in the Soviet Union is due to continuous prayers and protests of Western Christians over the last 10 years."

Alexander Ogorodnikov said:

"please keep the pressure up it is definitely working."

Mrs. Barats said:

"Yes there is glasnost, yes there is perestroika, yes there is democratisation, but only for a few."

Perhaps the most telling remark of all was made by Mr. Bulabsky, who said:

"we are continually looking in the mirror of our conscience, and that mirror is the West."

I hope that the Soviets will read and act upon the remarks that I and other colleagues make.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on raising this matter in the House and on his very moving speech. I hope that what he has said will be heard and acted upon. I know that the families whom he has mentioned will find out that he has done so, and what he has said will perhaps help to assure and reassure them, which is our common purpose.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising during his visit to Moscow the Soviet authorities' refusal to allow me and other hon. Members on both sides of the House to enter the Soviet Union. I am a frequent refusenik—they will not let me in because they say that I interfere in their affairs, so glasnost and perestroika have not reached me I regret that, but at least last week I achieved the next best thing to getting to Moscow. After 18 years in the House, I actually received a letter from the Soviet ambassador. Unfortunately, it contained an implied refusal to see me for a private chat, but perhaps even that attitude may melt in due course. Meanwhile, as a founder member of the Commission for Human Rights in the USSR I associate myself with the campaign for freedom of people of all religions and for the rights of the dissidents.

I begin by quoting from a marvellous book called "Fear No Evil" by Natan Sharansky, in the front of which I have written a dedication to the Minister, expressing my congratulations to him and the wish that he should read the book during the recess as it will interest him. It is gripping and it will do him good, as it did me.

In the preface, the recently released Mr. Sharansky says:

"During the long months of interrogation and isolation before my trial and for all the years that followed, my captors were determined to break me—to make me confess to crimes I had never committed and then to parade me before the world. They wanted to use me to destroy the two groups I worked for—Jews who hoped to leave for Israel and dissidents who spoke out on behalf of human rights."

I, too, work for both groups. The campaigns are separate because the Jews who wish to leave are not trying to change the regime in the Soviet Union but simply to get out. Sharansky, however, provides a magnificent bridge both in his work and now in his book, which I hope many hon. Members will read. Speaking of his time in prison, he says that there are many people of all religions m prison today for having said yesterday what Mikhail Gorbachev is saying today. All of them should be released—and they should be released now.

The all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviet Jewry was established some 17 years ago and I pay tribute to Members of all parties and to all Governments since then for the kindly, humanitarian help and co-operation that they have given us, not least on behalf of the three categories of people with whom we are concerned today—first, those still in prison; secondly, those who have been released but are still being harassed and persecuted; thirdly, those who dwell on the dangerous edge of imprisonment in the Soviet Union.

Sharansky refers in his book to a man called Leonid Lubman, who has been seeking to leave the Soviet Union for many years but who in August 1977 was sentenced to 13 years' imprisonment, just as Sharansky was, for writings critical of the Soviet Union. In his book, Mr. Sharansky describes him as

"another imprisoned Jew who was picked on at every opportunity and literally never left the punishment cell along with his neighbours Vazif Meilanov and others."

So he, Leonid Lubman, is still in prison as a Jewish prisoner of conscience.

There are other ex-prisoners, prisoners who have not been allowed out of the Soviet Union. For example, Rowald Zelichenok has been waiting to leave for about 20 years. Like the man referred to by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), he is accused of having secrets. That is a travesty and a poor excuse. He was told only three or four days ago not to re-apply for a visa until 1999. There is Yeugeny Lein, Lein Kislik and Chernobilski. There is Kosharowsky, who has been enduring great perils. He has been refused leave to apply for a visa until 1992, again on the spurious ground of secrecy. He left his job 20 years ago. There are split families such as the Luries. There are those who are being kept from leaving because of spurious financial dependencies. All this in a country where it is alleged that freedom has re-emerged.

In June 1979,4,350 Jewish people were allowed to leave the Soviet Union. In June of this year, 1,493 left that country—in other words, far fewer than half of those who left in June 1979. In 1979, 51,300 Jews were allowed to leave. So far this year, only 6,188 have left the country.

From this House, we appeal to the Soviet Union to release prisoners and to allow those who wish to leave, to join their families, and to do so in accordance with their own constitution, with the universal declaration of human rights and with the Helsinki declaration.

Finally, I mention with appreciation a statement made only yesterday by the Prime Minister concerning Raoul Wallenberg, the most noble prisoner of all time. He was a non-Jewish diplomat who single-handed, saved over 100,000 Jewish lives in Hungary, and to whom, I pay my tribute. He disappeared after going to the Soviet authorities after the liberation, to explain what had happened in Hungary and to seek the help of Soviet officials. The Soviets say that he was not in the Soviet Union, but left and was sighted. His family have been pleading and campaigning for true information, and for his release, if he lived. The statement by the Soviets that they had held him in their hands and that he had died of a heart attack in prison was patently untrue.

We appeal for Wallenberg and for all those referred to by the hon. Member for Basildon. We appeal for all those who have been campaigned for by hon. Members on both sides of the House and who are currently suffering in the Soviet Union. These are prisoners, ex-prisoners and those who wish to be free but are not permitted their freedom.

rose——

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?

I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for offering me this opportunity to participate in an important debate. I am pleased to congratulate him on initiating it. It must be right for the House to remind itself as we depart for a period of relaxation that, despite glasnost, there remain in the gulag hundreds of prisoners of conscience who deserve our attention for as long as they remain there.

I was extremely interested in the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon to Moscow last week, which was organised by Christian Solidarity International. As he knows, I have the honour to be the president of the CSI in the United Kingdom. I had hoped to join my hon. Friend's group, but I was unable to go.

I was especially interested to learn of my hon. Friend's meeting with Father Gleb Yakunin. I met him when I was in Moscow in 1979 researching for a report on freedom of religion for the Council of Europe. I shall never forget meeting with him and his colleagues on the Committee for Defence of Believers' Rights.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon has reported, Father Gleb Yakunin was released last year. He was one of the three former dissidents who addressed President Reagan at the American embassy in Moscow on 30 May. He used that opportunity in front of the world's press to remind us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has done, that there remain many prisoners of conscience. In particular he referred, like my hon. Friend, to Deacon Vladimir Rusak. Those people are still languishing in prison, labour camps, in exile and in psychiatric hospitals because of their religious activities. They have been convicted under the infamous article 70 of the Soviet criminal code, which is Orwellian.

As Father Gleb has testified the reason why he was released and the reason why Georgie Vins, the Siberian seven, Shcharansky, Orlov, Ratushinskaya, Senderov, Ognorodnikov—whom my hon. Friend met— Yevdokimov, Anna Chertkova, and, most recently, Vasili Shipilov, have all been released is that we in the West made them household names as a result of our campaigns on their behalf. We demonstrated outside Soviet embassies, we held vigils and encouraged mountains of mail urging their release. As a result, they became a continual embarrassment to the Kremlin. Thus they were released as an indicator of Soviet foreign policy like the number of visas issued to Jewish refuseniks—a measure for detente.

What a callous way of using people in response to the efforts and perseverance of the thousands of campaigners all over the world. However, there remains no alternative for us while hundreds more remain in prison. I draw the attention of the House to early-day motions 1415 and 1416, which list the names of 175 Soviet Christians who remain in prison for religious reasons.

What we all want in this House is a time in the Soviet Union when to be an active Christian, Jew or Moslem does not risk intimidation, bureaucratic harassment, discrimination or persecution, which has happened many times in post-revolutionary Russia.

We must be encouraged by what my hon. Friend learned from those he met in Moscow—that the reform movement is leading to greater openness, tolerance and respect for human rights, including freedom of religion. Such changes must not be cosmetic changes merely to encourage a reduction in arms or more western trade, technology and credits to improve the Soviet economy and to support perestroika. That would mean that we have learned nothing from the lessons of detente of the 1970s, when we gave much but received so little in return.

I urge upon my hon. Friend the Minister, whose responsibilities include the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, those recommendations for which I am seeking support from the Council of Europe in October as the result of my report on Freedom of Religion in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, of which he has a copy and which is to be debated by the parliamentary assembly in October.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on raising this important matter. I have not had the advantage of visiting the Soviet Union, although since I came to the House last year I have been involved, in common with many other hon. Members, in the causes of a number of families who wish to obtain visas and who wish to leave the Soviet Union.

What has impressed me most is the new cosmetic approach adopted by the Soviet Authorities towards such activities. Nearly a year ago, I wrote to the Soviet ambassador, Mr. Zamyatin, about one particular family. The letter that I received in reply was starchy and in some respects offensive, as it sought to remind me of the human rights record of my country. One had to assume from that that the Soviets were talking about Ireland, Scotland or Wales or even the entire north of England. It was a curt and unhelpful letter. Since that time, however, glasnost and perestroika have developed.

Only recently I took up the cause of the Chernobilsky family in Moscow. About two weeks ago I led a small delegation to the Soviet embassy. This time we had an appointment at the embassy and we did not have to poke a letter through the box at the gates. This time, we were invited in and given half an hour of the first secretary's time. We were treated with great courtesy and sympathy. That is not enough, but it is a suggestion of the public image that the Soviet Union is now trying to put across.

We do not want the respective Foreign Offices to exchange lists; what we want is action. We want to see many people, not just the names that we select, and important though they may be, obtain the visas that they wish. The Chernobilskys and all the other Jewish families who want the freedom to practise their religion in Israel should be afforded that right. Those who are in prison because of religious beliefs, or in mental institutions because their beliefs do not comply precisely with the state's, should be released and given freedom.

The public face that I and other colleagues are now experiencing—the friendly, courteous and even generous attitude—must be changed into the reality of the release of people and the increase of freedom in the Soviet Union. Mr. Zamyatin and his colleagues know that. They know that we are watching carefully the development of glasnost and perestroika and that we want to see those results. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for raising the issue. He has given us an invaluable opportunity to discuss a matter which is of great importance to everyone.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Waldegrave.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) for giving me an opportunity, very early in my responsibility, to put some words on record about the third of the three great areas of which my portfolio consists. I have had the privilege today of answering a debate on each of those issues.

I was very interested to hear about my hon. Friend's visit to the Soviet Union, and I shall pass on his kind remarks to our embassy staff there. Many of the words spoken across the Chamber have a ritual quality. In other debates we know that we have to play our parts, but in debates such as this, in the activities represented in this House and by voluntary organisations outside such as PEN and Amnesty International, it is more than words. We know that the concentration on particular families and the publicity that they receive has a particular effect in the real world and can be a powerful weapon for protection. Therefore, occasions such as today are important.

However optimistic we are about the changes which are affecting the Soviet Union, had it not been for the efforts of people such as my hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West: (Mr. Janner) during the years when the atmosphere was not so favourable, it would not now be so near the top of the list of priorities that progress should be made on these issues. We must be vigilant, because we are aware that there are elements of public relations in some of the things being said at the moment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope) said, we are seeking the actuality and not the words.

I have not long to speak and I cannot refer to all the cases which hon. Members have raised. I welcome the way in which the debate has extended beyond prisoners of conscience in a narrow sense to wider human rights issues in the Soviet Union. I shall say just one word about a figure in a very different category—Wallenberg, members of whose family I know. I can say to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West that many unresolved questions remain about that case, and we hope that the spirit of glasnost will reach into that tragic story, which is a major one in the history of the 20th century.

I have a particular family reason for welcoming my hon. Friend's introduction of the subject. He may not be aware that a very major figure in the carrying of evangelical Christianity to the Soviet Union in the 19th century was a member of my family, Lord Radstock. Occasionally, I receive letters from the descendants of those whom he introduced to his particular strand of Christianity in the Soviet Union. Investigations would show that some of those whom my hon. Friend met would be able to trace their roots back to the missions that he established in the 1850s and 1860s.

The horror with which we in the western world regard any attempt to limit religious freedom has been expressed on all sides of the House today, and it is intolerable that those pressures and persecution should still exist.

The Soviet Union, like the United Kingdom, is a signatory of the United Nations covenant on civil and political rights, and of the Helsinki Final Act. In signing those documents, it accepted certain responsibilities concerning the attitude of a state to its citizens. Among them is a pledge to respect

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

Yet experience has shown that the Soviet authorities have failed lamentably to observe this pledge in practice.

We have every right to be concerned about that. The Final Act was agreed by states working together as equals, and it has equal significance for each of them; there is no escaping this fact. When we deal with the Soviet Union as an equal, we expect it to honour commitments freely entered into, as we do.

The Soviet Union has no grounds for special pleading. It cannot claim that the commitment to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms somehow applies less to it than to others. Article 52 of the Soviet constitution guarantees freedom of conscience to Soviet citizens. If the Soviet Union wants to be taken seriously as a responsible interlocutor in the community of nations, it must be prepared to behave like one, and to face criticism if it does not.

All the names mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West are on the list of cases that we are pressing. Several of my hon. Friends mentioned Vladimir Rusak, who has been imprisoned since 1986. He had the temerity to write a book on Church history since the revolution—a subject which is now being openly discussed in the Soviet press. He was sentenced for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda. How depressingly familiar that meaningless phrase must be to students of Soviet human rights abuse. Deacon Rusak has displayed courage and fortitude throughout his ordeal. The House expects the Soviet Union to bring that ordeal to a speedy conclusion.

Another prisoner of conscience is not, however, imprisoned for religious reasons. Mykola Horbal, who is a Ukrainian, dared to join a group of Soviet citizens monitoring the Soviet Union's adherence to its commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. For this, and his samizdat writings, he was arrested in 1979 and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Without being released, he was charged again at the expiry of this period and sentenced further to eight years' imprisonment and three years' exile for, to use that phrase again, "anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda". He, too, is in poor health. There is no justification for failing to restore Mykola Horbal's freedom. His crime was to seek to monitor the commitments into which his Government had freely entered.

Vladimir Korfidov is a victim of the most chilling of human rights abuses—the detention of a sane person in a psychiatric hospital. Mr. Korfidov was a factory worker and was arrested in 1979 after trying to cross the border into Finland without permission. He was sentenced to be detained indefinitely. We understand that his case may have been reviewed recently, but we have no firm news of his present circumstances. The abuse of psychiatric hospitals has improved, which is welcome, and I shall press his case further.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West mentioned a further category of prisoner—those for whom the Soviet Union itself is a prison, such as Jewish refuseniks, Germans, Armenians and others. We shall strongly press the cases of those people.

The Government are aware of the case of the Barats family, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon mentioned so eloquently. I understand that the Netherlands and Canada have offered them entry visas. We very much hope that they will be allowed to emigrate, and we shall add their case to the list of those on which we shall press.

I recently received details of the harrowing case of the Vais family of Leningrad. Semian and Sara, 21-year-old son Dima and grandmother Galina have been trying to emigrate to Israel since 1978. Permission has been consistently refused, for the catch-all reason that it would be prejudicial to state interests. Both parents have lost their jobs and Mrs. Vais supports the family by working in a boiler house. Mr. Vais has had a series of strokes and is very ill. His most recent stroke was on 23 June, he having again been refused exit permission on 29 May. The authorities have called up Dima for military service, but his mother and grandmother badly need his support. That is perhaps not a typical catalogue of the distress that can be involved. We recognise that Mr. Gorbachev seems to be making changes but we focus still on those for whom the changes are not coming speedily enough.

As I have said, it is the deeds and not merely the words that we want. We lose no opportunity to bring individual names and the principles behind what I am saying to the attention of those at the highest level. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have pressed the cases of many of those I have mentioned. Within the context of the CSCE and elsewhere, we miss no opportunity to press towards the release of many from the remains of the gulag and many who wish to rejoin their families or simply to exercise their basic human right of free exit from one country to live in another country of their choice.

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

• Appropriation Act 1988
• Finance Act 1988
• Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988
• Licensing (Retail Sales) Act 1988
• Landlord and Tenant Act 1988
• Malicious Communications Act 1988
• Access to Medical Reports Act 1988
• Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1988
• Environment and Safety Information Act 1988
• Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988
• Civil Evidence (Scotland) Act 1988
• Criminal Justice Act 1988
• Legal Aid Act 1988
• British Steel Act 1988
• Court of Session Act 1988
• Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1988
• Education Reform Act 1988
• Local Government Finance Act 1988
• Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1988
• Bredero (Bon Accord Centre, Aberdeen) Order Confirmation Act 1988
• Highland Region (Lochiniver Harbour) Order Confirmation Act 1988
• Eastbourne Harbour Act 1988
• Tor Bay Harbour (Oxen Cove and Coastal Footpath, Brixham) Act 1988
• University of Wales College of Cardiff Act 1988
• Imperial College Act 1988
• British Waterways Act 1988
• County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Act 1988
• Church of England (Ecumenical Relations) Measure 1988

This debate is about public housing in Waltham Forest. I have to confirm that it is public housing in which people live, not public houses where drinks are consumed.

I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I assume that it is a promotion. I wish him success, not least because we wish to see decent housing in Britain. I shall draw to his attention a comment made by the previous Under-Secretary of State before she was given the chop by the Prime Minister. In a letter to me dated 21 July she said:

"I do appreciate the housing problems in Waltham Forest, and in particular I applaud the efforts of the Council to avoid use of bed and breakfast in meeting their obligation towards those who are homeless."

There are severe housing problems in my area. Many local people are in desperate need of proper housing. They face immense overcrowding and stress and that is reflected in the high figures for homelessness, the housing waiting list and the transfer list. I have to deal with innumerable cases in my advice surgery. I receive many letters and telephone calls, and if I went through them all we would be here all day.

I want to deal with the issues in general. In 1987–88, 2,201 households presented themselves to the local authority as homeless, 801 of which were regarded as priority need. That was a 33 per cent. increase on the year before. The trend this year is still substantially upwards. I have some of the latest figures. They show that 520 families out of a total of 828 allocations were rehoused in July. Of those 826 dwellings, 386, were one-bedroomed properties which are not suitable for families. Four hundred and forty two were two-bedroom or larger properties. Therefore, 91 per cent. of the available family homes went to homeless families. The projection is that 950 dwellings this year will go to homeless cases. On a projection of 1.400 allocations, 600 are likely to be one-bedroomed and 700 to be family units. There will be a shortfall of between 200 and 250 family homes for 1988–89 for the homeless.

The council has avoided using bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and should be praised for that, despite the huge increase in homelessness at a time when many other councils have been forced into using it. As I have said, nearly 90 per cent. of all lettings go to priority homeless families. This year, for the first time, the council has had to put 100 families into one-bedroomed, high-rise tower block flats. That is not satisfactory. The council has also reduced its voids enormously. The empty properties have been reduced to only 337 as at 25 July. That represents 1·6 per cent. of the total council stock, an incredibly low proportion.

There will always be some void dwellings as properties stand empty for minor or major repairs. However, if we compare that level of vacancies with the private housing association sectors in Waltham Forest, we find that the council figure is an efficient one. As I have said, council vacancies are 1.6 per cent. of total stock. Housing association empties are 3·9 per cent., while in the private sector nearly 3,000 properties are empty, and that is 4·6 per cent. of the total stock.

That burden of homelessness eating up the available dwellings means that the current waiting list and transfer list are effectively frozen. Only 15 families were housed from the housing waiting list over last year's figure and every one of those families was extreme in the extreme. The 10,362 families on the waiting list and the 4,000 plus families on the transfer list are bearing the brunt. They are in a trap of misery. In addition, 1,500 elderly people need special housing in the area and we have only 600 sheltered homes in Waltham Forest. That is one of the lowest figures in London.

We have a large number of low-income families for whom owner-occupation is not an option. We also have many serious harassment cases, including racial harassment, and many families need rehousing. There are road decants in the area. The M11 link road has caused 270 families to need rehousing. Seventy of the best family homes had to come down during the construction of the north circular road. There are system-built homes on the large estates and 3,500 of them need improvement and redevelopment. The previous Minister visited those estates and acknowledged that there was a case.

More than 16,000 houses need repair and improvement at a cost of £180 million over 10 years. Even the Audit Commission said:

"Put simply, a further £10 million is required in each of the next 10 years if the council is to carry out its traditional housing elemental repair plan. Moreover, the cost of future maintenance and work revealed by the outstanding surveys will add further to the shortfall … Waltham Forest has all the information needed to put forward a reasoned argument in support of a request for a supplementary allocation."

There is also disrepair in the private sector where more than 22,000 homes are considered to be in need of substantial repair. Many of them need some local authority assistance. However, improvement grants have been stopped in my area because of the cut in the housing investment programme.

The borough's strategy is to spend more to provide new homes for the homeless and to repair and redevelop its homes and those homes in the private sector. It has calculated its HIP bid at £63 million, which is based on accurately costed figures from private consultants. However, last year the council received only £7 million. That was topped up by allocations and £15·3 million of its capital receipts to £24 million, which was for this year's programme. Even that has been hindered by the Government. For example, the Secretary of State's statement in March blocked a lot of schemes, including schemes involving the private sector.

The council had a deal with the Samuel Lewis housing trust to provide 32 homes for the homeless. They were to be built by a private contractor, Hastingwood Estates, on private land, funded by a private merchant bank, Brown Shipley and Co. Ltd. That was in my constituency at the old Leytonstone football ground. With other schemes, that would have provided 200 homes for the homeless. The scheme was shot down when the Secretary of State announced his restrictions on leaseback deals on 9 March.

The Government have realised that it was wrong to pull the rug from under the feet of many local authorities in regard to such schemes without announcement. They have invited bids for additional applications to cover the cost of some of those schemes. Waltham Forest has made an application, and I hope that the Minister will take its application seriously and will provide the supplementary allocation.

It was deeply unjust that those schemes were stopped, especially the one on the Leytonstone site, because the housing association was already fully committed. It had signed contracts, it had borrowed the money from the bank, and it had even handed over 10 of the properties before 9 March. Twenty-two of the 32 properties have been counted as prescribed expenditure for the local authority, despite there being no prior notice and the fact that the local authority processing levels were within the rules at that time. That denied the local authority the opportunity to spend the money on other homes, as it had intended to do. I hope that the Government will reconsider that aspect of their policy.

On transforming the estates, the council has a major programme which affects many of my constituents living in Cathall Road, Oliver Close and Beaumont road. Many of those properties have major structural problems that need repairing. Reports have gone to the Government Building Research Establishment and to the Department of the Environment, whose surveyors have looked at them. However, for just a little more than it would cost to repair those blocks—which would even then leave a lot of problems—we could have new homes and flats, virtually all of which would be low-rise and many of which would have gardens.

The Government should give additional support to those schemes. Because of the enormous sums involved and the void rate being so low, it cannot be done privately without throwing out the tenants, but they have nowhere to go. Only the council can do that, and it should be supported by the Government. The Government should start by giving sufficient Estate Action funding for those specific schemes. I hope that the Minister will look at that, too.

I want to refer to the subject of disabled people's homes, because the way in which the Government have dealt with the Suffield Hatch site in Waltham Forest raises questions about how serious the Secretary of State is about providing such homes. It is a council-owned site which the council wanted to sell to a housing association called Habinteg, to build 18 units for the physically disabled, including wheelchair-bound people. The housing association agreed the funds. The council needed approval from the Secretary of State to sell it at below market value. It submitted its application for approval in 1987, and in November approval was given but was based on the wrong figures.

In February 1988 approval was based on the right figures, but in that year the property value had virtually doubled and by the time the authority went back to the housing association—it resubmitted the figures in April this year—it was told that it had to go through the whole process again. The Secretary of State's delay in giving approval has put a block on those disabled people's homes because of the price rise since. It is a Catch-22 situation —land prices rise while the Secretary of State delays.

The Government's proposals seem to be for a strict financial regime with no flexibility or room for the local authority to deal with its housing problems. People's misery will be made worse as the borough's problems are worsened. The Government recently produced their consultation paper, "Capital Expenditure and Finance" which will force local authorities to direct 75 per cent. of their capital receipts to pay off historical loan charges. That would be disastrous for Waltham Forest—it would mean a 40 per cent. cut and bed-and-breakfast accommodation on an enormous scale immediately. The borough has tried hard to avoid that option.

Just the other day the Government produced another consultation paper, "The New Financial Regime for Local Authority Housing", which says that housing revenue accounts will have to be self-financing. That proposal takes absolutely no account of the poor quality of housing which many people have to live with and for which the council has to pay out of the housing revenue account because of its duty as a landlord. It also takes no account of high debt charges, which are running at £20 million a year for my borough. If the Governments suggestions were put into effect, there would be a £6 a week rent increase. There would be a 30 per cent. increase for no improvement in services in 1990—exactly the same time as the poll tax hits local families.

The Housing Bill is no answer. More than 2,000 tenants have inundated the town hall and been to public meetings saying that they do not want private landlords. I have a letter from the Leyton Grange community association, which polled its estate and found that 85 per cent. of tenants wanted to remain council tenants. People want the council to be their landlord, and forcing tenants out seems to be the Governments alternative. That is not right.

I urge the Minister to give the local authority the supplementary approvals that it needs and a bigger housing investment programme allocation to help house my local people decently.

rose——

Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House to speak again?

Yes.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate on so important a topic, and thank him for his kind comments about my new responsibilities for housing. His remarks were typical of him. Although we do not share many political views, it is established fact that the hon. Gentleman is a very popular hon. Member. I do not say that to damage his chances of reselection—I say it sincerely.

The hon. Gentleman has described in great detail the problems that confront his borough. I assure him that neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I underestimate their scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) visited the borough earlier this year—as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to get first-hand knowledge of local housing conditions. I know that she had a most useful discussion with representatives of the council and had a tour of the borough.

What the hon. Gentleman said about the delay in the housing scheme for the disabled worried me, and I should like to examine the matter and write to him.

I am grateful.

I shall summarise the main features of housing conditions in Waltham Forest. Nearly one quarter of the housing stock is owned by the council. The remainder is in private ownership. The council's stock includes many flats—about 3,500—in large panel concrete construction. The problems found in buildings of that type are well known. As well as having structural defects, they are badly laid out and unattractively designed. I shall return to what can be done about that.

The council owns a lot of houses that were built before the war. They are now showing signs of age. New roofs and windows are often needed and heating and kitchen equipment need to be brought up to date. There are also problems with many of the post-war flats and houses. Many of the problems are structural and extensive remedial work is required.

Demand in the borough comes from those who are registered on the Councils waiting list and from those who are accepted by the council as homeless and in priority need. In 1986–87, 586 homeless families were accepted by the council. I echo the tribute that has been paid to the council for avoiding the use of bed-and-breakfast hotels to accommodate homeless families. That is an extravagant use of resources. Bed-and-breakfast hotels provide unsuitable accommodation for families, except for short periods in an emergency. The council has managed to avoid using bed and breakfast by reducing the number of empty dwellings in its housing stock. Its efforts and resourcefulness deserve credit. I am happy to put that on record.

Overcrowding is a problem, especially where there are insufficient larger dwellings in the existing housing stock. Further demands arise both from decanting families to allow improvement work to be done on housing estates and from road works. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that work on the A406 is to start soon. He also referred to the M11 extension.

Capital expenditure for local authority housing is based on the council's housing investment programme. Every local authority makes a bid for its share of the national allocation for expenditure on housing. The total amount available is always over-subscribed, and bids from local authorities have to be considered very carefully. We have already received Waltham Forest's housing investment programme bid and its housing investment strategy statement. Every year we have meetings with each of the local authorities to discuss their programmes. This year's round of meetings will start in about a couple of months.

I can understand that, with so much work needing to be done to the housing stock, the borough may think that allocations in past years have not been large enough. I reassert that they have been made as carefully as possible and that they have been dealt with as fairly as is humanly possible. We shall study its new statement with close interest and we shall listen to what the council has to say to us when it comes to see us.

I understand that the council is disappointed that the borough is included in group B for the admissible cost limits in the tables used to calculate housing subsidy entitlement. Group A includes mainly inner London boroughs where land and property values and works costs are highest. These groupings were made on the basis of available cost data and they will be reviewed annually. Any representations that the council may care to make will certainly be taken into account in the next review.

Waltham Forest's allocation for 1988–89 was increased from that for the previous year. It was one of only eight London boroughs whose allocation was increased. It also received two supplementary allocations. The first is to help it to meet its obligations to the owners of pre-cast reinforced concrete houses that were originally owned by the council. They were then bought by the tenants. If defects occur in these houses, the council is required either to pay a grant towards the cost of reinstatement or, in extreme cases, to buy them back. The other supplementary allocation is to help the council with the cost of meeting its obligations towards the homeless. The allocation should enable the council to make some of its empty houses fit for use, as well as providing a hostel.

The housing investment programme allocation can be augmented by other resources—for example, capital receipts, including the sale of council houses and flats where the tenants have exercised their right to buy. We have received no recent figures from the council regarding its progress in dealing with right-to-buy applications, but anecdotal evidence suggests that that work is in arrears. If that were so, we should take a very serious view of it. It is frustrating the tenants' right, conferred by law, to become the owners of their own homes. Furthermore, it means that the council does not have the benefit of those capital receipts.

Many local authorities enter into leasing arrangements with housing associations and other bodies. There is no fundamental objection to that practice, provided that it helps authorities to meet their needs and represents good value for money. For example, it may make sense to take a two or three year lease of a house while the owner is abroad and to use it as temporary accommodation for homeless families. However, it has recently become apparent that the arrangement whereby leasing costs do not count as prescribed expenditure is being abused by certain authorities, who have signed lease and lease-back deals for 20 years that amount to new build council estates by the back door.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore announced on 9 March that leases for longer than three years would, in general, count as prescribed expenditure. A later announcement provided that authorities could apply for additional allocations of prescribed expenditure for schemes that were both genuinely in the pipeline and did not result in an overall increase in the housing stock controlled by the council. Applications are due for that by the end of this month. I understand that the London borough of Waltham Forest has submitted applications in respect of schemes at Trinity close, Larkswood mews and Cogan avenue. I received them only very recently. They will be considered carefully and a decision will be conveyed to the council in due course.

I suggest that the council should think seriously about selling any surplus land so that it can be developed without the use of public funds and create a receipt for the council. The council has disposed of some 60 acres of surplus land entered on the Land Register, which is reasonable progress. Those registers were set up to ensure that unused public sector land that has a potential use is made available for development. That is most important in areas such as greater London where land for development is at a premium.

The Secretary of State has powers to give directions to authorities to dispose of Land Register sites where they could reasonably have put them on the market. Some directions have already been given. I understand that Waltham Forest still has sites on the register amounting to some 45 acres, so I urge the council to review those sites to see which of them can now be released. The council may also find that when tenant's choice comes into effect the tenants may wish their estates to be transferred to other ownership. The council would then be relieved of the burden of having to manage and renovate those estates. Another way in which the council can increase its spending power is by bringing forward projects as part of the Department's Estate Action initiative. It has completed or is working on four projects which, together, have earned special allocations of about £350,000. The schemes include a controlled access system at All Saints tower on the Beaumont road estate. That is successful and has been well received by the tenants. It is no exaggeration to say that their lives have been transformed by the sense of security that it has brought about.

indicated assent.

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding assent. The project is one of those listed in our booklet "Better Reception". We were delighted to include it.

That type of entry is being or will be provided for the other tower blocks at Beaumont road. No doubt the council will extend it to other estates. Other projects include new or relocated estate offices. They may be more mundane, but local management on estates is a key part of the Estate Action approach and fundamental to revitalising estates that have become run down.

We are now looking at four further projects from the council with a potential Estate Action allocation of £1·5 million. I emphasise that Estate Action is not just a way of getting extra spending. Successful projects are a balanced package of proposals that embrace all aspects of the management of the housing estates. We usually expect them to include an innovative feature that would not have been provided otherwise. I do not have to tell Waltham Forest that because it knows it already. I am glad to say that we have a good working relationship with the council on Estate Action.

The hon. Member for Leyton referred in general to public housing in Waltham Forest, but the council's responsibilities also involve it with the private sector. That will happen increasingly as councils move from being major providers of housing to enablers working with other agencies. One of the main ways in which councils are at present involved with the private sector is in making grants for the improvement of older houses. They may be given on application, although some types of grants are made at the council's discretion. However, sometimes it is more effective to target assistance on defined areas. I see that the council has adopted that strategy. With Circle 33 and Nationwide, it has also been working to provide a neighbourhood home improvement agency, to help those who might not understand the improvement grant system or who may not have funds available to pay for their share of the cost of the work.

It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that I dealt in Standing Committee earlier this week with proposals for changing the improvement grant structure. I gave an undertaking that when parliamentary time allows, it is our intention to repackage the number of grants that are available. I am the first to admit, having taken on these new responsibilities only recently, that perhaps we are in danger of confusing the very people whom we are seeking to encourage, with a catalogue of improvement grants. We are determined to repackage them.

One aspect of management where the council could do better is in reducing rent arrears. The latest figure put them at £2·7 million, or 14·1 per cent. of the rent roll, which is the eighth highest in London and the tenth highest in the country.

That figure has come down from £5 million.

That certainly is progress, and I do not ignore it, but much more could be done. We know that the council has problems and, obviously, these are not unique to Waltham Forest. It could adopt further initiatives to its advantage and I have outlined some of them today. I hope that the council will heed seriously what has been said this afternoon.

Today, as the Session ends and the holiday season in the south-west gets into full swing—I am not looking forward to the drive back to north Devon this afternoon—I have secured this debate to talk about the cost of the search and rescue services in the south-west. The matter concerns costs as well as services. The services are superb and the cost is high.

I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench my good Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who has a special place of respect in north Devon for the interest he has taken in our helicopter service and the work of RAF Chivenor. I am surprised to see him since the thrust of my argument is more suitable for reply by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but he may well be on the sands at his Southend constituency. I know that my hon. Friend's chieftan has departed for Ayr, which is good news for him, but I am somewhat worried that I shall not be answered by a Minister from the Department of Transport.

While the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy helicopters play a most effective role in search and rescue, most of their work involves saving our civilian population, which means tourists and natives of the west country. Inevitably, if 90 per cent. of the work is carried out for civilians, it is unreasonable that the defence budget should stand all the strain. I am well aware that if nine out of 10 rescue missions are not related to the services they could manage with fewer helicopters in the south-west than we have at present.

While I fully accept the problem, I wish to bring to the attention of the House some of the problems that we see in the south-west as our roads improve, tourist numbers increase, more footpaths open—often along the coasts and shores, for example, the south-western coastal footpath —and more and more people walk or ride on Exmoor, Bodmin moor and Dartmoor, and play in boats or along the beaches. Wherever one is in this world there is always a risk, and at present we are superbly served by so many organisations.

We have the coastguard—a professional body of full-time officers run and controlled by the Department of Transport who operate a good and satisfactory service. We have the auxiliary coastguards—a voluntary body of hourly-paid civilians who are trained to a high standard and who provide help under the instruction of the coastguard. We have the cliff rescue teams and beach patrols, which are paid for by local authorities, and mountain rescue teams, some of which are funded by the services but many of whom are civilians and volunteers. We have the Royal National Lifeboat Institution on the coast, a professional body of full-time and part-time experts, funded by voluntary contribution. I have already talked about funding from the state, local authorities, volunteers and from the private as opposed to the public purse. Other voluntary agencies include pot-holers and first-aiders; and then we come to the big stuff—the expensive matter of helicopters, which are mainly provided by the Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and civilian contractors. Heavier still are the long-range maritime search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft funded by the RAF and operating far from our shores. All these work via the rescue co-ordinating centres at Plymouth and Pitreavie, which are manned by RAF personnel who co-ordinate the search and rescue requirements for all the agencies I have listed. But here we have the problem. Surely the time has come to study this hotchpotch of finance and control, and I am not using the word "hotchpotch" pejoratively. There is nothing wrong with a good stew or casserole but the ingredients in terms of cost and control are so mixed that we have a genuine problem. I speak for the south-west, but I am sure it is true for the rest of the country. Clearly there is a problem for the taxpayer, who is paying a great deal out of a tax pocket and he or she cares not which pocket it is. All we care about is that the excellent service continues. I realise that the defence budget is stretched and I do not blame the Ministry of Defence for looking to the Department of Transport and saying, "As we are dealing mostly with civilian transport responsibilities, the Department of Transport should bear some of the costs." To me, as an hon. Member representing the west country, the question of where the money comes from is irrelevant, as long as we keep our service.

We have had the most amazing public response to the suggestion—or fear—that the RAF Chivenor helicopters might be moved to Brawdy. I fully understand the reasons behind that concern and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure me that no precipitate announcement is likely.

The best announcement would be an announcement that there is to be no change in the system, and I look to my hon. Friend to tell me how things will go. There is much concern locally. District and parish councils, the Ilfracombe round table and our local press have all done wonders in alerting the community. Many who enjoy their surfing know Georgeham, a lovely village down on the sands by Saunton, and Woolacombe and Croyde bay. Vast numbers of tourists come there each year. A tourist is at risk every time he goes on a cliff path, tries to climb down a cliff or floats out to sea on his air bed. I know that accidents should be prevented, but they will and do happen. Georgeham parish council wrote to the Home Office about the closure of the coastguard station at Hartland in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). The council received a remarkable reply from Her Majesty's coastguard at the Department of Transport.

It described the excellent system that operates and said that there would be little change when the service was transferred from Hartland, in my hon. Friend's constituency, across the water to Swansea. There was a sting in the tail. The letter said:

"Regarding helicopter coverage, about which there has been much speculation, I can offer you some reassurance."

The House must listen on:

"Specific criteria have been agreed for provision for civil maritime use"—

nine out of 10 are civil cases.

"By day, it should be possible to reach any point within 40 nautical miles of the coast within one hour of alert".

If one is clinging to the cliffs or swimming for one's life, an hour is not a great deal of help. Perhaps we could fire a rocket with a message attached saying, "Don't worry.

Another 58 minutes and you'll be all right." I found the letter from the chief coastguard very depressing. It continued:

"At night or in thick weather it should be possible to reach any point … within two hours."

That I understand; it is a totally different matter at night for obvious reasons.

Georgeham council had asked the simple question, what will happen if the coastguard station is moved and, incidentally, what of the helicopters? The answer was that a person could still be reached within an hour. In the past few weeks, we have had cases in which people have been saved when within minutes of losing their lives. The Royal Air Force at RAF Chivenor can get to most areas of north Devon in four, 10 or 12 minutes. If the service were located across the water at RAF Brawdy—I do not seek in any way to reduce coverage there—an extra 35 minutes' flying time would be involved. In other words, the chief coastguard's one hour criterion will be followed, and it is an unacceptable criterion. It is said that there is no intention of departing from the standards in the Bristol channel. I do not suppose that anyone who is floating in a small boat or on something solid will worry about the hour. People may survive this hour but not in rough seas, not if they are on the rocks and certainly not if they are clinging to the cliffs.

My constituents find it hard to accept this kind of change when for years we have had a 10 to 15 minute service, given gladly, highly efficiently and commanding great respect from the community.

Worrying about the future of the service, I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and later met my noble Friend Lord Brabazon of Tara to draw attention to the problem about which a lady constituent wrote:

"It has shocked me too, at the thought of helicopters being transferred to Wales."

We are all shocked. I do not know whether the chief coastguard in question is in the House, but my constituent continued:

"I would like to throw Captain Harris into the sea off Baggy Point in bad weather, without a life belt or raft and say, 'Will be back for you in an hour, old boy.' Lord Brabazon —put him on the rocks off Hangman, with the tide coming in plus lashing wind and rain."

The lady asks simply:

"Has he no idea of the vicious weather we get here?"

I appreciate that no one wishes to reduce the quality of service, but the reference to 60 minutes means that the quality of service will be reduced by about three quarters of an hour.

Since the flight at RAF Chivenor was established in November 1958, about 4,000 searches and 2,000 rescues have been carried out. Many sorties are false alarms, or the people manage to save themselves. Nevertheless, those figures are impressive. The Western Morning News yesterday reported two cases in my constituency of people who had got into trouble and fortunately got out of it before the helicopters arrived, but what a reassurance it was for all of us to know that the helicopters were coming. People often do not appreciate how many brave folk there are who will risk their lives trying to help. With the helicopter service, we know that by the time we attempt the dangerous or the impossible, the professionals will be there to help—and I hope that they always will be. Scramble time is about four minutes to my coastline from RAF Chivenor compared with 35 minutes from Brawdy.

I emphasise that we in the west country are proud of everything in our area. We know that it is beautiful and a part of the country to which tourists wise enough to holiday in Britain will always come. But we cannot always guarantee the weather, and when the weather is bad there is danger. There can also be danger when the weather is good if people take a windsurfer too far out or go fishing from a dinghy. It is one of the oddities of our society that one may not take a car or motorcycle on the road without a licence and then a test but anyone can take out a boat, which is far more dangerous. The many boats for hire rightly contain life preservers, but danger is still obvious and inevitable. Our rescue services are thus not something added on but an integral part of the tourist season, and people expect and deserve those services.

Thanks to the Government, to whom I pay tribute, we have a good new road—the north Devon link road— which will be open from the Tiverton M5 up to South Molton in a couple of months and from South Molton up to Barnstaple and on to Bideford by this time next year. The purpose of good roads is to make travel safer and to carry more traffic. There will be more tourists, and that is good. There will be more people coming to live with us. That is excellent. We welcome all of them, but we cannot accept a lowering of safety standards at the very time when improved facilities to reach north Devon become available.

West country Members do not feel neglected. We are well looked after and kindly spoken to, but then these little points are thrown in showing that, although we are to have good roads—the excellent Okehampton bypass is being opened—and all the other good things that will make us more viable commercially, the dangers will remain and may even get worse.

I therefore put three main points to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, I accept that the purpose of Ministry of Defence helicopters is defence and their priority must be to help service men in difficulty. I suppose that their origins lie with the launches that used to go out into the Channel to pick up aircraft crew who had ditched during the second world war.

Modern aircraft are safe and modern flyers are excellent, so, happily, we have few defence emergencies. Unfortunately, we have many civilian emergencies. I ask for an assurance that there will be no danger of change in the immediate future, by which I mean this year or next year, of anything happening to the defence helicopters that look after us so well.

Secondly, if the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, for their own logical reasons, have to reduce their commitment, will there be an overlapping of rescue services? I believe that an interdepartmental committee is currently examining these issues. If the Royal Air Force had to diminish or dilute its support for whatever reason, would another organisation take its place? I understand that that could be a civil operation, and I am neither for nor against that. All that I want is protection for our people. If the Ministry of Defence cannot continue to meet its commitment, then my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport must take the next step.

Children, my own have been among them, take part each year in what is called the 10 tors competition. It is an exercise that is organised extremely well by the forces. Sometimes the youngsters suffer heatstroke. Sometimes a youngster will break his ankle or leg. In the past we have always had the support of the services to get any injured competitor off the moor. There are other things that go wrong on the moors and problems are not confined to the 10 tors competition. When the weather is bad—it can be extraordinarily bad on occasions—we have always had the support of the services. The Royal Air Force has flown in food for families and fodder for beasts. Without that support we would be extremely hard put. It is not just a matter of providing an extra helicopter for the four, five or six months of summer. There must be a total commitment year round.

I have figures that show how many people are carried from accidents by helicopter. Many of those who are injured in road accidents are motor cyclists. When youngsters damage their head or their legs, they are lifted from north Devon to the hospital at Barnstaple, which has a helicopter pad, or might be taken on to Plymouth. We are not dealing with the odd occasion when an injury takes place or when an idiot takes out a boat in dangerous conditions with a lack of experience. There is a day-to-day need to supplement the wonderful service of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the superb service that is provided by our coastguards. These services must be co-ordinated. All the individual bits and pieces are working wonderfully well, but more and more demands will be placed upon them as the years pass. There are times when we cannot rely entirely on the voluntary sector and the time is coming when there will have to be some form of service that goes beyond the central co-ordinating centres, which we already have and which work well. We shall have to co-ordinate the cash wihin the public purse so that the public are protected, our services continue and we can continue as happily and as fruitfully as in the past.

It is a great pleasure to represent a part of the west country which so many people visit and it gives great satisfaction to read so often in the press that someone has been saved. I know that everyone is grateful to the services but the need will always be present, and it is our job in Parliament to ensure that the means are available as well.

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) for the fact that a humble Defence Minister rather than a Transport Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box to answer the questions that he has put. I read the Prime Minister's reshuffle list carefully and I am not aware that I have been moved. I am sure that he will accept that any comments that are made in this debate will be conveyed to my colleagues not only at the Ministry of Defence, but at the Department of Transport.

May I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He has been a valiant champion of his constituents' interests concerning not only RAF Chivenor, but the search and rescue service provided from that RAF base. He has written to me on numerous occasions about this matter and has brought delegations from the North Devon district council to visit me. I was thus able to hear at first hand their views about the future of the search and rescue services in the south-west. I have also visited RAF Chivenor with my hon. Friend.

I have been extremely impressed by the response from the community, including the Ilfracombe Round Table, the local Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the local press—if one can pay a tribute to the press gallery— especially the North Devon Gazette. All my hon. Friend's constituents have adopted a positive and responsible attitude to campaigning and have drawn the attention of the Ministry to local concerns about the search and rescue services.

Many people in this country have good reason to be grateful for the excellence of the search and rescue service —for them it has made literally the difference between life and death. It is understandable, therefore, that when there is any prospect of change in any part of that service it arouses strong feelings among those who believe that they may be affected.

I should like to state at the outset, therefore, that in considering any changes that are within the province of Government we have had the interests of all users of the services in mind. We would not contemplate changes which we believed would not continue to provide a level of service across the country acceptable to the Government.

The search and rescue service is provided by the Government and other agencies and it is a matter of teamwork. The Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy provide helicopters; the RAF also provides long-range maritime patrol aircraft and mountain rescue teams and rescue co-ordination centres, which co-ordinate all air search and rescue assets. Her Majesty's coastguard co-ordinates civil maritime search and rescue operations within the United Kingdom's search and rescue region and provides boats and helicopters of its own. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution provides a whole range of rescue boats and, of course, the extremely brave men who crew them—I pay particular tribute to them.

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the wide range of agencies that contribute to search and rescue. When we pay tribute to the skills of RAF and Royal Navy pilots of the search and rescue helicopters we should remember that many other agencies assist. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to their bravery. Together, the services give a comprehensive range of cover enabling them to assist at the multiplicity of emergencies that arise around our coastline and in our mountains—emergencies which range from the massive tragedy of the Piper Alpha oil rig to the plight of civilians cut off by the tide, or the pregnant woman who needs emergency evacuation to hospital.

The spread of the search and rescue assets is reflected in the division of departmental responsibilities, and perhaps it would be helpful if I explained those briefly to the House —not least because the perception of many is that search and rescue is wholly provided by the Ministry of Defence. For example my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for civil maritime and aviation rescue, whilst the Ministry of Defence is responsible for military rescue. Naturally, departments work closely together, and Ministry of Defence assets are available to assist civilians in distress in peace time. It follows, however that some of the issues raised today by my hon. Friend fall within the purview of the Department of Transport, and I know that my hon. Friend understands that and has expressed his anxieties to Ministers in that Department. I will convey his remarks to those Ministers.

In the past 12 months, we have undertaken a review of the deployment of RAF and Royal Navy helicopters around our coastline with a view to deploying those assets as effectively as possible. It has been a major undertaking.

I have already told my hon. Friend that decisions on the remaining parts of the study, including those that affect the south-west, have not yet been taken and we shall not make an announcement on those aspects until after the summer recess. I assure my hon. Friend that no precipitous decision or announcement will be made. The Ministry of Defence will take all the time necessary to consider representations made to it when examining the complicated issues involving inter-departmental co-ordination and other considerations.

The primary purpose of the search and rescue service provided by the Royal Navy and the RAF is the rescue of military personnel in peacetime and war. That is why a military service was established and that remains its raison d'etre. Therefore, I must be certain that our military search and rescue needs are met and continue to be met as effectively and efficiently as possible.

We have also taken account of the recommendations of the helicopter coverage group set up by the United Kingdom search and rescue committee, which reports to the Department of Transport. It is our aim significantly to improve the national coverage we shall provide against helicopter coverage group criteria and I can assure the House that final decisions on the deployment of our assets will not be taken without the concurrence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Of course, I recognise that it is in the area of civil needs that the most public concern is felt, particularly in my hon. Friend's constituency, with its large number of holiday-makers—a number likely to increase, as my hon. Friend has reminded the House this afternoon, with the building of the new road into north Devon. I am well aware of the extensive leisure pursuits undertaken by holidaymakers and residents in the area, particularly with the ever-increasing popularity of sailing and windsurfing, and the scope for people to get into difficulties while undertaking such pursuits. Nor do we forget that people get into difficulties on land as well—in this area Exmoor and Dartmoor spring naturally to mind—and I remind the House that the RAF has a mountain rescue team stationed at St. Athan whose area of cover includes south-west England. I pay particular tribute to them; they work very closely with the police.

I emphasise that the Government are paying close attention to the needs of civilians who undertake enjoyable but potentially dangerous leisure pursuits. We will take the fullest account of the representations we have received concerning the future deployment of search and rescue helicopters.

My hon. Friend has suggested that we consider setting up a single comprehensive agency to meet our search and rescue needs. It is not for the Ministry of Defence alone to comment on that idea. However, there already exists a United Kingdom search and rescue committee advising the Department of Transport on which all the principal contributors to, and many of the users of, the search and rescue services are represented. It includes representatives of the Department of Transport, Her Majesty's coastguard, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and such users as the Cornish fish producers organisation and the Royal Yachting Association. The members of that committee agree to support the collective effort by contributing in ways most appropriate to them.

The United Kingdom search and rescue operation has developed from precedents which we still believe are valid on the basis of contributions from various authorities, which my hon. Friend has mentioned. By concentrating on developing teamwork, we believe that we have a greater capacity than would be the case if one single body attempted to provide everything. A single body might inevitably find itself aiming only to meet the minimum requirements, as can be seen in other countries with such a system. Continued reliance on the many agencies, all of which take pride in their contribution, produces a service that is second to none in the world.

Our review of military helicopter search and rescue services is designed to ensure that they are deployed as effectively as possible. This is not a penny-pinching exercise, designed to save a few pounds here or a few pounds there. But we have to be certain in this area, as in any other, that we are obtaining the best value for money whilst meeting our military requirements and, as I have explained, taking account of civil needs. If we were to deploy search and rescue helicopters every 25 miles around the coast we could ensure that delays in reaching any incident would be minimal, but such an organisation would be neither financially practicable nor necessary. Equally, if we were to base helicopters at only, say, four sites around the country we could not provide a service which would be adequate to meet either military or civil needs. Our aim is therefore to ensure that our basing policy strikes the right balance between the available resources and the tasks to be undertaken.

I have explained that decisions about helicopter search and rescue deployment as it affects the west country have not yet been taken, and will not be taken until the autumn. I undertake to consider again the points made in this debate when reaching those decisions. I assure the House that the Government would not contemplate any changes to the present deployment if it was not convinced that anything other than a service which met the needs of the military and civil communities would result.

I hope that I have covered most of the questions that my hon. Friend has asked me. He asked for three assurances, and I hope that I have covered them. The first was that no precipitous decision will be taken and no announcement will be made on defence helicopter deployment. I hope that I have convinced him that, following our very full representations, we will take all the necessary time to review those and reach a conclusion.

Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether, if the Royal Air Force did not provide a service at Chivenor or at any other station, his constituents would not be left in the lurch. The Government intend to ensure that the national criteria for search and rescue and cover for those in difficulties at sea are met. I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that those criteria are met.

Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned those who are caught in the open or suffer injury on Exmoor during the winter. They will not be forgotten, as the House should not foreget the men of the search and rescue service.

It is wholly inappropriate for the House to adjourn for three months while the massive and crushing problem of the long-term unemployed remains. That problem becomes worse as every day goes by, particularly in the context of the economic crisis facing the Government. Halfway through the year, there is already a massive trade deficit that is far higher than the Chancellor predicted for the whole year. Interest rates are increasing almost by the day. Investment in manufacturing industry still has not returned to the levels that were enjoyed a number of years ago, and inflation is rising, as the Chancellor said in his goodbye letter for the recess to his colleagues.

Those appear to be problems of success, without defining clearly what that success is. They have a considerable knock-on effect on the long-term unemployed. Unemployment has been used as an economic philisophy and tool by the Government to drive down wages and to constrain and repress trade union organisation. The Government refuse, even today, to set a target date for when unemployment will return to the levels of 1979. Instead, there has been manipulating and massaging of the figures. We are now on the 20th adulteration of the unemployment figures since the Government came to power; job creation and other schemes are included in the calculation of the number of people enjoying employment.

In the latest finesse, the community programme is to be jettisoned and replaced by employment training. This will have a profound effect on my constituency, Nottingham in general, and the rest of the country. Almost every good aspect of the CP is under threat. In Nottingham, not only do hundreds of CP workers face a return to the dole queue, but the failure to replace the work done by CP schemes will hit hard the elderly, the disabled and other needy groups.

The penny-pinching Tory council in Nottingham has a particularly appalling record and is copping out of its local responsibilities by refusing to become a training manager. A revealing report to the Tory city council in June stated:

"Many of the Council's current CP placements are project based, for example those on environmental works. The new emphasis on vocational training together with the individual action plan approach is likely to make it impractical for all of the current CP projects to continue in their current form. Furthermore the Training Commission has indicated a wish to phase out such project-based placements."

In correspondence with myself, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment stated

"that community benefit will not be a main priority of the new programme."

Glib phrases are used by Tories locally and nationally, but I shall explain what they mean. The following schemes will be affected in Nottingham, North. The Nottingham women's centre will lose two centre co-ordinators and two play scheme co-ordinators. The Nottingham centre for the unemployed will lose two welfare workers, two outreach workers, one clerk typist, a warden and a manager. The Rainbow centre will lose a librarian and an information officer, an exhibition organiser and the development worker for recycling. The voluntary projects programme based in Bulwell in my constituency, will lose two full-timers and one part-timer who work with the long-term unemployed and the rehabilitated mentally ill.

The Nottingham community arts project will lose a printer, reducing the number of courses for printing, photography and arts. MIND will lose one activities organiser. Even Bulwell toy library looks forward to an uncertain future.

One of the worst features is the attack upon the elderly and disabled. The dial-a-ride scheme in Nottingham, along with community transport, will lose 14 drivers and workers. It will be decimated and wholly dependent for a much reduced service on volunteers.

Perhaps many of those projects should enjoy permanent employment and should not have been dependent on the schemes. However, there was not permanent employment and to a large extent those caring projects were filled through the community programme. I hold out little prospect of real investment by the Government to replace the jobs that will disappear with real jobs, perhaps with the local authority or through other auspices.

The list continues. At the Norwich gardens community centre for the elderly, the warden feels that there is insufficient time to undertake what the Government call "training" for the workers. The nature conservancy programme in Nottingham will be severely affected. Brilliant local initiatives such as those taking place at the Bestwood advice centre will be crushed. A total of 39 community programme workers attached to that centre will no longer be in place under employment training. Those workers do the gardening and painting for elderly people, assist with welfare rights, produce community newsletters and so on.

The Top Valley community centre is equally threatened. Shelter, an organisation with a high reputation in the city and nationally will lose three workers in the city. The Broxtowe advice centre will lose welfare and advice workers. The list goes on.

The areas in which there is high social need and where the indicators of deprivation are among the highest in my constituency are those where we will lose extra pairs of hands and extra skills that are essential if the people who benefit from the community based schemes are still to help that community.

The training burden placed upon senior people in the establishments I have mentioned means that they cannot fulfil the needs outlined under employment training. An advice worker, under stress and working hard, cannot put aside the time to take 40 per cent. of a trainee's time under direct supervision. It is impossible to imagine that people under such stress will be able to put aside such time. That is one reason why the schemes cannot work and the numbers will go down.

Adventure playgrounds, tutors for creches and keep fit classes will be hit. In addition, the skilled team of community programme administrators and supervisors who run the city Councils community programme schemes face an uncertain future and will perhaps be out of work. That is the profit in one constituency from the change from the community programme to employment training. I am afraid that that profit is repeated in constituencies throughout the land. The unseen and unheard-of problems will hit voluntary organisations in particular over the next few weeks.

How could there be other than massive consequences when £500 million, which is effectively earmarked under the community programme for community-based schemes and projects, is suddenly turned off? There are bound to be massive detrimental effects. In addition, the £86 million taken from schemes associated with and related to disabled people will obviously have a major effect. According to the Spastics Society, that is equivalent to 10 per cent. of the whole community care budget being taken from the disabled in one fell swoop.

Who will fill the gaps? In many ways, the CP has been used to paper over the cracks. The Department of Health and Social Security and local authorities have not been able to fulfil all the social needs that are laid upon them and the CP has very often filled the gap. Will the burdens fall ever more on social service departments at council level and on the new Department of Social Security? Who will look after and make good the shortfalls? I suspect that the answer is no one. In the free enterprise culture, the old lady who cannot get her hedge cut or her garden dug will just have to go and whistle. I suspect that the disabled person who relies on the dial-a-ride scheme to get out and do some shopping will just have to hope that somehow a good neighbour will fill in and do right by him.

The community programme scheme has also enabled voluntary work to be initiated in response to local demands and needs. One of the problems about ET— employment training—is that there must be a position of strength before it can begin. There must be workers and a training infrastructure to kick off the new schemes, not least because money is not provided to meet the running costs of the schemes. The small-scale local initiative arising from local demand will find it harder to surface and meet that local demand.

Even those employment training schemes that go ahead will average just six months per person instead of the one year per person under CP schemes. After six months' training, the trainee can put back into the scheme a degree of skill and experience. However, that is exactly when the training period is likely to cease. That effective contribution will cease.

All that I have outlined in one particular constituency flies in the face of the Governments assurances to voluntary organisations. After meeting representatives of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Secretary of State, who I can only assume regards ET as his child—the organ grinder rather than the monkey— said:

"Every existing Community Programme provider who wishes to offer to provide employment training opportunities of a comparable quality will be able to do so … all projects could move into employment training."

That point has since been repeated by the Secretary of State's officials.

Those statements are at total variance with the experience of the schemes in Nottingham, which help the elderly and the disabled and offer advice and support which will now close because of the change. The Government's promises and statements are nothing less than downright lies which are hurting some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency.

The lack of seriousness about training is also shown by the amount of money allocated to training managers. The White Paper announced that, in addition to the basic grant, the average supplementary grant would be £20 a week. In fact, it is nearer £15 per trainee. That is leading training managers to cut their schemes to reduce the quality of training and the number of trainees. In many cases, ET will give substantially less than was available under the community programme. If the Government are serious about training, the training costs in a training programme must be higher than in a programme which allegedly did very little training. As a result, with just four weeks to the launch of ET, many voluntary organisations are desperate and uncertain about the future.

That leaves aside those people who are being trained. If the Government were serious about training the long-term unemployed, the trainees would receive a decent wage which should attract trainees, rather than one on which they can barely exist. Also the threat which still hangs over them would be lifted—they may lose their dole money, or people coming on the schemes at a later point may lose their dole money, if they come off scheme. Proper training is about high-quality programmes—not threats. Intimidation is no answer to the long-term unemployment problem. All that the people on employment training will receive is their benefit, plus £10 on their Giro. Some may receive a top-up or have their travel and meal costs met by some training managers. Rather than serious training, that still resembles the latest in a long line of attempts to massage and manipulate the unemployment figures and to keep down wage costs.

In my constituency, the real level of unemployment is calculated not by the Department, with its 20 additions, but by the unemployment unit. Unemployment is still around 16 per cent. in real terms—16 out of every 100 people in Nottingham, North are without work.

While the number of wages inspectors—whose regional office is in my constituency—has been reduced, and while employers who are discovered to be paying low wages are rarely prosecuted, we heard this morning that the clerical and manual grades in the east midlands have received the lowest increase in wages in the United Kingdom this year.

The employment training programme does nothing to assist those individuals who are so desperate to return to work, to make a contribution, and to be constructive rather than hopeless at home. It merely aggravates the position of the long-term unemployed.

For all its faults, the community programme will be desperately missed by those individuals who have been on its schemes and, even more so, by the needy, the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled, the welfare advice seekers and all those who have benefited from many of the community programme schemes. In my opinion, ET should go home.

I do not entirely agree with the analysis by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) of the economic situation; nor do I agree with his analysis of the prospects for ET. I would probably embarrass the hon. Gentleman if I did agree with that analysis. He has put this debate firmly in the context of the plight of the long-term unemployed, and I am sure that he is right to do that. Even at this late stage in this Session of Parliament, in doing so he performs a valuable service, both to the House and to the country, in giving us the opportunity to debate this issue, for which I am grateful.

I am anxious in the time available to try to respond to the hon. Gentleman's specific points, but I should like to say the briefest of words about the economic situation. The hon. Gentleman is right that in time of recession it is the vulnerable who will suffer most. Certainly in a time of recession, it will be the long-term unemployed who will suffer from that vulnerability.

The hon. Gentleman is worried about inflation, but I advise him—because of the respect that we have for him, I warn him that it is a trick question—to name one month under the last Labour Government when inflation was as low as its present relatively high level under this Government. Dealing with problems as they arise and counting inflation and the threat posed by it is preferable to Secretaries of State being turned around in their motor cars on the way to the airport and having to take a begging bowl to the International Monetary Fund. History, which I am sure will take great account of the hon. Gentleman's speeches and mine, will have to make up its mind about that.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned schemes in his constituency which he feels are under threat. I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I say that it would be better if we could follow this debate up by the hon. Gentleman writing to me about his worries so that I can consider them.

It is sometimes assumed that community programme providers who are not in the business of training cannot function under the new scheme. We plan to have about 194,000 project places under the new adult training programme, which is broadly what already exists. It is somewhat ironic to hear the praise that has recently been heaped on the community programme, as, when the Government introduced it in 1983, Opposition Members universally derided it. One of the constant criticisms of it was that it was only a makework scheme and not a training programme. It is somewhat ironic that we are now being criticised for building on the community programme and trying to ensure that it has a training content.

I do not apologise for the fact that we have developed the valuable work done by the community programme to ensure that there is a training content in future. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to draw attention to the fact that many community programme providers will not want to be training managers. They may not be equipped to be training managers. Just as there is more than one way to salvation, so there is more than one way in which the community programme can play its part in the new programme. Many training managers will be responsible for delivering training, and they will need project places. In many parts of the country, CP providers will contract or subcontract to provide project placements for training managers. That process is beginning to take shape.

I bear in mind experience from my constituency. Several consortia are getting together. They are often made up of people who are unable to provide direct training, but know that they can provide project places. They team up with those who are able to provide training. That is another way in which the community programme can pass into the new programme. It is a mistake and overly pessimistic to think that, simply because a CP provider cannot become a training manager in his own right, he cannot take part in the new programme.

The hon. Gentleman drew the House's attention to commitments given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and, I dare say, by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I, too, have been saying it throughout the country. The Government are anxious that voluntary organisations should play their full part in providing training, but I am aware from my private office correspondence and from representations that have been made to me that some voluntary organisations are worried about how they will fit into the new scheme of things. That is entirely understandable. The Training Commission and Employment Ministers do their best to resolve such problems.

Some 300,000 places will have to be contracted for under the new programme. About 270,000 contracts have been sent or are in the final stages. I do not underestimate the difficulties that may have been experienced in some areas. Broadly speaking, the community programme is working. Many community programme providers throughout the country have found that they can bring themselves within the new programme. About 270,000 of the 300,000 places are already contracted for.

The hon. Gentleman is also concerned about the amount of time that will be spent on the new programme. He made the point that it will be six months on this programme, whereas it was 12 months on the community programme. I appreciate that the constraints of time apply just as much to the hon. Gentleman as they do to me and that in short debates we all to some extent talk in shorthand. We suspect that six months will be the norm, but if a trainee needs more than six months for his particular circumstances the programme can be for up to a year. Unlike the community programme, the idea is that it will be full-time training. The possibility of full-time training for 12 months, if that is needed, is a better bet than any form of community programme that would involve merely part-time training. When the hon. Gentleman thinks about it, as I know he will in the light of our exchanges, I think he will recognise that that fact needs to be borne in mind.

The hon. Gentleman is also concerned about the funding of the programme. He takes particular exception to the concept of benefit-plus. Although the Government have emphasised the advantages of a training programme, we have to bear in mind that it was designed not by the Government but by the Manpower Services Commission, which is now the Training Commission. It put unanimous recommendations to the Government about the way in which it wanted the scheme to be set up. The recommendations included the funding arrangements and the concept of benefit plus.

I could enliven the debate massively by telling the House about some MSC representations that were not absolutely what we wanted to hear. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment greatly valued the fact that the training commissioners, including the three trade union commissioners, one of whom was Mr. Todd, who is noted for his recent job initiative in Dundee, were all in favour of the scheme. The fact that this was to be a training allowance rather than a rate for the job was put to us, and we accepted the recommendation.

Bearing in mind the criticism that has been levelled against benefit-plus, it is interesting to see who has criticised it. One has to bear in mind the sweet words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) about the training programme. She is the Labour party's Front Bench spokesman on these matters. The hon. Lady has been eloquent and vocal about benefit-plus, yet when she was a director of Youth Aid in 1982 she referred to the future of the community enterprise programme, the forerunner of the community programme, and said:

"Consideration should also be given to the possibility of payment on CEP calculated on a 'Benefit plus' basis."

I agree, and that is what we are doing. It is a little sad that, having accepted the MSC's recommendations to that effect, and having done what the hon. Member for Ladywood wanted, we are being criticised for it.

The hon. Gentleman has done the House a service by questioning the voluntary nature of the scheme, if only to give me the chance for the umpteenth time to try to shoot down that idea. There is no question of this being other than a voluntary scheme. I put it as low as that to pander to every evil thought that the hon. Gentleman has ever harboured towards the Conservative party. To try to force people into training would not work. The programme will succeed only if the long-term unemployed regard it as an effective mechanism for getting them back into the main stream of British working life so that they can enjoy some of the benefits that the rest of us have enjoyed in recent years. That is what the programme is about. If it succeeds in that way, who needs to make it compulsory? Even if it does not succeed, the idea that we can forcibly train people will not work.

From our exchanges on the Employment Bill, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is not always absolutely persuaded by everything that I say. I should like to think that he does not doubt my motives but he may think that I am a trifle naive. Mr. Norman Willis, the general secretary of the TUC, is not naive, nor is he an uncritical supporter of Her Majesty's Government. Two weeks ago the Financial Times said that Mr. Willis had reaffirmed his conditional support for the Governments employment training programme. He said:

"There is no viable alternative."

In The Times of the same day, Mr. Willis was quoted as saying that should the programme fail, the whole trades union movement would deserve condemnation as well. Mr. Willis has got it right. He has given the programme his conditional support. He believes that it may yet be a mechanism that can help the long-term unemployed back to work. AU that I would say to the hon. Gentleman is, if it is good enough for Mr. Willis to give it his conditional support, I am sure that it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman as well.

I shall respond to any letters that the hon. Gentleman may care to write about specific points.

Almost everyone in London, and many beyond, know that as one crosses the river Thames from Hammersmith into Barnes there is a complete change of scenery, with wider tree-lined avenues leading to the open spaces of Barnes common and, further on, to Richmond park and Kew gardens. Only seven miles from Westminster, Barnes richly provides proof that Richmond upon Thames deserves to be known as the borough where the countryside comes to town. It is the balance of our love and respect for the environment, for green open spaces and for wildlife that makes Richmond and Barnes such a joy both to live in and to visit.

Barnes itself still possesses a village atmosphere in an ever more frenetic world. Although blighted by the incessant misery of aircraft noise, few residents know of a more pleasant urban environment. We fiercely hold on to our metropolitan open land and, in spite of high density housing, relief is at hand through the natural environment, with the river Thames on two sides, Barnes common in the south and Barn Elms reservoirs to the east. It is Barn Elms reservoirs about which I wish to speak, not only as the Member of Parliament for Richmond and Barnes but as a vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust.

It is a great delight to have as the Minister responding to the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), who understands and appreciates the special nature of Richmond. I warmly thank her for being here today and congratulate her on her recent appointment. I apologise to her for her baptism of fire and having to answer two Adjournment debates in her first few days as Minister, particularly as her first debate was at 4 o'clock this morning. In spite of it, she is looking lovely.

Barn Elms comprises nearly 70 acres of reservoir, split into four almost equal quarters, and approximately 80 acres of surrounding land, including filter beds, allotments and recreational open land. It was declared a site of special scientific interest in June 1975 as it was decided by the Nature Conservancy Council to be one of the most important wintering sites in the London area for tufted duck, smew, pochard and other species. Between 1986 and 1987, the London Natural History Society recorded no fewer than 35 different species of bird in the area putting it sixth in greater London or 11th in the whole London Natural History Society recording area. In records taken since 1947–48, counts of national significance have also been recorded for gadwall and shovellers—the latter have greatly increased in numbers recently—in addition to pochard and tufted duck. It is a site that is loved by local residents and bird watchers alike. It would be a tragedy if it were to be filled in, bulldozed and turned into a housing estate of some 6,000 houses, totally changing the nature of Barnes. A site of major natural historic importance would be lost.

How does that fear come about? At present the site is controlled by Thames water authority, which has plans to terminate its interests at Barn Elms on the completion of the London ring main. As with any other public body, it has a duty to maximise its assets. A large site close to the centre of London must be a tempting prize. It would be harder, although admittedly not impossible, to achieve if that beautiful area retained its SSSI status. But that seems to be in danger as the number of birds seems to have fallen in recent years.

What are the reasons for the recent reductions in bird numbers? There are possibly four, but none is conclusive. It has been suggested that Thames Water, in managing the reservoirs, has introduced chlorinated water which has changed the birds' food source. That might have helped to accelerate a decline, but while the addition of such water has been recent, there is no proof that the decline in bird numbers corresponds with the first such introduction.

The second reason is possibly the activity of fishing in the immediate area. But fishing takes place during the summer months mainly when the ducks are more likely to be absent, and peak numbers of birds occur during winter months when it is the close season for fishing. It could well be, however, that the artificially introduced fish are competing with the birds for the same food source. Therefore, it is not conclusive that fishing is causing a deterioration in the number of birds, but there may be some related reasons which contribute to the reduction.

Another reason is that the River Thames once possessed rich food resources, but has become, as we all know and welcome, much cleaner. That can be shown by the appearance of salmon as high as Teddington in recent years. All Members of Parliament know that the Thames is much cleaner, but perhaps it is not generally known that the summer recess, which we shall enjoy in a few minutes' time, started because the river was so polluted and smelly that Members of Parliament could not stay here through the warmer months, so Parliament went into recess until the cold months arrived in the middle of October. The river is now clean and there is no smell, but we are fiercely proud of our tradition of a 10-week holiday. While the river is cleaner, food stocks will have declined and that could be a reason for the lack of numbers.

My conclusion is that none of those factors is likely to be of itself a conclusive reason for a permanent decline in bird stocks. Therefore, the numbers are as likely to be cyclical and are in any event only just below those used by the Nature Conservancy Council for judging SSSI status.

The current criteria for creating an SSSI in areas of water such as this are not officially published, but are generally known as threefold. First, the site must be of national or international importance, with its population of one or more bird species breeding, malting or wintering. Secondly, the site must have recent records of at least 70 breeding, 90 wintering or 150 passage species of birds. Thirdly, the site must have a total of more than 10,000 waterfowl, not including coots and grebes, regardless of the species regularly present. Clearly it is difficult for any urban site to qualify, but it is specifically because this is an urban site that the criteria should be widened.

At the third meeting of the RAMSAR convention, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory, the proposal for an addition to the criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance was made. The international criteria are published and there are three. A wetland should be considered internationally important if, first, it regularly supports 20,000 waterfowl; secondly, it regularly supports substantial numbers of individuals from particular groups of waterfowl, indicative of wetland values, productivity or diversity; and, thirdly, where data on populations are available, it regularly supports 1 per cent. of the individuals in a population of one species or sub-species of waterfowl.

Again, Barn Elms could not possibly qualify, certainly on the first or third of those international criteria, although it may do so on the second. The proposal was serious and far more interesting. It was:

"A Wetland should be considered internationally important if it is both a good example of the type and characteristic of its region and, either, offers special opportunities for promoting research, understanding and appreciation of Wetlands, open to people of several countries, or, is the source of past environmental or archeological information of international significance."

As it is in the centre of London, the site offers unique opportunities to promote research, understanding and appreciation of those lovely birds. The site is in the middle of the largest area of population in the country and is the closest to the biggest international airport in the world. It is precisely because it is unique in being in London that the Wildfowl Trust in Slimbridge has shown a great interest in the site.

Just six weeks ago, the Wildfowl Trust stated that it was examining the possibility of establishing a Wildfowl Trust site near London and, on hearing that the Thames water authority had plans to terminate its interest at Barn Elms, wondered if it could become involved in the development plans there. Of course, matters are at an early stage, but surely, if the Wildfowl Trust is showing an interest, it must be at least an important site. The fact that the trust considered opening a second branch shows that the site has crucial importance to those who know and understand ducks and birds generally.

I believe that the trust's view is proof positive that SSSI status should be retained and that the reservoirs should not be compared to other reservoirs outside London but should hold unique importance in their own right. There is little doubt that the local authority, under any political party that wanted to retain control, would refuse planning permission for residential or commercial use, not only because it would change the nature of Barnes entirely and would cause massive transport and environmental difficulties, but because the people of Richmond believe that this facility is what is wanted and needed desperately as an island in the middle of urban sprawl.

To have a Slimbridge in central London would not only introduce thousands of tourists to the work and wonders of the Wildfowl Trust, but would also be of tremendous educational benefit to children and adults alike. Tourists coming into London might be introduced to the Wildfowl Trust and then travel westward to Gloucestershire to see the original Slimbridge. It would therefore be an introduction of international significance.

To lose the site as an SSI would be not only an uncivilised act of material vandalism but a disaster to the local environment. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what Barnes would be if a large housing estate were built on the site at Barn Elms. The only exit from Barnes to the north is Hammersmith bridge, which has a severely restricted weight limit. A new crossing over the Thames would be needed—perhaps two new crossings. Already one has to wait up to half an hour to cross Hammersmith bridge on an ordinary morning. If the population of Barnes were doubled, the environmental considerations would be grotesque.

I fully recognise that removing SSSI status does not automatically mean that development will occur, but it would be one step on the road to development. To build a housing estate on the site would not, as some might say, be of benefit to those who cannot afford houses in the area. Houses built there would be extremely desirable and extremely expensive because of their riverside site, so I do not believe that development would benefit the local people or anybody other than those who can already afford expensive houses in the capital.

To summarise, we in Richmond believe that the criteria for judging SSSI status should be refined to take into account both the numbers and rarity of the birds recorded, which would better reflect the sites. The London ecology unit, under Dr.. Dave Dawson and his excellent team, further believes that the geographical position of the site should be a criterion for its selection as an SSSI to ensure that no large areas of the country are left with their best sites unrecognised. Dr. Dawson also believes that Barn Elms reservoirs have not been evaluated correctly according to the Nature Conservancy Council's own published criteria because they may form one part of a series of wetlands, each part of which is required to conserve nationally important bird populations, and because an inappropriate area of search may have been employed when selecting London SSSIs for bird populations. Fluctuations in the number of birds on the reservoirs suggest that it would be prudent to allow a margin for future changes as none of the reasons for decline seems permanent.

When an SSSI is threatened with denotification, a formal consultation procedure with the local planning authority and certain other interests such as landowners provides an opportunity for any representations or objections to be made in writing to the Nature Conservancy Council within a period of not less than three months. These are then considered by the NCC in deciding whether to withdraw the proposal. I hope that the Official Report of this debate will be regarded as a written representation and a contribution towards the debate on whether Barn Elms should retain SSSI status. On environmental, conservational, educational, recreational, national and international grounds, I beg that Barn Elms should retain its designation as a site of special scientific interest.

First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) for his kind words about my new appointment. As he rightly said, I last spoke from the Dispatch Box at about 4.50 this morning, although in parliamentary terms that was yesterday.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the clear, articulate and forceful way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents. As he well knows, I have personal knowledge of the area and am well aware of the concerns of people in the Hammersmith bridge area about their environment. My hon. Friend referred to the fear that if the necessary steps are not taken the area may end up being developed. I assure him that that is a very premature fear at this stage, although it is entirely understandable and right that people living in or near areas of wildlife interest wish those areas to be properly protected and looked after. That is especially true in urban areas, where opportunities to see and enjoy wildlife are greatly valued.

It is important to consider the particular site in the wider context of the overall objectives and arrangements for the SSSI system. My hon. Friend has presented many of the details very thoroughly, but I hope that he will bear with me if I go over some of the points. My hon. Friend also presented some proposals of his own as to the way in which the arrangements could be modified. I shall certainly study all those points in great detail and pass them on to the relevant authorities. My hon. Friend will appreciate, however, that there is no real prospect of such modifications being introduced in time to alter the situtation with regard to Barn Elms.

I pay tribute to the Nature Conservancy Council for its work in advising the Government on nature conservation in Great Britain which is widely respected. This is a growing area of public interest and concern. In a fast-moving world with more development and a greater threat to the environment, whether from excessive agricultural, urban or industrial development, all of us inevitably appreciate sites of special scientific interest and ways of protecting the natural heritage which is one of our richest and most diverse natural resources. In view of my new responsibilities, it is an honour and a privilege to have a particular interest in this area, which has been a prime concern of mine for many years.

Although SSSIs have existed since the enactment of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, it was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—the cornerstone of our conservation policies and a great milestone in the development of care for our environment —that provided for the establishment of a new type of site of special scientific interest. The 1981 Act established a system of comprehensive protection for SSSIs against specific activities that the Nature Conservancy Council considered would be harmful for the conservation interests of the area. The NCC is required to notify owners and occupants of any land that it considers to be of special interest because of its flora, fauna or special features, and to advise owners or occupants of any potentially damaging operations, which are then subject to certain restrictions.

The NCC has had to renotify about 4,000 old-style SSSIs. This has involved a detailed review and reassessment of the scientific interest of all these sites in the light of changes that have occurred since they became SSSIs. Some, inevitably, are now less significant, while others have assumed a greater importance because of the inevitable movements and changes in the pattern of our native wildlife.

Before commenting in more detail on the background to the Barn Elms site, I should explain that it is the prerogative of the NCC to decide on the basis of scientific facts whether a particular site merits SSSI status. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may make representations to the NCC on particular sites if he considers it appropriate to do so. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have examined most carefully the background to the proposed denotification of the Barn Elms reservoir. I regret to say that we can find no reason to question the NCC's view in this instance.

The Barn Elms reservoir was originally notified as an SSSI in 1975. At that time, it was the most important wintering site in the London area for waterfowl, principally tufted duck and pochard. My hon. Friend has given an admirable description of the various forms of wildlife to be found there. In addition, it was a large winter gull roost.

When the scientific interest of the site was reassessed following the enactment of the 1981 Act, the NCC concluded that, for several reasons, there had been movements of waterfowl to other similar habitats in the area. Again, my hon. Friend gave a clear analysis of some of the reasons that were thought to be responsible for the movement of waterfowl. These included the loss of feeding grounds on the River Thames and changes in the management of the reservoir. The fact remains that the populations of these species has declined sharply since the site was first notified.

The NCC's decision to denotify the site was influenced also by the existence within the greater London area of a further 12 reservoirs supporting larger and more significant waterfowl populations than the Barn Elms site. In fact, the site is now ranked 13th out of 16 sites in the greater London area for its waterfowl population. The range and diversity of waterfowl species supported by reservoir sites in the London area would not be affected by the denotification of Barn Elms.

There should be no automatic assumption that denotification of the site will lead to a decline in its continuing wildlife interest, let alone the premature fears to which I have already referred that development might inevitably take place there. I understand, contrary to my hon. Friend, that the Thames water authority, which currently owns the reservoir, has no present plans to dispose of it. Even if it should decide subsequently to do so, I can reassure my hon. Friend that a change of ownership will not necessarily threaten the wildlife interest. The existing designation of the reservoir as metropolitan open land will help to ensure that the interest is maintained.

There are alternative ways to protect the site, including a number of steps that could be taken by the local authority, which I have considered in some detail. The local authority could follow the example of many other sites throughout the country that have been designated as local nature reserves which are owned or leased and managed and protected by the local authority or by local conservation groups. I know my hon. Friend's constituency quite well and I can imagine that a great deal of local resourcefulness and initiative would be displayed in such a situation.

If the water authority decides that Barn Elms reservoir is no longer required for operational purposes, it could still be managed positively for wildlife benefit by the local authority or a conservation group. The NCC is well able to assist with such arrangements as a result of its expertise and professionalism.

Alternatively, the site could become a reservoir under the control of a national conservation body such as the Wildfowl Trust. My hon. Friend has mentioned that prospect and I share his opinion that the location of Barn Elms makes that a promising idea. I understand that the trust has plans to establish a reserve in the greater London area and has looked at a number of possible sites, one of which is Barn Elms reservoir. I believe that the trust expects to make its final selection towards the end of the year.

Whatever the future ownership of the site, any proposals for a change in its current use would have to be considered in accordance with the guidance given in circular 27/87 entitled "Nature Conservation". That reinforces the advice given to local authorities that they should take full account of the needs of nature conservation not only in determining individual planning applications but in formulating general planning policies. An awareness of conservation should be built into the whole range of their activities affecting the use of land.

I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that, even if the site should eventually be de-notified as an SSSI, there are a number of other ways of protecting its wildlife interest.

There is no doubt that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to conservation and wildlife in a number of demonstrable ways. Our record is a good one. We have, for example, increased the resources made available to the Nature Conservancy Council by some 170 per cent. in real terms since 1979—it has increased from £7·9 million to £38·95 million in the current year.

Our approach to conservation is based on the voluntary principle enshrined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. We believe that effective conservation can be achieved only with public consent, co-operation and support, and it is clearly most important that public confidence in the system should be maintained. That requires that NCC decisions on SSSI notifications should be seen to be based on an objective, dispassionate assessment of the scientific evidence in each case. In the Barn Elms case, that assessment led the NCC to the conclusion that the site was not, unfortunately, a sufficiently good, representative or unusual example of its type to merit SSSI status.

Having carefully considered the background to the case, I am satisfied, in the light of the NCC's assessment of the decline in the wildlife interest of the site, that the NCC was right to implement the de-notification procedures.

I cannot give any guarantees as to the future of the site, but a number of possible options may be followed. I have asked the NCC to discuss those possibilities with my hon. Friend, Thames water and the local authority in more detail. I hope that my hon. Friend will follow up that invitation.

The NCC will, of course, consider any representations or objections received before deciding whether the de-notification of Barn Elms should be confirmed. They have already received a number of such objections which will be rigorously considered by the NCC governing council after the deadline of 9 October. I understand that they expect to announce their final decision towards the end of the year.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a matter of understandable concern in his constituency. I hope that the debate has served to allay the fears of his constituents about the future, to clarify the background to the question, and to make some helpful suggestions to be followed up. His constituents can be assured that as long as he is their Member of Parliament they will not want for a more able advocate of their interests.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At about 12 minutes past 11 this morning, I took possession of a document which gives graphic illustration of very serious defects now present in the No. 1 reactor at Trawsfynydd, in north Wales. I considered it so serious that I contacted my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and engaged the services of an independent engineering consultant who specialises in these matters. The defects relate to cracked welds, cracked nuts and sections of degraded metal that have fallen into the reactor and have not been removed. I shall be brief——

Order. What is the point of order for me?

As this is a very serious matter with grave potential consequences for Trawsfynydd, and as there are similar reactors at Bradwell, Hinkley, Dungeness, Sizewell and Hunterston the same defects could be present in those reactors. My point of order is this: in view of the fact that some Government Department must have knowledge of this, have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had a request for a statement to be made on the matter before we go into recess for 12 weeks?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have had no request from anyone to make a statement.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Because of the special circumstances of today —we go into recess until 19 October—do you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have any advice that might enable me to take this matter further?

I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman pursues the matter directly with the Government Department concerned. There is nothing that I can do about the matter this afternoon, nor have I any responsibility for it.

I should like to raise a subject of considerable interest to my constituents, the effect of London weighting on the public services in the adjacent areas. I am becoming increasingly concerned at the blight effect of London weighting on those areas which fall just outside the limits of London weighting.

My borough of Gravesham, in the expensive commuter belt of the south-east, is located at one remove from outer London from which it is separated by the borough of Dartford. Although there are many outstanding aspects which make Gravesham an exceptional place in which to live in terms of housing costs, and the price of food and other necessities, it has little to distinguish it from Dartford or the outer London borough of Bexley. Yet those who work in the public services in my borough are paid less than their opposite numbers in Dartford or Bexley, and indeed, get equal pay with those working in the low-cost living areas of the north. That is brought about by the bewildering hotchpotch of London allowances and assorted fringe allowances paid by the different services locally on top of national pay scales.

Someone working for the NHS in the Dartford and Gravesham district would get a fringe allowance of £149 per annum, a figure established by the Whitley council in 1981 and frozen since. Someone working in the Bexley borough of the DHA would get £718. On the other hand, teachers in the same district find that they sort the sheep from the goats. Teachers a couple of miles away in Swanscombe or Southfleet get a fringe allowance of £333 per annum, but their colleagues in Gravesend or Northfleet get nothing.

A fireman or local government worker will receive no extra allowance for working in Gravesham. An inner-fringe allowance is given if one works in Dartford. Even more odd, a fireman at the Thameside station, which covers large areas of Dartford, receives no extra allowance because the station is located in Northfleet.

Gravesend is located 24 miles from Westminster, yet staff are paid no extra allowance. Thurrock lies immediately across the River Thames, stretching downstream from Gravesend. An allowance is given in Thurrock because local government boundaries stretch greater London further out into Essex than into Kent.

This is a farcical state of affairs. This bureaucrats' beanfeast is not only having a devastating effect on valued public service employees in Gravesham but, even worse, is creating scores of unfilled posts for teachers, nurses and other vital people.

This year, north-west Kent has had 86 teaching vacancies. Despite vigorous advertising, 23 of the posts were still unfilled last week. Even headships of schools have proved difficult to fill, and the Gravesham association of head teachers puts that down to the lack of adequate financial incentives to work in the area.

Locally, the Health Service illustrates the problem even more graphically. Frequently candidates for jobs opt out and go to London in search of high allowances, and others leave their jobs. Out of a group of 12 Irish nursing staff recruited recently, 10 have left for employment with London health authorities. In the local health district, an average of 30 nurses per year from the mental illness unit are lost, largely to Bexley health authority.

To overcome those problems, the public authorities are resorting to complication and subterfuge. They are introducing a proliferation of restructured salary scales, merit payments and improved benefit packages, with wider distribution of company cars, private medical insurance and other sweeteners. That is largely futile when competing with private-sector solutions, notably bank staffs' London allowance of £3,000 per annum.

Is it not time that we got rid of this bureaucratic tangle in the public services and took an axe to national pay bargaining? Government and local government units should be funded to be able to do the job and in the light of local personnel and other costs of the area. The unit should shop for staff, goods and services at the local going rate for their specialisation. This would get rid of the artificial scarcities that create service backlogs and Health Service waiting lists.

If the Government find that approach too radical or, at least, premature, urgent steps should nevertheless be taken to redress the current acute problem. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment to get together with Whitley council, LACSAB and other employer bodies to find a short-term remedy. This should be the immediate extension of outer-London allowances for public services to the borough of Gravesham. Without doubt the care of our patients, schoolchildren and people demands nothing less.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) for giving us an opportunity to consider the problems caused by the effect of London weighting. It will not come as a surprise to my hon. Friend that I do not have a remedy to all these ills carefully tucked up my sleeve. My hon. Friend has given me a further opportunity to give the Governments attitude, which to a great extent will reinforce some of the points that my hon. Friend made.

London weighting is a topical and important feature of the labour market. As my hon. Friend implies, the subject goes wider than London and brings into focus labour market pressures throughout the south-east. At present, those pressures are competitive and symptomatic of our thriving economy. Despite an increase in the civilian work force, unemployment in the south-east has fallen from 8·5 per cent. in 1986 to its present level of 5·6 per cent., and it is continuing to decrease. Unfilled vacancies in the region have risen by about 30 per cent. over the past two years.

We are debating the problem of success and how to manage that success effectively.

I am aware that the boundaries drawn by employers to define their London weighting zones vary widely. That will inevitably cause anomalies. However, it would be wrong to set down standard geographical definitions which should be used throughout the public services. These must be determined by individual employing authorities according to their own assessment of labour supply and demand in the particular labour markets in which they operate.

Let me stress at the outset that all pay and conditions of employment, including London weighting or any other allowance, and the areas in which those allowances are paid, are a matter for employers and employees, or their representatives, to determine. The Government do not intervene and nor should they. It is only the parties to agreements who can decide what they can afford, and need, in order to recruit and retrain staff with the right skills and experience in the areas concerned.

The role of the Government is to establish a sound economic framework within which business can flourish and to remove barriers that stand in the way of competition and labour market freedom.

It is precisely for that reason that the Government abolished the former London weighting indices, which were produced by my Department until 1982. Those indices annually updated the inner London allowance of £400 and the outer London allowance of £200 recommended by the Pay Board in 1974.

The whole concept underlying that formula was one of cost compensation. Its function was to establish and maintain statistical information on the additional cost of travel, housing, wear and tear and so on, incurred by staff working in London compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and therefore to suggest the level of London weighting which it would be appropriate to pay each year.

It also defined inner London as the area within a four-mile radius of Charing Cross and outer London as the remainder of the then Greater London council area. The indices were widely followed by employers in both the public and private sectors, generally with little regard to their own particular needs or circumstances.

The formula also embedded the concept of London weighting as a uniform allowance payable at the same level to all staff from the most junior to the most senior and as a separate and distinct element in their pay packet.

In announcing the discontinuation of the London weighting indices in October 1982 my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), then the Secretary of State for Employment, said:

"London differentials are a matter for employers and employees to determine according to the circumstances of each firm or industry. But, in the Government's view, the indices encourage negotiators to place too much emphasis on the need to compensate employees for the additional costs of working in London and too little on the need to set rates of pay which the employer can afford, and which are sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate employees in London".— [Official Report, 19 October 1982; Vol. 29, c. 100.]

Since that announcement, employers have increasingly moved away from determining London weighting by reference to cost compensation alone. Allowances are being set more and more in line with the imperatives of the labour market and the needs of the business. There is now considerably more diversity both in the level of allowances and the zones they cover.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham referred to the clearing banks and building societies, which have increased their inner London weighting to £3,000 per annum and introduced new geographical allowances of £750 throughout the whole of "Roselands"—the so-called "Rest of South-East".

That has clearly intensified pressure on other employers competing in those labour markets, in London and adjacent areas, and not least on the public services. That approach has not been widely emulated for other groups.

I will shortly say more about ways in which the public sector is tackling those problems. First, the debate gives me a chance to say why I believe that employers should increasingly question the nature and purpose of London weighting in its present form.

As I said earlier, we are dealing with a problem which now goes well beyond London itself. Improved communications—for example, with the M25 and the electrification of railway lines into East Anglia—have greatly improved access to the capital.

Secondly, the problems of recruiting and retaining staff are not only about money. It is right of course that relative pay levels should reward, among other things, the skills which employers need to compete efficiently. Otherwise, individuals would have no incentive to acquire the right skills, and firms would have no incentive to make a cost-effective training investment. An ever-increasing spiral in the level of London weighting payments to compete for a diminishing supply of Labour with the right skills and experience would, in the end, be self-defeating.

I am not convinced—and nor is the Confederation of British Industry—that employers have yet understood that those policies offer a more permanent and cost-effective approach to meeting skill demands over the medium term.

The massive demographic changes to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has drawn wide public attention recently will also affect London and the south-east as much as other parts of the country. Meanwhile, the Government are making a huge investment in training through the existing YTS scheme and the new employment training programme. Our spending on training is up from £458 million in 1979 to a planned £3 billion in 1989–90. But employers themselves will need to look equally radically at their own approach to recruitment and to their policies for training and retraining.

Finally, as far as pay is concerned, the traditional nature of London weighting payments has been very broad brush. The same level of allowance is typically paid to all workers in the relevant zone, irrespective of their seniority, qualifications or experience. A newly recruited clerk straight from school usually receives the same allowance as an experienced senior manager. This can be costly and ineffective. Labour shortages are often confined to particular occupations or to particular areas.

I said earlier that the Governments role was to establish the conditions to enable businesses to compete effectively. I believe that the Government can also set an example as an employer. In the Civil Service we are making pay more responsive to labour market needs by targeting resources at specific problems. Additionally, along with this year's London weighting settlement, the Government and the unions have agreed to consider the whole question of the future of London weighting payments.

Finally, we have introduced new long-term pay arrangements for about a third of civil servants which incorporate a greater degree of flexibility enabling pay to vary according to both performance and local labour market conditions. Similar arrangements are being discussed with the unions representing most of the remaining Civil Service grades. For example, I know that some local authority employers in the south-east have responded to market pressures in a variety of ways including incentive recruitment packages targeted at particular occupations, by restructuring jobs and regrading posts, and by job share and other schemes to attract back experienced staff. Training and retraining is also playing an important part in their approach.

Those are all examples of the way in which the public services are responding selectively and flexibly to the problems of localised recruitment and retention difficulties instead of by increasing or spreading existing London allowances indiscriminately. I think that their approach is a responsible and effective answer to current labour market constraints. As to the longer term, I believe that the way forward is for employers and employees in all parts of the economy increasingly to develop payment systems that are generally more fiexible and better attuned both to performance and market conditions. In that way, pay can respond more individually and appropriately to the imperatives of local labour markets, be they in London, Liverpool, Llandudno, or, indeed, in my hon. Friend's constituency of Gravesham. The present concept of London weighting might well then become irrelevant.

I came to the House today with no easy solutions. I hope that I have given my hon. Friend some idea of where I believe the argument will go. I also note from our previous dealings on other matters that were of concern to my hon. Friend that if this is the first time that he has introduced this concern to me, I have every reason to suspect that it will not be the last.