I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and constituency neighbour the Minister of State for replying to this brief debate on Israel-United Kingdom relations. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his most constructive interview on Israel Radio last week, of which I have read the text.

I should like to say a little, first, about why I chose this subject. The United Kingdom has extremely close relations with Israel. The Balfour declaration of November 1917 first gave British support to a Jewish homeland. As the mandatory power between 1920 and 1948, we were directly responsible for the area then called Palestine. The countries that we now call Iraq and Jordan were effectively created by Winston Churchill after the Cairo conference of 1921. The Hashemite dynasties were placed on their respective thrones by him, largely to assuage the anger of the Emirs Feisal and Abdullah because Feisal was turfed off the throne of Syria by the French. The flag of the new nation—or, rather, of the reborn nation of Israel—was raised on 14 May 1948 as the British high commissioner left Palestine for the last time.

There are many people alive today—some of them still in this House—who were physically present in those difficult and dangerous days. Britain and Israel will always be good friends, because our friendship was born out of the sufferings of the Jewish people and nurtured by the political and social institutions that we bequeathed to the state of Israel.

Then there is the Jewish community in Britain. I am not a Jew and I have no Jewish family, constituency or business interests, but because I am closely connected by friendship with our Jewish community, I know the intense loyalty and affection that they feel for the Jewish state of Israel, while of course being among the most distinguished, valued, patriotic and hard-working of all the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.

I came to this cause as an undergraduate at Cambridge—a Christian by conviction and practice and studying history. As a student, I read about the Inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms in western Europe and Tsarist Russia and the ultimate abomination of the Nazi beasts. I knew in my heart then, 30 years ago, and I know it to this day, that there had to be an answer to the stake, the rack, the pogrom, the gas chamber and the crematorium. There could be no Christian theology that could ignore or excuse the stench of burning Jewish babies. There had to be a political response which showed that evil did not finally triumph at Auschwitz. There must be one place in the world where a Jew could feel entirely and unhesitatingly at home. That place is the Jewish state of Israel. Its rise, like a phoenix from the ashes of the crematoria, will always be an inspiring cause for me, and I make no apology for it.

I am not blind to Israel's faults, but I am not blind to Britain's either. I love my own country and, although I am a Gentile, I love Israel as well. I count it an honour to receive filthy, anti-Semitic hate mail, as I often do, and as I certainly will after this speech. I know that the mild burden which I carry in receiving such muck is as nothing to that placed on the Jewish people by Christians for 2,000 years and carried week after week by Jewish Members of this House in their own postbags.

I make these points because that is the background against which I want to deal with a number of specific issues. I welcome unreservedly the generous tributes paid by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to the courage of the Israeli people when they were facing ordeal by Scud missiles during the Gulf war. As the allies asked, Israel did not retaliate, but that put great strain on its political and social structure. Hon. Members should ask how we and our constituents would have felt if we had endured missile attacks night after night and made no military response.

It was right that Ministers should show support for the Jewish state, and it was right that sales of British oil, suspended since the oil crisis of 1979, should be resumed. It is now appropriate to go further. United Kingdom trade with Israel has hovered around £1 billion for too long. We need a quantum leap in that important market. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet and Ethiopian Jews are pouring into Israel, and many more are likely to come over the next few years, and I want to see British firms being encouraged by the Government to make their contribution to housing those people. A strong trade mission to Israel, headed by a senior Minister, would be appropriate as soon as possible following the worthwhile visits by Ministers to Kuwait and other Gulf states.

The Department of Trade and Industry should take a much more vigorous line over the Arab trade boycott, which is not recognised by Britain and which lacks international sanction. The boycott is wrong in principle and should have no place in a civilised world trading system. European legislataion should be drafted along the lines of United States laws to outlaw the boycott. The Department of Trade and Industry should tell British firms to ignore it rather than just to use their commercial judgment.

I cannot understand why we still retain an arms embargo against Israel. It is nine years since its military operation in Lebanon. Yes, there are still some Israel military personnel in Lebanon and the South Lebanese Army of General Lahad is trained and armed by Israel. However, Lebanon has effectively been annexed by Syria, which has thousands of troops in that sad country. There are foreign troops all over the middle east in other people's countries—some by invitation, some not. Israel has no difficulty in obtaining weapons from the Americans, and it makes many of its own anyway.

In the completely changed circumstances after the Gulf war and with the collapse of the Warsaw pact, I should have thought that our British arms companies would welcome access to the Israeli market. At present, we are leaving the way clear to the Americans to sell weapons to the Israelis and the Arabs. That does not help British business or diplomacy. The embargo policy has lost all meaning and should be changed at once.

I have a few random thoughts on how we should proceed with the peace process, which is crucial to relations between Israel and the United Kingdom. Humility is called for from a Gentile living on the peaceful Rutland-Northamptonshire border. Members of my family are not threatened with stabbing every time they go shopping and I do not live 20 miles from a country that is still theoretically at war with mine. I know that everything that I shall advocate today is hotly disputed by- many Jewish people in Israel and virtually all the Arabs. There is no one solution and no single proposal that commands significant majority support in Israel, and we elected western politicians should remember that when we draft our paper scenarios for peace in the middle east. I shall give my beliefs, for what they are worth.

First, no borders between Israel and its neighbours are sacrosanct except those with Egypt which have been settled by a formal peace treaty. The other borders are ceasefire lines and remain open to negotiation. Secondly, no useful or honourable purpose can be achieved by Israel remaining in permanent military occupation of the whole of the west bank and Gaza. The local Arabs do not want Israel there and there cannot be a lasting peace on that basis. Further Jewish settlements in disputed areas are unwise and put unnecessary pressure upon those seeking peace, but such settlements say nothing about the final status of those territories. Nor is it acceptable that such areas should be required to be Judenrein. The dreaded concept of "transfer" is unacceptable and monstrous, as is the concept that all Jews should be prevented from living in an area that has been sacred to them for thousands of years, but they may not always live there under an Israeli flag.

If there are to be real and worthwhile negotiations on the basis of United Nations Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, they will involve land for peace, but not necessarily all land. If both sides approach peace talks on the basis of non-negotiable maximalist demands, they will never get off the ground. The great powers cannot impose a settlement. They cannot resolve the internal political differences in the Israel democracy or among the Palestinians.

In 1921, Churchill could put Arab emirs on the thrones of countries that he had created by the exercise of colonial authority. However, if the United States is not even prepared to depose Saddam Hussein by force after totally defeating his army, it is ludicrous to think that Secretary Baker or Foreign Minister Bessmertnykh can act like the Emperor Napoleon and Tsar Alexander at Tilsit in 1807 or like Sykes and Georges-Picot in 1916 and carve up the middle east between them.

Any settlement must be accepted by all parties to the dispute, and they must be able to sell it to their people. It is pointless to go to a conference table saying that no part of the Golan Heights will ever be handed back to Syria and no new sovereignty will be allowed over the west bank and Gaza.

Equally, it is useless to say that nothing else will do except that the Golan Heights should be returned unconditionally to Syria or that there can only be an independent Palestinian state comprising the whole of the west bank and Gaza, with east Jerusalem as its capital. Those are not negotiations: they are war cries. I have told distinguished Palestinians in the consulate general in Jerusalem—the people met by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister and by Secretary Baker—that if all that they are prepared to demand is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on pre-determined borders, there is no point in having a peace conference, because they will already have spelt out their non-negotiable demands and the Israelis would not attend such a conference anyway.

Also, I have told Jewish friends that, if all that they envisage is the status quo or an ultimate outcome of limited Arab autonomy, that would not be the implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. No Arab leader could possibly accept that except as a temporary and transitional stage, as was proposed in the Camp David agreements over a decade ago.

There must be a peace conference. Both sides need to compromise on the initial arrangements. The Palestinians should be encouraged to hold early internal elections, as proposed by Mr. Shamir in May 1989. The newly elected leaders should be recognised as the Palestinian part of a joint delegation with Jordan. Of course, most of them will be members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, and some will be Hamas. They do not need to say that too loudly and, as Shimon Peres has said, it is best not to inquire too closely into their background once they are elected. There is no need to argue about their home address, whether it be Ramallah or Nablus road, Jerusalem, as long as it is not Tunis or Baghdad. Israel will not sit down with people who boast loudly that they take their orders from Yasser Arafat, who sided with Saddam Hussein in the Gulf war. If the elected spokesmen of the Palestinians are prepared to control their public rhetoric, a joint delegation could be created which would be representative and realistic.

There seems to have already been some movement on the conference. Israel would prefer no conference and bilateral negotiations with its Arab neighbours. Syria and the PLO want a United Nations conference with all five permanent members of the Security Council and the Arab states so that they can avoid direct negotiations with Israel. Neither proposal is realistic. The best answer is what Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister David Levy have been inching towards, which is a regional conference under joint American-Soviet auspices with a plenary session, separate working parties and perhaps a report-back session six months later.

The question whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the European Community should be represented by observers is a relatively peripheral matter on which concessions could be made by Israel. Of course, Israel is unhappy with the United Nations because of the notorious "Zionism is racism" resolution. That should be scrapped at once. Also, it is doubtful about the European Community, which it regards as pro-Arab since the Venice declaration. Those are not matters of great substance. They are not like Kissinger's "three lousy hills".

The main thing is for discussions to get under way. It is perfectly possible for Israel and Syria to make peace, given proper agreements on security and electronic listening devices on a totally demilitarised and United Nations-supervised Golan. I cannot see that this is a sensible time for new Israeli settlements, called Brukhim and Kanaf, to be established on the Golan by Mr. Ariel Sharon. It is possible for progress to be made in separate discussions about the west bank and Gaza, provided they include a Jordanian-Palestinian deputation and neither side persists with maximalist demands.

I would not pretend to any great optimism, and the behaviour of the PLO in the Gulf war made matters harder. An announced immediate end to the intifada and a release of more detainees could represent joint confidence-building measures on both sides. Public renunciation of all acts of violence by the PLO and a freeze of further settlement activity on the west bank would be other useful steps.

Many people may have been led to believe that peace between Israel and the Arabs was just around the corner once the Gulf war ended, but specialists on the issue know that, like the 400-year-old Irish question, it is one of the most complex and divisive problems in the world. Perhaps it is a problem without a solution—only with an outcome, as happened on the battlefield in 1948, 1967 and 1973—but I hope and pray that that is not so. "Blessed are the peacemakers," and never more than when trying to make peace in the holy land itself.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on his success in the ballot and on his speech, which, as ever, was balanced. He speaks with much knowledge, sensitivity and sincerity on these issues. When he leaves the House at the next election, his contributions on the middle east will be missed by many of us.

I should like to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State in improving, on a personal level, relations between Britain and Israel. The Foreign Secretary has developed a warm personal rapport with the Foreign Secretary of Israel, and the visit that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State recently paid to Israel was a great success. When Ministers visit the middle east, it is rather like their having to dance on eggs. My right hon. and learned Friend managed his visit with much skill.

I welcomed the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State gave yesterday that

"The PLO certainly discredited itself by its conduct during the Gulf war"

and that—this is a slight change in Government thinking—

"We are not pressurising the Israelis to sit down at the same table with the PLO."—[Official Report, 22 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 926.]

That is implicit recognition that attitudes in the middle east were changed by Yasser Arafat's decision last August to embrace Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. In so doing, he knocked the ground from under those who were seeking to get discussions going between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

There is no doubt that there is a great reservoir of good will in Israel for the United Kingdom. I had the privilege to be in Israel in 1986 when the then Prime Minister made the first official visit to Israel by a British Prime Minister. The spontaneous outburst of enthusiasm and welcome that she received showed how warm relations were between the two countries. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will soon visit Israel. I hope also that, at some stage, a member of the royal family will do so, because unfortunately, ever since the creation of the state of Israel, members of the royal family have visited her neighbours but never Israel.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, I pay tribute to the self-restraint and statesmanship shown by the people of Israel during the Gulf war. I do not believe that any other democracy, seeing its people being killed and attacked by missiles from the sky, would have been as willing to show the same self-restraint.

We all welcome the tremendous influx of emigrants from the Soviet Union to Israel. Sometimes we in the west do not understand that many people are emigrating to Israel£200,000 a year, and about 400,000 in 1990–91. That is the equivalent of 5 million people migrating to the United Kingdom. I recall the unholy row about passports being offered to enable 55,000 heads of households in Hong Kong to come to the United Kingdom in four, five or six years' time. In Israel, 400,000 people are being assimilated within a short period.

That is placing tremendous strains on the Israeli economy, which must provide jobs and housing and teach the immigrants new languages. That involves a huge cost. I hope that we in the west, who have fought so hard to secure basic human rights for the people of the Soviet Union, will be willing to help with the cost of resettlement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that many Soviet Jews are seeking to enter Israel because they were not free to practise their religion and culture? That is a legacy of anti-semitism, which has done so much to destroy relationships.

I agree with my hon. Friend—on this matter we can describe ourselves as hon. Friends. I look forward to the day when, on other issues, the hon. Gentleman will be an hon. Friend.

I visited the Soviet Union three years ago and met several refuseniks. I was appalled by the stories that they told. It was impossible to teach or learn hebrew without running the risk of imprisonment. The intolerance and persecution that they suffered was out of this world. It was an eye-opener for someone who had not seen religious intolerance, except perhaps occasionally in Glasgow, to realise that it was so rife in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Gladstone once said that if he solved the Irish question the Irish would change the question. I hope that that will not be true of the middle east. Peace in the middle east will be achieved by a series of building blocks. The first building block in the 1970s was Camp David. I hope that in the 1990s the next building block will be in Gaza and that we shall eliminate the Arab boycott. I hope that the Euroepan Community, which is based on free, unfettered and non-discriminatory trade, will legislate against the Arab boycott. If we are not to achieve success on a European scale, I hope that the United Kingdom will follow the lead of the five other European Community countries that have legislated against the boycott.

I hope that we shall recognise that peace will be achieved not by a major international conference, with 16 Arab states reading prepared speeches, but, as at Camp David, by a series of bilateral accords. We must recognise that the most likely place for the next building block is Gaza, and that if it is to become an independent state it will need a huge influx of capital. I hope that those who are willing to make speeches and lecture the state of Israel about the need to make concessions will recognise that that capital will have to come from the western and Arab countries, because no other countries can provide hope for the people living in Gaza.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on having chosen this subject for debate. I shall go further and say that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton brings to such debates an unusual balance which, I am afraid, is often lacking when we discuss this subject. I agree with the basic proposition that on this issue more than on any other we hear an unbalanced view and an excess of emotion. Therefore, I think that he brings to these debates a very distinguished point of view.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is to leave this place at the end of this Parliament. As he said in his speech, he is a near parliamentary neighbour of mine. I should like to say that I regret his decision; he will be a loss to his constituency and to the House. He will also be a loss to the state of Israel, because he urges the cause of Israel in a way that the House finds profoundly persuasive.

My hon. Friend began his speech by reminding the House of the very close connection between the United Kingdom and the state of Israel. He was right to do so. That connection is based on history and on common values. We are a friend of the state of Israel. We are also a friend of most of the Arab states and, I should like to think, of all the Arab peoples and—in so far as there is a distinction—of the Palestinian people. One of the characteristics of friendship is the right to speak with candour: if friends cannot make criticisms of friends, who can? It is important that we discuss these issues, and we are entitled to make criticisms of our friends without those criticisms being in any way misunderstood.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton spoke of the close relationship between the two Governments. I am glad to say that that relationship has improved substantially since the latter part of last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited Israel in October last year and has thereafter maintained close contact with Mr. Levy, the Israeli Foreign Secretary. I had the pleasure of visiting Israel about two weeks ago and of receiving in London Mr. Netanyahu, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Prime Minister Shamir in April of this year. We have a close relationship with Israel as we have with the Arab states and with the Palestinian people.

My hon. Friend said that the state of Israel and the peoples of Israel behaved with great courage and forebearance during the Gulf war. He was right because they did. They were subjected to an unprovoked and brutal attack by a tyrant but did not strike back. Nobody doubted their right to strike back—of course, they would have been entitled to do so; any sovereign state would be entitled to do that—but it was not in their interests or those of the wider world. The wider world is grateful to them for the restraint that they showed.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of trading relations between our two countries improving still further, and again he was right to do so. Expressed both ways, the trade is about £1 billion and we should like to see that expanded. My hon. Friend knows that there is to be a substantial trade delegation to Israel in June—I think that about 30 business men are planning to go. I very much hope—I echo a point made by my hon. Friend—that it will be possible for the Minister for Trade to go to Israel this year.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the boycott and the arms embargo. I regard the boycott as a thoroughly undesirable policy. My hon. Friend may know that there was a meeting on 11 May in Luxembourg between the European Community and the countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council. I, in common with other representatives of the European Community countries, impressed on the GCC representatives the great importance of relaxing the boycott. My hon. Friend was wholly right about the desirability of that. The only point on which I do not agree with my hon. Friend is the desirability of legislation on that issue, because I believe that it would be so unenforceable as to make the attempt undesirable.

My hon. Friend referred to the arms embargo, but I am not able to help him on this issue. He will know that the arms embargo was imposed on the state of Israel in 1982 as a consequence of the invasion of the Lebanon. The troops of Israel are still in the Lebanon and we wish to see all foreign troops leave. That means especially the armies of Syria and those of Israel: they must go as soon as possible. While they are still there, it would not be sensible for the arms embargo to be relaxed.

I shall now deal with my hon. Friend's main point about the peace process.

My hon. and learned Friend fails to mention one important matter. Does he accept that Israeli is the only true democracy in that part of the world?

I certainly accept that within the stale of Israel as historically defined Israel is a true and pure democracy.

I shall now deal with the question of the peace process. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton began by saying that one should approach this issue in a state of humility. He was right to say that, not least because, as far as the state of Israel is concerned, it is not a mere dispute; it is about the security and sovereignty of its land. It is idle for us to pretend that there is not, or has not been, a threat to the safety and the security of Israel. We need to remind ourselves constantly that one of the duties of the international community, reflected in resolutions 242 and 338, is to ensure the security of the state of Israel. That is a duty on all of us and is part of the equation. The other part of the equation is the duty, also reflected in resolutions 242 and 338, to ensure that the Palestinian peoples have a right to self-determination and have political rights. That balance must be struck.

I found the concept of building blocks, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South, very persuasive. There is merit in that approach to the problem. Indeed, it is an approach that I see reflected in many of the Baker proposals as I understand them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton advocated a pragmatic, step-by-step approach which calls for the ultimate settlement to reflect the purposes of resolutions 242 and 338. I find that approach and those principles wholly persuasive.

My hon. Friend was also right to make the important point that a settlement cannot be imposed upon the state of Israel by the great powers because the state of Israel is a democracy as far as its historically defined frontiers are concerned. Israel, as historically defined, is a pure democracy and we cannot impose upon it a solution that the peoples of Israel believe would imperil its very existence. What we can and should do is to try to persuade the peoples of Israel and their Government of the need to make a number of important changes.

My hon. Friend was also right to say that any settlement must involve a recognition of the principle of land for peace. He was also right to say that it would be highly dangerous for the parties to adopt maximalist positions and to refuse to depart from them. A number of steps could be taken by way of confidence-building measures and my hon. Friend mentioned some of them. He suggested, for example, that there should be an end to the intifada and that the detainees held by Israel should be released.

I entirely agree with that approach. We should try to find measures that could be taken which would enhance the confidence of people on both sides. My hon. Friend has given two examples and there are many others. One example is the cessation of the construction of new settlements, which my hon. Friend mentioned. They are not a help to the peace process. Other examples are an end to the boycott and to the state of belligerency, a willingness to ensure that all the higher educational establishments in Israel and in the occupied territories are open, and a recognition that people should not be obstructed when they wish to go to work. All would be worth the doing and would enhance confidence.

My hon. Friend said time and again that we must be careful not to make those things pre-conference conditions. Let us not hedge the process of talks with too many difficulties. It will be difficult enough to get the parties to sit down at the table without creating too many pre-conference conditions.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the United Nations and the role of the European Community. In abstract terms, there is every reason why the United Nations should play a prominent part in the discussions that we hope will take place, not least because, if a settlement is ultimately negotiated, one or more of the parties will, I suspect, wish to see that settlement underpinned in some way by the Security Council. However, the question is not whether it is intrinsically justified, but whether it is desirable to make the presence of the United Nations a pre-condition to the negotiations taking place. I have many reservations. It is a good thing for the United Nations to be present, and I hope that the state of Israel will not make the presence of the United Nations in an observer capacity a barrier to the commencement of the regional conference.

The same point applies to the European Community. As my hon. Friend said with such force, the United Kingdom has a long-standing relationship with the middle east, as have many other countries in the European Community, such as France. In years to come, it is certain that we in the European Community will be asked to play a part in the economic revival of the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South said just that. It would be foolish to make the presence of the European Community, which has an important role to play, a barrier to discussion. I hope that the state of Israel will show flexibility on that point.

My hon. Friend also dealt with the question of the Palestinians, and he approached the matter with real good sense. We are not saying to the state of Israel that it must sit down with the Palestine Liberation Organisation at the conference table. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that point yesterday, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South drew attention to it this morning. We are saying two things: first, that the PLO is a factor in the area and has a role to play; and, secondly, that those who purport to represent the Palestinians at the conference table must be able to speak with authority and must carry conviction among their own people. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton said. Let us not look too closely at the addresses of anybody.

My hon. Friend ended in a persuasive way when he said that, with his long experience in politics, he thought that the issue was one of the most difficult that any diplomat or politician has had to encounter. He recognises the possibility that there is no solution, only an outcome. However, like him, I hope otherwise. If we do not see peace between the parties there, we face the prospect of war. Peace will require a great effort of will and a willingness by all to compromise. The first step to that process is to get the people to sit down at a table, and that will not happen unless the parties are prepared not to impose too many pre-conference conditions. When the parties sit down at the table, the process of negotiation will open up a variety of questions and opportunities. We need to get the parties there. If there are too many pre-conference conditions, we shall not get them there. My hon. Friend's contribution to the subject was of unusual distinction.

I am grateful to have the opportunity for a debate on curbing dangerous dogs and on the control of those animals. Several of my hon. Friends wish to take part in the debate. However, I and, I am sure, my hon. Friends would have been willing to have had a few minutes knocked off this and other Adjournment debates if the Government had made a statement here about Robin Leigh-Pemberton's 17 per cent. pay increase this year which is part of a total increase of £20,000. He is one of the people appointed by the Government who have called on ordinary working people to make sacrifices. I say that by way of comment and it does not, naturally, form part of my main debate. I am just snapping at the Government's heels. It is appalling that people line their pockets in the way in which Robin Leigh-Pemberton has apparently done.

The debate stems basically from pressure generated outside because of a series of attacks by dogs, culminating in the saddest attack of all—that on Rucksana Khan, which has received much publicity. The problem does not solely concern pit bull terriers. I will list some of the recent attacks which were described in a recent edition of the Daily Express.

On 16 January, six-year-old Rachel Hetherington was mauled by a friend's pet lurcher near her Birmingham home. She received 26 stitches. On 18 February, William Roach, aged 38, was savaged to death by his alsatian at his home in Rusholme, Manchester, as his wife tried to rescue him. On 22 March, baby Steven Berry was mauled in his pushchair by a bull terrier at a Sheffield bus stop. On 7 May, five-year-old Michael Parkinson was savaged by two rottweilers near his Bradford home. He received 80 stitches. That incident stimulated me and other hon. Members to table an early-day motion calling attention to the need for the control of dangerous dogs.

On 8 May, three-year-old Natasha Thorpe's nose was almost bitten off when she was attacked by a collie at a neighbour's house at Craigmillar in Edinburgh. She received 40 stitches. On 8 May, Frank Tempest, aged 54, had his nose and ear ripped off by two pit bull terriers as he walked home from work in a Lincoln suburb. He needed micro-surgery. On 10 May, Karen Jowett, aged 21, was attacked by a doberman in Westgate in Peterborough, Cambridgeshire. She needed more than 100 stitches. On 13 May, two-year-old Paula Holmes was mauled by her grandmother's American pit bull terrier at her Bolton home. She suffered a broken nose and needed stitches for facial injuries. On 15 May, Pat Lord, aged 39, underwent micro-surgery after her right arm was chewed to the bone and broken by her pet rottweiler. Some pet! On 17 May, police constable John Cooper was savaged by a pit bull terrier in Newcastle. He received stitches in a throat wound.

The attack that especially caught the public's concern was that on Rucksana Khan. I quote from the front page of the Bradford Telegraph and Argus which says:

"Rucksana was tossed about like a rag doll by the ferocious dog for 15 minutes while onlookers struggled to free her from its vice-like grip … The six-year-old from Springfield Street, Manningham, Bradford, suffered 23 dog bites to her back and three deep bites to the left hand side of her chest where the dog gripped on for dear life. She has five other bites to her chest and lost two teeth in the attack … One doctor said today that the injuries were the worst of their kind he had ever seen. Rucksana was a hair's breadth away from losing her life in the attack."

The paper carried a colour picture of little Rucksana resting in her hospital bed, and it was obviously a very bloody picture. I do not generally endorse such exploitation, but the Bradford Telegraph and Argus was right to use the picture, as the Yorkshire Post was right to use a black and white picture. Other papers were also right to use the picture because it has helped to jolt the Government into the awareness that millions have been urging on them for the past three or four years.

The Government have been warned time and time again. A clause was added to the Local Government Act 1988 allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations to enable local authorities—or such organisations as he may, after consultation, designate—to introduce a dog registration scheme. I shall return to that in detail in a moment, but the fact is that those powers have not been exercised, on the ideological ground that their exercise would produce an irrelevant and unwanted layer of bureaucracy. In ray view, and in the view of virtually all the animal welfare organisations, that is not the case. I shall refer in a moment to those who support a dog registration scheme and explain how such a scheme could help with the control of dangerous dogs.

During our debate on the Local Government Act 1988, as reported in Vol. 124 of Hansard at columns 933–35, I cited the sort of accidents that were taking place then, in 1987. The headmaster of a first school in my constituency took a small boy home because he was feeling ill—a generous and helpful gesture on the part of that headmaster. What was the outcome? When the headmaster got to the house where the little boy lived he found that there were four dogs, one of which, a rottweiler, broke loose and attacked and mauled him, breaking his arm. The headmaster was so badly injured that he was off work for three months. It took two dog wardens, who were hastily called, to keep the dog off him. As is the usual rule, there was no prosecution because the dog was destroyed and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 does not close that loophole. The following day, the irresponsible dog owners, at whose hands the headmaster had suffered grievously, bought a doberman to replace the dog that had been put down. People can only stand by, helpless.

A constituent of mine who lived near the house in question had a baby daughter. The family had rather a nice small back garden, but they could not leave their baby daughter in it in her pram because they were frightened that the doberman or the rottweilers would leap over the fence and savage her. Why should people have such limitations placed on their freedom and enjoyment? Once one's baby daughter has grown up, one cannot go back. During that cherished period, the family were denied many happy moments in their garden because the irresponsibile family living nearby owned four savage dogs. Mercifully, that family has now gone and the problem has disappeared.

Bradford has one of the best dog warden services in the country, but it does not have the money to operate a seven-day service. It would like to, but, like all local authorities, it is short of cash. So what happened at weekends while my constituent was in that predicament and wanted to take her baby daughter out in the pram? Sometimes the doberman and the rottweilers were allowed to roam loose and she did not dare go out. She could not call the dog warden service on Saturdays and Sundays because it does not operate at weekends. That is the sort of encroachment on people's pleasure, freedom and happiness to which irresponsible dog ownership can lead.

On 21 May, I received a letter from a woman, who wrote:

"I have three children aged 3, 6, and 8 years, and there are a lot more young children living and playing on the same street. I really believe it is only a matter of time before these dogs do harm someone."

My correspondent is referring to two pit bull terriers owned by the occupiers of the house next door—a house in Bradford. She continues:

"We have reported the problem to the police but they cannot do anything unless someone is harmed by the dogs. The dog warden seems to have his hands tied also. After so many recent attacks surely it would make sense to make stricter laws as a matter of urgency, before another child or adult is attacked by these dogs, and this time killed.

I happen to be in a position to know that dog bites are a frequent occurrence and sometimes it can be the fault of the victim for teasing the dogs. But these dogs just attack for no reason at all. They wag their tails and look friendly at first but then they just turn fierce … even in the garden. I am terrified that these dogs will jump over the fence one day and in so doing end up in our garden. If this did happen and mine or any other children are hurt, I would never ever forgive Mr. Baker. He has done enough damage in his previous role to children without killing them off altogether."

That is a succinct review of the position.

As I said, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 did not alter matters significantly because, although it increased penalties, it did not provide for them to be applied to owners whose dog is killed following an attack. The owner cannot be fined if the dog is dead.

There is a real need to extend protection to include not only pit bull terriers but dobermans, rottweilers and alsatians—the breeds mentioned in the list of attacks that I gave at the beginning of this brief debate. They are all unpredictable and potentially highly dangerous animals. Yesterday, when I suggested to the Home Secretary that we might consider classifying them under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, the right hon. Gentleman responded by suggesting that that Act specifically excluded dogs. On my reading of the Act, stored in the No Lobby, that is not the case, although I suppose that it may have been amended by a subsequent measure which has not been brought to my attention. In any case, a narrow amending Act—I have presented a Bill to Parliament for that very purpose—could lead rapidly to the application of that Act in respect of dogs. My guess is that such a measure would receive overwhelming support in the House.

The Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 provides for local authority licensing, for powers to inspect premises to ensure safety, and for the refusal of a licence if there is any danger to the public. Any breach of conditions or failure to obtain a licence is a criminal offence and the provision is self-financing because a charge is made for the licence fee.

Bradford has an excellent dog warden service with six staff. Such local authority services could certainly provide help and guidance for owners. Some owners buy fluffy puppies, which, a few months later, turn into big, savage rottweilers. Some people are simply helpless in the face of such dogs and they need the help and guidance that the dog warden service can provide.

Dog wardens could also help to enforce a dog registration scheme. The Government say that irresponsible owners would not register. But what about the decent owners who would welcome registration, who want to look after their dogs and who gain great pleasure from dog ownership? Should they suffer as a result of that attitude of irresponsible dog owners? Saying that we should not have a registration scheme because irresponsible owners would not register is like saying that it is no good having criminal sanctions in respect of burglary because burglars do not like them. That is nonsense. Under a registration scheme, if dogs are a menace, their registration details can be checked and their owners brought to account. Guidance and help can be given where necessary and dogs can be put down if they are out of control.

I shall place on record what a dog registration scheme would do and quote a briefing paper prepared by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for a debate in the Lords in June 1990, of which the RSPCA sent me a copy:

"The knowledge of an owner that a particular dog can be identified back to that particular owner promotes responsible ownership. So, for example, people are less likely to let a dog stray to get injured or create nuisance.

The link between the dog and a named owner is important for effective enforcement: e.g. 95 per cent. of stray dogs caught by Bradford dog wardens are disowned. Both cruelty and attack prosecutions have failed through lack of the proven link. Media attention on the most prominent cases has generally brought a result in terms of finding owners, but a very large, unrecorded number of cases never get to court."

The Minister of State, Home Office has set her face against a dog registration scheme for some reason that is beyond human intelligence. A young woman constituent of mine was attacked in Manningham park by a terrier. She will have scars on her legs for the rest of her life. The owner who encouraged the dog to set upon that young woman was approached by the police. They would have prosecuted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, which, as the Minister is aware, provides penalties including imprisonment for people who encourage dogs to attack others or fail to have a potentially fierce dog muzzled in a public place. However, the police will prosecute only when they have clear proof of ownership and that is precisely what a dog registration would achieve.

When the police approached the young man who had set the dog on that woman, he said, "It's not my dog. I've given it away to my friend." On the basis of that, the police said that they could not prosecute. Although I pressed them to prosecute, they said that they would have difficulty proving the case in court. That is an important aspect of a dog registration scheme. The young woman who is scarred for life thinks very little of the Government who, after I wrote to them, said that there was nothing that they could do.

The level of the dog registration fee depends on whether it is meant to pay for registration only or for a complete control and welfare package. The Association of District Councils has suggested a £15 to £20 once-only fee and the London School of Economics suggested £10 annually for an entirely self-financing scheme.

Why should all owners have to pay? While other Department of the Environment policies are increasingly based on the "polluter pays" principle, proposed dog control duties for local authorities are to be funded only from the poll tax. The benefits for responsible dog owners include speedy recovery of stray dogs and the perception by non-dog owners that dog owners are paying their way.

Surveys show that dog owners generally do not begrudge helping the less well-off. A fee will also help to deter impulsive acquisition and the giving of dogs without due consultation. There can, of course, be proper exemptions for the blind and disabled. Such a system works successfully in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Farmers Union reports that sheep worrying cases have decreased markedly against the background of a growth in the sheep flock from I million to 2·3 million in December 1989 mainly in the lowlands and often near town fringes where the problem of worrying is greatest.

The Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has reported a dramatic reduction in roaming packs of dogs which are of great concern to many people. It has also reported that there are fewer stray dogs on the streets. The director of the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals challenged many points made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in the debate in April 1980.

In France, the Netherlands and West Germany, where compulsory dog registration schemes are in force, the stray dog problem is small. The highest percentage of dogs returned to their owners occurs in West Germany, where 66 per cent. are returned. West Germany has a nationwide licensing scheme coupled with compulsory registration and tattooing of pedigree dogs. The greatest stray dog problems are found in Italy, Portugal and Spain where compulsory registration and identification schemes are not in force—and also on the United Kingdom mainland.

In Sweden enforcement of the compulsory registration and licensing laws has resulted in a 90 per cent. reclaim rate with very few strays. London is 10 times the size of Stockholm, but Battersea Dogs Home receives 88 times more strays than the one stray dogs home in Stockholm, which never fills its 50 cages. It is clear that stray dogs always represent a potential danger.

Registration would help to curb dangerous dogs by promoting education and training through its national database targeted at problem areas, by discouraging ill-advised acquisition, by encouraging neutering and by providing a properly resourced and effective dog warden system to enforce banning orders. While a hard core of the most irresponsible owners may fail to register, the threat of penalties is likely to cause them to exercise greater control. Registration enforcement also gives an extra sanction to dog wardens who are often aware of particular problems.

I do not have time to refer to the long list of local authority and welfare organisations, hygiene associations, the Institution of Environmental Health Officers, farming organisations and dog welfare organisations that support a registration scheme. However, that support clearly exists.

Legislation is required to control a wider range of dogs than just pit bull terriers, whether the Government use existing legislation—of which there is a plethora—or whether they introduce new legislation. Action must be taken as a matter of urgency.

The Yorkshire Post and the Telegraph and Argus have campaigned vigorously over the issue and the Yorkshire Post has referred to the Animal Health Act 1981, which gives widespread powers to the Minister to control dangerous dogs and to ensure that they are muzzled. The Minister should consider that act with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

It is also important to introduce a compulsory insurance scheme against third-party accidents. The dog registration scheme is important. The Telegraph and Argus does not always endorse my point of view, but in a useful editorial it stated:

"It should not be forgotten Ministers are responsible for the fact that the law over dog control is in a mess. Nicholas Ridley, when Environment Secretary, abolished the dog licence because the fee had been left unchanged for so long that it was costing more to collect than it brought in for the Government … Because of their obsession with cutting official controls"—

the Government—

"opposed the alternative of modernising the dog licence by raising the fee to a sensible level with a national computer register of owners and exemptions for special cases like guide dogs for the blind. The money would have been given to local authorities to employ more dog wardens to deal with the growing menace."

The Telegraph and Argus conducted a telephone poll which showed overwhelming support for that point of view. Such a scheme is eminently sensible and I strongly urge the Government to consider all my points and the points that my hon. Friends will make and then introduce legislation as a matter of urgency.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) on introducing the debate, and as I agree with everything that he said, I will be extremely brief.

My hon. Friend referred to the picture of Rucksana Khan which jolted the Government, after 12 years of inaction, into trying to do something to control dangerous dogs. Many of my constituents have been concerned about dangerous dogs and the control of dogs in general for a very long time. They suspect that Cabinet Ministers are not seized of the urgency of the problem because many of them do not come into daily contact with dogs, certainly not with stray dogs, and most definitely not with dangerous dogs.

My constituents and the constituents of every hon. Member in the Chamber today come into contact with such dogs. Every day they must run the gauntlet of stray and dangerous dogs. They have to live next door to dangerous dogs. Indeed, one of my constituents lives in a block of flats where there are dangerous dogs. A mother rang me recently to tell me that she is too terrified to visit her daughter who lives in a block of flats because the tenant downstairs has three dangerous dogs. Her daughter is too terrified to go out or to allow her child to go out because they must pass the dogs which live below them. In the case of Rucksana Khan's attack, the owner of the dog lived in a one-bedroomed third-floor council flat. I do not think that such a situation can be tolerated any longer.

I warn the Government that, unless they do things that have the popular support not only of the overwhelming majority of the public but of dog owners, their efforts to tackle the problem will fail, and fail sadly and miserably. We saw with the poll tax that, if the Government seek to do things that do not have the popular consent and support of the overwhelming majority of citizens, they are bound to fail. The Government must take action that commands general support, and in particular the general support of dog owners.

There is no doubt that the central issue to success in this matter is the early introduction of an effective dog register. There are 8 million dogs in this country. There are 10,000 American pit bull terriers, it is believed, and 1,000 are thought to be in the city of Bradford. We must know where those dogs are and who owns them. If we are to take effective action, a dog register is vital.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South referred to the poll that was conducted by the Telegraph and Argus. It is very revealing. When asked whether they supported a dog register, 785 people said yes, and only 47 said no. When asked whether they supported muzzling, 873 people said yes and just 60 said no. When asked whether they supported import bans, 740 people said yes, and just 16 said no. When asked whether they supported the humane destruction of extremely dangerous dogs, 824 people said yes, and 130 said no.

Therefore, I urge the Minister at least to say that the Government are willing urgently to reconsider introducing a dog register. That is the central pillar on which we can build effective and comprehensive legislation to deal with the control of all dogs and tackle the menacing problem of extremely dangerous dogs. If when they present their Bill the Government do not respond to public opinion, I and many other hon. Members will seek to amend it to introduce a dog register. I hope that we can do that on a free vote. I have no doubt that, if that happens, a dog register will be supported and introduced. However, I would much prefer that to be done with Government support and through Government legislation. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government are beginning to change their minds and to come into line with public opinion.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I shall make just a few remarks and will reserve my other comments for the Second Reading debate.

As someone who has worked as a voluntary supporter for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for many years and has owned Staffordshire bull terriers, I endorse the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, South and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The debate is not only about fighting dogs. Dangerous dogs are in a number of categories, including those that are specifically bred for fighting either as breeds or as cross breeds.

For 10 years we in the animal welfare movement warned that the Government's inactivity in banning the introduction of American pit bull terriers would lead to a massive overproduction by breeders for the purpose of supplying the dog-fighting market. Breeders cannot tell a bitch to have one or two pups. Each time a breeder breeds dogs for the dog-fighting market, a huge surplus finds its way into the open market for those who want such dogs for a macho image and for those who, unfortunately, believe that such dogs can, with training and control, act as normal family pets, but that has not been and never will be the case.

Straying feral dogs are dangerous. For millions of years, dogs have had instincts of aggression, territorial packs and scavenging. When dogs stray or become feral, those instincts become even more apparent. Because of those instincts, they become dangerous and regularly attack many hundreds of people. Many estates and communities are being terrorised by large packs of stray and feral dogs. There is also the problem of family pets that become dangerous because of a lack of training and control or the social environment of their owners.

It is no solution to isolate American pit bull terriers and fighting dogs in the short term. We cannot deal with the problem of dangerous dogs if we do not introduce a dog registration scheme. How can we tackle the issue of those who breed for dog fighting and those who breed for financial gain if we do not have a registration scheme to identify dog breeders, owners and fighters who are responsible for the problem in the first place? How can we tackle the issue of stray feral dogs if we do not have a dog registration scheme? A dog registration scheme would bring accountability to those who irresponsibly get rid of their animals or who, through lack of training or control, allow their animals to become dangerous to themselves and others in the community.

The isolation of the pit bull terrier and other fighting breeds will not resolve the issue. Hon. Members will have to discuss the matter again in five years. People involved in dog fighting will simply switch to the cross-breeding of English bull terriers and Staffordshire bull terriers. If we are interested in protecting the traditional dog breeds of the United Kingdom, we must introduce a registration scheme. Without such a scheme we shall see a switch to other dogs and aggression being bred into other breeds. Pit bull terriers are already being used for fighting and badger baiting.

The matter is complex. Unless the Government are prepared to take on wider issues than that of registration, hon. Members will debate dangerous dogs again and again. People will be killed, accidents will proliferate and people will be damaged for life. People involved in dog fighting and badger baiting will continue the evil and awful trade that they call a sport. Family pets such as the Staffordshire and English terriers will be exploited for dog fighting and badger baiting.

I plead with the Government to make registration an essential core of the legislation. Without that central core, the issue will not go away and will become worse. In the end, the British public will decide. The public are sick and tired; they have had enough. They often cannot go safely about the streets of London because of the dangerous animals that roam our streets. It is time to take action against such animals.

I welcome the excellent initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) in promoting this issue. I wish briefly to draw attention to the plight of 130,000 postmen and postwomen throughout Britain. In Wales last year, 600 postmen and postwomen were attacked by dogs. Nationally, the figure is 7,400, causing 5,300 days lost in absence at a cost to the Post Office of £0·5 million; that is an increase in days lost through absence of 12·5 per cent. Those attacks are increasing relentlessly, making Postman Pat's life a misery. Postmen and postwomen are worse off than sheep. At least farmers have rights of redress in respect of dog attacks on sheep. Postmen have absolutely none.

I ask the Minister to respond to two issues. First, the proposals that the Government have introduced are confined to public places. Postmen complete their deliveries on private property. Will the Government protect them?

Secondly, only a handful of attacks on postmen and women in recent years have been committed by pit bull terriers. The overwhelming majority of attacks were by other breeds of dog. The Government's case is unsustainable. We need not their piecemeal proposals, but a comprehensive system to make dog owners accountable, to protect postmen and women and to protect the general public. Until a dog registration scheme is introduced, the Government's proposals will be seen as nothing more than a public relations exercise.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and to the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) and for Neath (Mr. Hain) for bringing this matter to the House this morning. I have every respect for the sincerity and depth of feeling of all hon. Members about the matter. The backcloth to the debate has changed markedly over the past day or two. In the first case, as the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday several measures aimed specifically at dangerous dogs. The principal and most important measure was a total ban on pit bull terriers and other fighting dogs. As the House knows, we propose to ban ownership of the American pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa dog and any other dog of a type commonly bred for fighting. The ban on the import of such dogs is already in place.

The hon. Member for Makerfield warned us that the ban might not be sufficient in the future because other dogs may be bred for fighting. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already said that there will he a facility in his Bill to add to the schedule other dogs that are known to be bred for fighting.

The ban is aimed specifically at fighting dogs. These are dogs which have been bred to be aggressive, to care little about the pain that they suffer, to fight without regard for the injuries that they receive and to be entirely fearless. Once such dogs start to fight, they cannot be stopped and they are quite unpredictable. Many people in papers and discussions have likened the dogs to loaded guns. We are all agreed that there is no place for such dogs in our society. We must take urgent steps to rid ourselves and our society of the dogs once and for all. It would be irresponsible to equivocate because measures are needed urgently. I am grateful to Opposition Members and all hon. Members for being willing to see urgent measures brought before the House and action taken immediately.

The Minister mentioned urgency. It will still take some time for a considered piece of legislation to be introduced in the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said, it could have been introduced earlier. In the meantime, could not emergency legislation have been introduced yesterday or today to require the muzzling and keeping on a lead of dangerous dogs? If such a measure became inappropriate or was included in later legislation, it could be amended in the later legislation. But something could have been done. Nothing will change until the legislation is introduced.

The hon. Gentleman is right that we have not been able to introduce legislation in the past 24 hours. However, we shall introduce the measure within a week or so. We are preparing the legislation as urgently as possible. It is important that the measures are as comprehensive as possible and that they achieve the support of as many people as possible.

Alongside the measures that we intend to introduce, the Government have decided to create a new criminal offence which will be along the lines of, and a development of, the offence outlined in the consultation paper. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 does not apply to back gardens, as the hon. Member for Bradford, South rightly said. The Act applies only to public places. The hon. Member for Neath may be interested to know that, during consultation on the existing legislation, considerable support was expressed for making the offence under that Act apply to private property. I hope that we shall introduce such a measure. I hope that that will go some way to meeting the anxieties of the hon. Member for Neath about attacks on postmen and women.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South raised several points on the existing law as it relates to the types of dogs that we have discussed during the past few days. There is some misunderstanding about the criminal law as it stands. It seems that people do not appreciate that it is already an offence to allow unmuzzled ferocious dogs to be at large. It is with that offence, under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, that many people are charged when their dog has ca used injury to others.

The new offence will apply more widely and I hope that it will be easier to enforce. it will attract higher penalties than the current offence. Those who allow their dogs to cause injury to others must know that they will be liable to the criminal law. It is essential that that is clearly understood.

However, there will be other cases where the law does not have the flexibility that perhaps it should have. There may be cases where it seems right to a court to order, not the destruction of the dog, but muzzling or some method of control suitable to the circumstances. We feel that it is right that the courts should have such additional powers and the Bill will provide them. I hope that that will meet the anxieties of the hon. Member for Bradford, West about dogs on housing estates. In my constituency, too, there are several housing estates where tenants own dogs that can cause anxiety to others.

Alongside those measures, the existing powers of the court, now reinforced by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, guarantee the destruction of any dog that is dangerous, regardless of whether a criminal offence was committed or can be established. These powers will remain in place. It is very important to be able to ensure that any dog that is dangerous, of any type or breed, can be put down certainly and without delay. Failure to bring in a dog for destruction renders the keeper of the dog liable for disqualification, as well as fines up to level 5, depending on the circumstances. In such cases it is not necessarily the owners who are at fault. If a dog becomes dangerous and is perceived to be so, that dog is a danger to other people and to human life. That dog is the weapon which must be destroyed. It is absolutely essential that all hon. Members and the public understand that.

As the House will know, last summer the Government issued their consultation paper, "The Control of Dogs". The responses were many and various. However, on two points the general public were unanimous. The first was the widespread desire for the new general criminal offence which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced yesterday, together with increased powers for the courts to muzzle dangerous dogs. The second was the universal public dislike of dogs such as the pit bull terrier which represent such a danger to small children such as Rucksana Khan. We have taken up both points in our recent proposals and I hope that the House will welcome them with the same enthusiasm as the public expressed during the consultation process.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South had a particular interest in the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. This is Department of the Environment legislation and I understand that there are the usual technical difficulties in adapting it to the purpose of keeping dangerous dogs. But I do not wish to dwell on technicalities. The purpose of this legislation is to control wild animals, wild in the sense that they live in the wild rather than that they are particularly aggressive. It provides for, in effect, private zoos in which animals can be kept for their own safety and the safety of the public.

Dogs such as the pit bull terrier are not wild animals in that sense. They are domesticated animals which have become fierce through breeding.

Will the Minister give way?

I shall give way in a moment.

I agree that the Dangerous Wild Animals Act sets down requirements which could be used to keep pit bull terriers in conditions of high security, but, I have to ask the House, why do people want to keep dogs like this?

Before the Minister completes her speech, will she make it clear to the House and the country that she is willing to test, in the House, support for and opposition to a dog register, which has been the central theme of every contribution to the debate?

I cannot think what a dog registration scheme would have done to prevent Rucksana Khan from being savaged. I cannot think what such a scheme would have done to help those who have been seriously hurt, wounded or damaged as a result of violent acts committed by dogs that were out of control. The people who own the dogs to which we have been referring will never come forward to become the registered owners of dogs.

When our backs are turned, those who keep dogs such as pit bull terriers will take them to the pit or train them with heavy weights. They will use live cats as bait. They can use a zoo, as it were, to breed an even more dangerous dog. To put such people alongside those who would be responsible about animals is not to be realistic.

We should have no part in the breeding of dangerous dogs. The dog is a companion animal. It has been bred for hundreds of years to be responsive to humans, gentle and kind. We must give no succour to those who wish to change this breeding to make dogs fierce. As dogs are all of one species, fierce animals can be used to cross-breed with breeds of good temperament to produce fierce versions of dogs. We must do everything that we can to avoid that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduces legislation, that is what we shall endeavour to do.

I hope that it is common ground that we all want dogs of any sort to be of good and reliable temperament. There is no place for dogs which have to be kept in what I would term, to refer to another part of my responsibilities, category A conditions. It makes no sense to have dogs kept in wire cages outside. I hope that there will be universal support for the measures that my right hon. Friend will introduce shortly.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that in the past two days there has been a series of points of order, raised especially by the hon. Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), about tabling questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on national health service trusts. It was suggested by those two hon. Members that the Clerks in the Table Office were not allowing such questions to be tabled.

Mr. Speaker rightly told me yesterday that no hon. Member wantonly misleads the House. I am sure that you will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in column 784 of Tuesday's Hansard Mr. Speaker made it clear that he would investigate with the Table Office whether the Clerks had given the indication to which the hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Copeland referred. As some of my hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), have learnt most clearly that the Clerks did not give such an indication, and as inadvertently two hon. Members have misled the House, it would be immensely helpful to the House and to clear the good name of the Clerks, who are always completely neutral, independent and above party politics, if Mr. Speaker were to make it clear—not through you now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before the House rises—that the allegations made by the two hon. Members to whom I referred were entirely false.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he has said and especially for his reference to the Clerks. My recollection is that Mr. Speaker made the position clear in his statement yesterday. I shall, of course, cause investigations to be made in view of what the hon. Gentleman said.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish—

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but the House is cutting into the time of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

It is a convention of the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) knows this—that when we name other hon. Members during points of order, or when raising issues in other ways, we give them notice so that they have the opportunity to appear in the Chamber to respond to whatever is said about them. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman troubled to do that.

It is customary to do so.

The concept of active citizenship means different things to different people. It is all-embracing. I believe that active citizenship, when it is healthy, makes for a stable and well-ordered society. As I said, it means different things to different people, and as a Conservative I suspect that I place an emphasis on it different from the emphasis that it is given by socialists.

I am proud to say that active citizenship in Basildon is thriving. Indeed, it is leading the way. I intend, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, to indulge in an unashamed roll of honour to salute all the active citizens in my constituency.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has given his name to an excellent document entitled "Releasing the Community Spirit". Many excellent ideas are set out in that document, which provides a framework for the active citizen. It is well worth reading.

I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, is a modest person. He would be the last to entice anyone to praise his efforts. However, I intend to give him praise, for his name is engraved upon the hearts of my constituents. I think that he has visited my constituency no fewer than four times. On each visit he has been responsible for making fundamental improvements to the lives of all my constituents. First, in 1986–87, he was the Minister with responsibility for new towns. He made sure that those who lived in what were termed concrete camps of properties in Vange, who bought them with the best of intentions, were enabled to purchase them back. I cannot over-emphasise how much that has meant to my constituents.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State visited the police station in Basildon and saw at first hand where it was intended to build the new court house. There was an argument about linking the police station with the new court house via an underground tunnel. My right hon. Friend returned to the Home Office and made sure that there would be a tunnel linking the two buildings.

Some years ago, my right hon. Friend replied to an Adjournment debate on St. Luke's hospice. It was while he was a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security that privately, behind the scenes, he encouraged local residents to pursue the project.

I congratulate the Government on their many initiatives to encourage active citizenship, perhaps the most recent of which was the pledge that £4·5 million of taxpayers' money would be used to support Crime Prevention Week. Sadly, the socialists in Basildon tried to take full credit for the scheme. In fact, it was a Home Office initiative. I am delighted to tell the House that Crime Prevention Week proved to be an enormous success in Basildon. It was successful during the week in question and the many continuing projects will bring enormous benefit for the residents of Basildon in the years ahead.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about our attempts to help Basildon in the past. Is he aware that the attitude of the Labour party in Basildon towards Crime Prevention Week—it claimed responsibility for that excellent and successful concept—ran full in the face of national Labour party policy? The Labour party chose to condemn national Crime Prevention Week and to condemn the actions of all citizens who voluntarily played a full part in making the scheme a success. Perhaps those at Walworth road should talk to the representatives of the Labour party in Basildon.

How right my right hon. Friend is. Basildon socialists are frequently out of step with socialists nationally. That is why two Thursdays ago there was a 9 per cent. swing to Conservative party candidates in my constituency. The leader of the Labour group is a treasurer at Walworth road. It must be an increasing worry to those concerned that his advice is being taken by the Labour party.

I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate he will give details of what local businesses are doing to assist in all the Government initiatives, because I am fed up with people knocking local business. As my hon. Friend the Member for Esher wrote in the excellent document to which I referred, local businesses have been magnificent in their support of active citizenship.

I am not ashamed to say that I am proud to be British. This is the finest country in the world and I am fed up with the British disease of continually knocking ourselves. If we are not moaning about the weather, we are always saying that the grass is greener on the other side. It is not and it is time that we followed the example of others and beat the drum for Britain.

I am proud to live in Basildon, which is the finest new town in Britain and is the beacon of the south. Because some unkind articles have been written over the years about my constituency—we did not necessarily take offence at the article on Essex man and Essex woman—I initiated the "I love Basildon" campaign, which enabled people to wear attractive badges and display bumper stickers on their cars and in shops. It was an extremely effective campaign which said, in effect, "We live in Basildon and we are proud of our town."

The campaign was specifically aimed at the national problems of litter, graffiti and vandalism. Conservative Members believe in leading by example and that is why I undertook, late at night, to go on what I called anti-vandal patrols. I approached groups of youngsters on street corners and asked why they were there and not attending our local youth clubs and other activities provided in the town. Their main complaint was that, as they were under age and could not drink alcohol, commercial enterprises in the town were not prepared to run discos providing non-alcoholic drinks. Local businesses rallied round magnificently and I am delighted to report that in Basildon we are providing discos at which youngsters can enjoy non-alcoholic drinks.

We also worked with such enterprising people as the Guardian Angels, not in an unorthodox fashion but to demonstrate that we were concerned with individual responsibility. There is no earthly reason why people should drop sweet papers on the floor, throw cigarette ends out of car windows and so on. Throwing litter and rubbish on to the floor costs the nation money and at this time, when we are concerned for the well-being of the economy, we must make sure that every penny is well spent. There is no reason why huge sums of money should be wasted because we have a litter problem.

Local people have set up working parties on the Westminster model and, on a voluntary basis, are clearing up some of our estates and more unsightly roads. I am delighted to report that local schools responded magnificently to national spring-clean week, which proved extremely effective.

Why, when somebody changes the lettering on a street sign so that the name of the road becomes a dirty or swear word, is there never anybody present to see the graffiti happen? I assume that not adults but children are responsible for such graffiti. The parents of those children should accept responsibility for the unsocial behaviour of their offspring. Nobody who indulges in graffiti can be considered an active citizen, in Basildon or elsewhere.

I pay tribute to the police in Basildon. When I became a Member of Parliament, we had one local police station. We now have three, thanks to the support of the Home Office. We have a police station at Pitsea, a new one being built at Laindon and our central police station in Basildon.

We have a magnificent new court house, where people gather in a civilised fashion. Gone is the overcrowding that used to take place in Billericay magistrates courts. In those days there was enormous pressure on the counselling given by social workers and the new court house has raised morale among the members of the probation service and among chief officers. I am delighted with the support that the Government gave to our new court house.

Like the police throughout the country, the police in Basildon are absolutely magificent. I would not wish to be a policeman. It is an extremely difficult job and the men and women in our police force, under increasingly difficult circumstances, because of the change in behaviour of the population generally, face great difficulties. We should congratulate and encourage the police in all their endeavours.

If the police are doing such an excellent job in Basildon and nationally, which the Government and people generally recognise to be the case, and if they are doing an extremely fine job in crime prevention, why does my hon. Friend think that it is now Labour party official policy to take responsibility for crime prevention from the police and give it to local councils? Does he think that the Labour party does not really trust the police?

Certainly. I cannot think of a worse scenario than local socialists in Basildon having control of the police force. That would be outrageous and my right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the point.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments on my pamphlet. He does a remarkable job for the people of Basildon and we are hearing much of his own activities behind the praise that he is giving to others. Is not it interesting to note that where there is a good police force, the people respond to it, with citizens wanting to assist and taking a more active part in neighbourhood watch and similar schemes? Has he noted the increasing awareness among younger people of what they can do for youth crime assistance with the police, rather than being on the wrong side of the law? All such matters are part of the community working properly and my hon. Friend's efforts are helping to make sure that that happens in Basildon.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and he is right. I was about to deal with the question of neighbourhood watch schemes and the other initiatives to which he referred. Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend the 10th anniversary of the victim support scheme in Basildon. It is a magnificent initiative, again supported by the Government, and the chairman said in his annual report:

"Until recently victims of crime had long been neglected by the community."

My hon. Friends and I feel passionately that the real victims of crime are not given enough attention. The initiative in Basildon has addressed that problem. He went on:

"The Police, the Probation Service and the Judiciary were primarily concerned with the offender. The victim might be asked to give evidence but there was no organisation to help victims of crime".

Does the House understand the role of the active citizen in victim support, which is dependent on untrained volunteers—ordinary men and women who, after selection and training, have time to visit victims? A leaflet on the group says of the volunteers, who are not paid for their sacrifices:

"Volunteers are caring people who are able to listen and respond to the victim's needs. Information on these and on the agencies and services available to them is given to volunteers during training, enabling them to offer victims a confidential service on behalf of the community. Each volunteer carries an identity card issued by the Police."

The victim support group is so dedicated that, when the new court house opened, it initiated a fund-raising team to serve tea and coffee there. It has enjoyed tremendous success with the continuity of its co-ordinators. Although this is a sad and serious project, they have embarked on a scheme to study the causes of murder and manslaughter.

The group has asked me to raise with my right hon. Friend the Minister one point concerning the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. A person in receipt of state benefits can be penalised if he receives a lump sum because state benefits are taken into consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend can comment on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher mentioned the neighbourhood watch scheme. A retired gentleman called Ken Coulter is what is called the divisional controller in Basildon. Every day of the week, he is in Basildon police station working on the scheme on behalf of the community. It is thanks to his efforts and those of his team of volunteers that there are now 600 of these groups in Basildon representing 171,000 residents and guarding 62,000 properties. There are 186 liaison officers and 8,962 people in the youth section. It is a magnificent effort. Our local neighbourhood scheme has piloted a pet watch scheme, which co-ordinates the activities of residents who are naturally upset when they lose their pets. Their contribution to our local society is profound.

Underpinning all this has to be education. I am delighted to say that our schools are doing a magnificent job, in partnership with the police, in educating our young people. Sadly, we lost our way in the 1960s, when we set young people a bad example and in the past decade we have been paying the dividend. Our schools are now in a healthy state. Local police come in regularly to show young people how they can help in developing the concept of active citizenship. I salute the efforts of the police.

Frequently, young people come to my surgery with suggestions for new projects. Only on Saturday, six young people, six or seven-year-olds, asked for my support for an environmental project in Langdon Hills and brought me beautiful coloured drawings. They were going to work with the local community in clearing up their estates.

How sad it is to hear of a minority of parents who expect teachers to do it all for them. Education is a partnership. Schools are responsible for children between 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock, but parents must take full responsibility for their children outside those hours and at the weekend.

Basildon has many voluntary organisations for the handicapped. Sports for the disabled are run by two groups. There is nothing so moving as to go along to these annual sports days and see disabled men and women participating in sporting activities in a way that able-bodied people would find impossible. They never allow disability to hold them back. A wonderful woman, Mrs. Childers, is chairman of PHAB—the physically handicapped and able bodied organisation—which does a wonderful job. I am sad that the socialist council is threatening to take away its transport facilities and those of other similar organisations and is trying to blame such measures on the Government, who are not to blame.

A great deal of magnificent work goes on at Valery lodge, which was inspired by a woman who, sadly, has since died of cancer and her husband, who is blind. Basildon also has a town crier organisation—talking books for the blind. Volunteers meet to produce these tapes, which blind people enjoy. We have the friends of Elmbrook school, which is attended by severely disabled people who have actually climbed to the top of Big Ben.

I have already mentioned St. Luke's hospice. It took a German woman, Trudy Cox, her husband Les and their family to show British people that if one is determined, anything is achievable. We do not have any millionaires living in Basildon, or if we do, they are keeping a low profile. If I knew about them, I would immediately try to sign them up as members of the Conservative party. Despite that, in six years, through tombolas and raffles, the hospice has raised over £1 million.

That is extraordinary.

It is quite extraordinary. Last year, the Duchess of Norfolk opened the hospice. Knowing that we have a number of social problems in Basildon, with many people on low incomes, she was able to see at first hand what a magnificent job people had done. Five weeks ago, we were privileged to have a visit from the Princess of Wales. She was deeply moved by the wonderful achievements of Trudy Cox and others in building the hospice.

I congratulate the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, which has 500 members and supplies meals on wheels and book services. The Basildon hospital league of friends has been going for over 25 years and has raised, by the efforts of its 300 members, £25,000. I am the unpaid, voluntary spokesman for the National Association of Hospital Broadcasting Organisations, the largest unpaid voluntary organisation. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister would tell the Treasury that the association would be delighted if VAT on hospital radio broadcasting equipment were zero-rated and if the Broadcasting Authority would give the association its own frequency.

The marriage guidance council, RELATE, of which I have the privilege to be president, also does a magnificent job, as do the team of volunteer Samaritans at Little Lullaway and the citizens advice bureaux. We take for granted the work of the Rotarians, the Round Table, the Inner Wheel and the carnival charities, which each year raise money for local people. I have the privilege of being the president of the local scouting organisation, which will be here soon to enjoy the privilege of having tea with Mr. Speaker. Both the scouts and the girl guides do a wonderful job.

I have the privilege also to be president of the St. John's Ambulance Brigade. It, too, does a magnificent job. Basildon boys club and the Unge boys club, of which I am also privileged to be president, do a magnificent job in helping local boys to join in sporting activities. am delighted that the Minister for Sport is here. I know that he will pay tribute to the work done by the National Association of Boys' Clubs.

The private car hire and taxi charity organisation, which organises an annual run each year, should be congratulated. I introduced a ten-minute Bill, now an Act of Parliament—the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988—that was inspired by the Essex Horse and Pony Protection Society. I congratulate it. Recently we have launched Pets as Therapy. It was inspired by Leslie Scott-Ordish and is based in Maidstone. A team of volunteers offer their friendly dogs to be taken along to old people to be patted. It cheers up the old people.

The Royal British Legion does a magnificent job. I very much regret that the socialists in Basildon seem to be preventing us from having a permanent war memorial. How magnificent the poppy collectors are. The arthritis and stroke clubs also do a magnificent job. Crossroads, of which I have the privilege to be president, provides a care attendance scheme that is responsible on a voluntary basis for providing care to people who have disabled children. It provides counselling advice and looks after disabled people while the carers have a holiday.

Finally, I must certainly not forget the Church. We have 28 local churches which do a magnificent job. I very much regret that only 2 per cent. of the population worship regularly. The Minister and I happen to be Catholics, but to me all the local churches in Basildon do a magnificent job. In particular, I pay tribute to Paul Smith, who leads the Living Word Community church. He goes along privately—I do not have the time to do so—to speak to people who have severe emotional problems. He counsels them on an individual basis.

I hope that in the short time that I have been given for this debate I have demonstrated that we do not need the socialists in Basildon to lecture us on a caring community. It is through active citizenship, through the many voluntary organisations in Basildon, that we demonstrate every day, week and month that we are a truly caring society. We lead the way in the country. I hope that this morning the whole House will join me in paying a very warm tribute to all the active citizens in Basildon.

I should like to be the first to join in those words of praise for the active citizens of Basildon. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has given us an extraordinary list—a litany, if one likes—of all the organisations, with many of which he is notably involved, that contribute so much to the life of that town. It is active citizenship, which is the subject of this debate.

At the beginning of his remarks my hon. Friend paid some kind tributes to me. I do not know whether I shall ever be opened up after my death for a post-mortem to be carried out, but if I am I suspect that they will find the word "Basildon", together with a few other words, engraved on my heart. I congratulate my hon. Friend, and, through him, those who help him, on the magnificent 9 per cent. swing to the Conservative party that they achieved at the recent local elections.

It fills me with horror to learn that obstacles may well be placed in the way of a proper war memorial to the deceased active citizens of Basildon by the socialist council in Basildon. I hope that common sense will break out and that that Labour council will be persuaded to think again about what strikes me as the most disgraceful obstacle being placed in the way of the erection of a proper memorial to the dead of Basildon.

I am growing very worried—and I became more and more worried as I listened to my hon. Friend—about other obstacles that the Labour council in Basildon is putting in the way of active citizens. I understand that the excellent organisation PHAB, to which my hon. Friend referred, is likely to have some of its transport that is provided locally withdrawn by the council. That is disgraceful. Disabled people deserve better, even from Labour councils.

I cannot, unfortunately, give an instant response to my hon. Friend's point about value added tax on hospital radios. However, I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that either he or one of his colleagues will get in touch directly with my hon. Friend. He has promoted a most notable debate. It gives me the opportunity to pay tribute not only to him and to the active citizens of Basildon but to the tens and scores of thousands of people of all ages and from all sections of our community who work in or support voluntary organisations and charities in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is now well understood and accepted by the majority of people in this country that there is a clear role for these organisations alongside statutory provision by national or local government.

It is a deeply outdated argument, redolent of the late 1970s, that there is no role at all for voluntary organisations in working closely with both national and local government and also in working closely with business in what may turn out to be a fruitful tripartite alliance in the 1990s. From small things larger things grow. Thirty or 40 years ago, housing associations—small voluntary organisations—were not thought highly of by many people in this country, yet now they are a major provider of housing, bringing together national and local government, voluntary organisations and business.

It is only a distant blip on the radar screen, but perhaps in the next 10 or 20 years we shall see bodies called care associations springing up to provide care in the community and bringing together statutory, local and voluntary provision and business help of various sorts. That is why this debate is so valuable. The outdated arguments of the 1970s and early 1980s about each area having its territory and there being a frontier beyond which the statutory service must not advance, or over which the voluntary sector must not travel, is deeply outdated and should be consigned to the dustbin of tiresome debate.

Voluntary organisations also provide people with the opportunity to pick up a theme that has been consistent in Conservative thought for the past 200 years. Disraeli is, perhaps, too often quoted in this place, but I quote him again on the need to help the little battalions. If we look across the Atlantic, we see a similar theme, with what President Bush said about the need to look for the thousand points of light in the American community and the work done by the voluntary organisations there. That is something that we wish to promote, not to hold back. That is why we do what we can in the Home Office, and in all Government Departments, particularly through the excellent work of the voluntary services unit, to promote the work that volunteers do.

The House may be interested to know that, starting on 3 June, there will be a major volunteers week during which local and national events are to be arranged to publicise and celebrate the contribution made by volunteers. That will be going on in Basildon, as elsewhere. We take every opportunity to encourage responsible and active citizens to give not just of money but of their time, too. One of the most encouraging trends that we have seen during the 1980s has been the willingness of the business and voluntary sectors to join in partnership with Government to tackle the problems that concern us all. The breaking down of barriers and the willingness to work together is very welcome.

These are not just fine words. I can announce today—I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to hear it—that we shall be making a grant towards the start up of a scheme jointly proposed by the Home Office, business in the community and the action resource centre to attempt to stimulate more volunteering by employees—a theme and a trend, I think, of the 1990s. This grant—£51,000, or £51,500 for those who are precisely minded in this place—will cover half the cost for the next three years of two pilot projects in Leeds and Leicester. Unfortunately, we did not have a bid from Basildon. If we had, I dare say that one of the two pilot projects would have been in Basildon. The pilot projects have been designed to show how closer links between local, voluntary and business sectors can be established and to develop practical models for employee volunteering which can be replicated throughout the United Kingdom. That will help to promote active citizenship by employees, sometimes during employers' time. Many businesses, large and small, are recognising that if employees are allowed to volunteer for activities, it can help to enrich and enhance the experience of those employees.

There have been many definitions of active citizenship. For me it can be defined as someone making more than a solely economic contribution to their community; someone who not only cares but acts on their caring instincts. In his extraordinary list of caring people in Basildon, my hon. Friend put his finger not on the definition of active citizenship but on the practical outcome of it.

Many people have identified with the theme of active citizenship and it has captured a great deal of imagination and public debate. It has been useful in persuading people to think about the contribution that they might make and in developing recognition of the contribution that many already make to their neighbourhood.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon listed a range of things taking place in Basildon as examples of what can be done. He mentioned crime prevention and gave the name of one active citizen who visits the police station daily and is co-ordinating neighbourhood watch schemes. I am afraid that I cannot remember his name.

Mr. Coulter.

I pay tribute to him and to the neighbourhood watch movement in Basildon. Crime prevention is very important. It caught the national imagination in April during the first ever British national crime prevention week. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon for what he said about Home Office efforts. Crime prevention week was built on the hard work of the police and other statutory agencies and the hordes of volunteers up and down the country.

I have been amazed at the outright attacks and condemnation of crime prevention week from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Their comments are a slap in the face for the tens of thousands of volunteers and active citizens of all political parties and no political party who took part in 6,000 separate schemes during that week and attracted many millions of pounds worth of private sector sponsorship and advertising which was freely given to promote crime prevention week.

It is clear that the Labour party does not approve of voluntary action in crime prevention. What the Labour party has said—I deplore it—is entirely consistent with the two extremely dangerous themes that are now emerging from printed and published Labour party policy documents. It represents a direct attack on the partnership between active citizens concerned with crime prevention and the police. One of the first things that the Labour party has pledged to do is to take away from the police responsibility for crime prevention—the first phrase of any police constable's oath—and transfer it to local authorities. Tell that to the people of Basildon, Lambeth, Haringey, Southwark and Liverpool and other areas with Labour councils.

Even more sinister is the Labour party's pledge in its printed policy documents—the documents are there for us all to see—to extend the political control of the police by having elected police authorities, starting in London. One can imagine what policing would be like in Basildon if the local authority was responsible for crime prevention and the police in that part of Essex. It would break down the fruitful link between voluntary citizens and the police. I applaud the practical work being done by the Essex constabulary and the neighbourhood watch movement in Basildon. For example, they have introduced the innovative pet watch scheme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon referred.

Characteristically, my hon. Friend has picked on a theme that is catching the imagination of people nationally. The Government will do all that they can, financially and in other ways, to promote that in the coming decade. I predict that the coming decade will see a great increase in national volunteering and the rapid coming together of Government, business and the voluntary sectors so that their endeavours may be put on a sound footing to bring into the foreground of public life the little battalions who can really answer local needs in Basildon and elsewhere.

It is a pleasure once more to bring to the Dispatch Box the Minister for Sport so that he may have yet another opportunity to shine. He is looking particularly fresh this morning after a strenuous evening yesterday when he was responsible for spinning the tombola wheel at the sports hall. Thanks to him, I won a prize—a pair of football shin pads. I wondered whether it was an omen for today's debate, but I hope that it will not be that rough. It is a pity that I am taking the Minister away from his beloved cricket. I understand that he was invited to the international game at Edgbaston today. I hope that after the debate he will be able to hurry along the M1 and M6 to see the best of that game.

I should like to apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who is attending a memorial service to the late Ron Pickering. I am sure that the House will know that Ron Pickering was a great ambassador for sport. He was a great sports commentator, and his passing has meant the loss of a great advocate for British sport. I know that the Minister agrees with that.

This debate gives the Minister an opportunity to tackle several problems. I have had two other debates with him in the recent past. In December we debated the problems facing football, and in February we debated the problems of sport in schools. Also, we had our little clash on Tuesday. It is a pity that we do not have a regular slot for sports questions. I know that the Minister agrees with that as he said so recently on television. The House would like to have an opportunity to question the Minister from time to time, and I know that he would like to be able to answer those questions. I know that he is aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and I have been pressing for that facility for many years. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House informed us only 13 days ago that the Government do not intend to provide it. I see that the Minister is surprised. Once more he has been sidelined and I am sure that he wants to get to grips with it because the Leader of the House has written to the hon. Member For Luton, North, the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) and myself to say that it is riot timely to provide a slot. I hope that the Minister will join us in keeping that matter on the boil because such a facility is long overdue. I know that we can rely on his support.

I hope that the Minister did not think that I was churlish on Tuesday for not congratulating him on his Question Time debut. I should like to take this opportunity of doing so. I could not do so on Tuesday because of the content of his answer. I believe passionately in sport, which has suffered greatly in the past from a lack of funding and investment. Therefore, I could not congratulate the Minister on an answer that appeared to contain a boast on his part when there has been a declining level of financial provision for sport under this Government. In reply to my supplementary question the Minister said that, uncharacteristically, I was talking nonsense.

I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, characteristically, I will not let that remark pass without challenge. Far from talking nonsense on Tuesday, I reminded the Government of their record, according to information from the Department of Education and Science. Figures supplied in written answers show that, compared with five years ago, funding for sport, through grant in aid to the Sports Council and the urban programme, has fallen in real terms by £3·8 million and £11·9 million respectively. That makes a total cut in direct funding, compared with the 1986–87 figure, of £15·7 million.

The Minister may suggest, however, that I should consider the cumulative cut in direct funding for sport in that five-year period. I am only too happy to do so, but I suspect that he will not be too happy to hear what I have to say. The total cut in grant in aid to the Sports Council since 1986–87 is £12·5 million, and in funding for the urban programme £25·5 million, making a total cumulative cut of a staggering £38 million. That is indefensible.

The Minister must explain the reason for this catastrophic state of affairs. Furthermore, he must explain why cuts will continue to rise in the coming year. In 1991–92, direct Government funding of sport will fall, to keep pace with inflation, by a further £5·3 million. Hansard got it wrong and corrected it, but that is what I said on Tuesday.

The Minister attempted to obscure those figures in a written answer by observing that over the same period the amount of money generated by the Sports Council without Government help increased from £5·46 million pounds to £10·95 million. If that is the method by which he is attempting to hide the fact that the Government have consistently and drastically cut the Sports Council's budget, it is little short of disgraceful. Effectively, he is saying that, although the Sports Council has made great efforts to increase its income from its own activities, the Government have scuppered its efforts, pocketed the proceeds and left it no better off than it was five years ago. Which of the two is it? He is trying either to expose the Government's pathetic record or to hide it.

I look forward to the Minister's reply and challenge him to dispute the figures that I have announced, which were supplied by his Department and confirmed by the Sports Council and by the Library.

The Minister will also wish to tell the House of his recently announced £1 million scheme for coaching schoolchildren through the National Coaching Foundation. I congratulate him on securing that money, which will be paid for five times over by the reduction in next year's grant to the Sports Council.

I hope that the Minister will tell the House the whole truth about the scheme and will confirm the figure that he supplied to me in a parliamentary written answer on 21 May, which shows that the scheme will last for only eight to 10 weeks, will involve only 0·2 per cent. of children under the age of 11 to 14 in maintained schools, and will cover less than one fifth of local education authorities.

I am aware that the scheme is meant to be a pilot scheme to establish examples of good practice for use in other areas, but the Minister must confirm that funding will be made available to support further projects that might arise from the pilot scheme. If he cannot give that assurance, many will question whether the scheme is the start of something worthwhile or merely a short-term public relations exercise. I am sure that he will wish to allay our fears on that.

Funding for sport is one of a range of issues that the Minister will be considering in the formulation of the Government's sports policy. I know that he has consulted a wide range of bodies as part of the review. In a parliamentary written answer on 30 November, he listed more than 50 of them. Curiously, he has failed to consult one body that has consistently and effectively supported sport at every opportunity—the Labour party.

Lest the Minister doubts that claim, I ask him to reflect on the following facts. A Labour Government created the Sports Council and gave Britain its first and, as is universally recognised, finest Minister for Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath. I trust that the Minister will not take too much exception to that claim. A Labour Government published Britain's first, and to date only, White Paper on sport, and introduced the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975, which established the system of licensing sports stadiums that is still in use today. A Labour Government fulfilled their duties to European and international sport not only by negotiating and signing on behalf of Britain the European sports-for-all charter but the Gleneagles agreement, which facilitated the application of probably the most comprehensive and solid pressure against the evil of the apartheid regime, the sports boycott, which has been instrumental in bringing about the welcome changes in South Africa.

On a personal note, I am proud to have been the Minister who, in a Labour Government, introduced mandatory rate relief to the level of 65 per cent. for sports clubs in Northern Ireland, which has done much to benefit and promote grass-roots sport in the Province. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath pointed out to the Minister on Tuesday, a Labour Government put their money where their mouth was and provided financial assistance to both the World cup and the Commonwealth games in Britain.

That stands in stark contrast with the Pontius Pilate hand washing that has characterised the Government's deplorable treatment of the world student games in Sheffield and the Manchester-led British Olympic bid, about which I shall say something in a moment.

Over the years, Labour councils and, to their credit, a few Conservative councils have fought, against all the odds, to maintain and develop the highest sporting facilities to implement policies encouraging equal opportunities of access and participation in sport and recreation. No wonder, then, that when my party produced its 21-point manifesto for sport at the last election, compared to the non-existent policy of the Tory party, one Sunday newspaper observed,

"When it comes to sport, there's only one Party in it."

That is still true, but the Government would have us believe otherwise. They say that much has changed, but the record of the Minister and his colleagues, whom I have heard described in the sports world as Johnny-comelatelies, proves that they still do not recognise that sport plays an important part in the lives of people in this country. The Sports Council suggests that some 21 million adults and 7 million children take part in sport or active recreation in Britain each year. I hope that the Minister will at least be gracious enough to acknowledge the debt that Britain's sports men and women owe Labour Governments and councils, who were addressing sports needs long before the Government took office.

Unfortunately, however, the Minister is in a difficult position. I am sure that he—and I mean this—honestly endeavours to do his best for sport. But he is a member of a Government who neither fully understand nor accept the full economic and social case for sport. They see sport as a ready source of income rather than as an aspect of society that deserves financial support. Each year they extract from sport £3 billion in betting duty and taxes, but put back only approximately one fifth.

The Government fail to see that, in reality, funding for sport represents an investment in the health and well-being of this country. For example, sport pays a fundamental role in promoting good health and physical fitness, thus reducing the burden on the national health service. Furthermore, the provision of sporting and recreation opportunities has been recognised by social workers, the police and probation officers as being particularly beneficial in reducing inner-city crime. Given their record, I hope that the Government will take particular note of that point. Should the Minister care to consider the treatment meted out by his colleagues to the report of the working party—Sport and Active Recreation Provision in the Inner Cities—of his predecessor the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), I am sure that he will acknowledge that the Government have missed no fewer than six explicit deadlines for action.

They include the production of a publicly available progress report on the implementation of the report's recommendations by the end of 1990—that is the report I referred to. They also include the production of a practical guidance booklet on dual use, together with the collection and publication of responses by the end of 1990. That has been missed as well. There is also the production of a clear and comprehensive statement of the Government's overall objectives for sport and recreation provision in the inner cities by August 1990. That has been missed. Finally, there was the establishment by 1989 of an inter departmental group to identify, encourage and develop joint initiatives for sport.

"That is a shoddy state of affairs. Many people in the sporting world are saying, in respect of the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), "Come back, you were not so bad after all." The Minister is new in his job and he has yet to make his mark, but it would be well for him to take note of some of the recommendations of his predecessor, for which he received little recognition.

The Minister should stop trying to tell the hon. Member for Luton, North what he has missed—he is desperately trying to find out what happened at the beginning of the debate and I know of his interest in it, but he will have to catch up later because I want the Minister's ear.

It is ironic that, even on simple financial grounds, investment in sport makes economic good sense. Far from being a financial drain on the Chancellor, sport represents a significant factor in the national economy. It is estimated that sport generates about £6 billion of consumer expenditure each year and the sports industry employs more people than the motor manufacturing industry and its ancillary industries—and that is even before the way that the industry has been treated as a result of the Budget. However, if the Chancellor wishes to locate an aspect of the economy—and perhaps the Minister can help in this matter—that has undergone significant and spectacular growth in recent years in spite of his policies rather than as a result of them, he need look no further than the sports and leisure industry. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to grasp the fact—or if they have grasped it they have not acted on it—that the economic success is only a small proportion of what could be created if fuller backing were given to sport and recreation.

In its 1990 report on local authority support for sport, the Audit Commission acknowledged that participation in sports is supply led and that it depends on the availability of facilities. Given the cuts in funding for sport which, as I outlined, have been the hallmark of this Government, we have missed a golden opportunity for economic investment in that area. That has to stop, and the Minister must come behind us to see that it does stop.

Unfortunately, far from investing in sport, the measures announced by the Chancellor in his Budget will bleed the sports industry further dry. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey), in a question to the Minister two days ago, asked him to study the implications of the value added tax increase on sports and sports clubs. In case he has not had time since then to do so or had time to read my speech of 20 March on the Budget, in which I outlined precisely what the effects would be, I shall save him the job and tell him the implications.

The effect of a 2·5 per cent. increase in VAT means that our sports men and women will have to give the Government an extra £105 million in increased tax and duties on items such as equipment and on admission fees. Lest the Minister feels tempted to dispute those figures, I can tell him that they have been checked and verified by the Sports Council, but, more important from his point of view, in a letter dated 17 April from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I know that the Minister will not accuse his colleagues of talking nonsense. I am sure that he will accept, as a result, that the Budget has been a disaster.

Of course the Minister will wish to counter that argument. I have heard him say before that the Budget provided for a foundation for sport and the arts, but even he must realise that he is on shaky ground there. For a start, that much-trailed organisation is still nowhere near coming into being. The Minister is shaking his head, so perhaps he will give us some welcome news today. The Government have provided firm evidence of that by failing to table a new clause to the Finance Bill, which was promised to me by the Financial Secretary recently. That new clause was to effect a cut in the football pool duty to facilitate a foundation. I suggest that that is because there is, to date, still no agreement between the proposed funders of the foundation and the pools companies which are to set up the foundation. If he does nothing else, the Minister must confirm or deny that fact when he replies, because the football, sports and arts lobbies want to know where they stand.

The Government are offering precious little help in this matter. The Minister will know that the Chief Secretary was forced to admit to me in a parliamentary written answer on 28 March that the Government did not have the most basic plans for this foundation, including who would be on it, what would be the ratio of funding between sports and the arts provided in it, how many staff it would need and what measures will be in place to ensure monitoring, audit or accountability of its work. What light can the Minister shed on that?

If the Minister's performance to date is anything to go by, the answer must be none. When he did have a stab at it, he got his sums terribly wrong. I am sure that he will recall his claim on 23 April that the foundation would provide funds of £75 million.

indicated assent.

I am glad that he recognises that he said that. I should have thought that his colleagues in the Treasury were astounded by his claim, because they have been saying that it would provide £60 million. Again, they do not know what they are talking about—or one does and one does not because they cannot both be right. They were talking about £60 million, so where does the magical £75 million come from?

In answer to a written question on 29 April the Minister told me that it would come from increased betting turnover. However, I challenged the Financial Secretary in my speech only 23 days ago to confirm that that would require pools companies' turnover to be increased by 25 per cent. to £1 billion for the current 12 months, but he was unable to do so. Perhaps the Minister can do it—his sums may be better than those of the Treasury. Perhaps he should not be in his current post, but should be the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I shall put a word in for him if he can get this right. Instead, the Financial Secretary dodged the question and said that the Minister for Sport would be surprised by my comments. I see that the Minister is surprised. Having had the chance to get over his surprise, the Minister must now tell the House plainly and simply: is he prepared to repeat his claim and suggest that betting turnover will increase by 25 per cent. to provide an extra £15 million for the foundation? The House has heard the question; we shall await the Minister's definitive reply.

To be fair to the Minister, I admit that he has had to suffer at the hands of this Government a pretty raw deal that has afflicted not only him but his predecessors. The Government do not value or respect their Ministers for Sport. Rather, they use sport for convenient public relations exercises and ignore and snub the Ministers involved. The Minister will know that in only too painful detail. For example, he was humiliated by being excluded from any ministerial discussions surrounding the sport and arts foundation until well into the event. I shall give him another chance to come clean. I challenge him to deny that his first official, on-the-record meeting with Treasury officials to discuss the foundation took place on 24 April, more than five weeks after the Budget announcement. I have sympathy with the Minister and I am very much on his side because that is a disgrace. He has also had to suffer the embarrassment of spending months hinting in the national press that he would convince the Treasury to abolish corporation tax for the national governing bodies of sport, only to be wholly rebuffed by the Chancellor. It is no wonder that he was not included in the talks 11 days before the Budget.

I ask the Minister to recall his words to The Mail on Sunday on 20 January. He said:

"I'm looking very hard at the financial structure of sports so they can be released from having to pay corporation tax. I feel very strongly about the tax that sport has to pay and I believe that we can change this and get more money into the grass roots of sport. I'm not going to make any promises"

—to be fair—

"but there are many sports followers in the Cabinet."

I ask him to explain what went wrong.

Having looked at the financial structure, did the Minister realise that he could not get the Treasury to agree with it, despite his own admission that it would provide a much-needed boost for grass-roots sport? What happened to all the supposed sports lovers and sports followers in the Cabinet when he needed them? Chief of those is the Prime Minister himself. Would a sports-loving Prime Minister allow his Minister for Sport to go out on a limb and then humiliate him? I realise that the Minister may choose not to reply to that point and I understand that it may be difficult for him. I assure him that some of us can see the reality behind the Government's hype and we sympathise with him.

Nevertheless, there can be no excuse for inaction by the Government. The Minister must at the very least persuade his colleagues to take action to help the British Olympic bid with financial support and not just with words. The Minister promised 150 per cent. support—perhaps he does not get his figures right after all. To date, there has been not a single penny for the bid or for the wider Olympic movement. As a result, the British Olympic Association remains the only national committee to receive neither direct Government grant nor tax relief.

That is the reality behind the myth of the sports-loving Prime Minister. There is no difference between his policies and those of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). That is not good enough. The Minister must give the House his unequivocal commitment that he will stick to his guns, honour his words of last January and argue the case for the British Olympic Association to be released from corporation tax. Unless he does that, the British Olympic Association will be hampered to the extent of £1·5 million.

The Minister must tell the House that he will vigorously pursue the Secretary of State for the Environment and persuade him to provide urgently needed direct Government money to boost the Manchester-led bid. [Interruption.] The Minister has the opportunity now to listen to sport and to respond instead of talking to colleagues to whom he can talk at any time. He must answer the points, otherwise we cannot back him in his sports slot. I hope that the Minister will say something positive about the Manchester Olympic bid. He knows the importance of delivering the goods on this occasion. If he does not, he will be in severe danger of becoming a Minister who is responsible for broken promises. I realise that that may not be his direct responsibility.

It is good to see the hon. Member for Luton, North in his place. He shares many of my views—if hon. Members can believe that—on the sporting world. I will touch on football, and I know that he is passionate about our national game.

What about cricket?

Perhaps I should have said "our national winter game". That would please the Minister.

Unfortunately for the Minister, this debate has come two days late. Until last Tuesday, I would have given some qualified support to the Government for their having changed their attitude towards football. Having had their fingers burnt on the identity card scheme, one would have expected them to make an about-turn. The Government have taken a helpful attitude through the Football (Offences) Bill, and that must be placed on record because it deserves recognition. I hope that the Bill will make our football grounds far more attractive places.

On Tuesday, the Government published their response to the very fine report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs entitled "Policing Football Hooliganism". It seems that the Government have reverted to type. They rejected the Committee's considered and well-argued recommendations for reconsidering the requirement for small clubs to have all-seater grounds and sought to impose full economic charging for policing at football matches. In doing so, the Government are, once again, threatening clubs with a policy that will put many of them in danger of bankruptcy.

The Minister will be aware of the crippling effect that escalating police charges have had on clubs, especially given the additional financial worries of having to meet the Taylor deadlines. How can the Minister defend a policy that will close clubs and undermine moves towards ground safety?

I hope that the Minister will not merely repeat the line, which is always used on these occasions, that the Government have reduced pool betting levy to release £100 million over five years to football. Although that cash is welcome, as the Minister and everyone else know, even discounting the possible rocketing of police charges as a result of Government policy, the money will fall far short of the resources needed by football to meet the Taylor requirements. The £100 million represents a tiny proportion of the £2·4 billion that the Government have taken out of football since 1979 in pool betting duty. The Minister must either promise to argue the case for greater financial help for football or he must give a commitment to press the Home Secretary for a change in the currently disastrous direction. The Minister will not be forgiven for anything less by those who love the game of football.

The Minister will recall that in our debate on sport in schools I asked him to give his backing to the teaching of swimming in schools. I note that, at a conference organised by the Swim For Life campaign on 15 April, the Minister said that there was no doubt that the ability to swim saved lives and that the provision of swimming tuition at school could be justified on that ground alone. At the same conference Hamilton Bland, a faculties consultant to the Amateur Swimming Association, argued that the revenue needed to teach every 10-year-old to swim would be roughly £4·8 million. That is a lot of money and I accept that the Minister may not wish to commit the Government to such resources. He will recognise that I did not ask him to do so when I spoke in that debate. I asked him whether he would give his backing to a survey to find out what the available resources were for teaching children to swim. He chose not to reply to that request, so I repeat it now. Will he conduct a survey and give his pledge to ensuring that all available resources are used to the full?

My final request to the Minister is that he should recognise the importance of the international dimension of sport, especially the potential for using sport as an integral component in aid packages. He will be aware that the Minister for Overseas Development told me in a recent answer that a high priority is not given by host countries to that area of aid. I find that hard to accept, and I am sure the Minister does as well. I hope that he agrees that even a cursory glance at the development and aid programmes of the other European states will reveal many sporting projects. Is it not the Minister's duty to ensure that sport is given a high priority in that area by the Government and that British sport plays its part in the international aid package?

I should very much like the Minister to make a meaningful contribution to the debate. I will, therefore, conclude by saying that many hon. Members of all parties genuinely wish the Minister well. They know that he has a difficult role, and they wish that his position in Government was elevated so that he would have more clout in arguing his case. However, those of us who love sport also recognise that we are not getting a fair deal in the House, especially from the Government. We feel that many things are necessary, and we look to the Minister to play his part and to fight his corner to ensure that we have a better deal. I hope that we shall have more debates in the House on sport and recreation because they affect many people whom we represent.

rose—

Order. I am willing to call the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that the Minister has little time. The hon. Gentleman would need to seek leave to intervene because he has a later debate. There is a slight risk that he might not be granted that leave.

I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that I tried to give him an opportunity to speak.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) on having recovered from last night, as I have. I also congratulate him on having the opportunity to raise this subject today. He is right to say that I would otherwise have been at Edgbaston. He may be interested to know that the most recent score that I have heard is that the West Indies were 44 for two, which is extremely good news.

It would be remiss of me, especially today, not to draw the attention of the House to the sad death last night of one of the greatest of English footballers, Stan Mortensen. He played close to my neck of the woods. He was a great footballer whose passing will be regretted, not least because of the famous cup final that was always described as Matthews's cup final, but which some might argue was actually Mortensen's cup final because he scored such a fine hat-trick.

Those of my hon. Friends who have been kind enough to join me in listening to the debate live in a different world from that of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I have made a point—perhaps wrongly, although I hope not—of not talking too much in the early stage of my tenure but of listening to people instead. I have gone round a number of organisations and heard what they have had to say. Broadly speaking, the comments that I have heard and the responses that I have had from those in sport differ widely from the views of the hon. Gentleman.

People always want more money and no one in sport is any different from anyone in any other walk of life. The hon. Gentleman listed so many commitments to increased spending that I did not have time to add them up. I should be interested to know whether his views represent official Labour party policy or whether those commitments were his idea alone.

They do.

If that is so, it is more than a little worrying. No doubt the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the shadow Chancellor would have views about the amount of expenditure to which the hon. Gentleman wishes to commit his party.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about parliamentary questions. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) and I had a little banter about maiden questions and debuts. I realise that the situation is governed largely by the ballot but the fact remains that, although I have been in office since last July, the hon. Lady's question is the only one that I have answered orally during that time. Much as I would love to—and much as it is suggested that questions are planted, which, as hon. Members know, is never the case—I cannot answer questions unless hon Members table them. In a notable early-day motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North drew attention to the fact that those who were criticising were those who had not tabled questions.

If I recall the early-day motion correctly, the hon. Member for Luton, North excluded me from the charge.

I am sure that he did that as a matter of course. I know that the hon. Gentleman is committed to these matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions about figures. I could deal with them in detail, but there is perhaps not enough time, as we have other matters to cope with. I would say, however, that since 1979, we have increased the Sports Council's grant by about 30 per cent. in real terms. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I am in constant contact with the chairman and members of the Sports Council and we do what is necessary to ensure that the figure keeps pace with inflation.

I find the hon. Gentleman's somewhat dismissive remarks about what the Government have done for sport frankly unhelpful, which, as he is in opposition, I suppose he wants them to be. His views are also largely out of line with those of the sporting fraternity. For example, the hon. Gentleman dismissed fairly lightly the £1 million extra that I was able to find, in relation to the pilot scheme for coaching, on my move from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Education and Science. The National Coaching Foundation, through its estimable director, Sue Campbell, has done remarkable work in encouraging people to recognise the importance of coaching.

It was because of the case that Sue Campbell and others put to me that I was able to find an extra £1 million for a pilot scheme based largely on the achievements of Nottinghamshire county council and on its all-party initiative to encourage coaching out of school hours on an extracurricular basis as well as on highlighting some of the improvements that are needed in physical education in schools. The pilot scheme was divided roughly three quarters to one quarter between able-bodied children and the disabled. It goes without saying—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree—that we need to concentrate on those with disabilities, who can gain so much confidence and achieve so much, sometimes in integrated sporting efforts with able-bodied people as well as in the sporting activities in which they alone participate.

The pilot scheme was intended to establish whether some of the ideas tried locally in Nottinghamshire could work in a national context and it has been well received. It will be extended round the 10 regions of England. The hon. Gentleman may dismiss it as involving only 2 per cent. of the young population, but, none the less, I am sure that it will achieve a great deal and that we shall learn some lessons from it.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman assurances about further funding because the essence of a pilot scheme is that local communities should be encouraged to recognise the importance of the activities involved and then fund them for themselves. The Government strongly believe that we should encourage the private sector to continue to be involved and to increase its commitment to sport, whether through sponsorship or in other ways. All the evidence points to the fact that the private sector is keen to do that—indeed, that it is already doing it. We want to encourage the mixed funding of sport, whether through the dual use of community facilities or by the support and sponsorship by companies of schools and clubs.

The hon. Gentleman referred to football, which is pertinent at the moment, and to police charges. I have told the Home Office—and it has received it well—that the clubs and I believe that it would be most helpful if there were more concentration on the professional and proper stewarding of football matches in addition to the police presence. The stewards involved would, of course have to be properly trained to a standard acceptable to the local police authority, which is required to ensure that the policing is properly done.

Football is unusual in not having contributed to the cost of policing over the years. I am sure that rugby pays its own costs, and cricket certainly does. I do not see why football necessarily should be any different, although I recognise that the introduction of police charges would immediately have a detrimental effect on the lower clubs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a strong supporter of football and he and I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is why we have persuaded the Home Office to phase in the charges over five years and, at the same time, to encourage the use of properly trained expert stewards so that the police requirement is reduced. Both measures should assist somewhat.

There is no difference between the hon. Gentleman and me on the importance that we place on swimming—not least because it is a life-saving activity as well as a recreation and competitive sport. It is argued that, from the age of 11, every youngster should be able to swim. There is no difference between us on that objective. None the less, to do that immediately would require a substantial increase in funding and resources. We are arguing not about the objective but about the timing. As I said, I suspect that if the hon. Gentleman made a commitment to ensure that everyone had those facilities, which would involve a great deal of money being spent on swimming pools and so on, the Opposition spokesmen on Treasury matters might take a slightly different view.

I am sure that the Minister heard me correctly. I am not saying that the Government should commit themselves to the figure given by the Amateur Swimming Association. I am merely asking him to commit himself to look at the available resources before deciding what funds the Government can commit.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not accusing me of having a closed mind. At the swimming conference that I attended, I undertook to consider all sorts of matters relating to funding.

Before I conclude my remarks, I wish to mention the Manchester Olympics. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde and I share a commitment to the north-west as we both represent north-western constituencies. I am sure that he is as delighted as I am that Manchester's bid is now the United Kingdom's Olympic bid. I have already had conversations with the British Olympic Association and the Manchester bid committee and I reinforce my commitment that I will do everything I can to promote that bid. However, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will be aware that more than just one Minister is involved in respect of the costs and other matters connected with the bid.

When pleas are made for extra money for the bid, it should not be forgotten that by the year 2000 we will have spent about £3 billion of Government money on infrastructure in the north-west. In Manchester that expenditure will include the second terminal at Manchester airport, the supertram and the new road structure for which, in my former incarnation, I was partly responsible. A lot of money is being spent in Manchester, and deservedly so because it is the best region in the country.

I had a conversation with Bob Scott yesterday and the Manchester bid committee restated that it expects the bid to be privately financed. The committee expects to meet that requirement. In that respect, the bid committee seems to disagree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. Incidentally, such privately financed bids proved successful in Atlanta in the United States.

From the Prime Minister downwards, the Government are committed to sport. We will continue to give evidence of that commitment through the foundation, which I have not been able to refer to in detail today because of the time available to me. However, that foundation more than doubles the commitment of funds to sport by the Government. That gives the lie to the Opposition's suggestion that the Government do not appreciate, are not committed to and are not interested in sport. We are and we remain so and, while I do this job, that commitment will be reinforced on every possible occasion, supported by my colleagues who take a continuing and deep interest in sport on a regular basis.

I must declare an interest as I am the chairman of the Franco-British parliamentary relations committee and deputy chairman of the British section of the Franco-British Council. I have never made and am unlikely to make a penny in profit out of those activities.

It is difficult to speak of Anglo-French relations without lapsing into well-meaning platitudes. I am pleased that so many people in Britain derive an agreeable impression of France from programmes like "'Allo, 'Allo" and from the elegant jottings of Mr. Peter Mayall and the accounts of his life in Provence. I share his passion for that delectable region.

However, there is another France which is more a matter for our discourse. It is a France that has long since outstripped our living standards. It is the France of Peugeot Talbot, of the Compagnie Generale des Eaux, the Ecole Nationale d'Administration, and the great public works which ensure that all regions of France will have swift access by road and rail to the Channel tunnel without necessarily having to pass through Paris from the day that the tunnel is opened.

That other France is the country which has made up for its lack of natural energy resources by the most ambitious and successful nuclear energy programme in the world. It is a country which now has for the first time a woman as its head of Government, the formidable Madam Edith Cresson, who was well known in her previous ministerial capacity to several present and former Cabinet Ministers. She was well liked, but also somewhat awesomely respected.

It is that vibrant and sometimes over-thrustful France which is now one of our main partners in the European Community. The 600 years of enmity to the beginning of this century and the close alliance in two wars during the century are no longer what concern us now. We are now concerned with the future. Nor should we concern ourselves too much with purely bilateral Anglo-French relations as such.

I served for five years in the British embassy in Paris in the 1950s. I was lucky enough to serve under two great ambassadors. Oliver Harvey taught me to distinguish between the pays-légale and the pays-réel and Gladwyn Jebb taught me to recognise and to urge the opportunities for Britain to get alongside France in the building of a united Europe. However, three of my five years had elapsed before I discovered that there was an official sitting somewhere in the depths of the Quay d'Orsay who dealt with Great Britain. He subsequently turned out to be the French Foreign Minister and then ambassador to the United Kingdom.

What really matters now is how our two countries work together or fail to do so in the European Community in the maintenance of world security and in promoting the development of poorer countries in the third world.

There are certain things which I and those who care about good relations between our two countries would like to see done to improve those relations further. The Franco-British Council, the body set up by the late President Pompidou and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), set out to promote closer co-operation in matters outside the direct competence of Government. It is duly grateful to the Government for their generous moral support and the only slightly less generous financial support for the council's work. However, the fact remains that the support given by both the French and the British Governments for those activities pales into near invisibility beside the huge resources which have been poured into Franco-German co-operation since the understanding between General de Gaulle and President Adenauer and which provides for a massive programme of exchanges between young people and of language teaching.

Despite that huge governmental effort to develop Franco-German relations, there is a still larger latent support both in this country and in most parts of France for Anglo-French exchanges and for the learning of our two very dissimilar languages. It is quite right that industry on both sides of the channel, in particular firms that trade extensively in our two countries, should make the major contribution to exchanges from which it derives direct and tangible benefit. Those programmes of exchanges—I can vouch from the happy experience of my own constituency when such exchanges resulted in the twinning of Colwyn with Roissy en Brie—need priming by a judicious injection of funds at the right time and at the right level by Governments.

As I have said, direct Anglo-French relations are a less profitable matter to study than the role that our two countries play in partnership or in rivalry on the European or world stages.

The recent Gulf crisis demonstrated that, despite some differences in assessment in the early stages—differences which, I am sorry to say, were deliberately magnified and distorted by a few in this House and by all too many in the popular press who imagine that they can win cheap popularity by jibes at the French—our two countries are clearly designated as the two leaders. I go so far as to say that they are the only two significant principals in any European activity outside the NATO area. It would be seemly for the British media to acknowledge rather more readily than they do the quite exceptional role that French relief agencies, notably Médecins sans Frontières, are playing in that and similar emergencies.

The mention of NATO reminds me that one of the biggest obstacles to closer defence co-operation between Britain and France—the only two nuclear powers in Europe—namely, French non-participation in the NATO command structure, is beginning at long last to show some slight signs of weakening in practice if not yet in theory. Difficulties between our two countries—sometimes painful difficulties—will continue. The agricultural policy of the European Community has long been and will continue for some years yet to be a fruitful source of quarrel.

Even though the protection of her domestic agriculture has ceased to be the all-dominating political issue in the now highly industrialised France, folk memories die hard. French public opinion did not reprove as sharply as it should have the actions of impoverished and enraged sheep farmers from the stony soil of the south-west who so brutally set fire to a lorryload of live sheep from the overstocked grassy hills of the Welsh countryside.

Clearly, the common agricultural policy will remain for some time yet a source of potential difficulty rather than opportunity for closer co-operation between our two countries. I very much hope that our Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not rest content with that state of affairs or curry favour in this House or elsewhere by playing up those differences. We need, can get, and to a large extent are getting the close co-operation of the French in the rapid and fundamental evolution of the European Community which is taking place.

I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done to foster Anglo-French relations. Does he agree that, in development of European political union and European monetary union negotiations, it is striking and interesting to note that the other great ancient nation, France, with its long history, does not appear to fear any loss of sovereignty, as some of our colleagues in the House and perhaps outside do? Those who fear it are a minority. The French believe that, by pursuing further integration in the Community, they will increase their real, practical sovereignty and retain all their powers of decision making.

My hon. Friend's comment prompts two observations. First, the French are realistic about these matters. They clearly understand that the trappings of sovereignty are relatively unimportant and that what matters is the extent to which a country can exercise real influence in the world. Therefore, the French are prepared to accept limitations which may not be far reaching in order to secure more effective co-operation within the European Community.

Secondly, it is welcome that the British Government have recovered and are reasserting freedom of manoeuvre on integration and are prepared, in order to secure vital British objectives, to pay lip service if necessary to ideals which are strongly held on the other side of the channel but which do not excite such support and enthusiasm here. Such ideals matter dearly to our continental partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) and I have been struck by the way in which the Government are exerting that freedom of action.

There is a great deal of common ground between the British and the French about the structure of the European Community. We should build on that common ground. We are the two nations with the longest natural national histories and the most clearly defined identities. We are the only two nuclear powers in the Community. We are the only two permanent members of the Security Council. We are the two nations which have retained from our previous empires a continuing and well-informed interest in developments in every part of the globe. We two are as well-placed as any nation to strike the right balance between pursuing closer integration in Europe while holding open the door to the newly-free countries of eastern Europe.

France, alone in the EC, straddles the divide between the northern and southern halves of the European Community. Clearly it has a vital role to play in the immediate enlargement of the Community to include the European Free Trade Association countries. So vital is it to ensure that we maximise co-operation between France and Britain at this critical moment that on both sides of the channel we should bite off our tongues before giving vent to petty irritations. It is a stroke of good fortune that at this moment the two countries are represented by two diplomats—Sir Ewen Fergusson in Paris and M. Bernard Dorn in London—for whom better understanding between our two countries is a veritable passion.

I also derive considerable comfort from the presence at the Dispatch Box of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who will reply to the debate.

A considerable time has passed since the House last discussed the important subject of Anglo-French relations, although there was a debate in another place on 18 June last year which coincided with the 50th anniversary of General de Gaulle's historic call to arms from Carlton gardens. I welcome this opportunity to take stock on the anniversary of the defence of Calais in 1940. I am especially pleased, and it is appropriate, that the debate was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who told us something about the history of his connection with France. Of course, he omitted to tell us that he served with distinction in the second world war and was wounded in northern France. He has spent the whole of his parliamentary career fostering Anglo-French relations through the Franco-British parliamentary group.

It often passes unobserved how many hon. Members on both sides of the House devote a considerable amount of their time and energies to fostering relations between Britain and various parts of the world in which they happen to take an interest, for either constituency or personal reasons. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West is a particularly fine example.

Anglo-French relations have gone from strength to strength in recent years. We have powerful shared interests as members of the United Nations Security Council, as nuclear powers and as members of all the multilateral institutions which affect our interests. There is hardly any subject on which Britain and France do not now consult closely at all levels. The annual summit has developed into a forum for in-depth discussion of issues of real importance, including our mutual defence interests. This year's summit in France will see a continuation of that trend: substance rather than form, the best characteristic of Britain's relationship with France in the 1990s.

There are countless other contacts. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had two warm and productive meetings with President Mitterrand since last November, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sees his French counterpart almost as often as his own Cabinet colleagues. There are also many other long-standing historical links, such as those between veterans' associations, and cultural links, such as town twinning and youth exchanges. My hon. Friend referred to the town twinning that involves his constituency and he will be pleased to hear that my constituency, Watford, has an extremely successful town-twinning arrangement with Nanterre, which is just outside Paris. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must do everything that we can to build on these programmes and especially those that enable our young people to move freely between the two countries.

There are also extensive business links. A much more recent development, and one which we welcome, is the secondment of British and French diplomats to their sister ministries across the channel. I hope that the young diplomats who take part in the scheme do not have to wait for as long as my hon. Friend, when he was in Paris, to find a diplomat who looks after the interests of both Britain and France in the Quai d'Orsay and in our own Foreign Office.

The best-known non-governmental body that is active in the promotion of Anglo-French relations is the Franco-British Council. My hon. Friend is the deputy chairman of the British section. He is an active participant in the council's activities, which have made a significant contribution to Franco-British understanding since its inception in 1972. The Government support the council financially, with a grant of £74,500 in this financial year.

The council has an important role in bringing people together, in breaking down barriers and reducing stereotypes. A meeting last month to analyse the ways in which the British and French media have handled recent events was a good example of that useful activity. My hon. Friend left us in no doubt about the importance of the work carried out in that area. I sometimes think—I dare say that my hon. Friend may agree—that some people who live abroad take certain sections of the British press rather more seriously than we do. Nevertheless, problems can be created for us all.

It is more important than ever that Britain and France should understand each other and work closely together. I am confident that the Franco-British Council will continue its good work to this end which the Government support as a valuable complement to governmental activities.

As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Britain and France have a role in all major international and regional issues. Both countries contribute in full measure to the deliberations of the Security Council and played a central part in the unprecedented agreement in the international community on the steps needed to reverse Saddam Hussein's aggression against Kuwait. We both sent a swift and sizeable military contingent to the multinational coalition which was forced to carry out the task. We are again working closely each day to alleviate the suffering of the Kurds and others who have fled the savage repression in Iraq. Franco-British co-operation over the crisis has been exemplary. During the difficult weeks of the recent past I spoke on several occasions to my French counterparts, including the Minister with responsibility for overseas development, who was a founder of Médecins sans Frontières. I think that we could claim that with the co-operation between France and Britain we led Europe and perhaps influenced the world in dealing with those matters.

A few more examples should suffice to demonstrate the breadth of Anglo-French relations nowadays. Britain and France both contributed substantially to the Paris charter for a new Europe adopted at the CSCE summit in Paris last November, which set the seal on the more co-operative international environment that has taken the place o f the cold war. The newly inaugurated European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, with its London site and French president, is a further symbol of the close co-operation between our two countries.

Britain and France both gladly gave up their rights and responsibilities as wartime allies following Germany's unification last year. We are both proud of our contribution to that historic event, which for both of us has cemented our partnership with Germany. The completion of the service tunnel across the channel and, yesterday, the first rail tunnel, gave Britain and France a physical link again, for the first time since the ice age. I look forward to the opening of the tunnel on 15 June 1993.

Trade relations between our two countries have shown a remarkable increase in recent years. Britain and France are each other's third-largest export market. Britain's exports to France reached £10·9 billion in 1990, an increase of 15 per cent. over the previous year. French exports to Britain have seen similar increases and the upward trend is continuing. Investment flows in both directions have increased noticeably. France is now by far the most important European investor in the British economy.

Defence and security, as my hon. Friend pointed out, are an important part of the relationship. Our positions, as the only European nuclear powers, and as permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, give us a special range of shared interests and responsibilities, in addition to those that we jointly exercise as members of NATO and the Western European Union. We both have global interests and a global outlook and we both maintain a broad spectrum of military capabilities. Our presence together in the Gulf as the major European ground forces co-operating with the United States symbolised how much common ground we share.

Britain and France co-operate at all levels and over a wide range of defence matters. The Government attach great importance to that close collaboration. We worked closely together in the conventional forces in Europe negotiations and share a similar approach to future conventional arms control.

In the nuclear field as well there is regular dialogue across a broad range of issues. We agree with France about the need for a more effective European contribution to our collective defence arrangements. Under the active French presidency of the WEU, which ends next month, we have made progress together in developing some ideas for a stronger European defence identity based on the WEU.

Of course, we do not agree on everything. The United Kingdom and France have different attitudes to integration in NATO, although we hope that one outcome of the NATO review will be fuller participation by all the allies in the defence commitment to the alliance. However, we differ on the longer-term arrangements for European defence. We have urged that the debate in the inter-governmental conference on a common foreign and security policy should focus on substance, rather than mechanisms, but we and the French are at one in considering that the outcome of the various debates in progress this year should be both a reformed alliance and a stronger European pillar.

The Anglo-French summit in May 1990 agreed that there should be

"an enhanced programme of co-operation with particular emphasis on future security arrangements in Europe".

The Prime Minister and President Mitterrand pursued this further when they met in January this year. I am confident that that range of issues will again be on their agenda at this year's summit. We also keep in close touch with the French Government, as with other EC Governments, on progress in the two inter-governmental conferences, to which my hon. Friend referred.

On political union, we share a good deal of common ground. We both, for instance, are very wary of ceding control to the Community, and hence to the Commission, in areas where we feel it more appropriate for national Governments to operate, either alone or in co-operation with each other. We agree on the overall structure—the architecture—of the "union" that is now under discussion in the inter-governmental conferences. That is, we both see the "union" as something different from, but including, the Community. We are both keen to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Community within that broader European "union".

There is also considerable common ground with the French Government in the inter-governmental conference on economic and monetary union. We are both agreed on the need to strengthen the ecu during the EMU process and on the need to establish some Community monetary institution with real tasks to perform in stage II. We also share the view that any European central bank should operate under political guidelines set by the Council. Even the United Kingdom reserve on participation in stage III the single currency union—is now accepted by partners, including France. Of course, there is still a great deal to negotiate, but both we and France are working to overcome our differences.

I feel, as I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members feel, that there is a move in Europe, not just from Britain but towards Britain, to accommodate each other and to find common ground rather than emphasising and exacerbating differences. I hope that the British Government have played their part in bringing that about. I know that the French Government have also played a part.

We do not agree on everything, even under the broad heads of agreement. France, like the United Kingdom, is determined to protect her own national interests within the context of closer European co-operation. That is well understood and I am sure that when we are obliged to take a different line in the inter-governmental conference, for instance on questions of European social policy or the timing and content of economic monetary union stage II, differences of view and the reasons for them are well understood by both sides, because of the closer co-operation that we enjoy. We will continue to work constructively in the inter-governmental conference with the French and others for a satisfactory outcome acceptable to all.

We shall work for an outcome that enables the Community to take the necessary steps forward within the union. Those steps are necessary because the success that the Community has acheived through the single market, which the United Kingdom played such a prominent role in bringing about, has made the Community an important trading and economic bloc. Whatever our approach to it —our approach places an emphases on intergovernmental co-operation—we know that an economic bloc of such consequence must develop commensurate political and defence personalities. That is why my right hon. Friend has made proposals for an enhanced common security policy. That is why Britain and France are playing a leading role in discussing how the Western European Union, outside the union itself, can develop a European defence personality that will enable western Europe to defend its economic and strategic interests outside the NATO area.

Relations with France and Germany are at the heart of our European policy. As we move through the inter-governmental conference, the stakes are high but the prize, in terms of the future security, stability and prosperity of our continent, is also high. Productive relations with France and Germany are an important means to that end. Let no one be in any doubt that it is not only desirable but feasible to have good relations with both simultaneously. The vigorous pursuit of British interests does not require us to be permanently at odds with one or other of our partners. I am confident that, with Britain and France working together, we shall succeed in sustaining the objectives that I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West, with others of my hon. Friends and, I should like to think, with Opposition Members.

I thank those who have enabled me to speak this morning. I thank also the Minister for the time that she is to give to responding to the debate.

As a Sussex Member of Parliament, and as a keen supporter of Brighton and Hove Albion, may I take one moment to express my good wishes to the team on its success last night in reaching the final of the play-offs. The team will appear at Wembley in June. I wish the management and the players well on that occasion.

This is a very serious debate. When one looks at the figures of those who are waiting for national health service operations in the Eastbourne area, one can only be very surprised indeed. Last September we had 3,938 people on the hospital waiting list, over 1,000 of whom had been waiting for over a year. The position during the last six months—the most recent figures of all are those to March 1991—shows little or no improvement on those figures. Although the Government have encouraged health authorities, in Eastbourne in particular, to reduce the number of people who have been waiting for more than two years, that has been at the cost of those who have been waiting for up to two years. Today we still have 3,900 people on our hospital waiting list.

Perhaps even worse is the position of the notional time that it would take to clear that number of people. If there were no new people requiring hospital surgery and therefore hospital admission, it would take one year and 14 weeks for that number of people to be treated. Of the 191 district health authorities, Eastbourne is the fifteenth worst. We are in the bottom 8 per cent. for performance and for high waiting lists. I understand that the position in the south-east Thames area is the worst in the country. It has six of the worst 16 district health authorities out of the total of 191.

We have also suffered a massive loss of beds. Since 1983 there has been a 36·2 per cent. reduction in the number of beds available in the Eastbourne health authority. That has to be set against a south-east Thames average reduction of 30 per cent. and an all-England average of 21·2 per cent. We have lost a much larger number of beds than other district health authorities. During the October by-election that saw my election to this House. the Conservative candidate tried to claim—and did claim in writing—that we had 200 beds at St. Mary's hospital which, when visited, he could see had been demolished.

Since that occasion in October I have had referred to me a fairly large number of cases, to a few of which I wish to refer. I shall make the full details available to the Minister, but I am sure that she will understand if I refer to them as cases. The first case is Mr. A. Mr. A had been waiting to go into our district general hospital for major surgery for an aneurysm of the aorta—quite a dangerous condition that requires intensive care. Twice he was given a date for admission and twice it was cancelled. One can imagine the stress. On the third occasion he was admitted. He was prepared for surgery but he then had to be sent home, after preparation for surgery, because another emergency required the bed space. One can also imagine the stress on that occasion. The pressure on bed space in the district general hospital is just one of the problems that we face.

The outpatient services, though, fare little better. There have been considerable cuts in joint funding, available with local authorities. The example that I want to give is that of Master Craig. He is a Down's syndrome child. The county has recognised that he has special speech therapy needs, but unfortunately that therapy has had to cease. He was obtaining 30 minutes of therapy each month—itself thought to be inadequate, but at least a help—but that has now been terminated. A letter from the district speech therapy manager of the district's community health services says that speech therapy will no longer be available in this case

"until our funding and staffing levels are increased."

A similar letter from the same speech therapy manager sent to all schools showed that speech therapists would no longer be available to visit schools to assess children. In other words, they would have to be known to have a need or be referred to a clinic by someone else, but it is not clear who.

On a further case I am pleased to say that my late predecessor obtained success during his time as Member of Parliament for Eastbourne. In March 1989 Master W experienced a problem obtaining a replacement for a national health service bone conductor hearing aid. After some months his mother went to the late Ian Gow who managed to secure that replacement by July 1989. At the time, a promise was given that a spare bone conductor hearing aid would be kept at Brighton or Eastbourne. In October 1990 the hearing aid went wrong again and Master W went to Princess Alice hospital in Eastbourne and was told that a replacement would be obtained as soon as possible. There were many telephone calls and many visits and, eventually, early this year, they visited me. By 3 February, some four months after the need arose, Master W received the bone conductor hearing aid that he needed. His mother commented that it came in a very nice case which will never be used and which was a waste of NHS funds.

The answer to those problems and many others that I could have listed is that we need more resources. We need to reduce waiting lists, increase beds and provide a better out-patient service. The response that we are being offered to those problems is an application for trust status. A year ago the majority of consultants, doctors, nurses and other professionals concerned said that they did not want trust status, so the health authority put the application back in the drawer. It has now been brought out again. The health authority consists of a group of unelected people with no mandate. It is claiming that it could increase staff and decrease waiting lists. However, the Minister and I know, because we read and check our facts, that that has not been happening in other parts of the country. We know of the cuts in staffing at Bradford and Guys and we know of the budget-holding general practitioners in Watford who seem to be able to demand a better service than GPs who do not have budget-holding status. Only yesterday I saw in the newspaper that a lady wrote that in her area of Oldham the waiting time for an appointment has increased from two weeks to three months.

The people of Eastbourne want to know whether the future will be better than the present. They want answers to various questions. For example, will trust status enable unelected people with no mandate to sell buildings? Could one of our hospitals be sold and work concentrated on another? Could unlimited private work be accepted? I met the chairman of the group making the trust application and he told me that he thought that it could take in extra laundry from Eastbourne to make a profit. Should that be happening, and will it be possible as it would would divert people from their proper tasks? Will those unelected people be able to hire and fire staff without reference to elected bodies or to Government? Will they be able to take people from abroad who can pay more rather than the people in Eastbourne who have great need?

Those questions are in the minds of my constituents now. I have asked the chair of the group making the trust applications whether he will hold a community referendum. He said no. Therefore, I intend to hold such a referendum. I shall be circulating to every household in my constituency the details of the proposals and inviting them to say whether they support them. I shall do that in June so that the results can be made available to the Minister when the application is considered in mid-August. Does the Minister believe that she should abide by the result of the referendum, so that the people of Eastbourne can have a major say in the provision of health services? The service is far too big to be made a political football; we should listen to local people.

I want to deal now with related health matters, some of which come under the social services department. There are more people over 75 in east Sussex than in any other social service provider in England. Eastbourne has a large proportion of over 75s, and indeed of over 85s. There is a great need for residential care, especially nursing homes. In Eastbourne, the number of private nursing home beds increased from 1,065 in 1984 to 1,411 in 1990. That is a cause for much concern, unless Government grants enable those places to be maintained. Fears were expressed only this week to the Select Committee on Social Security that funds might not be made available to support those people.

There are many mentally handicapped people in Eastbourne, because it is a nice place to live and the quality of life is high. I recently visited an excellently run private home for mentally handicapped people, the Heatherdene. It is concerned about funding for individuals in its care.

Linden Court in Eastbourne is a training centre for mentally handicapped people, but cuts in social security benefit have led to concern about not only residential places but the buying power of people in contributing to that establishment.

A deaf mentally handicapped child has attended Hazel Court school in Eastbourne for the past four years, having moved from Hackney. He is now becoming an adult but wishes to continue with the adult training that is available at Linden Court. The county council has said that Hackney must pay his costs of £200 per week and £35 a week for a taxi. He having lived in east Sussex for four years, one would have thought that the council could meet the bill. His mother described the decision as heartless and uncaring and asked how can we expect Hackney to contribute.

Just before Christmas, I tried to raise with East Sussex county council the saga of a residential home called Milton Court. In late September, county councillors were promised that a report on care in that home would be made on 11 October. In early October, I met a man who had been transferred from a day centre at the residential home to another day centre, having been told that it was to close. No report was tabled at the social services meeting on 11 October, but staff had been sent a letter saying that their jobs would cease and asking whether they would transfer elsewhere. There was no matching joint finance from the district health authority for the future intentions for that home.

The county council has much responsibility in this matter. Councillors were not told the truth. They were told that investigations with a local housing association might be brought forward. Unfortunately for the county council, the previous day I had attended a meeting with the housing association, which had told me it had only just received a letter asking whether that might be possible, and of course it was not. The funding from the district health authority was not going to be sufficient to carry out that project. The county councillors were not told what would happen in Milton Court and, in the meantime, the staff were given letters of dismissal. The staff were also told by the director of social services not to speak to councillors. That does not seem the way to plan for care in the community.

There were also proposals earlier this year to close eight residential homes in east Sussex. The number of beds in the county is to decrease from 1,212 to 772, a loss of 440. In the editorial in our local Evening Argus the editor summed up the position well when he said:

"East Sussex has one of the highest percentages of old people in the country and the numbers of those aged 85 plus are rising. The suspicion is that there simply may not be enough homes for those who cannot cope by the mid 1990s."

Into that scenario the county council recently announced the closure of another residential home in Eastbourne, St. Anthony's Court. To save just £138,000 a year the council plans to close an absolutely wonderful home. The home has a friends' organisation to raise money for extras. I recently attended a fun day at which two local primary schools sang and provided entertainment for those who live there. The staff are superb and the buildings are perfect, yet the county council wishes to sell the home.

The pressures on Eastbourne will not decrease because homes in adjacent towns such as Hastings and Peacehaven will also be sold. The reduction of 440 residential care places is to fund an additional 179 day care places. The equation does not add up. Our care in the community strategy, which we want to put in place for 1993, will require more day care and respite care places and the loss of residential care places will scupper that policy.

The management of social services in east Sussex has not been good, but recently it has become chronic. Last year it overspent by £1·6 million without telling any of the councillors. It is closing many homes and has appointed at high level many additional top managers but very few grass-roots social workers. The Minister should investigate the social services department in east Sussex and especially the actions of the chairman of the social services committee, Councillor Pat Wright, and the director, Mr. Nicholas Holbrook. If she does not, the strategy for community care will be scuppered.

There have been no Government funds to plan community care. The threat now faced by local authorities, which will have community care responsibility devolved to them in 1993 and which will also have the possibility—no, the probability—of massive local government reorganisation in 1994, is a recipe for chaos, for confusion and for poor standards. Local government needs to know where it is going and it needs to have the resources.

Some essential services will fall between stools. Will the Government give some assurances about authorities, such as East Sussex, that want to plan over a five or 10-year period on "in" and "out" packages? The promises made today must hold for the future.

An example of a service that will fall between stools because the planning is not there for it is the drug misuse service. In Eastbourne, there are three voluntary organisations—the Libra Trust, the Seaside Centre, run by the Young Men's Christian Association, and Open Door. They provide, with grant aid, support for young people who have a drugs problem. Will the trust that is proposed for Eastbourne district general hospital and the community care plan which will come into force for the county council in 1993 take on board the need for grants for those bodies? I fear that they may not.

Eastbourne has unique challenges. We need answers and action, not ideas which are not welcome and which do not inspire local confidence. The health and well-being of our community is at stake. The people whom I represent need and deserve to know what the Government intend to do to help them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) on seeking this opportunity to discuss the health and welfare needs of his constituency. However, I was disappointed by his biased and lopsided account because, before coming to this debate, I studied the situation in his area. In his discussion of health and welfare, he singularly failed to draw attention to a group that is doing outstandingly well in Eastbourne—the general practitioners. I am pleased to report to the hon. Gentleman that 88 per cent. of his general practitioners reached the higher target—the 90 per cent. target—for child immunisation and that 70 per cent. of them reached the higher target—the 90 per cent. target—for cervical cytology. That is one of many examples.

In East Sussex, there has been a substantial drop in the number of patients whom each GP has to look after. There has been a big increase in the number of practice staff. On the basis of the new GP contract, GPs are clearly providing an excellent service for patients.

I began by mentioning the family practitioner services because they are often the basic building blocks of not only our hospital services but our social services. I was enormously impressed on 12 February when I asked Councillor Pat Wright, the chairman of the social services committee, who seemed to me to have done an excellent job, together with the first-rate director of East Sussex social services, Nicholas Holbrook, and a councillor from Eastbourne borough council to speak to me and to take me through the practical steps that they were already taking to implement care in the community. In many respects, they are ahead of others, especially in their work to co-ordinate their proposals with housing authorities and in integrating their plan with health authorities.

The hon. Gentleman began with the question of waiting lists. It is a fortuitous circumstance that his debate should coincide with today's report by the Select Committee on Health on waiting lists. The hon. Gentleman is one of the first to learn that, today, we are able to announce the most dramatic improvement in the number of patients who have been waiting an unacceptable length of time. There has been a 38 per cent. fall in the number waiting over two years and a 19 per cent. fall in the number of patients waiting over a year. The hon. Gentleman and I will both agree that it is unacceptable for patients to wait for such long periods. However, I must make it clear that one patient in two is admitted immediately. The judgment on hospital admission is based on clinical priority. The average for patients who are not admitted immediately is five weeks. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the need for further progress in his health authority, as in others, on cutting down the number of those waiting.

In Eastbourne health authority, there has been an excellent advance in cutting down. There has been a 61 per cent. decrease in the two-year waiters. We want there to be more progress, and to help this year, as well as the increase of funding for the health authority of over £12 million in one year alone—going from £59 million to over £71 million in 1991–92 to spend on the health care of people in Eastbourne—there is additional funding from the region of £186,000 which is intended to help especially with the waiting lists for ear, nose and throat treatment, oral surgery, urology and gynaecology, which are important areas of progress and activity.

This year, we are spending about £60 million through the regions. We are making it clear that we must bring down the number of patients who wait for unacceptable periods. Today's excellent news on the progress made over the past year is a heartening first step.

The hon. Gentleman fell into the trap, as so many other hon. Members have done, of referring to the number of beds as an indicator of care. That is a naive approach, whether applied to care in the community or to hospitals. Increasing numbers of us can now receive support on a domiciliary basis in the community or day care. Reports from authoritative sources constantly stress the importance of moving towards more day care. I am pleased that the hospitals in the hon. Gentleman's area have been able to increase the number of patients treated—even at a time when they were rationalising bed use.

The hon. Gentleman went on to discuss the concept of the Eastbourne hospitals trust. I have already seen, and am most impressed by, the prospectus that has been produced. Over the next three months, it will be the subject of consultation with the people of Eastbourne because it is important that they should know and understand. The hon. Gentleman talked about the strengths and weaknesses of ballots and referendums. The key point is that these are complex issues on which people need to have an informed and reasoned discussion. Scaremongering and doom and gloom can play no part. When the Secretary of State decides whether to approve the Eastbourne hospitals trust, in his mind will be purely and simply the question whether that is a better way of managing the health service to improve the care of patients—national health service patients. That is the aim, objective and pride of our national health service.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the trust would be free to undertake private work. We have no vendetta against the private sector. Many people wish to spend their resources on private health care. But the aim, objective and commitment of national health service Ministers, the management executive and the national health service trusts is to pioneer, develop and improve the quality of national health service work. The hospitals may admit private patients or patients from overseas. We have no objection to that. But our criterion, aim and objective is that it should be done to improve the care of national health service patients.

The hon. Gentleman asked about income generation —whether the trust could use the plant in the hospital to provide laundry services. That is a matter for the trust to consider. But its goal, its mission, its purpose in being, is to provide national health service work. That is the key to the national health service trusts.

The sort of policy objectives that we are considering are already taking off in Eastbourne. I have looked at some of the criteria established in the contracts between the purchaser authority, the commissioner, the Eastbourne health authority and the existing provider units. The criteria state that residents who are mentally handicapped shall be consulted in all aspects of their health or welfare. They state that acute patients must have an individual care plan with specific aims for care and at least a daily comment on their progress. They state that, on discharge, the general practitioners should be informed within one week of the recommendations for the patient. Those are the quality objectives to which we are committed and which our national health service reforms are already achieving.

The hon. Gentleman referred to care in the community. He spoke about resources in relation to drawing up preparations for the care in the community provisions. I urge him to consider the evidence. The increase in the social service spending that we have recognised this year is of the order of 23·5 per cent. That is the largest single increase in social service spending for 15 years.

The hon. Gentleman referred to specific aspects of care in the community. For the first time, we are to have a drug and alcohol specific grant allowing spending to the order of £2 million for voluntary organisations—precisely the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred. What about the new work for the mentally ill? The specific grant, allowing £30 million worth of spending, will result in East Sussex receiving £330,000 towards its work for the mentally ill—a very important group. What about the money specifically for training for community care? This year, we substantially increased the amount that goes towards training those in social services for this important and popular development.

East Sussex has received £220,000 towards training social service staff so that they are properly and effectively prepared for the implementation of this important policy. The authority is working hard to ensure that the needs of the frail and vulnerable—those who are entitled to an effective quality of care in the community—are met. That will take time and detailed planning. Next year's plan, which is subject to consultation, will be a further and important springboard for progress.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne should have no doubt about the commitment and concern of those involved in social services and health care. If the hon. Gentleman is tempted to suggest that his party has reservations about national health service trusts, he should contact Councillor Marian Border. She is a Liberal Democrat councillor and a non-executive member of the Freeman Group of Hospitals NHS trust in Newcastle. We believe that that is a way of using the resources more effectively and powerfully to provide better patient care. It will be subject to consultation and detailed consideration before the final plans are announced in Eastbourne. I have been impressed by and warmly congratulate those people who have pioneered service improvements for the people of Eastbourne.

The Government have a responsibility to ensure that this country has an energy industry which meets our short-term needs and ensures that in the long run we will not have to depend on imported energy. For those and other reasons, I believe that Energy Ministers should be concerned about Monktonhall colliery in Lothian.

Scotland is an energy-rich country. We have nuclear and hydro-electric power, offshore oil and gas and the coal industry. However, it must be accepted that we will depend on our coal industry long after the oil and gas have run dry. There is therefore an important strategic reason why we should protect the long-term future of our deep-mine coal industry in Scotland—an industry which has been reduced to the single Longannet complex.

We were reminded today of the severity of the balance of payments deficit. At the bottom of the recession, it was announced today that there was a balance of payments deficit in March of more than £300 million. Surely the Government accept that it is only common sense to take decisions intended to reduce our balance of payments deficit in the long term rather than to exacerbate them.

It is worth recalling that, while we are now struggling to break even in our energy balance of payments, as recently as 1985 we had a surplus of more than £6 billion on our energy balance of payments. I hope that that gives some idea of the huge potential of our energy industry and, in particular, our coal industry for the balance of payments if the Government are prepared to accept some responsibility for ensuring that the right decisions are taken.

It is not just those important strategic questions that affect the economy and the coal industry. The decision to reopen Monktonhall colliery is crucial to the Scottish economy. We now have only the Longannet pit, which is operating very efficiently, as no doubt the Minister will confirm later. Output in the Scottish economy fell last year by 9 per cent. Unemployment was high and is now rising significantly. Against that background, and during a recession, there must be a strong case for encouraging a nationalised industry such as British Coal to invest in the Scottish economy. A decision to invest in Monktonhall would give a very important boost to the local economy in Lothian. A boost in investment—although not a huge investment—is required to bring the pit back into production. There would be a boost also in terms of the creation of direct jobs in the mine and also indirect jobs and in terms of the additional local purchasing power that would be generated in the local economy as a result of those jobs. That project is very important for the Lothian economy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland himself has acknowledged that the Government have a responsibility and that it stems partly from the concern that any Government should have for the future of the Scottish economy. So that there is no misunderstanding, I shall quote from a letter dated 8 May 1991 from the Secretary of State to the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress. He stated:

"I am well aware of the strength of feeling surrounding the possible redevelopment of these mines, particularly Monktonhall. Indeed, a number of independent proposals to this end have been brought to my attention. For this reason I recently wrote to John Wakeham in view of his responsibility for coal policy throughout Great Britain."

I hope that, if nothing else, that demonstrates that the Government have a responsibility and cannot simply wash their hands and suggest that all such decisions should be taken on a short-term basis by British Coal.

The Minister will be aware of the campaign that has been mounted to secure the reopening of Monktonhall. A very important document called "Monktonhall Colliery—The case for revival" was produced collectively by Lothian regional council, the Midlothian district council, East Lothian district council, and the National Union of Mineworkers Scottish Area. The campaign has widespread support throughout Scotland and the support of Labour Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has a deep and long-standing interest in the industry, would have liked to participate in the debate.

The tradition of coal mining in the Lothians goes back hundreds of years. I have had the privilege, as you probably know, Madam Deputy Speaker, of representing Edinburgh, East for almost 21 years. When I was first elected, quite a number of collieries were operating in Lothian. Latterly there are two collieries, Bilston Glen and Monktonhall—two large pits employing more than 1,000 men. If my memory serves me rightly, Bilston Glen employed almost 2,000 men not so long ago. Bilston Glen is now closed and all that is left is Monktonhall, which has been retained on a care-and-maintenance basis.

Let us be quite clear about what happened at Monktonhall. When Monktonhall was put on a care-and-maintenance basis, British Coal invested £14 million in new workings to open the Peacock seam, an important area of reserves which are accessible from the Monktonhall colliery. A total of 9 million tonnes of coal reserves are readily accessible from Monktonhall colliery at present. There are probably another 40 million tonnes of reserves that can be accessed from the colliery. That does not include the important reserves under Musselburgh bay. Before the redrawing of the parliamentary boundaries in 1983, I had the privilege of representing Musselburgh. We had a long discussion and argument about the siting of a satellite shaft in Musselburgh which would have allowed the men to reach the coal at Musselburgh bay, but the coal was to be brought up at Monktonhall colliery.

There is no doubt that if we can get through the short-term crisis for the deep-coal mining industry in Lothian, the Monktonhall pit will probably be in operation for another 100 years—that is no exaggeration —because of the scale of reserves. It was always said by the old National Coal Board that the reserves under Musselburgh bay had tremendous potential and undoubtedly could be exploited profitably in the long run. Nothing in the document to which I referred or the argument relates to the reserves under Musselburgh bay. The powerful case that has been mounted is based on the reserves that can be accessed from the Monktonhall colliery at present.

I accept that the decision whether to resume production, in particular under the Government's policies —I do not try to make a party point—is not only based on long-term strategic lessons. There must be a short-term market for the coal. However, all the evidence shows that there is a market for the coal.

I do not wish to rely too heavily on the analysis in the document to which I referred. Various analyses have been made. But, unlike a few years ago, there are several positive developments on the likely demand for coal in Scotland. First, there is a good prospect—perhaps the Minister will comment on it—that the undersea cable that will enable Scottish Power to supply electricity to Northern Ireland will go ahead. The signs are that we are likely to have a positive decision on that in the near future.

Secondly, I assume that the interconnector between Scotland and England will be upgraded. It was upgraded previously but a doubling of capacity is now planned. I believe that that should go ahead as quickly as possible. I suspect that, if it had not been for privatisation, the upgrading would have been further ahead by now. It will enable additional electricity to flow from Scotland to England. In previous years there have been disputes between the electricity and the coal industries, but Scottish Power is now well pleased with the competitive coal supplied to it by British Coal.

It would be a mistake to assume that in the long run the necessary coal can be supplied from opencast mining. Of course, opencast mining has a contribution to make. However, British Coal has to be reminded, especially as responsibility for its opencast operations has been transferred from Scotland to the English headquarters and the operations are conducted on a Great Britain basis, that over many years there has been an unwritten political agreement between the mostly Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland and the coal industry that councils would take a favourable and sympathetic view of opencast developments on the understanding that some of the economic benefits would be transferred to the deep-mine coal industry. British Coal may be in danger of understating the significance of that unwritten agreement.

It is fair to say that nothing like the controversy and difficulty that has arisen in England over opencast mining planning applications has been caused in Scotland. There are real problems with opencast mining. The Minister will know more about that than me from his ministerial experience and his knowledge of the position in England. However, it would be unwise for British Coal to think that its outlined ambitious plans for future opencast working in Scotland can go ahead smoothly if it does not give some indication of a commitment to deep-mine coal. An early and necessary sign of that commitment is a positive decision on Monktonhall colliery.

Growing importance has been given in recent years to low-sulphur coal. One might argue that that has been one of the most important developments since Monktonhall colliery ceased production in 1987. A premium is now put on high-quality and low-sulphur coal. The privatised English generating authorities have emphasised the growing importance that they attach to low-sulphur coal. One of the great strengths of Monktonhall coal is that it has one of the lowest sulphur contents in Great Britain and is potentially a high-quality coal.

For the reasons that I have given, there is a powerful, long-term strategic case for resuming production at Monktonhall, and, given a positive approach, a commercial case can be made for doing so, even though British Coal has not previously accepted that case. There are grounds for optimism that the commercial circumstances are such that in the years ahead the output from Monktonhall will find a market and can be produced profitably by British Coal or whoever operates the colliery.

It is no exaggeration to say that, if British Coal decided to write off the colliery, it would be an act of industrial vandalism. British Coal is committed to taking a decision next month. It is within its power to stop the pumps, to allow the colliery to be flooded and to write off a huge investment. In so doing it would sterilise reserves of tremendous potential that would continue into the next century. Huge investment would be written off, including £14 million which British Coal invested even after the colliery had ceased production. Surely such action is unthinkable.

The easy option for British Coal, of continuing care and maintenance, would contribute nothing to the local economy in the short term. The local community would be greatly disappointed if that option were taken. Jobs are needed in the area and the community is looking for them. If there were a resumption of production—I shall not say what the scale of the initial production should be, and it might not be as great as some might want originally—we would have the chance to prove that the colliery could operate extremely efficiently and competitively and that there was a market for its coal. I would hope that output could gradually be increased.

I quoted a letter that the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, Campbell Christie. Ministers have put it on record that there have been approaches from interests in the private sector which wish to acquire and operate the colliery. Probably there are about five consortia, including the Monktonhall miners' consortium of local miners, who want to operate as a sort of co-operative. Various interests have all expressed a wish to operate the colliery.

It is not an accident that British Coal invested in Monktonhall after it had ceased production. Care and maintenance has continued. British Coal always recognised that the colliery had tremendous potential. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, surely the Government will insist that it is not written off for the long term. Surely they will insist that British Coal sells the asset to a private company or consortium. It is not for me to comment on the relative merits of the organisations which have expressed an interest. It is important, however, to put on record that private consortia have declared an interest. If British Coal is not prepared to operate the colliery, it is the overwhelming view of the local community that it must accept its responsibility to the nation and sell the asset to a private company, on the understanding that it will reopen the colliery and bring it back into production.

There is an abundance of mining skills in Lothian. Some men with a wide range of experience at the pit have not worked since it was closed. There are others who have expertise that is related to the mining operation. From the point of view of local Labour Members, the local authorities, unions and miners, the best outcome of the review that British Coal is carrying out would be for British Coal to decide to reopen the colliery and to restart production. If it took that step, there would be tremendous support and good will within the community. I am confident that if British Coal were to take that bold decision next month, its boldness would be rewarded by competitive production following the reopening of a colliery with a long future.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke candidly about the potential for the Scottish coal mining industry and about the future of Monktonhall in particular. I share his optimism about the future, but it would be wrong if we did not temper that hope with realism about the formidable challenges that the industry faces.

Those challenges are not new. The hon. Gentleman will know that British coal mining output peaked in 1913 at not far short of 300 million tonnes a year. Since then, the industry has had to contract to meet market demands. The reason for that is obvious if we consider that before the war there were huge markets for domestic coal, railway coal, for bunkering ships and so on. Even as late as 1950, British Coal was supplying 38 million tonnes simply for the domestic market. Today's sales of domestic coal are just under 5 million tonnes and of course we do not use coal for railway transport or making town gas. So the industry has had to go through a period of substantial restructuring and now coal faces competition from gas, the nuclear industry and so on.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about imports. As members of the European Community and as signatories to the GATT arrangements, we could not operate a protectionist policy, even if we wanted to do so. I agree with him that Britain, and Scotland in particular, has substantial fuel reserves and an impressive diversity of fuel sources, but it would be wrong to protect that market artificially and to exclude imported energy as a matter of course. That would be a recipe for inefficiency and British industry generally would not be well served by a policy that exposed it to excessively expensive electricity prices simply to protect one energy industry.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also spoke of the potential for exporting electricity from Scotland and I am aware of the need to strengthen the interconnector to England. But that, again, needs competitive Scottish power. I think that the industries concerned can rise to the challenge and the restructuring of the electricity industry and placing it in the private sector has helped to create a competitive market in electricity which enables British Coal and the Scottish generating companies to look forward to exporting their power to other parts of the United Kingdom.

There are formidable challenges ahead and they have been met in the recent past. The Government have been generous in helping British Coal to meet the cost involved. Since 1979, we have provided £17 billion worth of grant aid to enable British Coal to restructure, in conditions that have avoided the need for any compulsory redundancies, and any miners wishing to redeploy to other parts of the mining industry have been able to do so.

In Scotland, those challenges were faced earlier than in most of the rest of the United Kingdom. The restructuring there was difficult, but was achieved somewhat earlier. The Scottish energy market is particularly competitive. The hon. Gentleman mentioned offshore oil and gas and nuclear and Scotland is well placed for the development of alternative energy sources such as wind power.

Longannet colliery is successfully producing coal today in a way that shows what can be done with good management, good investment and the commitment and enthusiasm of a highly motivated work force. Longannet is a low-cost, highly productive pit which stands comparison with any in Europe.

Restructuring has not been painless, but the redundancy terms have, at least since 1979, ensured that those leaving the industry have done so with generous terms to cushion them during the difficult changes from working in the coal industry to working in other employment or taking early retirement.

That is the background against which the coal industry must operate and against which any decision about Monktonhall must be taken. It is for the industry, which at the moment means British Coal, to decide what its manpower requirements are. It must also, as it has already started to do, change its culture from one that attempts to retain market share at all costs to one that seeks a market share based on competition and reduction of costs to a level from which it can compete against other energy sources. The 90 per cent. increase in productivity that the industry has achieved since 1985 is impressive and shows what can be achieved. If that pace of productivity improvement can be kept up, I too am optimistic about the future.

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, British Coal has the stewardship of the nation's coal resources. Under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, it is responsible for the efficient development of the industry in the public interest. It is charged with the task of determining where the public interest lies. Decision on access to, and exploitation of, reserves has always been a matter for British Coal, based on its assessment of market prospects. We wish to change that. As we have announced, after the next election we intend to privatise the coal industry and alter the statutory framework. That will create new opportunities for operators, companies, consortia and co-operatives of all sorts to mine coal. At present, however, the statutory framework remains that set out in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946.

Mothballing is not an easy option for deep mines. It is also an expensive option. Monktonhall is costing British Coal £500,000 a year because it has to be kept dry and the roads have to be kept open. However, it is not true that reserves are lost permanently if a mine is closed. Sometimes they can be accessed from a neighbouring pit, as has happened before. British Coal has given assurances that the pit shafts and road ways are being kept open properly.

I agree that, if British Coal decides that it does not wish to reopen and work the pit, it should give proper consideration to whether the mineworkers' consortium or the other interested groups should be given the opportunity to work it. We have encouraged the consortium and other interested parties to put their proposals direct to British Coal. I want British Coal to take an early decision. It would be wrong for it to sit for too long on this opportunity without giving others a chance to exploit the reserves if it believes that it is not in its interests to do so.

Therefore, I undertake, in the light of the hon. Member's remarks to write to the chairman of British Coal drawing his attention to the debate and expressing my hope that a decision will shortly be reached. I do not dispute the status of British Coal. It must make the assessment in the light of market circumstances and its requirements. If, however, other people decide that they can make a success of it—that they can mine the coal economically and sell it at a profit—they should be given the chance to do so.

I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to bring again to the attention of the House the problem of noise—in particular, the problem of noisy parties and the noise created by individuals, mainly in the towns and cities of our country.

The House will remember that on 31 October 1990 we debated the subject at some length and discussed comprehensively the problems caused by noise. I intend to concentrate now on a very wide subject—the problems caused by individuals who seem totally bereft of any feeling for their fellow citizens and neighbours.

At that time in October—and before that date—we had available to us an excellent White Paper from the Department of the Environment. We also had available to us the Batho report—a Government working party report —on noise nuisance. Since then, the Environmental Protection Bill has been passed, part of which takes into account the problem to which I wish to draw the attention of the House.

It is particularly apt that the debate should take place at this time when my postbag and, I suggest, those of many hon. Members are beginning to reflect concern about noise as summer approaches. People remember the last two summers, which were long, hot and dry. Due to parties in and around our towns, noise nuisance increased. An interesting press article recently suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister was considering a fresh approach to the problem. Since last October's debate, he has had time to reflect upon it. His Department has issued a few directives and suggestions which I believe will help us to combat this terrible nuisance. It is pertinent to point out that the complaints about noise that local authorities have received increased tenfold during the past year. Only the dog problem comes close to that. I believe that that was aired earlier today.

It is pertinent to ask exactly what the problem is. I believe that there are two aspects to it. First, there is the noise caused by noisy parties. Inevitably, they are linked in the minds of the public with blues parties. In some cases, they are illegal, under recent legislation passed by the House. People are asked to pay to go to parties that are held outside the law. They are also asked to go to parties that take place on an ad hoc basis.

The tragedy of these events is that they do not occur for just one or two hours. Many go on for several days. I fear that during the coming weekend—a bank holiday weekend —a party might begin in my constituency tomorrow, Friday, and last at least until Monday. That will be a terrible nuisance for those who have to put up with the party and also for those who are not invited to it.

Many hundreds of people are likely to attend such parties. The way they behave and the nuisance that they cause should be of great concern to us all. It needs to be said—although I am sensitive on the issue because of the criticism that came as a result of the speech that I made in the House last October—that part of the problem arises in towns where there is a large Caribbean influence. That is the case in my constituency. Those of Caribbean origin tend to enjoy loud music rather more than the rest of us do. Their style of music is not particularly accommodating to those who live in close neighbourhoods. Also, regrettably, attached to some of those parties—only a minority—are activities such as drug taking and fornication. That is not my evidence but that of my constituents, and I bring it to the House's attention on that basis. There is concern that those communities tend to dominate lives in certain neighbourhoods with customs that are alien to those of Anglo-Saxon origin. It is a tiny majority, but the problem must be recognised and cannot easily be put under the carpet.

Those parties do not take place in warehouses outside towns or far away from residential areas. They tend to take place in tower blocks, of which there are several in my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) has had similar problems in his constituency. They tend to take place in close communities and, therefore, the nuisance they cause is doubled. If there is a party on, for example, the sixth floor of a tower block with loud music—one must not underestimate how loud the music can be—with scores of people attending, the nuisance extends throughout the tower block and adjoining blocks. It is a terrible problem.

There is also the problem caused by noisy individuals, some of which is deliberate. Last week I received a letter from one of my constituents who has problems with his neighbours. That is not unusual as many hon. Members receive such correspondence. Sometimes music is deliberately turned up to annoy neighbours. There is no doubt that ghetto-blasters played in the vicinity of others can cause extreme problems. Certain individuals seem content to enjoy themselves throughout the night to the annoyance of their neighbours. There are also instances of people deliberately turning up their television sets to annoy their neighbours. We must bear in mind that many of these events occur in tenements and council blocks with thin walls.

There is also the problem of car noise. High-powered cars may be revved up late at night, youngsters may roar up and down the street and music may be played loudly causing many problems for the neighbours.

On a minor scale, there is the problem of the do-it-yourself enthusiast. On occasions they seem to believe that they should be boring holes in the wall at 3 o'clock in the morning. Such persons may be doing admirable things to improve their own facilities, and l am aware that some facilities do need improving, but there are better times to do it.

I do not look like—nor am I—a do-it-yourself man. I believe that there should be a chap with his name on his ladders. However, as my hon. Friend will know, there are self-build housing groups which need to work and can only work at weekends or in the evenings. Will my hon. Friend comment on those housing groups and on the curtailment of their activities being imposed by some over-enthusiastic local authorities? Those groups build perhaps 30 or 40 houses, not one or two. We should also include those chaps who want to build their own house and live in a caravan while doing so.

I sympathise with what my hon. Friend has said. Nobody would wish to lessen the enthusiasm of the do-it-yourself enthusiasts or the self-build housing groups. However, my hon. Friend will know that they have to obtain permission from the local authority, as do others, and if they are carrying out commercial work they have to obtain permission about hours. If any legislation is to be framed or any directive controls are to be imposed, they must take full account of those who go about their business legitimately and in a neighbourly way. My hon. Friend will agree that such people are not deliberately provocative—they just want to get on with a job that they have to do out of hours.

It is probably true to say that almost every hon. Member who, like myself, represents large urban areas has received complaints about noise. In last October's debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) and the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) outlined the problems faced by residents in city areas.

The message from that debate and from my constituents is that they seem powerless to act. The problem is that those who commit unneighbourly acts are not stopped by the various remedies that are available. Those remedies vary. The first and obvious one is for a report to be made to the local environmental health officer. Assuming that his office is open at night—many of these problems occur in the early hours of the morning—he will send an officer to answer the complaint. When the officer arrives on the scene, having ascertained what is going on and perhaps confirming the trouble, he offers the organiser of the party or the perpetrator of the noise 30 minutes' grace.

I am sure that environmental health officers will agree that the problem is identifying the organiser of the party. One can picture an environmental health officer, or his deputy, arriving at a party of 300 heaving bodies on the seventh floor of a tower block in Luton and trying to ascertain who organised it. The notice of abatement must be served on that person, who then has 30 minutes to turn the noise down. In most cases they do so, but when the officer disappears the music is turned up and the problem persists and sometimes worsens.

Often, environmental health departments will ask for witnesses. The problem is that people are reluctant to report on their neighbours. Hon. Members all have experience of that.

If legal action is taken, it is two or three months before the case gets to court, by which time the problem may have disappeared or have been forgotten by the public. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that the problem of identification is important.

The second remedy is for people to go to the police. It is a sad fact that in England the police have no power because making a noise is not a criminal offence. That is the nub of the problem. In many instances, the police will attend but do not have the manpower to prevent the party from continuing. They are often reluctant to go into a party of many people, who may be highly intoxicated, perhaps on drugs and, to put it kindly, in a boisterous mood. It has been reported to me that police have sat outside waiting in their cars. I fully understand their reluctance, especially where the party, as I said earlier, is of a Caribbean nature.

The police, who are sensitive and anxious to maintain racial harmony, are reluctant to break up such a party because of what might ensue if they do so. One must feel for young officers who are sent to deal with such an "offence"—I say that although it is not a criminal offence to cause much noise—only to find on arrival that they are severely outnumbered. I can understand the police being reluctant and somewhat fearful to intervene in some cases because of the lack of manpower.

Another option which has been promoted by my hon. Friend and his Department—and by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside in the previous debate—is to try to create a form of neighbourhood noise scheme. That idea sounds attractive and I know that some work has been done on it, but I fear that although such a scheme would probably work well in the nice suburban areas of some towns, it would not be much good in tower blocks with many hundreds of flats. It is unlikely that one could ever get people together to take on board a curfew or whatever was decided by the local community. It is a nice idea which would work in some areas, but I regret that it would not work in parts of my constituency because I personally know of some individuals who would take no notice of such a scheme.

The last remedy, which I have tried to use on some occasions, is to go to the local borough housing manager or to the committee if the people involved are council tenants and to ask if they are breaking their tenancy agreement by causing a nuisance. In some cases, the borough council is sympathetic, but there is a problem if the people are moved to another area and the noise springs up again. I do not believe—though I stand to be corrected —that the borough council would be able under the law to sever a tenancy unless the people were deliberately flouting their particular agreement.

The problem is that people who are afflicted by such parties and such noise have very little remedy to enable them to escape and to get things put right. Following the debate and in addition to the initiatives taken by the Department, there are other actions that we must take.

First, we must have the power, whether through the police, environmental health officers or anyone else, to stop such parties immediately or to stop the people making the noise. The 30 minutes' grace is nonsense, as is having to wait for court action. It must be possible to stop the party immediately if it is causing a nuisance to other people. Secondly, it must be a criminal offence to make such noise. There is no doubt that on some occasions the nuisance is terrible, as proved by the sad letters that we have all had, especially from old people. It must be made a criminal offence if people persist in making such a nuisance of noise to their neighbours.

Thirdly, the police must have the power, if necessary, to confiscate the equipment immediately. That would at least stop the immediate problem and might stop any future problem unless further equipment were purchased. However, such equipment is very expensive. Fourthly, everyone who attends a very loud party must be involved if arrests are made, as is the case in a pub serving drinks after hours. There must be more of a community responsibility to stop this terrible nuisance.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that the great scourge of modern times was the noise emanating from mobile phones in rather plush London restaurants. I must say, with respect, that he knows nothing about the noise that emanates from parties in my constituency and from those in many other towns and cities. The scourge of noise and nuisance during the next few summer months will be terrible for many people in my constituency. It is the Government's duty to encourage any measure to combat that nuisance and at least to make people's lives a little more worth living.

My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has done the House a service by drawing to its attention his concerns and those of his constituents relating to the problems of noise. As my hon. Friend reminded the House, the problems of noise and Government plans for tackling them were the subject of a wide-ranging and thorough Adjournment debate last October. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to review progress since. I note from re-reading the official record of that debate that my hon. Friend spoke about particular concerns for him and for his constituents, including noise resulting from road-widening schemes and from noisy parties. Today, he has, for reasons that he explained, concentrated on noisy parties and I will shortly deal with his points.

Whether the problems are specific to Luton or nationwide, the Government fully understand the concern about noise which, although invisible, can be one of the most potent forms of pollution in its ability to irritate and to create stress in all our lives. It is important that people should feel confident that the problem is being tackled and mitigated. The Government have an important role in ensuring that the framework for doing so exists. We are taking action in many ways to mitigate the pollution of noise.

The Government's present policy initiative commenced with the setting up of an independent noise review chaired by James Batho. Its report was published together with our initial response last October.

Since last October's debate, part III of the Environmental Protection Bill has been enacted and the maximum fine for breach of a noise abatement order on trade or business premises has been substantially increased. We also took the opportunity to amend the Bill to give effect to one recommendation that we knew would emerge from the noise review and we clarified the duty on local authorities to take reasonable steps to investigate complaints. In addition to the review and the Environmental Protection Act, we published the White Paper "This Common Inheritance" during the same period. It has a chapter on noise and a good deal of the noise review working party's thinking is in it.

However, my hon. Friend concentrated his concerns on noise from neighbours. There is no doubt that noise from neighbours generates most complaints and that it is, in some ways, the most intractable topic because individual freedoms as well as nuisance are involved. Seeking to strike the right balance between individual freedoms is never easy.

It must be sensible for neighbours to try to sort out problems among themselves before invoking the local authority and the law. With that in mind, I am delighted that our first pilot neighbourhood noise awareness scheme has recently been launched in the Forest Hill area of Lewisham. The straightforward idea of the scheme is simply that a local group of residents come together in an area of about 1,100 dwellings, mixed in both form and tenure—some privately owned, some council owned, some detached houses and some blocks of flats. A leaflet has been prepared by and for the residents suggesting ways in which the impact of noisy activities can be restricted. In preparing the leaflet, the residents have sought collectively to determine, for example, when it is sensible for people to carry out DIY work or when it is sensible for them not to carry out DIY work.

Anyone who is suffering and who cannot secure an improvement by a direct approach can drop a note into the local authority neighbourhood office and the complaint will be followed up. The Department of the Environment has funded the development work on the project. We will watch its progress closely and we shall be interested to see how it develops. We hope that if the initiative in Lewisham proves to be a success, it can be replicated elsewhere, including, perhaps, my hon. Friend's constituency.

In view of the misleading impression that may have been given in some articles in the press about the neighbourhood noise awareness scheme, I stress that in all such schemes the initiative must lie with residents. The leaflet will say whatever they want it to say. There is no national model telling people what to do—nor is there necessarily a desire to prevent individuals from engaging in particular activities. The objective is to make people think about the disturbance that they may cause and about the times of day at which their neighbours may find that least irritating. Where disputes arise, the scheme will enable communities to settle them without recourse to court action, although the power for an individual to go to court as a last resort remains unchanged.

My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties caused by noisy private parties, such as blues parties, which go on not just for hours but sometimes for days, and at a volume that pollutes the local environment. He expressed concern about ghetto-blasters and car radios played loudly either unthinkingly or, even worse, deliberately. We have given a good deal of thought to complaints about noisy private parties. As my hon. Friend emphasised, those who complain about noisy parties are frequently frustrated that they are powerless to act. It is understandable, therefore, that they should become even more frustrated and furious when they find that a local authority officer or police officer arriving at the scene of a party is apparently also powerless to act to stop it in its tracks.

The officers face several obstacles. Making a noise is not in itself a criminal offence. The name of the organiser cannot be ascertained. The noise-maker cannot be arrested. Moreover, I suspect that there are problems of natural justice in making the owners of premises responsible even if they are not there when the party is held. We are looking at ways in which to make progress on that. It may be possible for council officials temporarily to remove equipment such as loudspeakers, with police support where appropriate. I am also considering the provision in Scotland, where it is an offence not to desist from making a noise when requested by the police to do so.

My hon. Friend specifically referred to blues parties. In addition to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, we must bear in mind the fact that blues parties that party-goers pay to attend may qualify as private entertainments and may need to be licensed. If a council can establish that a party is being held for private gain and if that party is not licensed, penalties may be imposed. A fine of up to £20,000 or imprisonment for up to six months or both may be applied in respect of parties for which no licence is held, or if a licence exists but its conditions have been breached. Those powers constitute a significant deterrent to the people who organise blues parties with the intention of making a profit.

The noise review working party was also concerned with the control of noise from commerce and industry in mixed residential areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) reminded us that these issues are not always easy to resolve. In many towns there are no neat distinct residential and commercial areas. Some people might want to build new homes. However, local authorities can take action in respect of self-build if they believe that a nuisance is being caused to others.

We are concerned that the present arrangements for mixed residential areas are not completely satisfactory. We shall be writing to the British Standards Institution about the recent revision of the relevant British standard. We are also considering the regulations on noise abatement zones. Modern technology should allow us to make the regulations simpler and more useful. We intend to underpin the work on tackling the nuisance of noise with appropriate research.

The Department of the Environment spends about £750,000 a year on research and the priorities have recently been re-ordered in line with the priorities identified by the working party. I hope that the House will see—

Order.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell, who lives in Carlton, near Barnsley. The case is rather complex, as I will explain.

Mr. Pell is a war pensioner and I hope that this short debate will highlight the erosion of the various benefits that have been paid to war pensioners over the past few years. In particular, I shall refer to the difference in pensions paid to service personnel who retired from the services before 1973 and the benefits paid to those who retired after that date. The difference is due to improvements to the scheme initiated between 1971 and 1973. I shall also refer to the level of disregard applying to war pensions. Although the Minister who is to reply will concentrate on the armed forces pensions scheme, I shall refer to the level of disregard operated by local authorities when taking account of benefits for the purpose of community charge benefit.

As I said, Mr. Pell's case is rather complex. It encompasses several different issues and benefits. He qualifies for several different benefits because of his substantial disability. Perhaps I should explain Mr. Pell's present circumstances.

Mr. Pell served in the RAF until he was invalided from the service with a 70 per cent. disability assessment. No doubt the Minister will agree that a 70 per cent. disability assessment is substantial. Since then, Mr. Pell has had surgery and is unfortunately diagnosed as suffering from chronic atrophic gastritis which might lead to cancer in later years. Mr. Pell has also suffered a mild heart attack and is therefore considerably disabled. His disabilities are compounded somewhat by his wife's disabilities. Unfortunately, she is diabetic and was recently discharged from hospital after an operation to remove a tumour. It is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Pell are experiencing considerable financial strain as a result of their joint disabilities. Their financial needs include a special diet for Mrs. Pell because she is diabetic, and the provision of extra clothing and the cost of extra heating which they both require. Mr. Pell's major complaint is that the level of war pensions over the past few years has deteriorated in relation to other benefits and in relation to the 1973 improvements.

It has long been accepted by Governments that pensions in respect of injuries inflicted during war time or during periods of service in Her Majesty's forces—and for that matter injuries at work—are paid at a slightly higher level than pensions for ordinary social security beneficiaries. That is based on the idea that people injured during their service in the forces were serving the country or the economy in war time. That principle has been eroded by the Government, who no longer maintain that that distinction is entirely valid. Over the past few years, Social Security Bills have tended to remove the distinction between war pensioners and industrial injuries pensioners over and above normal social security pensions. Changes to the social security benefits which came about as part of the 1986 review have also eroded the comparable value of war pensions in relation to other benefits.

Mr. Pell pointed out in his letter, a copy of which was forwarded to the Minister, that with the introduction of benefits such as income support, war pensioners do not qualify for or are not entitled to some of the benefits for which income support beneficiaries qualify. It is interesting that, for service personnel injured during peace time or at a time other than in war, there are no support funds such as the Gulf support fund or the South Atlantic fund. My constituent does not qualify for any of the charitable benefits that have been made available following recent conflicts.

In 1973, the armed forces pension scheme introduced service-attributable benefits. Since 1973, pensions for service personnel have been drastically improved. However, no retrospection was allowed to service personnel who qualified for pensions before 31 March 1973.

In his letter to me, the Minister was good enough to outline arguments about retrospection. The cost of retrospection is quite substantial in relation to all service personnel. It has long been a condition that a person can benefit from a pension scheme only if he is a current serving member. I appreciate the Government's arguments, but the House has also recognised those arguments in the case of women who were widowed and qualified for armed forces pensions before 1973. As we know, action was taken for that special group.

Special consideration should be given to Mr. Pell and others who were invalided and severely injured during their service for the country. Mr. Pell's disablement is so severe that his working ability has been restricted. Over the past few years it has been totally restricted—he has been unable to work at all. As he could not continue in the service until his scheduled discharge date, he does not qualify for a full pension, but he would have done had he not been injured. As Mr. Pell pointed out in his correspondence, had he not been so severely injured but allowed to continue his service until his discharge date, he would have been well looked after with pensions and benefits.

Mr. Pell's disability was so great that, initially, he could take up only light work, which he had to give up. He has been unable to build up an occupational pension to add to the pension benefits that he receives from the forces. He was forced to give up employment during the early 1980s and he has been unable to build up any occupational pension provision to compensate him for his inability to work.

If Mr. Pell had been able to continue in the service despite his disability, he could have built up an occupational pension provision and his entitlement to pension. He argues that the Government should seriously consider improvements in the benefits given to service men who left the services before 1973 and were so seriously disabled that they could not work outside the services. These are men who were invalided from the service. I support Mr. Pell's argument that they should be looked on as a distinct and deserving group.

Any retrospective action taken by the Government would have to exclude service men who retired from the services before 1973 but were able to complete their term of service, or those who were disabled or qualified for incapacity pensions but were able to work outside the services in civvy street and continue their service term until they reached their retirement date.

Mr. Pell's other complaint is about the war disability pension, which is regarded by the Department of Social Security as a maintenance benefit. It is subject to the statutory disregard of £10 for the community charge benefit. But the DSS regards such pensions as having "a special nature" because they are awarded in respect of service in the armed forces.

The £10 disregard is now too low as a proportion of the war pension, the maximum level of which is about £76. In 1971 the maximum pension was about £7·50 and the disregard was about £4, so the disregard was about 53 per cent. The level of disregard has fallen in real terms during the past 20 years. The disregard should be increased to take account of that.

Several other issues which affect war pensioners are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I shall touch on them in my concluding remarks. They include the community charge and the disability rate allowance for adaptations and special fitments. Many war pensioners qualified for rent rebates for alterations to their properties. When the community charge was introduced, that rebate was removed, so again war pensioners suffered a fall in income.

My constituent is considerably disabled as a result of his service to the country. His earning capacity was severely eroded and now he believes that his pension entitlement is also being severely eroded. I call on the Government to consider carefully the small group of war pensioners who were so severely disabled as a result of their service that they could no longer work. The Government should perhaps look on them in the same way as they considered the pre-1973 war widows.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) on securing this Adjournment debate. I confirm that the disregard for the community charge is not one of my responsibilities. However, I shall show the essence of the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment and I am sure that they will communicate with him on the matter. I am responsible for the armed forces pension scheme. We all want those who have served in the armed forces, and have experienced some disability as a result of that service, to be appropriately provided for. I am sure that we all recognise the value of the service that they have given to their country. I will address the points which the hon. Member raised in a moment, but first I should like to set out the background against which those points must be considered.

In dealing with service pensions we should recognise that there are two separate sets of provision under which benefits may be paid to ex-service men and their dependants. There is the war pension scheme, which is administered by the Department of Social Security and provides benefits specifically in those cases where a member of the armed forces is injured or dies as a result of his service. There is also the armed forces' own pension scheme, which is administered by the Ministry of Defence. It is mainly the provisions of that scheme which provide the basis for this debate.

The armed forces pension scheme is an occupational pension scheme and is broadly similar in nature to other public service pension schemes, although there are a number of features designed to reflect the somewhat different characteristics of service in the armed forces compared with the majority of other types of employment, and the relatively short careers which apply to many service men. There is also special provision for the greater physical risks which may arise whether through war-like operations, training for such operations or, indeed, many other types of duty that service personnel may be called upon to perform. Those risks are catered for today by a combination of appropriate provisions within the occupational scheme, in addition to the important and longstanding provisions of the war pensions scheme.

As with any other provision, money has to be found to pay for the benefits. In the case of the armed forces pension scheme, there is no standing fund from which these costs are met. There are no direct contributions and benefits are paid for, as they arise, from money allocated to the defence vote each year. Service personnel are not, of course, completely insulated from the cost of providing for their pensions. The review body on armed forces pay, in establishing pay rates to recommend to the Government, takes into account the greater value of armed forces pension scheme benefits over those of comparator pension schemes. A reduction is then made from comparator rates of pay to reflect this, and for the overwhelming majority that reduction currently stands at 9 per cent. While this provides an invisible offset, the cost of pensions and any increase in commitments associated with them have to be met within the overall allocation for defence each year. Those costs are continually rising, not least because benefits have been improved from time to time, and the estimated figure for 1990–91 was £1,408 million. They represent an increasing proportion of total defence expenditure, and will of course remain a commitment for many years to come.

As an occupational pension scheme, the armed forces scheme is managed in accordance with the same principles which apply to such schemes in general. There are two important and allied points. First, entitlements under the scheme are, for any individual and through him his dependants, derived from the rules of the scheme which were in force at the date of his retirement. Secondly, when rules are changed, those changes do not apply to those who are no longer serving at the time when they are brought into effect.

The detailed rules are inevitably complex, but the main features of the scheme as it stands today are as follows: a pension, paid immediately on retirement, for officers who have given 16 years or more of reckonable service and for other ranks who have given 22 years or more reckonable service; deferred pensions, payable from the age 60, for those who serve for shorter periods, subject to a minimum of two years; pensions for widows, widowers, and dependent children; immediate pensions for those invalided from service on account of injury or ill-health, subject to a minimum of two years' service; enhanced benefits where that injury or ill-health is attributed to service in the forces, with no minimum qualifying period of service; enhanced benefits for the widows and dependent children of those whose death is attributed to service.

All those pensions are index linked. In the case of long-service pensions, the cumulative increases are payable from the age of 55. But for invaliding awards, and widows', widowers' and dependants' pensions, the index-linking comes into effect immediately following the award. Long-service and invalidity pensions are calculated from representative rates of pay for each rank, and on length of service given. For a full career, based on retirement at age 55, the pension is equivalent to about half of the corresponding rate of pay with, in addition, a tax-free lump sum of three times the annual rate of pension awarded. Because many service men have to retire early, the rate of pension paid for shorter periods of service is enhanced to be better than strictly proportional to the service given. This is to compensate for the short career which may be all that is available, and, as I said, service men can therefore retire on pension by about the age of 40.

I have already referred to lump sums paid on retirement at the end of a full career, and lump sums are also paid on a similar basis where pensions are awarded for shorter periods of service, and where invaliding occurs. Additional lump sums are paid where injury or death is attributable to service.

I have given an outline of the main benefits which are available today. However, as with other pension schemes, there have been developments over the years which have gradually introduced changes and improvements in what is provided. I fully recognise that the benefit provisions have reached their current excellent level over a considerable period. In many cases, changes have been made in step with general developments in occupational pension provisions in this country. Others have been particularly devised for members of the armed forces.

Overall, the changes have included the introduction in 1960 of scales for officers linked to length of service, instead of standard rates for service of at least a minimum length; a substantial revision in 1972 following the introduction of the military salary, incorporating a direct link with representative rates of pay; in 1973, an improvement in the benefits available on invaliding, including where that was attributable to service, and for widows; the introduction in 1975 of deferred pensions for short periods of service; the introduction of pensions for widows of post-retirement marriages in 1978; and, four years ago, the introduction of pensions for the widowers of female personnel, thus ensuring equal treatment between the sexes.

It is against that background of progressive improvement, and the additional costs associated with each new development, that I shall address the points raised by the debate. I understand, and sympathise with, the feelings of those who have retired in earlier years and do not receive benefits at the same level as are available to those who have retired more recently. The fact that there are such differences is not unique to the armed forces scheme and the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that. It could be found in the great majority of schemes, and for similar reasons. As I mentioned earlier, improvements must be paid for. If we had applied every improvement retrospectively, the costs involved would have been significantly greater and it is unlikely that we would have been able to reach the standard which exists today.

The scheme as it now stands is very good. I am afraid that we cannot turn back the clock and confer additional entitlements on those who are ineligible because of their earlier dates of discharge. The position for the Department of Social Security's war pensions scheme is, however, somewhat different. Pensions and other benefits payable under that scheme are at standard rates which apply to all those who are eligible, regardless of when they served in the armed forces or the particular date on which that service came to an end.

I acknowledge the valuable part which is played by the many organisations particularly associated with serving or ex-service personnel in providing help and care for those who have need of them. Such needs are not necessarily financial. They can take many forms. Recently, with the conflict in the Gulf, we have seen how ready such organisations are to help in any way possible. Happily, with the swift and successful conclusion of the Gulf operations, little was needed. But I, and hon. Members present today, will wish to pay tribute to those dedicated people, many of whom are themselves ex-service men and some with their own war disabilities, who do so much which is out of the public eye.

I come to the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell. Mr. Pell's service with the Royal Air Force occurred in a number of stages. He initially joined in May 1943 for air crew training but was released in June 1944. After the war, in 1947, he enlisted on an eight-year engagement, which he completed normally and was released in August 1955. In 1959 he again re-enlisted, this time for a 12-year engagement with the Royal Air Force Regiment, which was subsequently extended, on the basis of his continuing in service until age 55. But, as the hon. Gentleman explained, Mr. Pell was invalided from service in 1967, having fallen below the required medical standard for his branch.

As a result, under the provisions which were in force at that time, he was awarded an invaliding pension under the armed forces pension scheme, and a lump sum. His case was also referred to the Department of Social Security for consideration under the provisions of the war pensions scheme. The claim was accepted and, since Mr. Pell's level of disability was at that stage assessed as being in the range of 6 to 14 per cent., he was paid the appropriate lump sum under that scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell was assessed at 70 per cent., but that was a later development. The initial assessment was between 6 and 14 per cent. His pension from the Royal Air Force also became tax free.

As the House may know, war pensioners may seek reassessment if their disability appears to increase or if new disabilities emerge. This is what has happened in Mr. Pell's case. His position has been subject to review, with the result that his overall level of disability is now assessed at 70 per cent., covering a number of different conditions. He has also become eligible for a number of allowances under the scheme which, with his basic war disability pension, are today worth just under £200 per week.

I have here the figures showing how this is made up. There is a 70 per cent. war disability pension, unemployability supplement, comforts allowance, invalidity allowance, wife allowance, dependants allowance, age allowance and mobility supplement. Together, they make up a figure of £198·94 per week. That is non-taxable and is in addition to his tax-free pension from the Royal Air Force which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is just under £30 per week. Mr. Pell therefore receives, tax free, about £230 per week. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the war pension provisions are substantially better than those that would be available under the industrial injuries scheme, had corresponding disabilities occurred as a result of civilian employment.

The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell had no occupational pension, but he was working from 1967, although he may have found it more difficult to work recently, and that would have given him the opportunity to contribute to an occupational scheme or to fund one through the work that he was doing. I accept that Mr. Pell's armed forces pension would have been larger if the improvements made to the scheme in 1972 and 1973 had been in force in 1967. His pension would also have been larger today had he not elected, as he was perfectly entitled to do, to commute part of his initial award shortly after his discharge in order to raise additional capital. As I have explained, there are cogent reasons why we feel unable to make the scheme improvements retrospective, but I hope that the House will agree that the provisions which are available, taken together, represent a very reasonable recognition of Mr. Pell's needs.

The hon. Member referred to the debate in which I was involved on war widows, and we have seen his early-day motion, which is on the Order Paper today, suggesting that we should make special provision for war disability pensioners whose service ended before March 1963 in some similar way to what has been done for war widows whose husbands' service ended before that date. As the House will recall, it was announced on 11 December 1989 that special payments would be introduced for war widows whose husbands had been killed, or whose service had ended, before March 1973. However, the House will also recall that those special payments were introduced in recognition of the view, held widely in this House and the country as a whole at the time, that the pre-1973 war widows are a unique category for whom quite exceptional measures were appropriate. That was a view also accepted by the organisations representing ex-service men, including those with war disabilities.

There may also be those who recall that I acknowledged in the House on 23 November 1989 that there was nevertheless some correlation between the position of war widows and those with war disabilities, depending upon service ending before or after March 1973. The connection is, of course, that for both widows and the disabled benefits available from the Ministry of Defence are influenced by the improvements made to the armed forces occupational scheme in 1973. As I have said previously, this date has no significance whatsoever for the standard benefits paid under the separate war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. The benefits payable under the revised occupational scheme are better than those available previously. However, the similarity in origin does not mean that the situation is, in all respects, the same.