I greatly appreciate this opportunity to refer to the situation in the middle east following the successful outcome of the Gulf war. Although the House has held several debates about the winning of that war, curiously there has been no debate until now on winning the peace. Therefore, I intend to discuss several of the issues that must be addressed if we are to resolve the outstanding problems which have caused so much tension, conflict and persecution in the area and which have produced such large numbers of refugees.

I have no doubt that history will judge Saddam Hussein as having done the world a service by taking it by complete surprise by invading Kuwait so ruthlessly last summer. In doing so, he dispelled any complacency that had been encouraged by the remarkable events in central and eastern Europe, which led to the end of the cold war and to a new order which heralded peace and security and encouraged democracies in countries as far away as Nicaragua, Namibia and Nepal.

On 2 August last year, Saddam Hussein demonstrated that human nature does not change and that there would always be a need for collective security and for the international rule of law to deal with the aggression and atrocities of dictatorships such as his. Thanks to him and to the remarkable coalition of more than 30 countries which sent forces to the Gulf, the world today is a more realistic place and the authority of the United Nations has been considerably enhanced. That represents a great tribute to the initial response of President Bush and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Thatcher). Now all of us, as member states of the United Nations, have a responsibility to learn the lessons of that experience and to avoid its repetition.

It is encouraging to see our world leaders calmly sharing ideas about how that can be done without rushing into, for example, an ill-prepared international conference or European Community initiative. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the bilateral meetings that they have undertaken thus far and also to the United States Secretary of State James Baker for his untiring work.

I do not want to dwell on the current situation in Iraq since it would not be right for us to dictate who governs that country. That is a matter for its own people, although we would all like to see a pro-democracy movement emerge from the civil war. Nevertheless, no one who has seen on television the destruction of the Kuwaiti oil wells and the terrible atrocities that Saddam Hussein perpetrated on the Kuwaiti people will want his crimes to be forgotten or ignored. I understand that we regard those war crimes as, in the first instance, a matter for Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to pursue. However, I shall look forward to learning from my hon. Friend the Minister how we anticipate that Saddam Hussein will be held accountable for his crimes.

Obviously we welcome the Kuwaiti Government's intention to introduce a democratic process once their people have been able to resume a more normal existence and the economy and infrastructure have been repaired. Current reports of the persecution of Kuwait's remaining Palestinian population must, however, be of concern to us. Whatever new arrangements the Kuwaiti Government might want to make for the future employment of foreigners, there can be no justification for the kind of violent treatment and discrimination that we have read about. Any evidence of Palestinian collaboration or treachery during the Iraqi occupation must await the consideration of an independent judiciary, which will certainly be one hallmark of Kuwait's new democracy.

I want to refer to the larger, long-standing issues of the middle east. The first is the continuing plight of the British hostages. John McCarthy will begin his sixth year of captivity on 17 April, Terry Waite is now in his fifth year of captivity, Jackie Mann will soon commence his third year of captivity, and Roger Cooper remains imprisoned in Tehran. Following the war, surely there now exists a degree of good will between our allies, including Syria, a degree of relief, and perhaps appreciation on the part of Iran, now that Saddam Hussein has been so resoundingly beaten, and even some realism on the part of the Hezbollah in Lebanon that life will never be the same again in the middle east. Surely we can appeal to those new feelings when presssing for the immediate release of those hostages. I look forward to learning from my hon. Friend what new initiatives the Government intend to take in that respect.

The situation in Lebanon must now be resolved. After nearly two decades of civil war and internal terrorism, of invasion and occupation by two foreign powers—Israel and Syria—and armed interventions by the Palestine Liberation Organisation and the United States, its people can surely expect a settlement that will restore Lebanon's sovereignty. Surely they can expect a settlement that re-establishes Lebanon's representative Government and that delicate balance between Christian and Muslim which once enabled that country to be the most prosperous in the middle east. The prerequisite for that is, of course, the complete withdrawl of all Syrian and Israeli forces of occupation. I accept that that is unlikely to be achieved without international inspiration—one could say, without divine inspiration.

International appreciation will certainly need to be applied to the Kurdish issue, which can no longer be ignored. One should recall that the true evil of Saddam Hussein first came to the world's attention through the testimonies of those Iraqi Kurds who survived his chemical weapons by seeking refuge in Turkey.

I appreciate that the demands of self-determination for the Iraqi Kurds will be referred to in much greater detail in the following debate, but this debate would be incomplete without noting the undeniable fact of history that an independent Kurdistan was mentioned by the great powers as part of the break-up of the Ottoman empire in the 1919 treaty of Versailles and was promised under the 1920 treaty of Sevres. That promise was quickly abandoned as a result of the creation of the republic of Turkey in 1923.

Who then can blame the Kurds for their many attempts to seek autonomy, including by armed insurrection, especially where they are strongest in Iraq? Some of those insurrections have resulted in short-lived concessions, but most have resulted in the most appalling brutalities, culminating in the use of poison gas at Halabja in 1988, which killed 5,000 Kurds. It must also be said that some Kurds have resorted to terrorism, most notably the PKK in Turkey. That group's attempts to draw attention to their demands are unacceptable given the unprecedented autonomy that the Kurds enjoy in Turkey.

The reported success of the Kurds in northern Iraq against the forces of Saddam Hussein suggests that they may yet succeed in achieving a Kurdish entity within a more democratic and federated Iraq. That will only serve to encourage the Kurdish people in the other four countries in which they live to seek the same. It is obvious that there will be a Kurdish problem for as long as their demands for self-determination are ignored and denied. That matter must now be on the agenda for resolution.

It must be clear to all that the central cause of continuing instability, tension and conflict in the middle east is the Arab-Israeli dispute. From the day that the United Nations recognised the Jewish state of Israel in 1948, there have been four devastating wars, as well as a series of interventions in Lebanon. The dispute has been responsible for the current figure of 2,420,000 stateless, homeless Palestinian refugees who are registered with the United Nations, which supplies relief services through the United Nations Relief Works Agency.

Just as any resolution of that conflict must end the protracted state of war to enable Israel to enjoy a right of existence within recognised and secure borders—as provided for in UN resolution 242—it is equally clear that there must be a just and permanent settlement for the Palestinians which will enable them to choose permanent accommodation within the realities of the present situation. Only a democratic process towards self-determination and self-governance on the west bank and the Gaza strip will make the work of UNRWA unecessary.

Despite more than four decades of hostility, the problem is not intractable: the Camp David accords, which brought peace with Egypt, should remind us of that. Therefore, it must be helpful to urge Israel's Arab neighbours to end their state of war with Israel and to recognise it and its right to exist.

The gulf between Israel and the PLO is not as great as I thought. I was encouraged to discover that in my discussions with Israeli Ministers and Palestinians during my visit to the region in November to prepare a report for the Council of Europe—a follow-up to the one that I reported to the House in July 1988.

The Shamir peace plan of 1989 and the Palestine National Council declaration of 1988 recognised the rights of the other—in the case of the PLO, for the first time. They represent a foundation upon which both parties are prepared to negotiate.

The disappointment today is that Israel, which has always opposed an international conference to resolve its dispute with its Arab neighbours—understandably, in my view—is failing to take initiatives to introduce its own democratic values to its occupied territories, values upon which a process of reconciliation confidence, security and co-operation can be built. Nor does it appear seriously to b seeking those bilateral negotiations with its neighbours which it maintains is the only way forward, as it was with Egypt. Instead, it continues to stall on its own peace process. It is alienating still further its Arab population by continued Palestinian deportations, further Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and by encouraging a climate in which the basic human rights of the Palestinians are seen to be violated.

I am sure that my hon. Friend wishes to continue to paint a balanced picture. Will he confirm that Israeli Ministers have said on many occasions that they are prepared to negotiate with any Arab state? Indeed, as is well known, feelers have been extended for some time to Syria. Will he further confirm, on the Palestinian issue, that one of the major problems, which he has not yet mentioned but perhaps will, is that the PLO supported Saddam Hussein in the recent conflict?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making those points, to which I was about to come.

Lest it be thought from the critical comments—I accept that they have been critical—that I have made about Israel that I am no longer a Conservative Friend of Israel, let me say that one of the most enduring influences in my life was my experience of working on a kibbutz within range of Syrian guns from the Golan heights. I assure my hon. Friend that I am wholly committed to Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland within secure borders. But I also recognise, as surely do most Israelis, that Israel cannot indefinitely impose a military occupation on an increasingly militant people. The wholesale deportation of its Palestinian population in favour of a greater Israel, as a few extremists advocate, is a solution totally unacceptable to its friends, as it is, I am sure, to most Israeli citizens.

Indeed, as I found on both my fact-finding visits in 1988 and last year, the Israeli defence force which has been assigned the almost impossible task of seeking to provide a civil administration and a semblance of municipal services in the occupied territories—including, to its credit, the replacement of temporary refugee camps with planned, attractive, permanent settlements for which Israel does not receive sufficient credit—does not believe the current situation to be tenable. The only plausible solution, as it and I believe, is a political one.

In turn, it should be stressed that the Palestinians are proving equally short-sighted in failing to appreciate the political advantages of publicly ending the intifada to encourage a climate within which a dialogue can be initiated, as well as, of course, to help to restore international goodwill which they undoubtedly lost in foolishly and blatantly supporting Saddam Hussein.

Unfortunately, this situation is now threatened by a wholly new dimension, which I was also asked to investigate by the Council of Europe's Committee for Refugees, Migration and Demography. I refer to the sudden and growing number of Soviet Jewish immigrants coming into Israel—120,000 last year, 200,000 this year of the total 1·2 million invitations issued to date, and a total of at least 3 million expected by the Jewish Agency in due course. Whilst the vast majority are currently settling in Israel proper, which is their right, there is now no doubt that a growing number are settling beyond the green line. While it is suggested that the majority of Soviet Jews will not seek the labour-intensive employment performed by Palestinians in Israel, it is clear that both the employment and housing opportunities for Palestinians in Israel and its occupied territories, already under severe pressure as a consequence of the Gulf war, will become even more so as a result of this massive influx of Soviet Jews.

That situation can only become more inflammable as time goes on. For that reason alone, the new climate of reconciliation and negotiation generated by the Gulf war is timely and necessary if we are to avoid further tension and bloodshed in the occupied territories and in Israel.

At the outset, I applauded the unhurried approach currently being conducted in seeking solutions acceptable to all the parties in the middle east. It has been right to emphasise that neither the United States nor the principal European Governments involved wish to keep our forces in the region a moment longer than necessary.

It has been right to stress that we are not in the business of seeking to impose a cold-war style solution such as a Baghdad pact. It must be for the states themselves to decide on those structures which will enhance regional security, but in our bid to encourage lasting peace in the region, it is clearly sensible to recommend a process which has been proved workable and within which bilateral problems can be resolved peacefully by dialogue and consensus. As the Foreign Secretary told the UN General Assembly on 26 September of last year:

"The slow and steady progress of the CSCE process in Europe may be useful."

He continued:

"The CSCE process allows political dialogue, and has established common principles ranging from respect for borders to human rights. There is transparency through confidence and security-building measures."

He was surely correct. The CSCE process offers to the middle east a practical blueprint based on territorial integrity and the inviolability of frontiers. It would encompass many of the peace plans on offer without the disadvantages of an international conference feared by Israel.

Indeed, since my right hon. Friend spoke those words, the Foreign Ministers of 10 western Mediterranean countries, including the Mahgreb states of Algeria, Libya, Tunisia and Morocco, have agreed to explore further the prospect of a CSCM for the Mediterranean. In addition, Italy and Spain have proposed its extension to include the middle east—a CSCME—as the specific institution for the solution of regional crises and as a framework for co-operation for peace and security, for which the Arab League clearly would not be appropriate.

Such a process, based on the Helsinki baskets, can in no way be interpreted as an imposition of western values on a predominantly Muslim region. They are universal values upheld by the United Nations, to which all subscribe and which, indeed, are inspired by Islamic principles.

Certainly an application of basket 1, which has produced much progress in recent years in both conventional and strategic arms control and on-site verification mechanisms, is an essential element in establishing security in the region, which is the prerequisite to peace.

The principles of economic and cultural co-operation of basket 2 will be equally essential to resolve the common, long-standing problems of the region, such as the shortage of water, of energy production, and distribution, of agriculture and medicine, much of which already stands to be assisted by the guarantees of official aid from the United States of America, the Community and Japan.

Of course, the human rights principles of basket 3 will encourage greater protection of minorities and respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion in an area which is the cradle of the world's three major religions and the source of so much religious conflict over the centuries.

I remind the House of the difficulties experienced by British and American troops in conducting Christian services in Saudi Arabia and recent alarming reports of the imprisonment and torture of four converted Christian Egyptians, about which I shall be seeing the Egyptian ambassador later today.

As a result of what the international coalition achieved, the world today is a far safer place, and weaker neighbours of stronger states can feel more secure as a result. As James Baker rightly emphasised, we now have an historic opportunity to resolve those outstanding problems in a region—the middle east—that has been the chessboard of the super-powers and the predicted trigger of a third world war for far too long. I hope that today's debate will represent a modest contribution toward that end.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on raising this issue, and shall do my best to answer most of his questions. His visits to the Arab countries of the middle east and the long period that he spent in Israel will have helped him to judge the problems from both sides.

Now that Kuwait has been liberated, we are working to ensure the establishment of a just peace in the region. The main focus of our attention at present is the United Nations, where the Government have been and are closely involved in negotiations on the next Security Council resolution, which we hope will be passed shortly. We hope that the resolution will set out the conditions with which Iraq will be required to comply for a permanent end to hostilities in the Gulf. They will be comprehensive and designed to ensure that Iraq meets the requirements placed on it by the Security Council.

In the shorter term, there is a pressing need for international relief for the Iraqi civilian population. The latest reports prepared by the United Nations and non-governmental organisations such as the Save the Children Fund are very troubling. We have asked the United Nations to do everything possible to ensure that relief supplies reach Iraq as rapidly as possible.

We must also consider ways to strengthen security throughout the Gulf region to ensure that there is no repetition of the conflict. The priority tasks are to achieve progress on Gulf security, regional arms control and the Arab-Israeli question. New security arrangements in the region are matters for the Gulf states to decide. The Gulf Co-operation Council states—Syria and Egypt—have already made a good start. We welcomed the Damascus declaration issued by their Foreign Ministers on 6 March and, if asked, we stand ready to play our part. However, there is no question of British ground forces remaining permanently in the Gulf.

Thereafter, the highest priority should go to constraining the supply of material for nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to the whole region. We want Iraq to comply fully with the non-proliferation treaty and with the relevant biological and chemical weapons conventions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall be working at the United Nations for the destruction, under international supervision, of Iraq's missiles and NBC capacities.

One of the important issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East raised was war crimes. Anyone who breaks the provisions of the Geneva conventions may be held liable. Thus, individual Iraqis now bear personal responsibility for breaches of them. That position was reaffirmed in Security Council resolutions 670 and 674. The superior orders defence will not be accepted as an excuse. Machinery already exists under Geneva conventions of 1967 for prosecuting grave breaches of them. The three avenues are: first, a trial before Iraqi courts; secondly, extradition for trial before courts of another party to the conventions, including other Arab states; and, thirdly, the possibility of special international tribunals. There are obvious difficulties with all those approaches, and it is too early to say what mechanisms might be applied in this case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East also mentioned Kuwait's future and the constitutional arrangement in Kuwait. It is for the Government and people of Kuwait to decide those matters, but we welcome the outcome of the Kuwait national conference last year which cleared the way for a return to the 1962 constitution and new elections for a national assembly. Difficulties and uncertainties will be inevitable in the first few months after liberation, but in a message to his people on 24 February, the Emir spoke of a national pact that will govern his country's future course. I remind my hon. Friend of the comment made by the Crown Prince on 7 March, when he recalled the Kuwaiti Government's commitment to popular participation and the 1962 constitution.

In his speech, my hon. Friend dwelt on the Palestinian question and the problems of Palestinians in Kuwait, an area that concerns him. We have repeatedly made clear to the Kuwaiti Government at a high level that alleged collaborators should be dealt with under the rule of law. We made our fears about that known even before liberation, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated them to the Crown Prince when he saw him on 6 March. As our ambassador in Kuwait said, a large number of Palestinians have been screened by the Kuwaiti security forces. The aim is to indentify those who collaborated. Unfortunately, as tends to happen in such circumstances, the manner of the Kuwaiti authorities has not been particularly gentle. However, we welcome Kuwaiti assurances that the law will be respected. We shall continue to review the matter, but I emphasise that we have seen no reports of Kuwaiti authorities carrying out summary justice.

The Palestinian question is central to the affairs in the middle east. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein set back the search for peace in the middle east. Iraq's unprovoked missile attacks on Israel have shown that Israel's fear of threat from her Arab neighbours is not unjustified. The Palestine Liberation Organisation has lost credibility by acting as an apologist for Iraq. That will undoubtedly have increased Israel's reluctance to talk to representative Palestinians.

New opportunities have, however, arisen. The coalition's action against Iraq has shown that aggression does not pay, which is important for Israel to consider. It has created a new climate for confidence-building measures, and all the states in the region will have new strategic perceptions and a new determination to live at peace. We must grasp that opportunity for progress. My hon. Friend mentioned a CSCM for the Mediterranean. We are discussing that possibility with our European colleagues. It is worth exploring, but my hon. Friend will agree that other issues must come first.

The Americans will continue to play a central role in the peace process. We welcome President Bush's reassertion, in his speech to Congress on 6 March, that a settlement of the Arab-Israel question must be based on United Nations Security Council resolutions, especially 242 and 338, and on the principle of land for peace. Secretary of State Baker's tour of the area was a good start. It was well received by the Arabs and revealed areas of common ground on which we can build.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East drew attention to the settlements in the occupied territories of the west bank. We welcome unreservedly the liberalisation of Soviet emigration controls, including the freedom of Soviet Jews to go to Israel. But Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, including east Jerusalem, are illegal. Allowing Soviet Jews to settle there would set back further the search for peace. Recently, Israel announced that it intended to deport four Palestinians from Gaza. We deplore that intention and, with our colleagues in the European Community, are making representations about it.

I wish to refer to the principles that must underly the way ahead. The detail is not yet clear, but we believe that there is a need for discussions between Israel and the Arab states that are not at peace with her and between Israel and representative Palestinians about the future of the occupied territories. It is not realistic to imagine that there can be progress on the first without movement on the second. We have been working to achieve that. The result should be a settlement that guarantees Israel's right to exist within secure borders and the Palestinians' right to self-determination.

The Arab-Israel dispute is not the only political problem in the middle east, as my hon. Friend noted. We have observed the signs of progress towards greater stability in the Lebanon and remain committed to the Taif accord as the best means of achieving a united Lebanon free of all foreign troops. We welcome the renewed undertakings of countries in the area to bring what influence they can to bear to secure the release of the British hostages still held in the Lebanon.

We are greatly concerned at the continued captivity of our three hostages in the Lebanon. We are pressing Iran, whose influence we believe to be decisive, to honour its commitment to achieve the release of western hostages, including our own. We are making clear to the Iranian Government the importance that we attach to freeing our hostages and are making it clear that future advances in our bilateral relationships with Iran depend on progress in this matter. We are also encouraging Syria to use its influence in this direction. On several occasions, the Syrians have repeated their willingness to help, and we welcome that. We shall continue to do all that we can to achieve the release of Terry Waite, Jack Mann and John McCarthy.

The peace and stability of the middle east are of vital interest to us all. The reversal of Iraqi aggression was the first of our tasks, but many more lie ahead. The determination of the coalition against Iraq and the unprecedented co-operation of the Security Council offer new hope for an international effort to win peace. We shall play our part. The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the Security Council, one of the European Twelve, a close ally of the United States and a traditional friend of many states in the region. We are determined to make the most of every opportunity in our efforts to bring a just peace to the region. We and our European Community partners continue to have an important role to play in the occupied territories. For example, we provide substantial support to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian refugees and have valuable aid programmes. We also monitor human rights closely and regularly remind the Israelis of their obligations to administer the territories in accordance with the fourth Geneva convention.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak about Iraqi Kurdistan. I strongly believe that it is right that Parliament should debate this subject before the Easter recess, as Iraq's political future may be decided in the next few days and weeks, with far-reaching consequences for the whole region.

It may interest the House to know that just before I came into the Chamber I was in contact with representatives of the Iraqi Kurds who are in almost hourly contact with bases inside Iraqi Kurdistan. They report violence on a considerable scale.

In a lead article in The Guardian this morning, Martin Woollacott, who is now in the region, reports:

"Saddam Hussein's forces are brutally bombarding the civilian population of Kirkuk using helicopters and artillery."

He writes:

"As we drove into the city we saw three helicopters hovering above. Every day they drop bombs at random on Kirkuk, including, the Kurds say, napalm. Every day casualties are brought into the overloaded main hospital."

Martin Woollacott then refers to corpses in the foyer of the hospital and to the hospital not having enough surgeons. He writes:

"At one point orderlies rushed towards us with a cardboard box containing a baby. A mother was caught in the napalm attack two days ago and died in the hospital. The napalm had burned through to her womb, injuring the baby which the medical staff tried to save. They delivered the child, amputated one of the burned legs, and put the baby into what passes for intensive care."

I draw attention to that report because one of the main issues that I wish to raise is the use of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopter gunships by the Iraqi authorities.

My principal and most immediate aim in raising this debate is to ask the Government to press the coalition forces to issue a statement at once insisting that the terms of the ceasefire are complied with, that those terms include the requirement that all Iraqi combat aircraft, whether fixed-wing or helicopters, are grounded and that, if Saddam Hussein does not immediately comply, those aircraft will be shot down without further notice.

I remind the House that, in an interview broadcast last night the allied commander in the Gulf, General Schwarzkopf, told David Frost that Iraq was given permission to fly its helicopters only for civil, humanitarian and internal administrative purposes and that he had been lied to and "suckered" by Iraqi ceasefire negotiators as to their use. White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater confirmed that the use of combat helicopters violated the oral and written agreements between the two sides. United States commanders confirmed that, although they were more difficult to track, helicopter gunships could be dealt with as effectively as Iraqi fixed-wing aircraft. Even as late as last night, Lieutenant-General Sir Peter de la Billiere stated that Iraq had breached the ceasefire agreement with the use of helicopter gunships. What will be done about that? What will the coalition forces do about it?

I want to make it clear that I am in no way advocating that coalition ground troops should be deployed further within Iraq. I am merely urging that Saddam Hussein should be deprived of aircraft that have been used to deliver weapons of mass destruction against civilians, who have no defence against aerial attack. If those aircraft are not grounded now, we may well shortly receive further horrific reports about attacks not only with napalm, phosphorous and sulphuric acid, but, as was evidenced only too clearly by what happened in Halabja during the war with Iran, with mustard and nerve gas. Clearly they must remain on the agenda.

We have the proven capability to stop these atrocities. If we fail once again to act, we cannot help but be implicated in Saddam Hussein's massacres. The coalition fought the war that made the uprising possible. President Bush himself called for the uprising. We cannot now wash our hands of the consequences.

It is clear that there is a grave humanitarian problem in Iraq. The report of the Secretary General of the United Nations which was published only yesterday paints a grim picture of progressively worsening human catastrophe. The imminent temperature rise in Iraq will add cholera and typhoid epidemics to the number of intestinal and respiratory diseases and to the increasing incidence of malnutrition. The recent Oxfam/Save the Children report confirmed that the population of Baghdad depended on the sewage-polluted Tigris for drinking water, which is therefore infected.

The situation in the south is so desperate and confused that almost no reliable areawide reports exist, and the only information is the anecdotal evidence of American soldiers who are sickened by the growing results of the human tragedy that they are being forced to witness. In the north, an estimated 6 million people are facing acute shortages of food and medical supplies, and there is no fuel to power the flour mills. Since the start of the uprising, Saddam Hussein has deliberated used the politics of hunger against the liberated areas. It is reported that, without syringes, antibiotics and even the most basic medical supplies, Kurdish forces, who have sustained more than 11,000 casualties according to reports, have to cope with the needs of injured refugees fleeing from the remaining Ba'ath-controlled territory.

The Iraqi-Kurdistan Front, which is a coalition of all the Kurdish groups, has repeatedly asked for the UN Security Council to be reconvened to consider the growing seriousness of the situation. Only yesterday, the IKF promised to provide safe passage for the International Committee of the Red Cross to bring in aid on the understanding that it would go to all areas of Iraq, including the liberated areas. Kurdish leaders agreed to do everything possible to help the civilian population, despite the knowledge that, even with safeguards, Saddam Hussein may well succeed in keeping the food and medicine from Kurdistan and that his distribution of it may even help to prop up his regime and lend it some spurious political legitimacy.

As the IKF has established administrative control of Kurdistan and has the means to deliver aid where it is most needed, I strongly urge that it is delivered directly to the IKF either by road convoy from Turkey to Syria or Iran or by air to captured northern airfields under the auspices of the International Committee of the Red Cross or some other reputable body, as is the case in Ethiopia.

I shall now deal with the issue of Iraq's internal political dynamics and the likely outcome of the uprising. It is becoming clear that elements in the United States Defence Department favour the suppression of the opposition and the striking of some deal with a Ba'ath regime headed by someone other than Saddam Hussein. That is the wrong way forward, because Saddam Hussein and the Iraq regime are inseparable. It is a fascist, totalitarian and terrorist regime and is historically unique in remaining covert, even in government. By its recent actions and, in particular, by its attacks on Islamic holy places, it has lost any trace of legitimacy with the majority Shi'ite population, certainly in the south. It has been shown merely to have used Islamic feeling for its own perverse and strictly secular objectives.

The only way to achieve political stability in Iraq and in that region is to establish a democratised, pluralistic society which respects the human collective rights of all peoples of Iraq, perhaps through the setting up of a federation or confederation of autonomous regions which meet the aspirations of Kurdish, Shi'ite and other groups. The risk to the world community if it fails to support this democratic movement is much greater than any risk involved in the potential breakdown of opposition unity. The cohesion of the opposition forces is remarkable. The Shi'ite parties appear to have dropped any claim to establish an Islamic republic. Many Shi'ites have said that they have learned from their exile in Iran the need to avoid the excesses of Islamic fundamentalism.

If I were a Kurd in the anger of conflict, I would want a separate independent state, but these moderate, responsible people have put that claim aside. Many have positively rejected it. Their leader, Jalal Talabani, who has just returned to a tumultuous welcome in Iraqi Kurdistan, publicly told his fighters that this is an uprising not just of Kurdistan but of the whole of Iraq. An indication of their objectivity is that, far from taking revenge on Iraqi army prisoners, they are giving them parcels and sending them safely home through Kurdish lines. If these forces of toleration and democracy are given the support of the world community, they will never forget it. If we let them down, neither shall we. If democratic forces receive no assistance from the world community and are defeated as a result, it will send forth a message about the prospects for democracy in the middle east that will last a generation. Such a message would not be helpful.

The recent IKF offer to set up a provisional Government should be considered, if not now certainly in the near future. At this stage, it might not find ready takers, for reasons that we understand, but when the regime of Saddam Hussein is toppled, or even he is toppled, it should be considered as a realistic option pending the establishment of a more stable, long-term and permanent arrangement.

Let us now consider arms sales to Iraq. I supported the war, but I did not dwell on arms sales during the war because that was not the right time to do so. We must now legitimately ask how it all happened and what can be done to stop it in future. Will it happen again? I am concerned that once the conflict has been resolved and sanctions lifted, some spurious justification will be found to re.-arm Iraq and to arm further the countries in that region. The Government claim that existing legislation adequately deals with military exports, but that is nonsense. We all recall the excuses by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement when he was Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry over the supergun affair. The attitude to arms sales was flog them and damn the consequences, but that cannot be accepted in future. It must stop.

We need an international initiative which clearly monitors our exports as well as those of Germany, France and other major arms exporters. International cooperation is needed to overcome the widespread abuse of end user certificates, bills of lading and other export documents. In that context, I envisage an enhanced role for the UN. How can we develop that role? The way towards the much talked about, but, as yet, theoretical, new world order, which I strongly support, is to strengthen the United Nations.

On a recent visit to America, I pressed with representatives of the Pentagon, the State Department and the White House the case for an enhanced United Nations role. At a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Chinese embassy, for reasons which I am sure my hon. Friends will understand I pressed for a sympathetic response to the question of the United Nations being given a role, not just in interstate conflicts but in conflicts within states. The United Nations should be able to deal with conflicts within states which threaten the peace and stability of whole regions.

In a beautifully scripted article in The Guardian, Kenneth Galbraith recently argued for an enhanced role for the United Nations in tackling poverty as the root cause of world instability. He said:

"the UN must have authority to end and reverse not only aggression by one country against another, but also mass slaughter and destruction within a country. As the UN should exercise sovereignty, so it should have power when sovereignty is outrageously misused to suspend it. Modern mass horror now results, if anything, less from international conflict, than from internal conflict and massacre. The most elementary requirement of the new world order is the need for it to take on the responsiblity for stopping internal butchery."

This new role for the UN must not remain an academic dream but must start now, today, with the declaration that all Iraqi combat aircraft, fixed-wing and helicopter, must be grounded or they will be shot down, and that if weapons of mass destruction are used, the UN will not stand idly by. This is an historic opportunity for the UN once again to begin the process of establishing a meaningful role. If it fails to act, it will be enormously demaged, because it will be implicated in the slaughter of civilians that has already begun. The time for deliberation is over. It is time to act.

I pay tribute to the level-headedness and courage shown by leading statesmen in both Turkey and Iran throughout the crisis. I know that Iranians are deeply suspicious of the motives of the west—a perfectly understandable attitude after their experiences under the Shah, who was for many years propped up by the west. The west owes a debt of gratitude to Iran for its handling of the conflict and the peculiar but important position that it took throughout the war in the Gulf. I hope that it will lead to a growing understanding between the peoples of the United Kingdom and that country. We should all be grateful to it for the role that it played.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for allowing me some of his time during this Adjournment debate.

It is an indictment of the House that, while the Gulf war was raging, we had almost daily statements on the conduct of the war, but since the perceived end of it, there has been not one statement on the situation inside Iraq or on the great troubles caused to its people. Were it not for the squalid manoeuvring of the Government over the past few days, rushing through legislation which they think will bring them electoral gain, there should have been a statement on that situation.

There is no doubt that the people of Iraq are suffering a great deal, and this has been shown by the many reports from broadcasters and journalists. They have seen their country so badly damaged that it has returned to a pre-industrial stage. They grieve for tens of thousands of sons and husbands killed on the battlefield. According to the direct testimony of the United Nations, Save the Children and Oxfam, all of which have recently sent their observers into the country, they face starvation, serious epidemic and disease. It is disgraceful that I am forced to raise this important issue in an Adjournment debate.

The people of Iraq continue, despite appalling difficulties, to try to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who brought them to this catastrophe. Meanwhile, the killing and the dying continue. Over the past few years, I have chaired the Campaign against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq—a national organisation of which many of my hon. Friends are members. As the records will show, it has continually brought to the attention of the House the appalling human rights record of the Saddam Hussein regime.

We were loud and persistent voices, whose pleas fell on deaf ears. Over six years, we told the House about the disappearance of women and children, of torture, execution and public hangings, and of oppression and dictatorship. After Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds at Halabja, killing at least 5,000 people and razing 4,000 Kurdish villages to the ground, I and some of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) urged the Government to use sanctions against Iraq. I am sorry to say that there was little response. Saddam Hussein continued to be treated as a valuable friend until 2 August last year.

Then came the invasion of Kuwait, and everything changed. There was the Gulf war, but, while Kuwait has been liberated, we still do not know the extent of the death toll inside Iraq. Because of my long involvement with the opposition in Iraq, I have recently attended two international conferences to discuss how that opposition can be co-ordinated internationally, to the greatest effect. I went to Washington to a meeting organised by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to Sweden, to a meeting organised by the Swedish Save the Children Fund. The Kurds argued in all those meetings that they wanted autonomy within Iraq and the protection of their language and culture in the other countries in which they live.

Throughout the Gulf war, we said that we had no quarrel with the Iraqi people. If that is the case, we now have a responsibility to show that. That responsibility is enshrined in the Geneva convention of 1949, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the world summit for children. The UN mission found in Baghdad that normal life had almost come to a halt. The situation in the south and Basra is believed to be dramatically worse because of severe fighting. With military attention now reportedly turning to the north, the situation there might deteriorate further. Certainly for refugees in the south, the allied forces in the area may be able to play a humanitarian role. No meaningful quantities of food supplies have been imported since the start of sanctions. Until then, 70 per cent. of Iraq's food came from imports. There is immediate danger of major disease and epidemic. Water and sewerage services are in a critical state, with a consequent danger to health. In the children's hospital in Baghdad, the admission of children with diarrheal diseases has increased fourfold. Cholera, typhoid and hepatitis threaten the population. The health service is in a state of collapse because of the lack of power, fuel and communications. In numerous places, sewage is flowing in the streets. Maternal and child health services are particularly affected. The medical immunisation system, which had been one of the most advanced in the developing world, has broken down almost completely. Antenatal care has almost ceased, There are reports of high-risk delivery at home, with no help. Medicines and drugs are in short supply. At present, the central warehouses are empty. Distribution of relief supplies of drugs are being held up for lack of fuel.

The United Nations report states bluntly:

"It is unmistakable that the Iraqi people may soon face a further, imminent catastrophe which could include epidemic and famine, if life supporting needs are not rapidly met."

The United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Martti Ahtisaari, said this week that he was shocked by the scale of Iraq's humanitarian problems. The Minister said this morning that he, too, thinks that this is a troubling situation. All the evidence shows that basic foodstuffs such as flour are now critically low, and the supplies of sugar, rice, tea, vegatable oil, powdered milk and pulses are also in short supply or have been exhausted altogether.

The situation for women and children is desperate, because they are the most vulnerable at times of war. Sufficient water for basic needs is not available in most homes and, when available, is in short supply. The collection of water from rivers and the search for fuel put a great strain on women. All the children are at home as the schools have been closed since the start of bombardment. The team was repeatedly informed of and observed the fear felt by children at being left alone. Women bear the burden of these additional care needs. The rations available are less than half of the daily requirement of a five-year-old child, or less than one third of the daily requirement of a pregnant woman. Obviously, that is not enough for subsistence.

The United Nations has warned of an impending disaster, in which large numbers of civilians will die needlessly from disease and, perhaps, starvation, unless a major international aid effort is undertaken. Iraq's needs are enormous. The required emergency aid has been evaluated at $23 million, and includes food, medicines, fuel for electricity generators, alum and chlorine to clean and disinfect the water supply, and new pipes and spare parts for the water system.

The United Nations committee on sanctions against Iraq has agreed to allow unrestricted food shipments, but so far donors have pledged—and, more importantly, contributed—only $4·5 million. The west has a humanitarian responsibility to provide and to speed up that aid. It should try by every means to bring about a conclusion to that ghastly war, so that millions of innocent men, women and children are not made to endure even more suffering.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is to be congratulated on raising this subject for debate. The contribution of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was forceful. Everyone listening to the debate will share the outrage and indignation that they expressed.

The Government are under no illusions about the appalling nature of the Iraqi regime. We have made clear our deep concern about many aspects of Saddam Hussein's policies, and we have taken the firmest possible measures to register that fact. Our close involvement in removing Iraq from Kuwait is, as I am sure hon. Members would agree, just the latest evidence of our determination to ensure that Iraq is forced to respect internationally accepted standards of behaviour.

I address the House against the background of a considerable amount of activity at the United Nations in New York. The United Nations Security Council is currently discussing the terms for a formal ceasefire in the Gulf, and we anticipate a resolution before Easter. I am sure that there will be tough terms in any such resolution, and it is right that they should be tough. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we want included in those terms a n internationally supervised destruction of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological facilities and weapons, and of Iraq's non-conventional and ballistic missile capabilities. Iraq must never again be in a position to threaten the security of her neighbours.

I am sure that hon. Members will understand that, because of the deliberations, discussions and exchanges of views between the members of the Security Council in anticipation of a debate and resolution, I cannot go into much detail about what is being discussed in New York. The hon. Members for Workington and for Cynon Valley should be in no doubt of the determination being expressed by our representatives. I can say with some confidence that although the resolution may not satisfy every point raised by the hon. Member for Workington, I hope that there will be some aspects relevant to those points.

We shall continue closely to monitor the position in Iraq. The Baghdad regime can be in no doubt about our determination to ensure that it continues to meet its international obligations. In particular, no one here, or anywhere else in the world community, will tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the people of Iraq. We shall take the severest measures if the Iraqi regime resorts to the use of those dreadful weapons.

I have supported virtually everything that the Government have done during the past few months. The Select Committee on Defence visited Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Bahrain last week. Is the Minister sure that in this volatile situation—especially with the requirement that Iraq complies with the terms of the ceasefire—there are sufficient British forces remaining in the Gulf for the next few months to act as a lever? As the Minister is well aware, it is a very delicate position which still requires the threat of the use of force to ensure compliance.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, and as I have already made clear, it is not our intention to have permanent security forces in the middle east. However, I take his point. I am satisfied that we have the capacity to deal with any possible problem, and that we can reinforce that capacity if necessary. However, we are not contemplating the need for any such activity, and I speak today against that background.

One of the most important concerns has been Iraq's treatment of its Kurdish minorities over many years. Some 20 per cent. of the Iraqi population are Kurds, concentrated largely in the north and north-eastern areas. They are a distinct cultural and ethnic community. We have taken action whenever there has been clear evidence of human rights abuses against the Kurds. At the 1989 meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Britain co-sponsored a resolution condemning Iraq's human rights record. This year, the commission—with our support—has appointed a special rapporteur to investigate the human rights position in Iraq. We expect the Government of Iraq to co-operate with the rapporteur in completing his report.

The Minister has used such phrases as, "We expect the Government of Iraq to co-operate," and, "We have supported resolutions condemning," and so on. He must know that such words mean nothing to Saddam Hussein. Helicopter gunships are being used to bomb civilian populations with all sorts of weapons. What action are the Government, the United Nations, the Americans and the coalition forces taking to ensure that that stops today, before a major battle breaks out? I am referring not to protests or to condemnations but to action.

I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would allow me to make my speech in my own way. I have a passage in it that specifically deals with his question. I may not be able to satisfy him, but I will not shirk the issue.

In 1988–89, we reacted firmly to reports that the Iraqi Government were acting systematically to quell what they considered to be action by Kurdish rebels in the north, and to relocate large numbers of Iraqi Kurds against their will. The most notorious example of Saddam Hussein's brutality against the Kurds was the use of chemical weapons at Halabja in March 1988. Many hundreds, if not thousands, of people were killed. When the massacre became known, we played a major role in securing the adoption of Secretary Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of such weapons.

It may happen again tomorrow.

I wish that the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue with my speech.

Britain has some of the strictest controls in the world to ensure that precursors for chemical weapons do not reach brutal regimes such as that in Iraq.

Before I deal with the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Workington, I want to say something about past arms sales to Iraq. Since 1980 Britain has had in place clear guidelines preventing the sale of arms to Iraq. Those guidelines were further tightened in 1985 and, despite the end of the war with Iran, the Government have quite deliberately maintained the policy of not selling arms to Saddam Hussein. British weapons were not used in the invasion of Kuwait; nor are they now being used by the Iraqi regime in its brutal repression of its own people.

The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the need for tighter arms control. We have made it clear that arms proliferation is one of the issues that need to be addressed following Iraq's expulsion from Kuwait. I know that other leading members of the allied forces in the coalition share that concern. We shall certainly be considering what more we can do to control arms exports and we have already begun discussions on the subject with our EC colleagues, the United States and the Soviet Union. It is not a matter which will be in any way overlooked in the months ahead.

Will there have to be legislation?

That will have to be considered. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

the years, been in contact with Kurdish groups in Iraq to exchange views with them and to hear their representations. Those contacts have continued and on 7 March the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), met a representative delegation from the Iraqi opposition, including a representative of the Kurdish minority. The hon. Member for Workington referred to Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and we have also met and talked to him.

We recognise the intelligent way in which the PUK approaches its problems. We welcome the desire of the Iraqi opposition to co-operate and their common platform of democracy and respect for human rights in Iraq, as well as their wish to preserve Iraq's territorial integrity and sovereignty. It is of considerable significance that they should adopt such a position. We share those goals. They would allow the Kurds in Iraq their legitimate right to self-expression, which has always been our goal and will continue to be so.

Does the Minister accept that one of the great injustices in the region since the first world war has been the treatment of the Kurdish people? It is a deeply felt belief among Kurdish people throughout the region that they have been suppressed and oppressed by the national Governments and by the ignorance of the international community. Will the Minister make it clear that the British Government accept the right of Kurdish people to their own culture, language and autonomy—it is clearly stated by the Kurdish Democratic party and the PUK—within the national frontiers of Iraq? That would go a long way towards helping people to realise that the Kurdish people have been so badly treated for so long.

I think that everyone is aware of the interest shown by many hon. Members on both sides of the House in the Kurdish people and how they have been brought into focus as a result of the Gulf war. As I say, we share the goals of the Kurdish people to enjoy their legitimate right of self-expression. That has always been our goal, and that encompasses and underlines the hon. Gentleman's point.

I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be here at the beginning of the debate, but on that point does my hon. Friend agree that there is considerable concern about the genocide that is taking place in the country? Might it be possible for some supplies to be airlifted to those areas that are suffering hardship?

I shall deal with those points, which were raised by the hon. Member for Workington.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the helicopter gunships that appear to be being used in Iraq in breach of the ceasefire. The terms of the present de facto ceasefire—we have not had the United Nations resolution—relate to the conflict with Iraq over Kuwait. It does not relate to the internal situation in Iraq. However, the coalition made it clear in the terms of the de facto ceasefire that fixed-wing aircraft should not be allowed to fly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, action has been taken to ensure that fixed-wing aircraft do not fly.

However, while we deeply deplore the use of helicopter gunships, we have to accept that there is no Security Council resolution or mandate to deal with the action that the Iraqis have taken with helicopters. It is not a part of the ceasefire and it is not a part of a United Nations resolution. However distressing it is for me to say this to the hon. Gentleman, and however distressing it is for him to hear it, I think that he will accept that all of us have to recognise that a mandate from the United Nations is essential to underline and to give support to any hostile actions in the Gulf.

But over and above any decisions taken by the United Nations, General Schwarzkopf came to an oral and written agreement, part of which was that helicopters could be used inside Iraq only for humanitarian and internal administrative purposes. So it could be said that the war ended on the basis of an agreement which is now being breached. Therefore, irrespective of the United Nations position, surely we have some responsibility in enforcing what has already been agreed. In addition, resolution 678, which refers to peace and security in the region and the restoration thereof, is also being breached. Surely we have a responsibility to uphold that resolution without any further United Nations resolution being necessary.

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall consider what he reports as the informal agreement of General Schwarzkopf, but I think that he will agree that we cannot make much progress in our debates here if we seek to interpret in minute detail the possible consequences of all United Nations resolutions. As I said to him, the United Nations is debating the matter and we expect further clarification of what transpires there. I shall look into the point that he makes about General Schwarzkopf's agreement, but the de facto ceasefire dealt with fixed-wing aircraft, not helicopters, which is one of the difficulties that we have to face.

The hon. Member for Workington, I think the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, and certainly my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) referred to food aid. We are greatly concerned about the genuine humanitarian needs of all Iraqis. We have already contributed nearly $5 million to the Red Cross Gulf appeal and nearly $1 million to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency appeal. There is clearly a role for the United Nations and its agencies, but it would be unwise for me to say too much about activity to bring humanitarian relief and food to the Kurdish people. We are facing a civil war, in which all attempts will be made to prevent any assistance of that kind reaching its objectives.

I raised the question of humanitarian aid and the fact that so little has been pledged. I am not asking the Government to go into detail; I am saying that the people of Iraq are suffering greatly. Is Britain prepared to make a further contribution over and above what it has already made, in particular, to aid the people in Kurdistan, whom we know are fighting a pitched battle at the moment? Surely supply lines can be opened up through Turkey. Will the Minister facilitate that?

I would like to comment on what the hon. Lady says, but she knows that I cannot give an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to change Government policy. Certainly the issue has been raised and will be considered.

In the last minute I shall touch on one or two other matters. An annual report was produced by the Under-Secretary-General, Mr. Ahtisaari on the present situation in Iraq, which makes the most depressing reading and is a testament to the misguided policies of Saddam Hussein. We are doing all that we can to assist, as I have said, and I have noted what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said. However, we have also made it clear that we believe that aid should reach all areas of Iraq and we shall continue to do all that we can to alleviate the suffering of all the Iraqi people.

In conclusion, we will shed no tears if and when Saddam Hussein is removed from power. That must be a matter for the Iraqi people, with whom we have no quarrel and whom we do not wish to suffer further under political tyranny. We wish to see a truly democratic Iraq in which the Kurdish minorities enjoy full political and human rights, and we look forward to the emergence of an Iraq that can once again be welcomed as a responsible member of the international community.

I welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box to answer this brief debate. I am sure that he will appreciate that he is just the latest in a succession of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have responded to debates on textiles. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), who I hope will also catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall that we have sat here on many occasions in past years. He may agree that one of the difficulties has been the large number of Ministers who have been responsible for the textile trade. It is certainly no disparagement of my hon. Friend to say that, by the time that they have been in office for a couple of years, they often come to understand something about the industry, but sadly we then have to start all over again.

Many people are under the mistaken impression that the textile industry favours special pleading with the objective of retaining protection for its interests. Let me therefore make it clear that the textile industry does not want protectionism. What it does want is a market in which its products are free to compete with others from around the world. Given a fair measure of genuine competition, the products of this country's textile industry can more than hold their own anywhere.

The term "level playing field" is a hackneyed one. Sometimes I think that our industry's managers and work force would be prepared to put up with a fairly hefty slope, provided that the goal at which they were aiming was not half the width of the one at the other end of the ground, and if some of the opposition were occasionally penalised for carrying the ball instead of kicking it as they should.

Before I consider the issues relating to the GATT negotiations, I want to spend a moment considering the state of the textile industry generally. An important measure is the number of jobs which it provides. When I come to the House in June 1979, textiles and clothing employed some 780,000 people. This figure itself represented a considerable reduction over the previous decade from the million or so employed at the beginning of the 1970s.

The recession of the early 1980s had a traumatic effect. By June 1983, one in three of the remaining jobs had gone, and the figure stood at a mere 512,000. Let it be said that the impact of the recession was not all bad by any means. While it is a fact that not every firm which went out of business or contracted severely in size was poorly managed or inefficient, some undoubtedly were. The ones which survived the shake-out had to use all their ingenuity and enterprise to survive. Very often they went to secure new export markets, which have stood them in good stead ever since. It was perhaps of little comfort to those who lost their jobs at that time that the shake-out made the jobs of those who remained more secure, but it was nevertheless a fact.

We emerged with a leaner but fitter industry—one which was determined to survive in a sometimes hostile environment, for the industry has always been subject to cycles never experienced by those involved in other sectors. Confidence in the future provided a spur to investment, and productivity improved considerably. Quality had never been a problem, but in the last few years there have been quite amazing advances in our design skills as well as marketing capabilities—consider, for example, the modern computerised equipment that is now used to design material.

As a result of the industry's successes, there were as many employed in it by the autumn of 1988 as there had been in June 1983, confounding the pessimists and giving everyone hope that the future could be a good one. This gave encouragement to those seeking to recruit the brightest and most energetic young people to a career in textiles.

Since 1989, there has been a further and most alarming series of job losses. During that year, 35,000 jobs disappeared, and a further 23,000 in 1990, so that by the end of last year the total number was only 449,000. A particularly worrying feature is that many of the companies which have been hit this time have done all the right things, assessed on any rational criteria. They have invested in the most modern plant and equipment and have become extremely efficient, but there was no way that they could compete with artificially low prices, often brought about by anti-competitive practices encouraged and promoted by overseas Governments.

For instance, Maple Mill at Oldham, closed by Courtaulds Spinning last month, was a highly efficient manufacturer of open-end yarns, operating to the best international productivity standards. However, subsidised competition, in a climate of falling demand and world-wide overcapacity, drove yarn prices down to a point where the mill was no longer viable, despite flexible working arrangements introduced with the full cooperation of all employees.

In general terms, the work force in the textile industry has co-operated in the necessary restructuring of the industry. I am glad to say that another firm in my constituency, Weavestyle, is doing much better and we look for great things for it in future. It is another Courtaulds subsidiary.

The distortions in the international textile and clothing trade take many forms. Some activities make it impossible for United Kingdom producers to compete on equal terms within the market place. Others are intended to create barriers to our exporters by protecting a home market against imported goods in ways that are outrageous by any standards.

One of the worst offenders, in terms of its effect on our industry, is the United States. That country's purchasing power and its preference for quality goods, which we manufacture, make the severe restrictions placed upon imports from Britain especially unacceptable, bearing in mind the attacks by America on the unfair trading practices of some far eastern countries. Import duties of over 36 per cent. on wool cloth represent a terrific hurdle for our exporters, who see their United States counterparts faced with only a 14 per cent. European Community tariff to gain entry to the enticing British home market. If reciprocity is to be our goal, as I believe it should be, then that is as good a point as any at which to start.

South Korea is one of the fastest-growing economies, not only around the Pacific rim but in global terms. In the past, it has used high tariffs and quotas as alternative methods of excluding imports that would otherwise enjoy strong demand from its increasingly prosperous people. In many instances, our protests have ultimately proved successful. Now Korea has announced a £2·5 billion subsidy scheme for its textile and clothing industries.

In India, millions of people live in poverty. Like many other states, India benefits from the recognition accorded to that factor under the terms of the multi-fibre arrangement, which are intended to assist its textile industry—along with others on the Indian subcontinent—to gain a fair share of the world market. Nevertheless, India too has a relatively well-off middle class, which no doubt wants a greater choice of goods. It does not have that choice, because India prohibits imports of textiles and clothing if similar goods are produced domestically, and charges penal tariffs of 200 per cent. or more on the remainder.

Nor is India by any means unique: other developing countries impose duties of more than 100 per cent., and many also have restrictive licensing schemes. Unacceptably high tariffs remain the favoured protectionist device of several countries whose economies could never be considered anything but highly developed. Canada and Australia fall into that category; yet some Australian tariffs exceed 50 per cent.

Turkish textile and clothing producers may express themselves delighted by the favours that they receive from their Government, but the many British workers who have lost their jobs because their employers closed down as a result of their inability to compete with subsidised Turkish goods feel rather differently about the matter. Among the subsidies enjoyed by Turkish firms are supplies of cotton at prices below those that can be obtained on world markets. Meanwhile, importers—including British companies—are faced with a barrage of duties, including a requirement to contribute to the state housing fund. Although all those subsidies and barriers contravene Turkey's associate treaty status with the European Community, the country seeks yet more favoured treatment from the Twelve.

As a state trading country, China sells textiles and clothing at prices that bear no relation to production costs. Former communist countries in eastern Europe, which are only now moving away from state control, operate in much the same way. Their economies are usually fragile, and I believe as much as anyone else—perhaps more than many—that they should have our support, but not at the expense of the United Kingdom textile sector.

Subsidised exports are another favourite ploy. In some cases, developing countries provide favoured tax treatment for export sales, while many far eastern countries link their currencies artificially to the US dollar, keeping them undervalued and so making their exports more competitive. In Taiwan and Japan, brand names may be registered that give a false impression of United Kingdom origin. I know that, because I have seen the goods in Keighley, where they have openly been sent for processing.

Furthermore, I am afraid that even some Community members—while expressing their commitment to Community policies, and saying how communautaire they are—are less than scrupulous. Spain and Italy continue to subsidise their industries, while some Belgian firms have not been made to comply with European Court judgments requiring the repayment of illegal subsidies.

Let me turn now to the GATT negotiations themselves. Of course I welcome their resumption following agreement between the participants that talks on agriculture should again proceed. However, continued further progress remains uncertain, depending essentially on United States congressional acceptance of the presidential plea for an extension of the so-called fast-track procedure. The fact that the American textile industry and other interests are opposed to the Uruguay round will put pressure on Congressmen, and the outcome cannot be precisely predicted.

Our ultimate objective must undoubtedly be an agreement, as a result of the Uruguay round, which provides for greatly strengthened GATT rules and disciplines to apply to international trade in textiles and clothing. This means that we need not just good intentions—those have been expressed many times in the past—but mechanisms to deal with the practices that I have described. The British textile industry supports the European Community's call for reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers; for prohibition of all subsidies that distort trade, including the supply of raw materials I o an industry at artificially low prices; for tougher rules to prevent the blatant theft of designs and brand names; for realistic anti-dumping rules that take account of the complex nature of the industry; and for a selective safeguards article, with no automatic compensation requirement.

Some progress has been made in negotiating those strengthened rules and disciplines, but much more remains to be done before the round is completed. I do not want now to consider the proposals in greater depth, because the time required to reach agreement will, I think, ensure that we have opportunities for further debate in the future. My priority at this stage is to ensure that we progress further in a way that avoids unnecessary uncertainty, which is the undoubted enemy of all successful trade and commerce.

It is generally accepted—even among developing countries—that the multi-fibre arrangement, which is a derogation from GATT, should be phased out over 10 or 11 years. However, the integration of the textile and clothing trade into normal GATT rules demands the simultaneous achievement and implementation of strengthened rules and disciplines. Some progress has been made in agreeing the details of implementation, but several important issues remain to he settled, including the crucial need for a mechanism enabling the phasing-out process to be suspended for any country that fails to comply with its obligations. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the direct link between the phasing out of the MFA, and the introduction of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. There have been far too many examples of loopholes being exploited in the past.

If extension of the fast track is agreed, it will be for a period allowing negotiatons to continue until 1 March 1993—two years from now. Of course, not only the Government and the Community but also the industry share the hope that the Uruguay round will be concluded long before then—preferably before the end of this year, if that is at all possible. Nevertheless, it may be the beginning of 1993, or even later, before the round is completed, ratified and brought into effect, given the procedural steps required in the United States in particular. Thus, it will be necessary to extend the current term of the multi-fibre arrangement, due to expire on 31 July 1991, together with the Community's bilateral agreements which expire on 31 December, excepting those for China, which continue until the end of next year. Agreement needs to be reached as soon as possible on the length of the extension to avoid damaging uncertainty for all concerned.

Currently, the participants are considering the length of time for which the MFA and the bilateral agreements should be extended. I understand that most Community member states favour the extension of the MFA for 17 months, to the end of 1992, with the possibility of a further extension if the Uruguay round is not ready for implementation. The industry supports that approach. Many developing countries, too, take a similar view. The United States of America—I point out this fact to the Minister—has proposed an extension for 29 months, to the end of 1993.

Another important point is that most countries envisage a straightforward extension of the existing terms. In contrast, I gather from the Minister for Trade's response to my parliamentary question on 20 March that the British Government continue to argue for an extension of the MFA for only five months, to the end of this year. In practice, that would have no effect, since the bilateral agreements continue until then, in any event. It is impossible for GATT to be ready for implementation at that stage. The Government evidently accept that extension of the MFA for a further 21 months to the end of 1992 may then be necessary, but they argue that the terms of the MFA and the bilateral agreements should be modified for the additional year.

There are several reasons why it would be mistaken to weaken the terms for this further year. First and foremost, it would provide additional concessions to exporting countries, whether or not they were willing to play their part in contributing to strengthening the rules and disciplines that I regard as critical. Secondly, it would increase the base level from which the phasing out of the MFA will be applied, to the obvious detriment of the United Kingdom industry. Thirdly, it could only cause the most damaging uncertainty, not only to manufacturers and processors but to retailers and importers, as well as exporters overseas. We need advance knowledge of the terms on which trade will take place.

As for retailers and distributors, it is particularly significant that senior management of the Littlewoods Organisation, whom I met on Thursday of last week, are equally keen to see a simple extension of the MFA for a reasonable period. I received a short note from that organisation this morning which reads:

"We are concerned that the continuing dispute over agricultural issues may result in the MFA not being replaced when it lapses in July 1991. This is already creating uncertainty and disruption in our forward planning with suppliers for the coming autumn season. We are therefore asking the European Commission as a matter of urgency to give a firm undertaking that, until a new MFA is in place, they will continue to operate the present Arrangement"—

I stress those words—

"and the specific quotas established under it, thus guaranteeing continuity of supply."

It is rare in this industry for all parties to agree in that way. It suggests that it would not be in the interests of consumers to cause turmoil by increasing uncertainty. Finally, a short-term approach would mean duplication of the MFA extension negotiations and a proliferation of complex bilateral negotiations, just at the time when negotiators world wide should be concentrating on a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round.

The Government's position regarding the United Kingdom's approach to the interim period is curiously incomprehensible. It is at variance with our European Community partners, with the United States, with most developing countries, with the British apparel, knitting and textile industries and with United Kingdom importers and overseas exporters. The extension of the MFA does not mean that there would be a standstill, as some fear. The current bilateral arrangements incorporate progressive increases in quotas, which could presumably be carried over into 1992. Thus, the momentum of liberalisation, to which the Government are committed, would undoubtedly be maintained.

On the question of the length of the phasing-out period for the MFA, last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry first suggested that it should be between five and seven years. His approach did not endear him to the industry. Eventually, under pressure from the industry and several of his hon. Friends, he accepted that 10 years might not be inappropriate. I hope that this time he will see the logic of the case and will amend his position rather than be thought to be falling into line involuntarily while alienating the industry.

After all, despite the contraction to which I referred at the beginning of my speech, the textiles and clothing industry remains one of the United Kingdom's largest sources of employment. Its work force of nearly 450,000, located largely in the north, the midlands and Scotland, is well placed to play a significant role in determining whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will still be at the Dispatch Box after the next election. It is vital, therefore, that the Government should be seen to be fighting their corner and working for the survival of a vibrant textile industry that is, has been and certainly can continue to be one of our best exporters—a success in the marketplace of the world.

rose——

Does the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) have the Minister's consent to speak in the debate?

indicated assent.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. He, like I, has the honour to represent a constituency in west Yorkshire. I wish to emphasise the importance of the clothing and textile industries to west Yorkshire.

A recent study to investigate the economic prospects of the west Yorkshire region in the 1990s highlighted the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the regional economy. The study was commissioned by west Yorkshire's five district councils and was undertaken by the university of Louvain in Belgium and the United Kingdom's Cambridge Economic Consultants.

The main points highlighted by the study were the increased and national vulnerability of textiles and clothing due to the shift of production towards south and east Europe and south-west Asia; the continuing threats to the industries caused by exchange rate variations and subsidised competitors; the difficulties caused by the false labelling of imported materials and products and the dumping of Turkish acrylic yarn; and the continuing concentration of production to maximise technical economies of scale, with a consequent reduction in jobs.

The consultants also point out that textiles and clothing are more than twice as important, in employment terms, to west Yorkshire than they are to the Community as a whole and more than three times more important than within the other industrial regions examined by the study. The west Yorkshire region was included in the European regional development funds' non-quota textile crisis aid programme, but it is considered that there is increased need for measures which could more directly assist the restructuring of key sectors, if the region is to be able to compete more successfully in the single market.

The hon. Member for Keighley rehearsed arguments that we have advanced in defence of the British textile and clothing industry over many years. He came here in 1979; I had the honour of first coming here in 1974. It was clear then that the industries were in decline. That decline has intensified during the last 10 years. In the city of Bradford, 14,000 people are directly employed in textiles and clothing. The livelihoods of thousands more, and their families, depend upon companies that supply goods and services to the textile and clothing industries.

We are in the depths of a very deep recession. Certainly it looks as bad as anything that we experienced in the early 1980s. Unemployment has risen sharply. The employment figures in the wool textile sector in west Yorkshire show an 18 per cent. fall between 1988 and 1990. Every part of that industry, including combing, woollen spinning and worsted, has had reductions of more than 20 per cent. Production and export are down. The extension of the MFA for at least 17 months, as the hon. Member for Keighley argued, should be only part of an urgent strategy that is vital if the British textile and clothing industries are to survive and if regions such as west Yorkshire which are dependent on those industries are to return to economic prosperity.

I pay tribute to my union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and to its national secretary, Mr. Peter Booth, who has been actively promoting the argument for a strategy for our industries. The cuts in interest rate have been extremely welcome, but we must remember that the average company in west Yorkshire employs 50 people. Such companies are least able to afford to invest in new technology, research and development.

We should also remember that high exchange rates create difficulties for the industries that we represent, particularly as many low-cost producers link their currencies to the dollar, often at artificially low rates. That gives them an extremely competitive edge and often an unfair economic advantage over home producers. We must also consider training. We welcome the initiatives taken by the industry recently, but in Bradford we have the prospect of losing 600 training places in the coming year. That is scandalous, given the difficulties that the United Kingdom will have to face.

I urge the Minister to listen to the points that have been raised in this and many earlier debates. Our constituents who work in textiles and clothing are often mystified about the Government's policy on those vital industries. The Government's view often appears to be grudging. Today, as the hon. Member for Keighley has said, they are completely isolated. I urge them at least to accept publicly and quickly in the talks immediately after Easter that 17 months must be the minimum. We want the MFA to continue for at least 10 years. We want the rest of the strategy to which I have referred today to be put in place as soon as possible to assist the industry nationally and regionally.

The Government keep saying that their aim is the liberalisation of trade for the benefit of consumers. I remind the Minister that textile workers are also consumers. If one follows the Government's policy to its logical conclusion, the prospect is that the British textile and clothing industry will be wiped out. British consumers will then depend totally on imported textiles and clothing and will become the victims of whatever prices overseas exporters wish to charge. None of us wants that to happen. Our constituents who work in these important industries deserve better.

In supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), I wish to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two specific points. The first relates to the education of people going into the knitting industry, which has been seriously affected. The second relates to Chinese imports.

Hinckley college, with its internationally renowned textiles department, is in my constituency. Sadly, there have recently been seven redundancies at that college. That clearly demonstrates the difficulties that local businesses in the area are facing and the specific impact of the high number of imports causing serious problems to which other hon. Members have referred. In the past two years, imports have increased to represent 50 per cent. of the goods available on the market. That increase has brought about the need to reduce staff in one of the key teaching establishments in the industry in the country. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to bear that in mind.

My second point concerns imports from China, which were mentioned briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. When I first had the honour of coming to the House to serve my constituents, in 1987, I chose as the subject of my maiden speech Chinese imports, particularly the importation of cheap Chinese underwear. I told the Minister at the time that it was a critical matter. Yet today we are still facing that problem; if anything, it has got worse. The Chinese knicker market is seriously undermining our industry. In 1990 imports of Chinese knickers surged to 88 million pairs at an average price of only 19p a pair, while United Kingdom production in knitting establishments fell by a forecast 8·7 per cent. to 59 million pairs at an average price of £1·25 a pair. How on earth can we compete?

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need the MFA to be extended for 10 years or a replacement agreement which will guarantee a level playing field, as I believe that to be essential.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for incorrectly identifying him when I called him to speak.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on securing this debate on the GATT textiles negotiations. I know that he and many other hon. Members take a close interest in this subject, which is so important for the textiles manufacturers in their constituencies. They have once more made their concern clear this morning. I was particularly impressed by the knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley about the world trading system and his attack on subsidies and controls in the world. The House is grateful to him.

Let me say at once to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), whom I thank for taking part in the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), that the Government share their interest and concern. We are in no doubt about the importance of securing a satisfactory overall settlement to the Uruguay round and, within that, a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT textiles negotiations and agreement on the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement. I shall return to that in more detail towards the end of my speech. Ministers have frequently made clear their commitment on those points, both in the House and outside.

The House may find it helpful if I outline where matters stand on the round in general. Its precise future is at present uncertain. Although a basis for resumed negotiations has been agreed and President Bush has asked Congress for the necessary two-year extension of the United States' fast-track negotiating authority, Congress has until 1 June to vote on his request. This process of securing extension is at present a matter for the United States but the outcome is of vital interest to us all.

If the round is to survive, it is important that all parties show a commitment to the negotiations. The world trading system urgently needs a non-inflationary boost of the sort that will be brought about by increased trade flows resulting from a successful conclusion of the Uruguay round. We need to preserve the momentum of the substantial progress made at Brussels on a number of issues, not least textiles, and to prevent domestic political issues and bilateral trading pressures from undoing the good work that has been done so far.

For these reasons, the Government believe that the round needs to be concluded quickly. Without an agreement this year, there is a danger that the round will drift, and that hard decisions will be postponed until after the United States elections in 1992. Nowhere is the urgency greater than in textiles. The Government have always made clear their conviction that liberalisation of trade in textiles will be to the benefit of consumers and the United Kingdom economy as a whole. We want to see it brought about in the context of a successful overall conclusion to the Uruguay round. Liberalisation should take place over a transitional period, the length of which must strike the right balance between on the one hand giving industry further time to adjust—I take into account the points made by my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Bradford,West—and on the other hand not delaying unduly the benefits of liberalisation.

The negotiating mandate agreed by all parties at the outset of the Uruguay round set the objective of returning trade in textiles to GATT on the basis of strengthened rules and disciplines. The United Kingdom and the European Community have made it clear that we want commitments from other countries to accept adequate strengthening and to improve market access so as, among other things, to provide fairer conditions for trade in textiles and clothing. Therefore, whilst it is essential that the United Kingdom and the EC continue to show themselves committed to ending the MFA, it must be on the basis of a corresponding commitment by all other parties to strengthened rules and disciplines. That is a vital point which, I hope, will reassure my hon. Friend.

Although the GATT ministerial meeting in Brussels last December failed to reach agreement, good progress was made in some areas, including textiles. Had the overall negotiating climate been more favourable, an agreement looked attainable to phase out the MFA over about 10 years. Ideally, we would have preferred a shorter period and others would have preferred a longer one. However, I know that a 10-year phase-out is broadly acceptable to the United Kingdom industry.

A key aspect of those negotiations and one which rightly receives much attention, not least from hon. Members, is the linkage that I have mentioned between progress in phasing out the MFA and in the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines. Good progress was made here in Brussels as well.

Agreement was emerging on a system to monitor commitments by others to strengthened rules and disciplines and much more open markets; on a new and more workable GATT safeguard mechanism against surges in imports for use once the textiles transitional period was over; and on a specific selective textiles safeguard mechanism for use during the course of the transitional period.

Other prospective benefits to the textiles industry would include specific protection for textiles designs under a trade-related intellectual property agreement, increased access to overseas markets through reductions in the high tariff and other trade barriers operated by many of our competitors—a point mentioned today—and more satisfactory rules governing unfair trade practices such as dumping and subsidies. I know that hon. Members and the United Kingdom industry share our determination to secure improvements in all those areas.

As to the immediate future, the quota restrictions under the MFA expire at the end of this year but the protocol itself, which gives the MFA legal force, expires in July. Had the round concluded last December, as planned, there was a good prospect of agreement by all to a five-month extension, so that in January 1992 we could have moved smoothly into the transitional period over which the MFA would be phased out. But with the lack of an agreement at Brussels, this timetable now seems much less secure.

Hon. Members have made clear the uncertainty this causes. We understand industry's and trader's concern, and we wish to avoid a legal vacuum pending the conclusion of the Uruguay round. Other member states and other GATT parties which import and export, share our view. All parties are now giving thought to the question of extending the MFA pending a settlement of the Uruguay round.

However, apart from a common desire to avoid uncertainty and a legal vacuum, the interests of the participants in the negotiations are, of course, as one might imagine, fairly diverse. It is therefore not possible yet to be certain of the terms on which any extension might be agreed, or its duration, but we shall push for interim arrangements to be agreed in good time before the MFA expires.

As to the key point, the length of the extension, a range of possibilities is currently being canvassed amongst GATT members. At one end of the spectrum, the United States—with little or no support, as has been mentioned today—favours a 29-month extension, to December 1993. At the other end of the spectrum, we and some of our EC partners—Germany and the Netherlands—can see merit in a five-month extension. This would be consistent with our target of concluding the round as fast as possible while leaving open the possibility of a further 12-month extension thereafter if progress were to prove slower than we hoped. Some other EC and GATT members are in favour of the middle ground—a one-step extension of 17 months, to the end of next year.

As yet, no agreement on the point has emerged within the EC itself. However, the Commission, as a lead negotiator, has requested a degree of flexibility, not least because the supplying countries have yet to give their views and are unlikely to do so before mid-May. The Government recognise that there may be a need for flexibility. We shall continue to discuss the issues with our EC partners, looking for a balance to be struck between providing a reasonable period of certainty for the industry and traders, while not sending a pessimistic signal about the speed at which the round as a whole can be brought to a successful conclusion.

I hope that what I have said today strikes a reasonable balance and will satisfy hon. Members.

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 Act:

Community Charges (General Reduction) Act 1991.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister from the outset that my sole purpose in raising the subject of the alleged satanic abuse case on the Langley estate in my constituency is not to rake over the dying embers of an unfortunate and tragic case, to apportion blame or to citicise agencies involved in the case. That has already been done by higher authorities. It is my wish to learn from those tragic mistakes in an effort to seek solutions that could prevent anything similar ever happening again to parents and children in the United Kingdom.

It is important to remember that those who have a responsibility to protect children at risk, such as social workers, health visitors, the police and doctors, have in the past been criticised for failure to act in sufficient time to take adequate steps to protect children who are in danger. It is sometimes difficult to tread the line between taking action too soon and not taking it soon enough to protect the children. Effective child protection depends on the skill of professional staff in all the relevant disciplines. To understand the problems that beset the professional staff in the social services department in Rochdale, it is necessary to know the background to this tragic case.

In November 1989, teachers at a school on the Langley estate in Middleton drew the attention of social workers to the disturbed, withdrawn and strange behaviour of a six-year-old boy. He talked to teachers about ghosts and a ghost family who were part of his life. The social workers to whom the case was referred were so concerned about the boy's behaviour and the strange stories that further investigation was made of the family background. That revealed that the boy's father had spoken of ghosts in his previous home. The social workers therefore took the boy, his 11-year-old sister and two other boys into care and made them wards of court. The parents were denied access to the children.

Altogether, a total of 20 children on the estate were taken into care because of their association with the original family. They were taken after dawn swoops by police and social workers. The social workers were convinced that they had unearthed a ritual abuse group on the estate. On 14 September 1990, a special meeting of the social services committee in Rochdale supported the action of the director of social services and invited the Secretary of State for Social Services to ask the social services inspectorate to confirm that all the council's policies and procedures on child abuse were in accordance with Government guidance.

The inspectorate reviewed a sample of 30 cases—none connected with the ones in court. It found fault with some of the department's procedures, which Rochdale social services committee promised to rectify—it is now carrying out that promise. The inspectorate also noted that the local authority had been community charge-capped in 1990 and its budget reduced by £8 million. Accordingly, the council had asked the social services committee to make proposals for saving of £1·9 million from its current budget. A sum of £550,000 had been proposed as a target saving on staffing, with a freeze on staff recruitment. I believe that that proposal should be deeply regretted.

When the case was heard in court earlier this year by Mr. Justice Douglas Brown, he enabled the public to learn the facts of the case. By working carefully through the facts he gave a clear, sober account of an extraordinary chain of events.

Mr. Justice Douglas Brown found that the accusations of ritual abuse were unproven, that there was no evidence of drugs connected with any abuse and no evidence that anyone was missing, mutilated or murdered. He emphasised that the staff of the Rochdale social services department were decent people, not heartless or ruthless, who had acted throughout with the children's best interests at heart. However, they had made mistakes, and criticisms were justified.

The judge said that the social workers were obsessive and mistaken in their belief that a six-year-old boy's ghostly fantasies were real. He accused the social workers of serious errors of judgment because they based their decision almost entirely on the evidence of a disturbed boy who had been fed on a rich diet of utterly frightening and unsuitable videos, such as "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "The Evil Dead".

The judge criticised the dawn raids by police and social workers who removed children from their homes and families, which caused the children to be distressed and frightened. He also criticised the procedures employed by police and social workers in their video interview policies. He said that social workers should have carried out the recommendations made by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss following the Cleveland case. Those recommendations had not been carried out and Mr. Justice Douglas Brown recommended that certain lessons could be learnt from the Rochdale case. He recommended:

"There should be intensive training for social workers who have interviewed children on ritual or sexual abuse … children should not be removed from their homes in suspected ritual abuse before expert advice is taken."

He recommended that, if children were taken, it should happen at the end of the school day. He also recommended that the affidavits from all parties should be balanced and fair and that all interviews with children in such cases should be videotaped. He criticised the policy of the Greater Manchester police of not videotaping the interviews with the children.

Mr. Gordon Littlemore, an honourable and dedicated man, the then director of social services in Rochdale resigned 24 hours after that judgment, and after praising his staff as

"committed and skilled workers who acted in good faith in what they believed was the best interests of the children".

I believe that Mr. Littlemore is an honourable man of great principle and integrity. He was tragically caught between the demands for the safety of the children, the rights of the parents, unnerving stories of satanic ritual and a lack of adequate financial resources.

Mr. John Pearce, chief executive of Rochdale borough, said that Mr. Littlemore's resignation had been received with deep sorrow and regret. He described Mr. Littlemore as a decent man with principles who had served Rochdale's social services department loyally for over 17 years. Mr. Pearce acknowledged that the authority had made mistakes and that the case was painful and a traumatic experience for all concerned. He said:

"We accept in full what the judge said"

and added that the mistakes would be rectified as soon as possible. I have been informed that all the recommendations of the inspectors and of Mr. Justice Douglas Brown will be implemented as soon as possible by the Rochdale authority and that an assistant director for families will be appointed by the authority.

Mr. Pearce also said that the social services inspectorate had offered to study the report with senior officers of the department of social services to identify and rectify any deficiencies of procedure and practice to ensure that appropriate action was taken and to tackle issues concerning parents' rights. I believe that the law was equally incompetent, both in the length of the process and in the initial draconian order, in denying the right of parents to visit their children. The problem now is to learn from those mistakes.

The present Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), said as a Back Bencher in a superb speech on child abuse as early as 26 July 1985:

"There have been errors of judgment and it is essential that lessons be learnt from those."

She went on:

"Rather than simply adding to the sensationalistic and censorious responses to these recent appalling tragedies, for which simplistic solutions are too often proposed and social workers are more often than not used as whipping boys, I should like to redress the balance and see the problem of child abuse in a clearer context".

She went on to describe the parents involved in child abuse cases and said:

"The parents are more likely to be unemployed, and nearly two thirds are in receipt of supplementary benefit … There are many … stress factors on the families. They include marital discord in virtually half the cases, unemployment, and financial problems".—[Official Report, 26 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 1423–24.]

I could not agree more.

On 9 July 1975, I tried in an Adjournment debate to draw attention to the social problems on the Langley estate, where the present case arose. In April 1990, in another Adjournment debate, I again raised the social problems affecting that estate, which is a Manchester overspill estate of about 4,500 dwellings built in the 1950s and catering for a population of about 25,000 people.

I said in the 1975 debate that the estate was seen as a transit camp, was unrelated to its neighbouring communities and was remote from the Manchester authority to which it belonged. I gave examples of the social problems there and said that any examination of the referrals to the social services department in Rochdale would show that 50 per cent. of them came from Langley and that, generally speaking, 75 per cent. of referrals on child care and family problems came from that estate.

I said:

"Langley is an area of social deprivation with a need for community assistance from central Government funds."—[Official Report, 9 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 707.]

However, the social problems on the estate worsened after my debate in 1975, despite my pleas for help. In the 1991 labour census the unemployment figure for men on the estate was 43 per cent. Since then, unemployment has worsened.

On 23 April 1990 I again raised on the Floor of the House the many problems facing Langley estate. I said that more than 1,000 houses built in the 1950s were now bricked and boarded up and that 1,005 other houses were unfit for human habitation because of structural defects. I fought for funds from the Estate Action moneys and lobbied Ministers. I quoted the report of Professor Peter Townsend of Bristol university, entitled "Inner City Deprivation, Premature Deaths" which mentioned the high death rate on Langley estate. I described Langley as a dream turned into a nightmare with devastating and desperate problems—a lost cause, a vandalised ghetto of sickness and despair.

I am glad to say that, on asking for a second time earlier this year, my prayers were answered. The Government have now agreed to find £13·2 million to repair property on the estate over a period of three years. I congratulate them on giving that cash. However, that is for bricks and building materials only and extra Government money is needed to help eliminate the dreadful social deprivation on the estate. Many children there are living in families who are experiencing extreme poverty. Additional Government resources are needed to meet the recommendations of the social services inspectors report and the judge's finding on the social services department in Rochdale.

I ask the Minister—nay, I beg the Minister—for extra cash to fund Rochdale's social services department to enable it to do its job properly and to develop a support programme for vulnerable children and families in the area. What can be learnt from the Cleveland and Rochdale cases to help social workers elsewhere in the United Kingdom? In 1985, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West said:

"None of us can fail to have powerful professional, political and above all personal reactions when things go wrong."

She urged the then Minister to consider

"the national outrage that is felt when disasters occur and to make every effort to learn from the mistakes".

Social workers are always vulnerable because of widespread variations in practice, and one disaster inevitably results in social workers being pilloried. The hon. Member for Surrey, South-West continued:

"Few people appreciate the complexity of the job that a social worker has to do. Such a worker has to make life and death decisions, he or she has to decide whether or not to place a child on the child abuse register, whether or not to seek a care or supervision order: or whether to go for wardship. The social worker has to decide whether or not the child should be removed from its home or if it should be fostered or adopted, or whether rehabilitation should be attempted."—[Official Report, 26 July 1985; Vol. 83, c. 1425–28.]

I could not have put it better. In the light of the Minister's words, spoken so many years ago, it would appear that we require our social workers to have the wisdom of Solomon. Is the Minister convinced that social workers are adequately qualified, trained and experienced and properly paid to do their existing job? If he is not, what will he do to rectify the situation?

Following the Rochdale case, we may ask, what is the impact of videotape on young children? The children in this case watched films such as "Nightmare on Elm Street" and "The Evil Dead" until 1 o'clock in the morning—no wonder they were disturbed. Questions must be asked about parents who allow young children to watch such films. Those films are disturbing, sadistic and full of horror. Bringing the cinema into the home has heralded the end of the automatic protection of children from unsuitable material. Has not the time come when the Minister or the Government should seriously consider whether films whose raison d'etre is violence should be passed by the British Board of Film Classification for release as videotapes?

Ritual and satanic abuse first gained media attention following the imprisonment of nine adults in Nottingham in February 1989, who pleaded guilty to 53 charges of incest, cruelty and indecent assault after 25 children were taken into care. There now appear to be differences between the police and the social services department in Nottingham about whether the children were ritualistically abused.

We now have allegations of ritual abuse of children in Manchester and the Orkneys. Does ritual abuse exist in an organised form in the United Kingdom? If it does not, there must be reassessment of interview techniques and the mechanisms by which children are taken into care. A great deal more needs to be found out about the scale of the problem—if, indeed, such a problem exists. A Government-backed investigation into the extent of ritual or satanic abuse nationally is therefore required.

Just as Cleveland became a catalyst for a serious debate about the prevalence of sexual abuse, so the Rochdale case could launch a serious examination of ritual abuse by Government agencies. The controversy over satanic abuse must not be allowed to continue and become a distraction from the reality of the emotional and physical abuse of some children in which cruelty, neglect, incest and rape take place.

We must continue to learn lessons from the serious cases which arise, as in Cleveland and Rochdale. We must ensure that the law works well. We must produce a much clearer and much more consistent legal framework within which child care practitioners can operate, as strong feelings and human emotions are closely involved. We must make absolutely sure that official guidance is good. We must have sound legal foundations on which we can continue to develop the procedural framework for dealing with child abuse. The time is now appropriate for a much more comprehensive review of that material, to bring the whole lot up to date and to make it as sensible but as direct as possible. In raising those issues, I hope that the Minister will take note of them when drafting the new Children Bill, which is to be published later this year.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his speech, which demonstrated his long-standing and keen interest in this subject. He quoted correspondence going back 16 years which showed that he has consistently taken an interest in social work issues in general and, in particular, in those on the Langley estate in his constituency. Those issues are too broadly based to be purely the responsibility of the Department of Health.

The hon. Gentleman obliquely acknowledged the long-standing concern and dedicated interest in this subject of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. Her experience is unusual for a Minister in that, in social work in general and child care social work in particular, it goes back to before her time in the House. My hon. Friend is detained elsewhere this morning. If she had been here, the debate between her and the hon. Gentleman would have contained an unusually high amount of information. I do not pretend to have the knowledge or experience of my hon. Friend in this field, but I shall seek to answer as well as I can some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.

I have seen the letter written by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton following the judgment in the wardship case. That letter called for a public inquiry to examine further the lessons to be learnt from the Rochdale experience. However, the Government are not attracted to the public inquiry route, broadly because we do not think that at this stage a public inquiry would advance either the understanding of the facts or the application of the lessons from those facts.

A public inquiry is established for two related purposes. First, it inquires into what happens, and therefore its establishment implies a lack of knowledge about the facts. Secondly, it seeks to draw from the facts of experience lessons for the application and development of future policy.

As I have said, there is no longer a serious lack of knowledge about what happened in Rochdale; nor are we short of lessons to be learnt from the facts as we know them. The agenda set by the social services inspectorate report published last autumn and, possibly, by some of the judge's comments in his judgment, and our current understanding of the facts, are sufficient to keep us busy and to ensure that our time is not wasted in learning the lessons of Rochdale and applying them there and elsewhere.

No one looking at the way in which the Government have handled the case since it came to public notice can doubt our commitment to establish the facts, learn from them and apply the lessons as extensively as possible. That commitment is fired and driven by the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health, who, as I have said, has great experience and a deep understanding of the subject.

The hon. Gentleman quoted from a speech made by my hon. Friend in 1985. That speech made manifest her understanding of the subject, and in it she laid down the guiding priority for any discussion on the matter. It was that we must not fall into the trap of sensationalising what happens, which is the practice of the tabloid press. We must conduct a calm and deliberate investigation, apply the lessons and try to ensure that people do not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is fitting that it should be my hon. Friend the Minister for Health who has responsibility for implementing the Children Act 1989, which grew at least in part from the experiences in Cleveland, in which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) was significantly involved.

The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton asked me to comment on the lessons that we have to learn and on the application of resources for the training of social workers. I shall say something about that particularly in the context of Rochdale because there is no doubt about its importance there, and action has already been taken. The child care training support programme which began in 1989 and which is 70 per cent. grant-aided by central Government, is a reflection of the importance that we attach to training social workers in general, and in particular those in child care.

The Department has allocated a grant of £51,000 to the Rochdale social services department for the training of social workers working with families. The Rochdale department proposes to spend £158,000 a year as part of that programme. The programme includes £22,730 for training staff in child protection work, including sexual abuse, and the balance will go to general child care training. The 1991–92 programme envisages expenditure of £137,000, including £35,000 for training staff in the provisions of the Children Act. The Department has also made a grant of nearly £84,000 towards that expenditure. The programme will benefit 919 staff in general child care training, and 718 staff will receive training specifically under the Children Act programme.

I hope that that information will help to answer the hon. Gentleman's proper question about what we are doing to train social workers. He is legitimately anxious that there should be proper training and that the lessons from Cleveland and Rochdale are learnt not only in those areas but in other social services departments. That training programme is part of our commitment.

I thank the Minister for his information about the cash that is to be allocated to Rochdale. However, how much will be given to the training of social workers nationally?

I can give the hon. Gentleman the quantum of our training commitment since the establishment of the child care training support programme. The Government announced the scheme on 6 July 1988 and the making of a grant in 1989–90 of £7 million in support of £10 million for the training of social services staff involved in child care. Therefore, the Government's commitment was 70 per cent. direct support to a £10 million national programme for training of social workers in this sector for the year 1989–90. I do not have the most up-to-date figures at my disposal, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with a figure when I get back to the Department. That will not be immediately, because I have three speeches to make in the Adjournment debates.

The hon. Gentleman asked about ritual and organised abuse and whether the Government are taking steps to deepen our understanding of this particularly unpleasant subject, which must cause concern to all of us whenever we read about it, whether the account is sensationalised or in the dullest of prose. Investigation is directed at cases of child abuse, whether perpetrated by one person or a network of abusers. One investigates the fact of child abuse, not whether there is a network leading to it. The Department has been made aware of a number of child sexual abuse networks, which have been successfully investigated by local social service departments and the police.

There has been no investigation of satanism per se. If any child were abused as part of a satanic ritual, that would be illegal—but nowhere in our criminal law is there a ban on the concept, if that is the right word, of satanism. The social services inspectorate has held meetings with representatives of the NSPCC, the Children's Society, Childline and other field agencies to hear of recent investigations into organised abuse, to gather intelligence and to explore the issues involved. It became clear that there was a need to obtain more information about child abuse networks, organised abuse and ritual abuse before guidelines could be produced.

The inspectorate is continuing closely to monitor the position and the Department is conscious of the need to assess the scale and nature of the abuse, which may involve some ritualistic element, so that it can offer informed guidance. We do not hold any figures that give a clear picture of the percentage of children involved in organised abuse, compared with child abuse as a whole. However, evidence to date suggests that it is only a small percentage of the total quantum of the child abuse problem.

The Department intends to commission an eminent academic to conduct research into the extent and nature of ritual and satanic abuse. It aims to produce guidance on organised abuse in the revised version of "Working Together", which the Department intends to publish to coincide with the implementation of the Children Act 1989 in the autumn. I hope that that makes it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we take the matter seriously. However, that does not detract from the proposition that it is the fact of child abuse that should motivate our inquiries, not an unpleasant concern about some network. It is the abuse which is the problem, and it is the abuse which must be our prime concern.

I want to detail some of the lessons that have already been learnt from the Rochdale experience, and some of the steps that the Department has taken to ensure that those lessons are widely learnt and understood. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State commissioned an investigation by the inspectorate, which was published last autumn. It made 42 recommendations aimed at the Rochdale social services department and agencies responsible for child protection.

The key findings of the report were, first, that the area child protection committee procedures predated "Working Together" and were therefore deficient in a number of ways. The Department of Health published "Working Together" in 1988. It sets out recommendations for arrangements for inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse. Clearly, it does not make sense if the procedures adopted by area child protection committees are not consistent with the guidelines contained in that document. Following Rochdale's experience, one of the key priorities must be to ensure that its procedures are reformed and brought up to date, to reflect the guidance on the way in which agencies should co-operate in dealing with the problem.

The second major finding of the report was that an unacceptable number of case conferences were delayed and were ineffective because they were not effectively chaired. Abused children and those suspected of being abused were automatically placed on the child protection register, whether or not they were still at risk. There was an absence of clear action plans.

The minutiae of administration were ineffective in identifying the problems, prioritising which problems were the most urgent, and ensuring that proper steps were taken to identify and to follow up clear problems.

The third major finding was that comprehensive assessments and plans could not be clearly identified and there was no rigorous policy of involving parents and children in assessment or case conferences. However, some examples of good practice were found in that area.

Fourthly, it was found that good training existed between police and social service staff, but there was an urgent need for a review by the area child protection committee of arrangements for collaboration. Fifthly, it was found that there had been a lack of action by the area child protection committee to ensure that its policies had been implemented and to monitor the consequences on practice.

The social services inspectorate report looked at 30 cases which were then current in Rochdale, but clearly could not look at the cases that were the subject of the wardship hearings which were then sub judice. It was reassuring that the inspectors found that, in all the cases that they studied, appropriate action had been taken to safeguard the children, which must always be the first goal of child protection work.

Following the receipt of the report, the area child protection committee responded with a positive and comprehensive action plan, with a time scale attached, to put into effect the recommendations produced by the inspectorate. I have a list of the steps that have been taken by the Rochdale social services committee to apply the 42 major recommendations of the social services inspectorate to ensure that the lessons are learned and to prevent such things happening again.

It is fair to add that the implementation of the Children Act 1989 with its revised procedures makes it difficult to see how precisely the same circumstances that occurred in Rochdale could recur. That is not to say that one could not end up in the same place by a different route, but the precise set of cause and effect circumstances that led to the unhappy saga of Rochdale are unlikely to recur under the new procedures when the Children Act is fully implemented in the autumn.

Earlier this month, Mr. Justice Brown handed down his decisions in the wardship hearings on the 20 children from the Langley estate. The judge was critical of aspects of procedure and practice by the social work department. The Department of Health wishes to study the transcript of the judge's statement to identify any deficiencies in procedure and practice that were not covered in the social services inspectorate's report that was published in November 1990.

Following the legitimate public concern in Rochdale, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken steps, to ensure that the social services inspectorate investigated what had happened in Rochdale, and has received that report and welcomed the fact that Rochdale council has committed itself to implement the report's 42 recommendations. Now, clearly, we need to study the judgment handed down by Mr. Justice Brown to ensure that we learn from any further lessons of the Rochdale experience.

As the hon. Gentleman said, following the comments and criticisms in the wardship hearings, Mr. Littlemore tendered his resignation as the director of social services at Rochdale. Mr. Ian Davey, previously operational assistant director responsible for children's services in the period covered by the judgment, has been appointed acting director. It is expected that the substantive post of director will be advertised in the next few months.

A major feature of the case that has caused public disquiet is the way that the courts kept children away from their families at the social services department's request without access. The loss of public wardship may result in magistrates being more ready to query refused access in those cases where eventual return to parents seems probable. Parents will have the right to challenge the making of an emergency protection order, and the courts will have to take account of the child's wishes. The local authority will have a duty to return a child looked after by it to his family home unless that is clearly against the child's interests. The authority also has a duty to ensure that children it is looking after and who are away from home have contact with their parents wherever humanly possible.

I hope that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton will feel that the Government have demonstrated a determination to find out the facts, to learn from them and to apply the lessons wherever the curse of child abuse—something which any civilised person finds it impossible to imagine—is discovered and that the child is protected from abuse wherever humanly possible. That is a shared imperative.

I am glad to have this opportunity to speak about the transplant programme and the availability of organs. Perhaps I should start by declaring an interest. Last October, I was the recipient of a kidney transplant and, after a slightly shaky start, it is now working well and has transformed the life that I lived on dialysis, as I was told it would, and returned me to near normality.

I am grateful to Professor Peter Morris and all the transplant team at the Churchill hospital in Oxford for the marvellous way that they looked after me. They are a great credit to the national health service.

Transplantation has been described as the gift of life, and that is true in so many ways, especially for people with heart, lung, liver and pancreas problems. Unlike the kidney patient who always has dialysis, they have no fall-back position, so transplantation can make the difference between life and death. And it will do more: it will have a huge and beneficial effect on the quality of their life and that of their families. It will re-create a normal home existence and make possible a return to employment, with all the benefits that that brings.

For kidney patients, transplantation is much cheaper than kidney dialysis, and when a transplant patient goes back to work the state benefits as a result of the taxes that he or she pays because of that employment.

People who are fortunate enough to have had a successful organ transplant, like myself, are bound to feel the greatest sympathy for those on the waiting list. It is on their plight that I want to focus my remarks today, for, as transplantation becomes ever more successful, more people will seek its help and waiting listes are likely to lengthen. There is an over-simplified belief that, if we can find a new way to encourage would-be donors to come forward, we could eliminate the present waiting lists at a stroke and maintain a transplant service thereafter that was roughly in balance between supply and demand.

Some people talk of an opting-out scheme, in which the organs would be taken on death unless the donor had said no before he died. I do not like that idea, because it destroys the idea of organ donation as a gift, voluntarily given. Others have pressed for required requests or required referrals. I do not think that either suggestion is enforceable.

I believe that we shall have to continue to look to intensive therapy units as the main source for organs. Recently, I tabled to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary a question about retrieval rates in intensive therapy units. In reply he said that, in 1989, just over 1,000 patients died every month in intensive therapy units, and that 8·4 per cent. of them were considered potential cadaveric organ donors on the basis that they were confirmed brain-stem dead and there were no general medical contra-indications to organ donation. That rate of 8·4 per cent. per 1,000 patients means 84 organ donors per 1,000, or just over 1,000 organ donors a year. For kidney patients, that should mean transplant opportunities for 2,000 persons. Bearing in mind that there were 3,931 people on the kidney transplant waiting list last Friday, supply is clearly meeting approximately half the demand. If we are to meet it in toto, kidney donor numbers must be increased by at least 1,000 a year. In other words, the number of cadaveric organ donors coming from the ITUs must be doubled.

Can that be done, and are there any other untapped organ sources? Certainly studies suggest that some cerebro-vascular patients who die in general wards could be organ donors, and that, if that method were replicated nationally, a further 16·7 donors per million per year could be added to the current United Kingdom rate of 14·6 donors per million per year. Obviously, that would be a valuable addition; perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell me how those studies are being transferred into practice.

The kidney waiting list of 3,931 must be broken down into patients who are not sensitised to transplants—that is, those who have not yet had a transplant—and those who are sensitised, perhaps because they have had a failed transplant. Some 35 per cent. of the waiting list consists of unsensitised patients. Perhaps they, like me, will not have to wait very long to obtain a transplant; I had to wait only six weeks after being approved for the waiting list. Those who are sensitised will inevitably have to wait much longer, because for them the right kidney will take some time to appear.

The questions that remain are where we are to find the additional donors, and whether the ITUs are producing the maximum possible number. They are, I think, the principal source for the foreseeable future. Everyone whom I have consulted agrees that success in finding donors rests on the enthusiasm of the transplant team, and on the sensitivity and effectiveness of the transplant co-ordinators. Theirs is a stressful job, because it involves both arranging for the organs to be taken by the individual surgical teams and seeing, talking to and winning the confidence of the next of kin, without whose consent the donation cannot be made.

In the Oxford region—the region that I know best—there are two to three co-ordinators to the 2·8 million people who are served by the region. It is felt that more co-ordinators would produce more organs, not necessarily in Oxford but in the regions that have fewer co-ordinators. What steps is the Department taking to increase the number of co-ordinators—or is that strictly a matter for the region?

As we know, 30 per cent. of those who are asked to consent to the removal of organs say no. Although many probably have strong religious and ethical grounds for their refusal, it is widely believed that the doctors who make the initial approach to the next of kin would benefit from bereavement counselling before performing that task. As theirs is the first approach, it is clearly of the greatest importance. Is such counselling now becoming standard practice throughout the regions of the health service? If not, why not?

That initial approach is followed by the work of the co-ordinators, to whom I have already referred. We also know that 5 per cent. of the next of kin are never approached about organ donations, probably because the ITU where the donor has originated is not sufficiently motivated, or perhaps because it lacks the facilities to care for a donor—electric ventilation machinery, and other such equipment. Can the Minister enumerate the ITUs that currently cannot handle organ donations because of a lack of facilities? What steps are being taken to bring them up to date?

I was glad to learn recently from the United Kingdom transplant service that every health region is both an exporter and an importer of organs. That is to say, they are providing organs for other regions, as well as bringing in organs to meet their own needs. I was not surprised to hear that Oxford is at the top of the list. Last year it had 96 exports and 61 imports. I was disappointed to hear that a group of London hospitals was at the bottom of the list, with eight exports and 37 imports.

One must wonder why there is such a disparity, whether the Department is taking steps to find out why such disparities exist, and what can be done to produce a more general and even flow between the regions, and why, in 1989, Euro-transplant retrieved more kidneys per million of population than we did and why Austria in particular acquired 52 kidneys per million of population against our figure of 31·7. What magic do the Austrians have that we do not possess? What can be done to improve our retrieval rate? If we could match the Austrian figure, the waiting list would largely disappear.

Recently I was asked why, when a transplant case receives favourable publicity, organ availability increases. The answer seems to be that next of kin—those who give their consent, or otherwise, to organ donation—temporarily become more sympathetic to the idea. That suggests to me the need for still more education and a rather higher publicity profile than has been the case with organ transplantation.

I welcome the fact that this year there is to be a national transplant week. I hope that the Department will use the opportunity to highlight the remarkable success of the United Kingdom's transplant programme to date. I hope also that schools will join in and include, perhaps, a reference to transplantation in biology lessons so that young people, like their families, will talk about transplantation among themselves and see it as the gift of life that it is—a gift that they may wish to have one day, a gift that, sadly, they may want to give. I hope that live donor transplants, although likely to be small in number, will increase, where appropriate.

I do not underestimate the difficulty of increasing organ donations, particularly if we are to bring in people of 65 and over for transplants. I hope that I have suggested some possible ways that could help to improve the supply of organs. I take comfort from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal that describes the problem in America. For once, their problem is worse than ours. Now they are even considering payment of the funeral costs of organ donors as an inducement to donation. I very much hope that we do not have to go down that road. I shall listen with great interest to my hon. Friend's reply.

By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I think I should speak for the whole House, if the whole House were here, if I said that there can be few more popular testimonies to the success of the transplant programme than my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M.McNair-Wilson). He was an object lesson in courage to all of us during the time that he suffered from kidney problems. It is pleasant to see him looking more tanned and healthy than we have seen him for several years. He is, as he said, a walking example of the scientific advance represented by the organ transplant programme.

I echo almost every aspect of my hon. Friend's approach to the problem. My hon. Friend began by saying, rightly, that the transplant programme is one of the great success stories of modern medicine and that it is a particular success story of the British national health service. My first memory of the transplant programme is of flickering black and white television photographs from the Groote Schuur hospital in 1969, when Professor Christiaan Barnard carried out the first heart transplant.

When I became Under-Secretary of State for Health last year, my knowledge of medical advances was such that, while I understood that we had come some way since those days, I had no conception of the extent to which organ transplantation is now a routine operation in the national health service. It is done every day and thousands of patients throughout the country now leading normal lives are testimony to its success.

I shall briefly weary the House with some statistics as that is the best way to illustrate the size and importance of the transplanting programme. The number of kidney transplants perforned in Britain has risen from 849 in 1978 to 1,732 in 1989—an increase of more than 100 per cent. in 11 years. More directly relevant to the Christiaan Barnard precedent, 295 hearts were transplanted in 1989, compared with only three in 1979. I shall not seek to calculate that figure in percentage terms, but nearly 300 heart transplants were carried out as routine operations within the national health service. In 1989, there were 295 liver transplants and 94 heart-lung transplants. In 1980, 3,145 people in Britain had functioning transplanted kidneys. By 1988, the figure had risen to 8,000 people, and it has continued to rise since. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, those people lead virtually normal lives as a result of that great scientific advance.

My hon. Friend was also right to nail one bugbear or misunderstanding of the transplantation programme when he drew attention to the fact that, at least in regard to kidney patients, transplantation is not high-tech medicine which is diverting the resources of the health service away from patients elsewhere in the service. It is more economic than other lower-tech services because, once a successful kidney transplant has been carried out, the health service is no longer committed to the extremely expensive and, from the patient's point of view, dramatically less satisfactory procedures related to various forms of dialysis. That is not to say that dialysis itself is not an advance and that advances have not been made within dialysis, but no one with any understanding of the economics or the quality arguments about the treatment of kidney patients can be under any doubt about the value attached to successful kidney transplantation and the benefits which that scientific advance has brought to patients through the NHS.

It is worth remembering that it is a medical advance available throughout the world, but our record in Britain stands comparison with that of any other country in Europe. We have more kidney transplant patients now alive than any other country in Europe.

The NHS has helped to develop and taken full advantage of the significant developments in transplant technology over the past decade, including improved drug treatment to prevent the rejection of organs. In view of some of the issues that were the main burden of my hon. Friend's speech, clearly reducing the rejection of organs makes a vital contribution to cutting waiting lists and to the effective use of donated organs. We have also been able to improve methods of preserving organs, which also increases the number of organs available.

It is a major success story, but, as my hon. Friend quite rightly pointed out, there are still more people on the waiting lists for transplant operations than many of us would like. Unlike most other waiting lists in the health service, this list is not determined by the pace at which resources can be made available; it is not a resources-determined waiting list but one which exists, by and large, because of the lack of donors. Each of us can do something about cutting the list by ensuring that, if anything untoward happens to us, our family and friends know that we want our organs to be made available to others. We would all have the opportunity to help cut the list if a tragedy should occur.

I shall now deal with the question how to increase the flow of organ availability because, as my hon. Friend said and as I have also stressed, that is the key to cutting the waiting list and to helping those on NHS waiting lists to benefit from this major advance in health. I entirely agree with the philosophy expounded by my hon. Friend about the way in which we should approach the subject.

We must accept that nobody has a right to anybody else's organs. If something untoward happens, our organs may be of value to someone else but that should be the result of an altruistic decision about how we want our bodies to be used when we die. It should not be as a result of a right of the recipient. We must make that philosophical approach clear and accept it as the basis on which we encourage organ donorship. It is our responsibility to make such a decision and to ensure that our friends and relatives are aware of our views. It is the responsibility of the living whose organs may be of use to someone else; it is not anyone else's job to claim the organs.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not a decision from which we should be required to opt out. It should be a positive decision that, when we die, we want our organs to be available to someone else. It is up to the individual to make his decision known. Furthermore, we should not make much progress if we imposed a statutory requirement on the professional people present at a bereavement to make a request for organs in conditions which they do not believe they can handle or which are unlikely to produce a positive result. It would make the law an ass to require them to make a request which they believed as professionals, to be inappropriate. The law would be absurd. I do not support the principle of requiring someone to opt out of, as it were, organ harvest; nor do I believe that we shall make progress by imposing a statutory obligation on professional people to make such request in the circumstances that I have described.

We must find a way of eliminating the barriers to donorship which exist partly as a result of inadequate professional training but, perhaps pre-eminently, as a result of a misunderstanding by the majority of NHS patients and by society as a whole of what organ donorship means and the circumstances in which organs can be taken from a dead or dying donor. I must correct that. The issue of donorship may arise when the patient is dying, but those organs are taken when the patient is dead.

It is important to consider how to encourage organ donorship. My hon. Friend concentrated on the number of people who die in intensive therapy units whose organs could be of value to the transplant programme but who do not donate them. We have set up a national audit system to try to establish precisely how many people die in those units without their organs being available for transplant and why. This is an important matter, and we are seeking to inform ourselves not only of the number of missed opportunities as a result of that phenomenon but how we can ensure that that flow of organs improves. My hon. Friend is right in believing that that is the most effective way in which to conduct discussions on the issue.

It is also important to consider the motivation of the intensive therapy units. The professional staff are emotionally involved in attempting to save a patient's life. When a patient dies, the staff often suffer the same feelings of bereavement as the family. Such deaths are demotivating and demoralising for the staff, but it is important to remind the staff that that death is an opportunity for secondary benefit, however great the primary tragedy. Such motivation must be included in the training of staff.

My hon. Friend will also be aware of the recompense for costs incurred in intensive therapy units when they provide organs for use in another hospital. I assure my hon. Friend that we are addressing that question. We are also considering the training of professional staff so that they are aware of the secondary benefits of the primary tragedy to which I referred. We are also considering training on how to ask the next of kin for the consent which must be given before a dead patient's organs are taken.

My hon. Friend was right to stress the importance of the transplant co-ordinators and, if I may, I shall write to my hon. Friend on the specific question that he asked about them. They have a key role to play in raising the awareness of the public of the importance of reaching a decision on organ donorship.

We should all face the fact that, without notice, we might find ourselves fighting for our lives in an intensive therapy unit as a result of an accident. That would bring us face to face with the possibility of our death, as well as of the fact that parts of our body may be of value to someone else. In those circumstances, surely it is better to have discussed the matter with our families so that they know our views. It is important that our concerns should have been addressed and allayed before we have to reach a decision on such donorship. The emotionally charged atmosphere of an intensive therapy unit is no occasion to be approaching this issue for the first time.

It is a matter about which, as citizens, we should know our views and be sure that our families know those views so that when the question is asked the answer is automatic. We should be trained, as it were, in knowing what to do in such circumstances. We should be like the parachutist presenting himself at the back door of the aeroplane. He knows what his reaction will be, because he has done it often on the ground. His reaction becomes second nature and automatic.

The most important step we can take is to be sure that the public understand the benefits that can come from transplantation. They must know that the subject requires everyone to make a decision and to be sure that that decision is known to our families. We must also be sure that all of that happens before we find ourselves in an intensive therapy unit having to make the decision for the first time in anger.

I appreciate this opportunity to raise the important issue of the disabled. Perhaps any debate on this subject should begin with a quotation from "Breaking the Chain," a campaign issue publication by the Spastics Society:

"Because I'm disabled I don't even get a second look when applying for a job, so there is no way that I can get out from under the poverty line. I'm disabled and I live in a society that doesn't recognise the disabled. I can work. I should have that opportunity."

The House has failed to acknowledge the many problems facing Britain's 6 million disabled people. The Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 makes it clear that society has historically tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, causing discrimination to be a serious and pervasive social problem. The Act recognises that such discrimination persists in such critical areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, education, transportation, communications, recreation, health services and access to public services. Many individuals have little or no legal recourse to redress such discrimination.

I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise that, while society denies people with disabilities the opportunity fully to participate in the life of society, much human talent and energy are wasted and that the consequent dependency and non-productivity results in high costs to the nation.

Britain has a poor track record, and it is time that Parliament made it a key subject for debate and legislation. Without a change in public attitude and Government action, the idea to which the Prime Minister subscribes, of a classless society in which opportunity prevails, is so much hot air. The present Prime Minister, when Minister for the disabled, did not rule out the possibility of anti-discrimination legislation.

Because I am anxious to give the Minister ample time in which to reply to the debate—and since hon. Members could site sufficient cases from their constituencies to more than occupy the time available today—I shall give only a few examples of the way in which the disabled suffer in society.

The disabled already have enormous barriers of fear and ignorance to overcome before being able to get a job. According to a recent Government report, the 3 per cent. quota law has been a dramatic failure. The best region is Yorkshire, where, at 1·5 per cent., the take-up rate is half the legal minimum. The worst take-up rate is in the south-east, where, at 0·7 per cent., it is only a quarter of the legal minimum. Lambeth council is one of the few authorities to have made great efforts to live up to the law. It has committed itself to offering jobs only to people with disabilities. Otherwise, the reasons for the extremely low take-up rates seem to relate to ridiculous fears, prejudices and ignorance about the problems of the disabled at work.

Too often, people think of wheelchairs when the word "disabled" is mentioned. Disabilities range from relatively minor impairments, such as epilepsy, to total impairment such as paraplegia. The simple mention of a disability seems to put employers' backs up. They often assume the worst and do not even bother to interview disabled people.

The Centre for Integrated Living in Ripley, Derbyshire operates an employment agency. It had on its books an epileptic, a skilled worker, who was not even considered for a job by a company that thought that his wheelchair could not cope with stairs.

Disabled people should not all be lumped into a vast homogeneous mass. A change in popular attitudes towards disabled people is needed. In turn, that requires the Government to take the lead in introducing comprehensive legislation. They cannot wash their hands of the problem. There is frightening evidence of discrimination in the Government's agency, Remploy, which has the specific job of providing employment for disabled people in sheltered accommodation. According to observers quoted in the publication of Mainstream, an organisation that promotes integrated opportunities for disabled people, disabled people who were interviewed said:

"They want able-bodied people with dandruff. They want fit people for a very hard working job. There are lads down there throwing cardboard into one end of a machine and running to get to the other end before it comes out. They want their pound of flesh at Remploy. It is not top of the pops with me.

Such criticism deserves an inquiry and a decent response. Regrettably, Remploy seems to be a case study in what goes wrong when the Government throw such agencies to the wall for market forces and instruct them to break even. The more such agencies adopt that approach, the less able they will be to do their jobs. The disabled deserve better than that.

Although the evidence of substantial and systematic discrimination against disabled people is overwhelming, it is persistently ignored. Ten years after the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People's report on restrictions on disability, and as we near the end of the United Nations Decade of Disability, there has been monumental inaction.

I am not alone in arguing that the Government are complacent about the burning issue of discrimination against disabled people. Even the Tory-dominated Select Committee on Employment remains unconvinced about the Government's view that no new legislation is needed, at least for employment. The Select Committee agreed that the Government should

"explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunities legislation for the employment of disabled people and report to Parliament on its potential effects and costs to the labour market."

The Government argue that anti-discrimination laws are too complicated to draft and enforce, that they frighten employers and that they are too expensive and bureaucratic. They are so confident of their arguments that they are frightened even to commission reports on the one country that has laws to challenge such nonsense—the United States. Ministers in the United States no doubt used to express the view that the Government regularly trot out—that little action should be taken and that the disabled should wait their turn and the munificence of municipal authorities and businesses. However, the United States Ministers were defeated in the early 1970s when that country first introduced anti-discrimination laws, which have been widely accepted. Indeed, they have been strengthened by the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990.

The House should recognise that the American Act provides a good model for legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people in this country. It details the way in which disadvantage in employment, public services and telecommunications can be rectified. For instance, all public transport vehicles built after a certain time must have facilities to carry disabled people in comfort, particularly those in wheelchairs. I am sure that in years to come the Government's inaction over the discrimination and disadvantage suffered by disabled people will be seen as one of the great moral scandals of their term, and, to be fair, the terms of other Governments.

The Government should also commission studies on the operation of the law in Germany, where a quota system of 6 per cent. is combined with a punitive levy or tax on those firms that do not comply. Those moneys are then directed to a fund to provide employment opportunities for disabled people. The Government should also commission reports on the operation of the law in Canada and Australia. They should take a leaf from the American book, but they have refused even to study that law. Why?

The Minister cannot continue to play each of the three wise monkeys by himself—see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. It is high time that the Government opened their eyes to the dreadful disadvantage and discrimination suffered by all too many disabled people and set in train a cross-party effort to undermine and reverse it.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) and to the Minister for Social Securityy and Disabled People for allowing me a couple of minutes in which to raise two matters which I hope that the Minister will note. I appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has not had notice of my points, but if he will promise to write to me during the recess, that will do. My hon. Friend spoke about discrimination against the disabled, about employment problems even at Remploy, which was supposed to end such problems, and about anti-discrimination laws.

I wish to refer to allowances and travel. As the Minister remembers, we have crossed swords more than once on social security issues, not least a couple of years ago in the debate on whether to extend attendance allowance to severely disabled babies under two. Although the announcement was made in a statement and the money was not redistributed as well as I should have wished, no one was more pleased than I was to learn that the exclusion was to end from 9 April 1990.

As the Minister remembers, I tabled a new clause on this matter, but there is no need to rehearse that point now. The current edition of "Counter Claim", a Merseyside welfare rights magazine, contains an article which states that Social Security Commissioner Hoolahan ruled against the Department of Social Security adjudication officer under cases CA/380/1990 and CA/381/1990. He declared that it was illegal for the Department to have denied families the attendance allowance of almost £40 a week before 9 April. He ruled that the' exclusion of children under two by regulation 6(2)(b) was not a modification but an exclusion and disallowed the appeal by the adjudication officer.

The article stated:

"It's difficult to know how many parents of disabled babies have been deterred from applying for Attendance Allowance because of this unlawful restriction, but when Attendance Allowance was formally extended to cover babies under two, the Government estimated the move would benefit 3,000 families. If this is an annual figure some 45,000 families may have lost up to £75 million at today's prices."

Ex-gratia payments should be awarded in such cases. What is the Department doing to track down those 45,000 families and to make ex gratia payments, not least to the family from Nuneaton who came here a couple of years ago, as the Minister may remember?

The Minister will know Hereward college in Coventry. An article in the Evening Telegraph on Tuesday should shock him. I shall let the Minister read it after the debate.

At present, people in wheelchairs who wish to travel by train are placed in the guard's van with the parcels. They have no access to toilets or to food, but they pay exactly the same fare on British Rail as other travellers. It is a scandal that people are treated like luggage. British Rail says that 130 stations have been upgraded to facilitate the disabled. Such upgrading is welcome, but it is proceeding too slowly. Travel facilities from Coventry to London and, indeed, to other parts of the country are a disgrace.

I hope that the Minister will assure us that he will liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Transport and inform me by letter or, better still, by an announcement in the House that this state of affairs will end and that people in wheelchairs will have exactly the same rights of access to public transport as those who are able to walk.

I shall start with a story that might illustrate some of the problems that have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) and for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist). A few days ago, I was speaking to a young lady in a wheelchair who told me about an incident that happened when she was setting out on a trip on British Rail with her mother. After a cup of coffee, her mother had gone to buy a newspaper, leaving the young lady sitting in her wheelchair holding an empty coffee cup. A passer-by put 50p in the cup. That shows that many people perceive the disabled as pathetic creatures who are in need of help.

I have been in this job for four years, and I know that the overwhelming majority of disabled people wish to be independent, to be integrated into able-bodied society, and to have opportunities for employment, leisure activities, transportation and so on. For the time being at least, most people take those things for granted. I welcome this debate as another small step in raising awareness about the ambitions of disabled people in our society and about the duty of central and local government and society to enable them to achieve those ambitions.

I am not sure whether the blanket anti-discrimination legislation mentioned by both hon. Gentlemen is the appropriate way to proceed. There is no doubt that we are making progress. A few days ago, I was reminded of my visit to the mid-Cheshire sheltered workshop, which caters for the needs of people with cerebral palsy and mentally handicapped young people. I was told that 12 people from there have been taken on by a local factory and are living independently in flats in the same town as the factory. Anti-discrimination legislation is no magic wand. I understand, although I have not been able to check it, that, although the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 has been passed, no federal funds have been made available to implement it.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East said that we have a bad track record on this matter. I take issue with that. I have travelled widely in the United States and Europe, and I know that we have made steady progress in helping disabled people. It is untrue to say that there has been monumental inaction. Any fair-minded person looking at what has happened to the quality of life for disabled people in the past 10 years would have to admit that substantial progress has been made. For reasons that I shall later outline, the next 10 years will be even more exciting and important in improving the lives of disabled people.

As the House knows, I have direct responsibility only for the benefit system for disabled people. Like my predecessor, now the Prime Minister, and others who have held the job, including the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), the first ever Minister for the Disabled, I have set targets across the whole of Government to encourage and persuade my colleagues to place the needs of disabled people in the forefront of their priorities.

The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East was right to make employment the first of his concerns. I shall come back to what my colleagues in the Department of Employment are doing about that. My second priority would be access to transport, buildings and homes. The third priority, which in the next 10 years may turn out to be the most important in enabling disabled people to acquire both independence and integration in our society, is the impact of information technology and new technology on their lives.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East talked about babies under two who survive now as they never would have done given the state of medical technology 10 years ago. He gave me a rough ride on that subject in two sittings of the Committees examining two social security Bills. After the second debate, I made it clear that I was not prepared to defend the policy on that any further, so we have amended it. As to the decision by Commissioner Hoolahan, on this issue, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the matter. We are studying the judgment. I think that it is probably not a reflection on the law as it stood before, but I should not want to prejudge more careful consideration of that judgment.

I have a key interest in promoting the interests of all people who suffer from disabilities of one sort or another. I am as anxious as any other hon. Member to ensure that people with disabilities should not be denied their rightful place in society simply because of their disability. Nor would I deny that discrimination exists—of course it does. We have to battle against it, but, rather than legislating, the most constructive and productive way forward is through raising awareness in the community as a whole.

As I have said before, demographic trends over the coming decades mean that fewer 18-year-olds will come on to the job market, with the result that employers will be compelled to look beyond the disability that is all too often their only perception of the disabled person to the abilities that lie behind. Anyone who has the privilege, as I have, of meeting people with disabilities week after week, will be impressed, as I am time after time, by the abilities of disabled people and their determination to use those abilities in the interest of society. I remain convinced that the way to achieve the integration of disabled people into society is to give them, as far as possible, equality of opportunity and to make it easier for them to live, work and engage in social activities along with their able-bodied peers.

In the time remaining in this short debate, I shall concentrate on the practical measures that the Government want to introduce rather than on the concept of generalised anti-discrimination legislation. I start, as did the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, with employment. My colleagues in the Department of Employment have been giving serious consideration to the need for legislation on employment policy. The issue was addressed, as everyone will be aware, in some detail in the Department's consultative document "Employment and Training for People with Disabilities", which was published last June. Chapter 5 of that document, a copy of which was placed in the Library, looked at the present arrangements, including the quota system, and considered a number of alternatives.

As hon. Members will be aware, one of the problems with the quota system is that, if every employer ensured that 3 per cent. of his work force comprised registered disabled people, there would not be enough people on the register to go round. We know that many disabled people do not want to hang around their necks the label "registered disabled". Those suffering disability should be in our sights as we seek to improve the employment position for disabled people.

A considerable number of responses to the consultative document have been received. Ministers are considering the issue and will announce their decisions in due course. I have no doubt that some employers' recruitment practices discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities. Indeed, they discriminate unfairly against other groups, such as the elderly and women. Often, an employer discriminates against a disabled person because of ignorance of that person's capabilities, not from ill will. However, it is difficult to assess the scale of the problem.

Some companies implement excellent policies for employing disabled people. Indeed, a number of them have joined together in the Employers Forum on Disability to share experiences and good practice. Some examples of good practice are the Department of Employment's code of good practice—the first in Europe—launched in 1984; the establishment of the Disablement Advisory Service in 1983; the offer of financial help to employers to overcome particular difficulties; and just recently, the introduction of a new symbol for employers—we should not underestimate the importance of symbolic moves—that demonstrates their commitment to good practice. I believe that the appearance of that symbol in advertisements for jobs will help a disabled job seeker, who may be anxious about starting or changing employment, to have confidence that the employer is committed to good practice.

The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East mentioned transport, which is an immensely emotive subject. The whole concept of putting wheelchair people into a guard's van, along with the livestock and the luggage, is offensive to anyone who thinks about it. We are making progress, and there is a special unit within the Department of Transport that is planning and achieving considerable advances. The Department is working on a prototype of a wheelchair-accessible bus. It hopes that there will be a Europewide standard on a low-level access bus for wheelchair users. London has wheelchair-accessible mobility buses in 11 boroughs. As I think the House is aware, all new taxis must be accessible to wheelchair users. A number of other local authorities are now also saying that they will license new taxis only if they meet the standard of the new wheelchair-accessible taxis in London.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems with British Rail. Mr. Bill Buchanan, who advises on these matters and is himself in a wheelchair, tells me that there is considerable progress in making services and stations more accessible. It is all very well ensuring that trains are wheelchair-accessible, but that is not a great deal of use if the stations are not wheelchair-accessible. All new InterCity trains now have wheelchair places and properly accessible toilets. The real problem with which we must deal is Network SouthEast, whose stock is very old, and it will take some time to replace it. However, we are making steady progress, and I know that the Department of Transport and British Rail are committed to that.

Within Government as a whole, and across the Departments of Employment, Environment, Health, and Social Security, the needs of people with disabilities are receiving considerable weight. The Department of Health has wide-ranging and comprehensive plans for the future of community care, designed to give disabled people a greater say in how they live their lives and greater opportunities for choice and independence. Those are themes which underpin the philosophy of community care, and as they begin to take hold after 1993, they will increasingly help disabled people to become or remain full contributors to our society.

The interests of disabled children will be promoted by the implementation of the Children Act 1989, which integrates local authorities' responsibilities for children with disabilities with those for other children who are in need. One of the Act's key features is its emphasis on the need for the child and its parents to participate in decisions affecting the child.

I end on this note. All the progress that we can make in the area of coping with the needs of people with disabilities will be set at nought unless disabled people can find out what is available. Therefore, both through the European Community Handynet agreement—through which we have given some £275,000 to the Disabled Living Foundation to improve information technology—for services and equipment available to disabled people, and through the national disability information project launched by the Department of Health, we are determined to see that, increasingly, people with disabilities are aware of the services, the equipment and other help that are available to them to enable them to improve the quality of their lives and, progressively, to overcome the discrimination which undoubtedly still exists about their employment.

I am proud to have the Papworth hospital within my constituency. It is, as is well known, world famous for heart surgery and treatment. It is long past the research and experimental stage of other transplant surgery and it has a proven track record. It has saved many lives and improved the quality of life for many others.

Papworth hospital is notable for the expertise and the exceptionally high morale of staff at all levels—consultants, doctors, nurses and all ancillary staff—which compares favourably with that at many other hospitals. Above all, and most importantly, patients are delighted with the treatment that they receive there. I do not think that I have met a single patient who has not been full of praise of the way in which he has been treated and the way in which he has recovered from a serious operation at Papworth hospital.

All, whether consultants, staff or patients, have one thing in common—they do not want to move to the equally famous Addenbrooke's hospital, also in my constituency. There are many reasons for that. I will not go into all the details, but they include staffing, parking of vehicles, accommodation for relatives and amenities, particularly for the long-stay patients, and the patients there are necessarily of a long-stay nature compared with those in a district hospital. All those are easier at Papworth than they are in Cambridge. Addenbrooke's, excellent hospital though it is, with some of the highest skills available in the world, is already much too large and ought not to become larger. That is the view I take, and it is the view that the people who work there and the customers take. It is also, I have to say, a view shared by my colleagues in the House who represent the county of Cambridgeshire.

But there is a serious problem, which is the reason why I have sought this Adjournment debate. Papworth has a waiting list of 900, double what it was nine months ago. I am told that patients are having to wait so long that when they are admitted they are already either urgent or emergency cases. Currently, more than 80 per cent. of the patients are thus classified. The remaining 20 per cent. on the waiting list have to wait an average of 11 months. That is not good enough. I am advised by those who know that the maximum waiting time for patients of that nature should be six months and that patients in that category should not make up more than 40 per cent. of the total.

During the last year, Papworth has received letters about the waiting list on behalf of patients from many Members of Parliament, including no less a person than the Prime Minister himself and, significantly, from my hon. Friend the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Health, who has had occasion to write to the hospital on behalf of patients who have been waiting too long.

The hospital is working harder than ever and has increased productivity, and there is a record number of operations using the same number of beds. The number of heart specialists has doubled from five to 10. However, despite all that admirable activity and work, the hospital is failing to match demand, which has doubled in 12 months. With new treatments and wider knowledge, there is no likelihood that that demand will diminish for the foreseeable future.

Bearing that in mind, a new operating theatre will be available in 1992. Indeed, a few months ago I had the privilege of digging the first sod for the work on that splendid new operating theatre. In addition, a second angiography suite will be opened in 1992, thus enabling the workload to double, at a cost of about £3 million to public funds.

However, beds are needed if the new facilities are to be used and the waiting lists eased. The position is rather absurd. The only analogy that I can offer is that it is like a marvellous train standing in a station, with the most expert drivers and crew and a long line of passengers waiting and longing to get on board, but the train is unable to move because there are not enough coaches. It is no solution to tell people that they will have to move to another station: we need extra coaches.

What will the new wing cost?—a substantial amount, £1·5 million. How does one deal with the problem? One could ask the regional health authority, but it already has heavy demands upon its money, added to which it will not make up its mind because it says that the future of Papworth is uncertain. The uncertainty has been created by the regional health authority, in my judgment, because people in my constituency, and I myself, wish that Papworth should stay where it is. That uncertainty, which the regional health authority has not resolved, makes it reluctant to produce the money, even if it had it.

However, there is a simpler solution, which will not cost the regional health authority anything in hard cash, because at least four private companies are prepared to invest in the new wing, at no expense to the public, but they must be certain that they will get a return on their investment. If they could be certain that Papworth hospital would stay where it is for 10 years and that the new wing would be used for that time, they would get a return on their investment. However, if the wing is used for only six or seven years, they will not get an adequate return.

Therefore, we are in a Catch-22 position. The simple solution is for a guarantee to be given that Papworth will either stay as it is for at least 10 years or, in the event of the hospital being moved to Addenbrooke's hospital, the health authority will guarantee repayment to those who invest in the new wing. What are the benefits if that solution is adopted? I can think of three important benefits.

First and foremost, the patient waiting lists for cardiac services will shorten. Secondly, district health authorities will benefit. Papworth is in an excellent authority in the Hunts district which is run very efficiently by its staff—all of whom, from the chairman downwards, are dedicated people whose work I greatly admire. Such authorities will be able to purchase more services by virtue of the new wing, and, what is more, the income from private patients will enable them to do so more cheaply. Thirdly—this should commend itself not only to the Department of Health but to the Treasury—the taxpayer would see the £3 million already spent on the new operating theatre and angiography suite working to optimum capacity rather than its present 50 per cent.

All the arguments point to the solution that I have suggested. I think that it is in the interests of patients, doctors, staff and everyone else who is concerned with this remarkable hospital. I do not expect the Minister to make a decision this afternoon; Ministers cannot be expected to construct policy on the hoof. I merely wish to alert the Government and the public to an important health problem, and—perhaps equally important—to point out that there is a relatively simple solution, if only those in charge will grasp the facts, make a firm decision and remove all uncertainty.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) will forgive me if I begin by saying that I was a little concerned to discover yesterday that I would be answering a debate in which he would be putting the questions. Having witnessed the effectiveness of his questioning of the Opposition yesterday, I did not want to find myself in the same position.

My hon. Friend has not let his constituents down. He has presented a very effective espousal of the case of those concerned about future investment in Papworth hospital, and those who support his solution. As well as highlighting the appealing simplicity of that solution, he has left no stone unturned in his cogent presentation of the arguments.

If my hon. Friend had been present earlier, he would know that only an hour ago I was describing the dramatic advances that we have achieved in the national health service: the expansion of the transplant programme, and the enormous health benefits that the improvements in modern medicine have unleashed. I was replying to a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who has benefited from a different kind of transplant from those with which Papworth is primarily concerned—but that transplant is another manifestation of the importance of the programme to which Papworth makes such a distinguished contribution.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, before I became a Health Minister last May my exposure to transplanting in general, and heart transplants in particular, had been that of a layman. I vaguely remembered the flickering black and white television pictures from the Groote Schuur hospital in Capetown in the late 1960s, when Dr. Christiaan Barnard first performed a heart transplant operation. I thought of heart transplantation as a major technical advance that was still very much on the leading edge of technology. I did not think of heart transplants in the context in which they now take place. They are now routine operations in the national health service. Thousands of people who are walking the streets of this country have benefited from the surgery that has been developed to such a high pitch at Papworth hospital. It is one of the major benefits of modern medicine, and it has been provided to the people of this country through the agency of the national health service.

At the beginning of his speech my hon. Friend was keen to put on record the very considerable achievements of his constituents within Papworth hospital and to draw attention to the fact that he has the privilege of representing two hospitals, both of which have international reputations, earned from very successful clinical records and the exploitation of medical advances. Since 1979, the number of heart bypass operations performed at Papworth hospital has increased by nearly 300 per cent. That is a measure of the advance that has been made possible by modern medicine at Papworth hospital.

The hospital is to receive £250,000 from the East Anglian regional health authority's waiting lists fund to do 70 more bypass operations next year than were previously planned. Apart, therefore, from Papworth hospital having a distinguished track record, it has also received support from the East Anglian regional health authority to deal with the waiting list problem that my hon. Friend identified as one of the managerial issues that the hospital has to face.

Furthermore, as my hon. Friend briefly mentioned, the hospital has also benefited from a significant capital expenditure programme that is currently under way. It is a £2·7 million scheme for a third operating theatre at the hospital, which is due to open in April 1992. No one could argue that Papworth is not a major success story within the national health service, or that its success story has not been reinforced and supported by national health service management in general and the East Anglian regional health authority in particular. Due to its success and reputation, both nationally and internationally, Papworth hospital has received the letters to which my hon. Friend referred from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, both of whom are concerned about constituents who are on the Papworth hospital waiting list because they wish to benefit from the surgery that that hospital can provide.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the fact that, apart from having to guard myself against the effective questioning of which he has so recently shown himself to be a master, I must ensure that whatever I say will read well in the constituency press both of my immediate boss and of my ultimate boss. In responding, therefore, to my hon. Friend's speech, I have to choose my words extremely carefully.

My hon. Friend argued vigorously that the current waiting list problem at Papworth hospital could most effectively be addressed and reduced by accepting the offer of private capital to provide an additional ward, thus increasing Papworth hospital's capacity. To adopt the metaphor used by my hon. Friend this afternoon and in a recent letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, it would add an extra coach to the train.

Whether the extra ward is funded by the regional health authority or by private capital, the issue clearly needs to be examined to find out whether the additional ward would provide the relatively low marginal cost benefit to patients on the waiting list. I shall certainly ensure that the proposal is carefully examined. If it is true that for the relatively modest expenditure involved in providing an additional ward in the hospital the rest of the resources, not least the £2·7 million new third operating theatre coming on stream in April 1992, could be used more effectively to produce a lower average cost per operation and to treat more patients within the hospital as a result of having an additional ward, that is clearly a powerful argument which those responsible for the routine front-line management of the health service in Cambridgeshire will have to address.

I pause for a second to reflect on the role that private capital could play in the provision of that additional ward space. It is quite explicitly one of the benefits that should flow from the reformed structure of the NHS that comes into effect next Monday and the introduction of the concept of purchaser-provider that we should be more open minded about the employment of privately funded capital stock for the treatment of health service patients.

The burden of my hon. Friend's argument was not only that a relatively small additional investment would yield large benefits for patients if placed at the Papworth hospital, but that the health service need not expect to finance that investment because private capital is available. It makes my hon. Friend's approach that much more attractive, and is a clear and timely illustration of the benefits of an effective and flexibly managed health service from the employment of the principles of purchaser-provider that come into effect next Monday.

Those reforms concentrate the mind on the core activity of the NHS. We must remember that the NHS should not be principally about running hospitals. It exists to provide equal access to health care for patients. It is an enabling mechanism to ensure that access to health care is determined on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay. If that can best be done by using public funds through the agency of a purchaser district health authority to purchase health care from a privately funded provider, that is an entirely benign result which I am sure every patient on a Papworth waiting list would applaud with vigour.

I pause to reflect upon the significance of my hon. Friend's suggestion and to stress that not only are we open-minded towards it but we embrace the concept of a privately funded facility if the benefit is to enhance the quality of patient care to health service patients waiting for treatment at Papworth hospital. I find that aspect of his argument extremely attractive.

My hon. Friend went on to express concern about what he felt was the potential uncertainty about the future of Papworth hospital. I should like to address that concern directly; it is clearly critical to the viability of the privately funded ward for which my hon. Friend was keen to argue this afternoon. Clearly he is right in believing that we shall not be able to recruit private capital to a hospital when its future is limited to a relatively few years.

I wish to explain in more detail the current position on the future of the hospital. Papworth hospital was built in 1928 as a tuberculosis sanitorium and chest hospital. The surroundings of the hospital are attractive, but the existing capital stock of the hospital is relatively old and fragmented and the running costs for the buildings are relatively high.

The management of the health service believes that for the hospital to remain viable for the practice of high-tech open heart surgery and transplantation a significant rebuilding, expansion and investment programme will be needed to ensure that the buildings in which the high quality clinical care is offered are able to provide the security and conditions in which high-tech medicine can be properly and best offered. Such a programme would also ensure that the buildings were not wasteful in terms of the revenue expenditure which is necessary to keep them operating. It would be crazy to have a high-tech hospital where money that should be spent on high-tech medicine was spent on propping up extremely low-tech buildings.

After some initial appraisal work, the regional health authority invited Huntingdon district health authority in April last year to consult locally on options for the future of Papworth services. Having done so, it asked it to submit its recommendations to the regional health authority for a decision. I can now tell the House that the district health authority expects to issue a document for consultation about the future of Papworth by mid-April. It is currently in draft form and has yet to be formally agreed by the district health authority, but it is likely to include a detailed appraisal of four main options.

The first option is to extend Papworth and upgrade the existing buildings on the Papworth site. The second is to build a replacement building on the site. A third is to provide a new building on the site of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon. A fourth—which my hon. Friend was concerned that the House should realise was the subject of significant local opposition—is to construct a new building on the site of Addenbrooke's hospital in Cambridge. I understand that they are the four options that are likely to be canvassed in an entirely neutral way in the document to be published by the district health authority in a few weeks.

The document will also state what the key criteria against which those options will be assessed should be. First, it is important that the patient has reasonable access to the health care. Secondly, it is important that the environment in the hospital is congenial and appropriate for the offering of the type of health care for which the hospital was designed.

Especially long-stay care.

My hon. Friend is right to remind me that it must be appropriate for the offering of relatively long-stay care. I pause slightly over the use of the term "long-stay", because, to a Minister with responsibility for mental health services, it tends to mean something slightly different than it would in the context of cardiothoracic care.

We might deal with the problems of staff recruitment and retention. Furthermore, we must ensure that, whatever form the new Papworth facility takes, it is able to recruit and retain the staff that it needs. We must also consider clinical integration, teaching, research and the relative cost of the different options. We must also seek to ensure that the facilities that we provide are flexible and can expand and contract to meet the demand for the facilities offered in the new hospital and that they do not commit successor generations to a capital stock that they are unable to mould to emerging needs. We must also bear in mind the adjustment cost during the implementation phase of any capital investment programme and ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum in that period.

Those options will be canvassed as a result of the consultation document. Following that, I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a decision about how the excellent health care available at Papworth hospital is ensured for the future. I hope that that decision is reached in an orderly and not excessively time-consuming manner.

The Government and the health service are committed to maintaining intact the infrastructure which is Papworth hospital. The question is how we design our capital investment programme to ensure that that institution and infrastructure is available to the best advantage of patients for the lifetime of the capital investment which we are making in the future of that centre of excellence of British medicine.

I am grateful for the opportunity afforded to me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), should he seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to discuss the important question of long-stay care provision in the Borders.

I know that the Minister would prefer to be elsewhere, but I make no apology for asking the House to consider this issue, which is not only important locally, but urgent, because the local area health board published a consultation document "Changes in Health Care Services" at the end of February. It has solicited comments on that document to be returned by 3 April for consideration at the next board meeting on 11 April or at the subsequent meeting on 7 May. One of the important issues behind this debate is the local concern that the time scale over which the decisions are to be considered and the consultation undertaken is far too short. I wonder whether the Minister could say something about that later.

I know that profound changes will be made to the way in which the national health service is structured and financed after 1992, when an internal market is established. I know that that means that some changes must be made, but to what extent is it absolutely necessary to work to the time scale to which the board seems determined to adhere? Is there any scope for flexibility in the time available?

The board's financial circumstances are peculiar to the extent that, in 1989, it completed a substantial capital project—the Borders district general hospital. That work involved £4 million of additional expenditure, a substantial sum given the size of the health board. The Minister will also be aware that, in 1989, the board borrowed £500,000, which it is required to pay back. However, the NHS management executive has also decreed that it should eliminate its deficit by 1992–93. I understand that that requirement has been placed on the other Scottish health boards, but certain circumstances in the Borders argue that special mitigating factors should be taken into account.

If the NHS management executive and the Scottish Office Home and Health Department insist on the board's carrying out those financial cuts within the time stipulated, the task will be too demanding to be undertaken sensibly. The damage that may result could be well in excess of any savings, financial or otherwise, that may be made.

I know that in 1991–92 the board has been allowed a net income of £36·95 million—an increase of £4·45 million on the 1990–91 budget. Much of that money has already been hypothecated to developments insisted upon by central Government, for example Project 2000, the extra money needed for the treatment of AIDS, the junior hospital doctors allocation, as well as money needed to deal with the abolition of Crown immunity.

All those issues, though important, will take a large proportion of the extra money that has been made available to the board. Indeed, the board calculates that it has only about £1 million of new money that is not already committed. Is there any hope for the Borders health board of additional help, in terms of the SHARE formula, bearing in mind that we have not yet reached parity in money due to that board relative to that given to other boards in Scotland?

Suffice it to say that the board needs to make efficiency savings of £650,000–2 per cent. of its budget—if income and expenditure are to be in balance by the end of March 1992. In addition, it must make efficiency savings of 1 per cent. All that represents an extremely tall order. It seems unreasonable, and the Government should pay more attention to the requirements of some boards.

The Borders health board has been extremely prudent in its expenditure. It has played the game by all the rules set by St. Andrew's house, and in its present hour of need it would be proper for the Scottish Office to look with more sympathy on the claims that the board is making.

The changes that the consultation document proposes, in terms of long-term care and provision in the Borders, mean that there could be a substantial move of long-stay patient care out of NHS provision into the private and voluntary sector. I have nothing against that sector. There are examples in the Borders of exemplary homes, which are run to a high standard by dedicated people.

I have nothing against that sector in principle, but great concern is being expressed lest, if the board's proposals and the ideas in the consultation document are put into practice, there will be difficulty guaranteeing and overseeing the standards of care that long-stay patients now enjoy in the NHS in the Borders. We must not overlook the wishes of patients. If a patient in, for example, a ward in the district general hospital in Galashiels is opposed to having private or voluntary sector care, his or her wishes should be respected.

The professional health care teams are worried lest the result of the changes will be a fragmentation of the multi-disciplinary approach and team work that they have built up over many years. Their efforts have resulted in a high standard of care of geriatric and long-stay patients locally.

There is also concern about the morality, so to speak, of seeking to use Department of Social Security income support payments to support long-stay patients locally. There are 385 private nursing home beds in the Borders, but, by definition, they are provided in an unplanned and incoherent way and are not related to local demands.

There are some important staffing issues involved in all this. There are potential redundancies on a not inconsiderable scale, so the staff are confronted with uncertainty about their future, but to be fair to them, they are less worried about themselves than about the standard of care available to their patients.

In my experience, the staff of the NHS are the service's most valuable asset. Locally in the Borders, they are committed and dedicated people. Their morale is suffering as a result of the changes that are being considered. They are asking why the elderly are carrying the brunt of the cuts. Is it because they are a soft target? They believe that the changes will result in privatisation by the back door, and that is causing them much distress and uncertainty.

I urge the Minister to take an urgent and fresh look at the financial provision available to the Borders health board and the time scale that it is asked to observe. The issues at stake are important, particularly to the patients whom we all seek to serve. I hope that his comments will relieve some of the anxiety felt in the Borders health board.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his initiative in securing this Adjournment debate, even though, like the Minister, I had planned to be elsewhere. I wish to reinforce my hon. Friend's general comments and to outline the way in which the proposals will affect my constituency.

Whereas my hon. Friend spoke of a substantial shift from the public to the private sector in his constituency if the proposals are implemented, such a shift would not take place in my constituency. Rather, national health service provision for long-stay elderly patients would be totally eliminated and replaced by a series of private sector proposals. Is that the Government's intention? If so, I have never understood why, on the one hand, the Government are screwing down the expenditure of all health boards—they call it careful control and budgeting, but it is a constraint on their finances—while, on the other, DSS payments to the private sector for long-stay patients are increasing at an unprecedented rate. I do not understand why the Treasury imposes careful controls in one Ministry while another picks up the tabs and seems to have an open budget. Will the Minister clarify that?

If the proposals are adopted, will patients in the private sector have the same access to NHS facilities, such as physiotherapy and chiropody, as they enjoy at present? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, I pay tribute to the private sector. Indeed, opened the only purpose-built private nursing home in my constituency, and it is a good one. However, there is no guarantee that, if the private sector suddenly expands into all hospitals, as envisaged in the Borders proposals, the same standards will be maintained. We all know of examples in other parts of the country where the private sector has fallen down.

It would be wrong to suggest that general practitioners in my constituency are totally opposed to the idea of independent community trusts, but they are certainly not enthusiastic about them, for one obvious reason: they would turn GPs into business managers and that is not why they trained for the medical profession. They feel that the Government want to secure care of the elderly on the cheap by turning GPs into business managers and perhaps then paying for staff. The same staff may find employment elsewhere but under worse pay and conditions than they enjoy in the NHS.

The proposals will mean a sudden dislocation of staff and patients. I would welcome the re-opening of the Galashiels and the Selkirk cottage hospitals. They are suitable places for GP beds and for care of the elderly. Indeed, they are more suitable in the long run than the more distant hospital at Huntlyburn. How they are to be reopened—under what authority, control and budget—is extremely important.

A letter from GPs in Galashiels said:

"The need to abandon the long-established principle of NHS provision for continuing medical care of the elderly in such a precipitate manner to satisfy short-term political/ financial expediency seems to us to be difficult to justify. We feel this demand by the Government should be resisted by the Board."

That is important, and I am glad that the Minister now has the opportunity to clarify what lies behind the proposals.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) for raising this subject, as it allows me to put on record important facts about the funds available to the Borders health board and the interesting and exciting changes proposed for long-stay services.

I hesitate to question what the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) said about his constituency, but I understood that Hay Lodge hospital in Peebles was in his constituency. It had 48 beds for long-term care of the elderly, and I do not believe that there are proposals to change that. I was a little puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there would be no provision in his constituency.

I was referring to Ettrick and Lauderdale.

The right hon. Gentleman must not forget Peebles.

It should be made clear that Borders health board has sufficient resources to provide excellent services. The board is funded no differently from any other in Scotland. It does not have a persistent financial problem; nor is there any evidence that it is mismanaging the funds allocated to it. For the financial year 1991–92, Borders has been allocated nearly £38 million—an increase of 11·1 per cent. over the previous year's allocation and the highest increase of any health board in Scotland. In real terms, the increase in the revenue allocation mode to Borders health board since 1979–80 has been 63·7 per cent.

What the board has not yet done fully is to adjust the pattern of its services to take into account the opening of Borders general hospital in 1988. The board recognised from the outset that that hospital would be more expensive to run than the facilities that it replaced. That is not surprising, because the new hospital was designed to provide many more facilities locally so that the people of the borders did not have to travel to Edinburgh for relatively routine health care. It was also designed to provide facilities to a much higher standard than the cottage hospitals which it replaced.

Part of the cost of the new hospital was met from closing a number of small hospitals and part was met from adjustments made to the revenue allocations of the Lothian and Borders health boards to reflect the fact that people are now treated locally. In addition, Borders health board stands to benefit from the different arrangements that we are gradually introducing for distributing funds to health boards—it is called moving to share parity and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire. However, even taking all those factors into account, Borders health board needed to adjust the pattern of its services to ensure that the new facilities of Borders general hospital were used most appropriately and that in the long term the resources required to operate them were generated by the board.

Another factor to be taken into account is the introduction of the internal market. With effect from this April, health boards, as the hon. Gentleman said, will become the purchasers of services for their community. Their task is to assess the health needs of the populations they serve and to arrange to meet those needs in the most effective—including cost-effective—way by contracting to purchase services from a variety of providers. With effect from April 1992, those contracts will be based on real money. Clearly, for this system to work properly, health boards need to have their incomes and expenditure in balance.

We have therefore told health boards generally that they should aim to have their incomes and expenditure in balance by the end of the 1991–92 financial year. This applies to all health boards and not just Borders. Health boards generally understand and accept the need for this and are working towards putting themselves in that position. Like all other health boards, Borders health board needs to do that.

All that is by way of background to explain that the board's proposals are not a sudden response to an unexpected crisis, but are the next logical step in a long-term pattern of adjustments to services to take into account what is required and what is now available.

Three principles underlie the proposals of Borders health board. The first is that its facilities should be used in the most appropriate fashion—in other words, Borders general hospital should not be used to provide long-stay care for the elderly.

Secondly, associated specialties should be located together so far as is possible. An example of that is the desirability of bringing psycho-geriatric assessment facilities into the Borders general hospital alongside the existing geriatric assessment facilities. Finally, it is also important that long-stay care facilities for the elderly and for psycho-geriatric patients should be provided as close as possible to the local communities. Borders health board has a long tradition in the field of mental handicap of providing local facilities rather than institutional care, and that needs to be continued and developed.

Therefore, the board proposes to create long-stay accommodation for psycho-geriatric patients in Kelso by upgrading Kelso cottage hospital and transferring general practitioner beds from there to the Inch hospital in Kelso. It also proposes to recreate long-stay accommodation for the elderly in Selkirk and Galashiels. This would fulfil the commitment that the board gave some time ago to reopen these facilities. It also provides an opportunity to transfer long-stay accommodation for the elderly from Borders general hospital, where it is inappropriately located, to local communities. This in turn offers an opportunity to use more effectively the accommodation at Borders general hospital.

The board has a variety of proposals in mind for this. First, it is considering transferring the psycho-geriatric assessment facilities, which are currently housed in poor-quality accommodation at Dingleton hospital, to the Borders general hospital. That would mean that all the board's geriatric and psycho-geriatric assessment facilities were located alongside one another. This is a much better pattern of provision and one which I think would be generally welcomed. The board is also considering an expansion of ophthalmology at Borders general hospital, which is one of its major priorities and which would consolidate and improve on the progress that the board has already made in reducing waiting lists for this specialty. To bring about these changes, the board plans capital investment at Kelso cottage hospital, at Inch hospital and probably also at Galashiels.

The board's consultation document rightly recognises that its role for the future is to assess the needs of its population and to purchase the best pattern of care to meet those needs. However, the facilities that the board secures for its population do not need to be owned or managed by the board itself. That is particularly true in the case of care for the elderly, where there is often a fairly even balance between the need for medical care and the need for social care.

Therefore, I welcome the fact that the board's consultation document proposes the establishment of local trusts in a variety of areas. The trusts would be voluntary bodies, which would operate under the terms of the Registered Nursing Homes Act 1938. The board would be responsible for registering and inspecting the facilities provided by the trusts and would by that means, and through the contracts which it would negotiate, be able to specify the standards of care which it requires and to monitor that they are being achieved in practice.

I am listening carefully to the Minister, and there is much substance in what he says. However, model trusts offering voluntary or private sector care will take a long time to set up, and the time to do that sensibly does not seem to be available.

As I have said, that cannot be done out of the blue, but it will result from the strategic approach of the board. I know that the hon. Gentleman is keen to see that there is no disruption of services as a result of the changes. He should appreciate that all health boards are in the same position and that it is important for them to move towards the policy objectives. I would not agree to any changes because of financial imperatives if they resulted in a reduction in patient care which could be avoided if the matter were to be considered over a longer time.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Borders, any more than any other health board, will be off the hook. These matters are addressed to getting the best value for patients and the best patient care—something which the board has not made a lot of progress towards achieving. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman to some extent.

Before the hon. Gentleman intervened, I was discussing the establishment of the local trusts. I believe that the proposal will build on the wide range of voluntary and private sector facilities that already exist in the Borders, and have for some time. I hope that it will receive a positive response from the communities concerned.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the timetable to which the board is working. The measures that it is proposing could have been taken some time ago. It is important that the board's income and expenditure are in balance by the end of 1991–92. It would be too early to conclude that it was beyond the capability of Borders health board to achieve that. However, once the consultation process is over, the board may conclude that some of its ideas require further consideration before they can be pursued, and others may take longer to determine than had previously been thought. The board needs to make an assessment of the alternative steps that it might take, at least in the short term, to ensure that it is living within its means.

I should be keen to ensure that my officials keep in close touch with the Borders health board, and continue to do so throughout the financial year. If problems arise, they would be ready to discuss them with the board. I know that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale are assiduous in looking after the interests of their constituencies. I should be happy to receive representations about any constituency difficulties.

The board's proposals are not a panic response to a crisis, but a step along the road to implementing the board's long-term strategy for its services. There are many positive aspects to the board's proposals. Long-term geriatric care and psycho-geriatric care will be provided locally. It will be possible for geriatric and psycho-geriatric facilities to be located together at the Borders general hospital. That represents a major improvement in services. Furthermore, no closures are proposed.

Will the Minister deal with my points about who will be running the trusts, and whether general practitioners are expected to do so?

It would not be helpful for me to express a view on that, because the board will need to reach its own conclusion—the proposal has come from the board—and is still consulting. Although the board has not yet reached conclusions, I am sure that the general manager or the chairman of the board would be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Gentleman.

Will the Minister say a word about the use of Department of Social Security money? We are concerned that the use by health boards of income support to provide health care on the cheap for the elderly should not be done without proper consultation and discussion.

I noted the points made about the topping-up of provision through the DSS. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and I should be happy to consider the matter in the future. It is important that resources are deployed in a cost-effective way that provides the best standard of care. Our proposals for community care, which will come fully into operation in 1993, will mean that assessment and financing will be in the hands of the local authorities, and the resources will be transferred from the DSS to deal with that. The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman were pointing to an apparently anomalous position which is worthy of further consideration. I am happy to give an undertaking to give that consideration.

I am grateful for this opportunity, principally because it enables me to invite the Minister to assure the House that he and his colleagues have been reflecting carefully on the subject of the debate, and also to tell us what measures they propose to support the United Nations initiative. It is a subject that has received little notice, except in the most reflective and informed sections of the media, yet it could change the course of human history.

Sometimes, events come together to make possible the next great step in human progress. They create what Shakespeare's Cassius called

"a tide in the affairs of men."

We have seen that tide flowing during the past two years. The Gulf war has demonstrated how a small nation is at the mercy of a powerful neighbour, and how people can find themselves projected into a tyranny, unless the international community comes together to prevent it. When it does come together, not only can it prevent one act of tyranny, it can establish a precedent. It can change human thinking and it can lay the foundations for new institutions.

That was possible in Kuwait because two other conditions co-existed—the cold war had ended and Saddam Hussein, by his conduct, had isolated himself from all decent company. However, even then there were problems. No international force was available and no quick response was possible, except from individual nations—in this case, the United Kingdom and the United States. It could be pointed out that the dedication of the United States to international law has been somewhat selective in the past, and it could be suggested that it may have been motivated more by considerations connected with oil wells than with the springs of justice. In the event, international law was vindicated, but we cannot be sure that it will happen next time. Still less can we be sure that a similar tragic war will not be necessary again.

If the world is to be made safe for small and vulnerable nations, if the lives of young people are not to be sacrificed in future wars, and if families are not to have their homes devastated and their safety placed at risk, it is not enough to regret the cost of the Gulf war—we need to seize on the commitment to enforce international law while it still breathes, and to construct the machinery of law and order globally, just as our ancestors constructed it in this country 500 years ago. Governments are not likely to agree to new institutions or to an effective enforcement machinery when they are already embroiled in a crisis, when they have taken up positions and when emotions are running high. The time to work on all that is in the relative tranquillity between crises, when arguments about sanity and justice have a prospect of getting through. That is when we need to reflect on the international rule of law.

We do not need so much to formulate new rules for international law—there is a substantial and comprehensive body of international law, although there are areas that need to be supplemented by new conventions and agreements—the most pressing need is to ensure that it is effective. Already, national sovereignty in the absolute terms envisaged in the 19th century has been reduced to safer proportions. The most recalcitrant and wilful of states is now constrained by the need to maintain a measure of good will among the international community. However, we have just been made aware that it is an uncertain constraint, because it depends on the existence of a consensus among the family of nations.

Yet each time that the law is enforced, each time that it is shown that anarchism does not pay, each time that it is emphasised that those who observe international law are not penalised while their less scrupulous competitors gain an advantage, confidence in international law is reinforced.

A legal system is like currency—its acceptance is almost wholly proportionate to the confidence that people have in it. That requires progress on a number of fronts. First, the United Nations needs to operate in a crisis decisively and quickly, and that will require national Governments to lay on the line a little more of their sovereignty. It may mean considering abolishing the veto in the Security Council.

Secondly, we need a greater sharing of the burden. If the bulk of the cost is borne by the United States, it is hardly surprising that policy should sometimes be decided on the hoof by American officials. It means devising speedier procedures for resolving internationsl disputes. The preparation for international tribunals of long, careful and scholarly memoranda and responses may have to give way just a little to the need for expedition. We may need to make greater use of oral argument.

But above all, we need to work towards a situation where the capacity to make war is removed from nation states and invested in an international authority. Of course, that will need to be a gradual process, proceeding in parallel with the building of confidence. We could begin by providing a modest permanent peace keeping force directly controlled by the United Nations and not dependent on the whim of specific Governments in a particular situation. To have to create a force from scratch whenever there is an emergency is like advertising for firemen when a fire has already broken out.

That is not an idea for which I claim any originality. It has been ventilated by a great cloud of witnesses from St. Augustine, Kant, Tennyson, Attlee and, most recently, one of our former colleagues here, Henry Usborne, who in his 80s has produced his book, "Prescription for Peace". One condition, as he points out, is that national Governments would need to be assured that the international authority would concern itself only with maintaining law and order and would not seek to make policies in other areas of activity and to force them upon unwilling nation states.

That is not to say that we should have no international order except a minimalist one. The maintenance of law and order, vital as it is, is not the only function for which we need an effective international law. Events crowd upon us to illustrate the widening sector of human affairs which needs to be regulated on a global basis. If individuals are to be brought to account for crimes against the fundamentals of civilisation, that cannot be left to the tribunals set up for the purpose each time there is an outrage. That would be seen as victors' justice. We have seen the outcry that arises when it is proposed to try them in the domestic tribunals of a particular state.

This is the moment to establish an international criminal court with a clear jurisdiction. That again is not an idea for which I claim the copyright. It was being debated in the United Nations as long ago as 1947. The debate was frustrated by the cold war. Now is our chance to begin again.

Every day, we see examples of the need for a coherent body of international law to protect the environment. If every problem requires the convening of a new conference with a new round of bargaining, every Government concerned to concede as little as possible, and no one willing to contribute the resources that may be needed, each new problem will meet with a response that is too little and too late.

If time permitted, I could entertain the House with a whole spate of human activities that require a form of global regulation. The liquidation of third-world debt; the harmonisation of tariff barriers; common safety standards; international measures to combat terrorism; the protection of human rights—all presuppose the development of an effective international law.

Despite what I said a few moments ago, we need to look at the substantive context of international law. Classical international law is about ensuring that we keep off one another's backs; that each state can do its own thing without being impeded. It embodies the ideology of individuals. What the 21st century will need is a body of law about positive co-operation; about sharing; about protecting posterity; about a common concern for the planet.

The European Community has shown that nations can embark on a course of positive co-operation. The conference on security and co-operation in Europe has seen the nations of eastern and western Europe, together with the United States and Canada, discussing the ground rules of civilisation for the next generation.

The confederation of European Churches demonstrated in Basel in 1989 that there can be a meeting of cultures and creeds in the pursuit of justice and peace.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has called for a decade of international law to promote the acceptance of, and respect for, the principles of international law, to develop codification, to promote methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes and to encourage the wider study of the subject.

I note that Ireland has responded on behalf of the European Community, but I hope that that document does not exhaust the intellectual, moral and political resources of western Europe. If the world's diplomats have no original ideas, the Association of World Federalists has proposed a number of specific ideas. Surely they merit discussion?

Perhaps the Minister—admittedly after the recess—can have a word with his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who seems hell-bent on making the core history syllabus appear totally irrelevant to the children at the receiving end. Perhaps he can tell him that one of the purposes of the decade is to promote education on the subject.

The vision of an age of universal co-operation, which has been offered to the world by seers and poets through the centuries, could be within reach. Only a fool would pretend that it would be easy, but if we want to pass on that legacy to our children, we shall have to pay the price. If we want to live in a peaceful world, we shall all have to give up the right of being quarrelsome. If we want to live in a just world, we shall all have to give up the right of being selfish.

I believe that future historians will view this issue as the turning point in the saga of human survival, as the vital issue of our generation, and they will judge us by whether we seize the opportunity available or whether we miss the tide.

Britain still has an important role, because our voice is still listened to wherever people gather together to discuss such subjects, and especially legal subjects. The United Kingdom Government could hold up a torch to light the way forward. I invite the Minister to tell the House what we are doing about it.

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) for the opportunity to speak on this important subject. He made it clear that it was appropriate that we should be debating this subject in the context of recent events. Undoubtedly, I also agree with his contention that the Security Council's response, being immediate, was a clear recognition that Iraq's actions were not only a challenge to the United Nations but a direct and fundamental attack on the principles of international law. Therefore, it was especially welcome that the Security Council, through a unique and comprehensive series of decisions since last August, should have shown that it was determined to restore the fabric of international legality and, if necessary, to take stern measures to enforce those decisions.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we should consider these matters during the relative tranquillity between crises. Therefore, I congratulate him on bringing the matter before the House today.

I shall be dealing with one or two of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points at length, but, first, let me give a little of the background. By a resolution in 1989, the General Assembly of the United Nations declared the period from 1990 to 1999 the United Nations Decade of International Law. That same resolution stated that the main purposes of the decade were

"to promote acceptance of and respect for the principles of international law;

to promote means and methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, including resort to and full respect for the International Court of Justice;

to encourage the progressive development of international law and its codification;

to encourage the teaching, study, dissemination and wider appreciation of international law."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that. The Government strongly support all those objectives.

In 1990, the General Assembly adopted a programme for the first two years of the decade. The programme, which is rather detailed, envisages full co-operation with other international and regional organisations, and with such eminent private institutions as the International Law Association, the Institute of International Law and national societies.

It is too early to predict what concrete results will emerge, but I can say that work on the decade has started well. It began as an initiative by the non-aligned countries—welcome evidence of the importance that those countries attach to international law. I am happy to say that the days are past when some developing countries regarded international law and its institutions with suspicion, as something imposed on them by the west. There is also a welcome new emphasis in Soviet policy on the primacy of law, and there has been a radical and welcome change in the approach of many eastern European countries as they free themselves from stale communist dogma.

The General Assembly has acted by consensus in declaring the decade and in drawing up the programme of activities. Let me stress the importance that we attach to consensus. If the decade is to contribute to the healthy development of international law, it is essential for that consensus to be maintained in every area. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the issue of an international criminal court.

We have welcomed the discussion of that issue in the General Assembly, especially in connection with the proposed code of crimes. It would be a major undertaking, and would raise political and practical questions as well as legal and financial ones. Although we are interested in the idea of such a court, we firmly believe that its existence would be justified only if some crimes could not be dealt with effectively by established means.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned a permanent peacekeeping force. Having said that progress should be made by consensus, let me also say that, although the charter provides for forces to be placed under United Nations authority in advance of any conflict, that provision has not yet proved practicable. For the foreseeable future, such action as was taken in the Gulf—fully authorised and endorsed by the United Nations—is more likely to prove feasible.

Surely the argument that such action has not proved practicable—presumably because individual nation states are not prepared to provide the resources—is a bit like saying that the fire brigade has not proved practicable until something actually catches fire.

I should prefer to put it this way: what proved practical was what happened during recent tragic events. A response was developed by a coalition of forces in the allied community that was backed and underlined by the clearest possible mandate of United Nations resolutions. The way to proceed is on the basis of what has proved itself rather than on a basis that has not proved to be successful in the past.

The United Kingdom has always played a full role in the discussions on the decade. We co-sponsored the General Assembly resolutions of 1989 and 1990, and we participated actively in the work of the legal committee of the General Assembly and its working group on the subject. We shall continue to do so. That contribution to the decade reflects our contribution to international law more generally. The Government are committed to upholding the rule of law in international affairs and fostering good government and a respect for human rights. I recall the document "Human Rights in Foreign Policy" that the Foreign Office made public a week or so ago. I expect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has studied it.

The United Kingdom has always made a major contribution to the development of international law, both through its practice—now well recorded each year in the "British Year Book of International Law"—and by its role in the elaboration of treaties and as a depository of many important treaties. It is not only in relation to questions of war and peace that international law is important. In today's world, it plays an increasing part in everyday life. In the past year or so, we have made an important contribution to the elaboration of worldwide conventions on drug trafficking and the marking of explosives and to treaties relating to the environment and disarmament.

If we look back over a longer period, we see that we have played, and that we continue to play, a major role in the Antarctic treaty system and in the law of the sea. Much international law is already of a positive nature—for example, on the environment, drugs and crime prevention. However, I agree that much more could be done. For example, the Government are working very hard on the climate convention.

The United Kingdom is committed to the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe process—a political rather than a legal process—the conciliation proposals that we put forward last autumn formed the core of the mechanism for settling disputes, agreed by officials at the recent meeting in Valletta. On the legal side, we are encouraged by the increasing number of states that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In the last couple of years a significant number of additional states have made the necessary declaration. Some of them were developing countries. That is a most welcome trend.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, we are the only permanent member of the Security Council that currently accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. We have always accepted its jurisdiction. Therefore, we are well placed to urge all states that have not yet accepted the court's jurisdiction to consider doing so.

Last year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations established a trust fund to assist developing countries to bring cases before the International Court of Justice by agreement—for example, territorial disputes. The United Kingdom was the first to announce a contribution to the fund. That is a very practical way of encouraging recourse to the court and the rule of law.

The United Kingdom's contribution to international law goes well beyond the Government. The British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the British branch of the International Law Association, and the many universities which teach international law play an important role and have influence well beyond this country. We are particularly pleased that in February the British judge on the International Court of Justice, Sir Robert Jennings, formerly professor of international law at Cambridge university, was elected president of the court for a three-year term. He is, in fact, the third British president of the court since 1946.

Successive British members of the United Nations International Law Commission have been influential. The commission has the potential to make further important contributions to the codification and development of international law. We shall make every effort to ensure that the British candidate for the commission, Professor Bowett, is elected this autumn.

Public awareness of international law has, I believe, never been higher than it is at present. Public awareness is important, for it is ultimately for the people of the various states to ensure, through their elected representatives and through public opinion, that Governments comply with international law. International law will be respected fully only when public opinion in all countries demands that Governments comply not only with the rule of law at home but with the rule of law in international affairs. Debates like this one, stimulated by the United Nations decade of international law, contribute to that end.

My hon. Friend's reply to the debate has been an extremely interesting and most reasoned response to the excellent speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), but should not the British Government be taking the lead to remedy the outstanding failure of international law to devise a way to stop dictators such as Saddam Hussein destroying their own people? The United Nations has the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs of sovereign nations, which we all understand, but something must be done to enable the United Nations to play some part in stopping such atrocities if we are to have international peace. Are we giving some thought to that, and will we take the lead in that as we have done in recent years in the other excellent activities of the United Nations?

My hon. and learned Friend has raised a big issue at the tail end of the debate, but I can assure him that I am not unmindful of what he has said. Earlier today, we had a debate on the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, when similar sentiments were expressed. Without giving any undertakings, I assure my hon. and learned Friend that these matters are not lost on the United Nations. Clearly, we are likely to expect a resolution from the Security Council, perhaps before Easter, dealing with much wider issues in terms of the ceasefire and in respect of the Iraqi forces. I believe that that resolution will include some matters on which I cannot elaborate on this afternoon touching on some of the issues to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn our attention.

Before we adjourn, may I wish all right hon. and hon. Members, officials and staff a very happy Easter recess?