I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the subject of the treatment of leukaemia patients at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, which is the only bone marrow transplant facility in Wales. I am also pleased to provide the new Under-Secretary of State for Wales with his first opportunity of gripping the Dispatch Box while the House is in Session. I am sure that one of the reasons why he was promoted to that hallowed position was his tremendously useful contribution as a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, of which I am proud to be the Chairman.

Huge steps have been taken in a short time to improve the life chances of our fellow human beings who contract the terrible disease of leukaemia. Until about 10 years ago, the vast majority of people would die from that disease within a few months. Fortunately, recent advances, including bone marrow transplantation, mean that many patients with leukaemia can now look forward to a cure.

Paragraph 49 of the document on cancers launched yesterday by the Under-Secretary states:

"a rise in the use of bone marrow transplants will decrease death from haematological malignancies."

I was also pleased to read in a publication on cancers produced yesterday by the Welsh Health Planning Forum the acknowledgement, on page 7, that survival rates for many cancers five years after diagnosis are improving, especially for the leukaemias.

However, the medical staff working at the University hospital of Wales, Cardiff, face difficult problems in treating seriously ill patients under their care. I first became aware of the problems through the sad loss of a young man to a family in my constituency whom I knew well and then through discussions with the senior doctor looking after those patients at the University hospital of Wales.

When I checked through the public expenditure White Paper and through the Welsh Office commentary published in March this year to assess the level of Welsh Office funding, I was surprised to find that those sources gave no assistance in quantifying the funding by the Welsh Office of this regional service. On 24 October, in the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I raised the issue with the Secretary of State, and I reiterate my request here. I ask that a meeting take place between the Secretary of State and the consultant in charge of the unit to discuss the changes necessary to improve patients' treatment.

The fundamental point to be addressed is the fact that there are only 18 beds in a treatment ward for the whole range of haematology services, The beds are not ragionally funded and are not all dedicated for occupation by patients requiring bone marrow transplantation. The ward includes patients with a wide variety of haematological conditions, including haemophilia. The patients on the wards are not only those who are suffering from leukaemia who are waiting for bone marrow transplantation.

The existing haematology unit should have a minimum of 25 beds, with a high proportion of beds being in single cubicles because of the dangerously high risk of cross-infection. That number is the minimum needed and would eliminate the shortage of beds, which has meant that patients have been discharged earlier than their medical condition warranted.

Because of the continuum of care from pre-treatment to transplants, only the transplant is regionally funded. The underfunding of the pre-transplant phase is markedly reducing the effectiveness of the unit. The removal of that segmentation of funding is vital in order to improve the standard of care.

Prior to bone marrow transplantation, leukaemia patients require intensive treatment. It makes no sense for that treatment to be funded differently from the treatment provided when bone marrow transplantation occurs. I want now to identify the problem areas that arise from that unsatisfactory system of funding.

First, the senior doctor is currently not permitted by the unit manager at University hospital of Wales to prescribe certain drugs which, in the doctor's clinical judgment, are necessary for the treatment of certain kinds of leukaemia. Because of cost, a crazy situation arises in which a patient cannot be prescribed the drug alpha interferon, for example—I emphasise that that is only one example—by the regional specialist at his unit in Wales, but the same patient can be perscribed that drug by a consultant haematologist outside the South Glamorgan district health authority area.

One patient, who in the consultant's view and in his clinical judgment, should have been treated with alpha interferon was denied that treatment from the budget of the University hospital of Wales. However, the leukaemia research appeal chaired by my constituent Mr. Bernard Lewis for Llangennith provided the money to pay for the drug. I have a copy of the invoice from the pharmacy department of the University hospital of Wales for two months' supply of interferon paid for by the appeal in August. Two months' supply of the drug costs well over £300. Will people in Wales and Britain soon see pleas on their television screens and in their newspapers for anyone to provide life-prolonging drugs denied them through the nation health service?

Consultants have been able to cushion the effects of drug cost limitations by persuading GPs to perscribe the drugs. Now GPs throughout the country are deciding on legal advice that they cannot continue that practice. Specifically, a general medical practitioner who prescribes a drug at a consultant's request, which the GP would not normally be able to monitor on the basis of his own expertise and practice facilities, places himself in a position where he could be liable for an action for negligence.

Furthermore, the GP could be regarded as being in breach of his terms of service and liable to disciplinary proceedings. That view is based on an interpretation of paragraph 36 of schedule 1 to the National Health Service (General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1974 which requires a GP to

"order any drugs … which are needed for the treatment of any patient to whom he is providing treatment under these terms of service by issuing to that patient a prescription form, and such a form shall not be used in any other circumstances."

Therefore, a GP could be held not to be providing treatment in some cases, for that treatment is being provided by the hospital consultant with the GP acting merely as a facilitator to provide drugs.

Through correspondence with a GP in my constituency, I have been alerted to the same situation regarding the drug erythropoeitin which is used for the effective treatment for the anaemia of chronic renal failure. I use the example erythropoeitin to show that GP's awareness of the possibility of negligence claims is not simply confined to the treatment of leukaemia patients. That is why I am beginning to be haunted by the spectre of patients, including children, begging for prescribed drugs. I hope that the Minister will be able to comfort me with good Christmas cheer and guarantee that that spectre is completely unfounded and that the Government would never allow it to happen.

Specifically, I should like the Minister to accept that if a cancer treatment service is to be run satisfactorily, all the drugs that the clinician deems necessary for the treatment of his patients should be available to the unit including alpha interferon and similar substances such as aclarubicin and idarubicin. It is also important that the clinician is able to add to his armoury the new drug regimens that emerge and which will continue to improve cancer treatment. That is mentioned in paragraph 48 of the Welsh Health Planning Forum publication on cancers.

My second area of concern relates to the uncertainty about the availability of an anaesthetist for the bone marrow transplant programme. The department of anaesthetics at the University hospital of Wales has had to reduce its work load because of the non-filling of consultant and clinical assistant posts by the chief administrative medical officer for the South Glamorgan district health authority.

Bone marrow transplantation is not one of the specialties that are exempt from those cuts. In the rescheduling of anaesthetics lists there have been only two protected services—the provision of anaesthetic time at Rhydlafar for the treatment centre and anaesthetic services to provide cardiac surgery in accordance with achieving the target quota of operations.

In practice, therefore, even though bone marrow transplantation is a regional service which funds a weekly session for an anaesthetist, the policy of the University hospital of Wales of cancelling theatre sessions because of the non-availability of hospital anaesthetic staff has been extended to bone marrow transplantation.

I hope that the Minister will accept that the planning for a patient to receive a bone marrow transplant from a donor takes many weeks. In the last two weeks, cytotoxic drugs are administered to the patient and marrow is taken from the donor. If the transplant is cancelled at that stage, there is a potential danger to the patient. There is deep concern that, unless greater certainty can be introduced about the availability of anaesthetists, patient survival may be jeopardised.

The third and final problem area that I want to identify is nursing. There is a major problem with the inadequate number of nurses available to nurse leukaemia patients. Nurses who have special training in oncology or leukaemia care are graded staff nurse or a sister and only five of the staff are in those grades. Those five nurses are expected to cover the two day-time shifts totalling over 13 hours. This means that, at any one time, there will not be more than two or three fully trained nurses for a ward which often has 18 very sick patients.

I hope that the Minister can accept that a regionally funded unit vertically integrated from pre-treatment ward to transplant and post-transplant treatment is the way to eradicate the problems which I raised.

I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) for his kind remarks on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box in my new role. I appreciated his comments. I also appreciated his chairing of the Select Committee of which I was a member for three and a half years. I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be fair-minded and sensible on issues that are not matters of party political controversy. I shall reply to his comments in a similar manner.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate on an important subject—the treatment of leukaemia patients—which is of concern to all hon. Members. I welcome the opportunity that the debate provides to set out the progress that is being made to help those people in our community who are unfortunate enough to have contracted this dreadful disease.

It may be helpful if I begin by explaining the all-Wales context for health service expenditure. The revenue funding made available to district health authorities in Wales has risen £267·033 million in 1978–79 to £945·401 million in 1990–91—an increase in real terms, after taking account of inflation, of 44·87 per cent. In 1991–92, spending is planned to rise to £1·188 billion—nearly 55 per cent. more in real terms than in 1979. Revenue allocations to South Glamorgan health authority rose from £57·841 million to £186·075 million in the same period.

In 1990–91, South Glamorgan health authority received an increase of £12–7 million over the previous year and its capital allocation was £7·938 million—an increase of 122 per cent. over the 1989–90 figure. That increase reflects the implementation of the second capital formula update which was forecast in the previous year's planning assumptions. It is important to give the all-Wales figures, because too often the impression is given that expenditure on our national health service has been cut when, in fact, in that period it increased by leaps and bounds.

On the specific issue of bone marrow transplantion, it may be helpful if I begin by setting out the types of treatment and the ways in which leukaemia is tackled in Wales. It can be treated by a number of methods, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and bone marrow transplantation. District health authorities are responsible for the provision of services to lekaemia patients, but radiotherapy and bone marrow transplanattions are designated as regional services. District health authorities provide facilities at many of our hospitals and these provide ease of accessibility to patients and reduce the need for very sick patients to travel long distances for regular treatment. Such facilities are based within the hospital haematology departments, and in recent years departments have been improved as health authorities have responded to the needs of patients suffering leukaemia and other blood-related disorders.

Bone marrow transplants are becoming increasingly important in the treatment of leukaemia. We in Wales are fortunate in having a purpose-built bone marrow transplant unit at the University hospital of Wales capable of providing that complex specialist treatment. That unit was inspired by and evolved from the pioneering work of clinicians at the University of Wales college of medicine and the University hospital of Wales in the early 1980s. I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who were involved in that pioneering work, especially Dr. Jack Whittaker and his colleagues in the bone marrow transplant unit.

In recognition of the need for a bone marrow transplant unit to be effective clinically and to make the best use of scarce medical expertise in this specialism, it was decided to designate the unit as a regional service. As such, it is funded by the Welsh Office to provide a service to health authorities in south Wales.

Regional designation was made in 1984 and central funds have been made available to South Glamorgan health authority to meet the capital and running costs of the purpose-built bone marrow transplant unit. It is funded to undertake 20 allogeneic transplants a year using bone marrow from suitable donors. Autologous transplants, which use the patients' own bone marrow, are also undertaken in the unit and are funded by the district health authority. In 1989–90, 21 allogeneic and 22 autologous transplants were carried out in the unit. As at 30 November 1990, seven allogeneic and 15 autologous transplants have been undertaken in the present financial year.

I am happy to give the figures for the first year: in 1988–89, there were 13 allogeneic and 18 autologous transplants. We have made progress in just two years. The health authority estimates that the cost of an allogeneic transplant is £60,005 and that of an autologous transplant is £54,210. We believe that that is money well spent on providing an opportunity for a patient to regain his or her good health. Reflecting the need to concentrate scarce clinical expertise, health authorities in north Wales secure bone marrow transplantation from neighbouring English regions.

The hon. Member for Gower raised several specific and important issues. If I cannot respond to all of them in detail today, I shall make sure that he receives a full explanation and letter from the Department as soon as possible after Christmas on those issues on which I am not able to pronounce.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the promise by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to his questions at the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on 24 October when he asked my right hon. Friend to visit the unit. I am pleased to inform the House that arrangements are in hand for that visit and, subject to confirmation with the hospital and the district health authority, my right hon. Friend hopes to visit the unit on 12 February. I, too, intend to visit the hospital and unit in the near future as part of my programme of visits to NHS facilities throughout Wales.

The hon. Gentleman referred to infection control and cross-infection. Advice is available to the hospital consultants and management from the control of infections officer to ensure a safe environment for the care of patients, particularly those with blood-related diseases such as leukaemia, who may be at special risk. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that advice is available at all times to any clinician who needs it. I hope that, if there is a problem at the University hospital, Dr. Whittaker and his colleagues will take it up with that official.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the use of a drug called alpha interferon. In addition to meeting the cost of undertaking bone marrow transplants at the University hospital, we have made central funds available to South Glamorgan health authority to meet the associated costs falling on support services such as the blood transfusion service and radiotherapy services which play a significant part in the bone marrow transplant treatment process. We recognise them as an important factor which we must consider. The cost of drugs used in the treatment regime is centrally funded.

I understand that the head of the bone marrow transplant unit, Dr. Whittaker, wishes to use a new drug, alpha interferon, as opposed to the more usual cyclosporin, which is used at the hospital. I also understand that the authority's drugs and therapeutics committee, which is composed of medical experts, has concluded that, at present, no convincing evidence exists for the use of this comparatively new drug and that its use is not justifiable on cost grounds. It is not, therefore, included in the hospital formulary and the unit general manager will not, therefore, sanction its purchase. I understand that Dr. Whittaker disagrees with that view. The chief administrative medical officer is now pursuing the matter with the parties involved. The Department's health professional group advises that the more usual drug for leukaemia patients is cyclosporin, and it is understood that this is available.

I must emphasise, however, that the specific drugs that may be prescribed are a matter for the managing health authority and the hospital management themselves on the advice of the drugs and therapeutics committee and it would be inappropriate for those of us without the essential training, technical knowledge and expertise to intervene in the question of the relative efficacy of drug regimes. I include politicians in that category. It would not be right for us, as lay people, to become involved in saying which drug is more effective. This matter must be decided by the clinicians. There is clearly a difference of professional view on this and it would not be right for the Government or Ministers to become involved in saying what should be done.

However, I emphasise that, as I understand it, central funding of drug costs has not been a factor militating against the availability of transplants where that treatment is regarded as the appropriate one for a patient. The same applies to the points made by the hon. Member for Gower about discharges from hospitals. Again, that is not a matter on which Ministers can make rulings; it must be for the clinicians in the hospital to make their own decisions, based on the health of the patient at the time, about whether that patient should, at an appropriate point, be discharged from the hospital.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to alpha interferon in connection with general practitioners. Professional advisers understand that, in the absence of convincing evidence about the wider use of alpha interferon, clinicians are voluntarily restricting the prescription of the drug to the treatment of hairy cell leukaemia. That is happening in authorities other than South Glamorgan which are utilising other available therapies that they consider appropriate. That, of course, includes cyclosporin.

It is important that we should look at the allegations that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and I shall therefore ask for a further review aned report on the points that he has made. I have asked officials to look at this as a matter of urgency. In the letter that I shall send to the hon. Gentleman in the new year, I shall include any further information that we receive on this matter. I assure him that no life-prolonging drugs have been withheld from patients. It is simply a matter of which drug is most appropriate for the patient. It is right that the health service should take account of costs. If a drug is an effective means of dealing with a complaint and is a lot cheaper than another drug, it would be ethically wrong to spend money on the more expensive drug. It is therefore right to ask the clinicians to make the judgment on that matter. However, we shall have another look at this and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the drug erythropoeitin, which is known as EPO for short. Funds have been made available to the health authorities managing the main renal units in Wales. They include South Glamorgan, West Glamorgan and Clwyd. The drug is used to counter the effects of anaemia. I understand that it costs about £6,000 per patient per year. We are making funds available to assist with the costs of providing EPO. This year, recurring funds of £240,000, which were first provided in 1989–90, have been continued and an additional £150,000 of funding has been brought forward. The total for the two sets of figures for 1990–91 is now £390,000. The hon. Gentleman, who is a fair man, will recognise that we are providing considerable funds for that drug.

Health officials are not aware of any instructions issued in Wales that would restrict the present arrangements whereby a general practitioner who accepts clinical responsibility for a condition requiring the use of the drug may use it. If the hon. Gentleman has any information to the contrary, I should be happy to receive it and will take the matter up. My understanding at the moment is that there is no restriction on general practitioners using EPO.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to anaesthetists and radiologists. I understand from the unit general manager at University hospital Wales that the complement of anaesthetists at the hospital is at present two short, but that arrangements are in hand to recruit replacements. The job descriptions have been approved and advertisements will be placed shortly. Details of the amount of time spent by anaesthetists and radiologists working for the bone marrow transplant unit are not available. It is for the hospital unit to plan the use of its personnel. However, I understand that no operations have been cancelled in the BMT unit as a result of the temporary shortage of two anaesthetists. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this point to the attention of the unit general manager.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the district health authority's funding of the bone marrow transplant unit. No representations have been made by the South Glamorgan health authority that it is in difficulty in managing the regional service for allogeneic bone marrow transplants.

However, in the context of the new arrangements that are to apply to regional services following their redesignation as district services with effect from 1 April 1991, the authority has indicated that, with the increased activity, the total running costs of the unit now exceed the funding provided by the Department. The latter relates to the level of service originally agreed—the 20 allogeneic transplants—and, as has already been said, the authority has not made any requests for additional funding in the intervening period. I shall, of course, ensure that the discussions that are taking place between South Glamorgan health authority and officials in my Department bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made when they consider the new arrangements that will be in place after 1 April 1991.

The hon. Gentleman also commented on what he said was the inadequate number of nurses available to the BMT unit. Again, we shall look at that matter and I will write to the hon. Gentleman about it. However, he will appreciate that it is not the job of the Department to monitor and control staffing at particular wards and units. Nevertheless, as the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter, we shall ensure that he gets an answer on it.

Looking to the future, the management and financial framework of the national health service is in the course of change to reflect the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. To ensure that the national health service is made increasingly responsive to the needs of patients, new arrangements are being brought in from 1 April 1991. Those new arrangements will be introduced in Wales from next year for the specialist services which, at present, are designed and provided as regional services. That includes the bone marrow transplant unit at University hospital.

The arrangements are being introduced in discussion with the relevant health authorities, following a comprehensive review of individual regional services and consultation with the health service in Wales. Individual health authorities will negotiate contracts with the providing units on services for patients, including any associated drug costs. However, because of their costs, the variable need for them or their heavy dependence on the availability of donors, a number of services are continuing to receive central protection, subject to periodic review.

It is a measure of our concern for leukaemia patients that the bone marrow transplant service at UHW is among those services that will benefit from that arrangement. That will mean that the level of service which has, in the past, been centrally funded and available to patients throughout south Wales will continue to be available to health authorities to meet the needs of leukaemia patients. Detailed arrangements are being considered in discussion with the managing health authority.

I reiterate that, in the haematology departments of hospitals throughout Wales, we have good caring facilities for the treatment of leukaemia patients. That is no less so in South Glamorgan where, in addition to the district service, the University hospital of Wales provides a highly specialised bone marrow transplant service to patients from its own and other districts. That service is funded centrally to provide an agreed level of treatment and, with the support of South Glamorgan health authority, has succeeded beyond expectation in extending the service available to leukaemia sufferers.

As the new Minister responsible for health in Wales, I want to take this opportunity to make clear for all to see my commitment to the continuing work carried out over the past eleven and a half years to improve our health service. I use the national health service and I know how good it is. I believe that we can do even better. The policies that we have introduced to enhance health care by making it more responsive to the needs of patients and offering them greater choice will lead us forward to even greater excellence and quality and to a health service that will take Wales into the next century with a level of health care on course to rival the best in Europe.

I thank the hon. Member for Gower for introducing this subject which is of great concern to all of us in Wales and for giving me the opportunity, in my first debate, to reply on such an important subject.

I am glad that this opportunity has been given to me to discuss a matter of the gravest urgency, the present security situation in Northern Ireland with special reference to the IRA's campaign of intimidation in County Fermanagh and County Tyrone. The Government have many pressing matters on their agenda but the first of those should be the defence and protection of the citizens of the United Kingdom. There is grave urgency concerning this matter in the United Kingdom's Province of Northern Ireland. I cannot stress the urgency enough.

I shall put the backcloth fairly before the House and the Minister. I am not suggesting that the Minister is in a state of ignorance, because he comes from Northern Ireland.. I know that he has been "Englified" to a great extent, but I hope that what he gained by birth, upbringing and education in Northern Ireland still has a controlling and governing residue in his life and heart. I feel that for the record we must put the dark backcloth into perspective.

In the past 21 years, some 2,800 people have been killed in Northern Ireland and 30,000 have been maimed. If those figures were put into a United Kingdom context, 100,000 people would have been killed and 1 million maimed. Perhaps those figures go deeper to the hearts of hon. Members. That being so, we have a most grave problem.

The Minister will remember a passage in scripture in which a certain king of Israel asked, "Who killed all these?" It would be appropriate for me to tell the House of the problem, but I shall not use my own words because people may say that I put a gloss upon it. I shall use the words of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the Social Democratic and Labour party in Northern Ireland. When addressing his conference on 26 November 1988, he said:

"Let the record speak. Up till last Saturday 2,705 people have died in the twenty-year period of the current troubles. 31 per cent. of these were members of the security forces. 14 per cent. were members of paramilitary organisations. 55 per cent. were ordinary civilian men and women from both sections of the community, 69 per cent. of whom were from the Catholic community and 31 per cent. from the Protestant community. And who killed all those people? The statistics are devastating. 44 per cent. were killed by the Provisional IRA and 18 per cent. by their fellow travelling 'republican' paramilitaries."

That shows that the majority of killings were carried out by republican terrorist organisations. The hon. Member for Foyle went on:

"27 per cent. were killed by Loyalists. 10 per cent. were killed by the British Army. 2 per cent."—

and that is an interesting figure. From the Opposition Benches, not including my Unionist colleagues, there is a cry that there is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Yet only 2 per cent. were killed by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. There is a tremendous agitation from Dublin and republicans in the House that the Ulster Defence Regiment should be stood down. Yet an even more amazing figure shows that only 0.28 per cent. were killed by the UDR.

The hon. Member for Foyle said:

"In short, people describing themselves as Irish republicans have killed 6 times as many human beings as the British Army, 30 times as many as the RUC and 250 times as many as the UDR. And wait! One of their main claims is that they are the defenders of the Catholic community. Of the 1,194 members of the Catholic community who died, 46 per cent. were killed by Loyalist paramilitaries, 37 per cent. by people describing themselves as republicans and 17 per cent. by the security forces. And in the last 10 years since 1 January 1978 of the 305 members of the Catholic community who have lost their lives, 112 (37 per cent.) have been killed by people describing themselves as republicans, 105 (34 per cent.) by Loyalists and 88 (29 per cent.) by the security forces.

In the last 20 years republicans have killed more than twice as many Catholics as the security forces and in the last 10 years have killed more than the Loyalists."

Those facts need to be emphasised so that the matter may be put into perspective.

I could go on to defend the security forces, but I want to say that, in my public career, my party and myself have stood solidly in defence of the security forces—the Royal Ulster Constabulary, its reserves, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the members of the other regiments of the British Army. Although I believe that it is my duty as a public representative to seek a change in security policy and to bring to the House's attention any weaknesses in the policy, in no way have I ever tried to attack members of the security forces on the ground who are doing a very difficult job. Our thoughts are with the troops in the Gulf, but the thoughts of the Ulster people are also with their security forces at this time.

This Christmas, men will leave their families and children and put themselves on the line. When the little curly-headed lassie puts her arms around her daddy to say goodbye, she does not know whether he will return. Those men should get the plaudits of this House. We should honour them as they deserve. I pay tribute to their courage, resolve and unflinching integrity. One or two matters may have annoyed people and, naturally, we have brought them to the House's attention, but the integrity of those men is almost 100 per cent. Today the House should put on record the fact that we honour those men. They deserve our prayers and support.

The death of Constable Lewis Robinson at the Killeen barrier post has caused me great personal concern. This year we have had to pass through a grim ordeal. Seventy-four people have been killed in Northern Ireland compared with the total of 62 for the previous year. This year the IRA has been more active in Great Britain and on the continent than ever before. The late Ian Gow, who represented Eastbourne, fell massacred by IRA terrorists, leaving his seat vacant, and we must also consider that.

Nineteen ninety has seen the emergence of human bomb attacks. It is appalling that the IRA strap the driver in. Their most recent atrocity was to disable a man's legs so that he could not escape if there was that possibility. That is the depths of depravity reaching rock bottom. The treatment of his father and mother was almost like Saddam Hussein's tortures in Kuwait. We must set our face against that and take steps to ensure that it is not allowed to recur.

There has been an upsurge in attacks on the Protestant community in the rest of the Province with Mr. Gilmore in Kilrea and Mr. Shields outside Maghera. I treat with disdain and scorn those so-called mistaken shootings. People should not have a gun. Moreover, every killing is a mistake. Indeed, it is more than a mistake: it is evil and must be rooted out of society.

What comfort can a mother have when she looks at the corpse of her son and hears ringing in her ears the IRA's apology that it murdered the wrong person? When it comes from so-called Protestant paramilitaries, it is even more nauseating because the basis of Protestantism is civil and religious liberty for all men. We should condemn anyone who says, "We are out to murder, but we are sorry that we have murdered the wrong person." The Government must take as many steps as possible to wipe that out of our community.

The RUC's chief constable has warned us of a threat of increased IRA activity and the Government have taken it on board. We have an extra 550 troops in the Province. Last night the city of Belfast was brought to a complete standstill by a series of hoax bombs and real bombs which were defused. It took me one hour 20 minutes via Hillsborough to reach the airport. I had to fly here yesterday because I dared not leave it until this morning. Anything could have happened and there would have been no possibility of my fulfilling my duties in this House.

The Government need to look hard at that. It is paralysing our economic life. It is putting the mailed fist of Republican terrorism on the artery of our economy and seeking to despoil it. What sort of men who would rule the whole of Ireland seek to blow up the shops in the centre of Belfast which serve the community? I fear that, before Christmas, there may be even greater atrocities in our land, especially in Belfast.

The security forces have confirmed that the IRA has undoubtedly large amounts of Semtex and weapons. Some have been recovered and we welcome that. Every gun that is recovered may be a life saved. Every pound of Semtex that is recovered is probably a life saved or, at least, a life free from maiming. Searches should be redoubled. Although Republican areas protest against the inconvenience of such searches, it is better to inconvenience the public than to follow coffins to the grave and allow the IRA to have its way.

I will not go into the Killeen incident in depth. If anybody has an interest in the life of a police officer, I in my capacity as a minister of the gospel had an interest in preserving the life of Constable Lewis Robinson. His father-in-law is an elder in the church that I serve. I have not only a political but a pastoral and personal interest. He was abducted and murdered. What alarmed us was that when that was reported to the officers at the barrier there were insufficient back-up forces to go down that road and deal with the IRA who were about to murder the officer. That is at the heart of the matter, and I will not weary the House with all the details. The prison officer who informed me of that came with me to see the Secretary of State whom he told exactly what took place.

I am aware of certain criticisms of what happened. They are criticisms not of individual police officers or of members of the Army, but to the effect that there were not back-up forces to deal with the matter. The Chief Constable has every right to defend his men and to condemn the monsters who commit such murders. However, no responsible chief constable has the right to attack a public representative for simply pointing out to the community that something is seriously wrong with a security policy that does not have the back-up on the ground to deal with a crime such as that which was about to be committed against Constable Robinson.

The Northern Ireland press does not treat me very favourably, or at times very fairly, but if one is in the kitchen one should take the heat and not complain. So when I quote from the Belfast Newsletter, I am not quoting from a publication that is a Paisley fan, if I might use that expression. Similarly, when I quote from the Belfast Telegraph, I am also not quoting a newspaper that is a Paisley fan. In the early days, both newspapers did everything possible to keep me from being elected to the House and to Stormont. On the day that I fought the Stormont election, one of them printed the name of my opponent on its front page with an X marked against it, and warned its readers that they should have nothing to do in that election of my wife's husband.

So, when those newspapers take off against the Chief Constable, it is because they are convinced that something must be put right. The Chief Constable viciously attacked the media, and political leaders whom he did not name, for bringing into the public domain the growing sense of hopelessness and helplessness. The Belfast Newsletter printed in its opinion column the headline, "RUC Chief off target." It commented:

"Whatever else may be said about the response of the security forces it is a demonstrable fact that it has been inadequate. It serves no purpose for the media or anyone else to blame individual officers.

But equally it serves no purpose for any one in authority to imply or suggest that, out of a sense of loyalty, the security forces should be above and beyond criticism either for what they do or fail to do. That is the road to further bloodshed and infinite despair."

The hon. Gentleman is right to bring to the attention of the House the failure of our own security services. However, did not the abduction in question take place on the Republic side of the frontier? Tremendous claims are made about the great co-operation between the two security services, but how can such atrocities continue to be committed on the main road from Belfast to Dublin without anyone being detained or apprehended? Is that not an example of the failure of that so-called co-operation?

Yes. I am disturbed that Ministers should have made statements to the House over a period of years about increasing co-operation. In fact, the Government have been very lavish with their praise. I do not know whether the Christmas spirit motivates Ministers every time they stand at the Dispatch Box, but their assurances appal the people of Northern Ireland.

I hope that the tragic incident involving Lewis Robinson will never be repeated, and that the Minister will give a strong assurance, which he will translate into action, that in future there will be a force adequate enough to take out those who would commit such a dastardly murder. To add to the remarks of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), the leader of the RUC federation had some strong comments to make in his annual address to the Northern Ireland Police Federation:

"Mr. Beattie went on to describe the south as 'an open house to murderers, bombers and gunmen', and the Irish Government as 'lacking in political guts', and accused them of hiding behind an 'unpredictable' judicial system and the provisions of the 1987 Extradition Act which he described as 'ineffective'.

He said that rulings in cases like that of Father Ryan were `a calculated insult to the British judiciary and a blatant political pandering which betrayed an unwillingness to grasp the nettle of terrorism.'

Mr. Beattie also called on Mr. Haughey to intern terrorists if he wanted to deny them safe haven. He said such action would serve more purpose and be a lot more constructive than endless attacks on the UDR and the professionalism of the RUC."

I turn to the situation in Enniskillen and in South Fermanagh, which the Minister will know I have raised before in the House. I have in my hand a copy of The Impartial Reporter, which contains in its columns of public notices certain advertisements; and I will read one or two of them. One states:

"Owing to a phone call we can no longer serve the security forces. Traynor's Cafe, Maguiresbridge."

That is a Roman Catholic establishment. Another advertisement was placed by W. J. Kennedy in Magheraveely, which is a Protestant establishment:

"We wish to make it publicly known that we will no longer serve the security forces."

A third advertisement reads:

"At the request of the Fermanagh Brigade of the Provisional IRA, I, Barry McCormack, Proprietor of Silver Dollar Take Aways in Lisnaskea and Irvinestown, will not be serving members of the Security Forces."

The Minister has personal knowledge of Northern Ireland and a good grasp of Irish history, so he will know that the boycott weapon has been used in the past to intimidate people. It seems that there is to be a dreadful revival of that technique. It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Members to sit in this Chamber, in the relative safety of this part of the United Kingdom, and to criticise people for reacting in that way, by placing such advertisements—but what are they to do? I have twin boys, and I know how my wife and I would feel if, living in such an isolated community, we received a phone call telling us, "If you want to see both your sons in a coffin, carry on serving the police and the Army in your premises. But if you want to keep your sons alive, put an advert in the local paper to say that you will not serve the security forces."

The people who criticise and condemn those who place such advertisements have never been in their position. If people who are threatened go to the police, they are told that the police can do nothing to guarantee that their sons will not be murdered. The owners of such businesses are forced to place advertisements of that kind if they are to protect their families. Some right hon. and hon. Members might say that they should stand up and be counted, but although I in no way advocate giving in to the IRA, I must tell them and others that they should first imagine themselves in a similar situation. Only then could they appreciate what we and those shop owners are up against.

It is important for us to realise that what has happened on the border—the closing down of Army checkpoints overnight—has left Protestant families in a Government-created no-man's land. These people are simply terrified. I have talked to them, and they know not what to do. They are officially shut out from their own country for the period of darkness—the very time when the terrorists strike.

I trust that the Under-Secretary can give us some assurance today that the Government have taken this matter on board. I know that he is not able to tell us—nor do we want to know—the strategy that the security forces are adopting: that would pre-empt the effectiveness of such a strategy. However, I want a categorical assurance from the hon. Gentleman today.

The rubbish spoken by ecumenical prelates, including the new RC Archbishop of Armagh, will not bring a settlement from IRA terrorists. I find it grievously insulting to Protestant politicians when, on the numerous occasions that we pleaded with the clerical gentleman to talk to us—we said, "Please come and talk to us"—he said, "No, I will not talk to you." Yet before the world he insidiously trounced Protestant politicians and said that politicians should be talking.

I will talk to the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh any day that he wants to come to me, as the representative of the whole of Northern Ireland in Europe. I shall be prepared to meet him—he is a constituent of mine—and I am prepared to listen to what he has to say and to tell him what I feel.

I know that the Minister was listening to the prelate recently, as was the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I do not know whether they benefited from the worship of the Virgin Mary in that programme. I would certainly not benefit from it. However, in politics we need to ensure that we do not act hypocritically.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for allowing me a little time to participate briefly in the debate. I am glad that the Minister has been joined by his ministerial colleague on the Front Bench—although it is not for the first time, especially in a debate on Northern Ireland—because I know that they both recognise the vital importance of security, which has been raised in the debate on the initiative of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.

We could borrow a phrase from another organisation and say that the most important thing is the "right to life". The hon. Member for Antrim, North mentioned the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have been astonished how the morale of that regiment has been maintained, and how the steadiness and fairness of its behavour have been so evident in the face of all the vile criticism levelled at it, especially in recent months.

There was a co-ordinated assault which resulted in the ill-fated Stevens inquiry. It was ill-fated because it proved precisely nothing. The Stevens inquiry was unfairly accused, by those who played a major part in bringing it about, of a whitewash job, but that was not the case. The reality was that there was nothing to discover, so it was hardly surprising that it ended in a fiasco.

Not one single conviction resulted on the basis of any terrorist-related offence as a result of the humiliation of all the members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who were arrested as if they were terrorists or invaders in the early hours of a Sunday morning in the most disgraceful manner, which placed their lives and the lives of their families in jeopardy. Many of their families had to move to safer areas.

There was one astonishing statement in the inquiry report—there were many such statements but this one struck me in particular. It was the assertion that referees of recruits for Ulster Defence Regiment members ought to be interviewed. I have acted in that capacity, together with the hon. Member for Antrim, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) who submitted themselves to interviews. Being the honourable Members of Parliament that we are, we gave truthful answers. I was absolutely astonished that no one had told Mr. Stevens that that had been standard practice.

One nationalist spokesman recently declared that the Royal Ulster Constabulary would not be acceptable for about 50 years. Surely that is prejudging the effect of all that the police are doing to enforce the law without fear or favour. That nationalist spokesman ought to give advice to terrorists because, if they stopped their vile campaign of murder, I am quite certain that every member of the RUC would be only too delighted to revert to civilian policing. That would also encourage and permit a larger number of Roman Catholic applicants to join the RUC. They cannot do so at the moment because it would put their lives in jeopardy.

My view, which is shared by members of both our Unionist parties, is that all members of all arms of the security forces require and deserve the full support of Parliament and the Government. I know that Northern Ireland Ministers would agree that those forces should not be starved of the financial resources necessary to provide equipment. However, there are others in government whose job it is to ensure that money is not spent unless it is absolutely necessary to spend it. I have in mind those Ministers who occupy the building just across the road. However, they found the money to conduct the Falklands campaign and—all honour to them—they are finding the money to conduct the preparations for a possible campaign in the Gulf.

The security forces deserve and have earned our moral support. We could all help in that regard by illustrating the fallacy that only one side of the community suffers from inconvenience, and what is sometimes called harassment, by the actions of the security forces. All of us have been stopped, invited to get out of our cars on a pouring wet night and frisked. On one occasion, I had the distinction of being placed under close arrest for 50 minutes because I had committed the unpardonable crime of having an Ordnance Survey map of my constituency on the dashboard. However, I fully accept that the Army unit had to be impartial, and had to treat us all as potential terrorists and suspects. The security forces do not enjoy their arduous and dangerous duties, and the entire community has a duty to understand the stress under which they operate.

Hon. Members can say with confidence that no security forces anywhere in the world would have conducted themselves with the fairness, determination and display of fortitude which has been so evident among all the security forces operating in Northern Ireland.

I thank the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) for doing the House a service by initiating this important debate, and for the way in which he did it. He and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) hold a common view in support of the security forces and of the police. I want to begin my response, which I fear may not be as full as I would have wished, given the importance of the subject, by adding my tribute on behalf of the Government to the security forces, the police and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I thank them for the job that they do on our behalf in difficult and dangerous circumstances. We are immensely in the debt of the security forces, the UDR, the RUC and the reservists. They show enormous courage and make real sacrifices, and it is right and proper for us to recognise that.

It is my sad duty to tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North that the 74 deaths to which he referred have been augmented by the murder of an RUC full-time reserve officer, Wilfred Wethers, in the lane-way of his house in Waringstown road, Lurgan, just after midnight. He had served in the force for 15 years, was married and ha .d four children aged between nine and 20 years. I know that the whole House will join me in offering sincere condolences to his family in this tragic circumstance, and in expressing our utter condemnation of those who murdered him.

I have listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North had to say, and I understand the depth of feeling and breadth of experience underlying his arguments. He was, I think, right to rehearse again for the benefit of the House the harrowing statistics that he delivered, and also to point the finger: he, and all Northern Ireland Members, reject violence from whatever quarter it may come, but there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman was right to single out the Provisional IRA as people who glory in murder more than any other organisation.

Neither the Government nor the security forces are complacent about the current level of violence. Indeed, the Secretary of State's statement about security policy made it clear that there is no such thing as an acceptable level of violence. We are determined to eradicate terrorism, whatever its source, and not merely to contain it; we are also committed to maintaining the rule of law, defending the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and their opposition to terrorism, and creating the conditions for a just, peaceful and prosperous society.

However, we must also be realistic. The complete removal of terrorism is a difficult, complex and dangerous task. There is no quick fix, and, although many possible measures seem attractive at first sight, they may prove on analysis to be of little value, perhaps even self-defeating. That is not to say that the defeat of terrorism is an impossible task; it is not and it will be achieved. The Government are committed to ensuring that the police, supported by the armed forces, have all the resources that they need to undertake their difficult and dangerous work on behalf of the whole community. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

It is, I suppose, only natural for the media and some others to concentrate on the tragic events that occur in Northern Ireland, and perhaps even to take a downbeat and depressed view of what happens in the Province. Let me pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who did not fall into that trap today. There are successes. Only yesterday, for instance, the security forces recovered two AKM rifles, an Armalite, a pistol, ammunition, 5 lb of Semtex and other items of terrorist equipment. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, such action takes equipment out of the terrorist arsenal and saves lives. At the end of September, the security forces had recovered 167 weapons, nearly 17,000 rounds of ammunition and over 4,000 lb of explosives. So far, 288 people have been arrested and charged in connection with terrorist crimes, and 307 have been convicted.

In a sense, those finds are only the tip of the iceberg. Every day, at all hours of the day and night, in all weathers and everywhere—I repeat, everywhere—in Northern Ireland, the security forces are present. Sometimes they are visible, conducting foot or mobile patrols or vehicle checkpoints; sometimes they are not so visible. The effect of their activity is to deter the terrorist, to make him abandon deeds that would otherwise have cost lives and, sometimes, to catch him red-handed.

It is important to the security forces, and to the pursuit of a security policy in Northern Ireland, that those forces receive the backing of the law. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill is currently in Committee. If it is the will of the House, a new power will be given to the police and the armed forces—the power to examine documents and other recorded data found in the course of a search as far as is reasonably required to ascertain whether they contain information that is likely to be useful to terrorists.

There will also be a new offence, that of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes, and a new power to allow the armed forces to seize equipment used to reopen closed border crossings. There will be another new offence, that of making bypasses around closed crossing points. All those measures are part of the fabric of tackling terrorism.

The hon. Gentleman raised the sad and deplorable death of Mr. Robinson. Continued attacks carried out on that Killeen stretch of the A I are in the interests of no one but the terrorist. Attacks or abandoned bombs on the road not only cause inconvenience and affect the financial returns of traders in the area, but are designed to kill. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman when he deplored all the Provisional IRA's talk about mistakes. These are not mistakes; those people set out to murder, and they did so. If they got the target wrong—in their terms—that does not make it a mistake: it is still murder, and everyone should understand that.

It will not surprise hon. Members to learn—I thinks that this is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman was seeking—that we are looking closely at how better to protect that stretch of road, and are discussing with the Irish Government possible practical measures to improve its security and that of other border roads. I know that hon. Members will understand if I do not disclose the details of those discussions, for obvious reasons. Our aim is clear, however: we want to ensure that murders such as those of Constable Robinson, Judge and Lady Gibson and the Hanna family, and the recent attack on the Cloghoge permanent vehicle checkpoint are not repeated.

The hon. Gentleman talked with feeling about what was happening in Fermanagh, and again I share his feelings. Those who have not been put in such a position should think carefully before delivering serious criticism of the actions of those who have. The Government readi:ly acknowledge and appreciate the valuable contribution of those who serve in the security forces in that particularly difficult part of the Province. They provide a service to the community—as, indeed, do others who help them in their work.

I utterly condemn the Provisional IRA's campaign of intimidation and threats aimed at the people of Fermanagh. The security forces in that area are already stepping up their operational profile to protect and reassure those who are at risk, and to deter further terrorist activity. A comprehensive range of measures is already in place to protect and support those who are at particular risk. For obvious reasons again, I will not give hon. Members the details of the arrangements, but I assure them that all possible steps will be taken.

As we approach Christmas, it is important for us all to understand that we have a role to play in supporting the security forces in Northern Ireland. There are people who know who is causing intimidation in Fermanagh. There are people with information that coulld be of assistance. Apathy is not an acceptable discharge of civic responsibility when the lives of people are at risk. I appeal to all the people of the Province to show their support for the security forces and the police, not least by making available any information that would bring those perpetrators of violence to justice, for that ultimately is the best way to secure peace, tranquillity and prosperity in the Province.

I take this opportunity to wish right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and who have a complexity to their lives and a pressure that the rest of us do not experience a very happy Christmas. I am sure that they will agree with me when I say that it is perhaps even more important also to wish all their constituents a happy and peaceful Christmas.

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this debate, for two good reasons. First, it provides me with the opportunity to raise matters that affect our great national game of soccer at a critical time in its history. Secondly, it gives the new Minister for Sport the first opportunity since his appointment to speak from the Dispatch Box on a sporting matter and therefore to break his duck, if that is not mixing my sporting metaphors too much. I genuinely welcome him, as I am sure the sporting fraternity does, to his new post. I look forward to having a dialogue with him on a number of sporting matters between now and the general election.

I pay tribute to the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) who had the unfortunate task of defending the indefensible—I refer to identity cards for football supporters—for much of his reign. I shall remember him not for that alone, but for much other important work that he did, away from the limelight, for disabled athletes and for his efforts to combat the evils of drug taking in sport. I am pleased to see from this morning's press that the new Minister for Sport is carrying on that good work. All sports lovers will wish him well in his new role.

Although I hold the post of chairman of the all-party football committee, I intend to speak in a personal capacity and to be constructively critical of the Government when dealing with matters that cause both me and the football world concern. I absolve the Minister from that criticism, certainly up to the time of his reply this morning. I do not blame him for any past failures. He is still enjoying his honeymoon period.

A casual observer of the football scene might have gained the impression that everything is progressing steadily towards conversion to all-seater football stadiums. However, the game faces a potential crisis, due to escalating police charges, delays in establishing the Football Licensing Authority and confusion over planning policies. Much more fundamentally, however, there is no cohesive and central strategy for the game. If football is to take the necessary steps outlined in Lord Justice Taylor's report into the Hillsborough disaster and harness the undoubted talents and willingness of many of those who are in the game, a Lord Justice Taylor with political clout will be needed to bring them to fruition.

The great strength of Lord Justice Taylor was that he was able to take a step backwards from any single area of football and exercise a dispassionate overview before he formulated his findings. If football is to derive full benefit from the report, it must draw on those same strengths when it comes to implementing and developing the report's findings. When we debated Lord Justice Taylor's report I told the House that it should be seen as a catalyst for change, not as tablets of stone.

A lot of nonsense is often talked, not least by some Ministers, when the finances of the game are discussed. If we were to heed the wishes of some, football stadiums would be overflowing with milk and honey. They would have money aplenty. The majority of clubs, however, survive on a financial knife edge. They are supported through fund-raising efforts and by the goodwill of fanatics, in the best sense of that word, in the director's box and on the terraces. A recent study by Jordan and Sons shows that only six out of the 20 clubs in the first division made a pre-tax profit in the 1989–90 season.

Another fallacy that must be firmly dispelled is that, somehow, football is a financial drain on the taxpayer. Nothing could be further from the truth. We all welcome the reduction in the football pool betting duty from 42·5 to 40 per cent. in the last Budget. However, that merely reversed the decision that was made by the Government to increase the rate from 40 to 42·5 per cent. Moreover, the £100 million over five years that will be released by that move is but a tiny fraction of the £2·4 billion that the Treasury has taken out of the game in betting duty during the last 10 years.

Furthermore, the £2·4 billion does not include the income that accrues to the Chancellor of the Exchequer from PAYE and VAT and other income derived from the thousands of jobs created by the footbal industry. Put simply, football is a nice little earner for the Government. If sceptics were to take the trouble to find out what positive moves football has made since the Taylor report was published, they would find that, in any comparison made between Government efforts and those of the football authorities, without doubt the latter comes off best.

Football has set up four working parties to get to grips with the Taylor recommendations. Great strides have been taken towards finding alternative sources of funding to bring about stadium improvements. They include a levy on transfer fees, broadcasting fees and even sponsorship for the FA cup. Football is making the running. The Government are lagging behind in their response to the challenges that we face if the game is to be taken in a good state into the next century. Ironically, the Government suffer to some extent from a problem that plagues football. Their interest in the game is spread over many areas and Departments. Certain aspects of football are covered by the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Foreign Office. The Minister's responsibilities for sport have now moved to the Department of Education and Science. I shall reserve my judgment on whether that is a good move.

The new Prime Minister has rightly been welcomed by the sporting authorities because of his genuine links with sport. I hope that he will listen, however indirectly, to the debate and consider the strengths of my arguments, including the one that I advanced at a recent conference of the Central Council of Physical Recreation. I said then that if the Prime Minister really cares about sport, he ought to enhance the Minister's position by making him a Minister of State. That would give him more clout to argue the case not just for football but for sport in general. That would ensure that the shortcomings of the Government's policies towards football in previous years are not repeated.

It might also avoid one of the Government's most significant failures, which is their laggardly approach to one of Lord Justice Taylor's most important recommendations—the Football Licensing Authority, which is to be charged with implementing and overseeing ground safety and conditions and the move towards all-seater accommodation by 1994 in all first division and second division grounds and in all league grounds by 1999.

It is now 17 months since the former Minister for Sport claimed that the Government would respond swiftly to anything Lord Justice Taylor had to say on safety and would activate whatever measures were necessary to ensure that grounds are safe.

Three months previously, on 20 April, even the former Prime Minister, whose attitude to the game was, to say the least, antipathetic, admitted that to delay a legislative measure that would enable us to take advantage of Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations for another 12 months would be negligent. As, 20 months later, the FLA is not up and running, negligence would be a charitable description of the Government's record.

It is not as though the Government are unaware of the serious problems caused by the delays. The hon. Member for Lewisham, East admitted to the House in the debate on the Taylor report:

"If we did not have the legislative vehicle in place, we would not be in a position to give clubs as much time as possible to meet the timetable outlined in the report.—[Official Report, 30 January 1990; Vol. 166, c. 257.]

Since that date, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, East and his successor are aware, I have raised this matter many times, only to experience each time more delays and setbacks.

The Government missed their own deadline—1 June—for setting up the FLA and took a month to admit that such a deadline existed, despite the pleas from worried clubs which, in the absence of that body, were unable to determine what constituted a seat, let alone any major structural or design proposals.

The date by which the FLA will be up and running has constantly receded into the distant future, which has grave consequences for clubs. At the start of the current season, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), as secretary of the all-party football committee, and I wrote to all league clubs asking how much progress they had made in converting to all-seater accommodation. Sixty-six per cent. of respondents have been unable to carry out any work and 86 per cent. were not planning to carry out any work this season. Given the delays in establishing the FLA, 45 per cent. were unhappy with the timetable laid down for conversion. More than one third said that their work had been directly affected by the delay. One club summed it up very well:

"The delay has reduced the impetus and importance of Taylor's recommendations."

We would all concur with that. The Government must take responsibility for this regrettable state of affairs, which unfortunately shows no sign of abating.

Only nine days ago, the Minister of State, Home Office, admitted to me that it would be unrealistic to expect the FLA to administer a licensing system effectively before it has acquired the necessary staff and expertise. I understand the problem of the Minister for Sport because it is not his responsibility, but that underlines my point that we should have a Minister with all-embracing powers.

Where do we stand 17 months after the Government's statement that they would respond swiftly to the Taylor report? To put it bluntly, the FLA, which wishes to get on with the job, has only one third of the administrative staff required for its operations and recruitment of inspectors is only just under way. It is estimated that that will not be completed until next spring. Even if all that were in place, the FLA still does not possess the legislative powers required to fulfil its role, because the Government have failed to implement sections 9 and 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989. We heard in Committee time and again of the importance of those sections, which give the FLA powers to lay down any terms and conditions for inclusion in the local authority safety certificates issued to clubs which it believes are necessary to the maintenance of safety.

Furthermore, the FLA is still waiting for powers to enter to inspect grounds, to examine club safety certificates and to obtain from local authorities information on the issuing of such certificates. It is not good enough for the Government to claim, as they did in October last year, that the FLA should ensure that the safety of individuals is at the top of its list; they are not giving it the tools to do the job. The FLA chairman, Norman Jacobs, is unhappy with such a state of affairs, as are football authorities, local authorities, the police and clubs.

It must be asked: who has benefited from the delay? It certainly is not football. The Government have saved £400,000, because 59 per cent. of the proposed FLA budget for the current financial year has not been spent. They should act swiftly and immediately to enable the implementation of sections 9 and 13 and that £400,000 should be ploughed back into the FLA to give it the assistance that it needs. Anything less would run counter to the spirit of the Taylor recommendations, which the Government wholeheartedly endorsed. The Football League estimates that the cost of implementing the recommendations in full, rather than simply putting shoddy seats into shoddy stands, would be as high as £665 million.

Given that, it is clear that there will be severe financial pressure on clubs as they seek to convert to all-seater accommodation, yet on top of that pressure the game is facing a crisis of potentially devastating proportions as a result of the staggering increases in police charges. Their charges have risen by four times the rate of inflation and there has been a concurrent rise in police wage costs in recent years. At the same time, the arrest rate at football grounds has dramatically decreased.

The Government are threatening to make matters infinitely worse by introducing a system of charging clubs for the full cost of policing, which includes costs of covering overtime and the leave and rest days of officers on duty. Such an approach is not proposed for similar events such as pop concerts and party conferences. If it were, the Conservative party would have to pay £2 million for policing its last conference. I do not think for one moment that the Government will be asking Tory central office to cough up that money.

It has been argued that Lord Justice Taylor supported such a system of charging. That is not true. He said that there should be a consistent and businesslike approach to charging and realistic costs. Nobody in their right mind could argue that the costs are realistic.

Overshadowing all that is the issue of planning policy guidance. The stark reality is that, if clubs try to relocate their stadiums, they are in danger of being thwarted by inflexible planning straitjackets contained in the Government's current draft guidance. The Minister has been keen to portray this document as "positive and flexible", yet in two separate parts of the guidance it is stated that football stadiums should not be regarded as appropriate development on green belt land.

The Minister nods, but the results of the survey published recently by the Royal Town Planning Institutes how that such an approach could render the identification of new sites almost impossible. That must cause the Minister concern. We all accept that the green belt must not be breached, except in the most exceptional circumstances, but encouraging the development of genuine community-based, multi-purpose sports stadiums, with football clubs as the hub of activity and under an obligation to involve and serve the local community, would do much to enhance the breadth and quality of leisure provision. However, the Minister seems to adopt an unyielding approach to development.

Football has shown itself willing to undertake such activities through its highly successful and rapidly expanding football in the community scheme. Such an approach might finally attract families to games. We heard from the previous Prime Minister and others about bringing families back to the game. Families have never been involved in the game in numbers, so what we should be talking about is attracting them for the first time to our great game. That is the challenge facing Government in the years ahead.

Such developments would lead to greater support for sport in schools. I know that by arguing this case I am knocking at an already half-open door because the Minister has, as I have, a young son who is a keen sports buff. I suppose that that is a built-in pressure on the Minister to do something about protecting physical education and sport provision in the national curriculum for 14 to 16-year-olds.

I have argued that what is needed is a Lord Justice Taylor free from judicial constraint, a Leviathan figure to bring together the many disparate voices in the game. That begs the question of what form such a body should take. The Minister will not be surprised to know that I believe that the answer is a football levy board. The Minister will be aware, as the Prime Minister is, of my pleas for such a board in the past. I have outlined the case for it to them both. I hope that it has not fallen on deaf ears.

I shall not repeat today the case for such a board, but I want to explain how it could carry out the tasks that would be required of it if it were to take football into the next century and secure a bright future for the game. It could do so by bringing together all the bodies contained within the football body politic, whether administrators, players, representatives of the football authorities or, for the first time, supporters. It could do so under the chairmanship of someone appointed by the Government to do what Lord Justice Taylor could not do—push for and facilitate on a sustained and regular basis the implementation of the Taylor recommendations.

The essence of a levy board was summed up in 1978 by the Rothschild commission on gambling which recommended its creation. Rothschild said:

"Its funds and its independent standing should provide the leverage to enhance the better management and development of the game … it could be the energising agent for radical change."

If that was true in 1978, how much more true is it today after Taylor and Hillsborough?

The levy board would not be based on a government hands-on approach. It would concentrate minds and provide a coherent strategic policy to unite the efforts of the various bodies in the football world. Most important, through its links with the Government, it would be in a position, which no other body is in, to exercise sympathetic influences in development and planning. In doing so, it could help secure the most prosperous future for the game, for, as the Minister knows, the potential is undoubtedly there.

In the past few years, attendances at league games have risen, with the virtual elimination of hooliganism coupled with a declining arrest rate. We have seen more goals scored per match and a clampdown on cynical play. To cap it all, we have had the shot in the arm provided by the performances of both supporters and teams during Italia 90. Indeed, the Government's supporters should be falling over themselves to don football shirts. After all, it must be one of the few ways in which they will be welcomed back into the European fold with open arms.

This season our domestic clubs will have the chance to gain international accolades for good behaviour and fair play as the England team did in Italy. Most recently, the newly established captain Gary Lineker became only the second player in history to receive an individual award for combining fair play with outstanding success. Gary not only has been and continues to be an outstanding ambassador for the game and for Britain but, as one who has never been booked or sent off at any point in his career, he provides one of the most shining examples to which any young child can aspire. I know that I carry the Minister and the House with me on that. Gary Lineker is acknowledged by the international authorities as the undisputed world leader of the game and an example to players of all nations.

I have been critical of the Government at times during my speech. I hope that the Minister realises that I would have criticised a Government of whatever party if they were responsible for a scenario similar to that which exists today. Constructive criticism in support of the greatest game in the world is never to be decried. I hope that the Minister and the House will accept my comments in that light.

As ever, it is a delight to find myself at the Dispatch Box. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the first time that I have done so, because I answered an Adjournment debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) about sport in general.

However, this is my first opportunity to talk about football. The opportunity was provided by the foresight and interest in football of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry). He called football our national game but, to be slightly pedantic, I call it our national winter game because we have another game, called cricket, which we play in the summer. It is fair to say that football and cricket are two of the greatest games in the world. However, we are here today to talk about soccer.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for choosing the subject of football. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments—which I expected—about the work that my hon. Friend did. It was a difficult time for my hon. Friend, as the House and the hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic generosity, will accept. In the circumstances, he did what the House will accept was his best. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde also rightly referred to the other work that my hon. Friend did behind the scenes, not only for soccer but in sport generally. I know that my hon. Friend will be grateful for the encouragement and thanks of the hon. Gentleman, who speaks with considerable authority on soccer and many other sports issues. He is an acknowledged expert in the House, whose views cannot be dismissed lightly, although I would not do that anyway.

The hon. Gentleman was right to mention the improvements and changes that have taken place in soccer. They took place largely as a result of the activities of the England team in Italy, before I took office. As he said, the way in which the team played, the skill that the players displayed and the manner in which they conducted themselves both on and off the field was a joy to many people in Britain.

It was refreshing to see the inspired leadership of the captain Gary Lineker, who deservedly has won a multiplicity of fair play awards. He won not only the award in Italy but the new Stanley Matthews award for fair play. He has given a great deal of encouragement to many. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, as the parent of a young son, I regard the image that Gary Lineker projects as one which should be endorsed not only in soccer but in a wide variety of sports.

It is also good to see that there are rising attendances at football matches and that the standards of behaviour both on and off the field have improved in many respects. We wish to be positive about the future of football. We hope that what has happened in recent months and years was a chapter which is closed and that we can turn a new leaf and look towards what can be achieved in the future.

In the time allowed, I wish to touch on how such moves should be taken. Since I took the job as Minister for Sport—at the Deparment of the Environment from July onwards and now at the Department of Education and Science—I have taken the view that it is incumbent on me to listen to what sports administrators, governing bodies and those involved at national level, such as the National Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and various other bodies, have to say before I pontificate about what should happen. The hon. Gentleman was, as usual, perceptive when he highlighted the difficulties that a Sports Minister faces in dealing with the various other Departments which have responsibilities for sport.

It would not be proper for me to comment on his invitation to the Prime Minister to upgrade the job to Minister of State. However, I shall ensure that the Hansard report of the debate is presented to the Prime Minister, who may choose in due course to react to the hon. Gentleman's interesting proposal.

As I said, I have listened closely to what sports administrators have said. Clearly, I cannot and will not interfere with the management and administration of games or sports. That is a matter for the administrators, but I can cajole and encourage them, raise matters about which I am worried and let them know which aspects I support. It is proper that the Sports Minister, along with hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about certain matters, should set the agenda and make sure that the sports world understands our anxieties.

We touched briefly on sportmanship. The hon. Gentleman is aware of and shares my anxiety about standards of sportsmanship not only in soccer but across the sporting world. I was delighted at the action taken recently by the Football Association on the Arsenal-Manchester United brawl. Such brawls have no place in football. I hope that that message has got through clearly to two great clubs, to which a fine was relatively insignificant but on which the deduction of points had a more salutary effect. That is crucial.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his incarnation as Chancellor of the Exchequer, reduced the betting duty by 2·5 per cent. in last year's Budget and thereby provided about £100 million over the next five years to improve football, following the Taylor report. When he was Chancellor—and I hope that, as First Lord of the Treasury, he will not resile from that commitment, in part at least—he said that further funds would be forthcoming for soccer if there was evidence that the football clubs, especially those in the league, were taking action to improve the grounds.

As the hon. Gentleman said correctly, these matters are divided among various Government Departments. If we are talking frankly, we can say that there is an argument for bringing together aspects of the controls. However, although I may have views on that, it is not the case at present. Although my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister understands and shares these concerns—that is one reason why he moved me to the Department of Education and Science—there is a long way to go. It is not for me to comment in any more than the broadest terms about the operation of the matters that fall to the Home Office and to the Foreign Office, although I can touch on the Department of the Environment as I was there recently and I will deal with the planning aspects.

The hon. Gentleman made suggestions about the Football Licensing Authority. I can only pass on to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary his concerns. I have had the opportunity to meet Norman Jacobs, who I find an extraordinarily impressive chairman. I know that he understands and cares about soccer and that he understands and is aware of the problems as perceived by football clubs from the first to the fourth division and beyond. I know that he will do what he can to ensure that the proposal, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East said was important, comes into effect.

It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to bring sections 9 and 13 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 into force as soon as it is appropriate to do so. Section 9, which creates the offence of admitting spectators to unlicensed premises, cannot come into force until the Football Licensing Authority can implement and administer the football licensing scheme. Section 13, which will empower the Football Licensing Authority to require local authorities to include in any safety certificate such terms and conditions as may be specified in a written notice issued by the FLA, will not come into force until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the FLA are satisfied that the authority has acquired the necessary staff and expertise to exercise that power. That will depend largely on the recruitment and training of a team of professional inspectors, the majority of whom are expected to be in post by next spring. The hon. Gentleman's point is well taken and I will ensure that I continue to press my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about it.

The hon. Gentleman referred to police charges. Although the headquarters of the Lancashire constabulary are in my constituency and I have a lot to do with the police, I cannot comment on the details of police charges, which are entirely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points continue to be brought to my right hon. Friend's attention.

The hon. Gentleman was very concerned about planning. In my previous incarnation, I handled not only sport but planning at the Department of the Environment and I had partial responsibility for the issuing of the policy guidance note that addressed the problem of the building of new stadiums. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have, on occasion, visited football grounds such as Preston North End, which was one of the founder members of the league and which has had substantial connections with football over the years at all levels. I understand exactly what is involved in the improvements required to stadiums, as do other hon. Members and people involved across the game. I understand the need to improve, to renovate, to rebuild and, in some cases, to build afresh, but we must come to terms with the fact that local planning authorities have their own views as a result of their closeness to their local communities.

In my constituency—I am sure that this is true of many others—local people have firm views about what they want or do not want to see in the green belt and in rural or semi-rural areas. Although one can make suggestions, it is very much a matter for local authorities to express their concern. Durham county cricket club has recently come into the county championship and there has been concern about the proposed new stadium at Chester-leStreet. It is not right for me to prejudice the planning committee's decision in Durham, but I can say that the Department of the Environment decided not to call in that planning application. The development will be major stadium with a variety of sporting facilities. It is planned to be built in an area in which it may cause local controversy.

I am reminded of some of the problems at Bristol Rovers and at other clubs. There are areas that need to be addressed. When I was at the Department of the Environment, I tried to emphasise the importance of local planning authorities understanding what was involved.

Football clubs and those associated with them must discuss planning proposals with the local authority at an early stage. It is no good for them to produce a plan and to present it as a fait accompli to which the planning authority must agree. That is not the way it works, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. Co-operation and consultation are required across the board before decisions are made. We have tried to impress on local authorities that they must consider the matter sympathetically and favourably, but it is a matter for them in the final analysis, as they represent their local communities and have to take them into account. However, the hon. Gentleman's points on the need to consider further development are well understood.

The hon. Gentleman talked about football in the community and I agree with him strongly about what has been achieved. My local club, Preston North End, like so many others, had a ground that was rarely used during the average football week. It is now used 20 hours a day, seven days a week by the local community, not only in Preston, but in the surrounding area, including my own constituency. Schools can hire the ground and youngsters can play in the great stadium where Tom Finney was at his best. Other sporting functions have been held there, such as a great international between the world hockey champions and the Olympic hockey champions. It was a marvellous match which was played with great style and watched with great interest.

Many other groups use the facilities at Preston which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has an artificial pitch. That has posed particular problems with the Football Association and with the Football League, and the club will have to pull up the pitch and restore the grass because of FIFA's views and because of the views of professional footballers about playing on grass. That poses a problem for football in the community and for the involvement of clubs. The digging up of the pitch will have a detrimental effect on community involvement at Preston North End. Oldham and Luton face similar problems.

And Hyde United.

I know that Hyde United is an important club in the hon. Gentleman's pantheon of great clubs.

The hon. Gentleman talked about a football levy board and, over the years, he has been well known for expressing strong views on that. I know that he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and he has raised the matter with me both privately and publicly. He shares his strong view with my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester).

There is a difference of opinion. I have listened to football clubs, to specialists, to journalists who understand the game and to others. There is quite a division of opinion on the matter. I am coming to the view that perhaps the football levy board is an unnessary bureaucracy. The Football Trust is carrying out remarkable work at the moment and I have spoken to many of the people involved with it and have witnessed their work on the spot-the-ball competition and other activities as a result of the dispensation on the funds made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Since I have been involved in soccer, I have become aware of the imperative need for soccer to be able to speak with one voice. At the moment, the Football Association, which is the custodian of the rules and the ultimate authority in the game, and the Football League, through the 92 clubs, represent two different voices. They represent most of soccer's attractions to the public, although not exclusively, because the Vauxhall Conference league and many other smaller clubs have regular and committed attractioins as do small boys' teams. I am president of Bamber Bridge junior football club which runs teams of boys from the age of 11 to 16. All those teams play football to a remarkable standard and they are just as important in many respects as teams like Manchester United, Tottenham Hotspur and others of that ilk.

We must address soccer's problems with finance and the need to place bids for the World Cup, the world championships and the European championships. We must also deal with the problem about sponsorship and the fact that the American football logo is better known and better marketed in this country than soccer's logo—if there is one. There is an enormous amount of potential finance available for soccer and I believe that the football authorities understand that.

I have pressed on the president of the Football League and the chairman of the Football Association and their respective officers the need to talk regularly and continually about improvements in relation to a single body to represent football. There should be some reform of the voting structures of both the FA and the Football League. There should be reforms to the FA's very large council and, in the Football League, to the voting structure of the various divisions.

If those improvements can be carried out and people have an opportunity to discuss the future of football at that level, there can be a conjunction of effort. I understand that the FA believes that there cannot be a merger because it is the ultimate authority. However, there should at least be a conjunction between the FA and the Football League so that they can speak with authority about the game, both professionally and in amateur terms.

I am convinced that that is the way forward. The FA and the Football League must recognise that there is pressure for that conjunction from the lowest level of football in playing and spectator terms throughout the game at both amateur and professional level to the management of top league clubs. I believe that they appreciate that, but there is still a long way to go.

I hope that the FA and the Football League will hear the message of the hon. Member for Stalybridge arid Hyde, who speaks with such authority on these matters, and note my views and the views of those who take an interest in the game. Soccer is a great game and it has achieved great things. We invented the game, as we invented so many others, and we gave it to the world. If we are to continue to exercise leadership, having overcome problems of spectator violence and restoring, renovating and renewing stadiums and providing the finance to allow the game to move into the 21st century, the support of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, of the Government and of the lovers of the game at every level is essential.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject for debate. He will join me in wishing football at every level every success in the 1990–91 season. I hope that we can move from strength to strength and ensure the continuation of the improvements that have already been made both on the field and off it. If they continue, soccer's future is as bright as it has ever been.

You will recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have addressed you before on the community charge. When I last did so, the House was packed and it was the most daunting experience of my parliamentary life to have to try to persuade my colleagues and Back Benchers that my Government had got something less than perfectly right. I lost the day on that occasion by a fairly modest figure, and since that day, two and a half years ago, we have had to live with a community charge that has proved to have been the single greatest mistake made by the Government in this Parliament.

However, that was another day and another age. Far from despairing now, I am full of hope that the new Administration are determined to put matters right and to make the necessary adjustments so that what is a reasonable way of collecting local government finance from all our citizens can be operated fairly because the unfairness rankled most. We look forward to the result of the Government's review, with the help, I hope, of the Opposition parties, so that we can find a way to finance local government for the next decade or so.

However, this morning I want to consider a particular aspect of the community charge which has rankled with me more than any other because, frankly, it was crazier than any other part of the system. I want to consider the way in which the community charge is applied to the armed forces.

Under the rates, service men were required to contribute to local government. That was perfectly right and proper. There is no reason why service men should not make a fair contribution to the costs of local government services, some of which they use. However, they are unique in that they are the only people who have to live and work where they are told. To that extent, they are different from the police force, the fire service, the ambulance service and the civil service. All those people can, if they wish, say, "No; I will not move to Yorkshire. I wish to stay here". That may affect their promotion or careers, but they have the right to say no. A service man does not have that right. he must go where he is told, and live and work where he is told for as long as he is told until he is ordered to move on.

The rates system was sensitive to that and was fair to the service men and to the local authorities. Every soldier, single or married, paid a sort of rate. The charge was averaged and deducted from his pay at source, and it remained the same wherever he was. The Ministry of Defence paid the local authority a rating charge for the barracks, and the local authority had a return from the MOD for the services that it provided. That worked like a charm. Everyone was happy with it and knew where they were. The service men had no complaints and 100 per cent. of the charge was collected because it was deducted at source.

After the change brought about by the introduction of the community charge, although I had views about the principle in general, I held a strong view with regard to the armed services. I believed that the system that operated for the services under the rates should prevail under the community charge. I could see no reason then, and have been shown no reason since, why that system should not prevail except for the dogma which, alas, accompanied the Government's attitude to the imposition of the community charge.

Instead of every service man continuing to contribute to local government by paying an average community charge collected at source and paid over by the Ministry of Defence, the Government decided that they had to treat service men in the same way as everyone else and that they must pay the charge in the area where they happened to be.

I pointed out at the time that that practice would produce anomalies, discontent and unfairness. It has done all those things to the extent that it is now a considerable source of resentment within the services, and I can well understand why. If a soldier is posted from district A to district B, the posting may be accompanied by a "fine", if I can put it that way, of between £400 and £500. If a soldier moved from Wandsworth to Camden in the course of his duty, he would move from paying less than £200 to paying more than £600, with no compensation, no choice and no ability to influence the local authorities through his vote in either place. Soldiers rarely get that chance.

I raised this problem at the beginning of our debates on the community charge with the then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). I said that the system was unfair and unjust and please would he change it. He wrote me a long letter on 11 January 1989 which, I am afraid, does no more than repeat the dogma that has accompanied this whole issue. He stated:

"We have decided that members of the Armed Forces in Great Britain will be treated as the rest of the population for the purposes of the Personal Community Charge".

Members of the armed forces are not like the rest of the population. They cannot exercise the choice that can be exercised by the rest of the population.

What has happened has been a sorry tale of how a perfectly fair and reasonable method of ensuring that service personnel make a proper contribution to the cost of local government has been abandoned for a more expensive, more bureaucratic and far more unfair system. As far as I can discern, that was done only for reasons of ideology. I have not been given one practical reason why it had to be done in this way.

It seems particularly stupid to do away with a simple system and to devise a complex one instead. The simplicity of the former average charge is there for all to see. I do not need to develop that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) knows the anomalies that have been created because he has had difficulties in his own constituency about which he spoke when he was not a member of the Government rather more robustly than I suspect he will be able to speak today. The soldiers in Salisbury refused to pay because they had their own reasons for thinking that the system was unfair. We had the sorry sight of the courts having to deal with a large number of service personnel who were in default of the community charge.

Let me say straight away that service men, like anybody else, must obey the law. The fact that it is a bad law is neither here nor there. We are all bound by the law of the land, and the service men were wrong to refuse to pay. However, I can understand their resentment because there has been similar resentment in my constituency which has a large number of service personnel and—perhaps more to the point—a large number of transient service personnel. The community charge does not pose them as much of a problem as it does the local authority.

The school of electrical and mechanical engineering, which is located at Burton in the middle of my constituency, runs 12-week courses. Technically, on moving in, the soldiers should pay 12 weeks' worth of the local community charge and go away again. What a ludicrous system—because the soldier then has to be rebated at a different rate from wherever else he was previously for the 12 weeks that he spent in my constituency. That has to be worked out all the time. It is a nightmare for the local authority, which would far rather be without it. It is also a nightmare for those in charge of the service establishments, who are co-operating fully with the local authorities to try to unravel some of the complexities. It is a nightmare for the service men also.

Perhaps more serious than something that is wholly inconvenient is the fact that, when soldiers are sent to Northern Ireland, they are treated differently according to whether they are married or single. Is there any easier way of stirring up discontent when a battalion is moved and parted from families for four months to serve in Northern Ireland in one of the more dangerous jobs that the armed forces have to do than to find that the married soldier, on patrol with the single soldier, is treated differently and that one is being penalised while the other is favoured according to the amount of time that they have spent there? When soldiers go to do unpleasant tasks, the one thing that keeps the whole thing together is what one could call "the equality of misery". A soldier wants to be just as badly off as the chap in the next trench. A difference, especially a financial difference, is the first and most basic cause of discontent, but that is what is happening in Northern Ireland.

Our soldiers in the Gulf have also been in difficulties, although, rather late in the day, that is now being put right. Some have to continue to pay their community charge while sitting in the desert, possibly waiting to go to war. Others have not had to do so because their local authorities have not responded in the same way. However, it should not be for the local authorities to respond. It should not be left to the good councils to say, "We are not going to charge service men the community charge for the period they are in the Gulf," and for other councils to continue to levy the charge—not for political reasons, but because they are not as sensitive. That should not be the system. There should be a system throughout the armed services under which everybody contributes fairly. The Exchequer will get its money and the Department of the Environment can distribute it to the local authorities along with the rest of the grant.

What is even more extraordinary—my hon. Friend may not know this—is that when the system was changed the armed services offered to take on the bureaucratic burden of levying a standard community charge. The armed services offered to make the payment from the Ministry of Defence, which would have raised the charge from service men, to the Department of the Environment so that it could distribute the money fairly to the local authorities. I have to be careful in what I say about this, but this happened at the very highest level. The service chiefs said, "We will do this. It will be our contribution to collecting the charge simply, efficiently and fairly, and we will let you have it." However, the DOE turned that down because those in charge at that time said that a service man must pay his share wherever he happened to be. It was all part of what the Government chose to call "local accountability".

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, because of the number of times he moves, a service man is jolly lucky if he can vote in a general election in the same place more than once, but we have made arrangements so that service personnel can retain their votes. However, that is even less likely in local government elections, given that such by-elections happen at much shorter notice than do parliamentary by-elections and the fact that a service man can move, go away on courses, go to Northern Ireland or Germany or across to Canada to train. He is not likely to be in his local authority area or to be able to play a significant part in local government.

Therefore, a service man cannot exercise the local accountability that was part of the ethos of the community charge that I understood. The Government have done so much to destroy local accountability that it is now practically non-existent. However, that is for another debate on another day, and I look forward with great hope to having that debate on general terms because there have been changes that make me hope that we shall be able to bring about great improvements.

Given that there cannot be local accountability, why, even now, can we not change the system? It would not be complicated. We are coming to the end of the financial year and, by 1 April, the services could comfortably have in place a system whereby they would collect from source a service man's fair and just contribution.

It would be the same for every service man, wherever he is serving in the world. It would make a difference when personnel are posted back to the United Kingdom from overseas. As service men do not pay the community charge in Germany, when they return here they have what they consider a cut in their pay. Of course, it is not a cut in pay; it is just that they now have to pay for a local service for which they did not have to pay before. But that is not the way that a service man looks at it, and nor should he—indeed, nor did he for all the years when he paid rates when he was in Germany or wherever else. The accommodation charges were part and parcel of the whole system.

I am offering my hon. Friend something that he should find very difficult to refuse—a change that will make his life simpler. It is a change that will bring in more revenue for the community charge so that the local authorities get more money. It is a change that will be implemented at no expense to his Department because the load will be taken by the Ministry of Defence. Although the Ministry would have a little more bureaucratic work to do, I believe that it would be relieved by the change because it would iron out many of the anomalies.

We would know that the collectability of the community charge would be 100 per cent., which it was before, but which is not the case now because many service men are getting away with it by being posted at times of the year that make it almost impossible for the local authorities to catch up with them. Above all, it would be a change that would bring to an end a widely felt source of resentment in the services—indeed, I need not tell my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary about that, because he knows about the resentment in his part of the world.

Why can we not have this change? No reason has been given to me by the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of Defence, save the most spurious of ideological reasons, which were trotted out to me repeatedly: that this was the system and this was what was going to happen because the service man must be treated exactly the same as his civilian counterpart. The service man is not the same as his civilian counterpart in almost any other aspect of life because he lives within a disciplined organisation, his job differs from a civilian job, and at a moment's notice he may have to go anywhere in the world. We should be able to give him a guarantee that those demands on him will not bring him additional expense because of the way in which local authority finance is limited. He will look on it as a fine for doing his duty.

If my hon. Friend can bring this system to an end and bring a sense of fairness into this tiny part of it, he will see that that is easily done. I hope that that will add more power to his elbow and that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make the whole system much fairer.

It is a great pleasure to answer this debate, which was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates). We all remember the valiant fight which he put up over a long period. It is good to see him back in his usual place, with the hearty endorsement of his constituents and constituency party in the new era which we face together.

It is important to recognise the service which my hon. Friend has done. Not only has he had a distinguished military service but he has done a service to the House in the way in which he has represented his constituents over many years—a task in which he acquired a reputation for fearless championing of many causes—and the way in which he has steered the important Select Committee on Defence, on which I congratulate him.

My hon. Friend referred to fairness, and I would add a sense of fair play—qualities which I share with him. Perhaps we share those important characteristics because we went to the same school, my hon. Friend attending a mere year or two before me. If one goes to a school as old as ours—Salisbury cathedral school will be 900 years old next year—and sings as sweetly as my hon. Friend—

And my hon. Friend the Minister.

—as I try to, perhaps it is not surprising that we share common values, which include a sense of fair play and justice.

My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is, unfortunately not able to be here today. He would have been on the Bench beside me, but he is visiting our troops in the Gulf and he has asked me to send his apologies to the House.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East raised a sensitive and important subject in which he has taken a long interest. He raised it on 8 June 1989 in the debate on the Army and on 18 October 1989 in the debate on the defence estimates. I too have an interest in the proper and fair treatment of the armed forces. My hon. Friend said that I represent a large number of soldiers in my constituency of Salisbury. In fact, there are 14 Ministry of Defence establishments in my constituency, embracing all three services. Therefore, I could hardly have been unaware of these problems. It was a sad time for me last September when a large number of soldiers who had failed to pay the community charge on time were summoned to appear before Salisbury magistrates. They did not all appear, but many did, and I was subsequently able to meet their representatives.

This raises the important issue of the access of soldiers to their Members of Parliament. As my hon. Friend rightly said, they belong to a disciplined profession. They do not easily run to their Members of Parliament. They sometimes think that that will lose them status or credibility or get them into trouble. I went to considerable lengths as a constituency Member to ensure, with the commanding officer of the south-west district, that all the soldiers in his area had unhindered access to their Members of Parliament to discuss this important issue. That assurance was readily given. I believe that all hon. Members will always be available to soldiers and military personnel in all our services. That fundamental right is in no way denied to members of our armed forces.

I welcome the opportunity to restate that position. In terms of local accountability and the important fundamentals of the community charge, it is crucial that those who pay the charge should have the right to express their opinion to their local authorities and to Members of Parliament who approve the legislation. My hon. Friend mentioned voting rights. It is a complicated business. The proxy voting system for service voters is complex. Military personnel can nominate one person in one place to be their proxy and that person is not precluded from casting a vote on their behalf at local or general elections. Service personnel should be reassured on that point and should perhaps make arrangements to ensure that their vote is cast at local as well as general elections.

In case my hon. Friend was wondering why I sat down a few minutes early, it was because I forgot to raise one point about local accountability which I should now like to put to him. It concerns the Gurkhas who are stationed in my constituency. This point is not for his Department but for the Ministry of Defence. Everything that my hon. Friend said about the right to vote, local accountability and the right to appoint a proxy goes straight out of the window in terms of the Gurkhas.

One battalion of Gurkhas serves in this country. They have no right to vote. Their families are not here, there are no children here, they need no local schools or local libraries and need almost no local services, and they are paying what amounts to one month's pay in community charge. Hampshire district council, the local authority, is embarrassed at having to charge them. I raised this matter with the Ministry of Defence, which simply said that the Gurkhas were members of the British Army and, like everyone else, must pay their whack.

That is another point of deep resentment which I should have mentioned at the end of my speech. I put it to my hon. Friend in the context of what he said, rightly, about local accountability and the right to vote. The Gurkhas have no right to vote. They are not British citizens. They are here because we require them to be here. They are parted from their families and have no need of the raft of local services that other service men use, yet they pay the full community charge despite being paid less than British soldiers. That is nothing short of a scandal.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It gives me the opportunity to explain how the arrangements affect the Gurkhas, for whom I have the highest regard. I am not a military man. It is true that in my school cadet force I rose to the dizzy heights of company sergeant major, but that was a bit different from the real thing. However, I met the Gurkhas in the Falklands shortly after hostilities ceased. I saw the remarkable strength and characteristics of that proud body of men. When I have developed my theme, I shall deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend.

It is true that not all service personnel currently register to vote and we have been seeking ways of increasing that number. Only about two thirds of service personnel currently register to vote and I hope that through this debate we shall encourage more of them to ensure that their right to vote is exercised in this country. We encourage service personnel and their spouses to register. They can adopt the service system with the service proxy if they wish. I am assured by my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence that annual reminders are provided through notice board displays, and that further advice is available at any time.

I thought that it would be helpful to provide some background about the community charge. One of the main policy objectives of the charge is that everyone should pay something towards the cost of their local services. That has been accepted by most people in this country. We have made exceptions for certain categories of people and ensured that those at the lower end of the income scale are eligible for rebates of up to 80 per cent.

Like all other adult residents in Britain, members of the armed forces make use of local services and are entitled to vote in local elections. It has been argued that service personnel do not make as great a use of local authority services as their civilian counterparts. That argument is largely without foundation, but it is certainly a source of trouble and misunderstanding, as I have found in my constituency. People have come to my surgery or have written to local newspapers about the problem. It is often Army wives who are incensed about the issue saying, "Why should we pay the community charge when we live in married quarters in a garrison town?" In fact, service personnel do make use of local services. They enjoy the benefit of local emergency services, and they do not all just sit in their garrison towns or barracks. They are part of our community. In my constituency, we welcome the fact that service personnel make an important input into the life of the local community, and we respond by treating them as part of that community. They benefit from emergency services such as fire and police if they are required. Perhaps people forget that roads and street lighting have to be provided, and that may not be the case if the Army or the Royal Air Force were not present in a particular location.

All the support services for those establishments are provided by local authorities. Even refuse disposal is ultimately the responsibility of the local refuse disposal authority. Some soldiers have told me that that is nonsense. They say that part of their duty is to sweep out their barracks and empty it into the dustbin, which is then taken to another part of the barracks and transported somewhere else in an Army truck. The "somewhere else" is a tip provided by the local authority. The Ministry of Defence and local authorities often negotiate contracts for the disposal of waste, and it may be that the Ministry of Defence pays directly for that service. However, more commonly, it is done as part of a local authority service, and the refuse is disposed of in the proper manner and to the highest environmental standards.

The local recreational facilities such as libraries and swimming pools are used by service personnel. Also, service personnel with children will be using local state-maintained schools. Their children make a great contribution to the life of those schools. In my constituency, those children, who have often travelled the world, make an enormous contribution that would be missing if the service personnel were not present. Indeed, many schools have been constructed by the local education authority almost exclusively for the use of service personnel.

Although many of the services may be applicable only to married members of the armed forces, single personnel living in barracks are in no worse position than their civilian counterparts for whom the same services are available. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East has had the argument put to him, "Why should I have such a high community charge when I am a single man of 22? I am earning my living and paying my taxes and I do not use the social services available for the elderly or live in a council house and I do not have children at local schools." The same argument applies to those of us who do not use a particular local government service.

That is right. It is part of the debate and part of the resentment. Everything that my hon. Friend the Minister has said is an argument for saying that service personnel must contribute their share. That is not the point of my raising this debate. I know that they must contribute their share, but why should they have to contribute a different share according to the whim of where they are posted over which they have no control? That is the point.

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the lack of control over their own lives and where they reside. I shall come to that later.

In the circumstances, I think that it is accepted by everybody that armed forces personnel should pay something. Under the law as it stands, they must pay their share of the personal community charge. As my hon. Friend said, the law is the law and it must be obeyed by service personnel as by everybody else, even Opposition Members who currently refuse to pay their community charge. How unfair it is at Christmas that rich Members of Parliament should be refusing to pay their community charge when their less fortunate constituents are having to pay it for them and make their contribution towards the cost of local services. How selfish can one be?

We do, however, recognise that members of the armed forces are in a special situation. There are a large number of them in different parts of the country. They are also subject to posting over which they have no control and which is generally for short periods. Like other people, members of the armed forces are subject to the personal community charge in the borough or district in which they have their sole or main residence. In the vast majority of cases, it should be straightforward to determine where a person has his sole or main residence.

Given this special situation of service personnel, we were keen to see that all community charges registration officers came to similar decisions when determining the main residence of people serving in the armed forces.

I anticipate that my hon. Friend may say that that has not always been the case, that CCROs have not always taken the same views, and that sometimes, even within a garrison town that happens to straddle a local authority boundary, different decisions have been made. That is why, early last year, we issued guidance to all registration officers. It was non-statutory guidance on the registration of service personnel and was agreed with the Ministry of Defence and the local authority associations.

It says that single personnel detached or posted to service units and living in barracks or mess accommodation for periods in excess of 61 days will be regarded as having their sole or main residence in that accommodation as from day one. This is not an arbitrary figure but recognises that, under Queen's regulations, personnel in barrack accommodation do not have a right to return to that accommodation if they are away for more than 61 days.

Married personnel living in married quarters or in private accommodation will be regarded as having their sole or main residence with their families, while married personnel who are posted away from their marital home for periods of unaccompanied service in excess of six months will be regarded as having moved their sole and main residence to the new location as from day one. Single personnel who are householders will also be covered by this rule.

I am relieved to say that this guidance has been updated so that married personnel did not have to change their sole and main residence simply because they were posted to a different base, and that the area in which their marital home was would remain the area in which they were registered. That advice has no statutory basis and registration officers can disregard it if they feel that it is inappropriate to an individual's circumstances. I understand that CCROs are generally following the guidelines. It is important to set out these details so that my hon. Friend can see that we are aware of the special position of members of the armed forces and that we take it into account when preparing guidance.

A good example of our response is the situation of service personnel in the Gulf. Recently, we issued guidance on this to local authorities, after constructive dialogue with the Ministry of Defence. If someone is posted overseas for a period which is unknown from the outset, local authorities have been advised to remove them from their community charge register. In that way, such a person would make no payments during his absence. No direct action to chase payments or recover arrears will be taken against personnel temporarily overseas. Notices and reminders will be sent to their home base. The effect will be to relieve service personnel from worries about their community charge. Although the guidance was issued as a result of the situation in the Gulf, those arrangements will also apply to other postings which are regarded technically as being overseas for these purposes, such as Germany and Northern Ireland.

In a few cases, some personnel posted overseas, and therefore ceasing to be liable for the personal community charge, may become liable for a higher standard charge. If that happens because of a posting to the Gulf, the Ministry of Defence has agreed to reimburse the excess. Those arrangements will facilitate the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that no service personnel posted to the Gulf will be worse off as a result of that posting.

We have also brought forward new measures covering new classes and multipliers for standard charge properties. One of those new classes is for property which is empty because the person who owns it occupies another property which is job-related. The maximum multiplier for that class of property will be one half. That is intended to help people who have to live in job-related accommodation, and it should be of assistance to many service families.

I am fascinated to hear all that is going on to remove some of the anomalies. Does my hon. Friend agree that multipliers, special arrangements for empty properties, zero rating and arrangements for overseas postings could all be avoided if we returned to the old system under which a service man paid a standard contribution from source throughout his career? Would that not be simpler and fairer?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. I cannot say that we should return to the old system. We may or we may not when our right hon. Friend has completed the present review. Obviously, I listen carefully to my hon. Friend's advice.

My hon. Friend raised two specific points. He suggested that there should be a single averaged community charge. I am sure that he will recognise that to do so would undermine the accountability principle of the community charge, in that the armed forces would be cushioned against the effects of the spending levels, the provision of services and the efficiency or inefficiency of the authority in which they live. The converse would also be the case, in that an average charge would stop members of the armed forces from benefiting from lower charges. A member of the armed forces could pay less or more for the same services available to a civilian.

Was that not precisely the case with rates? Service personnel were not insulated against low-rated or high-rated areas. They took the rough with the smooth, and over the years it worked out fairly. If the Government were not concerned about that in the era of the rates, why this sudden concern in the era of the community charge?

It is because we are a listening Government. We would not wish to see our soldiers having to take the rough with the smooth if we could think of a better system.

The Ministry of Defence recognises that members of the armed forces living in public accommodation whether married quarters, mess or barracks, have no choice over where they live, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They are ordered to a particular place and to specific accommodation over which they have no control or choice. That could mean that they are moved to an area with a very high community charge, whereas a colleague may be sent to an area with a low charge. The Ministry of Defence has recognised that and has made arrangements under which no member of the armed forces, or their spouse, who is living in service accommodation should pay more than a service average community charge for such accommodation, plus £1 per week. That is dealt with by a scheme of accommodation charge refunds.

For the current year, the service average community charge is £325, so with the addition of £52 the maximum individual personal charge payment for any member of the armed forces is £377. The cost of the scheme, estimated at £1·1 million in the current year, has been taken into account by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in setting the general level of accommodation charges.

Obviously, if service personnel are posted to an area with a lower charge than the average service community charge, they pay that lower charge. Personnel in public accommodation can therefore benefit from low levels of community charge, yet there is a generous limit on their maximum liability. They can pay no more than £377, whereas the maximum they could be liable to pay is £548, which many civilians must pay. Those arrangements go a long way towards alleviating the situation which my hon. Friend described.

The second point that my hon. Friend raised concerned the treatment of Gurkhas. I bow to no one in my admiration of these soldiers who have so often fought for this country.

It may be helpful if I set out how Gurkhas are paid. The basic pay of the Gurkha in the British Army is set by the Indian Army under the provisions of the 1947 tripartite agreement between India, Nepal and the United Kingdom. Under the terms of the agreement, the United Kingdom can provide allowances to Gurkhas serving away from Nepal, and separate Gurkha additions have been set for Brunei, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.

The calculation of the United Kingdom addition starts with the baseline of the British soldier's pay. That is abated to take account of the fact that Gurkhas receive a resettlement grant on their discharge and that they do not pay national insurance contributions. Gurkhas do not pay for their food and accommodation, so their pay is abated by the equivalent of the single soldier's food and accommodation charge. The result of all that is that, financially, a single Gurkha is in a similar position to his British counterpart.

When the community charge was introduced, the rates element of a single British soldier's accommodation charge was removed. That means that the single Gurkha soldier's pay abatement is smaller. The pay of a married Gurkha is not abated by food and accommodation charges, which puts him in a similar position to his British counterpart.

Since the Gurkhas are an integral part of the British Army, and when stationed in this country their pay is based on British soldiers' rates of pay, there are no grounds for singling them out for special treatment. The only case for treating them differently would be if they were financially disadvantaged by the community charge. As I have explained, we have sought to ensure that they are not financially disadvantaged in that respect.

This has been more than just an interesting debate—it has been an important one. I hope that my hon. Friend will be left with the realisation that members of the armed forces are treated fairly under the communtiy charge and that, within the bounds of the system, the Government have done all that they can to recognise the special position of service personnel.

As a constituency Member of Parliament, I acknowledge the special circumstances under which service personnel live, both as single service men and as part of families. Those problems are familiar to both my hon. Friend and myself. The Government have sought to ensure the basic tenets of justice and fair play to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks.

I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is conducting a review, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept my remarks as formal input in that regard. When that review has been completed, perhaps someone will let me know how judgment has been reached on what I regard as an unfair situation, and how it is proposed to change it.

I am delighted to give my hon. Friend an undertaking that his comments will be regarded as a formal representation for the purposes of the review. I shall continue to look forward to my hon. Friend's contributions, and I repeat my gratitude to him for raising the issue. It falls to me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East a very happy Christmas.

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

• Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1990
• Fraserburgh Harbour Order Confirmation Bill

I am grateful for an opportunity to raise the problems of the housing crisis in Wakefield. No doubt local authorities in other parts of the country face similar crises. I shall attempt to be as factual and constructive as I can and to put the points of which I have been advised as I understand them.

Wakefield metropolitan district council's housing committee recently approved a five-year strategic local housing plan, which has the stated intention of providing an effective, efficient and caring service to people living in both public and private sector accommodation—paying particular attention to those having special needs and to maintaining a commitment to equal opportunity.

Wakefield will be confronted by a major problem in the immediate future, in the form of insufficient resources with which to provide a housing service that will adequately meet demand. Even Wakefield—a local authority which efficiently provides services, as is demonstrated by its performance indicators being far better than average; its voids are only 1·1 per cent. of stock, and its arrears are only 2·5 per cent. of debit—needs adequate resources if it is to be effective.

Wakefield's public and private housing stock will continue to deteriorate unless the controls that prevent its metropolitan district council from raising the finance to fund necessary investment are relaxed. For many years, Wakefield managed without subsidy or resorting to general rate fund contributions. The full costs of the public sector housing service have been met by the rent income from the authority's tenants.

The last 10 years have seen a decline in the number of new-build dwellings and since 1988 no new schemes have been incorporated in Wakefield's capital programme. As many as 1,000 dwellings have been sold at a discount under the right-to-buy arrangements, and the total stock now available for letting is 20 per cent. less than 10 years ago. That has resulted in a waiting list numbering 12,300. Of those applicants, 77 per cent. require rehousing, not merely transfers, and 34 per cent. require accommodation for the elderly.

Ten years ago, young couples living in lodgings and on the waiting list for council accommodation could have expected an offer within two months. Currently, young couples starting out in life, single parents and families living in lodgings, face a wait of 12 to 18 months. There is a definite need for more single-person accommodation. As new-build schemes are totally unaffordable, family houses are having to be converted in an attempt to ease the problem, but that initiative only scratches the surface.

Will this country for ever have to live with a reputation for having young people who must live in cardboard boxes or in temporary hostel accommodation? A problem that was once confined to the capital, is now spreading throughout the country. Wakefield is attempting to follow the guidelines to work with other bodies and associations. However, can we expect housing associations to build 1,000 houses per year for rent at an affordable price?

Wakefield is at the centre of a mining and industrial area which has experienced unprecedented reductions in the work force in recent years. With more than 60 per cent. of tenants in receipt of housing benefit, many families and young people dare not take the risk of a long-term mortgage liability, even if they could afford the repayments at present.

Wakefield gives an annual revenue cash support to the housing association which took over ex-British Coal properties, which were being auctioned off over the heads of the existing tenants. These properties have been neglected for so many years by British Coal that they now need a programme of structural and environmental improvements, which will have to be undertaken from the ever-reducing housing investment programme allocation.

The new capital controls and the use of capital receipts have meant more restrictions on the resources available, resulting in an investment in 1990–91 which is only half that of 1989–90. The amount of capital investment for the public sector is a mere £150 per dwelling, which, as hon. Members will appreciate, does not go far these days.

Persistent lack of definite housing investment programme allocations and changes in the use of prescribed capital receipts has meant considering alternative ways to maintain reasonable housing conditions by improving the housing stock. Such cuts have certainly affected the council's ability to carry out full-scale housing improvements. Although properties are maintained to a reasonable standard, many thousands of post-war properties built in the 1950s and 1960s lack modern up-to-date fixtures and fittings. The council has had to reduce the standard of improvements to two basic elements: the provision of central heating and window replacements with draught-sealing qualities.

This year the Government withdrew subsidy under the grants system for aids and adaptations for disabled tenants in the public sector. Last year, of the 4,580 referrals for adaptation work, 1,067—23 per cent.—were for public sector tenants. With ever-increasing demand for this service, such expenditure now takes one sixth of the admissible basic HIP allocation.

The council has a statutory acquisition obligation. The statutory acquisition of designated defective pre-cast, reinforced dwellings continues seriously to affect the council's resources. In the Wakefield area, 172 pre-cast reinforced properties have been sold by British Coal and to date 97 of these properties have been purchased by the council, plus 182 which were previously in council ownership. Nearly one sixth of the council's basic HIP allocation is spent on acquisition of PRC dwellings.

Although Estate Action funding gives local authorities the chance to bid for extra resources, we must recognise that 50 per cent. of the capital cost still has to be found by the council from within its own resources. That leads to high capital investment in one small sector of the housing stock, to the detriment of other properties which are deteriorating through lack of investment. While it may resolve the problems on one estate, others are queuing up behind. The whole question of funding Estate Action projects requires review, so that 100 per cent. of the cost is supported by supplementary credit approvals.

Like all other authorities, we also have the problem of care in the community, as those initiatives have to be pursued, despite the deferral of the Government's proposals. Wakefield has within its boundaries two major regional resources—a hospital for the mentally ill and one for the mentally handicapped—which are discharging long-term patients into the community. The local council, the local health authority and housing associations are for ever attempting to find the resources to cater for the need to provide accommodation and the supervision that is necessary for such clients.

The new financial regime that controls subsidy paid to the housing revenue account will ensure that rent increases are in line with the Government's guidelines and more, owing to the inadequate inflation provision of a mere 5·5 per cent. for management and maintenance. Such rent increases will be necessary without any improvement in services. In 1991–92, the tenants of Wakefield, who are not receiving housing benefit, will probably be contributing to the rebate for their neighbours who are.

The lack of housing investment does not only affect the public sector. Following an expensive appraisal of the district's older housing stock, the council embarked, in 1979, on a 10-year improvement programme, with 82 general improvement areas proposed. Some 11 years later, with the strategy only half complete, owing to massive cuts in local authority housing finance, the council has been forced to re-evaluate the condition of the older housing stock to take account of the substantial changes contained in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

The council has also made a significant commitment to continue its area improvement programme, and has recently completed its first neighbourhood renewal assessment, as required by circular 6/90, before considering the declaration of renewal areas. The survey relates to 3,000 pre-1919 properties; it studied not only housing conditions but the socio-economic status of the local households. It revealed that 2,672 properties—80 per cent. of the total—needed extensive repairs, while 1,925 —64 per cent.—were unfit for habitation. More than 30 per cent. of households in the area were in receipt of means-tested benefits; 56 per cent. of households had a net weekly income of below £150. Over 80 per cent. received less than the national average, while 15 per cent. contained people of pensionable age; 76 per cent. had no savings, or at best insignificant amounts.

It appears from the survey's detailed analysis that the council is required to invest some £50 million over the next 10 years if it is to provide decent homes for the local community into the 21st century. The staggering repair bill for that area alone must be seen in the context of other demands on the housing capital allocations.

I am well aware that the Minister recently visited Castleford, and, in particular, the Smawthorne review area, which is involved in the improvement programme. I understand that he saw the completion of the first neighbourhood renewal assessment at Smawthorne. The council is now embarking on a major reassessment of its area renewal programme. It is estimated that 15,000 homes in the district need substantial repairs, that 2,500 properties lack basic amenities and that 4,300 are statutorily unfit—although that may well be an underestimate now.

Given the amount of unfitness revealed by the survey, it is estimated that a staggering £250 million—at least—will need to be invested to preserve the fabric of Wakefield's old housing stock. Like many other authorities, Wakefield faces the problem of houses in multiple occupation—HMOs. During 1989, the council carried out a detailed HMO stock condition survey, which revealed that many people were living in the most squalid conditions imaginable. Eighty-four per cent. of properties lack adequate means of escape in case of fire; 32 per cent. were considered unfit for habitation; 80 per cent. lack adequate sanitary and washing facilities; 84 per cent. were not in a satisfactory state of repair; 66 per cent. of tenants experienced difficulties in persuading landlords to carry out repairs, and 40 per cent. of properties failed to comply with the HMO management regulations.

Such property houses many elderly, single and vulnerable members of society. Their number is growing at an alarming rate, due to the inadequacy of alternative accommodation provided for vulnerable groups by socially responsible landlords.

In response to the growing housing crisis, the council has developed a housing aid service. It provides information, advice and advocacy on a wide range of housing matters. Use of the housing aid centre has risen consistently and dramatically since it opened. The combined effects of the Housing Act 1988, the Social Security Act 1986, the recent benefit changes, the introduction of the poll tax and the Government's high interest rate policy continue to have a serious impact on the local community, as reflected in the use of the centre.

Between April 1989 and March 1990, the housing aid service dealt with the following problems: 1,535 benefit inquiries, 376 cases of debt counselling, 322 cases of harassment and illegal eviction, 917 people looking for accommodation, 243 cases of relationship breakdowns, 728 mortgage problem cases and 874 cases relating to security of tenure. Many of those cases are the direct result of the Government's policy to deregulate rents and high interest rates.

The housing aid centre also dealt with 598 cases of homelessness and 917 cases of people looking for accommodation. The vast majority of them come from non-priority groups. They are mainly single people who are destined to end up sleeping rough or living in squalid conditions in multi-occupied properties. I never thought that I would live to see the day when people in my constituency had to face such conditions. When I left the Wakefield metropolitan district council in 1978, having been its housing chairman, people could expect to get accommodation within two months of making an application. During the last 10 years, the outlook has deteriorated to the extent that I have described.

The council has reacted positively to the new grants system. More than 1,000 inquiries were received during the first six months. Given the resources available for house renovation grants, the problem has become insoluble. Under the new income assessment procedure, 52 per cent. of all households assessed had a nil contribution to make. That highlights the low incomes and the poverty faced by many people in the district. In total, 80 per cent. make contributions of less than £2,000. With average repair costs approaching only £10,000, it makes economic sense to preserve communities by providing warm, dry, well-repaired and affordable homes. However, a considerable burden has been placed on the council by its overall housing allocation.

The means test for grants poses its own problems in many cases. Many people, particularly the elderly, resent the intrusive questions associated with the tests and refuse to give the information required. In addition, the means test takes no account of existing housing costs. Many households, in particular young, first-time buyers, are advised that their contribution will be substantially above what they can afford. The Government must change their policy now and target sufficient resources not only on people but on property when the council considers that comprehensive rehabilitation of its older housing stock is necessary.

I gave the Minister notice of the contents of my speech, so he will be familiar with it. I shall therefore omit some of the points that I intended to make, if the Minister will reply in writing to them.

The 1991–92 HIP allocation for Wakefield of only £11·14 million is inadequate to meet the Department's indicative spending amounts of £6·4 million for public sector borrowing, £500,000 for housing association work and £6·8 million for grant-eligible works. That makes a total of £13·7 million, yet the 25 per cent. use of capital receipts is reducing because tenants fear high mortgage rates. Capital income is reducing because few houses are being sold.

I recognise that no Government have a bottomless pit of money, but the shocking deterioration in our housing stock in the past 10 years cannot be met and put right overnight. Will the Government examine the feasibility of allowing local authorities the freedom to raise finance on the open market, similar to housing associations? I accept that the Government will never provide adequate resources to meet demand, but will they merely relax the controls to allow local authorities to use their own initiatives and resources to resolve the problem?

If not, will the Minister say how Wakefield can provide a service that meets the needs and demands of 40,000 tenants, 8,000 potential tenants and owners and private-sector tenants who have a right to decent accommodation?

Only yesterday, it was announced that the crime rate in West Yorkshire has increased by 20 per cent. Although I do not condone that or place all the blame at the door of the housing problem, when people get desperate and have nowhere to put their head down they are attracted to petty crime. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that point.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) on his success in obtaining the debate and on the forcefulness with which he put his points.

One of my first duties, three days after taking up my post, was to visit the hon. Gentleman's constituency and to launch Wakefield council's area regeneration project at Smawthorne, which is one of the first in the country. I received a warm and friendly welcome from the council and the people of Wakefield and, despite the brevity of my visit, I was able to see many positive things happening in his constituency.

I was sorry, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman chose to paint a rather pessimistic picture of housing in Wakefield district. That did less than justice to the efforts of the local authority in tackling some of the problems. I am grateful to him for notifying me yesterday of the points that he would make today, which I shall try to deal with in the nine minues that he has left me. I dare say that it will be possible to write to him about the points that I cannot cover.

One of the hon. Gentleman's main arguments was that the resources for the district are inadequate to allow it to undertake everything that it felt it should be doing. It is rare for any authority to feel that it has sufficient resources to do everything that it would like.

Taking up the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made at the end of his speech, I am afraid that an open-ended policy on local authority borrowing would do nothing to ensure that spending resulted in good value for money. It would certainly be contrary to the Government's long-standing commitment to control public spending and reduce inflation.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently announced a housing investment programme allocation for Wakefield of £11,104,000 for next year, compared with £10,517,000 for the current year and £5,235,000 for 1989–90. The increase in allocation between 1989–90 and 1990–91 reflects the requirement under the new financial regime that local authorities should set aside a proportion of their capital receipts against debt. It also reflects the greater targeting allowed by the revised capital control system and by the Government's ability to take into account in their calculations a proportion of the usable capital receipts available to authorities. I note that Wakefield's expenditure in 1989–90 was approximately double that of 1988–89, mainly because of the use of accumulated capital receipts. Although expenditure in the current year is expected to fall back from that peak, I hope that the surge in spending in 1989–90 has alleviated some of the housing problems that now require attention.

It is also open to the council to propose schemes for improvements to the stock on estates which could attract additional funding from our expanded and highly successful Estate Action programme, which now stands at £268 million. Success here could release funds for the council to use elsewhere, but, unfortunately, it appears that Wakefield has not so far felt able to put forward bids to the extent that one might expect, given the housing needs to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Over the past five years, Wakefield has attracted only £2·371 million, 3·1 per cent. of the regional total.

A further source of funding is the current energy efficiency initiative, which will provide up to £10 million in the next financial year and £50 million in the following one towards worthwhile schemes put forward by local authorities. My regional office has recently written to the authorities to invite bids.

It is also possible for an authority to utilise the useable proportion of its in-year and accumulated receipts, as it sees fit. In addition, it can make contributions to its capital spending programme from its revenue income. An obvious source of such income would be its rents, which, in the case of Wakefield, are somewhat below the current regional average.

One of the features of the new capital control system is that a proportion of all local authority receipts should be set aside against existing or future debts. It is right that some provision should be made out of the proceeds of sales of local authority assets for the debts incurred in their original acquisition or purchase. This limitation also gives Ministers the opportunity to take into account in the housing investment programme the receipts which authorities obtain in areas where housing needs are less pressing. Those resources can be recycled to areas, such as the north of England, where they are most needed.

The hon. Member eloquently set out his anxiety about homelessness in the Wakefield district. I can assure him that the Government, too, are anxious about homelessness. It is in the major cities, and especially in the pressure areas of London and the south-east, that homelessness presents the most serious difficulties.

None the less, I can understand councils elsewhere being worried about the problem of homelessness, especially where families with young children are involved. I applaud those councils who are prepared to use their expertise and their imagination in tackling it. I commend Wakefield's record in avoiding the need to house families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I know that Wakefield is keen to see more hostel accommodation provided and is prepared to work with the housing association movement to achieve that end. Nor is it only with hostels that housing associations can help. This year has seen the Housing Corporation's resources increase yet again; and they are expected to continue to do so for some time. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently announced that the corporation's gross expenditure for 1993–94 is expected to exceed £2 billion, a 65 per cent. increase over the current year.

Local authorities have, for some time, been encouraged to adopt a more entrepreneurial and enabling role towards housing provision. With their ability to offer financial assistance to private landlords, including housing associations, and their capacity to assemble land for housing purposes, local authorities have an unrivalled opportunity to influence the future of housing in their area.

Housing associations are now even better placed than ever before to make a significant contribution to meeting the needs of the homeless. To do this they can obtain assistance from local authorities, in the form of cheap or free land or through grants of one sort or another, with funding from the Housing Corporation and from their own sources of private sector finance.

The Housing Corporation recently announced its intention that 50 per cent. of the general needs housing developments which it funds should be targeted to dealing with homelessness problems. Together, the housing association movement and well managed and go-ahead local housing authorities should be capable of filling any gap left by the main private rented and owner occupied sectors. In this respect, I commend Wakefield for the positive way in which it took on the task of supporting a housing association in maintaining former British Coal properties in productive use.

Another problem that Wakefield has consistently drawn to our attention is the condition of its private sector stock. There is no doubt that, although not facing the worst problems in the region, the council has to deal with some difficult problems. In this area, the new renovation grants system should be welcomed. The complexities and restrictions of the old system have been swept aside. A test of resources now helps to ensure that grants are targeted to those people most in need of assistance.

Wakefield has also expressed concern about the problems that the council faces because of the high demand for renovation grants which local authorities are under a duty to pay where an applicant is an owner-occupier living in unfit property. The council has applied to the Department for a supplementary credit approval to assist it in finding the resources to pay such grants. That bid, together with those from other authorities, is currently being assessed and a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

Wakefield is also at the forefront of activity in the new area renewal categories and should be applauded for its willingness to take on the task of preparing and declaring the Smawthorne area. It is worth noting here that the council received an undertaking from the Department to provide resource cover of up to £555,000 subject to the relevant works being undertaken.

I am pleased to see Wakefield's initiative in setting up its housing aid service, which will be of inestimable value to the public and to the council.

The opportunities for a committed local authority such as Wakefield to use its expertise should enable it to meet the needs of all those who must look for social rented accommodation in the area.

The House will know that my interest in Scotch whisky is purely a constituency interest and that, as a teetotal Member of Parliament, I am motivated largely by my recognition of the fact that the Scotch whisky industry is Scotland's premier exporting industry. Unlike oil and gas, whisky is not finite. The barley, the grain and the water are all renewable. The skills and the knowledge of how to produce the whisky are passed on from generation to generation. If we husband the resources and maintain the quality, provided we do not foul the market, this marvellous wealth and job-creating product will continue for ever.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who is adviser to the Scotch Whisky Association; and I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Under-Secretary of State, to the Front Bench. I know that he, like me, has taken a long-standing interest in the well-being of the Scotch whisky industry. I have already made a contribution towards maintaining the quality. The Scotch Whisky Act 1988 was the result of my private Member's Bill. I now look to the Government to play their part to ensure that this wealth-creating product has a continuing European and worldwide growth share of the drinks market. That market is as much a fashion market, and taxation and local conditions can have a massive impact on spending patterns and habits.

When the Conservatives came to office in 1979, the Scotch whisky industry was in a parlous state. Stocks were high, distilleries were being closed and the bottling and blending plants were on short time. Sensible taxation policies changed all that and today, the industry is reopening distilleries, bottling and blending plants are busy and stocks are far more in balance. The industry thanks the Government for their sensible taxation policy.

I welcome the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) to the Opposition Front Bench, where he should have been years ago.

As a Conservative Member, I have to be an optimist. I am optimistic that Ministers will listen carefully to what I have to say and that, as in previous years, they will respond positively to my proposals. It is, after all, in their interests as well as in the interests of the people of Scotland that the Scotch whisky industry should continue to prosper. Why do I say that?

The Treasury benefits each year to the tune of more than £1,000 million, which is made up of £750 million in excise duty and about £250 million in value added tax. The contribution of Scotch to the Treasury is equivalent to almost £20 for every individual in the United Kingdom.

It is interesting to note that the United Kingdom is the second largest market in the world for Scotch whisky. That is important to us. However, in contrast to its overseas competitors, Scotch whisky is penalised in its own home market by an inequitable tax regime that discriminates against it and other spirits in favour of wine and beer.

It would be an understatement to say that the Scotch whisky industry was extremely disappointed by the 1990 Budget decision to widen the already substantial excise duty discrimination against spirits in favour of wine and beer. The industry and Scottish Members of all parties had understood that the Government accepted the justice of the case for seeking a change in the United Kingdom's structure of excise duties.

The Scotch whisky industry is no lame duck industry with special pleadings and in need of a prop. It is an export success industry which exports more than 90 per cent. of everything produced amounting to £1,500 million worth of exports. It is unquestionably one of the United Kingdom's winners. Consequently, it makes no sense to its export efforts to weaken its important home markets.

It is in the national interest to introduce a structure of excise duties under which all alcoholic drinks are taxed at the same rate per degree of alcohol. The industry and I recognise that such a system cannot be introduced overnight. However, could not the differentials in the duty on different drinks be phased in over a period of, say, three years?

Why do we need to act now? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will think carefully before she replies and will accept the logic of the case. I ask her to bear in mind the compelling arguments for the reforms that I am proposing. I believe that it is in the national interest to end discrimination against an industry that makes such a major contribution to this country's economic prosperity through employment, corporate strength, Exchequer revenues and export earnings.

About 16,000 people are directly employed in the production of Scotch, and 95 per cent. of the jobs are in Scotland. Many of those jobs are in constituencies such as mine, a large rural constituency.

The industry also supports many other jobs in related sectors such as retailing, transport and tourism and in the many activities that supply inputs to production like bottling, distribution and marketing, which involve farming, engineering, glass production, construction, packaging, advertising and many other services.

Scotch whisky contributes to the corporate strength of the United Kingdom drinks industry as a core element of some of the United Kingdom's largest companies. Three of the four largest drinks companies in the world—Guinness, Allied Lyons and Grand Metropolitan—are British-owned, and more than 120 United Kingdom companies are producers or traders of Scotch whisky.

As I said earlier, the industry contributes more than £1,000 million to Exchequer revenues. I only wish that every other industry could contribute so handsomely to the Exchequer's coffers.

In the year to July 1990, Scotch exports were valued at more than £1,500 million. Scotch whisky is sold in every country that permits its import, and I wish that that could be said of all British products. In value terms, it is the United Kingdom's fifth largest manufacturing export, and it is the largest export to the important market of Japan, earning more than 5 per cent., of the total value of United Kingdom exports to that country. In that regard, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench for their magnificent efforts in recent years to improve the market in Japan.

Scotch exports make a major contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of trade. The trading account on alcoholic drinks products shows a trading surplus that is entirely due to Scotch. Indeed, 98 per cent. of our wine consumption is imported, producing an annual trading deficit of £760 million. Surprisingly—as a teetotaller, I was certainly surprised—we also have a deficit on trade in beer.

Scotch whisky alone is responsible for turning a trading deficit of £867 million on other alcoholic drinks into an overall surplus in the United Kingdom's interest of over £400 million. The export earnings of Scotch per employee are £80,000, which is four times that of the engineering and manufacturing industries, eight times that produced by those in the food, drink and tobacco industries, and more than twice that produced by chemicals and man-made fibres.

In contrast to its export success, Scotch has faced intensive competition in its own domestic market in the United Kingdom, especially from imported wine. This is where excise duty really bites. Scotch whisky's share of domestic expenditure on alcoholic beverages is falling and has been falling for many years. A major contributory factor is that Scotch carries much higher excise duties in a market where the general level of excise duties is high by the standards of other countries. Domestic sales of Scotch are stagnant and have never recovered from the sharp falls of the early 1980s when there was an almost 18 per cent. drop over five years. In the first six months of 1990, home sales of Scotch were down by 2·5 per cent. compared with the same period last year.

The decline of Scotch and other spirits in the domestic market is associated with an increase in the share taken by wine. Beer's share of the total consumer expenditure has been stable for some time. The consumer of a typical glass measure of Scotch pays nearly double the excise duty of the consumer ordering a glass of wine or half a pint of beer. In that example, all consume the same volume of alcohol. It is no wonder that consumers and customers switch their expenditure away from spirits.

The tax structures of many member states of the European Community have the opposite effect to the structures of the United Kingdom. Of the six EEC states which have wine as their main product, five have no tax at all on their home product, and the sixth, France, imposes a duty which is equivalent to about 1p per litre. All six countries, except Greece with no alcohol duty, impose a duty on spirits, thus benefiting home production against imports. As a result, the present United Kingdom tax structure makes any future moves towards harmonisation or approximation much more difficult for Scotch whisky within the European Community.

I remind my hon. Friend that, for the United Kingdom alone among European Community countries, the spirits industry is of predominant significance. If we get it wrong and adversely affect the Scotch whisky industry, the political consequences for our party in Scotland cannot be overstated. We could be described almost as a unique species in Scotland. I tell people that I am a minority of a minority, being a Scottish Conservative Member of Parliament.

In a letter dated 20 July 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote:

"The existing duty system allows the Chancellor the opportunity to take account of changes in the economic conditions affecting each of the drinks industries in setting duty rates."

I only wish that the evidence supported that claim.

Wine, which is not a United Kingdom-based industry, is taking an increasing share of the United Kingdom's drinks market. As I said earlier, beer's share is static. Only spirits have experienced both a reduced market share and a decline in the real price of the product. It is not possible for the Exchequer to squeeze more excise duty out of the Scotch whisky industry, as it cannot sustain its present market share while facing competition from other cheaper drinks bearing a much lower rate of duty. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood to the Front Bench. This shows the interest that Scotch whisky has for Scottish Members—of course, I mean the industry, not the product.

The 1988 family expenditure survey shows that beer and spirits drinkers have a similar income distribution, while wine drinkers are more concentrated in the high-income groups. That is a significant and important fact. I am saying in a roundabout way that those people can afford to pay more. If equity is the objective, taxes should be raised on wine relative to those on spirits and beer.

What are the social considerations? As I said, I am a teetotaller. I have campaigned actively on alcohol-related health problems, drink-driving and anti-social behaviour, including under-age drinking. I believe, as does the Royal College of Psychiatrists, that

"it is the alcohol content which matters—rather than the unique qualities of a particular drink. The widespread belief —that only spirits drinkers become alcoholics—is quite without foundation.'

I understand from a parliamentary answer that, in England and Wales, 90 per cent. of drink-related road accidents are caused by people drinking beer. Social considerations demand that all alcoholic drinks are treated equitably and there can be no justification for discriminating against spirits. After all, if someone is stopped while driving a car and is tested, the police are not interested in what he has been drinking; they are concerned with the alcohol content of the blood. That should be the same measure for taxation.

All the evidence suggests that, for social reasons, all drinks should be taxed at the same rate per degree of alcohol content. It is in the national interest that we should cease discriminating against Scotch whisky. It encourages imports of wine and has an adverse affect on the balance of trade. It encourages emulation by overseas Governments. Indeed, recently in Japan the director-general of the Scotch Whisky Association was invited to explain to the Ministry of Finance why the Japanese Government should not follow the United Kingdom Government's example and discriminate against Scotch whisky.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies recently recommended that all alcoholic drinks should be taxked at the same rate per degree of alcohol content. Therefore, it is not just the Scotch whisky industry. Scotch Whisky Association or me making these comments. The institute calculated—this pleases me no end—that equalising rates of duty per unit of alcohol at the present rate for spirits and the rates for all drinks would raise excise duty by 14 per cent. and that VAT revenue would increase by almost 3 per cent. To anyone who is interested in getting funds into the Government's coffers, that must be a good way of going about it, because it is an indirect tax, of which Conservative Members approve.

Another important benefit of levelling up taxes is that it would reduce wine imports. Using customs and excise drinks equation estimates of elasticity of demand for wine, the Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that wine imports would fall by more than £200 million per annum. That could only be good for the balance of payments.

Taxing all drinks at the same rate per unit of alcohol content would be administratively easy to operate. It would also improve United Kingdom employment prospects, reduce the distortion of consumer choice and discourage emulation of United Kingdom practices overseas. The time for tax reform is long overdue. There is no conceivable interest that provides any rational basis for continuing discrimination against the Scotch whisky industry.

I have made my contribution by ensuring that the quality and quantity of alcohol in Scotch cannot be diluted. I look now to the Government to take the measures necessary to create an environment and tax regime in which this industry—Scotland's premier exporting industry and one of the United Kingdom's main exporters—will continue to provide massive revenues for the Treasury, huge exports and, from a constituency point of view, continuing employment.

I welcome the opportunity to place on record my views about this important and fundamental industry in Scotland. It would not be overstating the case to say that Scotch is recognised worldwide as unique. It can be obtained from only one country in the world, and it is up to us to protect it.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reluctant to iterrupt this important debate, but, as you will know, Mr. Speaker has ruled that Members of Parliament may not be denied access to Downing street. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I had arranged to present a letter setting out the concern of ourselves and others about the rundown state of the health service in London and, in particular, the problems at Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children. We had arranged to be there at 1 o'clock with a number of other people and we were denied access. We eventually discovered that we had been denied access not by the police, who are only doing the job that they have been asked to do, but by the Government's public relations managers, because they are waiting until it is convenient for the Prime Minister to be filmed receiving his Christmas turkey. Since Mr. Speaker has ruled that hon. Members may not be denied access to No. 10 Downing street, I should be grateful if you would take this up with the appropriate authorities.

I was not aware that Mr. Speaker had so ruled, but I would not dream of questioning what the hon. Gentleman has said. No doubt his point will be drawn to the Prime Minister's attention.

While I am on my feet, I draw the House's attention to the fact that these half-hour Adjournment debates on the occasion of the Christmas Adjournment should be so arranged as to allow the Minister adequate time to reply. I regret that the Minister's time to reply to the debate has been curtailed.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) on initiating this debate on Scotch whisky at an appropriate and festive time of year. I congratulate him on being such an excellent advocate for a product that he does not even enjoy. I am in the same position as my hon. Friend, but, like him, I can appreciate that it is a fine, high-quality product of which we should all be proud.

Obviously, the Government fully recognise the valuable contribution made by the Scotch whisky industry to exports. The industry is to be congratulated on its magnificent achievement of exporting 85 per cent. of its total production, resulting in about 1·5 billion of income. It has emerged from the difficult years of the mid-1980s strengthened and invigorated largely, although not entirely—there has been Government help—by its own effort in marketing and targeting. I am delighted to note that some distilleries that had been mothballed for some years have successfully reopened.

The burden of my hon. Friend's debate has been the question of taxation of whisky but, in passing, I should like to mention some ways in which the Government should helped the Scotch whisky industry over the past 10 years.

It is fair to say that the duty ratio in relation to alcohol content between spirits and beer and wine has fallen from 2·8:1 to 1·7:1 and the tax on a normal bottle of whisky has fallen from some 80 per cent. of the retail price in 1980 to 66 per cent. today. Taking inflation into account during the period May 1979 to April 1990, the duty on spirits has fallen by some 27 per cent. in real terms, while that on beer has risen by 19 per cent. I understand my hon. Friend's concern about the interaction between the duty on wine and beer on the one hand and spirits on the other. I hope that he will accept that such movement as there has been has been positive and in favour of whisky.

My hon. Friend was right to mention his successful private Member's Bill, which is now the Scotch Whisky Act 1988. It enshrines the traditional method of producing Scotch whisky and its maturation in oak casks. He will accept that the Government took the lead in Brussels on the European Community spirits drinks regulations, which came into force last December and ensures that the name and quality of Scotch whisky is protected throughout the Community. The regulation defines the minimum alcoholic strength as 40 per cent. alcohol by volume and ensures that only whisky distilled in Scotland can use the name Scotch whisky.

The Government were instrumental in opening up the Japanese market and reducing the discriminatory duties against Scotch whisky there. We are continuing efforts to remove restrictions on imports of Scotch to Korea and Taiwan. Both markets have great potential. We are fully aware of the general concern to liberalise the Taiwan market for imported spirits and we give support wherever possible. We shall continue to co-operate with the Scotch Whisky Association in certification procedures to prevent counterfeiting and look-alikes.

My hon. Friend mentioned the 10 per cent. duty increase in the last Budget. I must point out that it was the first duty increase on spirits since 1985, in contrast to beer, wine and cider, the duty on which was increased in 1988. The duty on spirits in real terms has fallen by 27 per cent. in the past 10 years. I feel constrained to mention cider because I have Gaymers in my constituency and I want to go home safely at the end of the debate.

The burden of my hon. Friend's argument has been the question of unitary taxation. He argued that all alcoholic drinks should be taxed strictly according to their alcohol content. I have paid careful attention to his views. As he rightly says, we must not lose sight of the fact that the basic purpose of alcoholic drinks duties—sometimes it is overlooked, but not by my hon. Friend—is to raise revenue for the Government. In the past financial year, those duties brought in nearly £4·5 billion. To achieve that, successive Governments have set out to collect revenue from various drinks rather than from alcohol as such.

I was amused when my hon. Friend quoted our right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am obliged to tell my hon. Friend that the present flexible structure allows my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take market and industrial factors into account. For example, sparkling wine, which is often regarded as a luxury product, has traditionally been taxed at a higher rate than still wine of the same alcoholic strength. Similarly, cider, which is of the same strength or stronger than average beer, is taxed at a lower rate. To link duties on the basis of alcoholic strength would limit the Chancellor's room for manoeuvre and produce a major upheaval in the market place.

I note that my hon. Friend suggests that time should be taken to look at this and that if such changes were considered they could be phased in over some years. I can assure him that those questions will be considered most carefully by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the run-up to next year's Budget. My hon. Friend will not expect me to give any more undertakings now.

My hon. Friend mentioned the European Community. The Government's attitude to centrally imposed tax harmonisation is well known. Such harmonisation as is necessary should come about as a result of the operation of market forces. We have consistently said that member states should be free to set their own rates of duty, in the light of their own fiscal, social and other policies. I believe that my hon. Friend agrees, because part of his argument is that the Government should take into account the interests of the Scotch whisky industry in setting its own duty policies. His comments about the European Community will be taken into account when discussions get under way.

I assure my hon. Friend that I listened most carefully to his remarks, which were preceded by my meeting with the Scotch Whisky Association. Clearly that industry is vital to Scotland, and I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that, just as we have protected its interests in the past, we shall do so in future.

I am grateful for this opportunity to address the House, and perhaps I should explain that my elevation to the Opposition Dispatch Box was self-appointed. It is not the first time that that has happened. I took a leaf out of the book of Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Mr. Walker), who did the same thing in 1971—and look how he got on.

Perhaps I may first comment that the debate we have just had on the Scotch whisky industry was important for the whole of Scotland. I value greatly the work of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) in respect of that industry, because I have a big constituency interest in it—and I enjoy a dram.

This debate concerns the Ayr road route to the A77 and M77 link, and the decline that will occur in Ayrshire's economy if that project is not put back on schedule and started at the proper time in 1991. I shall summarise the economic issues associated with the A77 extension, concentrating on four main areas. They are the regional perspective, the Ayrshire perspective, the reasons for the 30-month delay in commencing that project and the risk of further slippage if the road building programme is in any way delayed.

The regional perspective and the economic arguments for immediate commencement of the Ayr route are multifactorial, but it is possible to isolate the key and undisputed reason for elevating the Ayr road route to the top of both the Strathclyde regional council and Scottish Development Council road building programmes. There is no doubt that the scheme offers the highest rate of return of all the strategic road schemes in the trunk road programme.

In the cost-benefit analysis undertaken by the Scottish Development Department, the Ayr route recorded a present net value of benefits totalling £236 million on low traffic growth predictions and of £462 million on high traffic growth predictions. A breakdown of the total benefit indicates an evaluation of time savings ranging between £278 million and £500 million, and accident cost savings of between 10·5 million and £14·6 million—to say nothing of the anxiety and distress that can be alleviated by reducing accidents.

The regional economic case was summarised succinctly in the region's application for European regional development funding, which cites the following criteria for progressing the route:

"The Ayr road route would be a major improvement to the strategic road network within the Strathclyde region. It would provide a bypass through heavily congested routes to the south side of Glasgow, and has a vital role in improving links between Glasgow and Ayrshire. It would provide a new fast route between Glasgow and the Ayrshire towns of Ayr, Prestwick, Irving—via the A71, Kilmarnock, and the external communications links of Prestwick airport and Stranraer. It would reduce excess costs to markets served by Prestwick airport and would offer major benefits to Ayrshire in linking it firmly to the national Scottish road network. Improved access to and egress from Ayrshire would open up the potential for inward investment and would encourage small to medium sized enterprise development by opening up new areas, and should have a positive impact on tourism and leisure development."

Thus, the region has proposed a sound economic case to support the Ayr road route in terms of the cost-benefit analysis; improvement of the regional strategic road network; strengthening of transport links of the metropolitan heart; improvement of external communication links; and the widening of economic development opportunities for Ayrshire. Those are all important issues at a time when we hear that the recession, which is now biting in England, is likely to start in Scotland.

From a local, Ayrshire, perspective, the economic arguments can be developed even further by examining the benefits that the extension and upgrading of the Ayr road route will have on the existing industrial and commercial base. The savings in anticipated journey times for industry occasioned by the upgrading and the extension of the A77 have been estimated at between 35 and 47 per cent. in off-peak conditions and between 40 and 53 per cent. during peak conditions.

Clearly, the impact that that will have transportation and distribution costs, lead times, improved freight movement times, local supply sourcing, delivery times and inventories will be considerable. From a human resource perspective, the shorter commuting times will widen the scope for Ayrshire firms to draw from the professional and skilled labour pool offered by the city of Glasgow.

The rapid upgrading and extension of the Ayr route is critical to remove the current relative remoteness of Ayrshire from the national motorway network. It will also improve the competitiveness of firms that are already established there.

In recent years, much has been made of the opportunities that are to be derived from the removal of trade barriers in Europe. We are constantly reminded by the Government and asked whether we are ready for the opportunities of 1992, when those barriers are removed. Unless Ayrshire benefits from an increase in infrastructural investment, we shall be on the periphery—or even beyond—of European markets. Already there is a perceived danger that the peripheralisation associated with the future of the rail network, and an anticipation that the east coast mainline will become the preferred rail route south to London, and to continental Europe for freight services, will be intensified if strategic planning and implementation of an improved road infrastructure is not adhered to, on time, in Ayrshire. We have a right to demand that that scenario is avoided at all costs.

I know that the Minister is familiar with the arguments presented thus far, and I should like to consider the reasons why we now face a further delay of 30 months in the programming of a road, which was originally proposed in 1965, and was probably started by the Romans, if they got to that area.

Both the regional council and the Scottish Office accept and indeed promote the economic justification for the scheme and both have professed a commitment to it. Why, then, is there a 30-month delay? Two weeks ago the new Secretary of State for Scotland announced a £9 million cut in spending on Scotland's roads and transport programme for 1991–92. Clearly, that will substantiate the region's claim that the delay has been occasioned entirely by inadequate total capital allocations.

However, it is on the issue of allocation of resources between competing schemes that the region's commitment to the progression of the Ayr road must be questioned closely. Indeed, in transportation policy and programming procedures, the region set a precedent during the 1990–95 cycle by proposing a capital programme comprising its base programme, and a new departure—to add a supplementary programme of expenditure which consisted of additional expenditure identified by the director of roads, over and above that contained in the 1990–95 financial plan.

The director of roads' view is that this expenditure has a higher priority than some schemes contained in the base programme—and evidently the Ayr road route. The rationale for affording the supplementary programme greater priority than named schemes within the base programme has to be questioned closely. In case the Minister is unfamiliar with the supplementary expenditure programme, it is categorised as follows:

"M8 Pavement Reconstruction Renfrew/Baillieston

M8 Upgrading of Capacity

(a) Drumbeck Connection Improvement

(b) Charing Cross-East of Townhead

Bridge Assessment/Strengthening Replacement, Bridge Refurbishment, Car Park Refurbishment, Town Centre Programme, Public Transport Development Study.

That is the priority given by Strathclyde region to its programme. We shall have to go there and question its representatives very closely. To be fair, I do not think that it gave adequate or, indeed, any consideration to the problems that would face Ayrshire once the priorities were changed.

The prioritisation of expenditure, as well as the capital allocation aspect, has led to the delay in the extension of the upgrading of the A77. A report by the region's chief executive, entitled "Transport Strategy and Capital Programme Review", dated August 1989, has warned:

"Although the TPP Sub-Committee has yet to consider these supplementary bids in detail, it is clear at this stage that if the Council's capital allocations are not increased substantially, then it will be necessary to delay and/or delete a number of named schemes included in the … Programme".

The consequential delay for Ayrshire goes further than the A77. In addition to that delay, the A71 improvement at East Holmes has been delayed by 24 months; the Dalry bypass on the A737 has been delayed by 23 months; Doon Bridge, Dalmellington B741 has been delayed by 12 months; the Irvine south approach road bridge has been delayed by 24 months; the Newmilns relief road A71 has been delayed by 24 months; and the Dairy realignment has been delayed by eight months.

Let us compare the cost of the supplementary programme—£73 million—with the total cost of the Ayr road route, which is some £55 million. The region's claim that the delay is a direct consequence of inadequate capital allocations from central Government becomes somewhat less convincing in the light of those figures. Nevertheless, it has a case. The Secretary of State for Scotland has announced a £9 million cut in the road programme for 1991–92; two days before, the former Secretary of State —now Secretary of State for Transport—was able to announce £1 billion additional expenditure on the M25, which is more than we have spent on our roads in Scotland for a decade.

Let us address the question why the director of roads in Strathclyde region has prioritised the supplementary expenditure programme—a prioritisation that was subsequently ratified by the transportation TPP sub-committee, full committee and full council by acceptance of proposed minimum and priority programmes. According to the evaluation, capacity enhancement, repairs to the M8 through Glasgow and, indeed, work on the bridge refurbishment and assessment have a greater call on available resources than the Ayr road route and other schemes that are now subject to delay. Obviously, we all consider the work to be done on the bridge essential. We should be finding a way of obtaining additional money, either from the Chancellor of the Exchequer or from Europe.

Although we in Ayrshire accept that there will always be interests competing for capital allocations, we cannot afford to accept that, merely for that reason, the Ayr road route—the largest single scheme in the capital programme, which was as yet uncommitted—should be targeted for a further 30-month delay. The introduction of a supplementary programme, described in the document as

"containing those elements of expenditure felt to be necessary but which cannot all be accommodated within present indications of available resources",

and the elevation of that programme to the detriment of the Ayr road route, merit further explanation from the region. It will be pressed for that information.

On 9 December, Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council organised a meeting of all Ayrshire district authorities plus the district of Eastwood. Eastwood has a very strong claim for the upgrading of the road, because of the environmental difficulties that it creates with heavy traffic. For Ayrshire authorities to agree on anything is unique, but for the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), other Members of Parliament, councillors and representatives of trade and industry to be of one mind underlines the importance of Ayrshire's unanimity. We agreed that the civic heads of all the authorities should meet Charlie Grey and Malcolm Waugh to press our case for reconsideration of the matter by Strathclyde regional council.

The British Road Federation kindly wrote to me and said that it was delighted to note that this debate was to be held. Richard Diment, the deputy director, commissioned a report from Transport Action Scotland. I have here the brief prepared by Maureen Orde. Another excellent brief was prepared for me by Miss Jacqueline Cullen, the economic development officer of Kilmarnock. I congratulate her on its contents.

Transport Action Scotland represents all types of road users, including freight-carrying organisations. It has been worried for a long time about the shortcomings of the road system serving Ayrshire. The A77 and the A78 are the most important trunk routes. They link the area to Glasgow and the north. The A76/A75 forms the main trunk route south from Ayrshire to the A74/M74. It is particularly concerned about the delay in implementing the A77 road route, despite the Secretary of State's approval for the scheme, following the public inquiry in 1988.

The existing A77 on the south side of Glasgow is completely inadequate for the huge amount of traffic that it is forced to carry. The problems are exacerbated when drivers reach those sections of the road that are nearest the city centre. Traffic volumes range from 15,500 vehicles a day south of Newton Mearns to as many as 27,500 vehicles a day on the section south of Nether Auldhouse road, which gives access to the M77 at Dumbreck junction. That colossal volume of traffic has to go through the constituency of the hon. Member for Eastwood before it reaches the motorway. The effect on the environment is completely unacceptable.

I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastwood is nodding. I am grateful for his support, although I realise that his ministerial responsibilities prevent him from speaking today. I have been grateful for his support in the past. I shall hope that I continue to have his support—if not from the Dispatch Box, perhaps spiritually.

The road network in Ayrshire is of the utmost importance. Strathclyde regional council advised us to meet the Minister and ask him for more money. I am sure that the Minister realises that early in the new year we shall apply to him for more money. I hope that he will provide us with the opportunity to press the case further if, by now, he has not fully understood the importance of the Ayrshire road route to the economy of the west of Scotland.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench for this important debate and on the able and persuasive way in which he has presented the case on behalf of Kilmarnock and Loudoun.

I fully agree with the hon. Member that the improvement of road links between Glasgow and south-west Scotland should have high priority. At present, traffic between Glasgow and Kilmarnock encounters a bottleneck between the M8 and the start of the four-lane A77 at Newton Mearns. I am well aware, from the representations that have been made to me by the hon. Member and by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and from visiting both Kilmarnock and Eastwood, of the delays that can occur. I fully appreciate the costs of these delays.

It may be helpful if I consider first the strategic significance of the Ayr road route scheme—that is, the link proposed between the end of the M77 spur at Dumbreck, off the M8 in Glasgow—the north end of the proposed road—and the A77 at Malletsheugh south of Newton Mearns.

The major emphasis of the Scottish Office's trunk road programme is to improve the key inter-urban roads in Scotland. Our priorities are to complete the central Scotland motorway network and to press ahead with the upgrading of the A74 to motorway. Funding for trunk roads has been increased substantially to meet those objectives. Two years ago, we spent £90 million on new trunk road construction. This year, we have allocated £130 million. The overall total is £200 million, but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, a considerable portion must be spent on road safety, on strengthening bridges and on similar activities. The results of that increase in expenditure are clear. Two years ago, we had no motorway schemes in progress. Next year, we shall have six major schemes under construction, all in the central belt of Scotland.

A key to our progress has been our partnership with Strathclyde regional council. It is vital that the trunk and key principal road network in and around Glasgow is upgraded coherently. The jointly funded M80 Stepps bypass is now under construction. Tenders have been invited for a design-and-construct contract for the jointly funded M8 St. James interchange. We have jointly promoted the Ayr road route through a public local inquiry.

I am pleased to repeat to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun that the emphasis that we place on the completion of the central Scotland motorway network includes high priority for the construction of the Ayr road route. This will provide an important strategic link in the network. Indeed, when complete, there will be continuous motorway, dual-carriageway and single four-lane carriageway link to Ayr from Edinburgh and Glasgow.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood will be interested in the two longer-term improvements that are planned for the trunk road south of Malletsheugh. These will upgrade the remaining four-lane single-carriageway section of the road to dual carriageway. The necessary design work and statutory procedures for the schemes are being progressed by Strathclyde regional council, which is acting as our agents for the project. Our programme is to complete the preparatory work for the section between Fenwick and the B764 Eaglesham road during 1992. The remaining length from the B764 to Malletsheugh is expected to be ready during the following year. Thereafter, start dates will be decided on the basis of the available resources and priorities at the time. Final decisions on starts are taken annually each March for the year ahead.

We recognise the importance of all these schemes. In considering allocations to Strathclyde regional council, therefore, and in drawing up the trunk road programme, we have given high priority to the funding necessary to construct the new Ayr road route.

The new road from Dumbreck to Malletsheugh comes in two sections. First, within the Glasgow city boundary —from the end of the M77 to Darnley—the new road would be a local road constructed by Strathclyde regional council. Outside the city boundary, from Darnley southwards to Malletsheugh, the new link would be a trunk road. However, the two sections of the road have to be co-ordinated. It would make no sense for one section of the road to end in the middle of a field at Darnley, without the other to meet it.

Within Glasgow, and on the outskirts of the city, the A77 is mainly single carriageway. It carries large volumes of local, long-distance and commuter traffic. I am aware that current volumes of traffic in south-west Glasgow cause extensive congestion for considerable periods of the day. The new road will provide substantial benefits to through traffic by reducing delays, will benefit local traffic by easing congestion and will improve road safety by reducing road-user conflicts. The scheme benefits are sufficient to provide, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, a high economic return on investment.

The Scottish Office has said that it will be prepared to proceed with the trunk road section when Strathclyde regional council constructs the new local road. Indeed, as the greater part of the route is Strathclyde's, we cannot move on the trunk road portion until it has let contracts. The key, therefore, to whether the new route proceeds is its willingness to devote resources to its part of the new link.

With that point in mind, in our capital allocations to Strathclyde regional council for 1990–91, we added £5·2 million to the provisional figure previously notified. Strathclyde's allocation was therefore increased to £73·6 million. That increase included £2·7 million on the assumption, which was notified to the council, that work on the Ayr road route would begin. At that time, Strathclyde's financial plan showed that only £28·6 million of its planned expenditure was legally committed. The regional council therefore had considerable flexibility, with the balance, £45 million, being available to accommodate the rest of its programme, including the Ayr road route.

However, when we make allocations to local roads authorities, taking into account the priorities that those authorities have stated in their transport policies and programmes, documents and plans, we do not give projects specific consent. In other words, the authority can, within the allocation announced, use its spending consents as it sees fit.

The reasoning behind that approach is clear. It is for regional authorities to determine their relative priorities for investment in their area. We believe that it is for them to judge the most pressing local priorities. If one likes, that is local democracy at work.

Phase 1A of the Ayr road route from Dumbreck road to Barrhead road was programmed to start in March 1991. Phase 1B from Barrhead road to the city boundary was programmed to start in March 1992. Both parts—a total of 5·5 km—were due to finish in 1994. At its meeting on 23 October 1990, Strathclyde region's transport policies and programmes sub-committee considered options for delaying the work by 18, 30 or 42 months. It decided to recommend that work on the Ayr road route should be delayed by 30 months. That decision was confirmed by the full roads and transportation committee on 1 November 1990. The decision stems from a programme review carried out by Strathclyde roads department. The council decided that, to take account of what it saw as the wider needs of the region, it was necessary to delay the start of the Ayr road route.

Whether we like it or not, if we add together the roads and transport programmes which all Scottish authorities would like to undertake, the total requirement for capital consent in any one year would substantially exceed the amounts that can be made available. However, Strathclyde's allocation for roads and transport for 1990–91 is 45 per cent. of the Scottish total. It is the highest allocation per local road length of all mainland authorities. It is £5,600 per local road kilometre, compared with the national average of £3,200. Also, although Strathclyde has a high population density, its level of expenditure per head of population is equal to the national average and is substantially higher than for other central belt authorities.

I accept that Strathclyde has to make choices within the resources allocated to it, but I believe that we have treated Strathclyde generously. A start should, therefore, be possible on the Ayr road route if the council deploys the funds available on schemes that were at the centre of the emphasis that the council made in preparing its bid to the Scottish Office.

I shall not respond in detail to what the hon. Gentleman said about the advantages of the route for inward investment because those advantages are self-evident. There is no doubt that that view is shared by Locate in Scotland and by the Scottish Development Agency.

Strathclyde's decision to delay the Ayr road route works is most unfortunate. To return to road funding, decisions on final allocations for 1991–92 will not be taken until about February. But it is possible, given the council's decisions this year, that the relatively favourable treatment that we have given Strathclyde on capital allocations will have to be reappraised. A reappraisal will be needed if the council is deploying funds on schemes which were not central to the priorities put to us. Those comments do not necessarily imply that there will be a reduction in Strathclyde's allocation next year. We shall examine carefully the council's latest financial plan and its reviewed priorities, including its other major schemes. We shall then determine final allocations for next and future years within the overall amounts available for Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of the road for jobs. As he knows, the SDA identified the Bringan site at Kilmarnock as a potential high-amenity site which could be marketed on a time scale to fit with the roads improvement programme. I urge that the region take that fact fully into account.

Road safety is also relevant. We attach the highest importance to that and I must point out that the accident rate on the A77 between Glasgow and Ayr is not exceptionally high by comparison with that on other similar roads. However, we aim to reduce accidents on all roads by one third by the year 2000. We are aware that the number of fatal and of serious accidents on the A77 is a cause for serious concern, so the construction of the Ayr road route would be a major step forward in improving road safety on that important route.

I repeat the advice that I have given to the hon. Gentleman on our previous meetings. He and his constituents should address their representations to Strathclyde regional council as the key decision on when the Ayr road route proceeds is the council's. We are very disappointed that the council has decided not to begin the strategic work now. However, we believe that the council could start work on the northern part of the new road in 1991–92. We should warmly welcome a decision on those lines by the council.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again at Christmas time the subject of the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. In December 1989, we had a full debate on the boat people in which I was able to take part. In December 1988 and in December 1987, I was able to raise the issue in the regular pre-Christmas debate. Sadly, the problem still troubles our conscience at this time of year. I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who know the problem well.

At Christmas time, we should be especially conscious of those for whom there is, metaphorically, no room at the inn. We should also be especially concerned about young children in need of care and comfort. Sadly, however, this season will once again be a bleak time for the many thousands of young children locked up in the detention camps of Hong Kong, for which we in the House are ultimately responsible.

Over Christmas, many thousands of young Vietnamese children will catch a glimpse of the outside world only through thick coils of barbed wire. They will play as best they can on crowded cement yards in which they have spent every day of the past year. Some children in the camps are lucky if they can walk on grass or touch a flower on one day in the whole year. Their regular home will be shacks 30 m long by 9 m wide, shared by 300 adults and children.

The minimum guidelines set by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees state that every adult or child should have living space of at least 3·5 sq m. At the Whitehead and High Island detention centres, which hold almost 30,000 boat people, the living space is about 1 sq yd per person. That means that three families will live on top of each other in tiered bunks. It means that home for a husband, a wife and two children will be a strip of plywood measuring 8 ft by 6 ft, with one family living 3 ft above their heads and another family living 3 ft below them. I am ashamed that we should make families live in such conditions.

We require men, women and children to live in such conditions as a by-product of a policy which has been tacitly approved by the House whereby we seek to stop a flood of people desperately seeking a haven from political and economic repression. We know, and the people of Hong Kong know, that a quarter of the 60 million inhabitants of Vietnam would emigrate if they could. Indeed, more than a million have left Vietnam in the past 12 years, and 800,000 have found new homes in the United States. To stop that vast potential flow of people trying to escape from political repression and abject poverty, we had to erect effective and unpleasant barriers.

There are two prongs to such a policy. On the one hand, we say that all new arrivals in Hong Kong from Vietnam must face a fair, but rigorous, screening process to establish whether they are genuine political refugees rather than economic migrants. We also make conditions tough for those who have been screened out and denied refugee status, as well as tough for those waiting to be screened. Our policy of being deliberately unpleasant to those fleeing from Vietnam reached an unhappy climax earlier this year when a planeload of protesting boat people were forcibly deported to Vietnam.

I acknowledge that the policy has had its successes. The flow of boat people from north Vietnam has dropped dramatically since that single act of forced repatriation. Perhaps that reduction was caused by news of the repatriation. However, the fall has been so steep—from 2,000 boat people per month from north Vietnam to 100 per month—that it seems more probable that the drop is the result of a change of policy by the Vietnamese and mainland Chinese Governments.

The Foreign Office has reached an agreement with the Vietnamese authorities which provides for easier repatriation of those boat people who do not protest too much. In some ways, that is a typical Foreign Office agreement, in that it reassures Vietnamese symathisers like me that there will not be forced repatriation, while it encourages anti-Vietnamese politicians in Hong Kong to believe that there will be.

At the same time, the policy of making conditions intolerably uncomfortable is supposed to persuade people who have been screened out and denied refugee status to return to Vietnam voluntarily. In the first nine months of this year, 3,500 people returned voluntarily. That is a far higher figure than I had expected 12 months ago. The authorities in Hong Kong, and Foreign Office Ministers, will claim that the policy is working, that the number of refugees from north Vietnam has been cut dramatically and that the number of boat people returning voluntarily to Vietnam is higher than we had reason to believe.

However, that policy is based on the hope that economic and political conditions in Vietnam will improve and that the repressive nature of the Vietnamese communist Government will be relaxed still further. Unfortunately, in recent weeks Vietnam seems to have been going backwards rather than of forwards. A year ago, inflation in Vietnam seemed to be under control and the Government there appeared to be adopting a more liberal attitude politically and economically.

In the summer of 1989, I met the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, a veteran hard-line communist, who at that time sounded like a member of the "No Turning Back" group with his buoyant enthusiasm for market forces as a cure for inflation. That seemed to be working, but inflation is, alas, now rising sharply once more and the economic liberals have given way to communist hard-liners. Other conditions are also deteriorating. Soviet aid has disappeared. Fertilisers are in short supply in Vietnam. Oil prices are rocketing and unemployment is growing. The foreign currency earnings of Vietnamese guest workers in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union have disappeared.

At the same time, political repression, especially in the more relaxed south, seems to be intensifying. I note that, although the number of boat people coming from North Vietnam has fallen dramatically in the past few months, the number from south Vietnam has trebled in the same period. Many of the thousands of south Vietnamese boat people now arriving—most are ethnic Chinese—are confident that they will be given refugee status. Postal communications between Vietnam and the detention camps in Hong Kong are surprisingly good. It seems wholly unlikely that many detainees will agree to go back in the face of genuine fear of famine and hunger. I also fear that the economic and political repression in Vietnam could lead to a fresh wave of desperate people taking to their boats. If that happens, the British Government must be prepared to step in directly.

The finances of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong are in a mess. When I was last there a few weeks ago, UNHCR owed the Hong Kong Administration more than 100 million Hong Kong dollars, but sadly some countries specifically exclude Hong Kong from their UNHCR contributions on the grounds that Hong Kong is rich. The politicians in Hong Kong, some of whom will be facing elections soon, are all too likely to want to cut the amount of money spent on the boat people. If there is a new exodus, the British Government have an obligation to step in with fresh help.

So, what can be done? I shall comment on three areas—screening, accommodation and education. First, there has been some improvement since I referred to the screening process last year. Of course, it is not perfect and there have been bad cases, such as the 111 boat people who were recently freed on a writ of habeas corpus and who have now been given refugee status. Clearly, they should never have been treated as they were. That episode has had a happy ending, however, and I am satisfied that the bulk of the boat people have received a far more thorough screening than most would-be refugees seeking asylum in other countries.

However, I am not at all happy about the screening of the unaccompanied children in the camps. Depending how one defines the words "unaccompanied" and "children", there are between 2,000 and 4,000 unaccompanied children in the Hong Kong camps. I am sure that their screening is carried out humanely, but it takes an extraordinarily long time. There is the bureaucracy of the Hong Kong Administration, meshing with the bureaucracy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. One then has to deal with the even more inefficient bureaucrats in Vietnam.

If the present rate is maintained, unaccompanied children may languish for years in the overcrowded detention camps. When I was last in Hong Kong, about 40 unaccompanied children were dealt with per month. That cannot be sensible of humane. I ask the Minister to look again at the special screening arrangements for those children. In view of the deteriorating situation in Vietnam, I hope that far more can be resettled in the West.

Secondly, I hope that all the unaccompanied children, and many of the families, can be moved from closed detention camps to open centres where they are not kept in prison-like conditions. When I was in Hong Kong this autumn, I was impressed by the Pillar Point open centre, which is run by the non-profit-making firm, Hong Kong Housing Services for Refugees Ltd. Pillar point now houses 5,000 people who have been given refugee status. All those refugees will be rehoused in the west sooner or later. Many have jobs in the still-thriving Hong Kong economy. Rent is charged at 100 Hong Kong dollars per month per room. Accommodation is sparse but adequate. In place of the scores of wardens with jangling keys, who are an inevitable part of the scene at High Island and Whitehead closed camps, there is an administrative staff of fewer than 20.

When it comes to looking after refugees, privatisation works. I am glad that there are plans for that non-profit-making private company to run the new Tai A Chau detention centre being built on the Soko islands. That should give hundreds, if not thousands, of children the opportunity to lead a more normal life. I hope that the Chi Ma Wan closed centre—also on an isolated island many miles from the city—can also be privatised and opened up.

I accept, with reluctance, the necessity for some closed camps, where conditions are austere, but as the ominous situation in Vietnam means that only a minority of people will be willing to return in the immediate future, we must take urgent action to ensure that children and young people are treated humanely.

Thirdly, I note that the Vietnamese, like the Chinese, are hungry for educations. I salute the work that the Save the Children Fund and other voluntary bodies are doing to provide playgrounds for the younger children. I note that considerable efforts are being made by the authorities to provide Vietnamese education, with an improved curriculum, for children of school age, but the effort seems to have a patchy impact and I hope that the Hong Kong Administration will feel able to increase the resources spent on the boat people's skills. A little money spent judiciously on educating those children should not be begrudged.

When I visited Pillar Point refugee camp recently, I was depressed to hear that the UNHCR had cut out all adult education, particularly the teaching of English. We know that the thousands of adults and children there will eventually be resettled in the west, almost certainly in English-speaking countries. It seems folly, therefore, not to make an effort to teach those people English while they are waiting for resettlement. I have appealed through the American press to Vietnamese organisations in America to fund that work, but ultimately the responsibility for this and for life in all the camps rests with us.

The people who run these camps on our behalf are generally kind and humane, but as Christmas approaches we should not tolerantly accept a system which leaves a child, or a man or woman, with 1 sq yd of living space. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced an extra £5 million for famine relief in Ethiopia and the Sudan, and I welcome that. I accept that the British taxpayer cannot meet all demands, but we have a particular responsibility to help those whom we have deliberately locked up.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) for once again raising the important issue of the plight of Vietnamese children in the boat people's camps in Hong Kong. I know that the House will be pleased to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who have taken a great interest in this subject.

The debate provides an opportunity to review recent developments in our efforts to find a humane and lasting solution to the problems posed for Hong Kong by the large numbers of boat people there and by those who still continue to arrive—although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said, fortunately in rather reduced numbers—for it is only through a lasting solution that a stable future for the children in those camps can be secured.

I pay tribute to the Hong Kong authorities, who, despite preoccupations with their own future during a time of considerable uncertainty, have continue to provide a safe haven for the Vietnamese asylum seekers. As we have been able to say for over 11 years now, no Vietnamese has ever been turned away. Hong Kong's humanitarian record is one of which to be proud, but I remind the House that last year Hong Kong coped with the arrival of more than 34,000 people, in addition to the 18,000 who arrived in the previous year.

The cornerstone of our concern is that genuine refugees should continue to enjoy protection and that a new home for them should be found in the west. The corollary is that those who are not refugees should return to their country of origin either to rebuild their lives in their home cities or villages or, if they are intent on leaving, to migrate through normal emigration channels. It is against that background that the policy for dealing with the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong and south-east Asia has evolved.

Screening was introduced in Hong Kong in 1988 with the co-operation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham has been good enough to say that it is a thorough process. The procedures in Hong Kong have undergone some changes over the past 30 months, and I am confident that they are fair and well adapted to their main objective, which is to ensure that no one facing the prospect of return to Vietnam need fear persecution at the hands of the Vietnamese authorities.

Screening selects those whose fear of persecution in Vietnam is well founded. My hon. Friend referred to the agreement that the Foreign Office has concluded with Vietnam, and we have sought to obtain from the Vietnamese authorities specific undertakings that nobody who returns will be punished for having left. I am happy to say that the Vietnamese have honoured that. More than 6,000 people have returned to Vietnam from Hong Kong since March 1989, and their conditions have been monitored by the UNHCR and the British embassy. Not a single incident of persecution or mistreatment of those who have returned has yet been recorded.

Nevertheless, one can understand the argument that it would be hard-hearted to send people back to Vietnam without offering them any help to rebuild their lives. Our policy is far from hard-hearted, for the following reasons. The UNHCR has been providing reintegration assistance to which we have contributed. In addition, last May we announced a contribution of £1 million of aid for the areas of Vietnam from which the boat people originate. Perhaps most significantly, at our instigation, the European Community proposed in July to set up a major repatriation and reintegration assistance programme for returning Vietnamese. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham may have seen an announcement in the press stating that that is starting with a pilot project of some 10 million ecu.

Therefore, returning Vietnamese can now enjoy the prospect of generous financial support and a real opportunity to build their own future. There is no prospect that the international community will change its mind and resettle Vietnamese who are not refugees. Yet, sadly, pamphlets, some of which have originated in the United States of America, have circulated in the camps urging people to hang on in the expectation of change.

The basis of the economy in Vietnam could be changed if we and the United States recognised Vietnam and normalised relations. In that way, the many people who want to reinvest in Vietnam and its economy could do so, and the future of the Vietnamese people would be secure in their own country rather than their having to leave. That would be more helpful than the policy that my hon. Friend the Minister has just described.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and certainly it will be considered. However, it is going wide of the debate.

The pamphlets are appallingly irresponsible. They prolong to no purpose the detention of men, women and children at a time when the wherewithal exists for them to start a new life back in the communities which they left.

In the few minutes left to me, I should like to comment on the main subjects of the debate. If the ultimately hopeless period of waiting in the camps in Hong Kong is hard on adults, it is even harder on children. There are some 16,500 children under the age of 16 in Hong Kong, and special provision is made for them. They have special dietary scales and are provided with supplementary feeding to ensure that they are well nourished. Medical services, including the same free immunisation service for all babies and children as is provided for all Hong Kong children, are available in every centre. Any child requiring specialist treatment or hospitalisation is sent to outside hospitals, and arrangements are made for the parents to visit regularly.

During the 1989 influx many of the facilities provided for children had to make way for basic accommodation. However, as a result of the improvements this year, conditions are now much better. Education programmes include pre-school, primary and secondary levels. There is a library in each centre and access to educational videos is available to all. My hon. Friend commented on education for these children. Curricula taught in the detention centres are modelled on curricula taught in Vietnam. If more resources could be found, the quality of education would be improved, and we shall give some thought to that. English is taught in the camps to refugees to help them prepare for resettlement and to non-refugees. For the latter, the emphasis must be on Vietnamese because they will be returning to Vietnam.

The camp environment is far from ideal for children. There are play areas and open spaces with play equipment where possible. Donations of toys and gifts, especially at Christmas time, are distributed. Recreational programmes, including outings and excursions, are organised in co-operation with voluntary agencies.

My hon. Friend spoke of the Tai A Chau and the Chi Ma Wan camps. We believe that children are best cared for by responsible adults—their parents, adult relatives or temporary foster parents. Children inevitably tend to be spread throughout the camps. Tai A Chau is to be used as a camp for southerners. Consistent with that policy, the Hong Kong authorities intend to move as many children and unaccompanied minors as possible to Tai A Chau when the camp opens early next year. I am happy to say that the arrangements at Chi Ma Wan are being reviewed. We shall consider including families in that camp.

My hon. Friend was particularly concerned about unaccompanied children, of whom there are estimated to be 2,000 or more. Special committees responsible for them must be created in each country of first asylum. The committee in Hong Kong has operated since 19 April. It is charged with making a recommendation to the Hong Kong Government. So far, 663 cases have been submitted to the committee, which has reached a decision on 116 of them. Of those, 78 have been recommended for repatriation and 38 for resettlement.

My hon. Friend expressed concern at the committee's slow rate of progress. We and the Hong Kong Government share that concern and have urged the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' office in Hong Kong to speed up the committee's work.

Hong Kong has some 12,000 people who have been determined not to be refugees. They are no different from any other illegal immigrants—except that, inevitably because of the emotive history of the boat people and the Vietnam war, their deportation is a matter of contention. It is not fair to expect Hong Kong to continue to provide a temporary resting place. Nor is it fair to the people themselves to continue to hold out a false hope of resettlement.

We, the Hong Kong authorities, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will continue to work closely to achieve the orderly return of those people as soon as possible. I am confident that we have the basis of a durable and humane solution to this long-running problem. We will continue in our unflagging efforts to make it work.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that all right hon. and hon. Members received today a letter from the Secretary of State for Health about my private Member's Bill on no-fault compensation in the national health service. His letter refers to provisions in the Bill, which is not yet published and was only deposited with the Public Bill Office less than one hour ago. Is not it a grave contempt of the House for a Minister publicly to oppose a Bill in that way, before it has even been published?

As I understand the hon. Lady, she is suggesting that contempt or a breach of privilege is involved. The correct procedure is for the hon. Lady to write to Mr. Speaker. Doubtless she will reflect on that.

This is the last debate before Christmas and it is very much in the Christmas spirit—in that it is a genuinely altruistic debate. I used to work in the television industry, but am now a full-time politician. The people on whose behalf I have sought this debate are the Brethren, sometimes known as the Exclusive Brethren. They do not watch television and they do not vote, so this can genuinely be described as an altruistic effort on my part—and the same can be said of any other hon. Member who participates.

The Brethren are very concerned about the national curriculum—not so much about its content as about the way that it is being interpreted. The Brethren have doctrinal purity. They believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and therefore no religious instruction is taken outside the Brethren. They do not share meals with non-believers; nor do they watch films or television. They do not use computers either, and heavily restrict their reading material. Some people will find that odd. Most people will regard their behaviour as being outside their own norms of society.

In representing the case of the Brethren in my constituency, it is not for me to decide what are the norms of society, or what those decent, honest, law-abiding people should or should not do—or should or should not want for their children. In the past, I have taken up cases concerning people who are black or Asian—and no doubt I shall do so in future. For example, I was heavily involved with the whole issue of whether Sikh people should be forced to wear hard hats on building sites. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, was partly instrumental in ensuring, very creditably, that they should not be compelled to do so. That was done on the basis that it was not for us to dictate what people should or should not believe in terms of their religion. What was true for them must be true for the Brethren.

The Government's view was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) when she was Minister of State, and was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) when he assumed that office. It is summed up in a letter from my hon. Friend dated 29 August, in which he states:

"the use of television and radio programmes and videos as media for teaching is not a requirement of the National Curriculum … DES Circular 3/90, which was issued on 6 March with the National Curriculum Order for technology, made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes."

That makes it abundantly clear that, with goodwill on both sides, it could and should be possible to reach a reasonable compromise. Regrettably, that has not been the case.

There have been a range of responses. Some schools and local education authorities have been helpful. In Humberside, a school wrote to the parents saying:

"Your children will be allowed to leave the room whenever a video is to be shown, in all subjects and in each year group; you will be informed of a suitable textbook in Science, which you may wish to purchase as an alternative source of information … In English, you will be sent a copy of texts which are to be used, so that you may decide upon their suitability. Should you feel they are not acceptable then we will try to provide an alternative".

In the London borough of Barnet, the headmaster of East Barnet school said:

"The parents and pupils concerned"—

the Brethren—

"are admirable people and I sincerely hope that their strongly held religious beliefs can be accommodated within the State schools. I trust that the English traditions of religious tolerance and compromise will eventually prevail.

Article 14 of the Convention of The Rights Of The Child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20th November 1989: States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents … to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child."

In the London borough of Harrow, one of the schools wrote to parents saying:

"Brethren children are excused from these sessions, however with the encouragement of their teachers and parents they invariably back-up their work from other sources … -Far from inhibiting the childrens' progress, it enables them to give a different view point in written work and discussion."

Finally, a head teacher from a school in Gloucester said:

"This letter is just to inform you that the school policy will continue to be one of respecting your wishes in this matter, come what may!"

It has not always been as good as that. Some schools and education authorities have been actively hostile. I have here a series of insensitive and high-handed letters. If these children were black or Asian, some of the remarks in these letters could contravene the Race Relations Act 1976. The remarks that I am about to read are, in my judgment, patronising, insulting and high-handed.

In Hampshire, a headmaster said:

"there are areas in which you have no choice in law whilst the pupils are attending a State school. These areas are in connection with Sex Education and Information Technology."

That headmaster is wrong in law.

In Stafford, a chairman of governors wrote:

"Your particular interpretation of the Bible places demands upon the school's resources that cannot be met without a very considerable amount of extra work."

How dare he tell parents what their interpretation of the Bible must, or must not be?

Will my hon. Friend note that I have the greatest possible sympathy with the views that are expressed by the Exclusive Brethren? It would be extremely desirable if some of the people who use these intemperate remarks would pay greater attention to the importance of religion and Christianity in our schools. Furthermore, if he looks at the Race Relations Act 1976, I think that he will find that there is a positive prohibition not only of racism, but also of discrimination on religious grounds.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) both for his support and for the interesting point that he has made about the Race Relations Act. I am certain that the Brethren will follow that up.

Indeed, I have received a number of letters front colleagues, including my neighbour the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), expressing their support for what I was doing today and hoping that the Brethren will be allowed to carry on as they are and that their religion will be respected.

I have a letter from the chairman of governors of a school in Stockport:

"We regret the necessity of this action as we accept that your request was made with the best of intentions".

That is the letter that I described as patronising. A Suffolk headmaster said:

"there is no point in discussing these matters further and therefore I am not prepared to make another appointment."

The appointment was with representatives of the Brethren. That was on 2 February, a full month before the Government's circular was issued. The school would not even consult before the Government's view was clear.

The final letter from which I wish to quote comes, regrettably, from my own constituency. I am sorry to say that it is from the chairman of the governors at Longfield school. It is a very good school, but the governors will have to think again. Dr. Welch, the chairman, said:

"the Governors give notice that, as from the first day of the new school year in September 1991, no pupil may be excluded from any lesson, or part of a lesson, or any procedure used by the teaching staff to deliver the curriculum … From September 1991, if pupils exclude themselves from any part of the secular curriculum, for reasons other than those listed, the matter will be dealt with using the agreed disciplinary procedures".

I find that entirely unacceptable. It is plain that the good will and reasonableness that my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his predecessor hoped would prevail have not done so in all circumstances. We must see what can be done to help the people concerned. If necessary, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Human Rights—and they have every reason to do so. Article 2 of the European convention on human rights states:

"No person shall be denied the right to education … The State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious … convictions."

Nothing could be clearer than that.

I believe that a change may be necessary to enable parents to exercise their own religious discretion. Let me give just one example of what has been done in another part of the world. In New South Wales, Australia, the legislative assembly passed a Bill saying:

"The parent of a child enrolled at a government school may give the Director-General of School Education written notice that the parent conscientiously objects on religious grounds to the child being taught a particular part of a course of study."

I believe that that is necessary. I believe that we must protect these people, particularly because of the very fact that they do not vote. The fact that they do not vote is a matter for them. Because they do not take what others would regard as a normal part in society, we have an even greater responsibility to protect them—against, for instance, the high-handed attitude displayed in the letters from which I have quoted.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) for raising this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for attending the "swansong" of this part of our Session.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West has raised a very serious matter, and I know that the Brethren feel very strongly about it. It is a matter on which I have already spent considerable time since my arrival in my relatively new post, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) also spent a good deal of time considering it. It was considered exhaustively during the various procedures and thought processes that contributed to the building of the national curriculum.

The questions raised by my hon. Friend and by the Brethren are not only matters for the Brethren themselves; they relate to the position of all children who are educated in our maintained schools. The issue at stake is what sort of education we should provide for the majority of our youngsters to ensure that they leave school well prepared to meet the challenges that they will face throughout their lives.

One of the aims of the national curriculum is to ensure a broad and balanced education for all pupils of compulsory school age at maintained schools. That is part of a wider requirement—enshrined in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988—to ensure that all pupils are fully prepared for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. If we are not to sell children short, we must ensure that all pupils in maintained schools are given a thorough and relevant preparation for adult and working life.

It is essential that children are prepared for the world in which we live. Information technology is playing an increasingly significant role in contemporary life. Pupils cannot be prepared for a modern society in which the use of information technology is prevalent if they are not provided with some basic knowledge and understanding about information technology. This is not to prosyletise or encourage, but it is to inform. It is vital that young people are fully aware of and competent to use information technology. Not to include information technology in the national curriculum would be an immense disservice to future generations who will have to work and compete in a wider world with others.

To leave information technology optional would also disadvantage children in a country that must strive hard in a highly competitive and increasingly technological world. We therefore need to ensure that all pupils in state schools understand how information technology and its applications work. That is why the Government believe that IT education should be a requirement, not an option, under the national curriculum in maintained schools.

In particular, all pupils should have the opportunity to acquire some knowledge, skills and understanding about computers and their uses. This is a matter of curriculum content rather than delivery. Computer education is not simply a medium for teaching other subjects: information technology constitutes a subject for study in itself. That is why the national curriculum order for technology—along with those for maths, science and English—all involve the use of computers or word processors. Schools are not allowed to excuse children from these requirements; nor can local education authorities.

I can understand many of the Brethren's concerns about modern media which information technology supports in one way or another. Quite apart from religious beliefs, it is widely felt that television, radio and videos do not always portray the best in our society. I can appreciate why parents should wish to protect their children from the worst aspects of those media. Parents have rightly complained about materials which, while acceptable for adults, would be unsuitable for children in their early and formative years. I respect parents' views on those matters. The portrayal of sex and violence in various media and the promotion of uncaring and irreligious attitudes, particularly among the young at an age when they are impressionable and vulnerable, rightly concern many people.

I respect the wish of Brethren parents to discourage their children from becoming too accustomed to television, radio and videos. That is irrespective of the Brethren's particular religious views. The Government have been at pains to ensure that the views of the Brethren were carefully considered. We have received a great many representations on their behalf. I have listened intensively to the views expressed by some of my constituents in Enfield, North. There has been very extensive correspondence about the whole issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden met representatives of the Brethren to discuss the matter. The subject was also aired in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments when it considered the national curriculum orders in English and technology last June.

The use of television, radio and videos in schools is a question of the delivery rather than the content of the curriculum. The national curriculum emphatically does not require the use of such media. Schools remain free to choose their own teaching methods. The Government have done their best to ensure that shools are aware of this. Guidance has been offered on this point in a circular that was issued by my Department in March this year, along with the national curriculum order for technology. These documents made clear our hope that schools would have regard to parents' views in their choice of media for teaching purposes.

I have to make it clear that the guidance contained in the circular is not legally binding and that the final decision on teaching methods rests with schools. Although I can, and do, encourage schools to have regard to parents' views on teaching methods, the Government have no power to direct them to do so. Nevertheless, I would expect schools and local education authorities to be sensitive to the beliefs of families in considering teaching methods and teaching materials.

My hon. Friend referred to a number of letters and, in the phraseology of the old essay question, called on me to contrast and compare them. He referred to a letter from a school in Harrow. Although that school seems to be acting within the letter of the law, I regret the intransigent and hostile tone that was adopted and the lack of sensitivity that was shown. I hope that all schools will heed the advice that is given in my Department's circular 390, in which we encouraged head teachers and their staff to have regard to parents' views on the media used for teaching and, where practical, to provide individual pupils with alternative methods. My hon. Friend cited one or two examples of the way in which some schools were doing just that.

An important issue in making decisions about the use of such alternative materials should be whether pupils' access to the curriculum would be seriously harmed if they did not participate in lessons involving the use of those media. I hope that schools will adopt a friendly and helpful approach to members of the Brethen to find ways of meeting the school's legal obligations and of enabling Brethren children to remain within maintained schools.

I must stress that parents cannot exercise a right of veto by withdrawing their children from particular lessons if they disagree with the teaching methods that are used. There is nothing new in that. There has been a long-standing right under the Education Acts for parents to withdraw their children from religious education and collective worship in maintained schools. There has never been a parallel right of withdrawal from the secular curriculum of maintained schools.

The introduction of the national curriculum does not alter the historical position; nor does the Education Reform Act contain powers that would allow parents to decide which aspect of the national curriculum their children should follow.

My hon. Friend referred to article 2 of the first protocol to the European convention on human rights. The Government's view is that the article does not require the state to provide education in accordance with the particular religious or philosophical convictions of parents. Nor does it prevent the state from including in the school curriculum matters that do not accord with some parents' convictions, provided—this is a big proviso—that the material is presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. We believe that the requirements of the national curriculum are compatible with article 2.

We offer choice in education. Parents can opt to send their children outside maintained schools. They may send them to independent schools or educate them in some other way—for example, at home. We do not wish to exclude groups of people who have deeply held views from access to our maintained schools.

We have reviewed the Brethren's case thoroughly. We have looked extensively at ways in which it may be accommodated. I believe that at central Government level we have arrived at the best solution that can reasonably be expected. The Government have to take a broad perspective and, if we gave Brethren the right to withdraw their children from particular aspects of the national curriculum, other parents might well expect to get similar rights on grounds of other religious, conscientious or philosophical objections to other parts of the curriculum.

We do not, therefore, intend to introduce a conscience clause, which would encourage parents to withdraw their children from a variety of significant elements of the national curriculum. If every child in a maintained school could resort to a conscience clause, it would undermine the concept of the national curriculum. That would not be in the greater interest of education in this country. I recognise that my hon. Friend did not develop that line of argument, but on previous occasions the Brethren have indicated—they have done so to me personally—that that is an avenue which they would wish to pursue. However, as I said, we must exclude that option.

But—this is an important but—schools have a great deal of discretion in the way in which the curriculum is taught. I would expect that schools would be very responsive to the wishes and beliefs of parents in this. Just as they have put a great deal of time and effort into ensuring that materials and manner of delivery attempt to avoid a gender bias or a racial bias, to which my hon. Friend referred, so they should also ensure that they do not trample over people's beliefs. I am confident that the Government's reforms, which give parents far more freedom of choice in the school to which they send their children, will ensure that governors are aware of parents' feelings in this, and ensure that the national curriculum is delivered in an appropriate manner.

This does not, however, in any way enable young people in the maintained sector to opt out of any part of the national curriculum. The national curriculum was introduced to ensure that every child in a maintained school would get an education that would serve him well for adult life and employment. We must not disadvantage those children as a whole. We must offer them nothing less than a full, broad and balanced curriculum. That decision has been reached for the greater good of the majority of children in this country. We remain firmly committed to that aim and to the national curriculum.

On behalf of Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, may I extend to all right hon. and hon. Members our best wishes for an enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year? I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members join me in wishing all those who serve us in this building an enjoyable Christmas and happy 1991.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Three o'clock till Monday, 14 January, pursuant to the Resolution yesterday.