We meet this morning in the shadow of an appalling air disaster that has shocked us all. Perhaps 300 people have been killed. In the 13 years since the fall of Saigon, an estimated 300,000 people have been killed or drowned trying to flee from Vietnam. A sudden disaster captures our imagination and compassion but a long-term human tragedy produces indifference and neglect. Therefore, it is appropriate that we should begin our Christmas Adjournment debates by discussing the plight of some of the most unfortunate people for whom the House bears ultimate responsibility —the Vietnamese boat people who are currently sheltering in Hong Kong.

Earlier this year, the Hong Kong Government, for whom we are ultimately responsible, changed the rules for those boat people trying to escape from the appalling conditions in their own country. There was some relaxation in the conditions under which boat people who had arrived in Hong Kong before midnight on 16 June this year were held. In the past, thousands of those detainees were kept in small, closed camps, some of which I have visited. The camps are clean and the detainees are surprisingly healthy. There is less crime than in an average English village. Children are taught to read and write and paid work is available to many of the inmates. There is also a total lack of privacy and freedom. For years, large families have been expected to live in a space no larger than a dining room table—or the Table on which the Dispatch Boxes rest. Families do not have floor space for themselves. They are often stacked in three tiers of bunks so that three families are literally living on top of each other.

Until 16 June this year, detainees were allowed out only to go to hospital. That meant that some children of school age had never been outside the camp site, which comprised one or two acres. Six months ago we relaxed the rules for the people already in the detention camps. The gates were at least partially opened but, at the same time, we imposed new, even stricter rules for boat people who had arrived after the deadline. Those who arrived after the deadline would not be looked on as prima facie refugees unless they could show that they had fled from fear of individual persecution because of their political or religious belief. The others would be regarded as unwelcome economic migrants. We seem to have signed an agreement with the Vietnamese authorities which covers the repatriation to Vietnam of those so-called unwelcome economic migrants.

I know many of the men and women who devised and administer that policy and they are humane and honourable people. The staff of the camps that I visited seemed to be kindly and are clearly on good terms with the detainees. The civil servants responsible for the camps seemed to be sympathetic individuals. I know some of the members of the refugee committee of the Hong Kong Legislative Council. They are kind and caring people who are caught in an impossible situation. Those who have known the Foreign Secretary, who bears the final responsiblity for this, for many years know that there is not a cruel or wicked bone in his body. The House will know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who will reply to the debate is one of the kindest and most generous of men. Yet the policy that we have devised is shameful. I am ashamed of it, and in years to come historians will judge that we should be ashamed of our handling of this human tragedy.

A few weeks ago the press was full of stories about the findings of a commission that investigated allegations that Harold Macmillan and others were responsible for callously repatriating thousands of white Russians and Yugloslavs in 1945. That repatriation turned out to be a tragedy which later provoked recrimination, but our policy of repatriating the Vietnamese has provoked hardly a murmur of protest. To some extent, our consciences have been salved by the reluctance of the Vietnamese authorities to take back anyone who does not volunteer to return.

Of course, there are good reasons why any sensible person wants to discourage the flow of people from Vietnam. Hong Kong has one of the highest population densities in the world. It should not be asked to take in tens of thousands of additional refugees from Vietnam. Yet the potential flow is enormous. In the first half of 1979, boat people were arriving in Hong Kong at the rate of 10,000 a month, and there is no doubt that hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam would be prepared to undergo the hardships and risks of a boat trip to Hong Kong if they thought that it would lead to a quick resettlement in the west.

The problem for Hong Kong has been increased by the fact that many of the countries that took large numbers of Vietnamese refugees have begun to show compassion fatigue. Some countries have absorbed very large numbers. In the 13 years since the fall of Saigon, America has taken nearly 1 million, and they are beginning to make an important contribution to American life at all levels. Three other countries—Canada, Australia, and France —have each taken more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees. Britain has taken more than 20,000, mostly from Hong Kong, and I pay tribute to the many charities and individuals who have helped the Vietnamese refugees to settle into the mainstream of British life.

But there is an increased reluctance among the main receiver countries to keep their doors open. When the Hong Kong refugee rules were changed in June, there was a hope that potential host countries would respond to the new tougher entry rules by offering to take many more of the 16,000 people who already had prima facie status and were established in the camps. That does not seem to have happened. The Hong Kong authorities reckon that during the next 12 months only 2,500 camp inmates will be offered resettlement. The authorities in Hong Kong and many refugee organisations believe that if we took another 2,000 refugees other countries would open their gates and the old refugee problem would be solved. I do not believe that that will happen. Although our present quota of 20 refugees a month is pathetically low—if my hon. Friend the Minister could announce an increase, I should be the first to cheer —the solution to the problem is not resettlement in the west. A well-publicised transfer of families from Hong Kong to Britain could start the rush again.

Should we acquiesce in the proposed policy of repatriating most of the 10,000 boat people who have arrived in Hong Kong since June, and should we repatriate the bulk of those who will continue to try to reach Hong Kong? At present, pushing the boat people back to Vietnam is as repulsive as handing back to the East German authorities anyone who manages to get over the Berlin wall. There is the problem of punishment. Earlier this month, a notable television programme entitled "Boat People go Home", which was part of the ITV "This Week" series, showed that ordinary people who are caught trying to leave Vietnam are subjected to interrogation, re-education and sometimes imprisonment for up to 12 years.

The Vietnamese Government may change their policy. Perhaps perestroika will come to Vietnam. I gather that the Vietnamese phrase for perestroika is "doi moi". Perhaps the crushing burden of taxation in a country where the average income barely exceeds £2 a week will be reduced. Perhaps there will be a sensible agricultural pricing system and perhaps runaway inflation will be checked. Perhaps the Vietnamese authorities will relax their political grip and will not penalise any returning boat people. But the good sense and good faith of the Vietnamese Government must be tested much more strenuously before it is safe to think about repatriation.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give a pledge that no one will be repatriated to Vietnam against his will. I ask him to give that pledge not only for next year but for the lifetime of this Parliament. I also ask for an assurance that no pressure will be put on boat people in Hong Kong to volunteer to return.

If the West is suffering from terminal compassion fatigue, if Hong Kong is too crowded and if repatriation is unacceptable, what should we do? The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees favours refugee resettlement in the general area from which the refugees come. That is a sensible policy. There is space in parts of the Philippines and in Borneo, and there are many other underpopulated areas of south-east Asia where, if there was the political will, the boat people could be resettled temporarily for, say, five years while we see whether the Vietnamese Government become more tolerant and more tolerable. Of course, neither the Indonesian Government nor the Government of the Philippines will welcome penniless refugees in large numbers and give them land and a permanent home. It would be much more acceptable if an international consortium agreed to take a temporary lease on camp sites in the Philippines and Borneo and guaranteed that no financial burden would fall on the host country.

Hong Kong should not be asked to pay more than a small part of the cost of any temporary relocation of refugees in the area. I note that when the rules were changed in June, the influential Far East Economic Review acidly noted that support for mismanaged local banks was costing Hong Kong taxpayers more than the £l5 million a year spent on refugee support. We should be major contributors to any regional temporary relocation project.

There is considerable all-party support for an increase in our aid budget, and if one is made I should give high priority to more help for refugees. Help should also be given by Taiwan, the administration of which is wealthy enough to play a major role in regional aid. Above all, help should be given by Japan—its business did well out of the Vietnam war—which has made no worthwhile contribution to solving the refugee problem.

I note that an international conference that will be concerned mainly with the Vietnamese refugee problem will meet next year. We must try to achieve multilateral support for temporary local resettlement and should be prepared to play a part with financial and administrative support. At Christmas time, we should hold out hope to these wretched people and not threaten to send them back against their will. I cannot support a policy based on detention and repatriation of brave people who have already suffered so much.

I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) on securing this Adjournment debate and am grateful to him for allowing me to make a brief contribution on a topic in which I have taken an interest for many years.

We are discussing some of the original boat people who went to Hong Kong 10 or more years ago, and we remember the wave of sympathy for them in this country. Most of them have been resettled in different parts of the world, a number of them here. Several thousand have remained in Hong Kong for up to 10 years and their position is hopeless; they have tried to resettle in different parts of the world without success. We are taking 20 people a month, but they must already have a family connection in Britain. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider opening our doors a little wider and to persuade the Home Office to allow a few more refugees to come here, albeit at a gentle pace. If we were prepared to take a few more refugees, perhaps we could persuade other countries to do the same. As the country ultimately responsible for Hong Kong, others look to us to take the lead. I hope that special consideration will be given, not to the recent economic refugees but the original political refugees.

The status of those individuals apart, we have a moral obligation to the people and Government of Hong Kong. It is one of the most densely populated areas of the world, yet without question the Hong Kong people took in the refugees; not a single one has been turned away. The assumption was that Hong Kong would be a staging post and that the refugees would be moved on. Hong Kong took the refugees despite the fact that many families there have friends and relatives in mainland China who would like to go to Hong Kong but are not allowed to do so. With open arms, the Hong Kong people accepted the refugees, but Hong Kong is still having to bear the burden, expense and sheer discomfort of having to cope with them. Other considerations apart, we have a strong obligation to the people and Government of Hong Kong to ease the burden that they have shouldered for so long.

Almost a year ago to the day, in the Christmas Adjournment debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and I discussed the plight of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. Today's debate provides a further timely opportunity for the House to review the important developments of the past 12 months. I am most grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Beckenham and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for their continuing and constructive interest in this extremely sensitive subject.

For reasons of which hon. Members are well aware, the problem of the boat people is extraordinarily complex. It is tied to the wider problems of the region and is a difficult and sensitive issue. I assure my hon. Friends that we and the Government of Hong Kong are very concerned about it and attach high priority to solving it.

It may be helpful briefly to summarise the developments of the past 12 months and the steps that we and the Hong Kong authorities have taken to deal with them. As the House will be aware, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in the number of boat people arriving in Hong Kong since mid-1987. Between mid-1987 and mid-1988, the boat people population in Hong Kong rose from 8,000 to more than 25,000. In the first half of 1988 alone, there were more than 9,000 arrivals—three times more than in 1987, four times more than 1986, and eight times more than 1985.

In addition to that massive numerical increase, it became increasingly clear that there had been a change in the background and motivation of those arriving in Hong Kong. The overwhelming majority of recent arrivals were farmers and fishermen from north Vietnam. They were seeking a better life in the West and not leaving to escape political and religious persecution, so they could not meet the internationally accepted criteria for refugee status. Such people stood little or no chance of being resettled in the West—resettlement countries understandably choose to give priority to genuine refugees from other parts of the world—and their arrival in Hong Kong almost overwhelmed the already stretched reception facilities in the territory. It also made it more difficult for genuine refugees in Hong Kong to find resettlement places elsewhere. The major resettlement countries began to question the wisdom of resettlement programmes that appeared only to stimulate ever greater numbers of departures from Vietnam.

By June this year, it had become clear that the burden on Hong Kong had become intolerable and that things could not go on as they were. It was no longer fair or realistic to pretend that all those who arrived in Hong Kong by boat had the prospect of automatic resettlement in the West, however long that might take. It would have been a cruel deception to offer those who plainly did not qualify as refugees the prospect of a future that did not and could not exist; nor could a civilised Government leave such people to the mercy of the sea.

Against that background and with our support, the Hong Kong Government introduced a new policy on 16 June. From that date all new arrivals were to be screened to distinguish genuine refugees from the rest. The screening procedures are in accordance with established international criteria and have been fully endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. UNHCR officials are able to monitor screening and give advice and assistance when appropriate. The procedures are, and are seen to be, fair and objective.

I assure the House that the Hong Kong authorities are proceeding with screening carefully and thoroughly. Results so far have identified 38 genuine refugees—slightly less than 10 per cent. of those screened so far. The rest have been screened out as failing to meet the relevant international criteria. Those screened in—those accepted as genuine refugees—are accommodated in camps to await resettlement. Those screened out are given a temporary base in Hong Kong until suitable arrangements can be made for their future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham repeated his thoughtful suggestions about providing temporary relocation elsewhere in the region. We have considered his proposals carefully and taken soundings on the practicality of the idea of what one may loosely call a "haven" for Vietnamese refugees elsewhere in the region. All our research leads us to conclude that no country in the area would be receptive to the idea of accommodating large numbers of refugees from Hong Kong. It would amount to the creation within that country's territory of what, in practice, would be an isolation centre for stateless persons. We do not think such an approach would be acceptable. We have always believed that other long-term solutions must be sought. It is for that reason that the Hong Kong Government introduced their new policy earlier this year.

My hon. Friends have expressed concern about the conditions in the camps in Hong Kong. That is understandable, but we should not forget that the Hong Kong Government have had to accommodate 25,000 boat people, including over 17,000 new arrivals in the past year. The Hong Kong Government attach great importance, as we do, to ensuring that conditions in the camps are as good as possible in the difficult circumstances. They have paid close attention to the safety aspects and to the provision of adequate food and medical facilities. This has been, and still is, as my hon. Friends have recognised, a major strain on the territory's resources. But the authorities have coped magnificently. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the Hong Kong authorities for the efforts that they have made.

In parallel with the introduction of screening, the Hong Kong Government announced that the closed centres for those with refugee status would be liberalised. As the House knows, that process is already underway. The new screening policy has made this possible, because it is no longer necessary to have restrictive conditions in the refugee camps as a deterrent to further departures from Vietnam. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will run a new open camp for all those in Hong Kong with refugee status. It is currently under construction. In the meantime, the refugees have access to outside employment and increased educational training facilities. The Government welcome the role that the UNHCR is playing in Hong Kong. On 3 October, we announced that we would be making a contribution of £1 million to UNHCR's operations in the territory.

Since September the flow of arrivals in Hong Kong has diminished significantly. That is encouraging. It shows that the message of the new screening policy is getting across in Vietnam, which was intended. It also suggests that the Vietnamese authorities have been playing their part in taking effective measures to bring the outflow of people to an end. We are far from complacent because the autumn and winter months are traditionally the period of relatively few new arrivals. We are therefore monitoring the situation closely.

Those who do not meet the criteria for refugee status cannot be permanently accommodated in the small and overcrowded territory of Hong Kong—I think that everyone recognises that. It would not be right either to contemplate the indefinite detention of such people and their children. Their future can lie only in their own country. It must therefore be right to seek satisfactory arrangements, in consultation with the Vietnamese authorities, for their return, without fear of punishment or persecution of any kind.

It is with that objective that we have held two rounds of talks with the Vietnamese authorities about the future of those boat people who do not qualify as refugees. We have insisted on—and, I am delighted to say, obtained—assurances from the Vietnamese that all returnees will be treated humanely and will not be punished. We have also secured the agreement of the Vietnamese that the UNHCR should monitor the observance of these undertakings and the reintegration of the returnees into Vietnam. These are important developments which I am sure will command a general welcome. They provide the basis for a viable future for those for whom no other realistic option exists.

Several hundred boat people in Hong Kong have already expressed a wish to return to Vietnam. The UNHCR is taking charge of the practical arrangements for that. I am pleased to confirm to the House that a memorandum of understanding between the UNHCR and the Vietnamese authorities was signed on 13 December. It represents a significant step forward. We have indeed come a long way. Until recently, the Vietnamese authorities would have been resolutely opposed to the signing of such a document. It is as a result of our diplomatic efforts, the impact of Hong Kong's new screening policy, and the patient and exemplary work of the UNHCR that such a memorandum has been made possible. The memorandum clearly provides for the monitoring by the UNHCR of the arrangements for the return and reintegration of the individuals concerned. It provides also for financial assistance to help them to pick up the threads of their former life.

We hope and believe that the success of these arrangements will, over time, serve to encourage other non-refugees in Hong Kong to opt voluntarily to return. We hope that they will make that choice as it becomes clear that they will not be subject to punishment in Vietnam and as the inevitable logic of their situation sinks in. We are convinced that a solution on these lines is both realistic and humane: realistic because there is no practicable alternative, and humane because it is conditional on there being no ill-treatment of those who go back.

In response to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, I assure him that we would not repatriate a single boat person to Vietnam if we were not satisfied that such people would be properly treated on their return and would not be punished. We shall be in close consultation with the UNHCR to make sure that the terms of the memorandum that has been agreed with the authorities in Vietnam is adhered to extremely closely.

Will my hon. Friend go a step further and say that, while the monitoring takes place next year, no Vietnamese boat people will be sent back against their will?

We are not talking about compulsion at this stage. We envisage a gradual return by people on a voluntary basis. It is critical that the monitoring process is successful and that people are reintegrated. It is also critical that the news that the Vietnamese authorities are abiding by the letter and spirit of the memorandum signed by the UNHCR seeps back to Hong Kong so that those who have not been given refugee status can feel confident that they will receive a proper welcome when they return to Vietnam and that they will not be persecuted.

My hon. Friends mentioned the resettlement of the boat people in Hong Kong who do not enjoy refugee status. It is critical that those people find homes in the major resettlement countries as soon as possible. In the meantime, as I have already said, the camps in which they are being accommodated are being opened up and a new camp is being constructed.

There are now more than 15,000 Vietnamese in Hong Kong who are recognised as refugees. Following the change in policy introduced on 16 June, they represent what is essentially a residual problem. Of the more recent arrivals, few seem likely to meet the established international criteria to be considered as refugees. I have already given the House the figures for the screening so far.

We have played a major part over the years in resettling Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong, despite the heavy immigration pressures that we face from many other sources. We are deeply grateful to other Governments who are continuing to make their contribution by resettling substantial numbers from Hong Kong. We believe that the time has come for a major international effort to tackle the residual problem. I am able to announce to the House that we are prepared, in principle, to contribute to that effort by taking a further 1,000 Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong over two to three years, provided that other resettlement countries are prepared to contribute commensurately. The 1,000 would include relatives of Vietnamese already here and others with the potential quickly to become self-sufficient in the United Kingdom. They would also include some of those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst who have been in the camps for a long time and have not yet been accepted elsewhere.

We shall do everything possible to ensure that additional refugees are resettled in a way that does not add to the considerable pressure on housing resources in certain urban areas in Britain. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be considering with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and others how rehousing problems can be avoided.

We shall enter into immediate consultations with the other resettlement Governments and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We shall make it clear that there must be a genuine international effort. We shall look to other Governments to state clearly their readiness to match what. we intend to do by accepting substantial additional numbers of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong. We hope that the other resettlement countries will respond generously, as they have in the past. Depending on the response that we receive, and on achieving a solution to the problem of pressure on housing resources in certain areas, we shall be ready to go ahead with our new plans.

I reassure the House that we shall continue to devote all our efforts, in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in Hong Kong, to tackling all aspects of this complex and tragic problem. In doing so, we shall continue to work closely with the Hong Kong authorities, the UNHCR and the international community. We need a national and international response to the problem.

We are far from complacent about what has been achieved so far and we do not underestimate the difficulties that remain to be resolved for the genuine refugees and those who cannot be accepted as refugees.

This short debate has been useful in giving the House an opportunity to make its views known and I am delighted to have been able to make my announcement. I assure hon. Members that we will continue to listen carefully to the concerns of the House and to those in Hong Kong and elsewhere in this difficult and sensitive area.

I have on many occasions raised the immense difficulties and indeed misery suffered by pensioners on low incomes during the winter months. The acute problems arise basically because they have insufficient income to heat their accommodation adequately. On countless occasions Labour Members have also raised in the House and elsewhere the hardship of other low-income households which face similar difficulties with winter fuel bills. We believe much more should be done to increase the income of the low paid and ease the lot of the unemployed.

Any gain achieved by today's pensioners will benefit future generations of retired people—at least, I hope so. The Opposition have learnt to be suspicious of the Government. Ministers are keen to promote the myth that pensioners are now so much better off that they require less assistance from the state and less help with their fuel bills.

If my private Member's Bill had become law last year —I was the first in the ballot at the beginning of 1987—pensioners would have had extra financial resources because they would not have had to pay the full television licence fee. They would have had a free licence if my Bill had become law or, if it had been amended, which I was prepared to accept, they would have paid £5, £10 or £20 per year instead of the full sum.

What about the Government's view that pensioners are so much better off? According to the latest information available to the Library, one third of pensioners in Britain live on or below the income support level. Imagine what it must be like to live below the income support level. Such people include those who do not claim income support although they are eligible and those who are denied such support because of their modest—by today's standards —lifetime savings.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many pensioners who live at such a low standard because of their incomes are so severely and dangerously undernourished that it causes their early death?

My hon. Friend is right and I shall refer to that aspect later.

Another one third of pensioners live just above income support level, with incomes of between 100 and 140 per cent. of that level. Therefore, virtually two thirds of the pensioners—millions of retired citizens—live in poverty or near poverty. None of us would wish to lead such a life and one can well understand the immense difficulties that so many of them face, especially during the winter months, in trying to keep their homes adequately heated.

Winter, of course, presents the greatest problem with heating bills, especially for those on low incomes. Fuel bills inevitably take a greater proportion of a low income. That is especially so for pensioners, in their 70s or older, who often are housebound during the winter months or have increasing difficulty in getting out during the coldest weather.

We know that under this Government pensions have been increased only in line with inflation. Over the past nine years, gas prices, especially, have been increased deliberately as a result of Government policy. They have increased by more than the rate of inflation. That obviously presents great difficulties for those on low incomes. If pensions had been increased in line with earnings in recent years—after a year or so in office the Government decided to break the link with earnings—the married couple's pension from April 1989 would have been £87·45—£17·65 more than they will receive. A single pensioner would have received from next April £54·75— £11·15 more than he or she will receive.

If pensioners were to receive next April the sums that I have mentioned instead of those that they will actually receive, the extra money would be of considerable help in paying fuel bills and they would be better able adequately to heat their accommodation.

The elderly are most at risk during the winter months. The risks for them are greater than for any other section of the community. We know of the dangers to the elderly of hypothermia. Many experts believe that the official figures represent a substantial understatement of the true number of those who die from hypothermia during the winter. It seems that some doctors take the view that to place the word "hypothermia" on a death certificate is rather like stamping it with the word "neglect", and accordingly are reluctant to do so. Where hypothermia was recorded as the cause of death in 1986 in England and Wales, 83 per cent. of the deceased were over the age of 65 years.

Cold-related deaths are far greater in number than the figures for hypothermia alone. There is some evidence that the percentage of the elderly who die during the winter months in Britain is higher than that in other advanced countries. The following questions must be asked. Are we taking less care of the elderly than do many other European countries? Is insufficient income the reason for the problem? Is there a lack of co-ordinated action, especially for the elderly who are most at risk? Those are worrying matters and should certainly preoccupy the House.

I am sure that everyone accepts that better and more effective insulation is extremely important. I pay tribute to Neighbourhood Energy Action, which has done a first-class job in many localities carrying out draught-proofing and insulation. I understand that such work has been done in about 350,000 homes. One wishes that such organisations had far greater financial resources at their disposal to carry out many other similar activities.

I agree that there is much more to be done to improve insulation and draughtproofing, but, first and foremost, there must be extra income provided for pensioners during the winter months. That is vital for elderly people on small incomes. The Minister, with whom I have no personal quarrel, will explain the Government's line on this issue, which he knows is entirely unsatisfactory to Opposition Members. He will say that provision is made for help with fuel bills during cold spells. He will refer to severe weather payments, which are increasingly seen, and not only by Labour Members, as a farce. Even newspapers that support the Tory cause—The Sunday Times, for example —have exposed effectively the number of pensioners who are in the greatest danger during cold spells. That was done during the last cold spell at the beginning of 1987. Attention was drawn to the fact that no extra payment was made available to those at risk.

For the severe weather payment to be triggered, there have to be seven consecutive days during which the average temperature has to fall to freezing point. The 63 weather stations are involved. That is the latest position after the recent changes; changes are made literally every year. Even when those conditions have been met, only pensioners who receive income support can apply for the payment. Moreover, they must have less than £500 of capital. The pensioner has to apply for the payment, and if all the conditions are met he or she will receive the princely sum of £5. I wonder how far £5 goes towards heating a home during a spell of freezing weather. We believe that the payments are a farce. They are inadequate and are nowhere near the amounts that should be available during cold spells.

Heating additions were abolished this year in the change from supplementary benefit to income support, and I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the additions have been replaced by various elements that make up income support. Heating additions, however, as a separate item in a pensioner's income, had the important function of showing clearly the amount that was being provided for heating alone. Such additions could be adjusted quickly if fuel prices increased.

On 8 November, west midlands Labour Members took to Downing street petitions that had been signed by thousands of pensioners calling for an extra £5 a week during the winter months, to be paid especially to pensioners in need. We did not have the pleasure, if that is the right expression, of seeing the Prime Minister at Downing street. The door was open for a few moments. We saw the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, who courteously took the petitions. We have not heard anything further. None of us had the slightest illusion; we knew that the Government would not respond. We did not expect them to do so. Unfortunately, the Government do not show much interest in these problems.

We are about to adjourn for Christmas, and it is fortunate that large numbers of families and individuals have enough money to be able to enjoy the festivities. They will be able adequately to heat their accommodation. A minority may fall into debt, but for many it will be a Christmas without acute financial worry. However, other people in the community—the poorest and others whom I would describe as living at near poverty level, including two thirds of all pensioners as well as some of working age, such as the unemployed and low paid—will find Christmas a difficult period during which to keep warm. They will find it difficult enough to obtain the financial resources for the ordinary necessities of life, let alone any extra money for the holiday.

As I have said before, one of the House's responsibilities is to spotlight those of our fellow citizens who are in acute financial difficulties. Even if we were talking about a small minority, it would be our duty to spotlight their problems. But we are talking about millions of people and millions of pensioners who are in such financial difficulties.

It is a scandal that so many retired people, many of whom served in the war and helped to ensure that the country survived, face a bleak retirement. It is bleak, because they do not have sufficient income. Their state retirement pension is too low, they have not been able to save during their working life and their occupational pension, if they have one, is very small. I have received letters from ex-service men who ask what the sacrifice was for and whether they served only to be punished in retirement. The Government should have a guilty conscience about the way in which such pensioners are treated.

The Government have been generous to the richest and most prosperous. They were even more generous in this year's Budget. They have shown no reluctance to give to those who need it least, and the rich and the most prosperous should be grateful to the Government. As on other occasions, Opposition Members ask today why the Government cannot be as generous to those in great financial difficulties through no fault of their own.

First, I pay tribute to my lion, Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for applying for the debate and I congratulate him on his success in the ballot. However, I pay tribute to him most of all because of his activities on behalf of senior citizens in Britain. He has campaigned steadfastly for them on a range of issues for many years. It is a great pleasure and honour to support him once again in his endeavours on behalf of our elderly population.

The scale of the problem facing the elderly population can be seen in the recent figures that show how many pensioners there are in the nation. About 18·5 per cent. of the population of Britain is of pensionable age—over 10 million people are pensioners. In the next 40 years, the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to increase by about 80 per cent. An idea of what that means can be obtained if one examines the most recent census figures, which were published on 13 June 1987. One sees that there were 6·876 million women over 60 years of age. That averages out, on my calculations, at 10,578 women over 60 per parliamentary constituency.

There are 5,320,000 women and 3,494,000 men over 65, which works out at 13,560 pensioners per constituency. There are more than 6 million pensioners over the age of 70, which works out at 9,333 per constituency. There are 3·776 million pensioners over the age of 75, which is 5,809 per parliamentary constituency. That gives us some idea of the scale of concern that should be shown by all hon. Members.

I find it shameful that only five hon. Members are present, of whom three hold Government office. The Government have been lucky with the figures. The figures that I have quoted were published in June 1987, and we are lucky because they will remain constant for the next few years. The reason for that is the low birth rate in the 1920s, during the depression, which was caused, again, by Government economic policy. The other factor was that more than 1 million men died in the first world war, fighting to safeguard the nation's interests. That is why we are not faced with an even more horrific problem.

What has the Government's response been? The Opposition are worried by the Government's actions. They have removed the link with earnings or inflation—whichever was higher—which guaranteed pensioners a decent pension in old age. Let us consider the figures. A single person's pension is £41·15, whereas if the previous link had been retained it would be £50·94. The pension for a married couple is £65·90, whereas it should be £81·55. That is one of the disgraceful changes made since this Government came to office.

Another problem involves cold weather payments and the changes made to such payments under the Social Security Act 1988. The Government have retained the cold weather payment at the miserly amount of £5. That is inadequate, given the cost of fuel. The Government have also inflicted another extraordinarily harsh action on our senior citizens. I represent a coal mining area in which many pensioners are either the widows of coal miners or retired coal miners and they face severe difficulties. Many years ago, it was agreed in the industry that miners would give up a portion of their fuel allowance, which was given as part of their wages throughout the year. Out of their 12 loads of coal a year, two were put into a reserve, which supplied much-needed fuel to pensioners and to the widows of miners. That gift should not fall within the Government's prerogative. It was a gift from working people in the industry to those in need who were, for one reason or another, outside the industry. Through the changes in the supplementary benefit regulations, the Government have inflicted a system that treats that gift from people in work as earnings. As a result, a miner's widow in my constituency who receives winter fuel from the reserve has deductions made from her supplementary benefit. Those deductions accumulate because of the earnings band in which she falls, with the result that her "free" fuel actually costs her money. That is disgraceful.

I have shown that many of the Government's policies do not favour the elderly population. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Minister—like his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when confronted with these questions—will read out a set of facts and figures to show how well off pensioners are, but pensioners do not believe that they are well off, in my constituency or in any other. Many elderly people come to talk to me and they all tell me how badly off they are. The full extent of the problem is evident from the disastrous circumstances of the winter months. During the coming months, thousands of pensioners will die of cold or of illnesses related to it. This winter, at least 750,000—perhaps even 1 million—pensioners will be at risk. Yet the Government have taken no concerted action to try to reverse that dangerous state of affairs.

I should like the Minister to take some positive action today, because there is not much time. I do not expect him to announce that the Government will give free television licences to pensioners, having recognised that televisions are an important means of communication, which pensioners should have in their homes. I do not expect him to announce an enormous increase in pensions. It would be silly even to ask him to do that. Instead, I want him to say that before he and the Prime Minister go on their holidays he will send telexes to all the relevant Government agencies in the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security telling them to be aware of., and be ready to meet, the needs of pensioners during the holiday. I want him to urge the Prime Minister to make a statement before Christmas telling people that they should be aware of pensioners' needs. In that way, pensioners might at least have some comfort and people might be reminded that Christmas is a time of good will, and act accordingly during the holiday period.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North for allowing me to speak, and I urge the Minister to act in the best interests of our senior citizens.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on his good fortune in being drawn second in the ballot for this series of Adjournment debates and I congratulate the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) on his initiative in joining in.

I take issue with both hon. Members over their suggestion that pensioners have fared less well and been treated less fairly under this Government than under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentlemen confined their criticism largely to matters related to pensioners' ability to meet fuel costs during the winter, but the issues that they raised go far wider. It is simply not true that the Government have failed to understand or meet the needs of pensioners. Contrary to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the average pensioner is better off, and help with fuel costs for those on the lowest incomes is substantially greater, than when the Labour party was in power.

The hon. Member for Mansfield cited statistics that he claimed showed how pensioners were worse off. He should compare those figures with the figures for 1979. The number of pensioners in the lowest 20 per cent. of incomes has fallen substantially. The average pensioner income as a proportion of the average wage fell under the Labour Government, but rose under this Government.

We have honoured our pledge—it was a pledge made before the election and not a change made afterwards—to protect the value of the basic state pension against inflation, despite the fact that 1 million new pensioners have come on to the scene since 1979. The basic pension provides a secure foundation for income in retirement, but more important to pensioners as a group is the value of their total income. During our first seven years in office, pensioners' average total net income has risen by 23 per cent. in real terms—much faster than it did under the Labour Government. Average income from savings—an important element and one of which we are very proud because it suggests the success of our policies and the progress of the economy—has risen by 64 per cent., and average income from occupational pensions has risen by 56 per cent.

The latest figures show that 80 per cent. of pensioners have a source of income other than state benefits, and 85 per cent. of recently retired pensioner couples have such a source of income. That reflects the growth in occupational pensions and savings, thanks to economic growth and the control of inflation. For retired people living on fixed incomes, nothing is worse than runaway inflation, which eats away remorselessly at the value of savings which it may have taken the whole of a working life to accumulate.

Under this Government, £23 billion is to go this year on benefits for the elderly—the basic pension, income support, the state earnings-related pension and the old graduated pension. That is virtually half of all social security spending, which is by far the biggest item of Government expenditure and has increased by one third since 1979. Under this Government, expenditure on benefits for the elderly has increased by 24 per cent. above the rate of inflation.

We recognise, however, that some pensioners have not shared fully in the increased prosperity of the past eight years or so. The hon. Member for Walsall, North knows that I cannot, I am afraid, make a new announcement today, but I remind him that on 24 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an extra £200 million for the poorest pensioners—those on income support. Under those arrangements, 2·6 million elderly pensioners will gain. There are new premiums for pensioners aged 75 and over, for those aged 80 and over and for disabled people over 60. That will mean an extra £2·50 a week next winter for single pensioners and an extra £3·50 for couples, over and above the increases announced for next April.

The Government seem to be giving with one hand and taking away with the other. The Government gave guarantees that people of pensionable age would lose only £2·50 under the new housing benefit regulations, yet many millions of pensioners have lost considerable sums, and even the premiums announced go only a tiny part of the way to replacing what is being taken away from pensioners.

Some pensioners have lost, but the point about the changes is that sums of money are redirected to those who need it most. As we did when considering these reforms, the hon. Gentleman should think about the poorer pensioners. The new arrangements for housing benefits mean that those on income support will have 100 per cent. of their rents paid. That was not the case previously, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there were about six different tapers and many ways of calculating housing benefit which were unfair between pensioners on the same income. This time, we have ensured that those with the lowest incomes receive the fullest help, and that the help is greater for those with higher rents. The changes have achieved exactly what we intended. If the hon. Gentleman is interested in the lowest paid of the pensioners, he should be interested, too, in the help that we are giving. Those who have lost have, by definition, been those above the lowest limits.

Not much above the lower limits.

They certainly have been above the lowest limits. The point of the exercise is to direct help to where it is most needed.

Hon. Members will, I am sure, be aware that extra help to those pensioners who receive income support is targeted, in recognition of the extra needs which pensioners have, through the pensioner premiums. I should stress—as the hon. Member for Mansfield did not —that the £417 million that we paid last year in the form of heating additions was all put into the pot when the income support rates and the additional premiums were determined. That £417 million was far greater in real terms than the amount spent by the Labour Government on heating allowances and additions for the elderly. It represents a real increase in care in terms of heating.

These basic benefit rates are designed to provide sufficient money to enable pensioners to pay for their heating costs during a normal winter. We have, however, as last year, provided for additional help to be given to pensioners on income support at times when the weather is especially cold. The new arrangements for making payments under the social fund cold weather payment regulations bring forward and extend a scheme which was operated successfuly under supplementary benefit last year, and was not matched by any scheme run by the Labour Government. This new assistance to those on lowest incomes is directed to those whose heating bills will be higher because of the cold weather in their areas.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North asked what the £5 would mean. It will mean that pensioners will receive £5, which is equivalent to nearly half of the average heating fuel costs of a family—not just of a single pensioner or of a small household, but of the average household. It is a significant addition when compared with fuel prices.

The hon. Member for Walsall, North mentioned huge increases in gas prices. In fact, the increase, when compared with the rate of inflation during the past five years, is a negative one. During that period, gas prices have not risen faster than inflation. I accept that, since 1979, they have risen by about 2·4 per cent., which is about the increase in the basic pension, but it is far below the increase in pensioner incomes of which I spoke earlier.

The new rules link entitlement to receipt of the income support pensioner premium—this is the improvement—thereby allowing men and women aged 60 to 64 to qualify for help for the first time. We have deliberately kept the new arrangements as simple as possible so that the rules are easy for people to understand and for our local offices to operate.

I said that £5 was paltry for a specific reason. We have already had a substantial increase in electricity prices and, undoubtedly, there will be further increases prior to the privatisation of that industry. Is the Minister serious in saying that £5 is generous? Many people of pensionable age in my constituency rely on coal and coke products to keep warm. Pensioners in my constituency are faced with debt or death. We want the Minister to accept that £5 a week is insufficient during the winter months.

Order. An intervention should be short at any time, but especially when debates are time-capped.

The hon. Member for Mansfield has again referred to the £5. All I can say is that there was no such scheme when his party was in power. It is £5 more than nothing, and that is a useful sum, especially—

When will it be paid?

It will be paid in the week afterwards, before the bills come in. Last year, our system worked well administratively, because it was simple and straightforward.

It must be freezing.

The temperature must drop to zero, but, as I have already made clear to the hon. Member for Walsall, North, the £417 million for heating additions paid by the Government last year—which was far higher than was paid at any time under the previous Labour Government —has all been redirected to the elderly in the pensioner premiums. The new regulations will allow non-householder pensioners for the first time to qualify for help.

We have made a change to the rules—this shows the simplicity and why there can be such speed of reaction —so that any period of seven consecutive days, when the temperature averages 0 deg C or below, may now be counted, rather than a fixed Sunday to Monday period being used as last year. We expect that all those changes will about double the potential for payments to be made to pensioners—and indeed to others entitled to such help—during the coming winter.

The hon. Member for Mansfield spoke about hypothermia and excess winter mortality, which the Government take seriously. However, the number of people suffering from hypothermia has hovered at about the same level—about 500—each year. It did reach a peak and, as the hon. Gentleman raised the matter, I shall tell him that the peak was in the winter of 1978–79, before this Government came into office. If the hon. Gentleman sees a connection between figures and Governments, let him make a connection there. A much more important indicator of the effects of cold weather on vulnerable groups is the extent to which overall mortality in the winter exceeds that in the summer. Those deaths are largely due to heart disease, strokes and chest infections, and during the past 35 years the underlying trend in excess winter mortality has been downward. Again, there was a blip in the figures—the line turned up—and that was between 1974 and 1979–80. Again, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a connection, that is one from which he may draw his conclusions.

To show how seriously we regard the matter, I can tell hon. Members that the Medical Research Council has set up a working group to consider carefully this issue and to tell the Government urgently where extra research needs to be carried out. We will then understand the problem more fully and be able to take the necessary action to deal with it far more effectively than the previous Labour Government did.

We have taken steps to protect pensioners' incomes and savings. We have also ensured that adequate provision is made through the benefits system for those dependent on income-related benefits so that all pensioners may face the coming months without the fear that they will be unable to keep themselves warm. We have taken trouble to launch an informative Keep Warm, Keep Well campaign. The Government's record in looking after poorer pensioners stands up to any scrutiny, and I am sure that the House will endorse that view.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the disaster that occurred last night at Lockerbie.

A Boeing 747 aircraft of Pan American Airways, flight 103 from Heathrow to New York, believed to be carrying 243 passengers and 15 crew, was following its normal track over south Scotland under surveillance from the Scottish air traffic control centre at Prestwick. Shortly after seven o'clock, when the aircraft was 20 miles north-west of Carlisle and two minutes after the last radio contact, the controller at Prestwick observed the disappearance from his screen of the secondary surveillance radar response, which identifies the aircraft. The primary radar return from the aircraft then split into several returns around the last known position. I am assured by the Civil Aviation Authority that the Scottish air traffic control centre had no indication of any other aircraft in the vicinity at the time.

Wreckage of the aircraft came down in a swathe of some 10 miles or more, and substantial parts fell on the town of Lockerbie causing the destruction of houses, a petrol station and cars on the A74, and substantial further damage from fire. Hon. Members may already have seen on their television screens some of the devastation that occurred as a result. The emergency services are still searching for survivors but it seems unlikely that anybody escaped from the aircraft. Five people in Lockerbie have been taken to hospital but the full extent of the casualties on the ground is still not known.

It is, of course, too soon to draw any conclusions about the cause of this terrible disaster. A team from my Department's air accident investigation branch arrived at Lockerbie just after midnight and has already begun its work. Representatives of the American Government and the manufacturers are being invited to assist them in accordance with international practice. The inquiry will be conducted with all the urgency appropriate to an event of this kind. A full report will be published as soon as possible and an initial bulletin setting out the facts revealed in the first stage of the investigation will be published shortly.

The House will wish to join me in an expression of deeply felt grief at this tragedy. It is already clear that the loss of life is greater than in any air accident that has previously taken place in the United Kingdom and as yet we have little indication of the extent of the losses among the people of the Lockerbie area. I also express on behalf of the Government, and I am sure the House, our deepest sympathy with the American people and our great admiration of the emergency services which served us so well last night. Search and rescue and support helicopters, aircraft and mountain rescue teams were involved, as well as ground support medical and search teams from service units all over the country. Their work is still going on at the site of the crash and in the surrounding areas, and will continue for as long as is required.

Our thoughts today and throughout Christmas will be with those whose relatives and friends died there last night.

On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathies to the relatives and friends of all those who died in last night's terrible tragedy. Last night in Lockerbie we saw a nightmare come true. All of us feel a deep sense of shock. Our thoughts are with the people of Lockerbie and those in Britain, the United States and other countries who have lost their loved ones.

The House is aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) are in Lockerbie and will undoubtedly express the sympathy of the House for all those who have been affected by this terrible disaster.

Once more, the House is greatly indebted to the emergency services, including the police, the Army, hospitals, the fire brigade and others, for the rescue operation that was launched within minutes of the disaster, and is continuing throughout the day. Yet again, the House and the country pay tribute to their professionalism, dedication and heroism and to the courage of ordinary people who attempted to join in the rescue last night.

In the few remaining days of 1988, and only nine days after the Clapham rail disaster, this horrific aviation tragedy makes December 1988 one of our worst months for deaths in the passenger transport industries. It concludes almost two years of an unprecedented collection of transport industry tragedies, recorded in the names of the Herald of Free Enterprise, Piper Alpha, King's Cross, Clapham junction, and now Lockerbie, involving the loss of over 800 lives and affecting the relatives and many of those involved in our rescue and treatment services.

We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the investigation into the cause of this terrible tragedy has already begun and is being led by the Department of Transport's air accident investigation branch, which has the reputation of being one of the best in the world. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be better if we all withheld any speculation about what may have caused the disintegration of the plane until that investigation is complete? The task of all of us is to ensure that the chances of such accidents occurring are as rare as it is humanly possible to make them.

I assure the Secretary of State that he has our full support in ensuring that any lessons that are learnt in the course of the investigation into last night's dreadful accident are acted upon straight away. We can never make travel completely safe, but in 1989 we must all redouble our efforts to maintain and improve safety in our transport industries.

I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how much I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. I agree with every word that he has spoken this morning. No one could be more aware than me of the terrible disasters that have taken place in recent months. I am grateful to him for his tribute to the air accident investigation branch. I confirm that the investigation is taking place. If lessons are learnt quickly, immediate steps will be taken, but I entirely agree that at this stage it would be premature and wrong to speculate about the cause of this appalling disaster.

As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) told the House last night, he has gone to be with his constituents in Lockerbie this morning. Therefore, as the Member for the next-door constituency, may I convey to him and to the House the real and deep sense of sympathy felt throughout the south of Scotland for our neighbours in the town of Lockerbie and the surrounding countryside? We pray that the loss of life among the townspeople may yet prove miraculously less than was first feared last night. Our thoughts are also with the people in the United States who were looking forward to the return of their service men, students and others for family reunions at Christmas.

Is the Secretary of State aware that only two months ago, in the town of Galashiels, a full civil defence exercise was held simulating just such a crash, but I am afraid that nothing then imagined equalled the scale of devastation experienced last night in Lockerbie. Nevertheless, will he commend the value of such exercises and the work of the local emergency services as well as those from outside, such as RAF Leuchars?

May I make one request? The Secretary of State will know that the south of Scotland and the adjacent area over the border in England is used for low-flying exercises. Although there is no connection whatever between those and this high altitude accident, will he understand that the normal anxieties and frights that our people tolerate week in and week out will be greatly heightened as a result of the tragedy? Therefore, will he ask the Ministry of Defence to be sensitive and to suspend all exercises in this area over the Christmas and new year school holidays?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and I entirely share his views about the value of the exercises that he has described to the House. In particular, I endorse what he said about the work of the emergency services, not only those nearby, but those who came from many places a long distance away. The House will know of the many tributes that have been paid to them on television. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has been in his constituency, has confirmed that, and that is important. Low-flying aircraft are obviously a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I shall see that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are conveyed to him at once.

I want to associate myself and those whom I represent with all that has been said so far in sympathy for those bereaved and in praise of the emergency services. This has not been a good month. It would be wrong to speculate about the cause of the accident at this moment. However, it must be said, for those continuing to fly in the Boeing 747, that it seems most unlikely that that aircraft, which is one of the safest in the world, having a basically military design, of which there are more than 700 in service, of which 168 are still on order, and which has a record of 23 million hours of commercial service, is at fault. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will confirm that. As to a bomb, it seems most unlikely that a terrorist would choose to plant one at Heathrow, where security is probably the tightest in the world.

Will my right hon. Friend do something to improve the telephone services for the emergency lines that have been made available? At this juncture, people want more than anything else news of what is happening. The emergency lines have been permanently engaged since the telephone numbers were announced.

I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks concerning the emergency lines. There have been many complaints, but obviously there can be difficulties at a time like this. However, I have asked my officials to pursue that matter with the relevant authorities as a matter of urgency to see whether more lines can be put into operation. I confirm my hon. Friend's comments concerning Heathrow's very good security record in the past, and I am grateful to him for pointing it out.

A formal structural review of the Boeing 747 took place a few years ago, and I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority has no reason to question the integrity of the aircraft in airline service—so I agree with my hon. Friend's observations.

I associate myself with the sympathy that has been expressed this morning. The Secretary of State will agree that the fortitude displayed by the people of Lockerbie and by bereaved relatives in the United States of America is remarkable.

Once the official investigation is under way, what will be done to mobilise resources for the benefit of the living victims of the Lockerbie tragedy? Will the Government give an assurance that there will be substantial mobilisation of resources from central Government to local government to deal with what will be fairly long-term difficulties in the aftermath of the disaster? I refer in particular to the demolition of houses and the need to rehouse the people who lived in them.

I agree with the comments made in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. As to the questions he raises, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office is present and has heard the hon. Gentleman's comments. As the hon. Member knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in the disaster area. Obviously he is examining the situation and will carefully consider what has been said by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member will probably know that the regional council has opened an emergency fund, to which the Government will contribute in the normal way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has asked me to tell the House on his behalf that as he and I share a common adult experience of many years of flying service aircraft, and have a love of aviation, we are horrified by what happened last night. We both wish to make it clear that we accept that civil aviation is a very safe means of transport. We regularly fly between London and Scotland, and believe that the best example that we can give is to continue our lives as we have in the past.

I say to my right hon. Friend the Minister that we in Scotland are shocked and horrified at what happened in Lockerbie, and we should like to place on record our thanks to the rescue services for their splendid work and the effectiveness of their operations. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department's view is that, at this stage, no one should express views or make statements that will in any way cast doubts on the integrity of the Boeing 747, which is one of the most reliable aircraft that the world has ever known?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. His comments about aviation in general and about the Boeing in particular come very well from my hon. Friend, with his aviation experience, which carries considerable weight in the House. I acknowledge also his remarks about the emergency services. Everyone who has been to Lockerbie has expressed their admiration for what they have done.

All of us who identify with the small town and village communities of Scotland identify this morning with the shock and grief that Lockerbie is enduring. On behalf of Scottish colleagues on the Labour Benches in particular, I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy, and also those of admiration for all the men and women of the rescue and humanitarian services, of whose efforts we stand in awe.

Clearly, there are two interlocking tragedies—the horror of a major air crash allied, almost uniquely, with such devastation on the ground. Lockerbie will endure a prolonged aftermath of human suffering, psychological trauma, and physical damage. I seek the assurance of Ministers that there will be generous resources to meet all needs, and that full attention will be paid to the sensibilities of the people living in the area affected—including those to which the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) referred.

On behalf of all Scottish Opposition Members, I express personal sympathy for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro),whose anguish last night was the mark of a man who is truly a part of the community that he represents.

Hear, hear.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and my right hon. and hon. Friends are particularly appreciative of his remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

As to the devastation on the ground at Lockerbie, a preliminary view is that about 10 houses are affected. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office will take full account of what has been said by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, and by other right hon. and hon. Members, and will urgently convey those views to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Again, I share the hon. Gentleman's comments about the emergency services.

As one of Heathrow's Members of Parliament, although we are a long distance from the place of last night's events, I and all those whom I represent feel very close to that appalling tragedy. I join with other right hon. and hon. Members in expressing heartfelt sympathy for all those who are suffering.

I ask my right hon. Friend to join me in thanking all of those at Heathrow—the people who work for Pan Am and for Heathrow Airport Ltd., and the Metropolitan police —for all they tried to do in difficult circumstances, being so far away from the place of the tragedy. As I shall be going straight to Heathrow shortly, will my right hon. Friend allow me to pass on his thanks? Also, can he assure me that if, when the causes of the disaster are known, there are found to be any Heathrow implications, they will be included in the inquiry?

I can give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks. The people at Heathrow should have not only my best wishes but those of the whole House for working far beyond the call of duty and for behaving extremely responsibly and helpfully after last night's appalling disaster; it was very encouraging to see them on television.

I endorse my hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy for all those suffering from the appalling accident—not only the Scottish but the American families affected. Of all the terrible things to happen, perhaps such a disaster is even worse at this time of year. All implications will be considered, and the inquiry's report will be published in the usual way.

While joining in the condolences to the families and to the loved ones of those who have died, can I ask the Secretary of State whether there is anything that he can do to speed up the process of inquiry? Does he recall that the major accident at Manchester airport, in which over 50 lives were lost, was on 22 August 1985, yet we will still await a full and definitive report on the inquiries that were made? While I appreciate the Minister's difficulties, and the need for complete thoroughness, does he recognise that there is genuine public concern about the time that it takes to complete air disaster inquiries, and that if lessons can save lives, then urgency is very urgent indeed?

I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, although I hope that in respect of the particular accident to which he refers it will not be long before a full report is published. As to the Lockerbie disaster, its causes must be found and the report must be thorough and, if possible, be published much quicker. More important even that, if lessons are to be learned, they must be applied straight away—long before the report is necessarily published. The air accident investigation branch will issue a special bulletin describing the circumstances of the accident as soon as it can. Even before, or after, that special bulletin, if action is shown to be needed in whatever field, we shall take it straight away.

While sharing in the immeasurable grief sustained by the families of those who have lost their loved ones in this appalling accident, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that security at Heathrow and Gatwick is at a very high and sustainable level and will remain so? Will he accept that the thoughts and support of the whole House are also with him in having to deal with the appalling tragedies of the past few weeks?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind personal remarks. I certainly confirm that the security arrangements at Heathrow and Gatwick are among the best in the world. We intend to maintain them at that level, and if more needs to be done it will be done.

May I offer my deepest sympathy to the families, American and Scottish, who have suffered so grievously as a result of this tragic accident? May I remind the Secretary of State that the events following the Piper Alpha accident plainly demonstrate that it is possible to offer compensation and assistance to the victims of such tragedies rapidly and expeditiously, and will he urge on those concerned that similarly rapid and expeditious assistance be given to the Scottish families who have suffered in this tragedy?

The hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point. In the short time that has elapsed it has been impossible to go into the matter in enormous detail, but I shall see that the hon. Gentleman's important suggestion is vigorously pursued.

Having had some experience in the past of aircraft accident investigation, I hope that there will be no constraint on the time available for the inspectors to investigate the accident, and that they will not be rushed into giving credence immediately to any particular theory.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any evidence yet that the black box flight recorder has been found?

I understand—although it is a very preliminary impression—that one recorder has been found. [Interruption.] I understand that two have now been found, although that will have to be confirmed. When I arrived at the House it was thought that only one had been found.

My hon. Friend is right: there can be no constraint. We must get at the truth. I hope, however, that it may be possible at an earlier stage to give the House and the public more information if there are immediate lessons to be learnt or ways of allaying anxiety. We shall not try to hold back.

It is less than six months since I was in the Chamber stumbling for words to express adequately the grief and shock that I felt after the Piper Alpha tragedy. People in the north-east of Scotland and in my own town of Aberdeen still feel that sense of shock, and they will sympathise today with those in the south-west who have suffered so tragically. May I on their behalf express sympathy and condolences to the relatives of the victims?

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) has made an important point. In the past two years, since the Chinook disaster and more recently the Piper Alpha disaster, we in the north-east of Scotland have been embroiled in claims for compensation. In this country compensation claims follow on proof of negligence, and there may be some difficulty in proving negligence if some of the current speculation proves correct. Will the Secretary of State consider that aspect and allow us to avoid complicated trans-Atlantic legal processes?

Like his hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), the hon. Gentleman has made a fair point, which will obviously have to be gone into as speedily as possible. It is a human and difficult question, and if it can be resolved speedily I am sure that the whole House will be pleased.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the passenger list has yet been published? Having had close personal experience of a serious aircraft accident myself, I have to say that on balance, even if the existing passenger list is not accurate —and it may well not be—my right hon. Friend would be well advised to see whether it can be made public.

Will my right hon. Friend also question the merits of the proposition that relatives should be flown to the site of the disaster?

I do not think that the latter point is a question for me. I understood that the suggestion had come from Pan American Airways, but I do not think that the Government or I could be involved in it. However, I take note of my hon. Friend's reservations.

Again, it is for the aircraft company to decide when to release the passenger list. There is a difficult balance to be drawn; I do not think that it is possible to get it right. My hon. Friend may well be correct, but on the other hand passenger lists are liable to change up to the last minute. The flight was not fully booked and people may have got on at the last minute, or got off. I understand the reluctance to publish the list too early, but I am sure that it is common ground between us that when an accurate account can be published, the sooner that people are put out of the appalling agony of waiting the better, and I know that the airline has that in mind.

Before the House becomes too concerned about security at Heathrow, will the Secretary of State confirm that the aircraft started its flight in Frankfurt? Will he also tell us whether he knows how many American military personnel were on board returning to the United States on leave?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it was a through flight. The flight numbers were the same, but there was a change at Heathrow. After the Frankfurt-London flight, a new plane was to take the passengers from London to New York.

I certainly shall not speculate on possible causes of the accident now, but I want the House to understand the factual position. I am not sure that I have the exact number of passengers who came from Frankfurt, but we believe it to be about 31. That, too, will become much clearer in the next few hours.

Of course it is too early to speculate on the causes of this ghastly accident. I also acknowledge that Heathrow and Gatwick—and, for that matter, Frankfurt and Berlin—are among the safest airports in the world. Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the inquiry will be wide enough to consider a point that I have raised before—that checks for explosives carried out at airports are very inadequate compared with, for example, checks carried out in the Houses of Parliament?

That too is a very important point. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would expect me to agree with him until I have had the matter checked, but anything that is relevant to the disaster will have to be carefully considered.

One of the most appalling aspects of this tragic disaster is the sudden death and destruction that descended on people living on the ground. Is it absolutely necessary for a flight from London to the United States to travel for more than an hour over our land? Is it not possible to reach an international agreement whereby planes could be routed out to sea, possibly flying parallel to either our eastern or our western coastline, and thus avoid this kind of risk?

The aircraft's flight pattern was one of the normal patterns, although flight patterns depend on wind and a number of other factors. Routes must be reasonably short; they must also fit in with the wind patterns of the time, and they therefore vary. A great many aircraft have to fly over land, and I do not know whether there is much chance of avoiding that. I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend has said, but I would not like to hold out any hope. It is probably impractical to change the practice.

:All of us with constituencies that lie beneath the airways of Britain will wish to be associated with my right hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy to the people of Lockerbie.

My right hon. Friend has said that the flight originated in Frankfurt, and that the passengers changed aeroplanes at Heathrow. Can he confirm that it would be possible for a passenger starting his journey in Frankfurt to leave the aeroplane at Heathrow, but that his baggage would go on to the new aeroplane and continue on its outbound flight without further checks? If he cannot answer now, can he confirm that the inquiry will look into the question?

That is clearly pertinent, although it depends on what caused the crash. It will clearly have to be investigated.

A passenger in transit from Frankfurt to New York is kept on the air side. He does not go through immigration or customs, but goes into a transit lounge on the air side, and his baggage is also moved from one plane to the other through the air side. The passenger never goes into the terminal. I should not have thought it possible for a passenger to leave the plane and for his luggage to stay on board, but I do not want to commit myself: that will obviously have to be looked into.

May I add to the expressions of sympathy that have already been offered? As one who has travelled more than once on flight PA 103 from Frankfurt to London, may I also pay tribute to the security screening at Frankfurt, but also ask my right hon. Friend to look particularly at the question of baggage? I understand that it is put straight on to the new plane, whatever may happen to the passengers. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that that angle is thoroughly examined?

Yes, that will clearly have to be looked at. I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said in the first half of his question.

Is it not the case that many of the passengers had been involved in defending freedom in the West? In view of that, when the Government send their condolences to the people of the United States, will they include thanks for the work that those passengers were doing on behalf of us all?

Yes. A large number of American service men were, unfortunately, on the plane. I agree with my hon. Friend. I shall make sure that that is done.

rose—

I am sorry that it is not possible to call all hon. Members who wish to participate but I am sure that all those who have not been called wish to be associated with the expressions of distress about this tragedy. I suggest that the hon. Members for York (Mr. Gregory) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) should take half an hour each for their Adjournment debates instead of three quarters of an hour.

Following that tragic statement, I turn to the tourist industry in the United Kingdom, Britain's fastest growing industry, which attracts to it almost 1,000 new people a year. Indeed, 1·4 million people are directly employed in the industry, and probably a further 1 million in schools and industrial catering. I understand that a record 15·4 million overseas visitors came to the United Kingdom last year and spent three times what we earn from car exports. That puts the industry into its proper context. We are talking about an annual turnover of some £5,000 million.

I have taken a great interest in tourism for many years, both before I became a Member of this House and since. I declare an interest as the parliamentary consultant to Consort Hotels, the largest consortium of independent hoteliers in the United Kingdom, whose headquarters is in my constituency.

The news, however, is not all good. The industry is not resting on its laurels. Some £2,000 million of capital investment is going into it. The industry is moving away from a low-paid image, especially when one sees young chefs with salaries of £20,000 and more. More specifically, in the Yorkshire and Humberside region, tourism is now worth some £600 million. It supports 85,000 full-time jobs and thousands more part-time jobs, in addition to the self-employed, but it is almost 20 years since the Department of Tourism Act 1969 reached the statute book. There is clearly a need for the review that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), has set in motion of the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board.

My first major question to my hon. Friend is why the review is so restrictive. Tourism affects everyone in the United Kingdom, not simply England. To leave Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland out of that major review is to do a disservice to those parts of the United Kingdom. Overseas visitors regard that as an arbitrary decision by the Government. My hon. Friend is an active and busy Minister, to whom I pay tribute, but his responsibilities stop at the English frontier and do not extend to the Principality of Wales or to Scotland, let alone to Ulster. We need a Minister to co-ordinate these activities, a matter to which I shall refer later.

That brings me to the role of the regional boards. For some years we have had 12 regional boards. Again, that is a rather arbitrary figure. My hon. Friend works assiduously in the Department of Employment. One of his other hats—as with his colleagues—involves the Manpower Services Commission. The MSC is divided into eight regions in England. It is peculiar that there should be 12 regional boards that cover those eight regions.

At the very least, will he not consider reducing the plethora of boards to eight so that officials do not duplicate work? It would be far better to reduce the number of boards but to increase their geographical size and to reduce them to four—a northern board, a central board, a south-western board and a south and south-eastern board. That would allow much better career development and a much greater scale of overseas work.

I have referred to the red tape in the English regional boards, but the problem is exacerbated by the number of national boards within the United Kingdom. Chaos has reigned because the national tourist boards do not work together initially on the Crown classification system—Scotland going ahead of the rest of the country, Wales carrying out a slightly separate operation and now England. The appointment of a Minister with overall responsibility for United Kingdom tourism is long overdue.

There is also an imbalance of tourism funding in the United Kingdom. In a debate on this subject in another place, Lord Ponsonby rightly referred to the fact that Wales receives roughly eight times as much funding from the Government, per pound of tourist spending, as is received by England, and that Scotland receives three times as much. Like the noble Lord, I do not begrudge the sums that are spent in that way, but there is nevertheless quite an imbalance.

The tourist information centres are urgently in need of review—for, among other reasons, their inadequate siting. It is vital that there should be tourist information centres at all our major ports of entry, yet at the busiest of all, Dover, the tourist information centre is located at the point where one leaves the country, not where one arrives. Some tourist information centres are relegated to the reference departments of town halls.

As for the inadequate opening hours of tourist information centres, to take one of Britain's busiest attractions, the Tower of London, which 2·3 million visitors visited last year, one finds that the tourist information centre is closed at this time of the year. It is closed for the whole of the winter season. I have seen parties of Japanese visitors, who are always welcome to Britain, looking into the tourist information centre where they see a scrawled note saying, "Reopens at Easter." Nothing could be further from the truth. It is time that tourist information centres at such major points were open throughout the year.

Furthermore, in the early evening—a time when accommodation needs to be made available for the travelling visitor—and on Sunday mornings, tourist information centres should be open, but of course that does not fit into the natural pattern of the local government officer's working day. How many of them have an adequate knowledge of foreign languages? Very few of them speak other than their native tongue. The same problem arises in other parts of the United Kingdom. There are problems over staffing and languages and the amount of literature that can be made available to visitors.

The charging pattern of tourist information centres is inconsistent. The Scottish tourist information centres charge a 10 per cent. commission for the first night's accommodation. There is no general framework throughout the United Kingdom. I do not believe that there is a rationale for maintaining automatic district council responsibility for this key sector of visitor information. The local government legislation requires six major services to be put out to competitive tender. I refer to street cleaning, refuse collection and the like. That means that almost £3,000 million worth of services will be put out to tender next year. I ask my hon. Friend to hold discussions with his colleagues to ensure that tourist information services should go out to competitive tender in the next tranche. Let the professionals market tourism.

In my own constituency of York there are two tourist information centres—the lacklustre one, where few of the staff speak foreign languages, which is closed on Sunday mornings and the early evenings that is run by the district council, which regards tourism as so lacking in interest that it does not even appoint staff when vacancies occur, and another one that has been set up by the professionals, the hoteliers, restaurateurs and others who provide various amenities. That is despite the fact that the Socialist-controlled council has twice removed their signs. However, they could work in harmony and I wish them to do so, because the professionals will always show the right way forward.

Above all, at a time when many of our constituents are turning to the holiday pages of their newspapers and television screens, tourist information centres could become United Kingdom's holiday shops and a chain of domestic travel shops. There are 50 British tour operators selling United Kingdom holiday destinations. Why not give their brochures away and sell their holidays through the British tourist information centres?

Turning to the major subject of signposting, the House should be concerned with two important matters. First, there is inadequate signposting on major roads. What consultation has there been with the Department of Transport in conjunction with the Department of Employment? Why is not greater notice given on the Al0 of the attractions available at major venues such as York? Why is the "i" information sign being removed from service stations?

The second aspect is deemed consent, which has been going back and forth between Departments, producing increasing red tape. I cannot understand why there are delays in implementing such a sensible measure. There are trials in Nottingham and Kent and experiments in three districts on the south coast. As they are slightly unusual places, there is a lack of enthusiasm in that part of the world, and no doubt my hon. Friend will report to the House that deemed consent is not a success. While the experiment on the south coast is taking place, I suggest that he should consider deemed consent in north Yorkshire and south Somerset, two quite different parts of the country within his portfolio of English tourism.

The year 1990 is to be designated "European year for tourism". With the completion of the single European market and the opening of the Channel tunnel, there will be even greater competition for visitors. By 1994, Britain's tourism could be worth more than £23,000 million. Will the United Kingdom take the lead in co-ordinating information on visitor facilities and accommodation? It seems incredible to overseas visitors to Britain that there are no common symbols, and when we visit other EC member states there is great confusion.

I believe that there is an EC classification in the non-binding EC recommendations on hotel symbols, but those who leave the House today and travel the length and breadth of Britain will see the great confusion on hotel boards. They will see the symbols of the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club which have their own inspectorates. Still fading on hotel boards, they are the hearts in the heart of England and the sea horses in the Isle of Wight. They will see the private sector Egon Ronay signs.

Some of the national boards believe that that is a good idea and have developed the crown symbol. That is clearly not enough, when pubs attract three or even four crowns. How can they be compared with a Park lane hotel? Five gold crowns are very appropriate to this time of year, but they would cause confusion to a visitor from Chicago looking to spend a little time in addition to his conference in London or elsewhere in such honey pots as York, Edinburgh, Stratford or further north in the Minister's constituency. Let us send a clear message to the new European Commissioner for Tourism. We need a European system for facilities and accommodation that commands respect and has integrity.

I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in educational matters as they affect tourism. I am pleased that the first GCSE course in tourism has been created and I admire the work of the Southern Examining Board in getting that off the ground, and the sponsors of the course, particularly the lead sponsor, American Express. I hope that the Minister will urge industry to participate fully in the modules where there is employer involvement and hold discussions with the Department of Education and Science to ensure that the course is widely known and not seen simply as a southern-based activity.

But that is still not enough. We are producing too many chiefs and not enough Indians. We are sadly short of craft trainees. There is a disproportionate number of potential managers. They cannot all manage, although they are qualified to do so. We should ensure that colleges produce courses with real career prospects, with more emphasis on housekeeping, kitchen brigades and service staff so that we do not have to employ those much-needed staff from outside the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend has also turned his attention to seasonality. What market research has been undertaken on the incentives required to extend the season? I know that he has spoken on many occasions about extending the season, but clearly the carrot has to be of a fiscal nature. Before the Chancellor goes into economic purdah, perhaps my hon. Friend will convey that recommendation to him.

Mr. Alan Devereux, chairman of the Scottish Tourist Board, an Essex anglophile who has moved north and for whom I have a great deal of time, said on 23 November:

"Scottish tourism cannot thrive solely on new buildings, swimming pools and visitor centres."

I agree with him. He continued:

"Historic buildings and monuments represent the greater part of our entertainment portfolio and they need to provide increasing entertainment and amenity".

I appreciate that I place my hon. Friend in some predicament in quoting from a leading figure in the Scottish tourist industry, but I did not restrict the debate to English tourism. That is one of the many examples applying to tourism in the United Kingdom.

The call today is for better co-ordination. The travel trade will not fly to the United Kingdom to assess opportunities at three separate trade exhibitions. There is the moot for England, and on different weeks there are events in Wales and Scotland. Surely we can combine travel trade events on one site and, if appropriate, rotate the venue.

The Department of Employment is a sponsoring Ministry for tourism but greater funds are coming from other Departments. A £6 million grant made recently in Birmingham by the Department of the Environment represents half the English tourist board section 4 funds and is more than 20 times greater than the average English tourist board grant. I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister at the Department of the Environment is probably doing his Christmas shopping since we are sitting so late, but no doubt these points can be conveyed to him by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Department of Employment. As for section 4 funding, which represented a good deal, I hope that we shall continue a move from grants towards soft loans.

Clearly, we are getting value for money. The nation currently enjoys excellent returns for taxpayers' investment in tourism. For 1988–89, the British Tourist Authority received £23.8 million Government grant in aid. I understand that every pound of taxpayers' grant currently earns more than £300 in foreign currency. Let us compare that with the agricultural lobby. Britain supports the £11,500 million agriculture industry by Government grants of £1,855 million—a return of just £6.20 for every £1 of funding. My hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the other place have a very good case to make in Cabinet to get a little larger slice of the taxpayers' cake for tourism.

The review now reaching its conclusion should ensure more competition in the supply of visitor information, less local government bureaucracy, an assurance of strong and continuous Government support to the British Tourist Authority and an end to the in-house consultative work by the English tourist board Scottish tourist board and Wales tourist board that can and should be undertaken by the private sector. A visitor to Britain means employment for someone else. We must not take our attractions for granted, York has shown the great visitor appeal of archaeology, with its Coppergate site being transformed into a Viking museum, which is one of Britain's liveliest. In the inner cities, such as Glasgow and Liverpool, new galleries have been opened.

Those examples must not become isolated instances. Co-ordination is required to harness constructively our great potential, within environmental constraints. Let us not allow the Greek prayer for protection against the scourge of tourism to he added to the alternative service book. Through proper planning, that fear will subside and Britain and its people will benefit immeasurably from the success of tourism.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on his choice of subject for this debate, and I agree with what he said about the work that my hon. Friend the Minister does for tourism. The industry vies with oil as one of our largest earners of foreign income. It will continue to grow and be successful and, as a result, there will be growing pressure on the major tourist attractions. The greatest pressure will he on London, and that is why I wish to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need to promote tourism in the regions.

We must do as much as possible to offer tourists every opportunity to see the attractions of the other England —the England that lies outside London—which my hon. Friend the Member for York and I represent and do our best to promote. Swindon is at the centre of a beautiful area of countryside, including the Cotswolds and the Marlborough downs. People in my constituency, including those who run hotels and the facilities that are available, are trying increasingly to promote the attractions of the area.

The promotion of Britain to those who consider visiting it must be undertaken on a professional basis. I pay credit to the British Tourist Authority and the English tourist board for their work in making the citizens of the European Community and countries further afield aware of what Britain has to offer to tourists. If more resources were made available, more could be done. As my hon. Friend the Minister examines the results of the recent review in his Department, will he remember the vital work that is being done professionally by those bodies?

The House would not regard it as adequate if private organisations, such as airlines, were left to do the work of promoting Britain abroad. That must be done by a professional body that is ultimately responsible to Parliament. I believe that it is well done at present, and I ask my hon. Friend to give an assurance that he will take those points into careful account and ensure that in the future Britain will continue to have as strong a presence overseas as have other countries which seek to be our rivals in the tourism industry.

At the outset of this debate on tourism, we should place on record our sympathies for those tourists to Britain who died in the appalling air tragedy in Scotland yesterday.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) for introducing this debate and for all that he has done over the years to raise the profile of tourism nationally and in the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) for his more recent work in that regard.

In recent years, the importance of tourism as a major national industry has been increasingly recognised. My hon. Friend gave the figures. The industry has a turnover of £18 billion a year, sustains 1·4 million jobs and grows at the rate of nearly 1,000 net new jobs a week. No other sector of the economy sustains new job growth at that rate. A major capital investment programme of about £2 billion, predominantly in the private sector, is under way. Tourism earns about three to four times more than the motor industry, and rather more than the aerospace industry, in export earnings.

The regional aspect of tourism is especially important and close to my heart, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon mentioned it. I am most impressed by the way in which tourism and leisure developments have played the lead role in rejuvenating many of our regions and cities that have suffered from economic decline. I think especially of the Albert dock development in Liverpool, which has raised the profile of Merseyside, the Wigan pier development, the waterfront developments in Hull, the maritime development in Swansea and a host of others.

My hon. Friend the Member for York talked of greater national co-ordination. While I have some sympathy with his remarks, I am sure that he will appreciate that it is not a matter for me. I can, however, offer him a little encouragement about separate exhibitions because the national boards are considering holding a British exhibition in alternate years.

The principle of a tourism review has been appreciated and acknowledged by hon. Members. Scotland and Wales were not included in the review because they make their own arrangements for tourism, but I am sure that they will be interested and involved in its outcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for York repeated his argument that we should reduce the number of regional tourist boards, but the Government have no power to impose changes on them. I heard my hon. Friend's arguments—I have heard them in the past—but we must question whether he benefits of the changes would outweigh the disruption. Nevertheless, I have taken on board the points that he made.

Crown classification has caused the industry considerable frustration. We are slowly edging to an agreement, which will involve a quantitive and bolt-on quality assessment. It is hoped that an agreement will be concluded shortly so that we can move to the new crown classification procedure by September 1989.

There has been a dramatic growth in tourist information centres over recent years, of which there are 562 nationally; about 394 are open all year. At an earlier Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for York mentioned extended opening hours, and I agree with the points that he made about greater involvement of the private sector in the management and control of TICs. The possibility of using them as domestic travel shops has much to commend it, and at present about 80 per cent. of them are run by local authorities.

My Department and the Department of Transport are in continuous contact about the specific problem of signposting, which causes considerable frustration to many people in the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry.

With regard to deemed consent, my hon. Friend the Member for York rightly said that the east Kent experiment will be evaluated. He made an interesting suggestion about extending pilot projects and mentioned north Yorkshire and south Somerset as possible areas in which to do so. I shall put those specific proposals to the Department of Transport for its consideration.

The decision that we took in Brussels last week to designate 1990 as European Tourism Year marked the coming of age of tourism as an industry in Europe. It was the first time that we had had a meeting of EEC Tourism Ministers. We have begun preliminary work on plans for this country, and I assure hon. Members that the United Kingdom will play its full part in European Tourism Year, which will raise the profile of tourism as an industry in member states. There will be a range of awards and competitions to stimulate the industry and recognition.

I very much welcome the tourism GCSE. Thirty centres are piloting the scheme, with a further 30-plus planned by September 1989, when there should be about 600 students participating. I take my hon. Friend's point that it should not be a southern-orientated experiment. We want other regions to take it on board and I shall encourage the Department of Education and Science to do what it can to promote the GCSE on a more national basis. I shall use my good offices to encourage industry fully to support the GCSE concept.

I regard this as not so much a debate as a story for Christmas which illuminates a small corner of life in Tory Britain in 1988.

Earlier this year, the House passed the Social Security Bill, clause 4 of which raised to 18 the minimum age for income support in return for a guaranteed place on a youth training scheme. There were exceptions in prescribed cases of severe hardship. The Act is one of a range of measures that Conservative Members dream up between the coffee and the port around their dinner tables in Knightsbridge and Belgravia to make life difficult for the lower orders—on second thoughts, perhaps not Belgravia, but Surbiton and Grantham.

The purpose of section 4 of the Social Security Act 1988 was to deal with that well-known Conservative bogy, the feckless youth who prefers to lie in bed in the morning rather than do a good day's work. The proposal met with many objections, not least from the Manpower Services Commission, which did not want its training programme clogged up with sullen youngsters dragooned on to inappropriate schemes. It met with objections also from those who argued, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) did in an Adjournment debate on 5 December, that there would not be enough YTS places for all those affected.

When the Social Security Bill had its Second Reading on 2 November last year, the Secretary of State for Social Services said:

"the training allowances for those on YTS have been set at a rate well above the basic … rates for most young people."

The key words in that statement are "basic" and "most". There are some serious exceptions, which were expected by the Secretary of State. He said:

"orphans and youngsters who are necessarily living away from home because of a risk of physical or sexual abuse will be able to … secure a training place which will carry with it payment of the training allowance at a higher rate than their benefit, so enabling them to continue to live independently."

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who replied for the Opposition, made it clear that those proposals were not adequate. He said:

"A growing number of teenagers are homeless. In the main they do not leave home for flippant or trivial reasons but because of intolerable tension at home."—[Official Report, 2 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 655-67.]

I should like to deal with just one such case, a young woman in my constituency who left home because of intolerable tension. I shall not go into the details of why she left home, except to say that I am satisfied that she had good reason for living independently. She had a troubled family history. Her mother and stepfather have moved away and she has had no contact with them for the best part of a year. She is a responsible young woman who, with the help of a local advice centre, the borough council and the local office of the Department of Social Security, has made every effort to live within her meagre means. She has done everything that the Secretary of State has asked of her. She has joined a training scheme but, as a result, is not better off—as the Secretary of State alleged—but considerably worse off. She is threatened with destitution. I do not allege that this case is typical, but it is by no means unique.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) has a case in his constituency of a 17-year-old boy whose parents are separated. He has not seen his mother for many years and his father died earlier this year. Suddenly, he found himself alone in the world, having to pay his rent out of his training allowance, which is not possible. No doubt some of the growing army of homeless young people seen around London's railway stations have similar stories.

In parts of Sunderland—including Thorney close in which Deborah Hall lives—there are whole streets in which almost no one is working. They live in a land of the permanent training scheme. In many cases, they have the "pretend jobs" of the kind to which the Prime Minister used to refer when in opposition. About 4,000 people in Sunderland are on such schemes, and registered youth vacancies rarely exceed 20. We have some of the highest unemployment in mainland Britain, which has been greatly added to recently by the closure of the shipyards.

During the general election, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North addressed youth trainees on some successful schemes. I was struck by their limited horizons. They talked about adding £1 here or 50p there to their allowances and saw stretching ahead of them a world alternating between the dole and training schemes. That is the culture which this Government have, to a large measure, been responsible for creating.

On 10 October, I received a letter from a diligent advice worker in my constituency, Mrs. Flo Watt, which sets out graphically the mathematics of life in the twilight zone I have just described:

"Deborah is 17 years of age … Relationships within her family have been under stress for some time. When her mother and stepfather moved to Cumbria, Deborah stayed behind in Sunderland … She was given a one bedroomed council flat on May 23. She applied to the Social Fund for a budgeting loan for furniture and was given £226 for a cooker, bed and bedding. This is to be repaid at £2·91 over 78 weeks. Her benefit prior to September 11"—

the cut-off point for benefit for those under 18—

"was £32·84. This included a Transitional Addition of £13·44."

That was awarded to enable her to live independently in the light of her circumstances.

Out of that, Deborah paid water charges, plus 20 per cent. of her rates—another recent innovation—which amounted to £2·50 a week. She was a responsible person and organised her finances carefully. She paid £4 a week for her electricity as part of the advanced payment scheme operated by the electricity board. Under a similar operation, she paid £5 a week for gas. She was repaying £2·91 a week for her social fund loan, which was retained from her benefit. She was also buying clothes through a mail order catalogue and paid £3·50 a week for that. That came to a total of £17·91. Her rent was paid at that time since she was in receipt of benefit. Therefore, £17·91 out of £32·84 went towards those costs. She could survive by using the remaining money for food and other essentials.

Her entitlement to income support ceased on 11 September, under the new regulations governing 16 and 17-year-olds. She received a £3 bridging allowance, followed by a further £30 bridging allowance. She started a YTS placement on 26 September with an allowance of £29·50 a week, which replaced her benefit. She received her first allowance on 30 September. As soon has her income support ended, Deborah's financial difficulties began. She has not made any payments to the social fund and, as of 10 October, was £17 behind in her gas payments. Out of her training allowance of £29·50, her budget is as follows: water charges, rates and rent £10·75, electricity £4, gas £5, mail order catalogue £3·50, social fund loan repayment £2·91 and her bus pass to get to and from the training scheme costs £5·80, £2·80 of which can be reclaimed. Those sums, including the sum that could have been reclaimed, amounted to £29·16, leaving Deborah with only 36p for food and other necessities.

The letter from Mrs. Watt continues:

"She has already had letters from the Social Fund Officer stating that she must begin making payments or face possible court action. The Gas Board have told me that they will not disconnect for the amount of £17·90, but they are obviously looking towards payments being resumed. As she did not have a guarantor or pay a security deposit to the electricity board of £100 as a new consumer, she faces immediate disconnection if she defaults on the advance payments scheme. The reason she now has to pay towards the rent is that her applicable amount under income support is only £19·40, and every pound over and above this amount means that approximately 85p is payable towards the rent.

Deborah was educated at Felstead Special School and until September 11 was successfully looking after herself and her finances. She managed to pay her commitments every week without fail. She has managed by buying second-hand furniture to make her flat quite comfortable. It is not feasible for Deborah to return to her family and she has no other relatives in the town apart from an aunt who is herself in receipt of benefit."

The big difference in Deborah's life came when she lost the transitional protection of £13·44. She had the bad luck that her training scheme did not start until two weeks after 12 September. As a result, she was no longer on income support, which meant the automatic loss of transitional protection. I understand that, once lost, it can never be reinstated.

It seems that the Secretary of State did not anticipate the situation which I have described. If he did, he did not let on when he addressed the House on Second Reading of the Social Security Bill, as it then was.

I wrote to the Minister and summarised Deborah's position. I sent a copy of my letter to all Conservative: Members because I felt so strongly about the matter. I sent also a copy of Mrs. Watts's letter, which sets out the two budgets that I have outlined to the House. In my letter to Conservative Members I wrote:

"Please note that her budget includes no allowance for food and that she can only eat by defaulting on one of her other commitments … Although she could just about get by on Income Support, where her rent is paid, she has not the slightest chance of doing so on her training allowance, out of which she must, of course, find her rent.

So by the age of 17 this young woman is already locked into a cycle of debt from which—in an area like Sunderland —she has little prospect of escaping. She has no horizons beyond the next training scheme. Every few months the screw —in the form of new benefit or training regulations—tightens, limiting still further her already limited range of possibilities.

I appreciate that many of you will not be moved by the plight of someone in Deborah's situation. I also know however that, despite the ideological gulf that divides us, many Conservative Members do care about the human consequences of the measures that your Government is so determined to introduce. It is to these Members that this letter is addressed.

Finally, I would be glad to hear from any Conservative Member who can suggest to Deborah how she can make ends meet by any means short of turning to crime."

I received many replies, most of which were courteous. Some Conservative Members merely acknowledged my letter while others offered helpful suggestions. However, there were some rather less helpful replies from some of the backwoods. For example, the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) wrote:

"I don't wish to sound hardhearted—it is very often the case, and seems to be in this case, that many of the difficulties spring from actions taken by the young people themselves. So far as I can see in Deborah's case, she had the opportunity to travel to Cumbria with her parents and preferred not to do so."

The hon. Member for Thanet, North asks for the opportunity to meet the girl. I do not think that I shall add to her difficulties by introducing her to the hon. Gentleman.

I had a letter from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who represents a constituency where circumstances are slightly different from those that prevail in Sunderland:

"Whilst I have some sympathy, I must say her case illustrates the utter folly of leaving home at the age of 16 or 17 and expecting the State to pick up all one's living costs."

The right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) also wrote:

"Incidentally, I notice that at the end of your letter you refer to the possibility of the lady in question turning to crime. I do hope I can assume that you have not been putting such ideas into her head. That would be a most irresponsible thing to do."

On 7 November, I received a reply from the Minister of State, which he also copied and sent to all Conservative Members. At that stage, it was not a helpful letter. It was clearly drafted by a civil servant living an index-linked existence and it was a bald statement of the dilemma in which Deborah found herself, but it offered no solutions.

On 17 November, I wrote again, in an attempt to breach the wall of complacency that, I felt, existed in the case. I wrote to the Minister of State:

"I regret that I have failed to convey to you the sense of urgency, nay desperation, which I and everyone else concerned with this case feel.

Your letter of November 7 badly sets out the trap that your Government has devised for persons in Deborah's situation, but it does not address the consequences. Let me spell them out: She has had to default on her repayments to the Social Fund. She is now £93·87 in arrears of rent and the debt is accumulating with every passing week. It is only a question of time before one of her creditors takes her to Court in pursuit of debts she cannot possibly repay. Since we no longer put debtors in prison (although perhaps you have this in mind for the Queen's speech on Tuesday) there is a serious possibility that she will end up on the streets. Please do not advise me as some of your colleagues have done, that she ought to return to her mother, since her family circumstances are so unhappy that, faced with a choice between going home and sleeping rough she would probably choose the latter … knowing as I do that you are a humane man, I cannot believe that it was ever your intention to drive young people on to the streets in this case (although I am not so sure about some of your colleagues). I ask again, is there anything you or your department can suggest to help this young woman avoid destitution."

That led to a helpful intervention—prompted by the Minister of State—by the local Department of Social Security office, which has been very helpful. It ingeniously trawled back through the records and discovered that Deborah was owed £152 in arrears of supplementary benefit, which it paid to her swiftly.

It proposed at first to offset that against repayments due on the social fund, which would not have been helpful, but the matter is now sorted out. The DSS has also agreed to suspend repayments of £2·91 a week, so I am grateful to the manager, Mr. Hutton, and his staff, whom I have found helpful in the case.

A new crisis now looms because of rent arrears. Deborah has received a notice of eviction. I have received great help from the borough council and she is not going to be evicted in the foreseeable future. It probably has a duty anyway under the Child Care Act 1980, and it might mean more public money being spent if she was evicted.

On 13 December, I received a further letter from the Minister of State in response to mine of 17 November, saying:

"Young people who are lone parents or who are disabled benefit from special premiums introduced in the new scheme, but those young people who are not in special categories cannot be considered a priority for resources."

The letter mentions that Deborah failed to turn up to collect the special arrears of benefit. I put it to the Minister that it is not likely that a young woman in those circumstances who was offered £152 would not turn up to collect it. The reason was that the letter from the DSS was sent to the wrong address and she knew nothing about it. The Minister's letter also states:

"You will be pleased to learn that action to recover the social fund loan has been suspended until April when Deborah reaches the age of 18."

That is something for her to look forward to on her 18th birthday.

There are no villains in this case. Deborah is not responsible for the situation. She is a responsible, thrifty young woman who managed until 11 September by allocating her meagre resources carefully. The DSS in Sunderland has been extremely helpful; it is not the villain. The housing authority is doing its best to avoid eviction and it is not the villain. I would not suggest for one moment that the Minister and the Department are the villains, because they have attempted to help within the strict rules by which they are bound. They have all been victims of machinery which, once in motion, grinds inexorably on and which appears to be targeted against some of the poorest and least fortunate people in the land.

Surely Ministers have better things to do than to make life unbearable for a 17-year-old from a broken family who is doing her utmost to make ends meet in the face of great odds. The obvious solution is work—a job—but, in the land of more than 20 per cent. unemployment, that is not a realistic solution at the moment.

I have told the story of Deborah in the perhaps forlorn hope that it will arouse some twinges of conscience in Tory party supporters as they tuck into their Christmas dinners. Perhaps Tory Members will think more carefully before filing through the Lobby in support of the next turn of the screw; who knows?

What does the Minister think Deborah should do? She had 36p for food. Now that she does not have to repay the £2·91 a week that amount has increased to about £3·30. But how can she survive? I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in wishing Deborah a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year. I shall wish the Minister a happy Christmas, but I do not think that I need wish him a prosperous new year.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) for initiating this Adjournment debate, and I begin by paying tribute to him for the assiduous way in which he has represented the interests of his constituent in this matter.

It may help if I recapitulate the facts of the case before us. Deborah is 17, and was in receipt of income support until 11 September this year. On that date, as the House will know, the Government withdrew entitlement to income support for those 16 to 17-year-olds not in an exempt category. Those exemptions covered, for example, the disabled and single parents. We made available instead a bridging allowance of £15 per week, payable for a maximum of eight weeks in any 12 months. Bridging allowance is paid by the Department of Employment on condition that a young person is registered for and is awaiting a YTS place.

The changes that we made to the income support entitlement of 16 and 17-year-olds are, of course, linked to our guarantee of the offer of a YTS place to all in the age group who want one. Deborah Hall claimed bridging allowance and this was paid, but on 19 September she started a YTS place with the springboard media project and qualified for the YTS training allowance of £29·50 a week.

It is gratifying to note that Deborah is on YTS. YTS offers the young people of this country a real chance to make a good start in life and to get training for skills and a recognised qualification that should stand them in good stead for the future. It is a voluntary scheme in that young people can choose whether to take up a training place, a job or stay on at school or further education. Only the option of living off the state is not available to those who are capable of work and training, as this is not an option that we believe is in the longer-term interests of anyone, especially young people.

There are 428,000 16 and 17-year-olds currently taking advantage of the opportunities that YTS offers. Leaving aside the advantages for the future, which I have already mentioned, the great majority of those on such schemes are considerably better off financially, as the training allowance of £29·50 a week in the first year and £35 in the second is much higher than the appropriate income support rate in the age group, which is £19·40.

It is also worth mentioning that the decision to remove general benefit entitlement from 16 and 17-year-olds was not a cost-cutting measure. DSS savings are offset by an increase in expenditure on the YTS programme, and the overall effect is an increase in expenditure on the youth of this country—an investment with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree.

Although Deborah would have received the maximum housing benefit available—that is, 100 per cent. help with rent and 80 per cent. help with rates—when she was on income support and on the bridging allowance, when she obtained the YTS place, her housing benefit will have been recalculated to take into account her increased income. Under the new housing benefit system, the vast majority of the rules for calculating entitlement are common to income support and housing benefit.

The housing benefit system is designed to leave all tenants with at least their income support level to live on after meeting their eligible rent and rates. So Deborah's housing benefit will have been assessed by comparing her income with the basic personal allowance for a 16 or 17-year-old of £19·40 per week. This rate is common to both income support and housing benefit. The assessment is done using the standard housing benefit tapers of 65 per cent. for rent and 20 per cent. for rates. Therefore, Deborah receives housing benefit of £7·18 for rent and £1·65 for rates.

Before I make some general remarks about the system, I want to refer briefly to one further aspect of Deborah's case which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Deborah's mother applied for a single payment on her behalf last January. It was for towels, bedding and pots and pans, because Deborah had only recently obtained her tenancy and did not have those items. Unfortunately, the local office at the time had a very substantial backlog of cases to deal with because of a locally organised take-up campaign and her case was not dealt with until June. A single payment of £152 was then authorised.

Unfortunately—due, I think, to a misunderstanding between Deborah and the local office—it was never issued. That was not discovered until September, when the local office was considering the rescheduling of repayments on a subsequent loan from the social fund. Deborah has now received the single payment, and the local office has decided to defer, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, any further recovery of the loan until April, when Deborah reaches the age of 18.

I would be the first to acknowledge that the benefit system, especially as it affects young people living away from their family, does not give them a great deal to live on. However, it is important to explain why the system is structured as it is. The House will be aware, as I have already mentioned, that the new housing benefit system is essentially aligned with that for income support. The change was widely welcomed by outside commentators and results in a fairer and simpler structure. For the first time, all housing benefit cases are assessed on the basis of the same maximum entitlement to meet housing costs, so there is no need to introduce complexities into the scheme, such as the old housing benefit supplement.

The effect of the universal 100 per cent. start point for rent is to give more help where rents are unavoidably high, and, for the first time, full protection against reasonable rent rises for all those on benefit. Those changes, together with the fact that we now assess on net, not gross, income, justify the fact that we now withdraw help with rent faster as income rises.

I acknowledge that the fundamental reform of the system will have caused considerable differences in housing benefit entitlement at the point of change, because the payments were arbitrarily different before. That is why transitional payments were made available for those in vulnerable groups. I also acknowledge that the changes especially affect young householders. The reason is simply that, with the alignment of income support, and with the abolition of householder status within income support, both income support and housing benefit rates must reflect the characteristics of young people as a whole rather than differentiate between householders and non-householders.

The essential characteristic of young people, especially in the 16 to 17-year age group, is that they live at home with their parents. Therefore, the only way to help people like Deborah who live away from their parents would also be to give an incentive generally for people to move away from home. We recognise that there are circumstances in which people do have to move out, but we would not want to create such an incentive. Moreover, it is a basic principle of the benefit system that help should be targeted accurately on those who need it most. That means the old, the disabled, and families with children. That means also that young fit people without dependants have to be lower down our list of priorities.

I conclude by reiterating that we do have a real concern for this particular group of young people who, for one reason or another, cannot live at home. The Government have given a commitment to monitoring the effects of the reforms and we shall of course be looking at the effect the changes are having on this group as well as others. If changes are necessary, and if changes are sensible within the basic simpler structure, the Government will make them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the work of the Broomhills psychotherapy unit at Bexley hospital with the House and with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health. I had experience of his competence, concern and judgment when I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Ministry of Defence. I congratulate him on his new appointment and I wish him well in his key role.

The Broomhills unit is not in my constituency, nor is it within either of the health districts that cover the Sevenoaks constituency. My particular interest in its work arises because my wife, who has spent 30 years as a psychiatric social worker, is attached to Broomhills as the unit's social worker employed by Bexley council.

Having declared that interest, it should not, I hope, be held against my arguments, but rather viewed as one of the many ways in which hon. Members become interested, involved and knowledgeable about so many aspects of life in Britain.

Broomhills lies within the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), and friend he is. We nursed our respective seats together and entered the House together. We continue to work together on much common ground. The future of Broomhill is one example. He has asked me to say that he fully supports the points that I shall make today and I confirm that he has already been active in pursuing the objectives that I shall outline.

Broomhills is a therapeutic community, managed by Bexley health authority in the grounds of Bexley hospital on the border of greater London and Kent. It is located in the old medical superintendent's house on the perimeter of the hospital's grounds and has its own entrance. It provides facilities for up to 18 patients who stay at the unit from Monday to Friday, returning home at weekends.

Broomhills aims to help severely disturbed people to understand their problems and find more healthy and adaptive ways of dealing with their lives and relationships. Treatment is primarily, but not exclusively, psychodynamic. It takes place daily in community meetings, group psychotherapy, art therapy and individual sessions facilitated by appropriate members of the multidisciplinary staff team.

As a therapeutic community, the treatment concentrates not only on work in groups but on the aspects of daily life which offer opportunities for social learning. That form of treatment avoids the use of medicinal drugs. All the domestic work—shopping, cooking and cleaning—is carried out by the patients. There are no domestic staff, which keeps costs down and prepares people for a full return to the community.

Broomhills' staff work with a broad range of patients, including those suffering from various neurotic disorders, personality disorders, and what may be termed borderline psychoses. Typically, most patients referred to Broomhills have a long-standing psychiatric history that may include contact with general acute services through episodes of overdosing and self-mutilation.

The key point I make is that the object of this therapeutic community is to break the revolving door syndrome of more traditional interventions, so that readmission is rare and minimal psychiatric follow-up is needed. The success of that approach is shown by the fact that, over the past five years, eight out of 10 patients attending Broomhills have not required readmission or psychiatric aftercare.

I turn to the experiences and views of some of the patients themselves. I hope that my hon. Friend will find them interesting and worthwhile. All the Government's efforts at improving the Health Service are surely designed to improve delivery of services to the patients themselves. Therefore, I believe that the patients and their families should speak for themselves in the House today.

One former patient writes:

"Before arriving at Broomhills I had already been a patient in two hospitals. My treatment was ECT and tranquillisers. In the short term my treatment was successful. But as time passed on I was still unable to cope with my life. I feel that Broomhills worked because it was more of a common endeavour, therefore allowing patients to exhibit odd behaviour. I know by my experiences in an ordinary ward I would probably have received more pills for odd behaviour. But instead, with warmth and acceptance, I was able to release and work through difficult feelings. This was an extremely important part of my recovery. My quality of life is now far richer and I am able to live it less painfully. In fact, I can now move on to help others as a social work assistant. I know that if I had not had the chance to experience Broomhills, I would still be unable to cope with my life and still be dependent on the National Health Service. I feel privileged to have spent a year of my life in a place which holds so much warmth and commitment and in particular dedication from the staff. Broomhills is a valuable place."

Another former patient's mother writes:

"I am Anne's mother and I am writing on her behalf because she no longer lives here—in fact, she married a steady, reliable young man in July last year and they are buying a house … something I would have thought impossible at the time she came to you. It would appear that your help at that troubled period of Anne's life has contributed greatly to this change in her attitude of life."

Another former patient who is now a solicitor writes:

"I have personal knowledge of the value of the unit, having been a patient there for approximately 20 months two years ago. My stay at Broomhills provided me with, I believe, a very necessary respite … Since leaving Broomhills, I have started my own solicitors' practice, and also do some locum work. I have, amongst other things, learnt to drive. Quite to my surprise, I discovered an ability to design, make and sell … ceramic figurines. Having recommenced playing chess at Broomhills (after a gap of many years) … I have found that I am a fairly strong club player. Finally, I now do a significant amount of both paid and voluntary work for The Project for the Mentally Handicapped in Camberwell Road and at an ILEA youth club 'Fast Forward' in Peckham, both concerned with handicapped children and young adults. Broomhills was valuable to me in many ways. It provided me with a place where I could belong—it is not too strong to say it was, for me, a home in the best sense of the word—at a time when I felt desolate. That is not to say that it was easy to stay at Broomhills or that it was some sort of soft option—quite the reverse. Broomhills was for me a highly stressful place to be at, both because of the many, varied, and often conflicting personalities there, and because of the daily group and other work. On the other hand, since it was opened only during weekdays, and we patients went home from Friday afternoon until Monday morning, contact was not lost with life in 'the real world'. Indeed, such contact was encouraged … Broomhills is, after all, very much the sort of comunity orientated service that is apparently, as it should be, encouraged by the government."

Those letters speak for themselves. They make our case for us.

Broomhills also provides a valued and well-used training resource. Student and pupil nurses are regularly attached to the unit, and staff from other professional disciplines and agencies attend as part of their specialist training.

Hon. Members will have noted that the patient in my last example said that it was not easy to stay at Broomhills —that it was no soft option. Assuredly it is not. The assessment process is a very careful one, and is followed by a two-week trial period during which the patient stays at the unit. Commitment to use, to contribute to and abide by the rules of the community are absolute requirements for patients. Group pressure, guided and controlled by the staff with warmth and dedication, is the key factor in achieving long-term progress, and giving patients the ability to return to an active life in their communities is the end product.

What, then, is the present difficulty? Until now, Bexley has been the management organisation running Broomhills, and it continues to do so. Patients have been referred to it from Bexley, Greenwich and Lewisham, but Greenwich and Lewisham are now likely to withdraw their funding owing to financial constraints. For one district health authority to continue to fund a centre for 18 patients in such a specialist area would not continue to make sense. We now need to market the Broomhills unit. It is a very cost-effective service: a charge of £8,000 per patient for a treatment programme lasting approximately a year is astonishingly cheap compared with other similar units in other parts of the country, of which there are relatively few.

The staff of the unit, supported by Bexley health authority, have taken action to make the unit's work more widely known. My debate is part of that effort, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to set this type of work within the context of the Government's policy of care in the community for the mentally ill. Broomhills seems to me an ideally suited staging post; surely it must have an enlarging rather than a diminishing role.

So many times in recent months we have debated changes in arrangements—for tests on teeth and eyes, family allowances or social security benefits—and I have supported the Government. Those changes have been designed to ensure that those in the most need are given support and provided with effective treatment. Improved National Health Service structures and pressure to improve management effectiveness have all been designed as part of Government policy to target funds on those who need them most.

May I summarise the key factors that make the Broomhills unit unusual and say why it should become a facility that is supported by and made available to health authorities and their patients throughout the south-east region and other parts of London. A patient goes all the way from the midlands to Broomhills on a weekly basis. That is possible because a weekly residential system is used. It is a rare residential facility for emotionally damaged people. It falls outside the mainstream of the normal treatment for mental illness. These people suffer from severe depression, crippling anxiety states, suicide attempts, self-mutilation and neurosis. The five-day week discourages institutionalism, maintains contact with families and the community and is part of community care. Patients learn to understand their deep-seated problems through group work and through the rest of the programme. Drugs are not used—a great financial saving, as well as avoiding the problems of addiction that occur in other people who are undergoing long-term drug therapy. I have already said that readmission is rare, either to Broomhills or to other psychiatric units. Patients learn to live together and run the unit completely for themselves. Surely that is good and sensible practice. It leads to their return to the community and, as I have been able to read out with some excitement today, to a return to valued work by many ex-patients. Again I emphasise that it is a very low-cost unit.

The staffing levels, because of the involvement of patients and because treatment does not have to be provided on a one-to-one basis, are low and help to keep costs down. The training facility, too, is important. It is used for training nurses and social workers and for training art therapists, psychologists and psychotherapists.

After leaving Broomhills, patients often return to their old jobs, or find new ones. Some seek retraining through disablement resettlement officers and the resettlement training schemes. Others return to interrupted university or college studies, while others have started GCSE courses as adult entrants so that they may qualify for places later in polytechnics. There are a few similar facilities in the London area—at Henderson hospital, the Cassel hospital, the Ingham centre and to some extent the Maudsley hospital, but Broomhills has its own contribution to make. It is a uniquely useful contribution that should be made more widely available and that should not run the risk of closure.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) for his kind words on my new appointment. I look forward to being closely involved with the challenges facing the Health Service at the national level, but I am also well aware that, locally, plans for the delivery of services can be very sensitive. That is shown by, among other things, the large number of debates on local health issues. I think that I shall be a frequent visitor to the Dispatch Box. I think that this week I have already appeared at the Dispatch Box more often than I did during the months that I spent as a Ministry of Defence Minister.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks on securing this Adjournment debate. I know that he is very assiduous in pursuing the interests of his constituents in local health matters in debates and in correspondence with my ministerial colleagues. I quite understand that he is raising not simply a constituency matter, but a much wider regional issue. They are very important matters and I am pleased that he has had the opportunity to raise them. It must surely be a mark of a civilised society, with all the pressures and strains on our citizens, that we are able properly to deal with those with mental illness and to return them to the community to play an active role, if that is possible. The National Health Service has a very important part to play in that process.

The work of the Broomhills unit and its future have been brought to Ministers' attention not only by my hon. Friend, but during the past few months by correspondence from my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) in whose constituency the unit lies, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes). I have received correspondence from those right hon. and hon. Members recently, and following this Adjournment debate I shall be writing to them more fully.

It might be helpful if I first say something about policy on the planning of psychotherapy services. Psychotherapy services can range from any form of psychological treatment without drugs to very specialised treatment such as that being provided at Broomhills. Most psychotherapy treatment is provided not by designated psychotherapists but by various mental health professionals as part of their general work. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Department of Health to prescribe a particular organisation of psychotherapy services. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with that. It is a matter for clinical judgment, not ministerial directive, as to how mentally ill patients should be treated. It is up to individual district health authorities to develop their own models of how patients should be treated and make available the necessary resources. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about emphasising the importance of the patient. The patient must come first. In this case we are dealing with mentally ill patients, a very important part of the wide spectrum of patients treated by the National Health Service which should always be orientated towards patient care. The patient is first and last on our list of priorities.

I repeat that it must be for individual health authorities to develop their own model of service, taking into account the local demand and the resources available. The major need for psychotherapy comes from those who are best treated on a day case or out-patient basis, although a very small number need in-patient psychotherapy treatment. The trend in local provision of services therefore appears to be away from in-patient treatment to community provision on a district basis. I understand that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has been developing a document recommending a full district-based psychotherapy service.

The work of the Broomhills unit, which my hon. Friend has described so well, has to be considered within that context. As my hon. Friend has explained, the future of the unit is jeopardised by the fact that Greenwich health authority and Lewisham and North Southwark health authority have decided to develop their own psychotherapy services. I do not criticise those health authorities for doing that. They are following the trend which I have explained. Greenwich, which has been the main user of the unit, referring about seven to 10 patients per year, is developing community-based services for mentally ill people based on new mental health centres, which will provide psychotherapy. Lewisham and North Southwark has referred only six patients to Broomhills in the last five years. It has its own 12-bed psychotherapy community ward at Guy's hospital. It is planning to increase psychotherapy consultant services by four more in February 1989 and is very much advocating community psychotherapy in the future.

Only last month Bexley health authority, which manages the Broomhills unit, published a consultative document on the future organisation of mental illness services in the district. In that document it saw the development of psychotherapy as being integrated into the mainstream of community services. The document also details a service in which hospital-based care will be part of a wider range of community and residential facilities, leading to an accessible and flexible service. The plan recognises that most individuals with mental health problems are already managed in the community by general practitioners, families and other carers and it is proposed that their contribution should be fully recognised and supported.

I stress that the psychotherapy services in general in those districts are not being lost. Rather they are being developed in an alternative way on a more local basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that, as he and I believe that there are many different ways of treating patients in this area. That is not to belittle what the Broomhills unit does—perhaps it underlines its contribution.

It is recognised that the Broomhills unit provides a service that is not widely available. I recognise that it is committed to the multi-disciplinary team approach to treating disturbed people. The unit bears the imprint of Dr. Edward Herst, the consultant psychiatrist, and I pay tribute to him and all members of his staff for their expertise and the valuable service that they provide.

For those reasons, Bexley health authority wishes the unit to continue if there is a demand for its services. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that it would be unreasonable for Bexley to continue to run the unit for only a few patients. That would not be cost-effective. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the health authority on its positive action in marketing the unit to the four Thames regional health authorities to see whether there is a wider demand for its services. That is a sensible, positive and constructive step. I have seen the authority's information leaflet and am very impressed with it. The authority's actions have the full support of staff at the unit. I, too, hope that there is a favourable response from other health authorities to this vigorous marketing. It is a good example of the entrepreneurial approach that we wish in the NHS.

I understand that responses have been requested by 20 January next year. If those efforts are unsuccessful, I have been told that Bexley will consider approaching authorities outside the Thames regions. I am convinced that Bexley health authority is doing its utmost to ensure the continuation of the unit.

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the timetable involved and Bexley's readiness to be flexible in looking for a wider market than the one it initially circulated. But there may be a problem with the timing. There was some administrative delay in producing the brochure—one can understand how that happens—and 30 days may not be long enough to obtain a response. We may need a little longer.

I fully understand that.

If the district is not as successful in its marketing strategy as we would all hope, it will be for the district to decide what level and type of psychotherapy service it should provide, and it would be wrong for me to anticipate any such decision now. However, it is clear that Bexley health authority, the South East Thames regional health authority and fellow hon. Members all want the unit to continue, and Bexley health authority has been active in trying to secure the support necessary from other health authorities. I hope that it is successful and that it takes the time necessary to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks fully and comprehensively described the unit. He will appreciate the many pressures on my time, but I shall arrange soon to visit Bexley health authority and the Broomhills unit.

I take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a happy Christmas. I also wish my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks, his constituents and those at the Broomhill unit a happy Christmas and prosperous and healthy new year.

I join in that salutation to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and add my mourning to that already expressed about the tragic air crash. It is something with which those of us who are about to take off for India, Hong Kong and Australia identify. We deeply mourn what has happened to others and pray that it will not be a precedent.

The debate, which I am glad to be able to instigate, concerns the vetting of employees who are seeking work or who are at work. My hon. Friends and I who are concerned about this subject accept that vetting is proper for security matters, but believe that it should be done in an intelligent and recognised way by those who are responsible; it is a Government job to vet people on security grounds.

When vetting people who are seeking work, employers are entitled to exercise their powers of discrimination but not to discriminate on the grounds of sex, race or trade union membership. It is wrong for them to turn to private, secret shadowy organisations such as the Economic League, which hoards information that it does not allow any independent organisation to see. I hope that, as a result of today's debate, the Government will institute an independent inquiry into the operation of such organisations, especially the Economic League.

The Economic League is known to be the key organisation in this sector. I am pleased to say that, at its meeting yesterday, the Select Committee on Employment laid on the table a letter received by hand from the Economic League dated 20 December. I have spoken to Mr. Michael Noar, the Economic League's director general, who has no objection to it being placed before the House. The letter refers to subscribers but says that the Economic League does not publish a list of them; it is secret. It is known that many of the subscribers are major companies and that none of them subscribes to any political party other than the Conservative party. Many of the 2,000 companies that Mr. Noar says belong to the organisation do not declare their gifts to this evil organisation but launder them, and I ask the Government to conduct an independent inquiry to investigate its funding.

The debate is not about Reds creeping out from under the bed or, as Mr. Noar suggests, a "Communist-backed campaign" against the Economic League. I have been accused of much wickedness, but never of being Communist or Communist-backed.

It is extraordinary to consider the people who have been pinpointed by this organisation. Among hon. Members are my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), a well-known militant; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who told me that it has a file on him because in 1972 he addressed a meeting of War Resisters International, but he can think of more wicked ways to behave than that; my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who is not exactly on the far Left of any party; and that well-known extremist, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). Ninety per cent. of those who are known to be on the list because of leakages are Left-wing activists. I shudder to think what the list says about you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I do not wish to give anything away, but in the same letter Mr. Noar said:

"any individual who believes that he or she may appear in the League's records is free to check with us and be told precisely what information, if any, is held."

I applied and was told that the Economic League was fairly sure that there was nothing on the computer, but if I sent £10 an official search would be conducted. The league's letter said, in words to this effect, "We keep a list of Labour Members of Parliament and that is all that appears to be there about you."

I asked Mr. Noar whether it was possible to obtain copies of the Economic League's information and was told that that was much too expensive but might be done if individuals requested it. I appeal to any member of the public, trade unionist or hon. Member who feels strongly that people should not be subjected to the scrutiny of advisers and company spies who hide behind a well-financed organisation of this sort to ask what is held on him or her. It is difficult to find out what goes on, but there have been some inquiries.

Among those who have been defamed and whose lives have been made thoroughly wretched because of the disclosures is Mr. Kenneth Williamson, chairman of a campaign to stop an Oxford hospital for the elderly from being closed, who was on the list as a troublemaker. Mr. Sydney Scroggie, a blind pensioner from Dundee who wrote a letter to his local newspaper supporting Edinburgh city council's decision to buy—this is very wicked—a portrait of Nelson Mandela, was also on the list. Richard Stokes, a former personnel manager who was approached by an Economic League official while working for Glaxo, was told:

"The important thing really is to make sure that they didn't omit any subversives."

There does not seem to be any concern about the lives, work and jobs of innocent people on the list and the damage done to them.

Mr. Stokes noted that Dame Olga Ovarov CBE, a distinguished veterinary scientist who worked for Glaxo, was on the list. When he asked why, he received this reply: "anybody with a Russian name would come under scrutiny." I wonder whether that would hold true today. I look back at my ancestors and am glad that my name does not sound Russian.

A former regional director of the league, Mr. Richard Brett, said that he thought that the league's central register was "chaotic" and "more fiction than fact". Presumably, reputable companies go to the league for information. I wonder whether they realise that the register which is consulted is "chaotic" and "more fiction than fact".

A solicitor, Derek Ogg, was branded an "anarchist" because he was the editor of a fringe magazine on sale in anarchist bookshops apparently aimed at Edinburgh's gay community. He had a very sinister political involvement —he was a member of the Conservative party. Indeed, he was a candidate in the regional and district council elections and was chairman of the Young Conservatives in his constituency for two magnificent years. He, too, was on the list.

I wonder whether the Minister is on the list. In charge as he is of tourism, he brings in people from east European countries. I know that, in his hidden way, he has been helping to get tourists to come here from Communist China. He should carefully look at what the Economic League has on him. I invite him, as part of his independent inquiry, to ask about himself. There are one or two very doubtful characters on the Conservative Benches behind him who are probably also on the list. If the league knew a little of what I know about them, their political reputation might be harmed. One is a member of the Institute of Personnel Management and the other is a member of a Select Committee—it would be a sub-committee anywhere else—who agrees with me on occasions

A 1986 official publication of the Economic League entitled "Companies under Attack" identifies a range of organisations that are

"unduly influenced by political aims"

and therefore virtually Communist fronts. These include the Anti-Apartheid Movement, and such extreme left-wing bodies as Oxfam, War on Want, Christian Aid and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.

This organisation is effectively and seriously inefficient, chaotic and rotten, and sensible companies should not waste shareholders' money upon it. Shareholders should demand that the companies in which they are involved do not pour money into it. It is a pernicious, insidious, modern McCarthyite body which haunts the shadows of the world of industrial relations, causing damage which it cannot prove to innocent people's reputations.

If the Data Protection Act 1974 extended—alas, it does not—to non-automatically processed personnel data, access might be obtained. We know—because it has told us—that the league keeps automatically processed data to a minimum. There is no way in which we can find out what it has on us.

As a Christmas gesture of good will to innocent, good people seeking jobs in the new year, will the Government undertake—I seek no more than that—to examine the possibility of an inquiry, sparked off by the Department of Employment? That would reassure the public and the shareholders whose money has been put into the organisation, often without their knowledge. Also, hopefully it would put an end to wicked political vetting that is done secretly by private organisations, as opposed to proper vetting done publicly by those whose job it is to do so and who are responsible to the public if they make a mistake that causes harm.

I wish to associate myself with the expressions of sympathy for the victims of the tragic air disaster.

This debate is about human rights. Individuals should be able to apply for a job and be judged on accurate information and not, as seems to be happening according to articles in newspapers such as The Observer and the Financial Times—hardly Left-wing journals—on inaccurate, secret and biased information. Such a procedure is even more insidious and more dangerous to society than salmonella in eggs. We need, from the Department of Employment, somebody with the courage of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) to stand up for those who are so disadvantaged.

In the north-west, 6,000 people are on the Economic League black list and the figures of companies involved range from 300 to 200. It is all too easy in an area with high unemployment, where many people are applying for jobs, to reject an applicant without looking too deeply into whether information on which a decision is based is accurate. If people are being adjudged, they have a fundamental right to know that the information about them is accurate. If the information is wrong, there should be a state apparatus that allows one to defend one's rights and honour.

I hope that the Minister will at some time enshrine in legislation the employee protection—for prospective employees and those already in employment. A meaningful step forward would be to extend the Data Protection Act 1984 to files and card indexes. One of the insidious features of the Economic League is that, although it honours the letter of the law, it defiles its spirit. That is why we must seek redress. I am concerned that companies can avoid telling their shareholders and customers that they are contributing to an organisation such as the Economic League.

Perhaps the real subversives are those who, under the cloak of freedom and defence of democracy, charge people, find them guilty and condemn them, without the individual having the right to answer the charge. That is the real subversion of the British way of life and of everything for which this House stands.

First, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a very happy Christmas, even though I do not give you mistletoe as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) did. Nevertheless, my good wishes are sincere.

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising this matter. It is an important issue on which there has been a good deal of misunderstanding of late. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the issues that are involved and to state clearly the Government's position.

Essentially, there are two aspects that we must consider. The first aspect is the way in which employers decide which individuals to recruit to their businesses, and that is a matter for the Department of Employment. The second aspect is the collection and storage of personal data, where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the main interest.

There have been suggestions that the employment service might have made use of information held by the Economic League before submitting job applicants to an employer. I wish to make it clear at the outset that it is not the policy of the employment service—nor has it ever been —to use the services of the Economic League or of any similar organisation. Employers place vacancies with the employment service and the function of the service is to assess the suitability of a potential applicant to carry out the activities of the job in question.

I shall clarify the obligations of employers when they decide to recruit someone to their business. Provided that they do not offend the laws against race or sex discrimination, they are free to choose how to go about selecting and recruiting new employees. There is nothing odd about that. After all, it is employers who know their own businesses best. It is reasonable that they should be able to choose who they wish to employ. They may, for example, decide to seek information on an individual from an independent source. I see nothing wrong with that. It is a generally accepted practice that prospective employees should supply a reference from, among others, their former employer as to their suitability for a certain job.

There is another important reason why employers should have the freedom to recruit who and how they wish. Too many restrictions would add to the burdens on business and tend to make employers reluctant to take on new recruits. We know that that would have a disastrous effect on new employment opportunities and the unemployed.

There are organisations such as the Economic League that have set themselves up as providers of information, and there is nothing unlawful about that. Equally, there is nothing unlawful about employers choosing to use such information to reach recruitment decisions if that is what they wish to do.

Will my hon. Friend say whether it is lawful to give false and malicious information?

I shall come to that. I ask my hon. Friend to bear with me.

My previous remarks do not mean that there are no restrictions on the activities of organisations such as the Economic League. Those who provide this sort of information bear a heavy responsibility to ensure that it is accurate. Equally, employers who use such information should satisfy themselves of its quality and accuracy, perhaps by asking for a second opinion from a reliable source.

As I have said, it is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary who has the main responsibility for data protection considerations. However, I shall attempt to explain the current legislation and I shall ensure that any points with which I am unable to deal are brought to the attention of my colleagues in the Home Office.

For individuals who believe that information that is held about them on computer is incorrect, extensive remedies are available under data protection legislation. As hon. Members will know, all data users who hold and process personal data are required automatically to register with the Data Protection Registrar. Data subjects have the right of access to data about them on payment of a fee of up to £10 a record. The registrar will assist any individual who has a complaint against a data user and will investigate any case in which he considers that the data protection principles have been infringed. He may issue an enforcement notice to the data user, who has a right of appeal to the data protection tribunal and thence the courts. Some data users who have not registered have been prosecuted.

It is true that data protection legislation does not cover manually held records, and I shall return to that point in a moment. At this stage, I want to clarify what remedies already exist. In addition to the statutory right that I have outlined, it would be open to someone who has evidence of misinformation being supplied about him to mount an action for damages in the civil courts.

The Opposition have made a number of suggestions about what the Government might do to deal with what they perceive to be a problem. It has been suggested that the Government should set up a review of employers' recruitment and vetting practices, but I am not clear how such a review would help us. The Government believe that employers must have the freedom to decide how to recruit to their work force, providing that they respect the laws on sexual and racial discrimination. Employers have always been free to take up confidential references on prospective employees, and there is nothing wrong with that. It is employers who can best decide how to achieve their recruitment objectives.

If people can go to court on a civil action, as my hon. Friend said, can they receive legal aid and, if not, are the Government considering offering it?

With great respect, that is not a question that I have the immediate knowledge to answer. I shall see that an answer is obtained, and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

New legislation on these matters is neither necessary nor desirable.

Another suggestion is that the activities of supplies of information should be regulated. Legislation would be necessary to make it an offence for an individual or organisation to supply false information to an employer on a prospective employee or to supply information without the knowledge of that employee. The legislation, therefore, would require the organisation to inform the individual concerned to give him or her the opportunity to correct any inaccuracies. That is an impracticable suggestion because the proposal is patently unenforceable, and unenforceable law is bad law.

Another proposal is that the use by employers of information provided by organisations such as the Economic League should be regulated. It has been suggested that that could be done by requiring employers who propose to use such information to inform job applicants that such information is being sought. Again, that is a wholly impracticable and undesirable suggestion. I have already made it clear that the Government's view is that employers should be free to decide whom to recruit, provided they do not break the law on sexual or racial discrimination. Again, I doubt whether such provisions could be enforced, and there is no point in having an unenforceable law.

It has been suggested that it should be made illegal to discriminate against people on the basis of their political or religious views, in the same way that it is illegal to discriminate against people on the grounds of sex or race. I must emphasise that the Government are opposed to any form of unfair discrimination. Such discrimination is not only morally wrong, but economically stupid. Employers should recruit the best person for the job.

The Government's policy on discrimination on the basis of race or sex is backed by legislation because the scale of the problem merited such action. It is not clear that there is widespread abuse, in terms of political or religious discrimination, that would merit specific legislation, although discrimination in general is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I have dealt with suggestions that would affect employment law. I come now to the suggestion that the data protection legislation is defective, in that it does not cover manually held records and that that loophole should be remedied. I understand from correspondence in the past 24 hours that the Economic League is considering computerising some of its records.

Oh?

I understood that a letter setting out that possibility had been conveyed to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and a copy was sent to me. I shall show it to the hon. and learned Gentleman after the debate.

I have already made it clear that this is a matter not for me but for my Home Office colleagues. Have Opposition Members really thought about the practicalities of the suggestion? It is relatively straightforward to give someone a printout of computerised information, as it usually consists of specific items of information in summary form. Moreover, the Data Protection Act provides safeguards in relation to information held on computer, requiring it to be relevant, accurate and not excessive in relation to the purpose for which it is held.

Imagine the difficulties in providing for a system of access to manual records analogous to that provided for data processed automatically. Manual files relating to individuals would have to be weeded to ensure that the subject saw only information relevant to him. It would he necessary to provide accommodation to enable him to read the file and supervision might be necessary to ensure that nothing was removed or altered. Thus, the resource costs involved would be considerable.

Computerised data can be sought and transmitted very easily and speedily. That was one of the main considerations that led first to the provisions in the European convention on the protection of individuals dealing with automatic processing of personal data and subsequently to our domestic data protection legislation. The same does not apply to manual records.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West made a number of allegations, and similar allegations have been made in the media and elsewhere. It is certainly not for me to defend the activities of an independent organisation, but I should like to place on record that, following the "World in Action" programme in February 1987, the Home Secretary asked North Yorkshire police to investigate the allegations that the Economic League had access to police information. No evidence was produced to support those allegations, and Home Office Ministers do not consider that any further police investigation of the league is warranted following allegations made in subsequent programmes. The Data Protection Registrar also received a number of complaints and discussed with the league the general question of the use of personal information. No evidence was discovered of any offence under the Data Protection Act.

I shall conclude—

Before the Minister moves on, will he be kind enough to consider my request—the only request that I have made—that he consult the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Employment as to whether an independent inquiry could be set up? Someone independent could then go in and look at the files of the organisation and satisfy the Government, if it was the case, that there was no impropriety. I would hope that the league would not object and that the Government would do that. If the Government will not do it, there must be some reason that I am sure the Minister would not wish to contemplate.

I shall consider the hon. and learned Gentleman's request and convey our conclusions to him in due course.

I want to conclude by saying something about the state of industrial relations, as the debate concerns the effects on industrial relations of employers' recruitment practice. Over the nine years that have elapsed since the Government came to power, the number of days lost through strikes has decreased dramatically. The figures for 1987 show that 3·5 million days were lost in that way compared with almost 27·5 million in 1979. It is clear that the Government's policies—particularly the step-by-step trade union reforms—have contributed significantly to the new realism that has become the dominant feature of our industrial relations.

I have already referred briefly to the effects of excessive regulation on employment opportunities. I emphasise that once more by drawing attention to the most recent unemployment figures, which show that unemployment is at its lowest since April 1981. Long-term unemployment is at its lowest level for more than five years and is falling faster than unemployment generally. As an hon. Member who represents one of the regions, I find it most encouraging that unemployment in the regions has fallen very fast—I am thinking particularly of the fall in unemployment in the midlands, Wales and the north-west.

The number of job vacancies registered at jobcentres has remained high throughout the year. Indeed, we calculate that, presently, about 700,000 job opportunities are available. I am convinced that our deregulation policy has significantly contributed to that improvement. Sweeping away unnecessary red tape has helped create conditions in which enterprise can flourish and employers are encouraged to recruit.

I can only conclude that the sort of proposals for further legislation which we have heard about would represent a return to the stifling red tape which we have so successfully removed, and that they would have only a detrimental effect on employment opportunities.

The purpose of this debate is to draw attention, by the use of a particular example, to a set of general propositions that I hope will engage the interest of the Minister, to whom I am grateful for his courtesy in responding to this debate at a time when even Ministers must be thinking wistfully that it would be better to be at home.

Present policies and attitudes towards the environment must change immediately, or the grandchildren of today's policy makers stand a real chance of never having grandchildren. This is one of the last debates before Christmas, and I believe that it would be a remarkably fine Christmas present, both to this country and to the world, if we could be assured that—following the Prime Minister's growing interest in this subject—the Department of the Environment, and the Government generally, would take a much more positive role in protecting the environment and in changing public attitudes towards it.

The Government have a truly remarkable record of raising the British people's standards of living, and they are right to be proud of that. Now they must ensure that a much higher proportion of this nation's growing affluence is spent on ensuring that future generations, here and in other parts of the world, have something left to enjoy—and, indeed, are here to enjoy it.

In less than 90 years, our world has already warmed up by 0·5 deg. C. That does not sound very much, but it is enough to cause anxiety. The record for the warmest year in global surface air temperatures has been broken four times in this decade alone—in 1980, 1981, 1983 and 1987. If it continues to do so at the present projected rate, Bangladesh, among other countries, will entirely disappear and many thousands of British citizens will be made homeless by flooding around the major estuaries and elsewhere.

It is a matter of will to do something about it. By the year 2020, the developed nations could reduce per capita energy consumption by as much as 50 per cent. That would, of course, dramatically alter the present position, which I believe to be almost obscene, of 15 per cent. of the world's population consuming 85 per cent. of the world's energy.

On the whole, huge Government programmes involving millions of pounds are not the answer. The individual must be directly involved and the best way to do that is through his or her personal bill. Water privatisation is a step in the right direction. Water will cost each of us, as consumers, more than it has in the past. Provided those higher charges are spent on preventing pollution from reaching the sources of supply and on preventing our sewage from poisoning the earth and sea, consumers will understand. We need to do the same for electricity.

It is obscene that the power generating industries should be permitted to contribute as much acidity—or more—to the atmosphere than any comparable industry in the developed world. Our plans for controlling CEGB power stations' emissions are too feeble and much too slow. The price of electricity must include the price of protecting the atmosphere, and the Department of the Environment has a duty to become involved.

The same is true of cars. It should be illegal to build or sell a new car in Britain which is not fitted with a catalytic converter or similar device. I am about to replace my car, and I shall make sure that my new car is appropriately adapted.

We know that our cars poison people, animals and trees, but we scarcely seem to care. Tax incentives to buy lead-free petrol are one small step in the right direction, but the hill of poison on which that little step has been taken is growing so steep so quickly that such a little step will scarcely be noticed.

Protecting the environment makes sense, not only in humane terms but in financial terms. Many of the hundreds of millions of pounds now being spent on rehabilitating the inner cities are needed because hundreds of millions of pounds were spent by earlier Governments on bribing businesses to leave the inner cities for green field sites outside. Their work forces followed and left behind only those least able to make a success of inner-city life.

One of the most exciting projects of which I have heard recently is one in which the Government have given Professor Alice Coleman a sum of money to put into effect her idea that many of the features that cause crime and anti-social behaviour can be designed out of housing estates. She has for a long time been a passionate champion of building more houses in the inner cities rather than on green field sites outside.

Just as families contain more than one generation, so does society. We have no business to condemn our grandchildren to an overheated, aluminium-saturated world of fishless lakes and treeless forests where no birds sing. If that is true—I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me in principle—it means that every development needs to be looked at with fresh eyes.

Take British Rail's proposal to run a new high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel. Of course, I have a constituency axe to grind. My constituency contains a large part of Kent's only area of outstanding natural beauty—the national designation which stands second only to a national park. Through it runs the Pilgrims' way, hallowed for centuries by pilgrims visiting Thomas á Becket's tomb in Canterbury and still a resort of those seeking physical recreation or spiritual solace.

The villages along that face of the north downs are distinguished by their beauty and antiquity and the fierce pride with which they are cared for in the face of all modern pressures to deface them. For millions of people all over the world they represent the spirit of Kent: ancient settlements built on a human scale. Now they are all threatened by British Rail's proposed corridor for routes 1 and 2. New trains are intended to race along new tracks at 186 mph, emitting a sound comparable to that of a low-flying jet, well in excess of the highest noise levels permitted in factories by the Health and Safety Executive. The hope may be that we shall get used to it. Perhaps we shall. The trains will run every seven minutes.

We do not know how much noise the new trains will emit, because, six weeks away from deciding which route to follow, British Rail still has not been able to tell us. As far as I can see, it retained its expert only a few short weeks ago. I shall not weary my hon. Friend with details of the incompetence with which British Rail has presented its proposals to the people of Kent. It is well enough known for even British Rail's chairman to admit to me in a letter that it has led to a loss of confidence in British Rail.

To describe it in such mild terms is like describing the fall of Jericho as a case of wall fatigue. Suffice it to say that those living alongside routes 1 and 2 will not accept a high-speed train weaving in and out of an area of outstanding natural beauty, slicing through their villages on tracks that will often be a considerable distance from existing lines, wrecking houses, and destroying not only areas of special landscape importance but also a site of special scientific interest.

We are profoundly sceptical of British Rail's traffic projections, and contemptuous of its admissions that it has neither walked the route nor consulted modern maps. It will be remembered that in my constituency there is a new housing estate of whose existence British Rail was so unaware, because it had not bothered to walk the route, that it is now having to negotiate compensation terms with the estate's builder. We are angered beyond belief at the way in which British Rail presented its proposals for a £1·5 billion project, using techniques so amateurish that they would bring public contempt upon a small shopkeeper were he to use them to allay anxiety among his neighbours in the village street.

If Kent is not to be defiled by intolerable noise, physical disruption and unplanned consequential development, we need help—and we need it fast. For five months, thousands of home owners have lived under blight. We now face the prospect of being forced to accept British Rail's largest ever capital project, not on its merits but to rescue a number of home owners blighted by the proposal.

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister—and of all the Ministers in this Government, with his record in local government he scarcely needs reminding—that British Rail's proposals have been made by a state monopoly that has not thought them through, but that may get away with them because there is no alternative source of advice. What a strange situation for this Government, of all Conservative Governments, to find themselves in.

There should be established immediately an independent, multi-disciplinary body, possibly with advice from Swiss or German railways, say, who have at least built railway lines this century, to evaluate British Rail's proposals and the objections to them. At present, there exists only a process whereby angry, frightened laymen —albeit that they are often intelligent and well informed —try to take on a state monopoly that controls the flow of information and has a vested interest in gettings its own way.

I remind the Minister that the last large-scale technological project in which British Rail was involved was the advanced passenger train—a project that tilted into extinction after years of work and the expenditure of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money. I ask my hon. Friend urgently to consider my suggestion. It would be usable for other future rail projects and perhaps for other purposes. My hon. Friend may say that those matters are for his right hon. and hon. Friends responsible for transport and not for him. I beg to differ. They are almost as much a matter for him as for Transport Ministers. I am dismayed that questions about the environment have been referred to Transport Ministers for attention only because they concern a train.

The Secretary of State for the Environment has a direct responsibility for areas of outstanding natural beauty and sites of special scientific interest, and for the quality of the environment in general. He has, or he ought to have, an interest in how much noise is allowed to defile the countryside and in whether an undertaking shall be allowed to destroy natural springs—perhaps up to 10 per cent. of Kent's water supply—or threaten the purity of the water supply with track-cleaning chemicals and other pollutants.

I return to the point with which I began. My hon. Friend must take a direct interest in the nature of the world that we shall hand to future generations. British Rail wants its new train to travel at 186 mph. That will save a bare five minutes on the journey between London and Dover, but those five minutes demand a much noisier train running on tracks that cannot deviate to avoid a building, a natural feature or a collection of homes of especial value. How shall we account to our grandchildren if, as we travel ever further and faster to broaden our experience, the very devices that we use to achieve those speeds and distances ensure that there is nothing left to experience when we arrive at our destinations?

I should like my hon. Friend to declare, on this last parliamentary day of the old year, that he is prepared seriously to consider taking five minutes longer on a journey if by doing so he will help to preserve the environment in which we and our children live.

Let me take this opportunity of wishing my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Department a very happy Christmas and an environmentally conscious new year.

May I reciprocate my hon. Friend's good wishes immediately? I hope that 1989 is also a good year for him and his constituents.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising these important issues. The state of the environment is very much in the forefront of people's minds at present, but is not something to which the Government have only just turned their attention. We have consistently demonstrated our concern to protect the environment during our time in office, and in the past two years have quickened the pace of our environmental initiatives to tackle such problems as atmospheric and marine pollution. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's strong commitment to the protection and enhancement of our environment in a speech to the Royal Society on 27 September, in which she described it as

"one of the greatest challenges of the late 20th century".

In this country, we are fortunate in enjoying high standards of environmental quality, not least because of the significant improvements that have been secured in recent times. That does not mean that further improvements must not be secured. My hon. Friend referred to the reduction of lead in the air as a result of cars being converted to take unleaded petrol. He said that he was setting an example by opting for unleaded fuel, and I am able to tell him that I have made a similar transition already this year. Most Government cars will be converted to take unleaded fuel. That is just a small example of the changes that must be made if we are to continue to enhance our environment.

We live in an industrial world, and to maintain and improve our standard of living we need factories, roads, power stations and, indeed, railway lines. It is naive to suggest that they can be provided without some consequence to the natural environment. Almost all development is subject to the planning system, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that system is not blind to its duty to balance the need for development with the need to maintain the natural environment. An essential task for Government, local authorities and all public agencies concerned in the planning system is to ensure that adequate provision for development and economic growth is coupled with the effective conservation of the landscape, its wildlife and natural resources.

An important part of our natural heritage is safeguarded by a network of statutory designations: national nature reserves, sites of special scientific interest, areas of outstanding natural beauty and the like. In built-up areas local authorities can designate conservation areas where special attention must be paid to the desirability of preserving and enhancing the area's character and appearance. We have introduced the requirement for environmental assessment of major development projects, and our system of public inquiries ensures that the environmental implications of major schemes are fully considered before decisions are made.

I recognise the particular concerns of the people of Kent. Their proximity to London, the M25 and the Channel tunnel means that they are subject to a unique series of development pressures. It is clear that many people wish to live in Kent, and it is not possible to respond to all those development pressures without some changes affecting both the built and the natural environment.

My hon. Friend is aware that the future of development in Kent came under close scrutiny in July, when the second review and alterations to the Kent structure plan were examined in public over a period of four weeks. The existing structure plan contains policies for the protection of the countryside, and the coast and the built environment. Amended built environment policies are included in the second review of the structure plan. While my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is too early for me to comment on the outcome of the structure plan review at the present time, he will of course take comfort from the fact that Kent's proposals left the countryside and coast policies unchanged.

Now, on top of other development pressures, Kent finds itself the subject of proposals for a high-speed rail link between the tunnel and central London. It is particularly unfortunate that the publication of British Rail's report on long-term route and terminal capacity for Channel tunnel train services should have given rise to a detailed discussion of the effects of specific track alignment and the effect upon individual properties, rather than British Rail's intention that the discussion should be broadly based and concerned with the relative merits and the environmental importance of three route corridors.

As my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport said in an Adjournment debate on 2 December, to which I was pleased to be able to listen, the routes shown on the map should be taken not as representing specific alignments but only as a general indication of the areas through which the alternative routes might pass. The choice of which route should be adopted and its precise alignment cannot be determined without further detailed design work and wider public discusson.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that any more specific discussion at this stage would be premature and inappropriate. British Rail is some way off deciding which route corridor might be chosen, but even when a route through one corridor is firmly proposed, there will still be the opportunity for further discussion on precise alignment within the corridor.

Inevitably, the publication by British Rail of its report has given rise to the utmost anxiety, and in some cases to distress and hardship, for people in Kent, including many of my hon. Friend's constituents. I can understand why some people may think that British Rail was wrong to publish its report in the way that it did, but had it not done so it would have been justifiably criticised for lack of openness and consultation. The fact that British Rail chose to reveal the options that it had under consideration and to consult widely among local authorities and others is in line with a process of open consideration of major planning issues that has been widely encouraged by all those with concern for the environment for more than two decades.

It is the process of prior consultation that exposes to rigorous examination the effect of development proposals of all kinds upon both the built and the natural environment. Of course, as in this case, it can be highly unpleasant for all those affected by one of the alternative routes proposed by British Rail. Nevertheless, British Rail must ensure that it has taken into account in considering the impact and relative merits of the three routes all relevant matters before it comes to a conclusion on a preferred route. In particular, it must be in a position to demonstrate that adequate weight has been given to environmental factors, including the effect upon the people of Kent.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport noted with regret during the earlier debate that, for a large number of people, their anxiety will prove to have been unnecessarily caused, in that only one line will be proposed, whereas at present the worry is spread along three route corridors. I support wholeheartedly his determination that the present uncertainty that is affecting parts of Kent should not be allowed to last any longer than is strictly necessary.

I put to my hon. Friend a specific point, to which he may turn later. British Rail, which is a monopoly supplier in this country, has proposed the various routes and is also the holder of the criteria against which those routes are being evaluated. British Rail is the supplier of all the information, and as far as I can see it is the only major source of technical advice available to the Government. In those circumstances, those who have any reason whatsoever to be sceptical about some of British Rail's arguments feel powerless. Before my hon. Friend closes his helpful remarks, I hope that he will address the suggestion that another method of evaluating British Rail's proposals might be found.

I had intended to turn to that point. My hon. Friend can rest assured that British Rail will not be judge and jury in its own cause. One of my hon. Friend's points was whether a very high speed train rather than a slightly less fast train is justified. That is one of the balancing factors that will have to be taken into account when assessing whether the rail link has to be at the maximum speed or at a lower speed so that noise is reduced. The balancing factors will have to be assessed in this case and in all planning applications.

The sooner that British Rail is able to identify the preferred corridor the better. In reaching a decision on the preferred route, it will need to weigh in the balance the views of the local authorities and other consultees. I understand that Kent county council, which has appointed consultants to advise it, hopes to come to a view on its preferred route corridor in January.

Although the proposals for the Channel tunnel rail link raise matters of exceptional importance in respect of the built and the natural environment, I should remind the House that the high-speed rail link is primarily a matter for British Rail and not for the Government or the affected local authorities. British Rail will eventually have to justify the proposal to Parliament. But that does not mean that the Government in general nor the Department of Transport in particular are not taking a keen interest.

We shall ensure that environmental matters are properly taken into account in selecting the preferred route. I assure my hon. Friend that my Department has not sheltered behind the Department of the Environment in terms of parliamentary questions. Although the Department of Transport takes the lead in regard to new long-distance railway lines, issues involving the environment are concerns for my Department.

The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations, which came into effect this July, covered proposals for long-distance railway lines authorised by way of planning Acts. At present there is no formal requirement for environmental assessment of development proposals which proceed by way of a parliamentary Bill, but the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure has given consideration to how the EC directive on environmental impact assessment can be applied to projects which would otherwise have required planning consent and environmental statements.

The Committee has recommended that each House should incorporate environmental impact assessment into the private Bill procedure by making new Standing Orders which would require promoters of any Bill which authorises the carrying out of works for which planning permission has not already been obtained to seek a determination from the appropriate Secretary of State as to whether it should be the subject of an environmental assessment with an environmental statement containing specified information. The suggested procedure would be for promoters of Bills to produce an environmental statement in advance of the Committee stage and for the Department of the Environment to comment to the Committee on the proposals contained in the Bill.

My Department is at present discussing with the Department of Transport standards for environmental assessment of new long-distance rail routes appropriate to that procedure. In advance of the adoption or implementation of those recommendations by Parliament, British Rail has voluntarily appointed consultants to undertake environmental assessment and produce a full environmental statement in respect of any future proposals.

The Government will expect British Rail or any private sector consortium putting forward proposals for a new rail link to spell out its approach to environmental protection when proposals for a new line are announced. It is expected that Parliament, in giving consideration to proposals before it, will attach considerable weight to the environmental implications alongside commercial, economic and other social factors, and will wish to be satisfied that it contains appropriate provisions to ensure that those matters are dealt with properly.

I assure my hon. Friend that environmental issues are very much to the fore in consideration of the high-speed rail link, as they were in consideration of the Channel tunnel. As a Minister for the Department of the Environment, I sit on some of the committees relating to the Channel tunnel in order to safeguard environmental interests. I represented my Department's interests at an earlier meeting which my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport held with Members of Parliament representing Kent constituencies.

British Rail's study, published in July, made it clear that a new rail link from London to the Channel tunnel would be needed some time in the future. Without it there would be a risk of excessively overloading the Kent rail network to the detriment of existing rail users. It is self-evident that no new line can be built without some detriment to the environment.

I welcome the fact that British Rail has employed independent consultants to undertake an environmental assessment of the present proposals and has committed itself to a full environmental assessment of the preferred route. Clearly, it will be in British Rail's interests in developing and progressing its proposals to ensure that it can demonstrate to Parliament that it has given adequate. weight to environmental factors in selecting its preferred route corridor and futher that it has given the closest attention, in finalising the design, to minimising and mitigating the environmental impact of the rail link on the people of Kent.

I conclude by quoting from a speech that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made at the Conservative party conference this year. She used a quotation which may be a candidate for the quotation of the year when she said:

"No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy—with a full repairing lease."

She assured the party, and I assure the House today,

"This Government intends to meet the terms of that lease in full".

I believe that we need a constitutional convention to equip ourselves to create a new democratic system that will take us into the next century and prepare us for the challenges that lie ahead. The most obvious aspect of our democracy is a ballot held once every five years. For many people, it is their only participation in the democratic process. Even that ballot takes place after scant preparation in a four or five-week campaign. Thereafter, it is business as usual. After the fairly sharp impact of the democratic process, Governments of all colours, once elected, become anti-democratic because they must get their political programmes through. They force through what they want and everything that stands in their way, regardless of political colour, is regarded as an obstruction.

Without delving too deeply into current party politics, it is true to say that the Prime Minister has done us a great service, not because she originated the problem but because she exemplifies it. Her Government have thrown into sharp relief the complete dominance of the Executive over the legislature. The great service that that has rendered to our democracy is that more and more people are becoming aware of the reality of our political position and recognise the weakness of our other political institutions faced with an unrestrained Executive.

In that new climate, broader constitutional matters are being debated far more than they were two of three years ago. Unfortunately, the debate rarely takes place in the House, and there is hardly a packed House for this debate. That shows that there has been no serious debate on the constitution, our democracy or the role of Parliament. Of course, the Government do not believe that Parliament should talk in depth about such matters—Parliament is here to pass the Government's programme—but I believe that we should have a wider debate and that Parliament has failed in its duty by not being the forum for that debate.

Unfortunately, Parliament is a political expedient that meets the needs of the Government of the day. A clear example of that—there have been many this week—was the Official Secrets Bill, on which the Minister spoke yesterday. That is an example of how the Government will try to impose their will on Parliament. Another classic example was on Tuesday. Referring to the proposed Scottish Select Committee, the Leader of the House said:

"The Standing Orders of the House are the basis on which the House proceeds, unless the House resolves to do something different."—[Official Report, 20 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 340.]

It is not the House that resolves to do something different, but invariably the Government of the day who want something different, either to meet their own needs or to placate opposition within their ranks or on the other side of the House. Sadly, a Leader of the House from any party could have made that statement.

We cannot rely on the Government to be the ultimate defender of our liberties. It is a matter of some debate whether we can so rely on Parliament as it is so under the sway of Government, as all Parliaments this century have been.

I have been privileged to receive a personal education over the past 18 months—as a naive newcomer, I have found the extent of control exercised by the Executive over the House a revelation—but unfortunately most outside the House have not. The concepts about which we speak are often arid, academic and theoretical, and it is difficult to convey to people the reality of political power in the United Kingdom. We need to think more deeply about our democratic politics, but such thought is not given, whatever party is in control, and we become lazy about thinking of democracy. I freely admit that, had recent Labour Governments boldly laid down some of the building blocks of democracy, many of the worst excesses of the Government would have been impossible. The Labour party is at least as conservative as the Conservative party in this regard.

There must be democratic forms in our society that are wholly independent of Government if we are to be genuinely democratic. The first step is knowledge, not merely for a few insiders but for everyone, so that they are aware of their individual rights and the role and powers of our political institutions. The right to know is crucial, and each child should be able to leave school with a knowledge of the political institutions that will govern his or her life rather than vague feelings of deference, trust or a view that politics is irrelevant or unimportant.

If democratic values and practices are genuinely to be built into our society and values and practices, the key educative tool is a democratic constitution—a physical document, a written constitution that would be the property of every member of society. People would feel more competent to judge issues for themselves rather than regard talk of rights and liberties as irrevelant to their lives and those of their families. The creation of such a democracy would be governed by and cross-referenced against people's understanding rather than political expedient, which all too often dominates in the House. That would be the only safeguard against politicians.

Hon. Members who were defeated on the abortion issue have discovered what nonsense the use and abuse of the private Member's Bill procedure can be. Those who are unable or unwilling to organise the victory of ideas or ideals look for short cuts and salvations, the latest of which is proportional representation. Those new converts to a "democratic constitution" are to be welcomed warily. When serious change is adopted as a fad, it will just as easily be dropped and a new solution adopted. It could leave the wider cause of serious, democratic constitutional reform discredited and the political system destabilised. If we do not have the inoculation of a deeply rooted, aware democracy, the virus of Fascism could flourish in such a destabilised political system.

One day there should be a written constitution but, ever eager to compromise, I should be more than happy to accept immediately merely a Bill of Rights, endorsed by referendums and entrenched beyond the reach of fickle and simple majority in the House of Commons. As one small contribution, I have today given notice that on the first day we return in January, I shall present to the House a Bill of Rights based on the European convention first presented by Sir Edward Gardner in 1978.

A written Bill of individual and collective rights removes the arguments flowing from the will or whim of the Government or their servants. Some may argue persuasively that such a Bill merely transfers the arbitrary interpretation of civil rights from the desks of colourless bureaucrats or colourful politicians to an expensive and often class-riddled judicial system. Having tasted the legal system and the partiality of the judiciary through trade union legislation, I can understand why that argument has neutralised many otherwise progressive people into defeatism. This can be overcome only by a deep-seated reformation of the judiciary, a nettle which even proponents of a Bill of Rights have not grasped but which must be grasped, or the constitutional conservatives in the Opposition parties will immobilise us again.

The constitutional convention would need to complete the picture by examining the Commons and the second Chamber. After the abolition of the House of Lords, an elected second Chamber—let us call it the House of Representatives—could exercise independent and legitimate scrutiny and oversight of the Government in the Commons. Once again, the powers of such a second Chamber would need to be entrenched and to be separate from those of the Commons and other institutions. The Commons would then be seen for what it is—the place where Governments propose and carry their business, with a Government-in-waiting on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) wish to intervene? He is shaking, or nodding, his head in agreement—I am not sure which.

Without the Commons losing any of its alleged powers, the serious job of accountability would gravitate towards the elected second Chamber. This is a recipe for conflict, the constitutional conflict of debate, of education and of growing public awareness of the nature of the decisions which face us. It is a recipe for a democracy, one fit to take this nation into the next century.

As we approach Christmas, I am tempted to put the shopping list, which I have hurriedly detailed, up the chimney. Rather than Santa Claus, I shall call upon that equally improbable figure, but one in whom all Members of Parliament believe, Mr. Speaker himself, to convene a constitutional convention to appraise these issues beyond the heat of electoral battle.

The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) was conversational in style and thoughtful in tone, which I appreciate. Also, he was political only from time to time. I propose to answer the debate in the same fashion.

The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House very long, but I was elected only a couple of elections before him. I have never talked to the House about constitutional reform, and this is the first chance that I have had to do so.

I admire the hon. Gentleman for his daring in that, after his 18 months' apprenticeship, he is giving the House his views in constitutional reform. Not satisfied with the debate, he now tells us that he will introduce a Bill of Rights in January. That is a formidable pace of constitutional change and we look forward to reading the Bill, which I understand is based on the Bill of Sir Edward Gardner.

Does the Minister agree that perhaps the longer one is in the House, the less likely one is to assess it as an outsider? Does he agree that we need to assess it, given the changing needs of our democracy?

I hope that my political arteries have not hardened too much after 10 years in this place. As my contribution to open government I can give a report of my recent medical check-up. I have the blood pressure of a boy of 18 and the electrocardiogram showed an almost horizontal line. The kind doctor said that it demonstrated what he had always known about Ministers—that they have no heart. My blood pressure is no worse or better than it was a few years ago, and I am as keenly interested in constitutional matters as ever.

Most hon. Members—certainly my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—are keenly interested in reform. That is why I was surprised that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North said that Parliament was a place for the political expedient. That is wrong. Together with Mr. Enoch Powell and a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I believe that the Chamber is the crucible of the nation where we hammer out our disputes and, happily, sometimes forge agreement.

The hon. Gentleman has been remarkably unobservant during the past couple of weeks. He has been present during debates on two substantial constitutional measures. He has barracked me through two successive wind-up speeches. I know that he has been there, because I have heard him muttering across the Chamber. The first measure, the Security Service Bill, was debated as recently as last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that significant constitutional measure. Last night, we discussed the Official Secrets Bill, and I spoke at the end of the debate.

It was an excellent speech.

I am grateful for the kind bipartisan compliment.

It is important to put on record the excellence of the Minister's speech yesterday. Despite excellent speeches by Ministers and hon. Members on both sides of the House, will the Minister tell us how many such debates have resulted in any serious change to the Government's proposals? Has not the House, even during my brief 18 months here, rubber-stamped almost every item of legislation put to it?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman listened carefully to the debate on the official secrets White Paper on 22 July. Last night, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary demonstrated clearly how much the Government listened to that debate and how, in four significant areas, the proposals in the White Paper published last July were changed when the Bill was drafted.

Constitutional reform of various sorts has been debated in the Chamber, even though it may not have appeared on the Order Paper under the headline "Constitutional Change" or "Constitutional Reform". The hon. Member for Nottingham, North has given us his reasons why he seeks reform. There are others who seek reform. For example, the noble Lord Blake in the other place has long advanced constitutional reform from the Tory Benches. I have to say to the House, which is filling up, that constitutional reform is usually suggested by those who see it as the only route to power. I do not believe that many of those who promote constitutional reform do so for any other reason. It is normally argued by those who see the chances of sitting on the Government Benches receding into the far distance. It is normally put forward by those who see that they are losers.

We have put in front of us the nostrums of an organisation that is called Charter 88, which attempts to bring forward a measure of constitutional reform. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of it; I have seen a list of apparently important signatories to the organisation. I hope that my name will never appear in one of the self-seeking lists of supporters of this or that which appear in our great national newspapers. It is my intention never to add my name to such lists. Generally speaking, those who support such organisations never bring about the changes they seek by securing expensive pages of advertising in national newspapers.

Charter 88 is a loser's charter. Those who support it realise that, with present progress, they will never achieve power. That is because they have no big idea. They have no major political concepts to put before the country such as those—here I move slightly into party politics—introduced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Leader of the Opposition in 1975 and thereafter. I think that everyone, including the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is not in his place this afternoon, has recognised that those concepts have brought about major and significant changes to the political landscape of the United Kingdom. That is real political change.

Political change is advocated by those who do not like the way that the Conservative Government are running the country, but they will have to come forward with big ideas and market them, and they will have to be ideas for which the British people will vote. Political change will not come about as a result of phoney and self-seeking charters such as Charter 88. Nor will such changes come about through electoral reform—of which more in a moment, after the hon. Member for Nottingham, North has intervened.

I am delighted that the Minister is taking up my argument about political expediency. I talked about a substitute set of proposals being put forward, with those responsible for it not being prepared to go out to the public to fight and win over their ideas. I believe that the Prime Minister won some credit because she put forward a big idea, as the Minister has described it. I should add that I do not agree with that big idea. Long-term, deep-rooted constitutional change that is based upon democracy is a bigger idea than any relatively big idea which emanates from either political party. I hope that that concept will win support throughout the House.

I believe in democracy, which is why I have given way so often to the hon. Gentleman. In the interest of trying to answer all the issues that he has raised before my time is up, I shall not be able to give way to him again.

We on the Government Benches are entirely against electoral reform. We believe that it is a recipe for weak and divided government. There is enough evidence of that around the globe to persuade us that in no circumstance will a Conservative Government be promoting electoral reform via proportional representation. That is something on which the hon. Gentleman and I can agree. I wish to make it clear to the House that what I have stated remains our intention.

I regret the hon. Member's attack on the judiciary. I winced when I heard it. The appointment of judges is a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in another place. The Government are fully satisfied with the independent and disinterested performance of the judiciary, which we value. I must urge on the hon. Gentleman the simple fact that judges are selected solely on the basis of personal merit and fitness for the job. There is no convincing evidence that the Bench is biased.

If the hon. Gentleman stays longer in public life, he may come to feel that he did not quite get it right when he talked this afternoon about the judiciary. In fact, he got it very wrong. I would use a stronger term but I feel that it would be inappropriate to do so, given the tone that the hon. Gentleman has set in the debate.

Much of the debate on the constitution seems to proceed on a false premise. It is thought that our unwritten constitution does not guarantee specific rights. It leaves constitutional arrangements to the whim of the party in power. That point was made by the hon. Member. On the other hand, he and others might argue that, with a written constitution, the rights of citizens are fully protected because they have an easily accessible written constitution or Bill of Rights and can invoke them against the Government of the day. That is a mistake.

I may be caricaturing the argument for the sake of illustration, but the truth is that the mere existence of a constitution—written or unwritten—guarantees nothing. Everything depends on how it is interpreted and applied in daily life. Some of the most oppressive countries on earth have written constitutions or Bills of Rights. They guarantee nothing, just as proportional representation would guarantee governmental chaos in many parts of the globe.

Equally, we have recently seen some extraordinary examples of improvements in civil rights across the globe, which have come, not through the application of constitutional nostrums such as proportional representation, written constitutions and Bills of Rights, but from the will and ability of individuals to implement existing constitutional guarantees or to use the existing constitutional system to greater democratic ends. We see that movement sweeping across eastern Europe at the moment.

I would not seek to have our unwritten constitution altered in any way. I would rather see it evolve. This week's Official Secrets Bill and last week's Security Service Bill have shown the evolution of constitutional safeguards. The justification for our unwritten constitution is simply that it works and is responsible for the degree of personal liberty and general well-being for which this country has long been renowned. We have constitutional safeguards which are second to none.

On the front page of the Sheffield Star on 14 April, bold headlines screamed:

"7 pages of jobs in the Star tonight"

and

"Super Sheffield, Boom City of the 90s.

Developments worth £1·3 billion proposed, 77 major projects—30,000 Jobs and 10,000 Jobs in Construction."

It also said:

"The boom in investment over the last three years should result in a major facelift for the City."

Hotels, expansion schemes and industry are all concerned. The city has received assistance from the Government and has been extremely grateful for the funding that the Government have supplied for the urban development corporation, the canal basin, road improvements at Meadowhall and other schemes.

In a business survey for the third quarter from Sheffield chamber of commerce—which arrived only today— it pointed out that the domestic market

"continues to expand, with almost three quarters of the replies indicating increased orders and deliveries. On the export side, the decline in the previous quarter appears to have been arrested and more companies report increases in overseas business. The high value of sterling continues to present some problems to exporters, although not as much as in the past.

Recruitment of skilled personnel still remains a problem, with almost half the local replies confirming that difficulty had been encountered. The problem is even greater in other regions and effectively highlights the skills gap.

The picture which emerges is one of continuing growth and expansion—there are very few negative indications in investment plans or in the area of recruitment. This, linked to the high level of confidence in the growth of turnover and profit all points to an increasingly prosperous future."

The name Sheffield conjures up, especially to the south, a picture of dark satanic factories, but those days have long since gone. It used to be thought that it was a grimy, grubby dirty place to live in, but those days have long gone. We have a science park and a leisure and retail complex, which could be one of the largest in the country, and factories and new industries are springing up all over. It could be called "good news city", because the development figures have been looked at again and it was discovered that £1·3 billion has increased to £1·6 billion. The world student games in 1991 will be a major fillip, although, sadly, they will cost ratepayers in the city £9 million a year for the next 20 years unless a financial package can be put together.

If we are to move into the 20th century, however, we still need road, rail and air access. Such access is vital if we are to ensure the regeneration and continued expansion of Sheffield. My hon. Friend the Minister recently met a deputation from Sheffield to discuss the road links to Manchester. For environmental reasons, it was decided that no motorway should go through the Peak park, and I fully endorse that decision. That Minister said that the M1-M62 link was under active consideration but that some black spots—at Snake pass and at Woodhead—remained to be dealt with. Lighting is also needed on the M1.

On 12 December, British Rail announced that faster services to Sheffield would be introduced in May, cutting 20 minutes off the journey times. It said that £1 million was to be spent on Sheffield Midland station, which will be in operation by 1991 in time for the world student games. It announced a new early service to serve London airports, an hourly service morning and evening and, to meet my needs, a train leaving London at 11 pm

In a letter carrying yesterday's date, British Rail said that, under the Bill deposited in Parliament in November, a new terminal for international trains is to be built at King's Cross. A low-level station served by international trains will be linked by escalators to St. Pancras, with frequent services to Sheffield. The Doncaster line is soon to be electrified and will become even faster. Sheffield also needs a fast link to the east coast line with better and more reliable rolling stock before the year 2025 as well as a major freight depot.

I realise that some of these matters do not come under the Government's auspices, but the debate gives me the opportunity to ventilate the feeling of those in Sheffield that, with better road, rail and air facilities, the regeneration of the city could continue at a cracking pace.

We expect a major freight depot at Tinsley in Sheffield adjacent to the M1—to become the focus for direct services to the continent via the Channel tunnel. If the midland main line is not to be electrified—it seems to me that that outcome is on the cards—can we have the south trans-Pennine route to Manchester, plus a link from Sheffield to Doncaster? Trains could be assembled at Tinsley and go to the continent from there. A dream realised would be a new inland clearance depot in Sheffield, which would help the city with its continued regeneration.

I do not propose to discuss supertram today, although it comes under the auspices of the Department of Transport. As I understand it, South Yorkshire passenger transport executive has not yet prepared its bid.

Air links, too, are vital to Sheffield. I do not envisage a municipally run airport but rather an airport set up by private enterprise to enable short take-off and landing aircraft to be used. That would assist in Sheffield's economic regeneration. I have had discussions with the Ministry of Defence as to whether it would be possible to use Finningley airport for three weeks during the world student games. The suggestion was not unfavourably received, but I was told to come back nearer the time.

There is much discussion in Sheffield at the moment because a site has been found for a short take-off and landing airport but the proposal is not attracting public support in the area that has been chosen. There are other sites, however. There is a site near the M1 spur which we know as Catcliffe, which has been mined by the National Coal Board and would be an ideal spot for the airport.

No one person or organisation can claim credit for the Sheffield phoenix phenomenon. The city is rising from its ashes. For many reasons—some obvious, some hidden —the Government, local councils, industry and commerce and the citizens of Sheffield are working as a team to put Sheffield back on its feet. It is the fourth largest city in England. In a survey of Britain's 38 top cities conducted by Glasgow university to find out where the average man in the street would choose to live, Sheffield came 10th—with Bradford sixth, Hull 17th and Leeds 27th.

I was surprised to discover that the seven major influences on people when they chose where to live and why were isolated. Those influences were: the rate of crime; health provision; levels of pollution; cost of living; shopping facilities; race relations; and factors such as education, access to areas of scenic beauty, employment prospects and climate. All those factors were taken into account, before the positions in the table were calculated.

Only yesterday, major EC cash boosts came into Sheffield—£308 million-worth of investment aimed at repairing some of the economic disasters of the past decade. The fact is that, with better road, rail and air facilities, we could reach the top spot. I appreciate that the Minister will tell me—as do all Ministers—that we do not control British Rail. However, he controls the roads. He does not control air traffic, but he can assist in ensuring that some of the available funding is directed towards Sheffield.

We need a little more help from our friends to speed up the economic regeneration of Sheffield. I am grateful to my Sheffield colleagues for attending today in vast numbers. In fact, I must look hard to even imagine the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) sitting in his place. Nevertheless, I have heard him talk about this.

I am aware that there are negotiations and discussions with British Rail, but we need some assistance in explaining to British Rail that Sheffield's economic regeneration—especially the world student games in 1991 —can be enhanced with good, reliable rolling stock. Sheffield's regeneration could be helped, too, by the construction of a short take-off and landing airport nearby. We have two major airports nearby; one is in Manchester, but at times, when there is ice and snow on the road, Sheffield can be cut off. The other is the East Midlands airport, which is about one hour's drive away.

When I leave the House today and journey back to Sheffield, I shall travel the same way as most business men —I shall go to Doncaster. I am not proud of that, but the service is reliable and fast, and it is a clean train. I would love to be able to say that I was travelling to Sheffield by the midland main line.

I shall be grateful to hear of anything that the Minister can do to assist the regeneration of Sheffield. I believe that the finest Christmas present anyone could have in this great season of goodwill is to say, "I have heard from British Rail that it is doing X, the Ministry of Defence is doing Y, and, above all, we have agreed with Peak park planning that some improvements can be made to the A57 and Woodhead." Speaking apolitically, many citizens and the Sheffield council would be grateful for assistance to enable them to continue with their plans.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on initiating this debate. Sadly, he was unfortunate in representing his constituents' views earlier this week when there might have been an opportunity at about 5.30 in the morning, but in the event he would have come on after the House had adjourned—rather early—at about 9 o'clock the next day. He should be congratulated on coming back for the second bite.

As my hon. Friend has said, he is the last Sheffield Member of Parliament in the House this year. He deserves the congratulations of his local people and press. I am grateful, too, to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) for attending. It is nice to see that the SDLP is represented in one of the last debates of the year.

I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). One of his main interests is that of the constitution, which is why he sat in on the previous debate, but, of course, we know that he has a keen interest in railways, because the Stockton to Darlington railway was the first in the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has rightly talked Sheffield up, and he has done so accurately. Those who have known Sheffield over the years—I cannot claim to know it anything like as well as he does, but I have visited it over the years—will recognise its dramatic transformation over the past six years or so.

Sheffield has a great and prosperous future, which it has earned for itself. The restructuring of its basic industries of steel and speciality steel products has been difficult. Competition from low-cost producers around the world has made life difficult for Sheffield. Some of the subsidies to other manufacturers, whether by exploitative pay levels or some of the old steel subsidies, made it necessary for many of Sheffield's companies and industries to take a cold bath. But Sheffield has done it without complaining.

During the years, I have kept in contact with Conservative trade unionists, visiting them not for high publicity but to learn how many of their businesses are developing the joint team effort to which my hon. Friend referred. Clearly, most of the improvement has come about because of efforts within Sheffield. Sheffield is right to have picked my hon. Friend to represent it. One does not have to be a lawyer to represent a great industrial city. Sheffield has grown its own representative.

My hon. Friend referred to the railways. When I read a British Rail press notice a week ago, I thought that it had been written by my hon. Friend. I learned that it is possible to spend an evening in London—for example, in the House of Commons—and catch the 11 pm train home, exchanging the discomfort of living in London for the comfort of Sheffield.

My hon. Friend referred to the contribution made by the fast trains knocking 20 minutes off the journey, despite the fact that the line to Sheffield is not exactly the straightest in Britain. That is an achievement. When people argue that electrification is the only answer, they should ask what return comes from the money. British Rail is aiming for improvements next year in the rescheduling of trains and the year after in some of the new stock, but what the business men really needs is a reliable hourly service. Then Sheffield and the rest of the country will be better served.

If it is possible to get from Sheffield to London or Newcastle in two hours, those of us who benefit from Sheffield's business would be able to see its business men, salesmen and technical people more often, and that would be welcome. A regular hourly service is the answer to those who, having just missed one train, ask when the next will be. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.

When I was in Japan in the summer looking at motorcycle safety, I had the opportunity to ride in the cab of a Shin-kan-sen. With completely new track and no freight or commuter trains, those bullet trains manage to go only 10 miles an hour faster than British Rail's high-speed trains on track that is 100 years old. Our rail engineers, whether they come from Darlington or Sheffield, have done well.

My hon. Friend also talked about air transport. It would be pleasant to have an airport on the edge of the city —so long as one did not live there. We have seen the first new private sector airport—the Stolport—in London docklands. That is the way forward for those who want to provide a similar airport at their own risk. I know that my hon. Friend is not one of those who would say that every city, even the fourth greatest city in Britain, even the 17th or 18th most pleasant city in which to live in Britain, should necessarily have its airport on the rates.

Since the war, there have been too many examples in Britain of municipal enterprise turning an airport into a subsidy sink. I am not saying that we should not subsidise anything, but we should be careful about arguing that ratepayers should pay for airports.

Buses.

Bus deregulation outside London has demonstrated the worth of a market approach. Instead of an exponential growth from no subsidy to one of £500 million over 10 years, while the number of bus miles driven per member of staff declined long with the number of passengers, deregulation has made it possible to reduce the subsidy, and increase the number of passengers and for buses to go to estates where they have never been before.

In Sheffield and elsewhere, the new private sector operators are providing minibus services in estates that were inaccessible to double deckers. People may say, "Deregulation has led to buses going into those estates," and go on to say that that is a bad thing. Only the Labour party can find people who will say that. If Labour had thought of ways of getting minibuses into estates that had not previously been served, they would have praised themselves for thinking of it first. Tough luck. We thought of a way of making it possible for local or outside entrepreneurs to provide a service of commercial benefit.

Some aspects of transport must be provided on a group basis, and the building of roads is one. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it plain that he is interested in extending the boundaries of private finance. No one is precisely sure how that will happen, but that it should be considered possible is a move forward. We have seen the involvement of private design, private finance and private operation coming to the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, allowing extra money to be spent on other road projects, be they minor improvements to the A57 or extensions to the major road network outside the national park. All that is of benefit.

We have seen also the 150 schemes where private developers have invested £50 million in better roads or better road access that otherwise would not have been possible. Sometimes, that has been done in agreement with the highways authority or in the developers' self-interest. We should look for ways of developing self-interest without selfishness. Those who argue that self-interest has no part to play are wrong. Few see the merit of public provision as a substitute for private provision when the result can be the same. In Sheffield, when people were looking for jobs, they could have been provided by the municipal Socialists or by companies, co-partnerships, individual entrepreneurs, joint stock companies, or whatever. It is a matter of finding or creating opportunities and then identifying profitable, creative ways of meeting people's needs.

There is then the issue of conventional public funding of roads. I delight in the announcement that the national roads programme will increase by 20 per cent. in the coming year, and that over three years it will increase by 40 per cent. That is not wild profligacy but meeting the country's needs. It will not meet them totally, because there are other areas, whether in Coventry, Sheffield, or elsewhere, where people will go on asking for better roads to be built. Sometimes they will want longer, wider, stronger or deeper roads. Although that may sound trite, there is truth in it. Extensions to the Sheffield road network will allow Sheffield's goods to reach the ports and the Pennines, to travel north or south, and to reach export markets.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of achievements, some of them accompanied in partnership. He rightly praised the local authority and private sector for working together. None of us should overlook the fact that the roads partnership between local and national Government is one of the best. Occasionally it is controversial, but not normally in respect of projects outside London. The Meadowhall is one development where the Government said that they would help an inner-city project, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend found time to mention it. He spoke also of the canal basin developments, and of the urban development corporation. They have all received attention in the House.

My hon. Friend said he wished to see further improvements, and referred to the delegation that he kindly brought to see me about the A57. I am glad it is generally recognised that it will not be appropriate to find a short cut from Manchester to Sheffield by driving a motorway across the national park. That would be going too far. I make it plain that we take seriously our assurances that we shall not unnecessarily build roads through the national parks. However, I hope that those listening away from Sheffield will have the courage to admit that opposition to the Okehampton bypass was wrong. Anyone who has seen that bypass, where we went into the national park by about 50 yards alongside a railway line, so that the road is hidden both from the park itself and from the town, and that those who just provided their ideas by looking at a map and wanted a 10-foot high viaduct had got it wrong.

We hope to protect the Peak district national park in a similar way. If it is possible for the board, perhaps in collaboration with my hon. Friend and others, to carry out minor improvements, that will make a difference. If most of the traffic is asked to go along the A268 and the A616, I think that we can agree on those minor improvements without making the A57 so attractive that pressures start developing for major improvements.

My hon. Friend has demonstrated that it is possible to come to the House to represent a city. He was of course elected by only part of the city, but seems to be representing all of it, as he is the only Sheffield Member who has taken the time to come here today. He has done so in a positive way, without knocking the city council —although he may, as I do, have his own views about some of its actions. He has recognised that the council is working more with the public sector, and has talked of the need—and the method—to create continuous growth and expansion.

I believe that, as traffic builds up on British Rail services and more people start using the direct service rather than the diversion via Doncaster, British Rail, as a commercial organisation meeting the Secretary of State's objectives and serving the public, will find ways of improving its service still further. I can make no predictions about the air services; that must be left to the commercial judgment of those who will decide whether, in addition to the two airports that people now use, a smaller airport can be built nearer Sheffield.

It is worth emphasising that better roads make economic growth possible and that economic growth generates more traffic. There is a "virtuous circle". When the Channel tunnel is completed, the railways will have a competitive advantage that they do not have now. Nevertheless, even on the most optimistic forecasts of the movement of traffic from roads to railways, economic growth will still mean more freight on the roads. That is why we want to continue to run the economy in a way that will bring about significant and welcome increases in the roads programme. It will then be possible for hon. Members on both sides of the House to come to the Department of Transport and ask for their share of this better infrastructure—what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I call better roads, better bridges and occasionally better tunnels. Every two years we intend to take such action.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced that he wants a review of the motorway and trunk road programme. We look forward to meeting his wishes and putting our conclusions before the House is the spring. I hope not only that we shall see a better, booming Sheffield, but that the other cities below it in the popularity stakes will gain as well; and that those temporarily above it will realise that they must compete very hard to stay ahead.

It is somewhat appropriate that the last debate of 1988—the last debate before the Christmas holiday—should be about Israel. It is, indeed, almost symbolic. A visitor to Bethlehem in 1988 would not be turned away from the inn to find shelter in a manger, because the inns and hotels, normally fully booked over a year in advance, are 60 per cent. empty this year. That reflects the 15 per cent. drop in tourism in Israel and the occupied territories over the last year.

The Palestinian uprising against 21 years of Israeli rule in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip has entered its second year. The brutal repression of the intafada is measured not just in economic terms, in the loss of tourism or the Bank of Israel's estimate of $700 million lost in GDP, but in truly horrific statistics of casualties. Estimates compiled up to the anniversary of the uprising two weeks ago for the number of Palestinians killed range from the Defence Ministry's 302 to the 405 assessed by the International Commission of Jurists' local organisation Al-Haq. Eleven Israelis have died.

The number of Palestinians wounded is 3,640 according to the Israeli Government; over 20,000 according to Al-Haq and the United Nations. The Defence Ministry figures also list 402 Israeli civilians and 730 soldiers as casualties. Converted into a British context, the equivalent figures would be 12,000 to 16,000 killed and over 750,000 wounded. That is a glimpse of the scale of the horror. During the year, 20,000 Palestinians have been arrested, thousands of whom have been detained in notorious camps such as Answa 3. The Defence Ministry confirms that 5,500 Palestinians are now in gaol. Houses have been demolished by bulldozers. People have been expelled from their homeland and semi-permanent curfews and sieges have been imposed. The Jelazoun refugee camp was under non-stop curfew for 42 days.

I visited Israel and the West Bank in October with my comrade the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) and a Danish dock workers' leader, Carsten Andersen. It was my first parliamentary delegation visit in over five years as a Member of Parliament, and it lasted six days. A brief debate such as this is too short in which to convey the vivid impressions of that visit, although going from Tel Aviv, a largely modern, western city, to the outskirts of Jericho, or the largest Arab village in Israel, Um el Fahm, was literally like walking back to the biblical age.

We visited Jericho under the auspices of the United Palestinian Medical Relief Committee. Its director, Dr. Jihad Mashal, was our guide. We visited medical centres set up by a group of volunteer doctors and workers. Their aim is to educate the people in basic health care and to provide medical treatment in an expanding programme. We saw slides of the results of brutality against the population by the occupying forces. The condition of some of the victims was horrendous and defies description.

We saw the stark contrast of what exemplifies the differences in society for the Palestinians. Water, flowing from natural springs in the mountains, is enclosed in pipes for consumption by Israelis in the settlements. The Palestinians cannot take water from such piping. Their water supply flows down man-made gulleys—ditches, in fact—that are open to the atmosphere, and it is used for washing, cooking and drinking. It is also used by the local clinic. No attempt is made by the authorities to provide sterile, clean water for Palestinian families. Water supplies to homes from these gulleys takes the primitive form of dropping a length of tubing into the trough and letting gravity do the job of relaying it to the houses—or not.

We saw squalor, deprivation and repression on the one side and affluence and privilege on the other. The barren area and conditions in which the refugees in the camps have to live contrast sharply with the well laid out and serviced Israeli settlements and, in addition, the palatial houses owned by rich Palestinians who apparently are dual passport holders.

The contrast in the camps could not be greater. Sewage runs down gulleys in the main thoroughfare—they cannot be called streets—and many homes are built in the traditional way with mud bricks. Youths roam the streets, as there is no formal schooling since the intafada, except that provided by volunteers. Overshadowing the camp were military positions on the high road above.

The camp is continually under surveillance on normal days. On others, the troops enter the camps in large numbers and provoke the people, especially the youth, and make arrests. That is done in an attempt to take out those layers among the youth who may be leaders in the popular committees, which are made up of the ordinary people. The committees enjoy the complete confidence of the people and call the days of action and strikes. They organise the distribution of food and take care of the welfare of families whose homes have been destroyed by the troops— a common occurrence.

The delegation saw homes that had been destroyed and spoke with families who had suffered in this way at the hands of the occupying power. Although suffering terrible conditions and hardship, the mood of all sections of the population was one of supreme optimism, from young children to aged grandparents. They expressed the view that they had achieved more in the months of intafada than anything else in 40 years: that it was the people, all the people, who had taken their destinies into their own hands and who were now struggling for independence. Their confident belief was that they would win and that they could not suffer any more. Nothing that the Israeli state could do to them could deflect them from that ultimate goal.

Although the human cost of the intafada, measured in deaths and casualties, is undeniable, it is the political effects which have spread in recent weeks like expanding ripples after a stone has been tossed into water. The growing international support for the Palestinian cause is, in my view, based on the heroism of the workers and the youth in Gaza and on the West Bank.

The Labour Movement internationally has had much sympathy for the state of Israel, whose formation was given impetus by the horrific genocide of the Jewish people in Nazi gas chambers during the second world war. Until recently, abuses by the Israeli authorities of human rights has not attracted the same level of criticism as similar activities in South Africa or Chile. The developing use of Arab workers in Israel and the occupied territory, like the migrant workers from the Bantustans in South Africa, and in particular the gruesome scale of repression of the intafada—reinforced by infamous television scenes of soldiers beating Palestinians until their bones were broken—are drastically changing working people's perception of Israel.

The intafada is the backcloth, in my view the main contributory factor to the declaration by the Palestine National Council at its Algiers summit of an independent Palestinian state—a proclamation that was universally welcomed in the occupied territory—and to the speech by Yasser Arafat at the United Nations meeting in Geneva.

Workers internationally have viewed with deep unease the past methods of terror campaigns and hijacking. The recognition by the PLO's leadership that those methods have not, and would not have, forced Israel into submission can only be welcomed. The increasing diplomatic isolation of Israel is evidenced by the United Nations vote of 150 to two—with the United Kingdom disgracefully abstaining—over a visa for Yasser Arafat to address the UN Assembly in New York, by recent developments and contacts initiated by the American Government and by today's declaration of a coalition Government formed in Israel. That isolation could increase significantly if workers' organisations began to discuss sanctions to isolate Israel, as dockers in Denmark— some of the staunchest defenders of Jews during the second world war—have recently done.

Israel's boast of being the only democracy in the middle east is coming under closer scrutiny not only on the West Bank but also behind the green line. It is undeniable that there is a measure of democracy in Israel. There is a system of parliamentary democracy which, despite serious flaws, has free elections; there are diverse political parties and various other features of western democracy. But for Arab workers in Israel and on the West Bank there are no more rights than in surrounding reactionary Arab regimes.

At the beginning of this year, the partial publication of the Landau report caused a wave of controversy in Israel society. It disclosed the routine torture of Palestinian detainees and extracted confessions for more than 17 years. When such cases came to court, Shin Bet agents flatly denied such allegations. The report states:

"We do not refer to the means of interrogation used, which in large measure are to be condoned, both on a moral and legal plane… but to the system of giving false testimony to the courts … which must be fully condemned."

In other words, denying the occurence of torture was a far greater crime than the torture itself.

I now have personal experience of one such political prisoner. I believe that the evidence that the Israeli authorities claim to have in the case of Mahmoud Masarwa consists mainly of confessions extracted by beatings by the security services at Petach Tikra police station and Ashkelon prison.

Mahmoud was arrested on 18 July, just two days before he was due to arrive here. I was going to bring him to the House to meet other Labour Members. I was keen to meet Mahmoud, an Arab citizen of Israel, born within its pre–1967 borders. He came to my attention because he advocates unity between Jewish and Arab workers as vital to obtaining a solution that could satisfy all the oppressed people in the region. Far from being a professional terrorist, as the Israeli authorities have tried to imply, Mahmoud was forced to hold down two jobs to support his wife and three children. He was a well-known activist at the Isre Biton cement works near Tel Aviv—his most recent place of employment—where he, an Arab worker, played a predominant role in a strike of mainly Jewish workers for recognition of a factory committee.

Despite repeated attempts, I received no response to my letters and phone calls to the Israeli authorities—that is, until after I had returned from Israel three months later. With other concerned hon. Members and trade unionists internationally receiving largely the same blank response, the international campaign which had now been formed to secure his release decided to send a delegation to Israel. Jef Ulburghs, a Belgian Member of the European Parliament played an invaluable role in that campaign, for he moved a resolution of support for Mahmoud in the European Parliament, which was adopted on a 60 per cent. majority vote. One of the results of that resolution was a European Parliament delegation to the occupied territory in the new year.

In addition to parliamentarians and leading trade unionists in Britain, sponsors of the campaign to release Mahmoud include trade unions representing millions of workers in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, Germany, Greece, Spain, Sweden, Pakistan and the United States of America. Prominent individuals who sponsored the campaign and the delegation included the president of the Lawyers Association of Athens, Anker Jorgenssen, who was the Prime Minister of Denmark for seven years, and Oscar Verner, the president of the Danish section of the Association of Former Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp Survivors.

Even with such backing, when we arrived in Israel no official of any Ministry would meet us. Nor were we allowed to visit Mahmoud in prison, despite repeated approaches by ourselves and the welcome assistance of locally based British embassy officials.

Since Mahmoud's arrest, any information relating to him has been banned from press publication, although internationally anyone reading the London-basedJewish Chronicle will be aware of the campaign on his behalf. Although no details of his arrest can be published in Israel, a standard letter was sent out from Israeli embassies alleging that Mahmoud had been involved in "planning terrorist acts", "arson" and links with the PLO in the West Bank and Gaza strip. The press in Israel were forbidden to print that information.

The plot was assuming the proportions of a Kafka novel, interlaced with pointers from Russia in the 1930s and "Spycatcher" in the 1980s. When the delegation arrived in October, a small article appeared in one newspaper saying that a delegation of Labour Members from Britain had arrived to take up a case on which the newspaper was forbidden to comment. That immediately aroused interest, and with the assistance of helpful Israeli journalists we managed to breach the wall of silence that has surrounded Mahmoud's case.

The papers could refer to the details of the case legally by mentioning the coverage in the Jewish Chronicle as an authoritative source, and Mahmoud's case became front-page news, with coverage in the Hadashot and the Maariv, the second and third largest circulation Hebrew newspapers, and in the Arabic newspaper El Fajir. As a result of the widespread publicity that the case received, reporting restrictions were partially lifted by the court, which was hailed as a major victory by Israeli civil rights activists.

The other way in which the delegation was able to assist the campaign was by securing legal representation for Mahmoud. Attempts to mount a legal defence were systematically sabotaged by the Israeli authorities. In August, a court order prevented his lawyer, Andre Rosenthal, from representing him, on the grounds that he did not have "unquestioned" security clearance. A new lawyer was found—Avrahim Orin.

A few days before Mahmoud was due to appear in court on Tuesday 18 October, his family were told that Orin, too, would be refused security clearance. We were able to negotiate for the services of Avigdor Feldman, the lawyer who represented Mordecai Vanunu in the recent atom secrets trial. Obviously, the Israeli authorities could not turn him down on the basis of lack of security clearance, and he is now representing Mahmoud.

Thanks to donations received by the campaign before we left Britain, we were able to leave Mrs. Masarwa with a sum of money to help to provide for the family. In addition, I was able to bring Mahmoud's family to Tel Aviv for the first stage of the trial on 18 October. During a brief pause in the trial, I arranged for his children to be brought in to the court room, and for the first time in three months Mahmoud was able to hold their seven-month-old baby.

During the break, Mahmoud made this statement to the public gallery:

"I stand for a bi-national state of Jewish and Arab workers. I was arrested because I was going to say these things in England. I don't have confidence in the court because the security service is making the decisions, but I am willing to fight for my innocence and I am sure workers throughout the world will help me."

Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I give that pledge today.

I have dealt at some length with the case of Mahmoud Masarwa, who is one of many victims of the Israeli Government's brutality and secrecy. He is a test case for thousands of others—a litmus paper that shows the absence of genuine democracy and freedoms in Israel.

On the basis of the worsening position for Arabs inside and outside Israel's 1967 borders, Britain's relations with that country must be re-examined. A condition for continued trade and other relations with Israel should be the release of political prisoners and the withdrawal of the Israel defence forces from the occupied territories. Given Britain's past role in the area—the emergency regulations inherited from the British mandate in 1948 are still renewed annually by the Knesset—Britain's contribution of less than £1 million in humanitarian aid for education, health and other projects on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip is woefully inadequate. I hope to do what I can to encourage British trade unions, especially those connected with the Health Service and education, to twin with organisations such as the United Palestinian Medical Relief Committee.

I end with a message to the heroic Palestinian people, who have endured much over the past few years, not least over the past 12 months. In retrospect, the Intifada, which began on 9 December 1987, will be seen as the breaking point for the national oppression of the Palestinian people. Its success will be achieved in a shorter period if it is linked to a fruitful appeal to Jewish workers in Israel for the unity of Jew and Palestinian in trying to establish a Socialist federation of Israel and Palestine committed to the guarantee of democratic and national minority rights for all. Were that to be established, it would be not only a hope for the future for the workers and people of the area but an echo of hope to the oppressed masses of the surrounding reactionary Arab regimes.

I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), though I doubt that we share the same political analysis of the position. Appeals for worker solidarity throughout the world as the solution to conflict have been shown in a number of conflicts—one thinks of the first world war—to be not necessarily fruitful. Sadly, nationalism overcomes such appeals.

Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks struck a chord, and he clearly understood that, for all its faults, Israel still has much to be proud of and to offer. Recent events and the potential loss and damage to some of the values for which Israel has stood make its friends and supporters desperately sad.

When explaining how he fought in court for Mr. Mahmoud's rights, the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "Israeli civil rights activist". It is true that there are such people in Israel fighting hard for such causes. That phrase creates no sense of surprise in the House, but the phrase "Syrian civil rights activist" or "Libyan civil rights activist" does not trip off the tongue quite so easily. We must not forget the difference between the Israeli regime and some of those that surround it.

Israel's liberal values, including the possible election of Socialist Governments and the institutions that guarantee those liberties, seem to be under threat from the policy that it is following, which creates anxiety and genuine sadness among people in this country. We have always valued our friendship and contact with Israel. We value our cultural exchanges, our trade and the immense number of relationships that exist. Our respect for the beliefs of the founding fathers leads us to urge Israel that the course on which it is engaged is profoundly mistaken. I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East about the abuses of civil rights, which sadly have become too common in response to the uprising in the occupied territories.

It is no news to the House that the Government—spectacularly in the shape of my predecessor—have from time to time put on record their profound objection to what has happened. I am irritated by the way in which the Israelis say that punishments such as deportation are based on British law. The mandate territory regulations under which such punishments were carried out were repealed long ago and are not part of British law.

We should concentrate on the next steps. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said—I was much impressed by it—the PNC in Algiers, with further clarification from Mr. Arafat and others, has made it clear that it has shifted its position and tactics. The PNC has shifted its strategy and seen that Israel can withstand to the end of time the terrorist campaigns which have been waged against it. The PNC has seen that, every time a terrorist atrocity is committed, more damage is done to international sympathy and support for the Palestinian cause than is done to Israel. It is not a matter just of public relations, as some have claimed: the PNC in Algiers and the PLO leadership have signalled a clear shift in approach.

The individual for whom the hon. Gentleman campaigned so that he will achieve his legal rights in Israel was, I gather, a supporter—as he has every right to be in a free country—of the original concept of a single state, with Jew and Palestinian living together. That is a marvellous ideal, but in practical terms seems far from ever being possible. The PNC has accepted the outcome of a dual state. It was made clear to me by Mr. Bassam Abu Sharif, whom I met, and in writings by senior Palestinian leaders, that the PNC—the body which drew up the —PLO's charter on a single-state solution, which the Israelis find so threatening—has shifted its position and will support a two-stage solution. That is a second, fundamental shift. It explicitly involves the recognition of a state of Israel existing within secure borders. Mr. Arafat made that clear in Geneva.

The third point which the PLO leadership has recognised is that the international conference, which the Government and the Opposition believe is the best way of taking the matter forward, should be on the basis of Security Council resolution 242 and others which call for recognition of Israel and the idea of trading land for peace. These shifts are profound. Among all the tragedies of this Christmas, let us not forget that there are signs of hope in the world. These shifts offer an opportunity of making progress at last in dealing with this dire problem. That will happen only if Israel responds.

The hon. Gentleman's anger about what he saw is understandable, and I would not argue against it. I take issue with him, however, on whether the international community should isolate and punish Israel or should try to build bridges to Israel. If we talk about imposing trade sanctions and pressure on Israel, a nation of 2,000 years o potential isolation and with a capacity to feel itself alienated from its surroundings, the danger is that it will react as it has always done. That is not the right way to go.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhode James), who is one of those who undertakes these important activities, is present. We should all build bridges to those in Israel who want peace and know that pracitcal steps could be taken towards it.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East spoke of some of those people with whom he had worked.

I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East that the external leadership of the Palestinians decided that it had to take practical steps or it would lose control. It was not the leadership that caused the Intifada but the ordinary people in the occupied territories. With an extraordinary display of solidarity, those people took the matter forward. The external leadership feared that it would be isolated and would lose control. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Gentaleman that the uprising changed world opinion and the opinion of the Palestinian external leadership.

What is the Government's policy?

The Government's policy is to advance towards an international conference, under the aegis of which the Israelis and the Palestinians—the Palestinians would have a right to choose their own representatives—should move towards peace. The Israeli Government cannot choose with whom to negotiate. As Abba Eban said on a famous occasion, one does not make peace with one's friends but with one's enemies. Therefore, one has to talk with one's enemies. Bassam Abu Sharif said that the PLO could make peace withing a few days if it talked to the "Peace Now" movement in Israel. It is not for the PLO to select with whom to negotiate. Now that the PLO has made a fundamental shift in outlook and opened a window of opportunity for progress, it is for Israel to begin to respond. We have to decide whether a real response is likely to come from ganging up on Israel or from trying to work with those in Israel who know the truth. They know that, even with all its military skills and military investment, Israel cannot live safely in world of modern weaponry. There are people in Israel who understand that, and it is to them that we look for a response.

I welcome the letter in The Times today from Lord Rothschild, the distinguished constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. He said that we should test, in searching and specific negotiations, the declarations that the PLO has made. They cannot be tested unless the framework of a peace conference is established and talks get under way. Surely that is the right response. It is the Government's response, and I believe that it is the response of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Coventry South-East.

In the meantime, the British Government and other European Governments must do all we can to ensure that life in the occupied territories is made more tolerable. As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East knows, we have been taking steps to ensure access to European markets for goods produced in the Palestinian territories. We have been trying to support some of the institutions, such as hospitals. The hon. Gentleman referred to the closure of schools and universities. Those are matters that we should attempt to alleviate.

Ultimately, Israel will have to live with the Palestinians. Every day that passes with no Israeli policy except the beating and shooting of people, builds increased bitterness for the future. It is in the interest of Israel to join us in trying to diminish the causes of the continuing conflict.

I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East has given us the opportunity once again to summarise our policy and to put on record what we believe should now be done. I think that that is a suitable ending for our proceedings before the Christmas recess. There is some hope in the present situation, but that hope can be all too easily dissipated if the only response from the Israeli Government and their supporters is to emphasise the difficulties.

Before we adjourn, I wish all hon. Members, our officials and our staff a very happy and peaceful Christmas.