It is appropriate that we should be discussing the situation in Cyprus this morning because later this summer, the world will mark the 20th anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus in 1974. I say "mark" because the events of 1974 were a sad blot on the history of western Europe, when the three guarantor powers in no instance played an heroic role.

The Turkish invasion of Cyprus resulted in more than 100,000 refugees, and even today there is the tragedy of the missing persons—individuals who disappeared in 1974 and whose relatives still do not know, 20 years later, what happened to them. They are wives who do not know what happened to their husbands, parents who do not know what happened to their children, and sons and daughters who do not know what happened to their fathers and mothers. Twenty years on, they are still unable to mourn, but hope that their loved ones will reappear.

One of the most bitter denials of human rights must be that refugees are denied the right to live in their own homes —homes that had remained in their families for generations and which they are now prevented from occupying. Last summer—together with my hon. Friends the Members for Basildon (Mr. Amess), for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Chelmsford (Dr. Spink)—I viewed Famagusta from afar, together with the town's mayor in exile. We witnessed the trauma of individuals able to see their own homes, knowing they cannot not live in them —homes that might be unoccupied but from which their owners are effectively barred. We shared the trauma of the mayor of Famagusta, knowing that he could not visit his own town and live in his own home.

It is a major wickedness that individuals should be deprived of their homes. The fact that we are to mark the invasion's 20th anniversary must create a sense of urgency for every right hon. and hon. Member and for everyone who is concerned about the future of the tragic island of Cyprus.

The situation is tragic not only for Greek Cypriot refugees. Many newspapers have stated that there are 30,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus. One asks oneself why they are there. Do they seriously expect the United Nations to allow an outbreak of fighting in Cyprus, or do they fear the wrath of local Cypriots? Do the Turkish Cypriots of northern Cyprus realise the huge imbalance in living standards between the Greek Cypriots of the south and the Turkish Cypriots of the north? Is it that to which they object? Is that why there are 30,000 Turkish troops in northern Cyprus?

Do the Cypriots of northern Cyprus welcome the fact that there are a number of Turkish settlers there? I believe that, in Cyprus, the loyalty of its people is to Cyprus itself and that they do not welcome the presence of foreign troops or foreign settlers.

The fact that we shall mark the invasion's 20th anniversary this year must give us a sense of urgency. When I first visited Cyprus in 1977, there was hope on the island that its communities would be swiftly reunited. In 1977, one sensed that hope and noted the huge resilience of the Cypriot economy. The hotels and people of Limassol welcomed tourists and captured their affections in the same way as Famagusta had before 1974.

Anyone visiting Cyprus will see that the sense of hope that existed in 1977 has reappeared from time to time like a perennial plant, but there is a deep feeling of tragedy that no political movement has been achieved since then.

The green line in Nicosia seems to be as permanent as the wall in Berlin once seemed. For any visitor, the division of the island is quite intolerable. It is wrong that the hotels of Varosha, once part of the thriving tourist centre of Cyprus, have been unoccupied since 1974. Those hotels suffered in the Turkish bombardment and have become homes not for tourists but for rats and mice.

The fact that there has been no movement since 1974 means that there is a real danger that the division of Cyprus could become institutionalised. One of the benefits of this debate is that it will emphasise that, to the whole world, the division of Cyprus is intolerable and unacceptable. People who live in the north of Cyprus have suffered 20 years of economic difficulty, and the gap in living standards has widened rather than narrowed. Turkish troops and settlers have been stationed there, which is anathema to all northern Cypriots.

One of the tragedies of the past two decades is that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have grown apart. Most Greek and Turkish Cypriots have not spoken to one another during that time. They have been educated separately; they no longer play sport together, and they live separately.

In an Adjournment debate in 1991, I said that peace would be achieved in the middle east by a series of building blocks, and that one of those blocks would be Gaza. It has now been achieved. Similarly, we shall restore confidence and trust in Cyprus by a series of building blocks. That is why I welcome the United Nations-sponsored confidence-building measures.

The UN suggested that Nicosia airport should be reopened and that Varosha should be restored to its rightful Greek Cypriot owners. Those measures are clearly interconnected. No one could seriously suggest that the legitimate Government of Cyprus should reopen Nicosia airport without a compensating concession from the Turkish Cypriots.

There is no fundamental reason why the Turks should not give up Varosha. No one lives or works there. It was once the home of, and a haven for, hundreds of thousands of tourists; now it is a mausoleum, a monument to Turkish intransigence and a home to rats, mice and stray dogs. It is a symbol of international intolerance. By refusing to accept the confidence-building measures, Turkish Cypriots are demonstrating their continued intransigence to the world.

My appeal to the Turkish Cypriots' leader is to think again. I agree with Joe Clark, the UN interlocutor, that, with the political will, a settlement and agreement could be reached quickly. The absence of an agreement shows the absence of political will, especially among the Turkish Cypriots.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the betrayal of the Turkish Cypriots is strongly felt, and that considerably more sensitivity to their needs is required than has been shown or guaranteed in the past?

There has to be sensitivity to the needs of both sides of the Cypriot community, but the Cypriot communities of north London live in relative peace one with another. If they can work, live and talk with each other in north London, there is no reason why they should not do so in Cyprus.

When the European Union considers Cyprus's application for membership in January 1995, Europe will have to assign blame between the two parties. Joe Clark has said who he blames; we know who we blame; and Europe will know who to blame.

Cyprus has always wanted closer links with the European Union. She has had an association agreement, but she now wants full membership of the European Union. So far, the European Commission has deferred a decision until January 1995. It has said that it will take the decision in the light of political developments in Cyprus.

That is an intolerable condition. It is wrong to tell the Government of Cyprus that we will allow them to join the European Union only if there has been agreement between the two communities in Cyprus. That gives the people and the illegal Government of northern Cyprus a right of veto over whether the legitimate Government of Cyprus should become a member of the European Union, which is undemocratic.

When the decision is reviewed in January 1995, the House should send a clear message to the European Union that, whether or not there has been a political agreement in Cyprus, that application will be considered favourably. Cyprus is part of the fount of western European culture, and it would be wrong for her to be denied admission to the European Union.

There are rumours that, if Cyprus were allowed to join the European Union, northern Cyprus would react by moving closer to Turkey. That would be unacceptable to the world. We have to make it clear to the Turkish Government that such a course of action would be unacceptable to the European Union and to the United Kingdom as the guarantor power. I hope that the United States Government will also make it clear that that would be unacceptable to them.

World opinion has refused to recognise the so-called independent state of northern Cyprus. Despite having been declared 11 years ago, that so-called state has been recognised by only one country. It would be an act of unholy matrimony for that state to unite with Turkey. If Turkey craves international respectability, as I believe she does, it would be a retrograde step for her to unite with the people of northern Cyprus. No blackmail should prevent the people of Cyprus from joining the European Union.

More important, Turkey has stated frequently that she wishes to join the European Union. We must make it clear that she will not be accepted as a member of the European club as long as the Cypriot situation remains unsolved. The European Union was based on a love of democracy and respect for human rights. We must make it clear to Turkey that, if she does not follow those paths, and if she encourages the continued division of Cyprus, she will not be allowed to join the European Community.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's view on Turkey and northern Cyprus, but does he agree that Greece must make the same commitment—that there will be no further efforts to assimilate Cyprus with Greece?

I thought that enosis had died 35 years ago. We are now seeing a sort of Turkish enosis in reverse. I do not know what the Turkish word for it is, but there seems to be a campaign to unite northern Cyprus with Turkey, which I would find just as repugnant as I would have found enosis in the 1950s. The Government reached an agreement with the Governments of Turkey and Greece and with Archbishop Makarios which led to three guarantor powers. It is a pity that they did not remain guarantor powers instead of, in one case, becoming an invading power.

President Clerides and Mr. Denktash are products of the same political era. They are veterans of Cyprus politics; they studied law together in England and enjoyed the camaraderie of the Bar in Cyprus. They have an opportunity to become statesmen in their own lifetime by forging an agreement between the people of north and southern Cyprus.

If they fail, the world will not accept the status quo. Agreement is essential, not only for the people of Cyprus but for Turkey if it is to retain international respectability. It is essential for the people of northern Cyprus if they are ever to enjoy prosperity rather than relative poverty. Above all, it is essential if Cypriots are to enjoy the basic human rights that we in this country take for granted.

Our debate can send the message that members of all parties continue to support the people of Cyprus, but it can also send a warning to those who seek to meddle in Cyprus's affairs that the continuing division of that beautiful island is intolerable to virtually every hon. Member.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate, because the Government's policy toward Cyprus is a matter of great concern to my constituents in Hornsey and Wood Green. I am privileged to represent a large Cypriot community.

The main difficulty is the Government's attitude towards Varosha. It is my contention that Ministers are lukewarm, complacent and half-hearted about their role in finding a solution to the political problem of Cyprus. Given that Britain is a guarantor power, the Government have a heavy responsibility.

During Foreign Office questions on 4 May, I suggested to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that, after Mr. Denktash's blocking of United Nations talks, it was time to take a tough stance with the illegal regime. He merely said:

"The Security Council will be considering what future measures to take in due course."—[Official Report, 4 May 1994; Vol.242, c. 720.]

That is not good enough. The families of missing people, the people enclaved in the illegal northern regime, who are desperately trying to deal with their adversity, and the refugees who have lost their homes as a result of the invasion and the continuing occupation deserve much more.

Many of my constituents have lost loved ones. I remember calling at the home of a woman who showed me a brief recording of the BBC news that mentioned her brother, who was a police officer in Cyprus. He is still missing as a result of the invasion, and the recording is all that she and her mother have to remind them of the missing member of their family.

Britain, as a guarantor power, has not only a moral but a legal responsibility to the people of Cyprus. Mention has already been made of Cyprus's application to join the European Union, and this is where the Government could show their support for Cyprus. Britain has done remarkably little to help its application. President Clerides recently said that membership of the European Union would

"guarantee effectively the security of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and, at the same time, ensure the prospects of progress and prosperity for all the citizens of the Cyprus republic."

In contrast to the Government's lethargy, I cite the work of my colleague Pauline Green, Member of the European Parliament for London North and leader of the European parliamentary Labour party, who has taken the lead in urging the European Parliament to support the Republic of Cyprus. It was thanks in no small part to her efforts that, after the Parliament had considered the Dury report on the European Union's relations with Turkey, its simple message to Turkey was that Turkey would get no money from the Community until its occupying forces had withdrawn from the Republic of Cyprus as part of a fair and lasting solution to the Cypriot problem.

After my last meeting with the representatives of the committee of relatives of missing Cypriots, I received a letter which said:

"We look to the future with hope and optimism that justice may prevail one day".

I share that hope for the future, and urge Conservative Members and the Government to consider seriously their commitment and responsibility to the people of Cyprus.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) for providing the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. Only last month, I led a Bow Group delegation to Cyprus. The group included my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). We had the great good fortune to have a lengthy meeting with President Clerides. I regret to say that I found him in despondent mood. He felt that, as the deadline rapidly approached for the acceptance of the confidence-building measures—it has now passed—no progress was being made. He felt that there was a lack of political will in the north to make progress.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, on 25 April, President Denktash wrote to the Secretary-General pointing out that he had accepted the terms on the land and the airport, and that it was Mr. Clerides who had caused the terms to be altered? Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we were to return to the original proposals of July last year, an agreement could be forthcoming if the Greeks would agree?

No, I do not accept any of that. The pattern of the discussions has always been that the Greek Cypriots accept proposals without reservation in order to make progress, but that progress has not been made. I was about to say that Mr. Denktash raised no fewer than 82 separate issues in relation to the proposal for Varosha.

I found President Clerides in a despondent mood, and who could blame him? He felt that he had spent 40 years in politics, only to see the possibility of a solution crumble before his very eyes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South referred to the fact that the confidence-building measures—for Varosha and the airport in Nicosia—had failed to progress. Despite the length of time that would be required to implement either of those two CBMs, we are still more or less where we were, and the deadline of 30 April laid down by the Secretary-General of the United Nations has come and gone. It is no wonder that, when I was in Cyprus last month, I had the distinct impression that support in the south for the CBMs is ebbing away rapidly.

I strongly believe that the United Nations should now recognise that the deadline has come and gone and that Turkish Cypriots will continue to be intransigent. The United Nations should now press for the total demilitarisation of the island by both sides. That would include the 35,000 or so Turkish troops in the north.

I endorse what has been said about membership of the European Union. I believe that Cyprus's application should go full steam ahead for three main reasons. First, Cyprus has a track record of democracy. Secondly, it would quite easily meet the economic criteria, perhaps in a way that some existing members would not if they were now applying. Thirdly—although not finally—it would be a dramatic way of bringing pressure to bear on the Turkish Cypriots and on Turkey itself.

Finally, as my hon. Friend said, there is nothing more depressing than to see the green line. I hope that one day, like the Berlin wall, it will be removed. Perhaps there is another analogy with Germany, too, in that West Germany became an important early member of the European Union, and East Germany came into that organisation later. I see that as the way forward for the island of Cyprus, too.

I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. South (Mr. Marshall) for securing such an important and timely debate, and I send the good wishes and thanks of the House to all the United Nations staff serving in Cyprus, and to the service personnel in Cyprus.

The United Kingdom has a special responsibility for Cyprus, not only because we are a guarantor power, but because of the excellent weather that British people find when they go there on holiday to enjoy the wine and the great hospitality they find on that beautiful island. As a permanent member of the Security Council, we are in a unique position to bring appropriate pressure to bear to find a settlement to the problem of the illegal occupation of the north of the island by Turkish troops, and increasingly by Turkish settlers.

First, I reassure the real Turkish Cypriot people that there is tremendous and genuine good will towards them among the ordinary Greek Cypriot people—good people such as Petros, Tassos and Michalis. There is great good will and a heartfelt desire to achieve a fair settlement that will bring into being a united beautiful island of Cyprus with two communities, one Greek-based and one Turkish-based, living in peace together under a single fair Government—a Cypriot Government, of course.

I shall say a little about the confidence-building measures, although I have no time now to go in detail into them or into the process by which the proposals have been followed up. The Secretary-General proposed a package of measures as a means of promoting a settlement and of building trust and co-operation between the communities.

Suffice it to say that the United States of America and the United Kingdom felt that it was a great pity that Mr. Denktash had not accepted the package, because it offered great benefits to the Turkish community. By accepting it he has nothing to lose, and all to gain for his community, for the beautiful island of Cyprus and for the wider international community.

During the April extension that Mr. Denktash secured to consider the package, intensive diplomatic efforts were made by the United States and United Kingdom Governments, and meetings were convened in Europe to secure an agreement. Meanwhile, Mr. Denktash continued to procrastinate and to ask questions. The international community sought to explain the rationale for the agreement, and the great benefits that it could bring. If progress cannot be secured on those simple measures, how can we ever expect a settlement and progress on the more controversial questions, such as compensation, repatriation and the missing persons?

I thank the Secretary-General, the Government and the Foreign Secretary for their efforts, and I urge them to continue. I urge the Secretary-General to report to the Security Council the lack of progress and the reasons for it, and to say unequivocally who erected the obstacles.

I believe that Mr. Clerides, the President of the republic, is an excellent advocate for Cyprus. He shows himself a man of great honour and dignity, as well as a political statesman with some great abilities. He is a credit to his community. I understand the difficulties of Mr. Denktash, and readily acknowledge his unique skills and diligent representation of his community. I urge those two great statesmen to get together and to do a deal for the benefit of both their peoples.

I do not despair; I have hope. This week, Mr. Denktash has convened an extraordinary meeting of his Cabinet to discuss the confidence-building measures. Even as I speak, the Turkish Cypriots may be in conference. I wish them good fortune. However, if no agreement is forthcoming in the next few days, I urge the Security Council to examine alternative means for the promotion of a solution. We owe that to the whole island of Cyprus.

I shall mention several other issues in passing. On the economic front, I believe that now is the time for the European Union to give a lead in resolving the Cyprus problem. Next January, the EU can help to force the issue, and do a great service for international stability and international law by accepting Cyprus into an enlarged Union.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) mentioned the humanitarian question. I greatly regret that there is nothing to report concerning the missing persons, and I respectfully call on the Secretary-General to take action on the matter.

I have little time left, so I shall wind up by acknowledging the fact that the debate has covered only a few of the issues. Mr. Denktash and the Turkish side have shown by their actions, clearly and unequivocally, that they are not yet prepared to reach a political decision on settlement. If progress is not made, the Security Council must pursue further measures, bring real political pressure to bear on the obstructing parties and force a settlement. That would be an appropriate next move, so I respectfully urge it on the Secretary-General and the Security Council.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) has done well to secure the debate. It is obvious from the speeches and the interventions that we have heard that there is great interest in the subject, perhaps especially because of the strong ties between this country and Cyprus, and the large number of Cypriots living in the United Kingdom, especially, in London.

My hon. Friend well described the personal anguish caused to individuals and families by the political events of the past and the continuing division of the island. Great political events translate themselves into personal tragedies, and there are plenty of those emanating from the island of Cyprus.

As I have told the House in the past, we regard the present situation as unacceptable and we are exerting political ingenuity and diplomatic pressure of all sorts in working through the United Nations to bring about a reunification of the island and a peaceful solution lo the tragic dispute.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) urged the Government to do more, without making it entirely clear what more we should do. I take it that she rules out the use of force; it was certainly ruled out by the Labour Government in 1974.

Will the Minister give way?

I am answering the point that the hon. Lady made. It was a Labour Government who saw the invasion of the island and ruled out the use of force at that time.

It is easy to urge people to do more—"something must be done", and so on. We are working with other interested parties through the United Nations, and it is usually Labour party policy to support the UN in its diplomatic efforts.

The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and others asked specifically about the application to the European Union. I must correct the impression that I think the hon. Lady left with the House—that the British Government in some way impeded that application. That is not the case. We welcome the prospect of eventual accession to the EU by Cyprus, while recognising the practical difficulties of admitting a divided island.

The European Union requires the free movement of people and goods, and it is not clear at this point how that requirement can be reconciled with the present situation in Cyprus. That gives urgency to our diplomatic efforts to bring about reunification, so as to facilitate the entry of Cyprus into the EU.

In answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South and others, we do not recognise a Turkish, or Turkish Cypriot, veto over the process. That is exactly why the British Government agreed to the appointment of an EU observer, an official from the Commission, to report back to the Council of Ministers next January on how Cyprus's application for membership can be taken forward, even, if the worst happens, in the possible absence of implementation of the set of ideas and the confidence-building measures.

I do not want to anticipate a failure of the present confidence-building measures and negotiations. There is still a chance for all the parties to come together and to take this important and essentially modest step towards an overall settlement. The UN Secretary-General has been trying for the past year to secure agreement for the package of confidence-building measures.

At the start, it was President Clerides who accepted that package; he did so last May. However, Mr. Denktash did not at that time accept the principle of confidence-building measures, so my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have, both jointly and separately, exerted their influence on the parties concerned and with the Turkish Government to bring about an acceptance in principle for negotiations.

In outline, the package involves opening Varosha, under UN administration, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South rightly identified as a possible centre for a renewed tourist industry. It could, indeed, be a channel from the south to the north, bringing opportunities not only for improved and increased prosperity for both communities, but, even more importantly, for intercommunal contact, which is lacking.

One of the unfortunate and tragic features of the dispute is that the generation of Cypriots who are used to living and working together are beginning to enter old age. If they die and are replaced by others without that experience, it may be even more difficult in future to achieve the solution for which we all search. The other parts of the measures are essentially about the reopening of Nicosia international airport. Of course, statesmanship, compromises and even concessions by both sides are needed, but the overall benefits to both parts of the island are beyond dispute.

We were pleased when, in January this year, Mr. Denktash accepted the package in principle. Since then, there have been further negotiations to refine the package. There have been alterations to the original proposals to take account of the objections and points raised by the leaders of both communities. We still hope that Mr. Denktash will find it possible to relinquish his objections to some of the remaining details. We share the judgment of the United Nations that the package is balanced and fair.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to Mrs. Ciller, the Prime Minister of Turkey, in April this year, encouraging her to use her influence with Mr. Denktash to accept the package. In a further effort to secure Turkish Cypriot agreement, the United Nations and United States representatives met Turkish and Turkish Cypriot representatives in Vienna on 11 May. They appear to have made some progress, but so far not enough to secure Mr. Denktash's immediate agreement to the proposals.

The Secretary-General is due to report in detail to the Security Council on the progress of the talks over the past three months. We expect him to make that report in the very near future. We still hope that Mr. Denktash can find it in himself and in his Government to agree to the package on offer. If he does not do that, the report by the Secretary-General will probably reflect the facts, and will apportion at least some of the blame to the Turkish Cypriots for their failure to reach agreement on the implementation of the CBM package. That would be extremely disappointing, and I hope that Mr. Denktash will use even the last few days on offer to take a bold step to reverse the trend of the past 20 years and that he will take a step towards an overall settlement.

Throughout this matter, we have worked to bolster the efforts of the UN and of the international community generally. We have been in touch with both sides, and I have explained the pressure and the diplomatic contacts that not just the Foreign Secretary but the Prime Minister have used through the Turkish Government. We await the report with interest. It is probable that if there is no further progress and if the Secretary-General has to report that, the Security Council will consider alternative measures to ensure the effective implementation of the existing resolutions on Cyprus.

We need to remember that there is no prospect of forcing the communities to the conference table at the point of a gun. We need a negotiated, workable solution and, to that end, we will continue to work diplomatically. We believe that President Clerides has exerted political will. We look for the same from Mr. Denktash. He claims that he has that will, but he needs to demonstrate it by accepting, again, the package on offer.

We regard the confidence-building measures not as an end in themselves but as a step on the road to an overall solution to this long-standing and tragic division of an island which we know and love so well

I had no intention of raising the matter of Merseyside and Government expenditure on Merseyside on the Adjournment of the House until the exchange that occurred between me and the Minister for Local Government and Planning on 18 May. The origins of this debate lie in the Minister's reply to a question that I asked, and it is worth quoting the exchange in full.

I asked the Minister:

"Does the Minister realise that millions of people, of all parties and of none, deplore the fact that local authorities have been denuded of so many of their powers and functions since the Conservative Government came to power? Local self-government has been replaced by a vast quangocracy stuffed with Tory placemen and placewomen who are accountable to no one other than the most highly centralising Government in all Europe. Does that not amount to disfranchisement of the electors at the local level?"

The Minister replied:

"I never quite understand why the hon. Gentleman is so attached to the impenetrable bureaucracy of Whitehall, county hall and town hall. What we are concerned about is the delivery of services closer to the people. It is the people who count—not the bureaucrats or, for that matter, the councils."

I emphasise that the point that the Minister made next is the one which has brought me to my feet this morning. He said:

"The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, in Merseyside there is an urban development corporation, on the board of which there are three councillors, spending £156 million; a city challenge programme with provision of £131 million; a task force; and an objective 1 programme of £354 million. If he"—

meaning me—

"takes such exception to all of those, I am sure that we can arrange to cancel the funding."—[Official Report, 18 May 1994; Vol. 243, c. 804.]

That part of the Minister's reply was an affront to the right of elected representatives in this House to raise matters that are of concern to people generally and to our constituents in particular. It was as if a threat was being mounted against me in case I continued to raise complaints about Government policy. That was the action of an arrogant Minister and a Government who have gone beyond their sell-by date. I am astonished that the Minister for Local Government and Planning is not present today. However, I shall of course welcome the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who is here to represent the Government.

In considering the subject of expenditure on Merseyside, we have to ask ourselves what has been lost. Above all else, the principle of real partnership between central and local government has been lost. In the days before the Government came to office, there was a fair rate support grant allocated to the city of Liverpool and, indeed, to the other metropolitan districts on Merseyside. We had a district health authority on which there was local council representation. When the Minister for Local Government and Planning talks about Labour Members being concerned with bureaucrats rather than with people, I refer the Government to the bureaucrats who now sit on the hospital trusts and who are precisely the kind of placemen and placewomen to whom I referred in my question.

In those days, of course, we had a Merseyside county council. I remember being elected to that council when it was still possible for local, elected representatives to use their own initiative to introduce programmes, which had been placed before the electors in a democratic way, and when those councillors were at least allowed to try to get on with those programmes and to prove that they were achievable. As I have said, there was partnership at that time.

During those years, I was elected as the chairman of the economic development committee of Merseyside county council and I helped to promote a scheme to help small businesses known as CHASE—county help for active small enterprises. That scheme was able to generate 9,000 jobs on Merseyside—not small beer when one considers the economic background against which it was done. Also, it was cost effective in the creation of those jobs—even more cost effective than the regional aids which were then available to local authorities and to the regions. We helped to create 30 worker co-operatives. In other words, the partnership was not only between central and local government but between local government and the people in the areas that we represented.

We created a Merseyside enterprise board and a training board. We helped to promote the interests of Liverpool airport. We stretched out a hand to all parts of the communities in our area, including the churches. The Archbishop of Liverpool and the Bishop of Liverpool, who have done so much to promote the positive image of the area that I represent, were members of the Merseyside enterprise forum, along with trade unionists and representatives of the business community. We were the greatest promoters of the arts of all local authorities outside the area covered by the Greater London council. We were the originators of the maritime museum and, in a sense, of the Albert dock development, which has been much discussed and is an attraction to tourists throughout the world. In my constituency, we promoted the development of Croxteth hall and country park. As I have said, in those days we were allowed to use our initiative in creating, in that case, an enterprise, which became 20th in the league of attractions for tourists entering this country.

Since those days, the county council has gone, many of the services for which it was responsible have disappeared and the expenditure of that county council has fallen in large part to Liverpool city council. However, there has not been any considerable additional funding and the city council finds it difficult to fund the programmes to which the Minister referred, such as the urban development corporation. The Merseyside urban development corporation has been moderately successful, but in the area for which the corporation was responsible there were 1,000 fewer jobs after its first six years than there were before. Indeed, a report was discussed in the House which emanated from the National Audit Office some years ago.

The Minister also mentioned the city challenge programme. In fact, the urban programme, the urban partnership fund, estate action, the expenditure of the UDC and city challenge are to be integrated into one budget, which is referred to as the single regeneration budget. The total Government expenditure for that budget for 1995–96 is set at £1.5 billion, but the only new money—money over and above that which would have been available under the separate schemes and which is now to be covered by the single regeneration budget—is some £100 million. Liverpool will receive between £4 million and £5 million from that sum, whereas under the previous schemes, which include those mentioned by the Minister for Local Government and Planning in his reply, Liverpool would have expected £25 million. So under the single regeneration budget there is less emphasis on areas of real need such as the city of Liverpool or, indeed, Merseyside generally.

In earlier times, the rate support grant was fair to the people in my area. Under the present Government, there have been increases in the revenue support grant, but they have been due more to changes in legislation and the way in which local government is funded by the introduction of new taxes and different funding formulas than to any compassion by the Government for an area which should be regarded as a priority in our country. With the abolition of the county council, much of the expenditure for the police, the fire services, passenger transport, waste disposal and trading standards fell on the city of Liverpool and on other districts of Merseyside.

In 1991–92, the revenue support grant included a one-off grant to keep the poll tax down, while in 1992–93 the increase was to offset the council tax. In other words, those grants were to offset the policy failures of the Conservative Government. They were to cover for the poll tax, which was such an utter disaster for the people of this country and which led to the demise of the dreadful predecessor of today's Prime Minister. The only function for which Liverpool has gained control since 1979 has been in the area of care in the community and nobody in Liverpool would suggest that that has been properly funded to meet the needs of the area.

Government controls over local authorities have meant that Liverpool, like other cities, has been placed very much in a centralised straitjacket. The standard spending assessment, which was introduced by the Government, is fundamental to determining the level of central Government revenue funding available to the city council. It has a major impact on the level of council tax which is raised by the city. Under the rating system, the poll tax system and now the council tax system, there has always been the possibility of the local authority's being capped. So levels of expenditure are controlled by the Government. But if the council wishes to raise the money to improve the conditions of people in Liverpool, it can meet possible Government action at another level.

Changes in the methodology for working out the SSA for 1994–95 will have severe consequences on many of the services provided by the city of Liverpool, not least on children's social services. The Government talk about a feeling for the family and care in the community, yet in the year following a tragic happening in Liverpool which affected children, they have reduced the SSA for children's services—what Liverpool city council is allowed to spend on such services—by £11.6 million. Indeed, the total reduction in Liverpool's SSA for next year is £16.8 million. Of course, it is the children who will suffer.

The national total that the Government allow for children's services under their SSA formula is to be increased by 3.3 per cent., but Liverpool, in the year after the tragedy to which I referred, is to receive 30 per cent. less. That is despite all the often publicised social and economic difficulties that face my city.

Ethnicity is used as a factor in the formula for calculating SSA. That has meant that Birmingham, for example, will receive for children's personal social services £4,954 per child at risk. Yet because Liverpool does not have a large ethnic minority or the problems that sometimes arise in an area with large ethnic minorities, it will receive only £807 per child at risk. Birmingham £4,954, Liverpool £807—the difference cannot be justified by ethnic background. I ask the Government to examine that when they review the SSA formula. In total, Birmingham received £5.8 million more than Liverpool for children's services. Next year, Liverpool will receive £16.1 million less than Birmingham to support children.

However, the SSA changes also have an impact elsewhere. There has been a reduction in the SSA for the provision of education for the under-fives. Liverpool has a proud record in nursery school provision despite the difficulties and obstacles that have been created by the Government. The SSA for education for the under-fives next year for Liverpool will be reduced by £400,000. The SSA for highways maintenance will also fall by £400,000. For other county services, there will be a reduction of £2.1 million. The SSA to cover land drainage will be reduced by £100,000 and that for capital financing will be reduced by £3.2 million.

Liverpool city council recently sent a deputation to the Minister. It acted in a very responsible way. Its submission, which asked for a review of Liverpool's SSA, was supported by all the parties on Liverpool city council, including the Conservative party. All the members of the delegations were absolutely astonished when, instead of reviewing the SSA upwards, the Minister rebuked the deputation and the SSA moved downwards.

One of the replies that I tend to receive from Ministers is that Liverpool has a rather shaky record. During the 1980s, I and others, including the present leader of the city council, opposed the highly centralised tactics of Militant Tendency. In my view, the power of Militant Tendency in Liverpool was the other side of the same coin to the restrictionist, highly centralised activities of the Thatcher Government. Thatcher was on one side and Militant Tendency on the other.

There can be no doubt that Liverpool city council has acted in a responsible way in recent years. That responsibility has sometimes been recognised even in the speeches of Ministers. Harry Rimmer, the leader of the city council, is a responsible leader of the people of Liverpool. Liverpool undoubtedly has not been given the priority that it deserves.

I refer to a report of the Minister's own Department entitled "Index of local conditions". It was highlighted in a report in the Liverpool Echo on 19 May, the day after I was greeted by the tirade from the Minister for Local Government and Planning when I raised the issue in the House. The headline of the article was:

"City is second in the poll of poverty".

The Liverpool Echo correspondent Mark Davies said:

"Liverpool is the second most deprived city in England according to a new Government poverty league. Birmingham tops the table but the figures show that Liverpool has the worst unemployment in the country and the highest number of families without a car. Only four London boroughs and Birmingham are more run down according to the Department of the Environment survey. Only Manchester has more children living in low-earning households and more people on income support. Knowsley"—

another part of the Merseyside metropolis—

"is 12th in the league table of the country's most deprived areas."

The article is based on the Government's own statistics.

Every constituency in Liverpool has a male unemployment rate of more than 18 per cent. In my constituency of West Derby, 23.6 per cent.—almost a quarter of the male population—is unemployed. It is no use the Government saying that the unemployment is caused by the recession. It may be partly caused by the recession, but unemployment has been endemic in my constituency throughout the period of office of the Government. Indeed, on the Croxteth estate in the mid-1980s, youth unemployment was no less than 94 per cent. No wonder there has been an increase in juvenile criminal activity and a drug problem on an estate that never suffered from that before. On the Norris Green estate, where I was brought up, drugs were unknown. People were never well off, but crime, despondency, poverty and dereliction were never known in days gone by.

In Liverpool, the Riverside constituency has the highest male unemployment—indeed, the highest unemployment —on mainland Britain, at 33 per cent. That fact has come about after the "economic miracle" which the former Prime Minister told us that we had all enjoyed. How often have we heard Ministers in the House say that we are all better off now than we were 10, 20 or 30 years ago? They should ask the people of Riverside or those who live on the Norris Green and Croxteth housing estates in Liverpool.

There are people who recognise the needs of my area. The European Union has recognised them by designating Merseyside as the only area in England eligible for objective 1 status. The great fear is that the money from the European Union will be regarded by the Government as an indirect means of financing the Exchequer. Grants from the European Union have often simply been used to cover what was previously provided by central Government. We also fear that the elected representatives of Liverpool and the other districts will not be consulted about how objective 1 funds will be used, but the bureaucrats, placemen and other people in my area who are not elected will be consulted.

One can contrast the way in which Liverpool has been treated over the years with the way in which, Westminster city council, that flagship—I suppose that I should put the word "flagship" in inverted commas now—of Tory local fiefdom is treated. The rogue Westminster city council featured on the "Panorama" programme not long ago. In Westminster, for every £100 spent by the council, only £4 comes from the council's tax payers. Many of us in the House, including myself, know that that means that council tax in the city of Westminster is quite low. The rest of the £100 comes from central Government grant and other external supports such as the business rate, which is set by central Government. In Liverpool, for every £100 spent by the city council, the council taxpayers of the city pay £20 —so it is £20 in Liverpool, but only £4 in Westminster, which has some of the richest people in the country living within its boundaries.

Westminster does not qualify for objective 1 status. It can even afford to sell its cemeteries cheaply at 15p a time. But it is the flagship and, despite the roguery for which it is now well known, the Conservative party's local election campaign earlier this month was started by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), in Westminster. Apparently, he thought that it was a worthy council to project the intentions of the Conservative Government towards local authorities.

In the social index produced by the Government, Liverpool has been ranked 85th in the country and Westminster fourth. Is it possible to believe that Liverpool is richer than the city of Westminster? Nobody but a fool would suggest that. According to the Government's social index, it falls below Salisbury, Bath, Hereford and Hove in terms of deprivation. That is scandalous and the Government cannot be seen to have been fair. The Tories have said that the system is fair. The Minister should search his heart and ask himself how he can argue the case for the present system.

The Minister might ask himself why the Conservative party does so badly in Liverpool. It may not be readily known that between 1845 and 1955, with the exception of one year in the 1890s when the Liberals were in charge of the city council, Liverpool was ruled by the Conservatives. Now there are but two Conservative representatives on the city council, one of whom survived by seven votes in the recent local elections. There are just two Conservative representatives out of 99. The Liberal Democrats have taken the place of the Tories. I must admit that some of them have done the job well. The Liberal Democrats who were on the council before 1979 outdid Thatcher before Thatcherism. The Conservatives are not the main opposition to the Labour party in the city of Liverpool; it is the Liberals.

When we consider the history of Liverpool and the importance in the early part of this century of Liverpool's Conservative working men's clubs, we see that the Conservative party has to ask itself why the change has come about. That change is largely due to the attitude and arrogance that I encountered in the answer to the question that I asked the other day in the House of Commons.

I say to the Minister and to the Government that we who represent Liverpool have a great pride in our city, which was the second city of the empire at the beginning of the century. Its greatness is still there to be seen, not just in things from the past—its regal architecture is testimony to its great past and some of its new structures are testimony to its future. When one looks at the work of the two universities one sees that Liverpool is a city which qualifies for the title of city of learning. One must also consider its music, arts and its profitable port. Its achievements are not the result of Government policy but of the hard work of the people of Liverpool—those achievements have been gained despite the Government, not because of them.

I pity those who stand for local councils these days. What can they do when they are elected? They are reduced to the pawns of central Government, albeit the unwilling pawns of autocratic central Government. The draconian measures that have been employed by the Government since 1979 have all but ended local self-government in this country. Only in this Chamber, of all elected chambers throughout the European Union, would it be possible for a Minister to threaten to cap local elected representatives. Only in this Chamber would it be possible for Ministers to refer to the surcharging and disqualification of councils. Locally elected people are, therefore, thwarted by the Government.

The people of Merseyside are angry at the way in which so much has been inflicted on them and at the unfairness of local councillors being surcharged—not, in the majority of cases, for lining their own pockets or gerrymandering as in the case of Westminster—and they compare the lot of elected representatives in Liverpool to that of the rogues who still rule Westminster city council.

Irrespective of party, Liverpool councillors are willing to put a hand out to Government and to welcome partnership on an equal basis, based on an acceptance that in this country plural democracy is the essence, not the natural centralisers in the Government who have ruled so long. We would be willing to work with any Government who have the priorities of ordinary people at heart and not simply the interests of their own party elite.

I am frankly astonished that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) continues to wheel out such outdated, discredited and negative arguments. He appears to have taken exception to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Planning at Question Time the other day. He knows full well that he protests too much and that my hon. Friend's comments were very much tongue in cheek. Of course, throughout our relationship with Liverpool, the development of strong partnerships has been central to everything that we have done.

Local authorities have a key role to play in the economic development of their areas. That is why the Government are working very closely with Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral councils as partners in the three city challenge initiatives —successful partnerships, embracing the private and community sectors, which I know from having visited them that the local authorities welcome, even if the hon. Member does not. The three city challenge partnerships will receive Government grant of £112.5 million over five years. That is taxpayers' money which has already levered in large amounts of European funding and private sector investment for all the people of Merseyside. Equally, the Merseyside development corporation has attracted public investment of more than £300 million and has levered in much greater private investment, to the benefit of the people of Merseyside. The results of the MDC and the three city challenges, in terms of jobs and economic development, are real and there for all to see. I suggest that the hon. Member looks at what is happening in Liverpool and on Merseyside. It is very exciting.

Since the early 1980s, we have dedicated a range of urban regeneration measures to assist Merseyside. Most of those have now come together in the single regeneration budget, which will be administered by the Government office for Merseyside, working with local partners, including the local authorities. The single regeneration budget brings together 20 previously existing regeneration programmes into a single budget with an annual value of £1.4 billion, which is a very large amount of money. I must correct the hon. Gentleman, as it does not include the money made available to the urban development corporations, such as the MDC. The purpose of the single regeneration budget is to provide a flexible mechanism for supporting regeneration initiatives that are based on local need, rather than on rigid grant rules and guidelines set out in Whitehall. Local authorities have for many years requested such an initiative and it has been generally welcomed throughout the country.

On Merseyside, the SRB includes about £110 million of committed money—money that will be spent on Merseyside this year and will complement a variety of mainstream spending, such as the training and enterprise programmes and regional selective assistance. It will support other money that is also being spent on Merseyside this year. The bidding round for the financial year is under way and local authorities, training and enterprise councils and others locally are developing partnership bids with vigour and enthusiasm. That is no less true on Merseyside than anywhere else. My officials in the Government office on Merseyside have been holding meetings to discuss potential bids. The lessons of city challenge have been learnt on Merseyside, with a clear understanding that the regeneration process depends for its success on an approach that is comprehensive in its planning, targeted in its application and based on strong local partnership. I have no doubt that SRB bids of very high quality will come forward on Merseyside.

As for central Government support for Merseyside, local authorities for all councils except Liverpool had increases in standard spending assessment for 1994–95, at or above the average for metropolitan authorities. While it is true that Liverpool's SSA shows a decrease compared with comparable figures for previous years, Liverpool has been fairly treated. SSAs are calculated on principles that are applied to all authorities. The decrease for Liverpool is straightforward and is due to a combination of data changes, not least loss of population, and the inclusion of the new 1991 census data and methodology changes. However, the decrease in Liverpool's SSA has been cushioned by SSA reduction grant of almost £2 million. It is absolute rubbish for the hon. Member to suggest that Liverpool has in any sense been rebuked or penalised. He also seems to suggest that the SSA allocation is rigged in some way and that Liverpool has been penalised, to the benefit of other authorities such as Westminster. That is cheap, tawdry and unworthy of the hon. Gentleman.

In evidence to the Select Committee on the Environment, the local authority associations said:

"The distribution of grant to 420 authorities in England on an equitable basis is a complex task and it is not surprising that the extensive analysis and research over the years has shown there are no simple answers."

We carried out a review in co-operation with local authorities this year and the Environment Select Committee subsequently produced a report. One of its first conclusions was:

"We welcome the openness with which this year's SSA review has been carried out, and we trust the approach will continue in future years…We recognise that the. changes to the SSA methodology this year have led to some commonsense improvements in the 1994–95 proposals."

As to any scintilla of a suggestion of the SSAs being rigged, I commend the hon. Member to read the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Tony Travers, who is widely respected and recognised as an independent and objective commentator on those matters. He said:

"A number of commentators have accused SSAs of being politically rigged…Yet there is no evidence of such political intervention".

Liverpool's SSA, like that of every other local authority, reflects the level of its population. That is why, at £875 per head, it is the highest of all the metropolitan districts—higher than that of Birmingham, any other council on Merseyside and any other metropolitan district.

A major plus for Merseyside in the next six years will be its designation by the European Union—with the whole-hearted backing of the Government—for objective 1 status for structural funds.As the hon. Member will know, objective 1 has been taken forward by a partnership, with officials in the Government office for Merseyside working closely and in co-operation with a broadly based local partnership, including all the local authorities—an essential and invaluable partner—together with the TECs, the private sector, the voluntary sector, colleges of further education, the universities and a number of others, all of whom want to, and can, contribute to the success of their bids. At the beginning of November—precisely on time —the partnership submitted its proposals to the Commission for using objective 1 money. We have made it absolutely clear that the money—the drawdown of more than £600 million at current prices—will be more than matched by contributions from other public sector and suitable private sector investment. In total, it will be a massive investment and have a major impact on Merseyside.

I do not believe that the bleak picture painted by the hon. Member for West Derby will be recognised by most people in Liverpool. Our policies are designed to encourage the greatest possible investment in Merseyside. Objective 1 offers unparalleled opportunities to improve the quality of life on Merseyside and I am sure that Merseyside is determined to seize those opportunities. We are determined to maximise them and I am confident that together we can ensure that Merseyside is able to move into the 21st century, take on the world and win.

If George Orwell were alive today and looking for a sequel to "1984", I suspect he would have based it on the Child Support Agency. Here we have an agency just one year old, set up with the best possible intentions to make mainly absent fathers responsible for their offspring, but something has clearly gone wrong. Is it because, as has been suggested, it seeks arrogantly to impose one social rule on millions of unconnected lives, thereby unleashing the law of unintended consequences, or is it something else?

In today's debate, for which I am very grateful, I hope to explore some of the issues and I hope to offer my hon. Friend the Minister some constructive criticism. However, it must be said that, unlike the governance imposed in Orwell's book "1984", the CSA was not imposed on a reluctant people; rather, it was introduced with widespread support both in the House and outside.

indicated assent.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State nods in agreement.

The principle of the Bill had cross-party support. For example, on Second Reading, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said:

"The concept behind the Bill—which is that parents should be responsible for their children's maintenance—is entirely unexceptional. It is only right and proper that we should support it. No father should escape his responsibilities."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 211.]

The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), speaking for the official Opposition and summing up for the Labour party, said:

"Nobody has objected to the principle, which is, wherever possible, to make parents financially responsible for their children."—[Official Report, 4 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 234.]

The Bill was not opposed on Second or Third Reading, although, in fairness to the Opposition, I should say that there was a reasoned amendment.

My hon. Friend the Minister has the task of making the best of the CSA within the constraints of the current law, and, I hope, in due course of bringing before the House proposals to improve it.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated his commitment to keep the Act under review, and that has been widely welcomed, but it is my hon. Friend who has one hand superglued to the poisoned chalice while the other fends off a multitude of complaints. I intend to be constructive, and hope to offer my hon. Friend some antidotes for his cup.

Before I proceed, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who will also be contributing to the debate.

There are four main areas of concern. The first is the general competence of the CSA office, and the way in which it is administering the current law. The second is the quite clearly demonstrated failure of the current assessment formula to take into consideration what it needs to take into consideration when making these assessments. The third is the CSA resources devoted to checking absent parents' returns. Are we satisfied that the CSA checks returns that are sent, properly to ensure that the minimum amount of fraud and disinformation is absorbed? Fourthly, are we happy with the review procedure?

Half my advice bureau cases relate to the CSA. I currently have 65 cases under review. The general competence of the CSA has been called into question before. It is with some regret that I say that the agency, despite no doubt some very fair efforts to do the right thing, is failing in some respects.

In one case, the details of an absent parent's pay and income were sent to his ex-wife. Confidential details of the absent parent's pay and finance should not be revealed in that way. It is for the agency to make the assessment.

Secondly, there is the failure of the agency to liaise properly with the courts. I have a difficult case with a constituent, Mr. Ault. The CSA failed to inform the court that it had taken over his case, and he has received bills from both the court and the CSA. He is angry and worried about that, and I am trying to sort it out. It has been a problem for him, because he has had a poor response to his reasonable request that one of those payments should be annulled.

Thirdly, there are still problems with the application forms, due to their complexity. My constituent writes:

"I have an IQ of 147 and I struggled with the forms. God only knows how educationally disadvantaged people cope with them.".

He has a point. They are not that simple.

Fourthly, there is the failure of the CSA to acknowledge change of address of absent parents. It should not be too difficult to sort out that administrative muddle, but it has led to the imposition of the so-called interim maintenance assessment, which is rather like a bank surcharge for having an overdraft which has not been approved. People are getting huge assessments which are very frightening. The agency has to look out for that.

Fifthly, there is the failure to make special allowance for those working abroad, on sabbaticals or even on a long holiday. Interim assessments have been issued when, for example, an insurance salesman or a salesman in industry is on a long visit overseas. The sensitivity with which the agency addresses such cases should be reviewed.

Sixthly, there is unacceptable delay in assessing the forms. My constituent Mrs. Hollis had to wait from September 1993 to May 1994 for her ex-husband's form to be assessed before receiving maintenance. In the meantime, she received only income support.

The helpline response is also inadequate. I had a complaint from a constituent who said that he has tried to telephone the agency in Belfast; he is put on hold and simply cannot get through. It is costing him a fortune in long-distance calls. Is it right that so few resources have been put into the helpline, when so many assessments are going out?

I am not convinced that the agency is administering itself properly at the moment. Quite an interesting, well-publicised case involving agency employees has been in the papers recently. I should have thought that the management would have done well to keep that out of the courts and in-house. It does not reflect very well on the way in which the agency looks after its employees.

The key problem at the moment is the need for a revised assessment formula.

Hear, hear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) agrees with me. The current formula is absolutely unacceptable.

Some 95 per cent. of the cases with which I deal concern absent fathers, and I believe that the assessments made are grossly unfair. Having seen those fathers in my advice surgeries, I am convinced that most of them want to love and care for their children by their first marriages, but they see the so-called protected income as quite unrealistic, because their essential living costs are grossly underestimated.

What are the essential living costs that the CSA does not take into consideration? They include bank loan repayments, mortgage protection and house insurance, the general debts resulting from the separation and, most important, the cost of visiting the children. I have a constituent whose children live in the Isle of Wight. He wants to visit them, but cannot afford to do so. Nor can fathers generally afford to send train tickets to the children to come to visit them. There is also the cost of telephone calls and car travel.

Many parents want to buy clothes for their children. Indeed, one of the nicest things a father or mother can do is to buy their children some clothes. That cost is not taken into account. What about gifts? A bicycle now costs more than £100; surely that should be taken into account.

There is also resentment at the fact that any reduction in maintenance liability occurs only when a child stays for two or more nights with the absent parent. Very often, children want to spend only one night, or perhaps it is possible to arrange for them to stay for only the one night.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the sort of cases that come to my surgery and, I suspect, to his, tend to be the most responsible of absent parents, who have paid maintenance regularly and who very often, at the time of divorce or separation, made what is called a clean-break settlement? They made a fairly satisfactory arrangement through giving the house to the wife, for example, and taking perhaps only half the proceeds. Unfortunately, the CSA formula takes no account of such an arrangement.

My hon. Friend makes very well a point that I had intended to make later. I have always opposed the overturning of clean-break settlements, because it is wrong to introduce retrospective legislation. Most, if not all, of those who come to my surgery love the children they created by their first wives. They may intently dislike their first wives, but, by and large, they love their children and want to do the best they can for them. That is an important point. However, I shall not pursue it further, other than to say that another instance of the failure of the CSA formula is that it does not take account of cash gifts. The CSA simply refuses to recognise them.

The third area of concern—in a way, it is the other side of the coin—is whether the forms returned by absent parents are correct. I have said a great deal about the problems facing absent fathers, but sometimes they wilfully falsify their returns, either out of malice towards their first wives or for some other reason.

I am aware of the case of a lady who was violently assaulted by her husband. She fled the marital home because both she and her sister had been assaulted by him and she feared for the safety of her child. Of course, she probably should not have fled the marital home. She is now in rented accommodation, and her husband is making as small a contribution as possible.

The CSA made an assessment that appears to be incorrect, because the person concerned is running a successful business, living in a luxury flat and running an expensive car. I understand that it is possible that he has put those assets in the name of his brother or some organisation in order to circumvent the CSA. Can the Minister say what steps the agency is taking to investigate false submissions?

The final area of complaint to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is the failure of the review arrangements. My perception is that the internal review mechanism, as currently constituted, is inadequate. It does not command confidence and it is too heavily centred in the agency. We need some form of independent review, and I ask my hon. Friend to consider that important point.

What are the consequences of the shortcomings within the agency for those affected? There is much resentment among fathers, which makes it hard for them to maintain good relations with their children. There is a tendency among second wives to say, "Is this marriage really worth it?" There is a feeling that many of them are being forced to pay for first wives, and that is widely resented.

Furthermore, second wives now wonder whether they can afford to have children, and so question the whole basis of their relationship. I need hardly tell the House about the stories of abortions and worse connected with that problem.

I believe that the system encourages first wives with care not to work, especially if their partners are out of work. That can be used as a weapon against the second wife and as a tool to damage that relationship. I am not suggesting that those circumstances always exist, but I am convinced that, on occasions, the agency's system is being used as a way to get at ex-husbands.

Another consequence, especially among blue-collar workers, is that they simply say, "I am not going to put up with this; I am going to give up my job." I tell them that they must not do that, and that the way forward is to talk through the problem carefully, but they just say—I shall not use the word in the Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, especially with you in the Chair, but it is a short word. They leave my surgery saying, "I am not going to pay; I am going to pack in my job." That has a negative impact.

Earlier, I told the Minister that I had not come here today to hit him over the head; I am here to be constructive. I tremendously respect—I mean this most sincerely—all the effort that my hon. Friend has put into making the CSA work. In fairness to him, he was handed the package; he did not create it. He may have an opportunity to change it; that is why we are here today. During the next few months, we hope to hear about some specific changes.

The solutions that my hon. Friend should consider obviously include examining the formula used by the CSA. It is perceived as grossly unfair and against natural justice. We must get it right. My hon. Friend should also examine the cost effectiveness of the agency. There has been a great deal of dispute about the benefits it brings, compared with what some suggest is a cost of £600 million. I wonder whether we are getting value for money. My hon. Friend must also think about some of the administrative problems that have occurred.

I should like my hon. Friend to consider making available local rate telephone lines between the agency's offices and the people calling them. It is possible to do that; indeed, we know that such a service exists. Why should my constituent make umpteen calls to Belfast at the higher rate, when, with just a little generosity from the Department, he could make those calls at local rates?

I think that we are going to have to eat a little humble pie over the way in which the agency has been set up. We need to look at the system in Australia. Why has Australia managed to set up a similar agency, but one that is widely respected and has not caused half the problems that we have experienced here? There are two answers.

The first is that Australia did not rush into doing everything at once and combine all the stages with, perhaps, limited resources. It is rather like soldering the lid on the kettle and turning up the gas. Secondly, their review procedures were perceived to be fair. We must ensure that the CSA is also perceived to be fair: if my hon. Friend the Minister can achieve that, he will have done us all a great favour and made many people's lives much happier.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and the Minister for allowing me time to speak.

I entirely agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth about this important matter. Five to 10 fathers at a time regularly visit my surgery; I expect about 150 to attend a meeting that will take place the week after next. All those fathers have been paying maintenance for a long time, and they are all very angry. They are not absent fathers. When they ask me for help, support and guidance, I can only say, "What help can I give?" As my hon. Friend said, the problem is the sheer inflexibility of the system.

My hon. Friend the Minister is trying to replace a system based on justice and the judgments of wise people following argument and discussion, with a system that is perceived as authoritarian He will say that he is trying to bring about justice, and I accept that the Child Support Act 1991 is not really his baby; he had to take over the Bill. If we are to have justice, however, the system must not be merely authoritarian. There must be mercy and understanding, and both sides of the argument must be heard.

There cannot be justice in an authoritarian world and there cannot be justice without any agreements for review or appeal. The system is fundamentally flawed, as is the Act. We should do away with it and start again; there is no point in reviewing a system that is transparently authoritarian and has inflexibility built into it.

Hon. Members are annoyed by the fact that, when they write to the Minister about aspects of the Act that concern them—normally matters of policy—they receive no reply from him. Their letters are sent on to the agency and Mrs. Hepplewhite replies to them. Hon. Members who want change think that very wrong.

May I say in the Minister's defence that, when I have written to him about principles of the policy, I have received a very full response—although it is true that letters drawing attention to specific cases are referred to the agency's chief executive?

That is not my experience, although it is probably the Department's fault. I hope that the Minister will do something to cure that fault.

In fact, I have just written to the Minister asking him some questions. Let me repeat some of them now. Why, for instance, is the child allowance of a father caring for one of two children, while the mother has the other child, classed as income for him but not as income for the mother? There is no logic in that; I hope to hear a logical reply from the Minister.

Why, if that caring father's 13-year-old does a newspaper round, is the income considered to be the father's? That seems daft to me. If the income of the working wife of an absent father is taken into consideration, why does not the same apply to the income of the caring wife's new husband or boy friend?

It is no good the Minister's saying that that is not the case. I refer him to the CSA's operational bulletin 22/93. I hope that he will make all its operational bulletins available in the Library, so that we can see how it works. It is vital that we should be able to do that.

Why does the agency accept the caring parent's word about her income? I have encountered case after case in which the caring parent who has made the application has acted fraudulently. When I refer such cases to the agency, I am told, "We do not inquire into the circumstances of the caring wife; we inquire into those of the absent father." I have had to write to the Department of Social Security pointing out that the wife has been fraudulent. The agency should be working with the DSS, examining cases of fraud on the part of applicants.

Then there are the costs of the agency. It is currently holding a course to train managers, and has asked to use a hotel in Bewdley or Kidderminster. I have information from within the agency: I understand that there has been a great deal of phoning around to find out which hotel has the best swimming pool. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the agency operates with income from absent parents. It charges for its services. It is the money of those parents that it is flinging around.

In my experience and that of my constituents, the agency's staff are of a low standard. If money is to be spent on training, it would best be spent on training staff rather than management, because the staff make the decisions.

I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that if the agency is not watched, it will outstrip the DSS in size, manpower and costs. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth: we are looking at "1984". The Child Support Act is a nanny Act, which I would have expected the Opposition to introduce. I fear that, in future, the agency will take over all the maintenance work currently done by the courts, enforcing its authoritarian views and replacing justice with inflexibility.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I thank him for the way in which he made his points. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) for his remarks and my hon. Friends the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for taking a close interest in the debate. I shall do my best to answer as many questions as possible in the time available to me, but I may not cover them all. However, this is familiar territory to the House and hon. Members know a great deal about the subject—as they should.

The first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth concerned the collective responsibility of the House, in that the legislation was not rushed through. It was widely consulted on. Some 270 organisations, individuals and hon. Members expressed views on the White Paper, "Children Come First", published in October 1990, so the measure was not sprung fully formed on an unsuspecting House or public. Everyone agreed that the existing system needed changing and my hon. Friend was fair to say that the legislation was the responsibility of the whole House.

It was kind of my hon. Friend to make the remarks about me that he did. I fully accept my responsibility as a Member of Parliament in supporting the Child Support Bill and the responsibilities that I have now as the Minister in charge of the legislation and of the agency, under the direction of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

In view of the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West, I will present the other side of the coin. Anyone reading my hon. Friends' speeches would ask what the Government are doing and why they established the agency in the first place. It is important to place on record again the reasons for the CSA's existence, and also remarks made by some of the growing number, of women in particular, who see the benefit to them of the agency's work.

The White Paper "Children Come First" described the then maintenance system and presented proposals for change. I remind the House of some of the issues that it raised. The previous system was fragmented, inconsistent, slow and ineffective. The outcome was uncertain. There was no guarantee of consistency or fairness throughout the country. The average award per child was £16. In some cases, it was clear that higher awards of maintenance were affordable but not given. There was no automatic review process. Awards could take weeks or months, and half of all awards fell into arrears at least once a year.

In 1989, some 30 per cent. of lone mothers and 3 per cent. of lone fathers received regular maintenance—that was all, and some 23 per cent. of lone parents on income support received child maintenance. Ten years previously, the figure had been 50 per cent. Clearly, the then system was wrong and needed change. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West defended to some extent the previous system. When one looks back, the facts do not merit such support. The system needed changing, and changed it was.

The system established by the Child Support Act 1991 was designed to produce better maintenance support for children; clear and consistent rules so that both parties in a separation would know their responsibilities; consistency; regular yearly reviews that would not require the parties to return to court to argue; and prompt and reliable collection and enforcement—I shall return to that aspect later. There was also a determination to make sure that the taxpayer, who had unwittingly supported a growing number of settlements over the years, would get a better deal and be relieved of some responsibility, as parents should bear prime responsibility.

In view of the often hostile comments made by many people about the CSA—understandably, because people required to pay more under a new system naturally feel more strongly about it—it is important to place on record comments made by people personally involved, who view the agency differently. One lady quoted in The Times on 31 January stated:

"I didn't know what to do until the CSA took on the case. They have been super—really helpful. I don't want to live on state benefits if I can avoid it, and I would rather work longer hours so I can save up for my daughter's future. Whatever happens in my case, I can't fault the CSA."

In a letter published in the Daily Mail on 15 February, another lady wrote:

"Despite being obliged to bring up by children on income support, they are all healthy, have good food, shoes, outings, Christmas presents and even holidays. I haven't whinged but budgeted carefully.

Now, after the intervention of the Child Support Agency, my ex-husband must make proper maintenance payments. I am delighted and so are my children. They feel they now have a place in his life equal to his other children. We are grateful to the CSA for everything it has done, as are many other people I know. It will now be possible for me to work part-time and raise our standard of living to family credit level."

A letter published in the Lancashire Evening Post on 14 February stated:

"I have read many criticisms of the Child Support Agency, and feel that I must put pen to paper in defence.

Since 1986 we have provided a home for our granddaughter. Court appearances and solicitors visits too numerous to mention resulted in a court order, £8.33 to be paid weekly. In fact £40 some months, then no payment.

On returning to the solicitor I was told a further request had to be made to Legal Aid, and could take eight weeks or more to come through, then court applications.

In the years since 1986 the father has been in lucrative employment—and at the same address (owner of a large detached house). I rang the Child Support Agency—they sent me forms and letters of guidance the following day.

At least we feel somebody is taking notice. I think the solicitor could have advised us."

In recent weeks, a number of lone parent groups have linked to argue their side of the case. I pay tribute to the work of Lynda Sunderland, who established an organisation named Smile. It states that many lone parents are desperate for the Child Support Agency to work.

In saying all that, I do not suggest that there is not another side to the story, but emphasise that other views are held. I stand here to support the agency's work and to work through the issues raised by my hon. Friends and many others, because I believe in the principle of the CSA and can see practical benefits resulting from it. Clearly, it is part of the Government's aim and my own to make sure that acceptance of the agency's success is felt more widely.

Now that the Minister has got all that off his chest, will he answer the specific points originally raised about the agency's competence, assessments, and so on, and not avoid them?

I am sorry that that intervention lost 30 seconds.

I turn to the issues raised by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth described a number of operational difficulties. The agency has not worked as well as we had wished. A number of the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned should not have occurred and the agency is determined to address them. It is certainly true that a court order and a Child Support Agency order should not be in effect at the same time. My hon. Friend is right to say that the court order should be stopped. Where there has been a breakdown in communication, it must be improved.

The forms were carefully trialled and tested—not only on people with high IQs but by a range of organisations, which presented the forms to their client groups to see how well they would work. Many forms in the benefit system are complex, but people find their way through them. We try to make sure that forms are properly written and provide the right information. If one wants to obtain as much information as possible at the first attempt:, to cut costs and improve processing speed, the form must be long. The forms are constantly checked and worked through.

As to telephone help lines, attempts are being made to improve that service. We appreciate that people should not have to wait as long as they do, and we want that aspect improved. I shall take on board my hon. Friend's suggestion of calls being charged at local rates. That has not previously been considered, but I take his point. I acknowledge that the agency must improve in some areas, and I assure my hon. Friend that much work and effort is going into achieving such improvements.

Some of the agency's problems have not resulted from inefficiency. Much of its work was built on assumptions that could not be tested until it was up and running. For example, an assumption was made about how quickly people would return forms and provide information. That has taken longer than we expected and verification has proved to be more difficult. That is not a fault of the agency but one of the lessons that we learn from experience. Where the agency can improve its performance, I assure my hon. Friend that it will do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire North-West, raised a number of policy issues, which we have touched on before but which I am happy to comment on once again. The formula is rigid, but it cannot be any other way. The system is either discretionary or it provides some element of consistency. That is why the formula is as it is.

Requests have been made to expand the formula to take into account some of the matters that my hon. Friend raised, such as claims for travel costs, contact costs and the like. The difficulty is that the formula was designed to make the payment of maintenance to the child the priority. Indeed, the payment of maintenance was seen as a priority by the Select Committee on Social Security, which reported at the end of last year.

The danger is that, if too many costs are allowed into the formula as exempt income for assessment purposes, the payment to the child will lose its priority. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said, and a number of people have said the same. The Government keep the formula and the workings of the agency under review. The principle of keeping a formula is important to us.

I appreciate the Minister's courtesy in giving way. It is well known that much work is going on in the Department, particularly on an independent review process, which might at least introduce an element of flexibility in hard cases. Are we likely to get a statement before the House rises for the summer recess?

I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman an answer. As he knows, following consideration of the Act and the agency, we made changes in February. That was an indication of our good intent: that, where we saw the need for change, it would be made. A lot of work is going into evaluating those changes, but it is not possible to say whether changes will be made. The Government should not, therefore, be held to a timetable.

My hon. Friends asked about appeals, which we have discussed before. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has thought deeply about the problem of appeals and I appreciate the way in which we have been able to conduct this debate. The problem remains that introducing an open appeal system would take us back to the discretionary system of the past; the formula might well be second-guessed by an erudite person. There would then be no point in having the formula and we would be back where we were.

If that is not to be the outcome, the appeal system must be narrowed and we must have gateways for it. I am still awaiting suggestions of where those gateways might be. It is relatively easy for politicians to say to an aggrieved group of people, "We shall have an appeal system and all your problems will be solved," but it is more difficult to say, "There will be an appeal system, but you, you and you will not be included." That is the problem and I am yet to be convinced about a means of overcoming it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth mentioned the Australian system again. Distance lends enchantment. The Australian system is not without critics in its own backyard. It is much more broadly based than ours. It is a much blunter instrument and it does not make allowance for protected income.

Someone can fall below support limits in Australia, but that is not possible here. We built housing costs into our formula; they are not included in the Australian one. The Australian appeal system is being increasingly used and my hon. Friend will be aware that a major difference between our systems is that the Australians do not consider previous settlements, whereas we do; they simply look forward. Pleas are now being made by those who were excluded from the new system to be included in it.

Other systems offer no easy answer. Lessons from around the world show that any system that has tried to improve the mechanism for child support has had its difficulties and critics. I recently read an article by an Australian journalist, who spoke of problems with the Australian child support agency in almost the same terms as people speak about the problems of ours.

And fraudulent returns?

Fraudulent claims on both sides are looked at. It is an important point of principle that if an allegation is made of a fraudulent claim by the parent with care or by the absent parent, the Child Support Agency should, if the information has not been passed on, take that up with the local benefits office. There is no instruction to accept the word of one side or the other where a complaint has been actmade but not verified.

I am grateful to have had the chance to answer some of the issues raised by colleagues. I am aware of the feelings of hon. Members. I hope that I have put the record straight on why we feel it is important to continue with the agency, and why I will continue to look carefully at what colleagues say.

Before I call the next hon. Member, I must notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Insolvency (No. 2) Act 1994.
• Intelligence Services Act 1994.
• Church of Scotland (Properties and Investments)
• Order Confirmation Act 1994.
• Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) Act 1994.

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing time for a debate on the important subject of the Ministry of Defence police, particularly as you also called me last night. I am speaking for the second time in 24 hours and I appreciate that privilege.

For many years, the MOD police have done a good and effective job, often in difficult and, indeed, sometimes dangerous conditions. I have an interest in their problems as my constituency includes Aldermaston, Burghfield, Greenham Common, Welford and a number of other smaller defence establishments. Many of the staff in those establishments live in my constituency; others live in Reading, north Hampshire and south Oxfordshire. I hope that hon. Members representing those regions will support me in this debate.

When those establishments were first brought into use, homes were built for many of the staff in surrounding towns and villages. They were all rented homes and, to start with, most of the staff could afford to purchase their own homes. After a number of years, the MOD considered and introduced a policy of selling some of those homes to sitting tenants.

When my predecessor's predecessor was still the Member of Parliament for Newbury, I was contacted by a number of the wives of serving MOD policemen, who complained that their husbands were being discriminated against as they alone were not being allowed to purchase their own homes.

It was never clear why that discrimination was being practised. At the time, the MOD's excuse was that it was important that it maintained control over a supply of homes in the region close to the bases concerned so that it would always be in a position to offer new MOD police recruits some form of convenient accommodation.

The MOD police wives ran an excellent campaign. It had to be run by the wives because their husbands, as policemen, were not allowed to participate in any political activity or to take part in demonstrations, even if they were not overtly party political. Although that was before my election as the Member of Parliament for Newbury, I was pleased and proud to be asked to play a leading part in the campaign.

I mention the campaign because I wish to give some of the background to the concerns being expressed by the MOD police and to show why we feel some mistrust in the Ministry. However, we have had some good news. In March this year, suddenly and unexpectedly, the campaign was successful. An announcement was made that the MOD police houses were, after all, to be offered to their sitting tenants in all but one or two cases, those being where the houses involved were so close to the site boundaries that security considerations prevented their sale. Unfortunately, although the news was excellent, it was entirely spoilt by the more or less simultaneous leaking to the media of plans to make most, if not all, of the current MOD police force redundant. This shocking news has, as one might expect, had a shattering effect on a comparatively small and close-knit community.

The problem arises from the review set up last December into the future role, aims, objectives, structure and pay of the 5,000-strong MOD police force. The review, led by Sir John Blelloch, was supposed to produce a report by 1 June this year, but in March a confidential interim report was leaked to the media. It proposed that Defence Ministers should actively consider the introduction of a new paramilitary force to replace the MOD police's armed guarding role. Although it was presented as a savings measure, the option is a thinly disguised attempt by service chiefs to provide employment for thousands of redundant service personnel. Let us consider the proposal in greater detail.

It appears that the report proposes the creation of an armed home guard battalion to be known as the military home service engagement or MHSE. The force has the potential to become a sort of latter-day Dad's army. The official case for the MHSE is that the new battalion would be considerably cheaper to run than the existing police force and would give the armed forces greater command and control than they have over the MDP.

The financial motivation does seem to be part of the explanation for the interim report's recommendation. The inquiry has clearly been subsumed into the defence costs study programme, an initiative which is much more interested in cutting costs in the short term than in the long-term—and non-financial—considerations.

In reality, however, it is clear that the preferred option is as much the product of political expediency and internal service pressure as an attempt to obtain financial benefit. While Sir John Blelloch has been given the task of performing an objective study into the future of the MDP, he has clearly been placed under considerable pressure from a number of sources to deliver a particular verdict. First, he is under pressure from the Treasury to meet cost reductions, whatever the implications for operational efficiency. Secondly, he is under pressure from service chiefs to provide employment for redundant ex-service personnel.

Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that that was in Sir John's terms of reference?

No, I do not believe that it was in his terms of reference. He was supposed to provide an objective report, but I am afraid that, to some extent, he may have been tempted to go beyond his terms of references by outside pressures.

It is widely known that the armed forces are facing a 5.1 per cent. reduction, or some 13,000 redundancies, over the next 12 months. The Government are receiving much criticism for that, which is hardly surprising, given that, at the last general election, they made great play of the suggestion that the two Opposition parties were likely to introduce defence cuts, but that they, of course, would never do such a thing. It is clearly in the interests of service chiefs and politicians alike to secure employment for redundant service personnel and I believe that pressure has been placed on Sir John Blelloch to take such concerns into account.

In advocating the formation of the MHSE, the report is colluding in the creation of a second-class soldiery. While MDP officers have a wide range of duties, only one of which is armed guarding, MHSE officers are likely to come to resent what would be their limited single function. The low job satisfaction offered by the MHSE is likely to attract only fairly low quality applicants, which can lead only to lower levels of security. That is surely a problem which the Government should be examining seriously. Instead of being an independent and objective review, the inquiry seems to have degenerated into a service-led exercise aimed at safeguarding the military's position at the expense of the MDP.

I deal now in more detail with the economic justification for the proposal. The report suggests that because MOD police officers receive police pay, they are an expensive security option and that, in some respects, their function is inferior to that of other forces. The wide range of MDP officers' duties—policing, security, armed guarding and defence specialism—proves that that is clearly not so. MDP officers are routinely armed and possess the special expertise identified by HM inspectorate of constabulary. In fact, by securing police officers with those two additional capabilities at standard rates of police pay, the MOD is getting a very good deal. Furthermore, the limited single-role function of the MHSE would mean that other functions, such as the protection of MOD property against burglary by civilians, would in future have to be performed by other Home Department forces that possess the necessary constabulary powers.

The interim report claims that the introduction of the MHSE would lead to considerable savings for the MOD. However, the possibility of savings remains merely an assumption yet to be proven. Indeed, taking into account redundancy payments for MDP officers and the huge costs of creating a new force from scratch, with all the additional training involved and the other burdens that would be placed on Home Department forces, the creation of the MHSE is likely to be more rather than less expensive.

The introduction of the MHSE would lead to the ludicrous situation in which service men and women, who have only recently received their redundancy notices and payments from the MOD, would be re-employed by the same Department in place of others who would, in turn, be made redundant and receive redundancy pay. Given the MOD's special circumstances, especially the duty of care that it must observe for all its employees, it would be wholly undesirable—and, in practice, impossible—to separate the MDP's two roles.

The MDP combines uniquely a police role with a security function. While an MDP officer is, for example, policing the community of a married quarters estate, he or she is also acting in his or her capacity as an armed guard against potential terrorist attack. If the MHSE were given the task of guarding MOD establishments, its personnel would be unable to perform that operationally invaluable and highly cost-effective dual-purpose role. Its personnel would, first, lack the appropriate levels of training and experience and, secondly, have no jurisdiction' over civilians or events outside military establishments. They would not, for example, be able to undertake "base-plate" patrols on the outside of a perimeter fence, although that, as recent events at Heathrow have shown all too clearly, is an essential element in the prevention of mortar attacks by terrorists.

Unlike the MHSE, the MDP is much more than an organisation of armed guards. As the civilian police force of the MOD, it provides a full range of police services and more, including its own criminal investigation department —CID—and fraud squad, dog patrols, marine units, mobile and foot patrols, armed policing capability, protection of classified material, traffic duties, escorts and personnel protection, and community policing.

Unlike the personnel of any future MHSE, MDP officers are fully attested constables, who exercise their constabulary powers and privileges every time they patrol outside an establishment. The MDP's position as a full police service is underlined by the fact that it is frequently asked to assist neighbouring county forces—evidence that its standards of training and competence fully conform to Home Office requirements.

The MDP represents an enormous asset to the MOD and to the wider community. The broad range of experience and expertise gained by each individual officer in the course of his or her career creates a quality and value of service far beyond what could be expected from a single-function guard battalion.

Having met many of the members of the MOD police and their families I know that they are dedicated men and women, many of whom have given a lifetime of service to their country. As in any other establishment, some are better at their jobs than others. Given the difficult circumstances in which they work, it is no surprise that mistakes are sometimes made. For example, they may sometimes over-react to a perceived threat. But I believe that the vast majority of the people in my constituency, and no doubt in the rest of the country, too, would far rather suffer an occasional over-reaction by the MOD police than allow the smallest possibility of a real terrorist threat to a nuclear site.

The men and women concerned are highly trained in a specialised job. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for them to obtain elsewhere equivalent employment that would fully and properly use their skills. The Blelloch proposals would not create one extra job; they would simply give jobs to redundant ex-service men at the expense of MOD policemen—robbing Peter of his job to give it to Paul.

I remind the House what I said when I started the debate: the MOD police do a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. They deserve our respect and gratitude, and our support.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on his success in securing the Adjournment debate. The Ministry of Defence police is an organisation little known outside the Department—apart from in the specialist areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred. However, it is well known and valued within the Department and I welcome the opportunity to inform the House of the important work that it does.

The MOD police force—or MDP, as it is now known —has been in existence in one form or another since Samuel Pepys was Secretary for Admiralty Affairs. In 1686 he issued an instruction to the commissioners of dockyards:

"to enquire after and make use of all means for preventing the embezzlement of any of our stores.. to be frequent in visiting the Workmen at their departure of our yards, keeping a Strict and Severe eye upon the respective Porters of the same and to the attendance given at the gates … and lastly, to be as frequent as he may in his nightly rounds in and about each of the said yards for discovering any unfaithfulness or neglect that may be found in the Watch, charged with the safety of our stores".

Some three centuries later, the MDP was formed in its present role by amalgamating the Admiralty, Army and Air Force department constabularies.

The Ministry of Defence police is a disciplined body of about 5,000 civilian police officers, who are also civil servants. They possess full constabulary powers; they are trained along similar lines to their Home Department police force counterparts and serve under a chief constable who exercises command and control and who is appointed by the Secretary of State for Defence, to whom the MDP is accountable, in much the same way as the Metropolitan police force is accountable to the Home Secretary.

The Ministry of Defence police differ in several important respects from Home Department police forces. First, they are a national police force operating throughout the United Kingdom. Their organisation and structure has been developed to cope with the extended logistics of national deployment. As a condition of service, all MOD police officers may be required to carry arms and all are trained to do so. To that end, a training system unique to the MDP, but acceptable to the military and Home Department police forces, has been introduced. Standards of safety and proficiency are extremely high.

The training system represents a considerable investment by the Ministry of Defence in time, devoted to both initial and continuing training, and equipment. The force has a purpose-built firearms training centre at Wethersfield, equipped with the latest technology. The standards of instruction and facilities have been inspected by the School of Infantry and were assessed as being excellent. There is a continuing process of development as and when the requirements of armed policing change.

Most recently, armed response vehicle training has been introduced and instructors are preparing syllabi for rapid intervention training courses. Investment is also made in sponsoring MDP instructors on firearms courses run by their Home Office colleagues, which enables the force to keep abreast of the latest techniques in its field of armed policing. All are trained on the 9mm pistol and about 3,000 officers have been trained on the 5.56mm rifle. At any one time when the police are deployed, well over half are likely to be armed.

Furthermore, the MDP is the only police force in the land that has a transition to war role. This was most recently exercised during Operation Granby in the Gulf, when it was deployed to guard key points—airfields and hospitals, among other locations.

It is perhaps also worth noting that the force's flexibility in being able to undertake 12-hour shifts means that the MDP is capable of doubling its operationally deployed manpower for special events where increased policing or guarding levels are required, such as Battle of the Atlantic ceremonies, and for the forthcoming D-day commemorations.

The chief constable of the MDP also has professional oversight of the Ministry of Defence guard service—the MGS—which is deployed at establishments not requiring armed guarding or the exercise of constabulary powers, and is trained at the police training school at Wethersfield. The MGS was set up to provide an integrated professional security organisation to deal with aspects of security not requiring the carriage of arms or police powers.

The task performed by the MDP enables its personnel to act as community beat officers across the defence estate in garrisons and married quarter estates, because they are civilian police officers. The Ministry of Defence police can use their civilian constabulary powers to deal with members of the public. Service police forces do not have that power. Thus, they currently assist in exercising the MOD's duty of care in respect of the safety of service families and civilians using the defence estate. They are also able to use those powers to deal with anti-nuclear protesters on and off the defence estate, as well as others whose illegal activities cost the taxpayer so much money.

Recently, on 25 March, I answered an Adjournment debate initiated by the late Bob Cryer, and cited the fact that a detachment of MOD police was assigned to the Menwith Hill station, which was the subject of the debate. I said that the MDP officers there were responsible for security and that the costs incurred were reimbursed by the United States, which runs the station.

However, it was worth mentioning then, and it is worth mentioning again now, that the overtime occasioned by the activities of protesters is a direct cost to the United Kingdom. That cost amounted to nearly £500,000 in the previous financial year. The protesters are not clever; they are simply destructive and wasteful. They are certainly not acting in the national interest.

More important, in its armed guarding role the MDP is also active in the fight against terrorists. As with the Home Department police forces, the MDP, in addition to audit and other departmental inspections, is inspected by Her Majesty's inspector of constabularies every three years. The judgment resulting from the most recent inspection, in 1992, was that the MDP achieved a high level of professionalism and was an efficient and effective organisation. That is an accolade not lightly given.

A number of the specialist capabilities that have been developed by MDP in some areas are not to be found in other civil forces in the United Kingdom. The marine unit, which is the largest in the United Kingdom, is acknowledged to be a leader in its area. The patrol boats and the rigid inflatable boats will be deployed in the water off Portsmouth in just a few days' time during the 50th anniversary of D-day commemorations, as the MDP is responsible for the seaward-side protection of all naval bases.

Some MDP officers in the marine section hold deputations issued by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which give them the legal powers of officers of Customs and Excise to stop, search and seize. All are trained to Department of Transport qualifications level, sponsored through the recognition of their marine training establishment by the Royal Yachting Association.

The MDP also has its own fraud squad which is well equipped, with a team of very experienced officers. Indeed, its activities vary enormously, and of £22 million of fraud investigated by the squad last year, it was able to secure the return of £17 million. I think that that achievement speaks for itself. A particular expertise of the CID AS the investigation of defence contractual fraud. The vast majority of MOD employees are honest and hard working, and would not even think of getting involved in fraud or corruption. Unfortunately, there are a very small number of exceptions who do great damage to the Department's reputation. My Department is giving much attention to the use of sound management practices designed to make it far harder for such people to engage in such conduct. Any who do must expect to be found out and brought to justice; for that we are indebted to the MDP.

The operational support unit specialises in public order activities, like the equivalent units in Home Department police forces, but is also capable of rapid deployment anywhere in the United Kingdom to supplement local MDP resources. The force uses more than 400 dogs, some of them trained as arms and explosives search dogs, making that section the largest in the country for policing purposes.

The police are often deployed on special operations. I have already mentioned the 50th anniversary of D-day. They are regularly deployed during the summer solstice celebrations at Stonehenge, for example, to protect MOD land locally. They were seen at Liverpool last year during the 50th anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic in support of the Royal Navy and at a number of shows, such as Farnborough, in defence of our aviation interests.

In addition to its specific defence unit duties, the MDP is deployed at United States air force bases, at Royal Ordnance factories and, with special authority from the Secretary of State, at the Royal Mint.

I think that hon. Members will agree that the MDP represents a force to be reckoned with and I am delighted to pay tribute to its professionalism and achievement.

I now turn to matters of the moment. Sir Patrick Sheehy presented his report to the Home Department last year, making certain recommendations on the conditions of service and pay arrangements for Home Department police. As my Department's police are linked to Home Department police for pay and conditions of service, it was right that the Department should consider what recommendations made by Sir Patrick should be applied to the Ministry of Defence police. Terms of reference were drawn up for a study to be made into the role, aims, objectives, pay and conditions of service of the Ministry of Defence police. This was announced last December and is being led by Sir John Blelloch, to whom the hon. Member for Newbury referred. His final report is now expected towards the end of June.

There has been some speculation in the media, and in the House today, about the proposals Sir John made in the context of the defence costs study, "Front Line First". That study has taken a radical look at all aspects of support to the front line and I trust that hon. Members will agree that it was wholly right not to exclude an examination of the MOD police. Happily, the coincidence of timings meant that Sir John Blelloch was able to conduct the work as part of his wider review. In essence, Sir John's remit was to see whether there might be scope for carrying out MOD police functions more cost effectively.

What were the precise terms of reference of the inquiry?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the precise terms of reference. I have mentioned them before in the House. I shall send them to him.

The important point to remember is that a review has been carried out by Sir John Blelloch and, as part of the defence costs study, we asked him to bring forward certain of his recommendations. It would have been wrong to exclude such an important part of the support of our defence activities at this time. The remit was to see whether the MOD police functions could be carried out more cost effectively.

The proposals that have emerged are still under detailed consideration and hon. Members will understand that I cannot discuss them today or even comment on speculation about them. As we have made clear on many occasions, we expect to reach final conclusions on "Front Line First" as a whole in July and we shall make an announcement then on its broad outcome. I have also stressed that Sir John has much more work to carry out before we come to conclusions.

The hon. Member for Newbury has taken the opportunity presented by the debate to express his views on the possibility of creating military home service engagements under which personnel would act as guards. I can, indeed, confirm that this idea was among those that had emerged from the work on the MDP, but I stress that it was only one of a number of ideas. That concept and its implications are to be subjected to much more work. We need to look at such ideas carefully to see whether they provide a more cost-effective solution, but still deliver the service we require. I am grateful for the view that the hon. Member expressed, in rather disparaging terms, about the prospect for a military home service engagement. I do not believe that his views will be generally held. Certainly, his condemnation of the concept will not prevent us from considering it carefully. However, we will take into account the views he expressed today. As I have stresed on two or three occasions, there is much more work to be done.

I also stress that the defence costs study has nothing to do with some sort of job creation schemes for redundant service men, as the hon. Member for Newbury implied, and certainly has nothing to do with an attempt to cut corners with essential security to cut costs. Our aim is simple and, I should have thought, uncontentious: to explore whether our security requirements should continue to be met, but at a lower overall cost, so that resources are not diverted unnecessarily from the front line.

I recognise, of course, that the current period of uncertainty is inevitably worrying for MOD policemen and their families, as it is for many other groups of service men and civilians in the Ministry. I hope that these turbulent times will lead to greater stability in due course.

No one underestimates the dedication and professionalism of the members of the force. I understand that concern, but, as I said, I am afraid that they are not alone. I ask all who find themselves in this position to be patient for a little while longer until we have drawn together the threads of all the studies. We will then lose no time in telling them the results and giving them an opportunity to express their views during the normal consultation period which will follow.

As I have already said, Sir John Blelloch and his excellent team are continuing their work according to their original terms of reference which, among other things, embrace MDP terms and conditions of service. Their full report will not be available within the Department for a month or so and it would, therefore, be wrong to speculate on what it might conclude.

Does the Minister agree that the present MOD police are highly trained to do precisely the security job that is so necessary in our defence establishments? Does he agree that any replacement by less well-trained people would inevitably lead to a reduction in security?

The substance of what I have said so far this morning is that the MDP are very well trained. They carry out their security task very well. However, it is a responsibility of Government to look at the way in which we carry out our activities, even those that we carry out efficiently and effectively, to see whether they could be done better. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. Perhaps the absence of responsibility for so long has caused him to express those emotions.

I have said that the full report will not be available within the Department for a month or so. It would, therefore, be wrong to speculate on what it might conclude. All that I ask is that we wait until the work is complete and has been considered within the Department so that we can address the substantive issues that emerge, rather than relying on rumour and speculation or, even worse perhaps, on political fears manipulated for particular party political preferences.

Hon. Members will be aware that I announced to the House on 19 October 1993 that the MDP had been identified as a suitable candidate for agency status. As part of the usual progress towards agency status, we have considered with central Departments the alternative options for the MDP. Those options were abolition, privatisation or contractorisation and, for various reasons, we have dismissed all of them. Although we are awaiting the outcome of the studies to which I referred earlier before proceeding any further, the main features of the agency would be as follows: first, the chief executive would be the chief constable; secondly, the owner, representing the Secretary of State, would be the second Permanent Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Defence; thirdly, the police committee, the statutory body providing advice to the Secretary of State, would continue; fourthly, a separate committee would be set up, acting as the "owners" board; and, fifthly, as in most defence agencies, the Secretary of State would remain accountable to Parliament for the MDP, but Members would be encouraged to deal directly with the chief constable, if they wished to raise questions.

Faced with the current situation that major studies affecting the future role and the size of the MDP are still continuing, the time is not right to launch the MDP as an agency. Depending on the results of Sir John Blelloch's review and the defence costs study, we hope to launch the MDP as an agency in April 1995. Therefore, it is certainly the case that, at this stage, I can put on record my Department's appreciation for the essential and reassuring work carried out by the MDP.

Before concluding, I shall mention a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Newbury. First, he mentioned the MDP personnel and their families living in houses in the areas of Burghfield and Aldermaston. His plea for the purchase of houses comes rich from a member of the party that has always resisted the right to buy. However, I am not aware of any case where people are not being allowed to purchase their houses. There are council houses. I do not believe that there are married quarters, but even if there are, we have paralleled the right to buy. I am not aware of any personnel who are being discriminated against in the hon. Gentleman's area, but, of course, I will look into the point that he raised.

In the middle of his speech, the hon. Gentleman could not resist a nasty little political dig at the defence costs study programme. Let us get it absolutely clear that the defence costs study programme preserves our fighting capability by reducing needless costs in support areas and, if we can find more money than we need in achieving our target, we will try to enhance our front-line forces. It was only last year that the hon. Gentleman's party, at the Liberal Democrats conference, voted to reduce the defence budget by 50 per cent., not only in support of the armed forces, but across the board, because it panders to its unilateral disarmament, Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, pacifist wing. Of course, the Liberal Democrats were rumbled and the Government managed to exploit the fact that they were going to cut the whole of the defence budget by 50 per cent. by the year 2000.

The hon. Gentleman's leader said at the time that they had announced the reduction of 50 per cent. because it was post cold war, the Berlin wall had come down and that it was a safer world. He announced that at exactly the same time as Saddam Hussein was invading Kuwait. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman may remember that we exploited that proposed 50 per cent. cut in the armed forces so much that the hon. Gentleman's leader did one of his classic U-turns. Of course, the party was rumbled.

What do we have this year from the Liberal Democratic party? We are now told by the party leader that, of course, we are in an uncertain world and we cannot cut our armed forces. That is exactly what the Government have stated and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has emphasised. In the "Front Line First" programme, we are preserving our front-line fighting capability because it is a most uncertain world. What the hon. Gentleman's party has come up with for the European elections is a wonderful European idea—a European army. The party leader has suggested it because he claims that we all want to work towards the integration of Europe and that a European army should mean that each nation in the European Union should specialise in one particular, separate military skill. Therefore, a European army could be deployed as a seamless robe. Then somebody said to the hon. Gentleman's leader that there is such a thing as national sovereignty. The leader said, "Oh, yes", of course there was national sovereignty and, therefore, each nation will have a veto on the deployment of its part of European army.

Let us say that the Germans were specialising in armour. They could decide not to deploy their armour if the European army needed to deploy troops to a particular incident. If we specialised in amphibious capability, we would have the sovereign right to say that the European army may deploy, but not with our amphibious capability. In other words, the Liberal Democratic party is trying to have it both ways and has it in none. It would create a capability gap that would threaten all of us in Europe. It is typical double speak and double dutch. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman, in criticising us for trying to discover needless expense in the support side, is laying himself completely open to attacks on his party's defence policy. Indeed, I would not have referred to his party's defence policy had he not tried to make political capital today.

Will the Minister confirm that it has been my party's policy for a long time to cut the unnecessary extent of our nuclear forces after the cold war, as opposed to the policy of his party, which is concerned with cutting our immediate service personnel—the front-line troops in the area?

The hon. Gentleman talks about our nuclear capability. That reminds me that, when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) stood on a CND platform, espousing the abolition of our independent nuclear deterrent, he was supported by a very left-wing party. Now it seems that that Liberal Democratic policy has disappeared. Again, that is perhaps because the party realises how ridiculous its stance is and how irresponsible it is when talking of the defence of the western world.

I do not need to discuss with the hon. Gentleman the fact that his party believes that we should cut out long-term security by preserving short-term jobs. May I stress to the hon. Gentleman, because, clearly, he has not heard what I have said, that we are not cutting front-line capability. Indeed, it was only in November that we added 3,000 more to the planned strength of our Army's manpower. We do not intend to cut a single front-line fighting capability unit, be it in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force. The defence costs study is looking at support and therefore to re-directing money, which is needlessly being spent, towards our front-line capability. How different that is from the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his party.

It is quite wrong to portray the work that Sir John has carried out on behalf of the defence costs study as a short-term, cost-cutting exercise. It is anything but that. It is looking at the Ministry of Defence police and at the way in which we guard our nation's security. I believe that that is a responsible task. We should not preserve everything that happens to exist in the United Kingdom merely because the hon. Gentleman can see political advantage in the status quo. Change—even change for the better—is difficult, but the Liberal Democratic party would never have change because it wants to preserve the status quo for its political advantage.

I conclude by putting on record my Department's appreciation of the essential and reassuring work carried out by the MDP. It is a role which will continue to be necessary in the future. I have every intention of ensuring that it continues to be carried out in the most effective way possible. I pay tribute to those in the MDP and ask them to trust what we are doing, which is a fully comprehensive review of the status of the Ministry of Defence police. The comments of the hon. Member for Newbury and the fears that he has spread should be seen for what they are—nothing more than cheap political advantage.

I am grateful for the opportunity of this Adjournment debate. I am particularly pleased that the Minister who will reply knows the delights and the character of my constituency, having visited it on several occasions. I know that he will appreciate the concern that I and my constituents feel about the problem of planning and superstores.

The importance of the constituency of Esher is that, although it is adjacent to London, it comprises a series of communities. Those communities are important to the people who live in them, and have identifiable characters. The community spirit in the constituency of Esher means that many people are involved in voluntary work and many people help each other. That gives a character of life across that community.

Many social groups, leisure facilities, artistic and cultural activities are conducted by amateurs in the villages and communities that comprise the constituency. That is extremely important. Underlying that, in each of the communities, is access to local shops, which provide lifeblood to the people who live in them.

Two particular problems have emerged following applications from superstores to build on the edge of communities within my constituency, at Thames Ditton and Long Ditton. I know that the Minister is familiar with the problem. I appreciate that, given that we are waiting for the inspectors' reports, I am unlikely now to receive a clear and encouraging response as to the outcome. Nevertheless, this is a timely opportunity for me to raise in the House the fears that have been expressed locally.

More than 3,500 letters have been sent to me, and they have been sent on to the Minister. I know that many others locally feel strongly about the matter but have not written. There is no doubt that it is an issue of considerable local importance, and one about which people are rightly agitated.

The importance of the issue to the communities and village shops within them is displayed by what one constituent helpfully summarised for me about Thames Ditton—one of the two communities under threat. Shops in Thames Ditton include a butcher, a baker, a stationer, a children's clothes shop, a greengrocer, a provisions merchant, a video shop, a needlework shop, a wine merchant, a florist, a dress shop, a hairdresser, a newsagent, a travel agent, antique shops, a betting shop and a gift shop. Sadly, one or two premises are empty. I hope that, as the economy continues to recover, they will be filled. However, it is unlikely that those empty shops will be filled or that the existing shops that I have listed will remain open if superstores are built on the edge of the community. Such superstores will suck life out of that community, and will certainly damage the local shops.

I shall give the House some of the background to the applications. Sainsbury has applied to build a 76,000 sq ft superstore at Long Ditton, with 651 parking spaces. That is a variation on an earlier scheme, which proposed slightly more parking spaces. It was found that there were problems with certain listed grade 2 provisions on the main buildings of the waterworks and some of the surrounding railings.

The Department of the Environment declined to hold a joint inquiry on that application and the application from Tesco to build at nearby Thames Ditton. The two schemes are roughly a mile apart. Tesco applied to build a 62,000 sq ft superstore plus 550 parking spaces. So the net effect on two adjoining communities would be an additional potential for 76,000 sq ft plus 62,000 sq ft of shopping, and 651 plus 550 extra parking spaces. Clearly, neither the stores nor the parking spaces were designed to meet the needs of those two relatively small local communities. The appeals have been made and public inquiries held separately, and we are now awaiting the inspectors' reports.

Of particular concern to us locally was the statement by Tesco and Sainsbury that they would both build superstores if they were permitted. It is not merely a question of one giving way to the other, depending on the success of the appeals: the probability is that, if the planning guidance were not clear and the inspector approved both, both superstores would go ahead.

I contend that, in the long term, both superstores would not be viable. In those circumstances, one might close, which would not be a disaster for Sainsbury or Tesco, bearing in mind their national coverage, but the disaster would already have occurred for the local community, which would find it difficult to recover from the intrusion on its style and way of life.

One problem is that, when superstores calculate the potential retail market, they often do so on the basis of the nearest significant town centre rather than on local amenities, particularly village shops. That means that the damage to village shops from superstores is often underestimated when planning permission is requested. It was explained by one Long Ditton shopkeeper in the Sainsbury inquiry that only a modest diversion of trade from a corner shop can mean the difference between survival and closure.

The local borough council of Elmbridge—I have the honour to represent part of the borough of Elmbridgeobjected to both applications on the grounds of trade diversion from existing centres and local shops, loss of housing land, which is particular to the Sainsbury development, adverse environmental impact, particularly evening and weekend traffic, and the impact, in the case of Sainsbury, on listed buildings.

Additionally, in relation to the Tesco scheme, there was concern about the effect on a conservation area. The objections in relation to the Sainsbury appeal in Long Ditton were joined by objections from Kingston borough council, which is the adjoining borough council within Greater London. I wish to place on record the valuable help that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) has given me in objecting to the planning applications.

There are some interesting background facts that I shall quickly explain to show that the local communities' need for the stores is simply not proven.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in his debate. I wish to assure him that the phenomenon that he has described in his constituency is more widespread than he might imagine. I have precisely the same problem in my constituency in the town of Tewkesbury, where an application has been made for a large retail warehouse that will bring in 1.5 million visitors from as far afield as Bristol and Birmingham.

There is considerable fear that the development will have an adverse impact not only on Tewkesbury and surrounding village shops, but other towns in the district. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has called in the application and the inspector will hear it in August.

My hon. Friend may also be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment is currently conducting an inquiry into the impact on town centres of out-of-town shopping centres. He may also know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued two new planning guidance notes—the first, PPG6, under which the inspector will be specifically required to take into account the impact on town centres, and the other, PPG13, under which car emissions must be taken into account. Those will be relevant factors when the inspector makes his, decision on the schemes in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His evidence shows that it is not merely my problem but one that is widespread. Before I conclude, I shall urge the Minister to deal with those planning guidance notes, so that we can have further clarity.

In my constituency, the important fact is the existence, not far away, of five main town centres: Cobham, Esher, Molesey, Walton on Thames and Weybridge, which contain approximately 400,000 sq ft of retail sales floor space. Access to shops is available, especially in Walton, where nearly half of the floor space is located. The borough of Elmbridge also has a number of smaller centres, including Claygate, Hersham, Hinchley Wood, Oxshott and Thames Ditton, which meet the everyday requirements of local residents.

Within easy reach of the borough are several major regional centres—Kingston upon Thames, at approximately three miles, Guildford, at approximately 13, Epsom at about five, and Staines and Woking, which are both about seven miles away. Those towns have specialist shops and very large stores. In addition, there is a superstore on the A3 near Cobham and a new superstore centre—Marks and Spencer and Tesco—at the old Brooldands racing circuit, which is in easy driving distance.

Those facts are very important. I cannot understand why it is regarded as reasonable to plonk potentially enormous shopping centres in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton, when anyone who wishes to go shopping by car has easy access to other centres of that sort.

Elmbridge borough council's plans are very clear in that respect, and I endorse them. The council has attempted to set out clearly in its local plan its ambitions for local shopping and I find those reasonable. The plans would certainly preclude the creation of two new shopping areas in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton.

I shall list the aims. They are to reinforce the multi-purpose role of the borough's main centres; to maintain the balance in the shopping hierarchy in the borough and resist the development of major out-of-town shopping centres; to maintain and enhance the quality of existing shopping facilities and improve the physical quality and environment in town centres; to maintain convenient access to and within town centres and ensure adequate provision of parking facilities; to encourage the retention of local shops; and to protect the green belt and other environmentally sensitive areas from shopping developments.

Those aims reflect my constituents' interests, and are the policies that we want to be pursued. The planning applications intrude on the wishes of the local community, which is why they are resented.

In the House a week or two ago, I referred to Tesco and Sainsbury as "villains". That raised an eyebrow or two, and I am glad. Sometimes it is better to attract attention by using an emotive word than by quiet argument. I do not retract that word. In the context of what they are attempting to do, against the wishes of the local community, they are villains, in the old-fashioned sense of the word.

Also, despite what was said to the planning appeal and the public inquiry, they are not totally clear what these plans would do to their other stores in the area. There is a Tesco store in Molesey. What would be the intentions about the future of that store, which happily serves local residents because it is in the main shopping area, if another store is built in Thames Ditton? That is another aspect that causes me concern as a constituency Member.

Although the resident population in Elmbridge may not grow significantly in the next 10 years, there will be extra consumer expenditure. I hope that it will enable smaller shops to come back where there are now empty premises in our towns and villages. If the superstores go ahead, it will stop this benefit to the local community.

So many reasons have been put forward by my constituents in all the letters I have received that I have not time to talk about them in complete detail; nevertheless, the issues I have raised so far demonstrate just why there is such intense opposition.

One point I shall add is that it is not widely realised that, under the deregulation proposals now issued by the Government, there is the prospect of unfettered opening of stores for 24 hours a day, six days a week. In those circumstances, although Tesco and Sainsbury have said that they have no current intention of doing so, the damage to local communities could be even greater than is currently realised.

I am not against superstores; I am aware that the patterns of life and shopping have changed. I am concerned about whether the Government will clarify exactly where superstores are welcome to be built. They should be only in town centres, not in out-of-town or edge-of-community developments, because in both those cases they will suck the life out of that community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) referred to policy planning guidance note 6, which I have read with great interest. It raises some important points for the Government to clarify. Paragraph 33 states:

"when drafting plan policies or considering planning applications for developments outside town centres, local planning authorities should take account of the possible impact (including the cumulative impact with other recent or proposed retail developments) on the vitality and viability of any nearby town centre as a whole, as well as of other factors such as the possible impact on the rural community (including the role of village shops)".

Hear, hear: we endorse that. If that was that, there would be no doubt in my mind that the solution was in hand and the planning appeals would be thrown out.

However, later in the same guidance note, there is a slightly more favourable mention of "edge-of-centre sites". I would ask the Minister to clarify what is meant by edge-of-centre sites. PPG6 refers to the fact that they should be accessible by foot from the existing shops. In neither case that we are discussing would I consider that to be the case. It is more likely that people will go to either of the two superstores we are talking about by car and leave by car, not using the other shops in those communities.

There is considerable concern about what the planning guidance currently is. If my hon. Friend the Minister wants the reference, it is in paragraph 35:

"the best solution will be the edge-of-centre foodstore that provides parking facilities".

In these circumstances, "edge-of-centre" is not a valid description; they are sufficiently far away to mean that the local shopping centres will be denuded of casual custom generated by superstores within proper town centres.

I referred obliquely to traffic pollution. I note that PPG 6 talks about the unacceptable increase in carbon dioxide and other polluting emissions. I am concerned about that. There is no doubt that the planned superstores will suck in traffic from elsewhere. They are not serving the local community; they will encourage people to come into the area. The movement of traffic will not be in the interests of people living in Thames Ditton and Long Ditton.

I am very concerned that the excellent statements by the Secretary of State, which appear to resist out-of-town superstores and certainly reaffirm the importance of protecting the green belt, could be assumed by inspectors to give a green light to developments which are not out of town on open fields, but on the edge of communities—almost in the heart of those communities, but sufficiently detached to damage them. That is not acceptable.

We, as Members of Parliament, do not have authority over, and cannot control, the planning process. We allow local authorities to make decisions in accordance with local plans. There is a system of appeal which does not come to the House for decision; the appeal goes to the Secretary of State. A Back Bencher can raise the issue on behalf of his constituents and hope that his complaints are listened to.

A week or two ago, our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment launched a campaign called the urban quality initiative. Today, I am talking about a suburban quality initiative to try to protect those places outside urban areas, where village and community spirit is high and where the unwelcome intrusion of such a massive area of shopping space could do untold damage to the fabric of local society. I rely upon my hon. Friend the Minister to support me in my campaign.

I readily commend my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) on the very clear way that he has put forward the concerns of his constituents. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) have made clear, our new policy on town centres and retail developments was set out in policy planning guidance note 6 last July. It has received considerable publicity and, generally, a wide welcome. Interestingly, this is the first time that it has been debated in the House, so I welcome the opportunity to comment on what we are seeking to achieve.

My hon. Friend has made clear his specific concerns about two particular applications. He will appreciate that I am unable to comment on those cases while they are still in progress, since that could be seen to prejudice the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role. However, it was implicit in what my hon. Friend said that the two applications were turned down by the local planning authority, doubtless for the reasons he gave. The applicants then appealed to the Secretary of State against those decisions, as they are entitled to do in law. An inspector was appointed, and an inquiry held.

Usually—in the vast majority of cases—the inspector, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, determines an appeal. However, because of the importance that we attach to these cases, the Secretary of State has recovered the appeals for his own decision. We have now received the inspector's report on the Tesco appeal, and await the report on the Sainsbury appeal. I anticipate that the decisions on both appeals will be taken at the same time. As I have said, I cannot comment on the merits of the cases, as that would almost certainly be held to have prejudiced the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role.

What I shall certainly do is to explain, first, our policy on superstores, as set out in recent planning guidance; secondly, our latest advice for helping town centres remain vital and viable and meet the challenges of competition; and thirdly, the implications of our latest policy guidance on transport as set out in PPG13, to which my hon. Friend referred. It may also be helpful if I refer to our criteria for call-in.

Our planning guidance PPG6 provides a clear statement of the objectives of Government policy, which are:

"to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres which serve the whole community and which provide a focus for retail development, where proximity of competing businesses facilitates competition from which consumers can benefit".

My hon. Friend gave a clear description of an existing town centre where a number of businesses and shops exist, which, in a sense, compete with each other.

The statement of objectives continues:

"to ensure the availability of a wide range of shopping opportunities to which people have easy access (from the largest superstore to the smallest village shop), and the maintenance of an efficient and innovative retail sector."

The policy emphasises our commitment to competition, access and choice in retailing, which will benefit all consumers.

Town centres have grown over the centuries as places where people come together to buy and sell, usually close to where people live or where major routes converge. Historically, markets and other activities developed alongside each other, taking advantage of the congregation of people and the opportunities for attracting visitors. The marketplace and retail functions have therefore been at the heart of the evolution of today's towns and cities, which provide a range of services and functions for those who live or work either there or in the surrounding areas.

I see the town centre as the preferred location for much of this new shopping development, especially food shopping. We want to encourage financial investment in our town centres—not just for shopping, but for a wide range of activities and services including offices, entertainment, hotels, restaurants, cafes, museums and housing. All those will introduce diversity and variety, which add to the vitality and viability of our town centres.

Above all, as our planning guidance makes clear, the town centre is and should remain the anchor of our retailing system. That is especially true of small towns —the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher.

For that reason—our desire to maintain the vitality and viability of existing town centres—we need to take a more cautious approach to out-of-town shopping, to look more closely at the impact of out-of-town developmems, and to consider the implications of their location for accessibility and overall travel patterns. We want shops to be accessible, as far as possible, to everyone, not just to those with cars.

My hon. Friend rightly expressed concern about village shops. Our planning guidance states:

"Village shops play a vital role in rural areas and the loss of the traditional village shop can have a particularly severe impact on the community it serves."

Other planning guidance advises local planning authorities on the need to maintain a healthy rural economy.

One of our main concerns is that out-of-town shopping may have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of existing town centres. It may not only divert trade and activity from the town centre, but affect the private investment that our towns will need to ensure their continuing vitality and viability.

It would be unwise to allow further developments that seriously damage town centres, and then simply have to spend public money on trying to remedy the situation. If retail developments are located in town centres, they will contribute to the economic strength of those centres rather than undermining it. We have made it clear that we want to sustain our town centres, and that developments that would undermine the vitality and viability of town centres should be refused.

Assessing the likely impact of a development is primarily a matter for local planning authorities, but we have provided clear planning guidance. Only a couple of weeks ago, we published a report entitled "Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge". It provides local authorities with an action list for their town centres, promoting strategies for town-centre management and suggesting the type of measure most likely to ensure that their centres remain successful.

It is not the function of the planning system to frustrate competition. We are seeking to encourage investment in town centres—to persuade retailers to compete in the same market place, rather than locating all over the place. We want competition from which everyone can benefit.

If suitable town centres cannot be found—in a number of instances, it may not be possible to find a suitable site in a town centre—edge-of-centre sites will be the best location for food supermarkets. That will allow those who arrive by car to walk into the centre to conduct other business in town: one trip will serve several purposes. Such stores will also be more accessible to those without cars, who can walk to the store while visiting the town centre. By "edge-of-town", we do not mean "out-of-town", but, as I have said, on occasion it will be impossible to find a suitable site. We want wherever possible a choice of means of transport, with access for everyone. In the case of out-of-town development, more than 90 per cent. of customers arrive by car. We want retailers to choose locations that serve not only those who arrive by car but those who travel by bus, walk or ride a bicycle. Users should have a real choice. If we believe that planning guidance is not being complied with, we shall have no hesitation in calling in decisions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to determine. He did that in the Tewkesbury case to which my hon. Friend referred.

Our concern is for the future of our town centres—particularly those that would be adversely affected by out-of-town superstores. Town centres need reinforcing, not undermining. Our planning guidance and policy does just that. We want to reinforce the vitality and viability of existing town centres, and in that I am sure that we will have wide public support and the support of my hon. friend's constituents.

The Opsahl report on Northern Ireland, published in June 1993, was based on the views of many ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland rather than on those of politicians. The range of views expressed to the commission was as wide as those of politicians and perhaps more complicated because they reflected many different nuances and attitudes, as might be expected when speaking to the general public.

A charitable body established with the backing of charitable-trusts and foundations, Initiative 92's Citizens Inquiry, obtained 3,000 responses in the form of 545 written and taped submissions. Many of them were examined in meetings and by seven experts from both parts of Ireland, from Britain and from the United States of America under the chairmanship of the leading Norwegian human rights lawyer, Professor Torkel Opsahl. Unfortunately, he died shortly after the report's publication, but I was fortunate enough to meet him for its launch in Britain at a meeting that I hosted in the House on 10 June 1993.

The report initially received a great deal of attention in the island of Ireland. It was fully discussed in the Irish Parliament and was outlined and discussed at a meeting in Cork of the British-Irish parliamentary body, which took the report seriously enough to propose that it would be taken into consideration by future committees concerned with education, social provision, pensions and other matters, and that attempts should be made to adopt its proposals. It was hastily rejected, however, by Northern Ireland politicians, partly because it suggested that a number of them should attend political educational institutions and downgraded them by giving priority to the views of ordinary citizens.

The Opsahl report was also discussed by the European Parliament, but little attention has been paid to it in Britain. In the other place, a debate was initiated on 3 March 1994 by Lord Holme of Cheltenham, but the only references to it in this House were in a speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 22 October 1993, when he devoted three minutes to the report, and in my three early-day motions, in written questions, in a supplementary question and in an oral question, and on other occasions when I have made passing reference to the report. The House has not given the report the consideration that is due to it. We can belatedly make amends for that today.

The report has not been superseded by dramatic events in Northern Ireland in the past year, such as the revelation of the Hume-Adams talks and the publication of the joint declaration, which is of tremendous importance but which differs from the nature of the report. The joint declaration seeks relatively speedy means of reaching peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland on key areas such as terrorism and constitutional solutions. The Opsahl report is broader and in some ways more plodding, although it may be more practical and selective of the issues that it examines. It deals with economic, social, religious, cultural, and education issues, which are given as much weight as the political, constitutional, terrorism and security concerns. The House normally deals with those concerns, but it gives too little attention to the economic and social agenda.

The report is very much in favour of the development of cross-border co-operation on the economic agenda. We are in the era of the Single European Act, disappearing trade barriers throughout Europe and advancing trade and commerce between nations and regions. That needs to be encouraged in the island of Ireland. The report recognises, however, that for that to take place we need a new Northern Ireland Government, acceptable to the communities involved, to work with the Irish Government. It is a matter not of sharing Executive power but of discussion and negotiation between two sides and two interests. The policies of the IRA lead to borders being placed between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which considerably disrupt trade. For instance, the IRA attacks trains travelling between Belfast and. Dublin to push goods back on to the roads, where protection rackets can more readily and easily operate.

The report also suggests regional development plans with economic and social goals, as proposed by the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. The argument is that we should move beyond just considering the free market and that we should introduce development, planning and regulation, which runs counter to the deregulation legislation introduced by the Government. The arguments about the operation of economic and social matters in Britain differ from those in Northern Ireland because an incentive is required to draw communities together.

On the social agenda, the report states that there should be a gradual policy of integration over wide areas. It stresses the need for integrated education. A small and admirable integrated education programme exists in Northern Ireland, but the report recognises that it should be extended much further. The compilers of the report were impressed by the sixth forms in Northern Ireland, whether basically Catholic, basically Protestant or integrated. They felt that pupils wished to express their desires and suggested that they be allowed to find out much more about the different communities, their histories and traditions. There is a programme of education for mutual understanding in schools, which the report stresses should have more funding.

The report stresses the point that there is a problem with the Catholic hierarchy in terms of the development of integrated education. I have always believed that integrated education should start with teacher training, but at present integrated teacher training is limited to university provision. The fact that one of the separate teacher-training colleges is Catholic means that the other, in practice, caters for Protestants. We cannot envisage more integrated education if the teachers themselves are not integrated and I often press the Government about what can be done to break down the barriers to integration.

The report also stressed the need for pilot integrated housing schemes. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has done much valuable work, but unfortunately certain free market policies have recently been imposed on it. It tends to develop different housing schemes in different areas according to the representations made to it, which causes problems, but pilot schemes with subsidised rents would attract people. Community work is also highlighted and the report suggests that the type of cross-community trust which exists in Derry should be extended.

It is also recommended that the integration of men and women in the political process should be pursued. Women are very poorly represented in Northern Ireland politics, in the parties in general and on public bodies. Some of the entrenched sectarian attitudes, which are strong among the men, may rub off less strongly on women because of the nature of their activities, the problems that they face and the ease with which they recognise the common problems faced by, for example, unemployed families, whether they be Protestant or Catholic.

The report also stresses the need for cultural integration. I have already mentioned the education programme for mutual understanding, which states that there appears to be an interest among Protestants—especially schoolchildren —in understanding their Irishness, but without the traditional nationalist propaganda. It believes that an understanding of the cultural development of Northern Ireland is important. Comments on the Opsahl report tend to concentrate on its political and constitutional agenda, but I have sought to stress the economic and social aspects because they deserve more attention than they receive.

On constitutional matters, the report said that if the talks then taking place failed a commission should be set up in consultation with the Irish Government to speak directly to the people—in other words, that an "official Opsahl" should remain in existence. I know that that idea has been dismissed, on the grounds that the talks will not fail and that there is another stage to come, but we should keep it on the agenda all the time because the Opsahl commission found areas in which no movement could be made, due to entrenched positions. There were arguments about ways of overcoming that problem through continuing work, which could then be picked up officially.

The commission argued for the legal recognition of nationalism, so that in a new Northern Ireland Government parity of esteem would be recognised. For some of us there is a problem with that idea, because it rather suggests the sort of veto that might be operated by nationalist or unionist politicians that runs against the integrationist principles for which the report argues elsewhere. However, in order to get government off the ground in Northern Ireland something of that sort may be needed as a starter, and if the principles of integration were running elsewhere there would begin to be a principle of integration in the political sphere. The report also suggested that it was not good enough to get a mere arithmetical majority agreement on the future constitutional position. A consensus was needed—a consensus broad enough to be reflected in both communities. The report says that majority support for the advances would be needed in both communities.

The commission was criticised for arguing for consultation with Sinn Fein—unfairly, because such consultation was already taking place at the time. We have heard a lot about that, and whatever might be said about the initial discussions, the Government have adopted the correct approach since then, both in the declaration and in their clarification. The questions that have been asked back, such as when the violence will end, really put Sinn Fein on the spot. The Government's present position is within the spirit of the Opsahl report.

There is also stress on the need for a Bill of Rights, for which there is wide support in many areas. John Bruton, the leader of Fine Gael, suggests that the talks could initially be about a Bill of Rights as a subject on which people may be able to make a start.

The most impressive aspect of the Opsahl report is not so much its recommendations as the fact that it is a process and gives the reader a feel not just for the difficulties and problems of the Province, but also for the hopes. The problems can be expressed in the words of a 15-year-old Catholic schoolgirl, who said:

"Like the thin white ribbon that the police use to seal an area, we wrap ourselves in our territories, where we know we are safe".

Perhaps the Opsahl process can help to make life feel safe and good for both Catholic and Protestant schoolchildren outside the territories marked by white ribbons. The white ribbons may even no longer be there to form barriers in people's minds between two areas.

I hope that the British Government will start to take the report seriously—more seriously than has been suggested by the off-the-cuff and sometimes rather glib remarks that they have made so far.

I am grateful, as is the House, to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for providing an opportunity for the House to debate Northern Ireland today. But for the Whitsun recess, we should have had Northern Ireland questions today, so the debate provides a useful opportunity to ensure that Northern Ireland remains at the head of the parliamentary agenda, as it does at the head of the Government's agenda.

Sadly, day-to-day events tend to keep Northern Ireland in the spotlight. In recent days there have been further savage attacks and killings by both loyalist and republican terrorists. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House remain united in our utter rejection of those cowardly and futile crimes, and in our determination to find an answer to the tragic problems that for too long have caused suffering and despair in that beautiful land.

The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East is well known in the House for his caring concern for Northern Ireland. Specifically, he has shown a close interest in the Opsahl report ever since it was published last summer and the House will be grateful for his commentary on the report today. It was a wide-ranging report, sometimes far more wide ranging than it is given credit for publicly. It was certainly not just political and constitutional. I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said, especially about education which, as he knows, is one of my responsibilities within the Northern Ireland Office.

The hon. Gentleman knows of the Government's current support for the principle of integrated education where there is a parental demand for such education, and for the principle of the cross-curricular themes of education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage within both the controlled and maintained sectors. There is little difference between us on the need to ensure that within the education system there is a permanent cross-current which brings the communities together.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is already on record as responding to the report on behalf of the Government. In reply to a written question tabled by the hon. Gentleman last June, my right hon. and learned Friend said that the report

"provides a valuable record of the commission's work, which clearly did much to stimulate the submission of views from a wide range of individuals and organisations."—[Official Report, 28 June 1993; Vol. 227, c. 339.]

He also observed that a number of the recommendations were clearly controversial and had provoked dissenting comment. He said that in his view the value of the report lay principally in enlivening and developing informed public debate. He went on to recognise that the report offered an important source of ideas. Today's debate is an indication that the principles outlined in the Opsahl report are, indeed, continuing to cause and enliven debate.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State also mentioned the report in more detail in an Adjournment debate on 22 October, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. The report was also the subject of a full debate in another place on 3 March. On that occasion, Baroness Denton responded in some detail to many of the main points in the report and I shall not go over all that ground again today. As I have said, the report covers a wide range of areas and is addressed to a number of groups, not just to the Government. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the report received a cool reception from the Northern Ireland parties generally. Nothing would be gained today by going over the recommendations again in great detail when, as I have said, our position is already on the record.

On the political front, however, the report suggests ways in which to find a political settlement in Northern Ireland. The great value of today's debate is the way in which it highlights, once again, the need to continue to pursue the goal of an agreed, wide-ranging political accommodation. In that regard, the Government certainly share the political objectives of the report, although we differ on the means by which to achieve them. The report suggests that if the talks fail—that is an important phrase —the Government, in consultation with the Irish Government, should establish a commission to study the situation and to make recommendations for further consultation with the political parties and, if necessary, directly with the people of Northern Ireland. The report identifies what it calls seven realities which it believes must be accepted before an accommodation can be reached. The report also talks in terms of equal sharing of power by both main parts of the community and proposes at the same time giving legal recognition to Irish nationalism.

As I have said, I do not want to get involved in too much of the detail today, but I must say at this stage that I reject totally the notion that the talks have failed—the triggering device within the report. As the House is aware, dialogue is continuing both with most of the Northern Ireland parties and with the Irish Government. The House will also wish to bear in mind the fact that events have moved on considerably since the report was published last June, despite—I say this with all respect—the hon. Gentleman's assertion that they have not done so to any great extent.

The main change has been the historic joint declaration by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach last December, which established a new level of understanding between the British and Irish Governments about how Northern Ireland's future should be determined. In particular, it offered a clear opportunity to those who support violence to turn away from it and to join the political process. The key to that was that violence must be ended, permanently and for good. It is testimony to the way in which the declaration sets out a balanced set of principles, founded on the notions of agreement, consent and the rejection of violence, that it has been warmly welcomed nationally and internationally, including by the Opposition parties and by the hon. Gentleman in particular.

The Opsahl report suggests that arrangements for government within Northern Ireland should be based on the principle that each community has an equal voice in making and executing the laws or a veto on their execution, and equal shares in administrative authority. The Government come to the issues from a different angle. We do not propose to impose a solution. We do not have a blueprint for a settlement. To quote the joint declaration, the Government's

"primary interest is to see peace, stability and reconciliation established by agreement among all the people who inhabit the island".

Further, the declaration makes it clear that

"The role of the British Government will be to encourage, facilitate and enable the achievement of such agreement over a period through a process of dialogue and co-operation based on full respect for the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland".

To put it another way, Britain's purpose in Northern Ireland is to ensure democratic debate and free democratic choice. The Government fully accept the need to restore locally accountable democracy in Northern Ireland. However, as the Opsahl report recognises, for any new structures to be both fair and workable, they must command wide support and allegiance in Northern Ireland itself. That means that any accommodation must address those arrangements in the context of wider relationships.

We believe that the best forum for reaching such an accommodation lies in the talks process, which is continuing. For the past eight months, I have been in private bilateral discussion with three of the four main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, exploring areas of common ground across all the relevant relationships —in Northern Ireland, among the people of the island of Ireland and between the two Governments. We have built on the work carried out in the 1991 and 1992 talks, and in recent weeks we have submitted to the parties a paper which floated ideas relevant to those relationships.

The additional point about the Opsahl report is that there can be a nibbling away at many of the areas that help to nurture the extremists in Northern Ireland. The avenues of integration that are talked about, the tackling of problems of unemployment and deprivation, take the ground from under extremists in Northern Ireland when they are arguing their case against the alternative community and the alternative political settlement. We should not look only for a dramatic solution, although one hopes that that will happen. I support entirely the joint declaration and everything associated with it, but other action may be taken in economic and social areas which would help to improve the situation.

I do not dissent at all from what the hon. Gentleman says. We have always regarded the political process as being one of the policy priorities in Northern Ireland. Equally, security is another and the third is economic advancement and the type of integration and opportunity to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

In the last few minutes available, I shall concentrate on the political side. As I have said, we have been building on the talks which took place and we shall continue to do so. There will be further exchanges with the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and we hope that in the end we shall be able to persuade them to return to a more formal talks process. In parallel with my discussions with the parties, intensive consultations with the Irish Government have been in progress to develop a joint framework to carry the talks process forward. A progress report was made to the last intergovernmental conference on 25 April and work is continuing. Our intention is to bring together those two areas of activity and to return to multilateral talks involving the two Governments and the main constitutional political parties at the appropriate point. Our objective is to facilitate a comprehensive political settlement covering all the main relationships, as set out in the statement of 26 March 1991.

The Opsahl report also recommended that the Government should open informal channels of communication with Sinn Fein to test that party's commitment to the constitutional process. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East made clear, the joint declaration delivered a direct challenge to Sinn Fein as to whether it carried on supporting the odious and futile campaign of violence or adopted the way of constitutional politics. The ball is now firmly in its court and we await its answer. It has prevaricated long enough. It has made an issue of so-called clarification. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, last week we issued a statement commenting on its questions. We said in that statement:

"The vast majority of people in Ireland, North and South and of both traditions, demand an end to violence now. Their wishes could not be clearer."

That is the wish that brings the hon. Gentleman and me together today in what we are saying. It is certainly the wish of the people of Northern Ireland. It was also the wish expressed in the Opsahl report.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House on British trade with Cuba. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will reply on behalf of the Government, not just because he is a parliamentary neighbour of mine but because I know that he is a man of culture. He will appreciate the reference when I say that earlier this year Channel 4 showed a delightful film called "Weekend in Havana" starring Carmen Miranda and other famous film stars. The film was made in 1941. When I saw the film, little did I realise that a few weeks later I, too, would spend a weekend in Havana. I did so at the end of February as the guest of a British business man who believes that we should develop closer trading links with Cuba. I invite the House to see the declaration that I have made in the Register of Members' Interests.

While I was in Havana, I had a long discussion with Dr. Ricardo Alarcon, the chairman of the National Assembly of People's Power. I was left in no doubt that he was promoting change and reform and was committed to that process. Therefore, I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward), in his capacity as chairman of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, decided to invite to Britain a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Cuba, led by Dr. Alarcon. Indeed, the delegation has been with us in the House for most of this week. The visit has been a success. We have had the opportunity to explain to the members of the delegation some of the finer points of the procedures of the House. Although in certain matters they may be as mystified as I still am after 20 years, I think that they have enjoyed themselves and the House has certainly enjoyed having them with us.

Yesterday afternoon, Dr. Martinez attended the Treasury Select Committee to listen to the Governor of the Bank of England give evidence. Dr. Tablada has been very active in asking questions about the health service. Dr. Alneida has been inquisitive on several matters, about which he has asked detailed questions. Mr. Rodriguez has also been with us throughout the proceedings.

I believe that an improvement in relations between Britain and the Government of Fidel Castro has taken place, and that it indicates growing opportunities, above all perceived by British business in Cuba. In some respects, this is a case of trade taking the lead. There is no doubt that most British business men who are familiar with the Caribbean would like to see the Cuban market open up to British business interests. That needs to be done in conjunction with the Government because several knotty problems have to be overcome.

I have referred to the process of change in Cuba. Cuba is an economy in transition facing real and painful difficulties. I was reminded during my visit to Havana of some visits that I made to Moscow towards the end of the 1980s in my capacity as chairman of a company limited by guarantee, using money from the British know-how fund and private sources to assist the Russians in their process of transformation. Many of the problems which are apparent in Cuba are problems that we have seen elsewhere in eastern Europe, particularly in Russia. I am under no illusions about the immensity of the task facing the Cuban Government as they seek to bring about much-needed change and reform. That will not happen easily; nor will it happen quickly, because the habits of mind inculcated by 30 or 35 years of a command economy are not easy to remove overnight. The transition process will require patience and a measure of understanding on the part of those of us who want better trade relations with Cuba and it would be greatly assisted if the United States Government could be persuaded gradually to adopt a different attitude towards the embargo.

It is a pity that the embargo remains in place. My own view—I know that it is not one shared by Washington—is that if the Cubans can get the economy moving there will be further reform. I believe that trade and perhaps even a measure of aid are essential ingredients in improving the living standards of the people of Cuba, getting the economy moving and, thereby, assisting in the reform process.

Britain has always maintained diplomatic relations with Cuba. We have a number of companies that are well established there, not least the sugar company, E.D. and F. Man, which is, at this very moment, hosting a reception for the Cuban parliamentary delegation. I believe that it is the virtually unanimous view of British business men that the United States Government should be invited to review their policy.

We believe that the changes that have taken place are now irreversible and we need to concentrate on the speed at which further reform can be implemented. My understanding is that there has been an acceleration in the process. Among the measures that have been introduced or are expected to be introduced during this year and 1995 are the following: the legalisation of holdings of foreign currency; the introduction of a fully convertible peso; the introduction of a new banking system; the introduction of corporation and income tax—controversial, but necessary; the removal of subsidies from state industries; the introduction of new legislation relating to investment, trade marks and intellectual property; the privatisation of non-essential aspects of the economy; the establishment of autonomous control for most state industries; the acceptance that such measures may lead to unemployment, and probably will; the development of debt for equity swaps; and more active encouragement, on easier terms of investment, in virtually all aspects of the economy. In short, Cuba is undertaking a major structural adjustment programme—there is no doubt about that. The process is introducing market forces within a managed socialist system. It is also leading indirectly to a form of political pluralism as the National Assembly and parliamentary commissions begin to question the solutions proposed by the Cuban Government and the Cuban Communist party.

It is worth commenting for a moment on one piece of background reform and action that should figure largely in the mind of the Cuban Government when attracting foreign investment. While recognising that the economy is doubtless in a serious state, with foreign debt at US$10 billion, plus interest accruing daily, no payment of interest has been made since January 1988, despite Paris Club rescheduling in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Until then, Cuba's debt repayment record was good. While Cuba undoubtedly needs to show a genuine balance of payments need, the Government should show some signs of willingness and ability to pay something before further rescheduling is considered by the Paris Club. If the Cuban Government can recognise that, they will send a signal to the business community that Cuba is serious about meeting her obligations and, in return, no doubt we can take a more generous attitude to what needs to be done.

There are positive signs in the Cuban economy of a welcome change from the practices of the past. I was pleased to learn that the Government have now decided to send my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology to Cuba in the autumn. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to say something about that visit.

There was a Caribbean Trade Advisory Group—CARITAG—mission to Cuba recently. Can my hon. Friend comment on the way forward for the United Kingdom-Cuba commercial relationship following that visit? When the British ambassador formally announced to the media that the Minister was to visit Cuba, and officials accompanying the delegation were able to familiarise themselves with the economic changes taking place, the Cuban Government recognised that we are serious about promoting inward investment and helping British companies to make the most of the opportunities that could exist there.

Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about outstanding commercial debt and how that problem might be resolved? I believe that part of the United Kingdom debt is not covered by the Export Credit Guarantee Department and that CARITAG' s chairman has proposed new ways in which the debt might be dealt with.

I would also appreciate it if my hon. Friend could say a few words—if not now perhaps in correspondence—about ways in which the British Government and British companies might provide technical assistance, through scholarships, training and seminars. I should like to think that we could reach a time when some sort of know-how fund could be set up, because that would greatly assist the reform process. The fund has a proven track record of success in eastern Europe and Russia. With a small amount of adaptation the same principles could be put to work in Cuba.

A great deal is taking place and we should not be impatient with the speed of change and reform. When I was in Havana the very real problems that the ordinary Cuban has to confront daily were striking. I understand that the Cuban economy contracted by about 50 per cent. last year, which is a truly staggering figure and a measure of the problem. Yet, British business men are keen to explore the opportunities, not merely because Cuba is potentially the largest market in the Caribbean, but because Cuba's long-running isolation produces some instability in an area where Britain has important commercial interests.

In that respect the Government have a very real interest in promoting the stability of the Caribbean, not least in view of the location of British territories, such as the Cayman Islands and the Turks and Caicos nearby. I urge the Government to hold further talks with the American, to find out whether the embargo could be eased and then lifted.

Finally, I was impressed by the objectives that the parliamentary delegation from Cuba set out to achieve this week. Clearly, the delegates want to apply some of their findings to their parliamentary system, which is in the early stages. I am convinced of their sincerity in that regard.

I am also impressed by the vulnerability of the Cuban economy and I want a situation to arise in which we can assist it, as one of the remaining command economies—I think that it is one of only two in the world now, the other being North Korea—to embark fully on introducing private enterprise, market reforms and all the other measures that are needed to raise the Cuban people's standard of living. To the extent that British trade and investment can assist in that process, it is to the mutual advantage of both our countries. I look forward to listening to my hon. Friend's reply.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on securing this debate. When I discovered that my hon. Friend had been successful, knowing of his interest in Cuba, I insisted on being here myself to reply to the debate in the place of my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade.

There is a growing interest in Cuba and hon. Members will be aware that a delegation from the Cuban National Assembly is here at the moment as guests of the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

I know that it is a subject which interests hon. Members on all sides of the House, and I welcome the presence of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). The Cuban Minister for Basic Industry, Senor Portal, is also visiting the United Kingdom.

Hon. Members may also recall the debate in another place, sponsored by my noble Friend Baroness Young, whose interest in the Caribbean is well known. We must also welcome the efforts of the West India Committee and my Department's own Caribbean Trade Advisory Group —CARITAG—which have led successful business missions to Cuba in each of the past three years.

The Cuban economy has received a series of profound shocks, as my hon. Friend pointed out. They resulted from a number of extraordinary changes in recent years—in particular, the loss of subsidised trade with the former Soviet Union and a disastrous sugar harvest last year. All that was against the background of the long-standing United States trade embargo.

Those shocks, more than anything else, have forced the Cubans to look towards reform of their economy and to diversify their trade away from the old eastern bloc countries. There is, of course, a long way to go, but the fact that reforms are being introduced is a hopeful sign and the Cubans are actively encouraging joint ventures and other forms of economic association with foreign enterprises, which would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, Cuba is one of only two countries in the world which could be characterised as command economies. I believe that the Cubans are making tentative steps away from that rather disagreeable position of isolation. We shall then be left with only one, in North Korea, and I am sure that it will not survive indefinitely.

The British Government's policy is to maintain normal commercial relations with Cuba. British companies should be able to trade with Cuba and invest there, if they see it as being in their commercial interests to do so. Moreover, the DTI market branch and CARITAG are actively drawing British industry's attention to the opportunities which are opening up as a result of Cuba's reform process.

I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the isolation of Cuba and trade embargoes. I have never been a great believer in trade embargoes. I believe that the embargoes of some countries and the isolation which was enforced upon South Africa did not make it any easier for the reform process to start there. I take a similar view of Cuba. My hon. Friend was quite right when he said that it would require a change in the habits of mind of the people of Cuba, who have been insulated from the real world for so long now that the structural reform process will need to be very significant.

It is undoubtedly true, as my hon. Friend said, that we shall need to exhibit a certain amount of patience. I have had some experiences recently in eastern Europe, talking to people in many of the countries that are also having to undergo difficult structural adjustments. I am going to Romania on Tuesday. In many ways, Romania resembles Cuba several years ago before the nosedive in trade and GDP which the Cubans have recently suffered.

Those countries are also having to contemplate changing how they do things and think about things. The basics nostrums of a market economy have been lost and they have to be recreated. They cannot be recreated if we refuse to trade with them. Only by example, by showing the advantages of trade and investment and dangling the carrot in front of them, can we induce them to make the necessary changes which will transform their position.

Ultimately, there is an element of self-interest, because trade and development benefit the purchaser, the seller, the investor and the country in which the investments take place.

I am very much in favour of reconstruction in Cuba. I was delighted to hear my hon. Friend refer to that notable company E.D. and F. Man. That company was represented when I was recently in Warsaw engaged in the similar task of bringing together eastern European countries with the G7 countries and trying to find a way through their current difficulties in making the transition from command economies to private enterprise economies. I believe that the company has a significant degree of experience that will be of great value and will help us to find a way through Cuba's problems.

I know that the United States of America takes a different view on trade embargoes. That is a matter for it and I have no intention of delving into what the Americans see as their domestic political interest. However, we do not accept that British subsidiaries of US firms should be prevented by US law from trading with Cuba. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade took action under the 1980 legislation on the protection of trading interests to safeguard the interests of companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, whatever their parentage.

I very much hope that British trade with Cuba will expand in future years. I have always done a modest amount of trade with Cuba, in that I have smoked a large number of its cigars over the years and intend to continue to do so—I hope in ever-increasing numbers. However, on the political side of the argument we enjoy normal relations with Cuba, although there is no doubt that we have our differences, such as different concepts of human rights and fundamental freedoms; different ideas of the role the state should play in everyday life; and different views on the value of a democratic society.

I am pleased that Cuba is embarking on a process of change. I hope that the current economic reform programme will continue and that the first moves that we saw last year towards political change will be developed. It is important that Cuba is encouraged to take those steps and we will do all that we can to help. I look forward to expanding our political relations as Cuba makes progress on those fronts. We very much welcome the fact that the Cuban delegation is in London at the moment. We hope that it has profited as much as we have from the experience.

United Kingdom direct trade with Cuba has suffered from Cuba's economic problems, the lack of foreign exchange and the absence of ECGD cover while Cuba's existing debt commitments remain unresolved. In 1993 UK exports were £14 million, down 50 per cent. on the previous year. That mirrors the fall in GDP to which my hon. Friend referred. Exports are mainly agricultural chemicals, industrial machinery and manufactured goods. Notwithstanding that, there has been an encouraging increase in interest by UK companies attracted by Cuba's potential and anxious to position themselves favourably in a changing market.

However, there have been colossal shocks—it is not easy to circumvent the rapids and rocks. A fall of almost 40 per cent. in GDP since 1990 and a fall of more than 70 per cent. in the capacity to export are formidable problems which, inevitably, will produce great difficulties for any company that wants to trade with Cuba.

As my hon. Friend said, the debt problem is also significant. Cuba's commercial debt has largely arisen since the foreign exchange problems started in the mid-1980s. Before that, it had a good payments record. Recent events have compounded the debt problem. The British embassy in Havana continues to press the issue with the Cubans on behalf of the UK companies that are owed money. However, I am sorry to say that no recent payments have been made on outstanding debts to UK suppliers.

Any foreign exchange available is used to pay for essential imports in the priority sectors, such as agriculture, tourism, biotechnology and health care. United Kingdom companies doing business with autonomous enterprises in the priority sectors that hold their own foreign exchange accounts are in a better position to secure payment for goods supplied. Although Cuban officials have given an undertaking that all debts to United Kingdom companies will eventually be honoured, companies need to be inventive to get round the problem—for example, by agreeing to "roll over" existing debt. There may also be opportunities for "debt for equity" swaps and counter-trade arrangements involving Cuban sugar.

I am afraid that I have no easy answer to Cuba's problems with international debt. One thing is certain, however: Cuba's capacity to repay debt, or even to finance it, will be gravely restricted if trade between it and the rest of the world cannot expand. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. I very much hope that growing trade links—to mutual advantage—will help us to sort out the continuing debt problems.

A recurring theme in the February debate in another place was the call for more official dialogue with Cuba, and in particular a visit by a British Minister. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Technology, will visit Cuba in the autumn, accompanied by a small group of high-level business men. My only regret is that I shall be unable to go with them. I hope that in due course I shall have an opportunity to become more familiar with Cuba and, indeed, the Caribbean, which I have never visited.

There is no doubt that there are great opportunities for Britain in that part of the world. We have taken the initiative in proposing to the Cubans a bilateral investment promotion and protection agreement, which will set high standards of investor protection and encourage investor confidence. I am glad to say that the Cubans have responded positively.

Cuba is the sleeping giant of the Caribbean. So far the reforms, although encouraging, have been limited, and are being introduced slowly; but I believe that, if Cuba succeeds in making the difficult transition to a more market-led economy, more commercial opportunities will be provided for UK firms to participate in its development.

I think that we should be encouraging and constructive. The British Government can give the Cubans the benefit of our expertise in privatisation and economic reconstruction, which has been exported all over the world in recent years. Many British firms—firms of consultants, as well as those in the industrial manufacturing sectors—have now acquired significant experience of the problems of change from a command economy to one that is more market led. Britain leads the world in many of those fields, and consequently is now a major export and foreign exchange earner. I believe that Cuba offers us opportunities, although it is one of the last countries to embark on such a transition.

I do not say that in an entirely self-interested way, on behalf of this country. I believe that there is room for a spirit of generosity towards Cuba—that we should assist it to make this difficult change. No one should underestimate the pains of transition, as will be plain to anyone with knowledge of the so-called Visegrad countries of eastern Europe, which are miles ahead of Cuba in this respect and have relatively easier prospects. Cuba's problems will be even greater because it is moving from more extreme conditions.

If Albania can achieve such a transition, surely Cuba can. There is no lack of good will in the British Government—or, I would say, among the British people —in helping the process. Cuba is likely to develop its tourist potential. In the 1950s, when it was last connected with the western world, it was one of the major tourist locations of the Caribbean; tourism is potentially a huge foreign exchange earner. It is an attractive destination. Very few people go there nowadays, but every week the New Statesman and Society—which I read—features a full-page advertisement for "progressive tours". I have never taken a progressive tour myself, I hasten to add, but that company advertises the delights of Cuba for those who would like to take advantage of them. Perhaps I am more used to retrogressive tours.

We certainly warmly applaud the opportunity to return Cuba to the mainstream of the world economy, which is not only in our interests but in Cuba's interests, too, and to maintain the stability of the Caribbean—the importance of which was also stressed by my hon. Friend. I hope that we will assist in that transition process, rather than stand in its way.

I want to deal with this issue in three parts. The House recently considered a Bill which, had it been passed, would have secured civil rights for disabled people. I wish to review the way in which the Government approached that remedy. I intend also to consider the general issue of rights for disabled people and the argument for legislation in addition to education and persuasion. I shall also examine the costs of providing civil rights for disabled people in this country.

The Government are aware that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members are in favour of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Because of that, the Government ran away from the issue and deployed a series of delaying tactics to prevent a Bill which would have afforded civil rights for disabled people from becoming law.

Yesterday Madam Speaker had the task of rebuking the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) —and rightly so—for denying that the source of her amendments was other than herself. The House is well aware that those amendments had been drafted by parliamentary counsel on Government instructions.

Order. The subject of the hon. Gentleman's debate is civil rights and disabled people; it is not meant to be a re-run of events surrounding a Bill which aroused a certain amount of controversy. I therefore ask him not to stray into matters which have already been fully debated.

I take your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but my understanding is that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is still before the House and that there will be another opportunity for the House to return to it.

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot refer to that Bill.

indicated dissent.

Order. I do not want to stifle debate, but the hon. Gentleman can refer to the Bill only incidentally. I trust that the hon. Gentleman understands me.

It is clear that disabled people in this country believe that they are denied their civil rights. There have been repeated attempts in the House to secure those rights. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) was a Minister, he established a committee to examine the issue. That committee reported 12 years ago. Since then, there have been repeated attempts to introduce legislation, including that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe in the last Parliament.

More recently, a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), which was also debated. In accordance with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not debate the way in which that Bill was obstructed. However, I shall examine the difference in the approach of the supporters of that Bill and that of the Government.

Until recently, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People had earned the respect and confidence of many disabled people and organisations for the disabled, and it is tragic that he has become the fall guy in the blocking of a measure which could have given civil rights to disabled people when responsibility in fact rests not with him but with his senior colleagues and, ultimately, the Prime Minister.

On 12 April, the Prime Minister told me that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill would provide an opportunity to examine the practical implications of such legislation in Committee. I regret that that did not happen and I want to discuss the reasons that the Government give for not embracing comprehensive civil rights legislation.-For the Prime Minister's commitment to be honoured, it would have been necessary for the Government to put their view in Committee, but they did not do so.

In the last Session of Parliament, the Minister said that he did not want the Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe to proceed because we were coming to the end of the parliamentary Session and the Bill required detailed examination during a good long run in Committee. In the short period before the summer recess the House may, if it wishes, debate in detail and pass into legislation—

Order. There is no opportunity today for such a discussion. The hon. Gentleman should return to the subject of the debate. We are discussing civil rights and disabled people. Most of his speech has dwelt on the Bill.

My right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that we need legislation to secure the civil rights of disabled people. The Minister told us that he favours a process of education and persuasion. We need education and persuasion to assist in the fulfilment of civil rights for disabled people, but if we rely on that alone, thousands of disabled people will endure years of frustration, unemployment, poverty, low incomes and the denial of dignity and basic human rights. Disabled people are not asking for preferential treatment. They are seeking equality of opportunity. They are asking for the right not to any and every job but to be considered fairly for any job.

Sometimes a disability may prevent a person from doing a particular job. In those circumstances if the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood had become law, an employer would not have been guilty of discrimination by not employing a disabled person. More often than not, however, if the disabled person has the skills to carry out a job, some obstacle will be placed in the way. Often the barrier to a disabled person doing a job can be cheaply and easily removed.

Much has been made in past debates, not only in this Session, about the cost of securing civil rights for disabled people. At no stage, however, have the Government costed the benefits of people moving from dependence to independence and the savings which result for the community if disabled people are in work contributing to its wealth rather than receiving benefit.

Employers' research clearly shows that their perceptions of disabled people in work are flawed. Disabled people are far from being a burden. Statistical evidence shows that the job performance of 91 per cent. of disabled workers is average or better than average and that the attendance of 93 per cent. of them is average or better than average compared with able-bodied people.

Direct discrimination is a problem, but institutional discrimination is probably a greater problem and more difficult to tackle. Anti-discrimination legislation is the only effective way to tackle that. Institutional discrimination can be addressed only by changing organisational, social and individual behaviour. That requires legal prescription. The Government recognise that in terms of racial discrimination, but not in terms of disability. Martin Luther King dismissed the case for relying on education and persuasion alone to end racial discrimination. He said:

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless."

Attitudes need to change, but in the meantime behaviour and practices need to be regulated to ensure that disabled people enjoy their full basic human and civil rights.

Disabled people are fed up with charity and with paternalism. They want rights. A disabled person who has been refused a job or denied access to a restaurant does not want to wait for the Minister's favoured course of education and persuasion to take effect. In employment, we have had education and persuasion for more than 50 years. We have had ineffective legislation with virtually no penalties since 1944. There is a power to prosecute under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, but the Government have not embarked on a single prosecution since they took office, preferring the path of education and persuasion; yet today, 50 years after the legislation was introduced, only 20 per cent., or one fifth, of employers comply with it. We are approaching the year 2000, but at the current rate of progress we shall be two centuries into the next millennium before all employers comply. However, even that is not what disabled people want.

The 1944 Act imposes quotas, a concept that is specifically unlawful in other forms of legislation such as the Race Relations Act 1976. Quotas are, by their very nature, discriminatory. Disabled people do not want quotas or tokenism and they do not want to be patronised. They want rights. The Morris Bill and the Berry Bill would have provided basic civil rights for disabled people.

One objection to such all-embracing legislation is the cost involved. The Government have argued that those who produced—

Order. I hate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in such a short debate, but I must draw his attention to the rules of the House. "Erskine May" states:

"In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the adjournment".

The hon. Gentleman must not refer to legislation.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to refer to the Select Committee on Employment, which in 1991 called on the Government to

"explore urgently the possibility of equal opportunity legislation for the employment of people with disabilities and report to Parliament upon the potential effect and costs in the Labour Market."

Perhaps my hon. Friend could also discuss the point that many people make as to why it is argued that this country cannot afford civil rights for disabled people on grounds of cost when so many other countries can afford full civil rights for their people.

I agree with my right hon. Friend.

We have not yet seen the report so urgently called for by the Select Committee on Employment in 1991 to examine the cost and the effects on the labour market of equal opportunity legislation for people with disabilities. Before comprehensive legislation was introduced in the United States, there were suggestions that it would place enormous burdens on industry and small businesses in particular. However, the evidence from the United States, which has pursued a policy of all-embracing equality legislation and adopted the civil rights approach, shows that those forebodings have not been realised. Industry has not been crippled and firms have not gone out of business as a result of civil rights measures.

The Government said that giving civil rights to disabled people would cripple industry and the competitiveness of small businesses. Will the Minister tell us how many businesses in the United States were brought down by the cost of complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act? In fact, most employers found that the rhetoric in this country—from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment—is true, and that compliance with the ADA in America has benefited them because they have been able to tap a previously unknown market. There has also been a massive shift in public attitude and a massive improvement in accessibility, and the public and the media have become more aware of disabled people and their rights. The ADA works in America and it is based on the concept of civil rights. The same pattern has been followed in New Zealand, Canada and Australia, but not in Britain. The Government simply trot out the old adage, "We can't afford it."

I deal now with the Government's assessment of the cost of compliance if the Berry Bill—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Measure."]—if the Berry proposals had been accepted. The £17 billion that has been quoted is wildly unrealistic. It assumes that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe wanted the legislation implemented, with full compliance, from day one when that was certainly not the case. I believe that there is also an element of double costing in the Government's assessment as they have already made available £2 million per annum for the private sector through the new access to work scheme. I do not think that they took account of that in their calculations. I also do not believe that they have made full and effective assessments of the benefits to this country.

During the debates in the House there has been some discussion about the terminology that we should use to describe disabled people. I always felt that we should use the term that disabled people themselves wish to be used. I am pleased that we used the term "disabled people" rather than "people with disabilities". The term "people with disabilities" suggests the concept that a person has a problem and we cannot do anything about it. If we use the concept "disabled people" we can perhaps consider what society does to people. Society can close doors or it can open them. Society can disable people or it can enable them. I believe there is time in this Parliament to reconsider the civil rights of disabled people and to ensure that we are an enabling rather than a disabling Parliament.

I shall be brief so that the Minister can speak for 10 minutes. He is not used to such brevity, so I shall do my best to assist him.

For a reason which escapes me, in the past six months we have had many debates on civil rights and disabled people. Both in the Chamber and outside, every 'time we have debated the need for disabled people to have their civil rights, disabled people and their supporters have always won the arguments. Every vote on the issue has been won without any opposition whatever. At the end of the day, one thing remains clear. Once and for all we have seen a clear recognition by everyone that the time will come very soon when disabled people will be guaranteed their civil rights. Nobody now doubts that. That has been one of the features of the debates over the past few months; all the arguments have been won.

The second feature of the debates on civil rights over the past few months has been disabled people's feeling that the House has not treated their concerns properly and with due respect. Numerous devices have been employed against those campaigning for civil rights for disabled people. I shall not describe those devices now. They are well known, and it is clear who has been responsible for them. The feelings of disabled people, too, are a matter of record.

The one major argument against ensuring that disabled people have their civil rights relies on the costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) referred to that argument. Indeed, it is the only argument left. Only two days ago the Prime Minister said that the Bill to ensure civil rights for disabled people would

"impose costs of £17 billion on private industry".—[Official Report, 24 May 1994; Vol. 244, c. 180.]

That is not even what the Government's own document says, and it is a further example of the House being deliberately misled. The Government's document refers to time scales for implementing the legislation which are not being suggested by disabled people or by their supporters in the Chamber. A totally spurious time scale has been invented to give rise to totally spurious cost estimates. Everyone in the House knows that.

The inevitability of measures to secure civil rights for disabled people is recognised. There is still an opportunity this Session for that recognition to be translated into legislation. The Government still have an opportunity to rescue what, to date, has been a rather shabby performance on this matter.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) on his good fortune in securing time, albeit brief, once more to help to keep what all of us who have been involved in the issue over the years recognise as an important matter high on the political agenda. Some people have come somewhat lately to the matter and may have used it for their own particular purposes—

Rubbish.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, who initiated the debate this afternoon, has a long-standing interest and commitment in this area. He has always taken a most serious interest in the subject and he has taken part in our debates. I recognise his contribution—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) wishes to intervene, I am perfectly happy to give way to him.

The Minister has had a long-standing interest in these matters, but he let the side down by deliberately misleading the House and the country—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—

The Minister should be ashamed of himself—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and he has already heard—

The Minister has no honour—

Order. That is the last time that I shall say "Order". The hon. Gentleman has long experience in the House and he knows full well that his intervention was out of order.

I was paying a sincere and well-deserved tribute to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who has played such a valuable part in our processes. He was a valuable member of the Standing Committee.

For seven years, as Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, I have sought, as I hope will be tolerably widely recognised in the House, to voice and to demonstrate the Government's commitment to the principle of seeking to eliminate discrimination against disabled people and to widen the opportunities available to them fully to participate in our national life. My personal belief in the work that needs to be done remains as strong as ever. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's commitment to that principle when he said recently that the Government

"share the aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people."—[Official Report, 12 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 15.]

Recent events, welcome in some aspects, have raised the profile, to use a modern expression, and the rightful expectations of disabled people in our society. They have probably enjoyed rather more coverage in our national media in recent days than they have ever achieved before. I sometimes wonder how many of those who have uttered so strongly and firmly on the issue have employment or access practices that reflect today's needs for disabled people.

What I have done and what I shall continue to do, whatever legislation we have, as Minister with responsibility for disabled people is to seek to raise the profile of the issue and to ensure that more and more people take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of disabled people.

I deny categorically that the Government have ever sought to mislead people about their attitude towards the approach taken recently in the House by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry)—

Order. I hope that the Minister will not stray on to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which has been the subject of controversy recently. I have already made my point clear. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you to take into account on this matter the words following the passage which you quoted from page 320 of "Erskine May". It says:

"In general, matters which would entail legislation must not be discussed on a motion for the Adjournment; but under Standing Order No 29 Mr. Speaker may permit such incidental reference to legislative action as he may consider relevant to any matter"—

Order. That is exactly what the Deputy Speaker has been doing.

Certainly, I was not seeking to stray into the merits or otherwise of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, but was talking about the approach advanced by Opposition Members. As I have said on a number of occasions, and I shall reiterate what I have just said, we share the overall aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people. I unashamedly and fiercely defend the record of the Government, because of the significant achievements that have been made over the past 15 years by the Government, and in the private sector with the encouragement of the Government, to eliminate discrimination, to reduce discrimination against disabled people and to expand the opportunities available to them. Frankly, although I well understand the narrow political reasons that lead Opposition Members to take such an attitude, I think that it is rather churlish of them—[Interruption.]—rather churlish of them to dismiss the progress that has already been made.

We have made a number advances in the field of employment, the most recent being the access to work announcement of my right hon.—

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, during this debate, for the Minister to attempt to rescue a reputation that is in tatters over this very matter?

That is not a point of order for the Chair.

I believe that the announcement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is a really positive step in the right direction to remove the many barriers that we all acknowledge face disabled people in their efforts to obtain employment in this country. We all know that the quota system, which has been in existence for many decades, is not an appropriate or effective way in which to achieve equality of opportunity or to remove discrimination against disabled people.

What pride does the Minister take in the fact that the Department of Health employs only 0.7 per cent. of disabled people, the Home Office employs 0.3 per cent., or a tenth of the 3 per cent. quota, and that there is not a single disabled employee in No. 10 Downing street?

If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman should know better, because he was the first person to hold the job that I hold at the moment. He knows that failure to meet those quotas or failure to prosecute those who fail to meet them was the same under previous Administrations. We all know the fact about the quota is that there are not sufficient registered disabled people—the number to which the percentage figure applies—for employers to match. In my Department, the Department of Social Security, as I have said to the House on previous occasions, 1.5 per cent. of our employees are registered as disabled, but 5 per cent. of our employees identify themselves as being disabled in one way or another. I believe that that is a more realistic measure of the willingness of Government as a whole to employ and give opportunities to disabled people. We have already said that we shall continue to build on the work that the Government have already done in that important area. I recognise its importance and its sensitivity. We need to ensure that it is taken forward at a pace.

We have already announced our proposals— [Interruption.]—to consult widely in the following key areas affecting the quality of life of disabled people in our society. The first area is the removal of discrimination in employment. We know the importance of that, but anybody who has had my responsibilities or has taken an interest in the matter knows that employment for many disabled people is not a realistic ambition. More and more will be able to avail themselves of that opportunity as a result of technological advances and steps that the Government are considering taking and will be consulting on in the near future.

Employment is a key area, but access to goods and services is also very important for those who experience disabilities in our society and that, too, is a matter on which we shall be consulting. We shall also be considering the possibility of codes of practice for the financial services industry where I know—[Interruption.]—I know that disabled people have to face non-actuarially based discrimination in insurance, banking and so on. That is another area that we need to tackle.

We also know about the impact of building regulations on the lives of disabled people and on their access to buildings, whether domestic or non-domestic. We need to consult on the possibility of creating a new advisory body to discuss those matters and investigate matters of discrimination against disabled people. That is the range of issues on which the Government are determined to consult in the coming months. At the end of that consultation process, the Government will consider the best way forward. I believe that that is much more sensible, realistic, practicable and affordable than the concepts embraced in the proposed legislation that was recently discussed.

It gives me a little satisfaction that I may be the Back Bencher who gets in the last word before we rise for the recess, given the amount of hot air generated this morning. I am bound to say that the last debate was riot hot air. It also gives me some satisfaction that I voted for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill on Second Reading. I am even more satisfied that the Government intend to make their own proposals.

The issue that I wish to raise is a national issue that affects my constituents. It is local government reform on Humberside. My constituents and I are worried about the issue and the amount of opposition to local government reform which is clearly developing in some quarters. That opposition does not form the majority of opinion, but vocal objection is beginning to develop against reform. I see it in terms of press speculation, propaganda from local authority associations, or at least some of them, arid the attempts to seek judicial review by some who wish to see the status quo maintained.

The question that occurs to my constituents and to me is how that opposition will affect Humberside, particularly the north bank of the Humber, where my constituency happens to be. In this short debate, I simply want to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Minister that we in north Humberside are enthusiastic about reform of the status quo. In other words, we wish to see an end of Humberside county council. Coincidentally, I received a letter from one of my councillors, Mrs. Betty Eaton, who wrote, unbeknown to me, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday asking again that he get on with the reform of local government in Humberside. That is legitimate because it is against the background of a long campaign in my constituency and area to re-establish the ridings of Yorkshire—for our area, the east riding. That obviously involves the abolition of Humberside county council.

I am sorry to say that Humberside county council was imposed on us by a Conservative Government back in the early 1970s. That was a considerable mistake. That is evidenced, if by nothing else, by the fact that almost the day after the decision was announced, a campaign began to have Humberside abolished. That was not a very good start. The result is that in 20 years or so no loyalty or, to be fair, little loyalty has built up between the electorate and Humberside county council.

Few of my constituents are able to identify with Humberside county council. They seem to think that the borough of Beverley delivers all the services. That is evidenced by the letters. It suggests that the borough of Beverley, to take that example, has achieved a bond between it and its people whereas Humberside county council has not. There were those who believed back in 1987—I was one of them—that a change in the name of the county council was all that was needed to save it. We believed that all that was needed was to change the name from Humberside county council to another name such as East Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire county council. That might, at the time, have satisfied those who wanted north of the Humber to return to the ridings, but I do not believe that such a change would satisfy public opinion now, at least in my constituency.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me during his debate. He has made the case fairly on behalf of his constituents, but there is a feeling among a large number of people in the county that many high quality services, such as the hearing impaired service which has been very successful, are under threat from such changes. Many people have changed their opinion again in the course of the debate as they have looked at the issues. They are now beginning to question whether reorganisation is worth the cost, inconvenience and threat to high quality services. I question whether it is worth going through the change all over again after the disruptive change of 1974, which the hon. Gentleman rightly described.

The hon. Gentleman has his own view, but his fears are not reflected in the views of my constituents who write to me on the subject. All psephological evidence on the subject shows that what I have been saying to the House and my hon. Friend the Minister is true, and that the bond of loyalty between the people of Humberside and the county council simply does not exist. That is why the county council is fighting a vigorous—I do not think that it will be effective—rearguard action, the latest part of which is the attempt at a judicial review.

I understand that leave to bring in a judicial review has been refused and an appeal is pending—perhaps the Minister can confirm that. The mere fact that a judicial review is being sought does not reflect popular public opinion in my constituency or, I would venture to say, the whole of the north bank of the Humber. Therefore, if I get nothing more out of my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon, my constituents and I would like him at least to restate the Government's commitment to reform on the north bank of the Humber.

Before the Local Government Commission put forward its proposals I was in favour of single-tier, all-purpose local government, based on the district, as that was what all my experience told me would be best. It would be small enough to attract the sort of loyalty that a local authority requires to get consent. However, the commission did not come up with that, but with what will be, in effect, an East Yorkshire county council. As a result, there has been a bit of difficulty—I put it no higher than that—with some of the districts in considering that proposal, but there has been no profound objection.

I am sure that the Minister already knows that the districts are unofficially beginning to work together to consider the practicalities of how they should be organised when the change is implemented. Therefore, I underline the fact that I have no doubt that the districts, and all of us who will be affected by the change when it comes—I hope that it does—will make the recommendations work. That should give the Minister some satisfaction when the proposals are brought forward after any judicial review, if it takes place—I do not expect that it will. I am not here to ask my hon. Friend the Minister to get the Secretary of State to give us the decision, which will come in the fullness of time. All that I want the Minister to say is that reform is on its way, irrespective of what may be happening in other parts of the country.

Why am I emphasising this issue? I could be doing all sorts of things. I could be on my way to my constituency to help win Humberside for the Conservatives in the European election, which is what I expect to happen. I am asking these questions because one hears rumours—admittedly mainly in the press—that the Government are thinking again about the pace of reform. I have given them no credence, but I am providing the Minister with the opportunity to give no credence to the rumour that Government zeal for reform is waning, that Ministers are not as keen as they were about the reforms that I am talking about and- that the status quo would give them fewer problems.

I hope that that is not the prevailing Government view. Judging from my hon. Friend's reaction to one or two of my remarks, I think that I now know what his and the Government's views are. If it were any different, my constituents would feel let down. They rightly feel that they have been promised reform and that is what they want.

To use a cricketing metaphor, if the Government want some runs on the board, we can provide them in Humberside. Reform does not run counter to the Government's philosophy over the local government review. As I recall it, that philosophy was that there should be no blanket solutions or iron rigidity and that what is agreed for the south-west of England should not be forced on us in Humberside. We need flexible solutions. If there is to be no reform in the south-west, it should not mean no reform in my constituency.

I need clarification from the Minister this afternoon so that he can reassure me and my constituents. He could best do so in the following way. First, he could make a clear statement that local government reform will come about in Humberside. He and I both know that there is the complication posed by the judicial review. If he cannot answer this now, perhaps he will do so in a letter, but if the review succeeds by some mischance—I do not think that it will—what will be the Government's strategy for my constituency?

Secondly, will my hon. Friend say something about the timetable and reconfirm what we all understand to be the case—that in May 1995 we expect shadow elections for the new authority, whatever it is to be, which would lead to the starting date for the new council or councils in April 1996? I want to know that we are going to achieve that target, if he thinks that it is the correct one. Or does he anticipate any slippage, perhaps not due to the judicial review, but to any other consideration that none of us knows about?

Finally, will the Government introduce separate parliamentary orders? He may not have the information, but perhaps he can write to me. I am aware of the written answer, which stated:

"we shall decide on handling at the time, taking into account the pressure of parliamentary business."—[Official Report, 3 May 1994; Vol. 242, c. 444.]

What would be the effect if a contentious reorganisation —I guess that there is none—were coupled with a non-contentious change, which is what I expect in the case of Humberside?

Could my hon. Friend also tell me a little about the timetable? I note that the implementing order for Cleveland is likely to be laid in June and made in July —at least, that was the position as I understood it at the last time of looking. What is the position for Humberside?

That is all I want to say. I merely thank my hon. Friend the Minister and everybody else for listening to me—all two of them plus the Minister on the Front Bench. My hon. Friend the Minister should bear in mind the fact that we are enthusiastic about his proposals and we want him to get on with them without any delay.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) for giving me the opportunity to give a further report to the House on our progress in undertaking the review of the structure of local government in England and for providing me with the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that we are on timetable. The review is on track.

Naturally, my hon. Friend has taken the opportunity to make clear his views about the review in relation to Humberside. I know that he understands that it is not possible today to provide him with a definitive answer to his questions about the future structure of local government in Humberside. We are giving careful consideration to the Local Government Commission's recommendations for the review area, which includes Humberside, and also two other large county areas, North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

As my hon. Friend said, the commission recommended that the county of Humberside and the county council should be abolished and replaced with four unitary authorities. It is clear that there is widespread support for that recommendation throughout the Humberside area. The recommendation does not stand alone. The commission has provided us with a complex series of recommendations covering the future of all three of those counties and the 23 district councils within their areas. As my hon. Friend would expect, the interrelationship between the recommendations needs to be carefully considered. That notwithstanding, I am sure that my hon. Friend and his constituents will be reassured to know that I do not expect that it will be too long before we can announce our decisions on Humberside.

Given that I cannot say a great deal about the specific detail on Humberside, it will, I hope, be helpful to the House if I speak briefly about the commission's progress on the review generally, and helpful if I restated the principles that lie behind our proposals for the reorganisation of local government. I emphasise first that we are not seeking to impose from the centre a blueprint on local government. Through the review process, we are seeking to provide local government and local people within each review area with an opportunity to consider the best means of delivering effective and convenient local government, which at the same time recognises an individual community's particular identity and needs.

We believe that there is a strong case to be made for unitary authorities. In a unitary authority, the public knows who is responsible for the delivery of local services. That clarity of responsibility for provision enhances accountability. People need to know who is responsible for what and that makes the ballot more effective when services are delivered well or, indeed, if they are delivered badly. The voters' message will be clearer if there is no confusion as to who in local government is responsible. Also unitary authorities can accommodate and represent strong community identities. If people identify with their council, they will be more interested in what their council is doing.

There can also be substantial savings in costs when only one authority is responsible for providing a complete range of services, because of the lack of duplication and the consequent reduction in bureaucracy. That can also result in the improvement of those services. If all services are under one roof there is tremendous scope for co-orclinating them from a consumer standpoint. It will be possible to bring together housing and social service issues, so that the person who has needs that cross those two responsitbilities is not shunted from one set of officials to another or from one office to another.

One can co-ordinate development control and transport issues, which will be much better from the citizen's point of view.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I wish to raise just two quick points. First, does the Minister accept that there is a great deal of concern in Humberside and among my constituents about issues that are not resolved, such as specialist education services and specialist social services, which will be difficult for unitary authorities to maintain? I know that joint arrangements have been mentioned, but in a letter from the Minister for Local Government and Planning all that was said was that he hoped that local authorities would get together on a voluntary basis and provide those services.

That is not much of an assurance to people who are concerned about a threat to the high quality services that are provided by Humberside and supported by a great many people. Even though there is a difference of opinion, I hope that the Minister will seriously take into account the representations of those who are opposed to the changes.

Although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concerns, I find them strange. Many of his colleagues who represent constituencies with unitary authority areas do not experience problems of coordination on specialist education or whatever. It is therefore surprising that the hon. Gentleman raises that as a point of concern.

Unitary authorities can enhance accountability and provide a desirable balance between efficiency and access. I thought that we had achieved a strong measure of cross-party support for that approach. That was evident in the recent debate on the order establishing a unitary authority on the Isle of Wight—the first order under reorganisation to come before the House. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who speaks for the Labour party on local government matters, said:

"I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition firmly support the principle of the establishment of unitary authorities in England. We have not been converted recently to that: we have believed in it for a long time, and even before the 1974 reorganisation of local government. We support the principle because we believe that boundaries that can be established on a unitary basis in many instances better reflect the communities that the local authorities based in those boundaries seek to represent. There is a sense of identity that is sometimes missing from the structure of local government in some parts of the country.

The Opposition have also supported the principle of unitary authorities because an effective and efficient unitary authority can avoid duplication—of which, as many hon. Members know, there are many instances in local government. On planning, for example, district and county councils have to liaise and there is sometimes a certain amount of difficulty in understanding who has responsibility for what. On recreation and the link with school sports, there can often be different responsibilities for providing similar facilities…

One strong argument in favour of unitary authorities is that the public know who is responsible for issues affecting them and administered by local government. I have always found that helpful in my own local authority. The public know that if the matter is one dealt with by local government…they do not have to determine whether it is a district or county council issue. Those arguments have long been held by the Opposition in supporting unitary councils."—[Official Report, 18 April 1994; Vol. 241, c. 690.]

There is clearly broad cross-party support for what we are seeking to achieve.

I shall repeat something I have said often before. We are determined that transitional costs will not fall to the council tax payer. We expect' local government reorganisation to be worth while and cost-effective over time. We expect substantial and continuing savings in the longer term to follow the commission's reviews. Estimates for the costs and savings for the changes agreed so far—Cleveland and the Isle of Wight—look good. The 1994–95 council taxes in both areas include nothing for transitional costs. They do not think that they will incur transitional costs. However, there will need to be some investment to secure savings in the future. For example, in Cleveland the authorities estimate that the £2 million they may be required to spend on redundancies will secure savings of £1.5 million a year thereafter, in each and every year.

We accept that the review may not always lead to a unitary authority solution—it may well be that in certain circumstances arguments in favour of the status quo will prevail and the two-tier system will be retained. It is, of course, in the first instance for the commission to recommend what the future structure of local government in any area under review should be.

I come now to the progress that the commission has made to date. We have received its final recommendations on 10 review areas. We have accepted, and this House and another place have passed, orders implementing the commission's recommendations for the Isle of Wight—one unitary. We have also accepted its recommendations for Cleveland—four unitaries. However, we have found it necessary to refer back to the commission for further consideration its recommendations for Gloucestershire,Derbyshire and Durham. As I have said, we shall be announcing our decisions on the commission's outstanding recommendations—including those for Humberside—in due course.

I am sure that the House will agree that it is in everyone's interest for uncertainty about the review to last for as short a time as possible. Inevitably, when we announced the acceleration of the commission's review timetable last autumn, scepticism was expressed in some quarters about whether the revised targets could be met. I am pleased to be able to confirm that all the local authorities in the first phase had made their initial representations by the due date—8 April—and that the commission is now preparing its draft reports on the areas involved. I am confident that reports on most areas will be published by early June.

Success in meeting the timetable has depended to a great extent on the willingness of local authorities to co-operate with each other in designing future structural arrangements that meet local needs. I would expect the commission to reflect that local consensus in its recommendations to us. In areas where consensus has not been achieved, I very much hope that the review process will provide an impetus for authorities to get together: only if local authorities and local people get together can we be confident that local wishes are being addressed and will be met.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley explained that his constituents, who have welcomed the proposals for the abolition of Humberside county council, feared that the review of the structure of local government might in some way be abandoned, or that its momentum had somehow faltered. Let me make it clear that the review of the structure of local government in England is on time and on track, and we are determined for it to stay on time and on track. We are determined to complete the task fully, thoroughly and expeditiously, to the benefit of all concerned. If we had intended to bale out of the review, the time to do so would have been about a year ago. It would not have been now—and it certainly will not be now, or at any time in the future.

As I have explained, the review is on course, the commission is on schedule and the timetable is being adhered to. The fact that a number of councils have chosen to seek judicial review of the commission's recommendations has meant that the short-term timetable has needed to be amended—nothing more. Ultimately, what matters is our intention that in May 1997 the last of the new authorities will assume their full responsibilities, and we are still well on target to reach that date.

My hon. Friend asked what we would do if the court reached a certain decision. We can only trust in the court's good judgment; certainly, it is impossible to anticipate its decision. We are confident, however, that all the new authorities will be able to assume their full responsibilities by May 1997, and, as I have said, we are well on target and determined to meet that deadline.

This is the last debate before the Whitsun recess. Like my hon. Friend, I suspect that it is less a recess than an adjournment to enable us all to help campaign in the European elections. Those elections will be as important to the people of Humberside in the immediate future as the reorganisation of local government.

The elections on 9 June will present the people of Humberside, and those elsewhere, with a straightforward choice between two types of Europe. There is the Conservative choice of a thriving, open, deregulated and decentralised Europe where opportunities are grasped, trade is encouraged and jobs are created—a Europe where nation states work more effectively together to solve all the problems that they share, but where individual nation states retain responsibility for most areas of policy.

Then there is the Lib-Lab vision of Europe, which is very different. Both parties are signed up to more controls, more regulations and new costs and burdens for employers. Just when Britain is showing the way to economic recovery and shrinking dole queues, Labour and the Liberals are proposing a charter for job destruction on Humberside and elsewhere. Instead of making Europe less remote and more accountable to the citizens of Humberside and elsewhere, they are proposing to centralise decision making in Brussels by signing away Britain's national veto.

I suspect that that is not what people in Humberside want, or what the British people want. We shall make every effort, therefore, to spell out the facts between now and 9 June. The British people want a very different sort of Europe. They want a European Parliament that uses its powers to deliver benefits to ordinary people—such benefits as a real single market, a crackdown on European Community fraud and better control of the Brussels Commission. It means a strong Britain in a strong Europe: That is the choice on 9 June; for Britain's sake and for Europe's sake, we are determined to make it a Conservative choice