I rise to speak in the Adjournment debate before we depart for the Christmas recess. I extend to you, Madam Speaker, the Clerks and others my wish that the joy and peace of Christmas will be yours at this season.

I have chosen to speak on the subject of traffic flow in Belfast and appreciate the opportunity to raise the subject. I begin on a positive note by recognising the tremendous work that has been done, particularly within the northern and eastern approaches to the city, with the advent of the cross-harbour rail and road bridges, which will help in many ways. I suspect, however, that until the approach roads are completed, bottlenecks will cause problems.

I pay tribute to the fact that, after a long campaign, we have managed to achieve some calming measures in one part of my constituency, Great Northern street, which had been used as a means of bypassing seven traffic lights. People could go right through the area even though it is densely populated and heavily used.

Some humour was apparent as I fought the campaign. I received a letter from the Department of the Environment assuring me that, according to a census of usage, the traffic flows were insufficient to require calming measures. I looked at the calendar and discovered that the census was taken on a Sunday. I told the Department that I was not surprised that there was not a great traffic flow on that day. I obtained my calming measures—whether because the Department had made a mistake in the date or because I would not going away, I shall leave for others to say. The residents certainly appreciate the measures.

In keeping with most cities, Belfast has seen an escalation in car traffic. In the United Kingdom overall there was an increase in traffic of 40 per cent. in the 1980s. That followed the rejection of rail transport. One has only to look at the imaginative designs for developing Belfast 30 years ago to see that they were doing away with the rails completely.

I remember, 40 years ago, when I was a young assistant minister in south Belfast, I bumped up the Lisburn road on my bicycle because there were tram tracks on the road, but the trams and the trolley buses have disappeared in the search for mobility. Most of our roads and streets are narrow and were not built for the tremendous growth in the number of cars, so traffic adds to congestion in the lungs of a city where a high percentage of people have bronchial and asthmatic problems.

Before developing my argument on traffic flow I want to say a word or two about parking problems. I have found it difficult to persuade the Department to act on this subject. For at least eight to 10 years, I have been trying to secure residents' parking facilities in Belfast, which does not have legislation similar to that in London. I recognise that such legislation would not solve every problem and that different sections of the community have their own agenda, but, acting on behalf of my constituents, I broached the subject and was told that it was being studied.

I discovered some years ago that three experimental projects were being undertaken. On making inquiries, I discovered that two of them were in south Belfast—Stranmillis road and Pakenham street. The third one was in east Belfast, but I could not for the life of me understand why there should be parking problems there. I knew that, with the advent of many catering establishments, the growth in student population and the revival of night life in Great Victoria street, there was a great demand for parking in Stranmillis road and Pakenham street, to the detriment of local residents.

When I investigated further, I discovered that there was no experimental project or pilot scheme; it was a desk-top demonstration. I do not know how a desk-top demonstration can illustrate parking problems, but I was assured that no pilot projects were being conducted. I was told that there was a difficulty in finding the time to enact legislation. I understand that the Department is currently considering legislation— I do not know whether it is running on AC or DC current, but over the years it has been on-off, on-off.

The people of Belfast are crying out for adequate parking facilities. The Department had ample opportunities to introduce the necessary legislation. Under the abominable Orders in Council system, which has plagued us for years, the Department managed to propose orders when it so chose. It has not verified that legislation is in the pipeline, so I press the Minister to re-examine the issue.

Some of the busiest roads in Belfast— indeed in the United Kingdom— are located in my constituency. I welcome the decision not to proceed with the Belvoir Forest Park road and the widening of Balmoral avenue—the latter with a new junction at the Malone and New Forge roads. The authority's short-sighted planning led to road development towards the Lagan Valley parkway in the face of advice and protests from the residents. It did not realise that it would block traffic flows if cars travelling from the country to the city had to turn right into New Forge lane, and it has subsequently started construction of a roundabout.

I welcome the halting of the Belvoir Forest Park road project and the widening of Balmoral avenue, but that decision may be only temporary. Will the Minister cast some light on that issue? Was the project halted for good planning reasons or did the Department not have the finance to continue with it, and therefore its construction is threatened in the future?

The Donegall road development has had tragic consequences for 25 or 30 years. Reasonable housing in the area was allowed to degenerate as a result of the halting of the development and the plans for the city hospital. When the planning authority was pressed on the matter, it demolished houses in several streets and began construction of the road. However, the rest of the Donegall road is blighted by the Department's tendency to plan in the long term and to forget about the immediate impact of its plans on local residents. One has only to drive down Great Victoria street, Sandy Row and the Lower Grosvenor road to witness the Department's failure to complete its road planning schemes in the centre of Belfast.

Was the development of Belvoir Forest Park road and the widening of Balmoral avenue halted on good planning grounds or is it merely in remission for financial reasons? Is it a permanent decision or has the development merely been postponed?

I wish to plead the case of a constituent who resides at the corner of New Forge lane and Malone road. He has sought planning permission for years to construct a smaller house more suited to his needs. He is in financial difficulties due to the failure to proceed with a purchase scheme, and I do not believe that that is the proper way to treat a senior citizen.

Four of the busiest roads in Belfast are situated in Belfast, South. Lisburn road is lined with some very fine shops, but there are inadequate parking facilities. Some 40 years ago it was the fourth busiest road in the United Kingdom—even the construction of the M1 did not reduce significantly the flow of traffic on the road. I welcome the fact that private enterprise shopkeepers have developed and improved their shop frontages along the road, but shoppers have nowhere to park because the provision of adequate parking facilities was not considered when making long-term planning decisions. The Minister may be aware that approaches were made to his predecessors over the years to secure some co-operation on that subject.

Cregagh road is a very busy shopping thoroughfare. I believe that small shops are the spirit and the life-blood of any community, but traffic congestion has produced vehicle fumes, which are affecting citizens' quality of life.

I wish to discuss two areas where I believe that something can be done to ease the traffic flow problem. There is a problem with the development of Ormeau road and the area near the Upper Saintfield road. The traffic flow into Belfast is phenomenal and a development was planned for Forster Green at the junction of the Saintfield, Ormeau and Newtown Breda roads. Has that project been postponed permanently or has someone else been left to carry the can? It is necessary to develop that junction properly.

I must declare a personal interest in the matter as I have a small printing business that is situated beside the Forster Green junction, so I know exactly how chaotic the traffic is. The chaotic traffic conditions are mentioned every morning on Radio Ulster and the whole of Northern Ireland knows that it is the most difficult road in the Province.

The Minister prepared his tender documents for the road scheme, which was due to commence in spring 1992, but it was postponed when other, less important road schemes around Newry proceeded. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister owes it to the House to give a firm announcement about when the road scheme will commence? It is the busiest road junction in the whole of Northern Ireland.

I agree with my right hon. Friend on the issue, and I share his concern. He is aware that I have argued for a long time against money being spent to develop the road south of Newry while the roads on the other side of the frontier are not able to handle heavy traffic. We should not develop less important roads, which will only add to traffic congestion.

As a graduate of Trinity college, Dublin, I remember when I could travel from Dublin to Belfast in less than two hours. With modern traffic movements, that journey now takes two and a half to four hours. Why should we spend millions of pounds developing the road south of Newry when the needs are in Belfast and along the Larne line, where traffic is heavier and which is vital to the economy of the Province and the Republic of Ireland? Perhaps I should declare an interest as I live just off the Ormeau road.

The Donegall road was the road of my birth and, with the advent of the west link, which joins the motorways, I understood that the original plan was for a flyover at the Broadway roundabout. We did not get that and it was due not to objections from residents, as happened in an area of east Belfast, but to financial considerations. It is a nightmare for people coming off the west link or travelling on the Donegall road. The Department has the excuse that the Roden street crossing was closed for security reasons and that it is not pressing for it to be opened—but it is—which means that the residents of Roden street, which has developed as a quiet residential area and is mainly made up of older houses, will be subjected to the rattling caused by heavy vehicles heading down the street.

A flyover on the west link would ease the flow of traffic down the street and improve the quality of life for many people. When will that flyover be built to ease the flow of traffic? There was a similar problem at the Grosvenor road exit to the west link in west Belfast. I wonder whether the Department is trying to deal with the two problems together.

Has the Department given much consideration to immediate or long-term planning to deal with traffic flow? People love their cars. They love them so much that they would even take them to bed, if they could get them up the stairs. The average car driver will park where it suits him or her, without considering the impact on other people. As long as it is convenient for them, they will park anywhere, irrespective of the convenience of others.

Is the Department considering car sharing—what our American cousins call the car pool—or transit lanes, such as around Sydney in Australia? Is any thought being given to the provision of out-of-town free car parks? Those schemes would allow people to travel into town by sharing a car or by train—the latter should be better promoted, especially as the cross-harbour bridge line now comes into the Central station and the line from Lisburn has a number of excellent halts along the road.

I understand that a designated bus route is being considered for the Ormeau area, but how far has that been developed? Is the Department persuaded that it will resolve traffic pressures and flows? It might help the buses, but will it deal with the problem of traffic flow?

What thought is being given to rapid transport or modern tram systems? In "Parliamentary Brief' this month, Professor Peter Jones wrote:

"A combination of technological and political ingenuity will also be needed to come up with workable schemes that are both viewed as equitable and as effective."

What are we doing to try to get those equitable and effective schemes? How are we bringing technological and political ingenuity together to improve the traffic flow in Belfast?

Other countries have introduced urban transport schemes for health and environmental reasons. I have alluded to the health and environmental problems and it is important that we use the instinct to protect health that is developing in many people, that we have effective prevention measures and that we create a city with a quality of living that will attract people back into it, rather than driving them out.

The Minister will be aware of the Manchester Metrolink and the Sheffield supertram light rail system. I understand that other cities are in the queue for funding—for example the west midlands and Croydon, What consideration has been given to Belfast? I encourage the Minister to give us leadership in Belfast. How far advanced are plans for developing the old Comber rail line as a light railway track into north Down, which would allow people the choice of travelling that way instead of facing the journey down the Newtownards road, which can be a nightmare at times?

Will the Minister consider the progress in Caen, Normandy? It is significant that 50 years ago the parachute battalion of the Royal Ulster Rifles relieved Caen. I wonder whether we can learn something from that city that will now relieve Belfast. It is fascinating that Bombardier—a firm with significant interests in Belfast industry and manufacturing—is involved in the scheme there. Might some of our people examine that scheme, as I believe it to be innovative? There will be a single rail on the road for guidance and the system will be electric, which would help with the use of our electricity supply, which is improving day by day, and might help to reduce overall costs for industry. I trust that the price will come down, rather than increase, if more people use electricity. The trams in Caen will also have a diesel generator so that they can convert to a mobile vehicle on wheels., which would be an added advantage. Unlike the old fixed-track systems, which demanded expensive depots at the ends of the line and other places, the Caen system is imaginative and innovative. A single, fixed tram track with a diesel engine might be a scheme to consider in Belfast.

I appreciate the opportunity to raise these issues. I trust that the Minister will give us some light at Christmas time. I know that the roads are congested with holidaymakers and Santa Claus doing his shopping, but I hope that the Minister might be able at least to give us a foretaste of a Christmas present that will ease the traffic flow in Belfast.

May I reciprocate his warm messages for the Christmas festive season and congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) on his success in coming first in the ballot? I thank him for that as it means that I can get over to the Province to do some work later today. I also congratulate him on his choice of subject and commend him for the great detail that he has given. I will attempt to answer most, if not all, of his queries. I promise to write to him about those that I fail to cover in the time available.

Traffic flow in Belfast is an important subject. Approximately 19,000 vehicles enter Belfast city centre in the morning peak hour and, while congestion is not as severe as in a number of United Kingdom cities, we realise that it will become a problem if present traffic growth trends continue. With this in mind, we are looking at ways of making the best possible use of the capacity of the existing road network through improved traffic management techniques and public transport systems.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South began his speech by taking us back to his youth, when the tram system in Belfast city centre was an important ingredient of the transport network. Public transport, of course, still plays an important part in the movement of people in the Greater Belfast area. For example, more than 26 million passenger journeys were made on Citybus alone in 1993–1994—an increase of more than 5 per cent. on the previous year.

Another indication of the increasing attraction of bus travel for commuters is the City Express service, which was introduced in 1991 between Newtownabbey and Belfast city centre. The service regularly carries more than 10,000 passengers a week, 16 per cent. of whom are former car users and 20 per cent. of whom are new to bus travel.

There is clearly a market among commuters for fast and reliable alternatives to the private car. I believe that our public transport operators are responding to the demand for improved services from the travelling public. Undoubtedly there is scope for Ulsterbus, Citybus and Northern Ireland Railways steadily to increase their share of the market—particularly the commuter market. I would welcome that shift towards public transport as one way of helping to ease congestion on the city's roads.

The Government's commitment to the development of bus and rail services in the Belfast area can be seen in the number of major investments that we are making to the city's transport infrastructure. The new Dargan rail bridge, which opened on 28 November, links the Larne line with the rest of the rail network for the first time and represents an investment of some £30 million. More than 80 trains a day are now crossing the viaduct bringing passengers to and from Central station, and NIR is evaluating the economic case for building a station at Donegall quay, which would give direct access to the north of the city and the Laganside area.

In autumn 1995, facilities for passengers will be further enhanced by the reopening of the railway station at Great Victoria street. It will cost about £6 million and will provide an integrated travel centre with the Europa bus centre and will give passengers direct access to the business and social heart of the city.

At the opening of the Dargan bridge, I was delighted to be able to announce my support for the upgrading and reopening of the stretch of line between Antrim and Bleach Green on the Londonderry line. The new bridge and the reopening of this more direct route in 1997 will mean a 20-minute time saving for passengers between Antrim and Belfast and will allow NIR to assess the demand for new stations within the commuter belt along that corridor.

As well as introducing innovative services to cater for customer demand, the bus companies have a significant programme of capital investment to ensure that vehicles and facilities are among the best in the United Kingdom. I have already mentioned the Europa bus centre, which was opened in 1991 and which won a charter mark for the high quality of its service provision to customers. A new bus station costing more than £2.5 million is currently under construction at Donegall quay, and is scheduled to open in the spring of 1996. The new station will replace the existing station in Oxford street and will offer greatly enhanced facilities for travellers.

Other measures are also under consideration for improving the city's bus services. The Department of the Environment, the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Ulsterbus and Citybus are all represented on a working group examining bus priority opportunities for Belfast.

A former deputy lord mayor of Belfast said that it was the only capital city in the world which had its city hall in the middle of a bus depot. Will the Minister assure us that, in developing bus services in Belfast, consideration will be given to preventing a lot of buses from parking around the city hall?

I promise the hon. Gentleman that I shall look into that as and when the working group reports.

The group has been responsible for the introduction of a "with flow" bus lane on the Ormeau road and a system of selective vehicle detection on the Upper Newtownards road, which gives greater priority to buses by allowing them more "green light" time at traffic signals.

The bus companies recently presented a consultants' report to the Department on a range of bus priority measures that could be implemented throughout Belfast, and officials are currently giving the proposals careful consideration.

The biggest road scheme currently under way in Belfast is the cross-harbour road bridge, and I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South for his warm welcome for that major capital scheme. When the bridge is opened to traffic in mid-January, it will, along with Westlink, form a new link in the strategic highway network, which will contribute to a reduction in traffic levels in the city centre.

To help to control and facilitate traffic movement in the Belfast area, a new system of traffic management will be gradually introduced, the aim being to discourage through-traffic from entering the central area while still allowing easy access for essential vehicles and buses. The most important feature will be the proposed new traffic circulation system, which will require completion of the inner ring road. Priority will be given to schemes to complete the section between Cromac street and Grosvenor road, as these are designed specifically to remove traffic around the city hall-Donegall square area of the city centre.

In the longer term, improved road capacity along Cromac street and Durham street may also be required and this will be considered as and when a need is identified. In the meantime, the Department intends to protect the lines of the new improvement schemes.

The approaches to the city centre are important in establishing a positive image of Belfast, and the Department is carrying out wide-ranging reviews of the traffic situation on the southern and eastern approach roads. The reviews of the southern approaches strategy will consider many options, ranging from the provision of new road links to radical new public transport proposals.

It was suggested that the road to Belvoir park has been cancelled or stopped. I am afraid that that is press speculation at this juncture, but I hope to publish a report in the new year when all will be revealed.

A major cause of traffic congestion in the southern approaches is the Forster Green junction, and a scheme to improve that important intersection will, it is hoped, commence early next year. This is a £2 million improvement scheme, which was previously in the programme for 1996–1997. We expect to bring the programme forward to 1995 as an infrastructure contribution from an adjacent commercial development, but its exact timing is in the hands of a developer.

Although it is not included in the southern approaches strategy, the need to improve traffic conditions on the M1 motorway between Dunmurry and Belfast is also being considered in conjunction with schemes to provide grade separated junctions at Broadway and on the Westlink at Grosvenor road. It goes without saying that schemes on that scale will be expensive and, given the many constraints on public expenditure, could not be constructed in the foreseeable future. With that in mind, the Department is exploring the possibility of attracting private finance for constructing these schemes. If the approach is successful, it may enable us to commence the schemes sooner.

Roads Services has had preliminary discussions with the Construction Employers Federation about the potential generally for private finance in road schemes. Discussions have also taken place with long-established construction firms that are particularly interested in the Westlink.

The eastern approaches strategy will concentrate on schemes which will link in with the Belfast cross-harbour road bridge, and includes proposals such as the Hollywood Arches bypass, the Connsbank link and a new flyover junction at the Harbour Estate access, which will remove extraneous heavy traffic from the Dee street-Mersey street residential area. A scheme to widen the Sydenham bypass is also proposed and those schemes are all included in the Department's six to 15-year major works programme.

The Minister mentioned the upgrading of Cromac street, Durham street and Grosvenor road. How much demolition will be required to clear the way for that upgrading and what impact will it have on the city?

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate answer, but I shall write and give some indication of what it will entail.

May I return to the Minister's response on the necessity to improve the Supermac junction at Forster Green hospital? He was a little disingenuous when he said that it was previously in the programme for 1996–97. It was previously in the programme for 1992 and the Government put it back. He now says that it may go ahead in 1995, conditional on some project by a private developer. Will he assure us today that, whether or not that private developer proceeds, the Government recognise that the Forster Green junction scheme has top priority in Northern Ireland and that they will proceed with the scheme irrespective of involvement by a private developer?

I cannot give that road junction top priority in the Province. The hon. Gentleman will realise that I have plenty of other priorities.

Will the Minister give way?

No, let me finish. The scheme was in the rolling programme for 1996–97 and we hope to bring it forward with private capital. That development is going on. If it does not come to fruition, it will still be in the programme for 1996–97.

rose—

I should like to continue because the hon. Member for Belfast, South made a number of specific points that I want to answer.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South asked me about the Balmoral avenue widening scheme. The scheme was permanently dropped from the Belfast urban area plan on planning grounds. A public inquiry will be held next February into the accident remedial scheme at the junction of Balmoral avenue with Malone road, where some 25 personal injury accidents have occurred in the past three years. I can offer no commitment in view of that public inquiry.

Car parking is another important issue that is vital to the functioning of the business and commercial life of the city centre. The Department intends to concentrate its future efforts on providing additional short-term parking, but the number of additional spaces provided will depend on the level of private sector interest, as the budget for car parking is limited. In the current financial year, the only new car parking facilities being provided by the Department are in the Lisburn road area, where existing car parking lay-bys at Maryville street and Ethel street are being extended and a new 40-space car park is being constructed at Ferndale street.

I am aware that the Lisburn Road Association of Retailers and Business Services and the hon. Member for Belfast, South have lobbied consistently for the provision of additional car parking spaces in Lisburn road and I hope that my announcement today will go some way towards alleviating the problems in that area.

If my memory is correct, the scheme will simply replace lost car parking spaces: spaces will not increase. Some 50,000 cars go through the Supermac junction every day. It is the busiest in Northern Ireland.

We accept that it would merit providing some additional car parking on Lisburn road but unfortunately not on the scale that the Lisburn road association wanted.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South also asked about residents' parking. As he pointed out, all-day car parking in residential areas on the edge of the city centre is a constant source of annoyance to residents and downgrades their environment. With that in mind, the Department is introducing the necessary legislation, which will allow for the implementation o f a residents-only parking scheme. We recognise that the introduction of residents-only schemes in one location may simply move the problem to adjoining areas, so a number of pilot projects may be required. Full consultation will be carried out with all local residents before any schemes are made permanent.

The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the Road Traffic Regulation (Northern Ireland) Order, which we are preparing for the legislative programme in the current Session. The timetable envisages a draft Order in Council being published before the end of the year, with the order being made by late 1995.

The Department is aware of the growth of traffic in Belfast and the fact that we must keep it under control. Contrary to public opinion, the construction of new roads is not a magic panacea that will solve all our problems. In the circumstances, a more wide-ranging approach is required to reduce potential traffic growth to a tolerable level. That does not mean that all road building will stop, but we must think twice and explore other alternatives before deciding whether a road scheme is required.

In the current major works programme, almost £12 million has been allocated to major roads schemes in the Greater Belfast area, excluding expenditure on schemes directly related to the cross-harbour bridge—

Order. The next subject for debate is Gibraltar.

I have been lucky enough to win two draws in the ballot for Adjournment debates within five days. That is fairly good going and I pray that my luck holds until Saturday, when the next draw for the national lottery takes place.

I shall use this occasion to raise the topical and important subject of Gibraltar. I do so first as chairman of the British-Gibraltar all-party group, but I also declare an interest because one of my daughters is married to a Gibraltarian who runs an extremely successful business on the Rock.

I am pleased to see the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), on the Front Bench to reply to this debate. I appreciate the fact that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis), who would normally reply, is engaged in talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Javier Solana, at this very moment. I appreciate my right hon. Friend's coming here instead.

This matter is topical not only because of the talks taking place in the Foreign Office this morning but because, once again, Spain is laying siege to Gibraltar. Throughout its history, Gibraltar has resisted some 19 sieges and I am sure that it will have no difficulty resisting this one, provided that it gets the help that it deserves from the United Kingdom. Gibraltar has an important place in the history of this country. As BBC radio reminded us at the weekend, it is one of the last remaining red splodges on the map of the world and, as such, it is important that we stand by it. Although it now has little strategic value in terms of defence, we must not forget the role that it played in two world wars and as a back-up staging post in the Falklands war. I do not know where we would have been without it during the Falklands war or those two world wars, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the people of Gibraltar which will never be forgotten by this country. Britain must honour that.

People in Northern Ireland have an empathy with the people of Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman will know that Gibraltarians stayed in Northern Ireland during the war. In Gibraltar today, among other things, there is the Ballymena block. So we trust that the Foreign Office will represent Gibraltarians as British people rather than Spanish mandarins.

That was a useful intervention and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman's part of the United Kingdom stands as solidly, if not more solidly, with the people of Gibraltar as those of us on this side of the Irish sea.

Although Gibraltar's strategic value in terms of defence may have diminished, Gibraltar still has an important place in our political lives. It is essential that we continue to sustain and support it, particularly in its present difficulties with Spain. It is money which the United Kingdom taxpayer must be prepared to pay.

The importance of Gibraltar to Britain may be diminishing, but that does not mean to say that there is not still a strong body of opinion in this House and in the upper House that supports the Rock, and if things ever went wrong on Gibraltar, an awful lot of flak would fly. I have been encouraged, too, by the media response to Gibraltar's current difficulties, and it is interesting to note how many people have written to me, knowing my position and my interest in Gibraltar.

The frontier delays result from the Spanish Government's increasing harassment of people, during the past five weeks, at the land border. They have introduced a secondary control immediately after the usual passport and customs control. There have been delays of up to eight hours, into and out of Gibraltar, for those in vehicles, and delays of four hours for people travelling on foot. About 2,000 Spanish people walk in and out of Gibraltar every day.

This second control, some 10 m past the frontier line, has also resulted in drivers being fined for not carrying such items as surgical gloves in their first aid kits or a spare set of spectacles for those who wear glasses. Women have been strip-searched.

These measures have been justified by the Spanish authorities as necessary to curtail smuggling of cigarettes and drugs, and to prevent money laundering. Smuggling certainly takes place, as it does at any frontier. A packet of 20 cigarettes costs 60p in Gibraltar, but it sells in Spain for £1.20, so it is hardly surprising that smuggling goes on. It works out that 1.5 billion cigarettes are brought in and sold, which makes 50,000 per head of the Gibraltar population. There must be awful lot of smoke in Gibraltar—or clearly the cigarettes are going somewhere else.

I suspect that Spain's complaint relates to the smuggling of tobacco from Gibraltar and to the trafficking in cannabis from Morocco: both by sea. It is illogical that drugs should be transported from Morocco to Gibraltar and thence to Spain; nor is there any evidence that they are. If anything, it has been the infiltration of drugs such as cocaine and heroin from Spain to Gibraltar since the frontier opened in 1985 which gives rise to real concern.

The fact is that Spain is using this camouflage to bring political and economic pressure to bear on Gibraltar, just at a time when it is vulnerable because of the rundown of the Ministry of Defence's commitment to the Rock. There is certainly a case for tougher action against smuggling. Many of us have seen the 50 or 60 high-speed launches in Gibraltar harbour. They are painted dark grey and have no windscreens, so as to have a low profile on radar, and they are very powerful. Already regulations have been introduced to reduce the size and power of these launches, but more action is needed. The Government must take steps immediately to ensure that the launches are banned or have their power restricted even more. I see no reason why that cannot be done. If it is not, Spain will be given good cause for taking the type of action that it is. The British Government have a duty to remove that cause.

I should also like to draw the attention of the House to an article that appeared in The Independent on 14 December, suggesting that there was some sort of dirty tricks department at work in the Foreign Office, trying to undermine Gibraltar's position in advance of the talks with Spain. Will the Minister categorically deny that? Since the rundown of the MOD's establishment in Gibraltar—it used to constitute about two thirds of the local economy—the people there have managed to establish a growing financial services sector, regulated by a strong financial services commission which is headed by Financial Commissioner Mr. John Milner. He was appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England.

I am told that the Gibraltar Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the good name of their financial centre is maintained. It was brave to set up the centre when the world was in recession. The Gibraltarians need all the help they can to get it going properly.

If the Spanish authorities have any evidence that Gibraltar companies are being used for illicit purposes, they should provide details directly to the Gibraltar Government or to the British Government so that the necessary action can be taken. The measures being adopted at the land frontier may be justified by Spain only as a means of strangling the financial services centre at birth. The checks have been indiscriminate—affecting old people and children as well as other travellers. They are wholly indefensible, and I should like to know what HMG are going to do about the situation. What powers can be used to prevent the rights of British and European citizens—to freedom of movement under the European Union treaties—from being trampled on?

Self-determination is a matter that has been raised by the Chief Minister of Gibraltar many times in speeches to various audiences. I appreciate that it is not the same as total independence, but it could go some way towards it. The United Kingdom ratified the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in 1976. Article 1 reads:

"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

I would argue that when the United Kingdom ratified that covenant, she extended a list of dependent territories which included Gibraltar. At no stage did Britain say that she had any reservations about the applicability of this article to the people of Gibraltar.

If the United Kingdom thought in 1968 that the treaty of Utrecht of 1713 prevented the application of the right of self-determination to the people of Gibraltar, she would have felt the need to enter a declaration to that effect at the time of ratification. It would be a good idea if the Minister clarified the position, particularly in respect of the treaty of Utrecht and Gibraltar's constitution, which states that Gibraltar will remain British while the people of Gibraltar wish it to, but that if Britain does not want to hold on to Gibraltar it reverts to Spain.

The full benefits of European Union membership do not accrue to Gibraltar as yet; it is still outside the external frontier. Both we and the people of Gibraltar feel that it is high time Spain agreed to ratify the external frontier convention. It does not do so, because that means acknowledging the Rock's sovereignty—and that Spain will not do. Of course, if Gibraltar were within the external frontier, the problems of smuggling might not be so acute, because of the ensuing moves towards tax and duty harmonisation. Moreover, the difficulties with the airport might be overcome, and Gibraltar might begin to benefit from the advantages that other European countries enjoy via the liberalisation of air services.

Bringing Gibraltar within the external frontier would also mean that it could benefit from other forms of direct aid from the EU—the social fund, for instance. As time goes by, the European Union will, I think, replace Britain as Gibraltar's principal economic supporter. Thus, the sooner the latter is inside the external frontier, the better.

There have been moves towards greater co-operation. The Brussels agreement of 1984 represented a step forward in terms of Britain's relations with Spain over the question of Gibraltar. It was intended to help Spain and the United Kingdom to sort out their differences on Gibraltar and to prevent further difficulties from arising. Those talks take place annually between Foreign Ministers.

Gibraltar is allowed to have a representative in the British party at those talks, but has so far resisted the invitation to join. That is a pity. A representative should be there, if only in a listening capacity. However, it would be far better if, in his discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister this morning, our Foreign Secretary could persuade him that Gibraltar should have a separate place at the talks under the Brussels agreement, so that its representatives could argue their points of view themselves and have equal status with Britain and with Spain. After all, the future of Gibraltar will be discussed in those talks and I think that the residents of Gibraltar should be entitled to have their own say.

The condition of the economy in Gibraltar is crucial. Ten years ago, Gibraltar was probably two-thirds dependent on the Ministry of Defence for its sustenance. That has now dropped to about 9 per cent. and by the end of the decade, it will have decreased to only 3 per cent. That makes Gibraltar much more vulnerable to any action that Spain may take on the frontier, and there is no doubt that the financial services centre, which was a brave attempt to diversify, came into being at a bad time.

The economy of Gibraltar affects people beyond the frontier. I have referred to the 2,000 people who come into Gibraltar each day, most of them to work. The area of the Campo, La Linea and the whole region of Andalucia is at present run down. The people who live there regard themselves as poor relations of Madrid and I think that they do not receive the economic assistance from Madrid that they should.

The Chief Minister, Mr. Joe Bassano, was brave to cross the frontier, the day after he was elected as Chief Minister, years ago, shaking hands with the mayor of La Linea and saying, "We are in this together. We shall help you and you help us. Let us be good neighbours." If that attitude could prevail in Madrid and in London, we could make progress on Gibraltar.

There is an opportunity for Gibraltar to provide a locomotive in that part of Europe—a locomotive that could help bring the rest of a rather depressed area into a better economic state and improve the lot of everyone.

If the airport agreement of 1987 were implemented, it would help. The problem is that the airport agreement was bilateral between Spain and the United Kingdom; Gibraltar was not party to it. If the financial centre is to work, it is very important that Gibraltar has a properly operating airport. At the moment Gibraltar is reluctant to implement the agreement simply because it does not trust Spain. The lack of trust must be overcome. The airport is on so-called "no man's land", which, at the time of the signing of the treaty of Utrecht, was a mosquito-infested bog which no one thought important. Now it is part of Gibraltar's lifeline. The matter of the airport agreement must be resolved.

What is the way forward? The House should send a message to the Spanish Foreign Minister, Mr. Javier Solana, to put the question of the sovereignty of Gibraltar on the back burner for at least a decade and use those 10 years to build trust between Spain and the Gibraltar people. He should extend the hand of friendship rather than try to put a stranglehold on Gibraltar's economic future.

We already have excellent relations between the United Kingdom and Spain, which can be built on to good effect as regards Gibraltar. Spain must go out now and win the hearts of the Gibraltar people, especially the younger generation. If one held a referendum today on Gibraltar's sovereignty, similar to the one that was held in 1967, when 12,000 people voted in favour of staying British, and only 44—I never quite know what happened to those 44 people—voted to join Spain, one might receive a different answer. If only Spain could improve its relations with Gibraltar so that the two became better neighbours, there would be a good chance that another referendum might give a different answer.

Does the hon. Gentleman notice an inconsistency in Spain's approach? Today a very important meeting of the Fisheries Council of the European Union takes place in Brussels, and Spain is arguing for the right of access to the Irish box and other waters, on the basis that it does not want to be treated as a second-class member state of the European Union—it wants full rights. Should it not equally refer to Gibraltar as part of the European Union and extend to it the same full rights?

That is a good point. There is a bargaining position here. I do not know what will be on the agenda this morning in the talks between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister, but I dare say that fishing rights and the Irish box will be mentioned as well as Gibraltar. There is room to bargain, but I do not think that this is a bargaining problem. Gibraltar should be fully in the European Union; if it were, many of those difficulties would be overcome.

Changes have occurred since the running down of the Ministry of Defence establishment in Gibraltar. At that time there was the presence of many thousands of soldiers, sailors, dockyard workers and many members serving in the Royal Air Force. Much of the property in Gibraltar was owned by the MOD. There was physical contact with the people of Gibraltar and there was therefore a stronger relationship between Britain and Gibraltar, secured in a sense by the two Governments. Since the withdrawal from Gibraltar, we have witnessed the beginnings of a break between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom in governmental terms, and it is important that Her Majesty's Government try to mend the break that has occurred.

A solution can be found only if Britain and Gibraltar approach the problem together in agreement. In the meantime, I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in replying to the debate, to confirm that the policy of sustaining and supporting Gibraltar in its present difficulties will continue.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on his repeated good fortune in winning the ballot for Adjournment debates, and wish him well in the national lottery on Saturday. I also congratulate him on mentioning a subject that is of enormous importance and great interest to the House, and about which he speaks with great knowledge and considerable vision.

The timing of the debate, as my hon. Friend said, is opportune because my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is at this minute meeting his Spanish counterpart, Mr. Solana, for talks about Gibraltar under the Brussels process, and I shall say more about that in a moment.

It is by his own choice that the Chief Minister of Gibraltar is not present at the talks. He is in no sense barred from them and is kept closely informed of developments.

I shall first discuss the subject that my hon. Friend mentioned of the intrusive additional frontier controls introduced by the Spaniards at the border at the end of October. They are unacceptable. Every country has the right to reasonable checks at a frontier, but they must be proportionate; those imposed by Spain were not. They led to unacceptable delays of up to nine hours for vehicles crossing the border and two to three hours for those crossing on foot. As the House will be aware, we have made repeated strong protests to the Spanish Government in the last few weeks. I understand that those measures are not currently in operation, but we are watching the situation closely. There must be no question of their being reimposed. We should not forget either the lesser but still severe checks that have been in operation for many years and which Spain justifies on the ground that Gibraltar is not a member of the common customs tariff.

It is not enough to return to the delays that were the norm before. Our partnership in Europe requires that Spain goes further. We have suggested that the way forward is the use of red and green channels or random checks. It is true that Gibraltar is outside the common customs tariff by virtue of her omission from Council regulation 2154/1984 which defines customs territory and which has been the justification for the checks at the border. Technically, Spain is within its rights in carrying them out, but, as I say, the present level of checks is a disgrace and it is important that they cease permanently.

I am glad to hear what my right hon. Friend says, but will he acknowledge that there is an agreement between Her Majesty's Government and Spain to chase drug runners which has been relatively successful? The police in Gibraltar have proved extremely efficient in chasing smugglers, too, but there may be a weakness in the Customs and Excise. That is one branch of the Gibraltar Government which could well be strengthened. But the House should not believe for a moment that not enough is being done, in co-operation between the United Kingdom, Gibraltar and Spain, to chase drug traffickers.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. I shall come to smuggling in a moment.

First, I reaffirm the Government's commitment to the people of Gibraltar, most recently made in the House by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. We shall never allow the people of Gibraltar to pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. That is set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar constitution and it is a pledge which I reiterate to the House today.

My hon. Friend mentioned the recent speculation in the British press about dirty tricks. I can give him every assurance that there is no question of the United Kingdom being involved in dirty tricks of any sort to undermine the Gibraltar Government. That could not possibly benefit anybody. Speculation about that is totally unfounded and unhelpful. In that context, the word "rubbish" has appeared in at least one of today's papers and that sums up the matter fairly accurately.

The Brussels process was initiated in 1984 to facilitate avenues of practical co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain. Its provisions include the establishment of the free movement of persons, vehicles and goods, provisions which have been met by Spain more in the breach than the observance. That is yet another reason why the question of checks and other harassment from the Spanish side is so intolerable. None the less, it is an important and useful vehicle for discussion on the way ahead in Gibraltar. There is plenty of unrealised scope for practical cross-border co-operation which could benefit both economies. I should like us to have more of that and less megaphone diplomacy—or, should I say, lack of diplomacy—which has been the hallmark of many of the public pronouncements emanating from the Spanish side of the border in recent weeks.

We would welcome participation by the Government of Gibraltar in the Brussels process discussions. Their voice should be heard and I regret that the Chief Minister chooses not to attend the sessions at which, as I said earlier, he would be welcome. The Governor is currently attending the discussions instead. Talks under the Brussels process also provide for discussions on sovereignty, but that is against the background of our commitment to the people of Gibraltar to which I have just referred.

My hon. Friend mentioned the airport agreement. Gibraltar is concerned that the implementation of the 1987 airport agreement has implications for sovereignty. Those concerns are unfounded, but we have committed ourselves not to impose the agreement on it and officials are continuing to work towards a solution which is acceptable to all parties.

The other means of communication out of Gibraltar is by sea and at the moment the only thing that stands in the way of the ferry service between Gibraltar and Algeciras is Spain's reluctance to permit it. I hope that that is another matter that will be on the agenda at this morning's talks between the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister.

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. If the ferry is not a subject on the agenda this morning, it soon will be.

My hon. Friend also referred to self-determination. We in the House are aware of the keen debate that is taking place in Gibraltar on self-determination. The right of self-determination has, as my hon. Friend said, to take account of the treaty of Utrecht, under which independence is not an option without Spanish consent. Any changes to Gibraltar's future status will have to be acceptable to all parties and we do not consider that, in adhering to article 10 of the treaty of Utrecht, which accords sovereignty to the United Kingdom, we are in breach of the United Nations charter.

My hon. Friend referred to drugs and smuggling. One of the allegations that Spain has produced to support its activities at the border has been the smuggling of drugs. I make it clear that we in the Government and in the House detest drug smuggling and the Government are committed to the fight against it. The Government. of Gibraltar have repeatedly said that that is their position, too. The Gibraltar Government are currently implementing into their legislation the important 1988 United Nations drug convention.

The Royal Gibraltar police, a small but determined force, have been most effective in seizing quantities of illegal substances. In the past year alone, they have seized nearly 2 tonnes of drugs and made some 500 arrests. That, by any standards, is an impressive total which puts paid to spurious claims by the Spaniards of inactivity.

Her Majesty's Government actively support the Government of Gibraltar in the fight against drugs with expert advice and specialist equipment, including fast launches. There is good co-operation between Gibraltar and its Spanish counterparts at local level and successful joint operations have been mounted. We are keen that that should continue and not be hampered by political interference.

There is more that the Gibraltar Government could do. Too many fast launches are still not caught by existing legislation. Other controls could be imposed. I would like to see action on that front, but it is up to the Spaniards, too, to ensure that the climate is right to enable new steps to be taken.

On tobacco smuggling, which my hon. Friend raised—it is another stick that Spain uses to beat Gibraltar—I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government do not condone it any more than any other sort of smuggling. The appropriate legislation is, of course, not within Her Majesty's Government's area of responsibility, but we are in close contact with the Government of Gibraltar, to whom we have repeatedly and forcefully represented our concerns, about appropriate measures.

This is a rather important point, because the export of tobacco from Gibraltar at present—perhaps through illegal smuggling—is probably worth about £15 million to its economy. Since the rundown of the Ministry of Defence commitment, other economic activities had to be found. It has been suggested—certainly in the press—that Britain is playing Nelson and turning a blind eye to the smuggling of tobacco, because Britain understands that, were it not for the value to the Gibraltar economy of tobacco, Britain would have to find money elsewhere to support the economy. Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether that is true or false?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those untrue allegations. Of course, Great Britain is certainly not turning a Nelsonian blind eye.

As my hon. Friend says—with his knowledge about it—Gibraltar's economy is a delicately balanced instrument, and the serious problems resulting from the frontier queues are not to be underestimated. We are also conscious of the potential implications of the drawdown of the Gibraltar garrison. It is a direct result of the political and strategic changes that have taken place in Europe. Her Majesty's Government are, as the House knows, subject to economic pressures and the need to use their resources to best effect. The changing world affects us all and we must adjust to take account of those changes.

The Ministry of Defence is conscious of Gibraltar's particular problems and is providing specially tailored training courses for those affected. It is also setting up a special service to assist staff to find alternative employment. The Chief Minister has expressed his understanding and gratitude to the Ministry of Defence for its imaginative and sensitive approach.

As times change, so we need to look at new ideas. In answer to the Chief Minister's special plea for assistance to Gibraltar in that context, a joint economic forum was established earlier this year to draw together all possible sources of advice and assistance to Gibraltar. It has met three times so far, most recently on 12 December. It is of prime importance that Gibraltarians use the opportunity to introduce new ideas. We will do our part.

One idea that Gibraltar is taking forward is to establish itself as an offshore financial services centre. A financial services commissioner, Mr. John Milner, has been recruited, as my hon. Friend mentioned. He started work in August and is tasked with building up Gibraltar as a financial centre and to ensure that regulatory controls are carried out to the highest UK standards. We have asked the Spanish authorities to substantiate their allegations about Gibraltar as a money-laundering centre and to provide examples where co-operation has been refused. To date we have received nothing. Money laundering is, of course, a criminal offence and neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Government of Gibraltar condone it. The European Community money laundering directive will shortly be in force in Gibraltar and the financial services commission, under Mr. Milner, will deal effectively with any attempts to evade the law.

The way ahead should lie in building up the economy, not handouts. On Gibraltar's development aid programme, the Chief Minister himself told us in 1988 that he wished Gibraltar to be able to stand on its own feet. We applaud that and believe that Gibraltar's economy may, despite its serious difficulties, be resilient enough to bounce back.

My hon. Friend mentioned the European Union. Gibraltar is, of course, part of the European Union by virtue of British membership. At the time of British accession, Her Majesty's Government negotiated for Gibraltar a special status within the Union, which relieves Gibraltar of many burdensome aspects—for example, it is not part of the common agricultural policy, or the common customs territory, nor does it have to levy VAT. It is therefore not a contributor to Community resources.

Gibraltar's position within the Union gives it access to the single market in services—crucial to its aspiration to develop as a financial services centre within the Community. We have also negotiated for Gibraltar an impressive package of EU structural funds. Between 1994–96 Gibraltar is due to receive some £8 million. That funding is well above the UK average, which takes careful account of the territory's distinct needs and problems. That is a mark of our commitment to securing for Gibraltar the maximum possible benefits from its position within the European Union.

In that spirit of shared mutual interest, we have discussed with the Gibraltar Government the backlog of directives awaiting implementation in the territory. In recent months, we have identified a package of specific measures—primarily EC directives—that require implementation in Gibraltar. Implementation of those measures would amount to a major step forward for Gibraltar in addressing its backlog. That is essential, and turning a blind eye to legally enforceable obligations cannot be an option.

Many of the directives are important for reasons of good government and sound administration. They concern regulatory standards in Gibraltar's financial services centre, open tendering of Government contracts and the curbing of money laundering. Others are important because of the protection that needs to be extended to Gibraltarians, for example, against dangerous working practices, environmental pollution and so on. Gibraltarians should have that protection just like all other European Union citizens.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that many Members of the House have been disturbed about reports in the Sunday press two days ago that the very matters that he is talking about—European Union regulations—have not been implemented? It is very difficult to understand why they have not been. Will he give an assurance that the Government will do everything possible to ensure that the Government of Gibraltar will implement all those regulations at once so that they can appear to be—and be—squeaky clean in the eyes of the world in terms of smuggling, drug running and money laundering?

My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. These are not a selection of tiresome, meddling, interfering demands; they are international obligations and include very important measures, and Gibraltar and Gibraltarians will benefit from their implementation.

These are difficult times for Gibraltar, both politically and economically. We will do our bit to secure Gibraltar's future, and will do so gladly. But the impetus for much of what is needed must come from Gibraltar itself. The Government of Gibraltar must ensure that they have the legislative framework in place and the infrastructure support that they need if they are to make the most of the opportunities.

The future must also lie in the development of a sensible, unpolemical and practical working relationship with Gibraltar's northern neighbour, Spain. We believe that to be crucial. Let us examine co-operation and the benefits that could flow to both sides of the border from it. Let me assure the House that we shall do all that we can to help Gibraltarians make the most of the opportunities available to them and to help them meet the challenges effectively.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement to the House today about part-time workers? We understand from the newspapers that later today, by way of a written answer, the Secretary of State will announce a change in the law relating to Britain's 6 million part-time workers. He should make a statement because part-time work is of growing importance to our economy, not only to the women who work part time in order to combine work and family responsibilities but to the growing number of men who work part time because they cannot get a full-time job. The Secretary of State should recognise that economic success will be achieved only if we have a well-motivated, confident work force rather than a growing number of people who feel insecure at work. He should make a statement to the House today.

The hon. Lady knows that it is not in my power to demand that any Secretary of State or Minister come to the Chamber at any time. I therefore regret that I am unable to accede to her request.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I hope that it is on a new subject.

Indeed, it is. I want to raise a matter with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are a defender of the rights of Back Benchers. Last week, by way of answer to a parliamentary question in the Chamber, a decision was made that affects 1,000 jobs in my constituency. 1 believe that the same thing will happen today in relation to jobs at Companies house in Cardiff. Can we examine the way in which such matters are announced—

Order. It is not for the House to anticipate what may or may not happen later today or later in the week. The hon. Gentleman is a Back Bencher, but he is taking up the time available to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson).

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise as a matter of urgency the plight of our railway manufacturing industries. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the Minister, some of my colleagues who have a particular interest in the subject will be participating in the debate.

This is not a hypothetical threat. According to the Railway Industry Association, 5,000 jobs have been lost in 1994 alone and about 20,000 more jobs are under threat, 2,000 of them in the very near future. It is a rapidly unfolding, utterly unnecessary tragedy created solely by the Government's policies towards the railways. Even after 15 years, I find it incredible that the Government are prepared to stand idly by and see another great industry, in which Britain long led the world, being destroyed. But that is what is inexorably happening.

This year, 1994, is the first year in the history of our national rail network that British Rail has not authorised the construction of new rolling stock. As recently as last week, Richard Hope and Professor Bill Bradshaw stated in their report to the Select Committee on Transport that on current projections it would be 1997 before new orders were placed. By that time, Britain would undoubtedly have lost the capacity to build whole trains.

Until 1 April this year, British Rail owned 11,800 coaches which were then handed over to the rolling stock leasing companies which, for the time being, remain in the public sector. The life expectancy of trains ranges from 25 to 40 years. If one assumes an average of 30 years, the average rate of replacement should be about 400 a year. On top of that, there should be an on-going demand from London Underground. Together, those sources of orders should provide a stable base for train builders and their suppliers which can be topped up by the export orders which, mercifully, our industries continue to attract. However, one cannot have an export industry for very long without a home base and that is what Government policies are denying the railway manufacturers.

In September 1992, the then Minister for Public Transport, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), said that he did not intend there to be any hiatus in rolling stock investment. In reality, Ministers could not have been more effective in creating a fatal hiatus for the train building industry if they had planned to do so. I have sheaves of similar examples of Ministers giving assurances to my colleagues and me that there would be no such hiatus. During one exchange, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Bayley) pointed out with uncanny accuracy what was going to happen to ABB in York. He was attacked by the right hon. Member for Kettering as a designer socialist who did not understand how those things work. We now know who understood how things worked and thousands of train makers are paying for that knowledge with their jobs.

The 1991 procurement plan for British Rail envisaged a programme of 800 class 471 Networker vehicles for Kent coast services—600 to replace slam-door stock and 200 to reduce overcrowding. In fact, the Kent coast services will get 15 of the four-car Networker express trains now being completed by ABB at York—60 vehicles instead of 600. That is important not only for the train building communities but for those which depend on railways and are suffering from obsolete stock because of the collapse in manufacturing orders.

There were to be 248 class 341 Networkers to upgrade services on the Great Eastern route and 32 locomotives and 320 coaches as part of the long-overdue upgrading of the west coast main line. Neither of those projects has reached first base. I stress that, at present, there are no plans for new orders in 1995.

So far, I have concentrated on rolling stock but it is exactly the same story in other aspects of railway manufacturing. In the last two years of British Rail's responsibilities, which ended on 1 April this year, there were no new contracts for signalling or electrification projects of any significance. That has not changed under Railtrack and it will not change in the current year in the light of the external financing limits announced by the Government following the Budget.

Late in the day, the Tories reluctantly conceded that there could be such a thing as a public/private finance initiative. So far, that has yielded only the Northern line order for London Underground, which was granted only after an intensive campaign by the manufacturers in alliance with the Opposition and important sections of the media, notably the London Evening Standard. The Railway Industry Association said:

"Whilst there may well be a role for Private Finance Initiative projects in the longer term, it will take time, and time is something manufacturing industry does not have."

In any case, the private finance initiative is not a panacea and cannot be presented as such. In fact, in many ways it further complicates the possibility of orders being placed rapidly because it imposes yet another hurdle between a project being conceived and an order being placed.

The unfolding tragedy is at its most acute in York, where there has been large-scale investment by ABB to create a production line which is the equal of anything in Europe. However, the cupboard is bare of orders and thousands of jobs are on the line. The same is true of suppliers to that company. The situation will become terminal when the Networker contract expires towards the end of next year unless replacement orders are received.

Unless Ministers intervene and cut through the bureaucracy of rail fragmentation and privatisation, there will be no such orders. That is the stark reality. Because of the uncertainty in the railway industry, no one is in a position to order new rolling stock—not British Rail, not the leasing companies and not the operators. Only the Government have the power to break the deadlock but so far they have shown a shocking lack of interest in doing so.

There is no doubt that, at the time of privatisation, ABB was sold British Rail Engineering Ltd. under false pretences. There was supposedly a long-term procurement programme and there was no hint of the politically motivated chaos which was about to be visited on the whole railway industry.

Mr. Richard Hope, one of the most authoritative observers of the railway industry, wrote in Modern Railways about the "precipice diagram" heading rapidly towards disaster in 1995 and wipe-out in 1997. He said that nothing could happen in terms of new orders

"before 1996 at the earliest and then we can only guess at how long a privatised ROSCO"—

or leasing company—

"would take to strike a deal with a newly appointed franchisee, go through the Euro-procurement gavotte punctiliously and then place an order."

The railway manufacturing industries cannot wait that long. The Government have already decimated the British shipbuilding and bus building industries through the politics of dogma. Are they now going to do the same to railway manufacturing? The indictment is already serious; 5,000 jobs have been lost in the year now ending. Are the Government prepared, for the sake of privatisation dogma, to go the whole hog and deny Britain a train building industry?

The extraordinary irony is that, so far, the greatest victim of the obsession with rail privatisation is the existing private sector of the railway industry—the people who build trains and other railway equipment. Must American, Spanish and Korean workers benefit yet again from the destruction of a great British industry? Those are the countries that will supply our trains if our own industry is allowed to wither and perish. That is the question that the Minister must face today, and his answer will be closely listened to in every railway manufacturing community in Britain.

With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like the rest of my time to be taken by my hon. Friends who have constituency interests in such matters.

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Select Committee on Transport is so concerned about the situation in the railway industry that it has undertaken to put on the record a report dealing with the immediate chaos and total confusion brought about by privatisation. Therefore, I cannot speak about either the evidence that will be given or that which has already been submitted to us in a short paper by Mr. Richard Hope.

However, I shall speak about ABB, in my constituency, especially the nature of the bill of sale made out at the time of privatisation. It is important to realise that thousands of jobs in Crewe depended on what used to be called the British Rail works. That was the reason why the city exists; it was to build railway engines that Crewe was first set up on a green-field site.

At the time of privatisation, a large sum of taxpayers' money had gone into modernising the factory, and its working practices and overall organisation had been totally changed within the previous 18 months. ABB was taking on not an old-fashioned factory or a non-flexible work force, but a modern manufacturing unit capable of competing with the best in the world and of supplying British Rail throughout the country with the very best of equipment. The factory had not only done that in conjunction with British Rail in the past but was set up very much in line with what BR needed for the future.

However, the reality for ABB has been different. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) has spoken of the contract recently agreed for underground trains. Of course we are delighted when any manufacturing jobs in the railway industry have been brought to Britain, but even under that contract, much of the manufacturing will be done in Spain and France. Although the west midlands will benefit to some extent from the contract, most of the work will be not manufacturing but assembling, which the factories can carry out without much difficulty. Indeed, we have factories throughout the United Kingdom that can manufacture from scratch very high-quality trains.

Ministers continually tell us that they understand that without an adequate transport system, our economy would fall apart. In a recent speech that I discovered only today the Minister said:

"We cannot afford to ignore or even underestimate the economic implications of transport. Transport measures which would make it more difficult for our industries to flourish at home arid compete abroad would lead to increasing unemployment and would deprive us of the wealth that is necessary to maintain and enhance our natural environment".

Why then do the Government seem so determined to ignore all the advice given to them since the beginning of the disaster of privatisation? In a remarkable and brilliantly researched report, the Transport Select Committee under a Conservative Chairman—the late lamented Robert Adley—told them exactly what would happen if there was a hiatus between the initial decision to privatise and the decision to go ahead.

The evidence was spelt out in that report—evidence was even given by Lord Prior, not only a former Conservative Member of Parliament but a former Conservative Minister—explaining in detail what the railway industry would face if no immediate orders were placed and if there was not an immediate commitment to a considerable new build programme.

The Government ignored all that. They took absolutely no account of the destruction that they were bringing about in the railway industry. Indeed, they made it worse, because the suggestion was that privatisation would in future concentrate on Railtrack rather than on the ROSCOs. The chaos caused by those decisions added to the problems that already existed.

I shall not take up a lot of time, but I want to say one simple thing to the Minister. This country used to be able to compete throughout the world in manufacturing industry, especially manufacturing for railways. It is no accident that wherever one goes in South America or in the Commonwealth one finds the remains of British railway equipment manufactured in Britain—and it is of the best quality.

Yet, under the Conservative Government, there has been a deliberate rundown of those industries, on the grounds not of economics, or that we could not compete, but of a deliberate dogmatic commitment to the destruction of what were seen as subsidiaries of a nationalised industry. Even when it became plain to everybody that that was not the position, the Government persisted in treating the manufacturing units in that way.

The loss of jobs and skills has been horrendous. Every time that we lose a major order that should go to British railways and improve the lot of the customer, we lose a whole generation of skills as well as all the economic input to the areas concerned. Railway passengers are now travelling in increasing discomfort, as if we were using the rolling stock of Argentina in the 1900s, and they pay horrendously high fares. They can see no clear understanding of that on the Government's part, and no commitment to doing anything to improve matters.

When I look at what has happened in my constituency—at the agony of the destruction of the British Rail works and the jobs that it provided—and when I realise their total lack of understanding of the future of the British rail manufacturing industry, I see all that is worst in the Government. They are unimaginative and dogmatic and, so far as one can see, they are doing their best to hand over the whole of our manufacturing industry to any country in the world, so long as it is not this country. If they want to build bogies they send to France; if they want to build shells they send to Spain. They will not build trains in Britain because somehow they see that as a political decision.

Anyone in his right mind knows that unless we manufacture in this country, we shall perpetually have to import other people's products. The Government will have to pay a high price for what they are doing to the railway industry.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on securing the debate. When the Railways Act 1993 was before the House as a Bill, the Government often said that they wanted to avoid a hiatus in railway investment during the initial period running up to privatisation. That initial period has stretched because the franchising timetable has slipped, which has made the problems in the railway manufacturing industry even greater.

I shall speak briefly about the situation in my constituency which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North said, faces the most serious problems. When BREL was privatised five years ago, the York carriage works employed 2,500 people. Now it is left with just 750 employees. After Christmas, with the end of the order for building the Strasbourg tram, there will be yet another 100 redundancies. Then the remaining work force will have their future literally hanging on a thread. They will have the tail end of just one order—the last part of the Networker order for Kent commuters—which will come to an end in the autumn of next year. Unless a further order is received in the next two or three months, the York works will close.

Since privatisation, ABB has invested some £50 million in the York works: £20 million in capital assets such as machinery and £30 million in staff training and new work practices. All that could be cast aside. When rail manufacturers from abroad come to the York works, they say that it is the most modern manufacturing plant for aluminium-bodied railway carriages in Europe. 'That would be lost if the plant were allowed to close.

There is a way to save the York works. It is for the Government and British Rail to invoke the clause in the present contract which allows the existing order for Networker carriages to be rolled forward into a fourth tranche. The only people who seem to be opposed to that are ABB's main competitor, GEC. GEC appears to be lobbying the Government to persuade them that the follow-on clause should not be invoked. The company says that, instead, the contract should go out to Europe-wide competition. GEC knows full well that if that happens, by the time the order is awarded, the ABB factory in York will have closed and the company will be in a monopoly position as the only major supplier of railway rolling stock in the United Kingdom. Such a predatory approach to the industry will lead to the destruction of the industry. It will lead to higher prices for British railway customers because there will be a lack of competition.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman had a good chance to speak yesterday.

I shall give 12 good reasons, all short, why the Government must act now. First, if they invoked the follow-on clause, the customer would get the trains at least 12 months earlier than if a Europe-wide tendering process was initiated. Secondly, British Rail would get the trains at a lower price because it is cheaper to use an existing production line than to close it down and build a new one. Thirdly, if the Government let the York works close, it would show an appalling contempt of inward investment, given that the company has brought £50 million of investment into the British economy. Fourthly—I say this with deference to a policy with which I do not agree—it would be a poor advertisement for privatisation to allow a company that the Conservatives privatised with 2,500 employees just five years ago to close.

Fifthly, it would not cost the Treasury a penny to invoke the clause. British Rail would be able, using the private finance initiative, to raise capital from the private sector. Indeed, it would be a good demonstration of the viability of the PFI. Sixthly, it would demonstrate the Government's environmental commitment to rail transport and relieving pressure on the roads. Seventhly, it would avoid the costly life extension repairs that would be needed to the clapped-out, 30-year-old, slam-door rolling stock which would be left servicing Kent commuters if the order did not come through.

Eighthly, to place the order for the new carriages would respond to the safety case put up in the Cannon Street crash report that the old carriages should be replaced on safety grounds. Ninthly, it would improve the quality of service to Kent commuters. Tenthly, it would improve the income generation of the train operator in that part of the country. When ABB's carriages went on the Chiltern line, the number of passengers increased by 60 per cent. Eleventhly, to bring forward the order would avoid import penetration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the main competitor imports its body shells and bogies from abroad. Twelfthly, it would retain competition in the manufacturing of rolling stock in the United Kingdom. In summary, there would be massive economic benefits for York, London and commuters to London.

Last May the Minister with responsibility for railways told the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and me at a meeting of the York rail forum that the question of who would place the order and who would own the rolling stock could and should be resolved by September this year. Now the Government blame British Rail for dragging its feet, but they, too, have dragged their feet and they must break the deadlock.

I wish to illustrate the problem by referring to another company. The Hunslet Engine Co. in my constituency is 132 years old. Its products have served railways throughout the world for the greater part of that time. Therefore, it has a distinguished history as one of the oldest companies in Leeds and one of the oldest railway engineering companies in Britain. Its products are to be found not only still running after many years but in museums and parks as exhibits because of the long service that they gave to the railways.

I shall mention three aspects of the relationship of the company to Government finance in recent years. I was a member of the Leeds development corporation when that was set up. It found Hunslet Engine Co. doing well and expanding. The company built a works to do body work on coaches. Hunslet TPL was formed. I was part of the committee that gave a city grant to the company, so that it could expand its premises and build a modern line for the production of new rolling stock. On that line, the 323 class has been produced for the west midlands. That order is on-going. It will be completed in six months. If no further orders come forward, the Hunslet Engine Co. will close at the age of 133.

The company has won two orders in recent years, the first being the order to produce the new rolling stock for the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. That order was won against competition and at a competitive price. It could not be proceeded with because the Government have measures in place to abolish the regional council of Strathclyde, and no alternative financing method could be found in time to allow that order to be placed. Therefore, the company lost work that would have kept it in existence for a further two years.

The company also won an order to produce the rolling stock for the Leeds-Bradford electrified line. Again, that order could not be proceeded with because finance for the West Yorkshire passenger transport authority could not be found as a result of the changes introduced with privatisation, and alternative arrangements could not be put in place. The company has won two major orders against competition, including European competition. Each of the orders has been effectively cancelled by the Government's legislation.

I took the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), to Hunslet TPL last year. He was extremely impressed. He promised that he would do all that he could to help it and see that it continued and had orders financed. However, it was beyond him to find his way through the legislation. He could not make it possible for the orders to be financed.

The mess of the Government's privatisation plans has killed the railway engineering industry in Britain. What has happened to my company in Hunslet is disgraceful. It is struggling on in the hope that orders will be produced, but unless the Government change their policy, it will be impossible for any orders to come forward to save those major companies. That will have a major employment effect in Yorkshire.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for securing this debate which, although not well attended, is about an important issue. Railways are not, as many people seem to think, a leftover from the 19th century. In the thrusting, forward-looking parts of the world, railways are very much part of the future. Korea has its new high-speed train network. Taiwan has its new metro system. Even in Geneva, new rails are being built in the city centre to run street cars for people to move their money around in that great Swiss capital. It seems that only in this country are railway systems—the rails that trains run on and the engines themselves—consigned to the scrap heap. I have a particular interest because I represent a steel constituency. The demand that is already virtually absent for products made by my constituents will now be further lessened by the announcement that we have heard this week about ABB in York.

I am glad to say that this year British Steel made handsome profits, but as we look at those handsome profits, we must ask ourselves where they are going. Today, it has been announced that £40 million odd is to be invested in Alabama. While the sun sets on steel making at Ravenscraig, Templeborough and my constituency of Rotherham—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to investment in the railway manufacturing industry, not traverse the world talking about the future investment plans of British Steel.

Railway manufacturing consists almost entirely of steel products. If British Steel is to have a future in this country instead of becoming a holding company with its operations mainly overseas, we need a new coalition of demand for the products used to manufacture railway trains and tracks. Products for use in this country are sorely needed to link my constituency of Rotherham to the high-speed network in Europe. We also need products for export overseas because the future of the most forward-looking countries lies in their transport systems, based on rail systems.

I commend the points made by my hon. Friends and I hope that we shall soon have a Government who take seriously the need for a coherent, modern railway manufacturing sector in this country. I hope that we shall soon have a Government who put demand for the products made by my constituents at the top of their priorities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on obtaining this debate. I understand the interests that he and his hon. Friends have in the subject. As became apparent to the House, there is a fundamental divide between us on the merits of privatisation. It is not a matter of dogma—while I entirely understand the pressures in the marketplace, it is simply not enough to complain that jobs are going to American, Japanese or Spanish workers or, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, to French workers.

What we must have—I am sure that the industry is striving for it—is a thoroughly competitive industry that faces up to the realities of the marketplace. Privatised company after privatised company has increased its investment, adding to its order books, becoming more efficient and competing in the marketplace and, in a number of instances, in the world marketplace. I shall not dwell on that subject for long, but I am bound to answer the questions posed.

Before I turn to the key issues raised, I must mention orders for ABB—a subject raised by the hon. Members for York (Mr. Bayley) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) and also mentioned—I think yesterday—in a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). British Rail is currently assessing whether it can justify a new order of electrical multiple units under the private finance initiative.

The Department of Transport stands ready to provide any assistance that British Rail may require in preparing such a case and, if a submission is made, will consider it as quickly as possible. It would be wrong for the House to get the impression that British Rail has been dragging its feet—that is not so. There has to be a commercial need, and a good business case made, for new rolling stock. As I am sure that the House will agree, it would be folly to scrap sound and serviceable trains prematurely. It must be the operators of the trains who say that they need to replace certain rolling stock, that the prices available look reasonable and competitive, and that the extra revenue generated will pay for the new equipment.

Moreover, the financial terms offered by the private sector have to be acceptable as a long-term lease. When the commercial case for the new trains is made by British Rail, I can assure the House that the Government will look at it swiftly, but they will need to be satisfied that the terms represent proper value for taxpayers' money.

We have heard much this morning about the problems of over-capacity, and a number of Opposition Members have mentioned redundancy. Nobody relishes redundancy. There can be no question about that—before I came to Parliament I worked in manufacturing industry and I understand the need to be competitive. I also understand the pain, trauma and dislocation involved when workers, whatever their job in manufacturing industry, are made redundant. But unless industry is competitive and can compete in world markets with suppliers offering goods and equipment from abroad, in the longer run there will be yet more redundancies. We must face that fact.

We have an effective manufacturing base in this sector and it must strive to remain so and to win yet more export business. We are doing a great deal to support those efforts, as I shall show. Investment in the railways has been at record levels in recent years. The 1992–93 total of £1.5 billion was the highest amount in real terms since 1961. About £4 billion has been spent by British Rail on rolling stock since 1979. About one quarter of the total rolling stock has been renewed since 1985—that represents almost 4,000 new vehicles and locomotives that have been brought into service over the past 10 years.

Investment levels over the past few years in London Transport and London Underground, which are supplied by the same industrial base, have been equally high. In 1992—93, the figure was £832 million. In 1993—94, it was £846 million and in the current year, ending next March, it is estimated to be £999 million.

Those high levels of investment will continue. We expect the railway industry to be able to invest about £1 billion next year. That figure includes British Rail expecting to spend £90 million and three rolling stock leasing companies expecting to spend £129 million on new rolling stock in 1994—95. British Rail was also allowed to sign operating leases for £150 million worth of additional Networker trains earlier this year. That relaxation of the guidelines was designed to promote a competitive leasing market. We shall continue to encourage manufacturers to come forward with privately funded proposals that offer value for money and fall within the private finance initiative.

In terms of infrastructure, between 1980 and 1993, investment of the order of £1 billion, especially in new technology in track and signalling projects, has already taken place. In this current financial year, Railtrack expects to spend £550 million on investment in track and signalling, including £100 million for channel tunnel services, and £800 million for the maintenance of track, signalling and telecommunications.

The recently announced £400 million order for new Northern line tube stock shows what can be done. London is to receive a complete fleet of new trains for the Northern line, with the first coming into service in about 18 months. That breaks new ground in the provision of rolling stock, in a deal in which GEC-Alsthom will finance the entire cost of the trains and their maintenance and take a substantial share of the risks in the project. In return, the company will be paid according to the performance of the new trains.

That is a radical new way of providing train services and a clear demonstration of innovative thinking stimulated by the private finance initiative, with the private sector taking on risk and responsibility, and bringing its project management and commercial expertise to bear on what has for too long been regarded—it still is by some Opposition Members—as the exclusive preserve of the public sector financed by the taxpayer. The project is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to public transport and a perfect example of how the deal-driven private finance initiative can deliver more and better-quality investment in key projects. Private finance will no doubt speed the replacement of existing trains.

Current activities for new rolling stock include the Networker trains being manufactured by ABB for British Rail under the £150 million deal to which I alluded earlier. There is also a £40 million deal with ABB to supply mail trains for the Post Office, and the investment associated with the channel tunnel, where GEC-Alsthom is assembling the Eurostar trains and constructing coaches for the European overnight stock fleet. On top of that, Bombardier Prorail and Brush traction are producing the class 92 locomotive for the Euroshuttle freight trains. Orders are currently being processed for London Underground on the Central line and the Jubilee line and for major refurbishment work on Piccadilly line rolling stock.

As I said earlier, British Rail is at present assessing whether it can justify bringing forward work, but that is a justification which British Rail must bring to the Government's attention as soon as it sees fit.

I want to be clear about this. Is the Minister urging British Rail to bring forward the continuation of the Networker programme on the understanding that if it is commercially viable, it will be approved? Does he recognise the urgency of the matter? Notwithstanding the fact that British Rail will cease to own the trains a few months later if privatisation goes ahead, is he saying that British Rail should come forward quickly with proposals to order the Networker trains?

I repeat what I said earlier—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman heard me. British Rail must make that assessment and the Department of Transport is ready to provide assistance to it. I made the point that British Rail is not dragging its feet. British Rail must make a judgment as to whether the process is to go ahead.

Labour Members have talked about privatisation and I said that greater competitiveness is the key underlying theme in this area. Privatisation is the most far-reaching reform of British industry in half a century. Railtrack is now a fully independent company and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House on 24 November, it is our intention to privatise Railtrack within the lifetime of this Parliament. Passenger and freight operating companies have begun to operate as units within the board.

We have set the target of franchising a majority of train services by April 1996 and the franchising director has announced the start of the pre-qualification process for the first franchises. The privatisation of British Rail's infrastructure service units, British Rail Maintenance Ltd. and other businesses, is already in progress and the transfer of British Rail's domestic freight services to the private sector should be completed by the end of 1995.

Privatisation will enable Railtrack and private companies to provide a better service, bringing substantial benefits to train operators, to passengers—the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich complained about the treatment of passengers—to other rail users and to investors. The privatisation of other public utilities has shown that privatised companies have invested heavily in infrastructure and in their industries post-privatisation. There is no reason why the railway system will not also benefit from the investment of private finance.

I shall now mention some of the activities in which the Department of Trade and Industry is involved, where the aim is to assist UK railway manufacturing companies. Under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Export Trade, we are offering a wide range of export help. The industry has had a long period of success in winning export work, but I believe that more can be achieved. We stand ready to help, where we can, companies which seek to gain more orders at both main and sub-contract level.

The President of the Board of Trade's initiative on export promoters has led the way on a number of export-related activities and, taking their lead, we are running a series of market-opportunity awareness initiatives, including inward and outward missions which are aimed at both home and overseas markets. The industry can achieve a secure future through competitiveness.

We are also supporting research and development projects totalling £8 million, which are aimed at enhancing our technology capability. The sector has benefited from a scheme aimed specifically at pulling through industrially relevant technology.

The Government have done a great deal for the UK railway equipment industry. They have invested more money, opened up new opportunities to finance projects, and supported exports and research and development. Privatisation and a competitive cost structure offer the best long-term security to this sector of manufacturing industry. The Government's general support for manufacturing, coupled with a stable and low-inflation economy, reduced burdens on business and strong support for exports, mean that the industry can look forward to a strong future.

I am grateful for the opportunity to register, on behalf of my constituents, a major concern—the proposed secure unit development in the green belt in Limb lane, Dore. The debate links three Government Departments— the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment and the Home Office— which all have a part to play in the debate.

The secure unit development in the green belt in Limb lane, Dore, is based on Sheffield city council's proposal to build an eight-place secure unit with an open four-bed unit. Sheffield city council, the planning authority for such matters, runs the existing unit, and it will run the new unit. It has given itself planning permission for the development despite much local opposition which, as far as I can tell, has been ignored totally.

The city council has advertised the development as a "departure", and the Secretary of State for the Environment will have to decide whether to call in the application for his determination. The city council had a choice of many sites for the proposed development, and, while neither I nor the residents of Sheffield are opposed to secure units, I believe that the site the council has proposed is flawed in several key areas: siting; environment; safety; and, above all, cost.

Sheffield city council conducted a search for the site, but it seems odd that its search was limited to only five sites. One of the sites—Thornseat lodge near Strines—is located within the Peak national park. The council maintains that the existing building is unsuitable for conversion, and it advised that Peak park planners have told the council that planning consent will not be recommended for a new building in that rural location, which is also in the green belt. Sheffield council also advised that the site has very poor transport access. I will return to that subject later.

For some reason, which is not exactly clear, other sites do exist in Sheffield, but they have not been studied for the development. The scheme will serve the whole county of South Yorkshire, which comprises Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. It is an area of more than 385,000 acres, with a population of 1.3 million and, using the 1971 census, 485,000 households.

Anyone would think that such an area would require a centrally located site, yet the site in Limb lane in Dore, Sheffield, is in the extreme south-west of the county, and it is nearer to Derbyshire and Greater Manchester than many parts of South Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, in his letter to me of 10 November, advised that the only secure facilities currently available in Yorkshire and Humbershire are at Eastmoor, Leeds, and Sutton Place in Hull. He said that there was a sound case in principle for providing an additional eight-place unit in the region, and that that, ideally, should be located in South Yorkshire.

More suitable sites have been suggested in South Yorkshire, and those would not involve the time, money and inconvenience to staff, the police, the courts and visiting relatives. Surely it would be better for the county and the surrounding areas to locate the site further north or east within the county. There appear to be many more suitable sites and locations in that area. In February and March 1993, I was as vociferous in my objection to the siting of a unit in the Crookes area of Sheffield.

On the environmental aspects, the proposed site is 6.5 acres within the green belt for the city of Sheffield. That green belt or lung has been laid down, defended and jealously guarded by a succession of local councils for many years. It is located within a few hundred yards of the Peak park boundary and open moorland, and it backs on to the Ecclesall woods area.

Several years ago, the Government turned down flat an application to remove a farm from the green belt in the Dore area. Recently, a report about another proposal in the green belt in the Sheffield Telegraph stated:

"The site is not surrounded by residential development, indeed, Newfield Lane forms a very clear boundary between the urban development of Dore Village and the open land beyond, says the report."

That proposal was refused planning permission.

I do not understand the difference between land in one part of Dore that is not in council ownership, which was refused planning permission, and the Limb lane site, which is in council ownership, and was granted planning permission. Both pieces of land should have been refused permission. If the council had been consistent, both would have been refused.

Several months ago, King Edward hospital in Rivelin valley, which is not in my constituency, was refused planning permission by the city council. The reason given was that the hospital was in the green belt. Again, I supported the refusal of that application, and it seems consistent that, if an individual applies to erect a structure on land in the green belt, it should be refused by the council.

As the Limb lane site is 6 acres plus, and the proposals for the secure unit cover approximately 2 acres, one must ask, what about the rest of the site? If the development is granted planning permission so easily, what is to stop the rest of the site being developed now or in the future?

On the safety aspects of the proposed project, under the present open accommodation system at Limb lane, there have for many years been nightly car thefts, burglaries, and ram-raiding of village shops and houses in the area because of inmates running loose at night. That is not hearsay. I refer to a recent article on page 8 of the Sheffield edition of The Star on 14 December 1994—the day after I led a delegation to the Minister. I forwarded a copy of the article to the Minister as it highlights the present situation. It covers several incidents, and I shall refer to just one part of it.

A 13-year-old charged with car theft was allegedly seen with another youth trying to break into a second car in Dore, 45 minutes after being returned to the Limb lane home by police officers. One police officer is quoted in the article as saying:

"We will continue doing our bit but there is little satisfaction when you know that 30 minutes after dropping someone at Limb Lane they might be at it again."

As I said, Limb lane is in the green belt on a narrow country lane near to open moorland and on the extreme boundaries of Sheffield. That is not a suitable site.

Last Thursday evening, I arrived home to discover a motor car with its door half open, parked in the middle of the road and obstructing the driveway to my home. A neighbour who was examining the car advised me that two youths had just got out of it and run off. She had been alerted by the loud noise that the car was making. It was no wonder. The car was a mess. It had obviously been rolled over, its roof was slightly caved in, it was bashed in on the side, and the two offside wheels were running on the rim. My immediate thoughts were obvious to everyone as I telephoned South Yorkshire police.

The cost of the scheme, which will be met by the Government, is about £1.6 million. It will attract 100 per cent. funding from the Department of Health, which will also pay the design fees.

On 13 December, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who will reply to the debate met a deputation regarding the secure unit. It was led by Councillor Bobbie Fleming, Val Malthouse and Margaret Lloyd. They explained to the Minister in my presence, and in no uncertain manner, their concerns, and pointed out that, if the council was unable to control the existing site, they had no confidence that a better site, wherever situated, would be run any better. Those points having been made direct to the Minister—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for meeting the delegation—there are, however, many unanswered questions, which I hope to cover in this debate.

Around the time of the public meeting chaired by Councillor Bobbie Fleming and attended by 200 to 250 people at King Ecgbert school in Dore on 19 October 1994, the Sheffield family and community services department circulated a leaflet on secure accommodation in Sheffield. The front of the leaflet states that it provides answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the proposal to establish a secure accommodation unit in Sheffield.

Alas, the leaflet poses more questions, than ever before. The questions and answers include:

"Is this the same project as the one that was planned at Crookes? No. The Crookes proposal was to move the existing remand service from Limb Lane to Lydgate Lane.

Why Dore? A condition of the funding is that the secure unit must be built on local authority owned land. We conducted a survey of all Council land available including land at Bradfield, Low Edges, East End and Norfolk Park. The only site feasible was at Limb Lane.

What will happen to the boys currently at Limb lane? We will continue to have a small remand provision at Limb lane.

What does 'secure' really mean? The buildings' external perimeter and all the internal areas are locked.

Will there be a security fence? No. The external wall of the building provides the security boundary.

Will it have security lights? The external lighting will be normal street lighting on the drive".

Sheffield is one of those places that is not renowned for having its street lights on. Much of its street lighting is defective. The council always says that it is short of Government funding, but, as every hon. Member knows, the council decides the priorities of its funding.

The answer on security lighting continues:

"The entrances to the building will have security lighting similar to domestic floodlights."

The questions and answers continue, but I do not propose to spend any more time on them.

In February 1993, another public meeting was held in the Crookes area, and a correspondent said:

"I was able to present strong evidence arising from the situation at Limb Lane to counter the rather vague arguments being presented by Social Services."

Those are not my words, but those of a resident in the Crookes area.

In the notes taken at the meeting on 19 October and circulated on 6 December, the councillor stated that consideration had been given to locating the unit in the Don Valley/M1 corridor, but no suitable land in the council's possession had been identified there. Much of the area had been designated suitable for industrial development, and for planning purposes it is controlled by Sheffield development corporation. That seems to be an ideal spot for the location of such a project.

A report to the Sheffield family community services programme committee, dated 6 July, confirms that financial support to local authorities for purchasing remand places is under serious consideration, and 100 per cent. finance is available to local authorities.

In his letter, for which I am most grateful, the Minister advised me that, while the local authority has a statutory responsibility on the preferred site for a secure unit, which is a matter for a local decision, none the less some consideration should be given to the location being in the interests of residents and the community—or is it merely a matter of the Department issuing the cheque?

If it is as I illustrated—only time limits what I can say about breakouts from the existing remand home—is there no mechanism whereby the police can take effective action? If it was a club, they would close it down. Is there no way in which the Home Office and/or the Department of Health can check the efficiency of such premises and how they are run, and take action? If so, how, and—above all—when? Surely South Yorkshire police have more to do than spend time returning people to a home, who are then back on the streets within minutes doing similar actions, or even worse.

More suitable sites are available in Sheffield and South Yorkshire which are not in the green belt. While I welcome the concept of a secure accommodation unit, it should be sited in the area near the main road network so that it is accessible to visitors and offenders. Why does the site have to be located in the green belt? Why does it have to be where it is, as it is inconvenient for South Yorkshire and more convenient for Derbyshire?

If Peak park planning would have turned down Thornseat lodge because it would not be recommended for new building in a rural location and has poor transport access, why has Sheffield given planning permission for Limb lane? When developers have been correctly turned down for development in the green belt, why has the Limb lane site been granted planning permission by the council?

I have several more questions for the Minister to answer. How does the Department know that the site is the best one for South Yorkshire or for Humberside? Does the Department talk to residents? What account is taken of their feelings? Does the Department consider questions of accessibility? If so, what are they, and for whose benefit? What responsibility does the Minister or the Department have to ensure that this is the best use of taxpayers' money? Does the Department monitor how the money is spent if the scheme is working? If the Department does that, how is it done?

What consideration is taken to ensure that the site is the best one for the whole of the county, and not just Sheffield? Has my hon. Friend considered the use or otherwise of such a development in the green belt? What checks are taken to ensure that the city council has carried out a full and proper consideration of every alternative site? Have other sites within the county even been considered? Does the Department listen only to the city council, accept its word and then merely issue a cheque?

Finally, why—when the Government are increasing the size of the green belt—do councils such as Sheffield help in some instances to preserve it, yet when it suits them grant themselves planning permission? It appears to me to be inconsistent, and an inconsistency that requires explanation. I look forward—as do my constituents—to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say on the points which I have made during this short debate.

I am pleased to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), who described with his usual, but perhaps new-found—after his periods as a Trappist Member of the House—eloquence the concerns and fears of his constituents about the management and operation of the existing open children's home in Limb lane in Dore in his constituency, and about Sheffield city council's proposals to locate a children's secure unit on the same site.

I was grateful to meet my hon. Friend and a number of his constituents last week to hear their concerns at first hand, and perhaps that answers one of my hon. Friend's questions. We certainly welcomed the opportunity to hear direct from my hon. Friend's constituents, and to listen to the points which they had to make. They had disturbing stories to relate about the nuisance caused by residents of the existing open children's home at Dore, and I do not underestimate the genuineness of their concerns. I listened then, and I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has had to say today.

My hon. Friend made a number of references to planning matters, and I know that he will understand when I say that I will refer the points to my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. If the planning application goes to appeal, I am sure that the location of the proposed project within the green belt will be one of the factors which my right hon. Friend would wish to take into account in reaching any decision which he is required to make.

While I may not be able to intervene in the way in which my hon. Friend and his constituents might wish, we do take seriously the concerns which have been expressed, and we shall look carefully to see whether their fears for the proposed secure unit are well founded.

As my hon. Friend has explained, Sheffield city council's proposal is to provide an eight-place secure unit in the grounds of the existing children's home at Dore on the outskirts of the city. I understand that the council selected the site as offering the best potential—as it saw it—for a secure development after a careful appraisal of a number of possible locations, to which my hon. Friend has referred and which are owned by the council in and around Sheffield.

My hon. Friend referred to the question of the council owning the land. That is quite true, because the money paid by the Department covers buildings and the refurbishment of those buildings for its potential proposed use, but not purchase of land. That is why there would be the limitation that is perceived by the city council.

What would happen if a site was rented or leased by the council? Would that be a way forward? Does a site have to be wholly owned by the council before any grant comes from the Department of Health?

We are looking for the council to develop proposals on land which it does own. The council probably would not consider the option of purchasing land to place in its ownership, because the cost would not be recoverable under the budgets which we are providing.

The proposal is one of 20 similar projects throughout the country which are required to increase the national stock of secure facilities by some 170 additional places for criminal justice purposes. The project is intended to fill a significant gap in the current provision of secure facilities in South Yorkshire and—as my hon. Friend said—I mentioned in my letter that, at present, the only other secure facilities in the Yorkshire and Humberside region are at Leeds to the north and Hull to the east.

I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on such matters, but the council does own redundant schools near the motorway and the Don valley area. Why is none of these mentioned in the report? Why has the Department of Health not asked whether there are other buildings available?

It is not for the Department to start hunting around for options or to suggest that the council should look for further options. We can proceed only on the basis that the council has a responsibility to look around for sites for which it has access, and on which it proposes to build and run a secure unit. My hon. Friend's question therefore would be better directed at the city council, to see whether it has other proposals which it could consider.

In part, the national programme forms an integral element of the Government's plans to tackle the problem of persistent young offenders, and it complements the Home Secretary's programme to provide a network of secure training places for sentenced 12 to 14-year-olds by ensuring that local authorities will be in a position to comply with court requirements that certain remanded juveniles be removed from the streets and placed in secure accommodation.

To that extent, one of the underlying purposes of the capital programme is to tackle the very problems that concern my hon. Friend and his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) is a former Sheffield city councillor, and she and I know this matter like the proverbial back of our hands, as I was a councillor on Sheffield city council for 20 years. If, even at this late stage, Sheffield said that it had a redundant school that would be a better option, could that be considered?

I do not know the back of my hon. Friends' hands, but I acknowledge that, if the proposal came forward, it would be for Sheffield council to bring it forward and put in a proposal for both the programme and planning consent. That is certainly permissible.

I am pleased to tell the House that local authorities are generally making good progress in taking this capital programme forward. Tenders for four projects have already been let and a number of other programmes will go out to tender in the next few months. All but four of the proposed schemes have already received planning permission or are not anticipating planning difficulties. There is therefore every expectation that the bulk of the programme will be completed during 1996.

The provision of secure accommodation is the statutory responsibility of local authorities. As with any other form of local authority home, the authority must follow statutory procedure for seeking planning consent. I understand that a planning application has been lodged by the social services department, and is currently being considered by the relevant local statutory committee. As such, my hon. Friend will understand that it would not be proper for my Department to attempt to influence what is a local and democratic decision.

That does not mean that we do not take a close and active interest in proposed schemes. Indeed, I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend—and, through him, his constituents—that, if the application for planning permission is granted, we shall work closely with Sheffield social services department to ensure that the highest standards of safety and security are incorporated into the building.

We shall do that in a number of ways. As a matter of routine, my officials will be involved in advising and supporting the authority throughout the planning and design process. That would be achieved primarily by a member of my Department's social services inspectorate working alongside the project team. The advice and support of technical staff in the NHS who specialise in that area of work will also be available to the authority.

Even with that close support during the planning process, the authority will not be able to use the building as secure accommodation without first seeking the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In considering those matters, she is supported by advice from the Department's social services inspectorate.

Again, I reassure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State would not wish to approve the opening of the premises unless and until she was totally satisfied with both the standard of safety and security provided, and the quality of the management and supervision of the residents.

Once opened, the unit would be visited regularly by the social services inspectorate both with and without notice, with a major inspection every three years to ensure that standards were maintained. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have no hesitation in withdrawing her approval at any time if there was an unacceptable diminution in those standards. In reaching such decisions, my right hon. Friend would wish to take into account not only the safety and security of the residents but the potential risks to the public.

I am pleased to assure the House, as I hope I reassured my hon. Friend's constituents the other day, that local authority secure units have a commendable record in containing children safely and securely. It is rare for them to cause concern to residents in the areas where they are located.

I fully accept, however, that my hon. Friend's prime concern and that of his constituents is the difficulty caused by residents in the open part of the home at Limb lane. I also accept that, ideally, they want the whole campus relocated elsewhere, although the number of children accommodated in open conditions would be reduced to four if the secure unit went ahead.

As I said earlier, while the Department cannot intervene in the location of premises, I take seriously the concerns about lack of control of residents. For our part, I am asking my Department's social services inspectorate to discuss with the director of social services for Sheffield what further steps could be taken to improve the quality of management and supervision of residents at Limb lane. In addition, I am sure that the director of social services would wish to consider extremely carefully the points made by my hon. Friend and myself in today's debate.

The problems are happening now. I quoted an article showing that only last week people were breaking out, and the police were asking what could be done. Cannot something be done immediately to ensure that that stops?

It is precisely because of my hon. Friend's concerns and because he sent me the most recent report in his local newspaper on the problems at the home in the village of Dore that I have said clearly that, following this debate, I shall draw attention, through my social services inspectorate and its discussions with the director of social services, to the points made by my hon. Friend, the points which he submitted to me in writing and my response.

I hope that it is clearly understood that that is a message to the authorities in Sheffield that I want the problems caused to local people by residents of the home to be tackled now. In particular, I want to be satisfied that the authority has reviewed its policies on control and discipline of young people in its care, in the light of the clear guidance on permissible forms of control in children's residential care homes which we issued in April 1993, as well as what has been said during today's debate.

I wish to make it clear to my hon. Friend, the Sheffield authorities and the people of Sheffield who may be concerned about the extent to which staff of such homes can control young people in their care in open homes or any other form of accommodation that the Government and the whole House would expect all staff in children's homes to take positive action to prevent children from running away or running amok.

Staff should not hesitate to take the appropriate action to prevent a child from injuring himself or herself, or another child or person, be it a member of staff or someone outside the home, or damaging property. They should not shrink from using physical restraint on those children when necessary. They should also remember that external doors can be locked in exactly the same way as one would lock the doors of one's own home to keep children in and intruders out.

It is important to say a word about some of the initiatives that we are taking to make residential care for children a positive placement choice, providing proper care for children rather than the dustbin which some people had come to regard as the sole purpose of residential care. On Friday in this House, I was pleased to present awards for good and innovative practice in residential child care, sponsored by Advancement of Residential Child Care—ARCC—and Care Weekly. I am anxious to raise the morale and the standing of staff who work in residential child care. That can come about only if good practice reigns, and if bad practice is rooted out.

We have had some valuable reports on this subject, including those from Sir William Utting and Norman Warner. We have acted on them; we have been supported in our efforts by the Association of Directors of Social Services. We know that, over the past 15 years or so, there has been a significant reduction in the number of children in residential care. Many of those who remain are older than such children used to be, and resident children with emotional difficulties and disturbed behaviour live together in greater concentrations than before.

I do not underestimate the difficulties faced by staff in providing the right care for these children. Many come from disadvantaged backgrounds; many have experienced multiple placements; many have been physically or emotionally abused. Whatever we might aspire to, children's homes can never be replicas of family homes. It is therefore important that they be managed so as to ensure they play a positive part in meeting the needs of vulnerable children.

Successive reports have commented on the good work being undertaken by dedicated and committed staff, but they also point to many examples of poor or inattentive management: too many unqualified staff left inadequately trained, supervised and managed to deal with difficult children. That is why we set up the residential child care support force, under the leadership of Adrianne Jones. It has been encouraging to see the response of local authorities, which welcome the help given them by the support force to improve the management and quality of their residential child care services.

The support force has developed a substantial agenda. It includes looking at the effectiveness of pre-placement assessments, developing a strategic planning framework for local authorities to use on their own or in collaboration with other authorities, developing effective relationships between education and social services departments, and looking at models of staff management and supervision.

I am well aware that the main effort towards and responsibility for achieving change in residential child care lies with the purchasers, the planners and the providers. For our part, we have promoted the residential child care initiative, which has thus far enabled about 400 senior officers from the local authority residential child care sector to study for a diploma in social work.

To help to combat the often negative image of residential child care, in collaboration with other agencies such as Barnardo's we have developed communications strategies designed to increase understanding and recognition of the positive contribution that residential child care makes to certain groups of young people.

In 1993, our social services inspectorate published "Corporate Parents", a report of inspections of child care services in 11 local authorities. It described a high incidence of children's absence without authority—a point that we heard several times today—from the homes visited. Although all homes had procedures to be followed in the case of absence of a child, there was little in the way of good practice guidance.

Furthermore, in very few authorities were there management monitoring systems to establish the number of absent children, the pattern of absence or the reasons for their running away. The report accordingly recommended that local authorities establish monitoring systems. A forthcoming set of standards for residential child care services, prepared by the SSI, will stress the need for children who run away to be offered a chance to speak to a person independent of the home. The home should also have positive practices for receiving a returning child, so that he or she will be encouraged to remain.

None of these initiatives can necessarily produce immediate results, but I wanted to show my hon. Friend that the Government take this subject seriously. If children are to receive the necessary care, affection and discipline in children's homes, it is important that these initiatives succeed. If they do not, what we have described here today is unlikely to improve. That would not be acceptable to my hon. Friend or me, or—most importantly—to the children or their families and to those in the neighbourhoods in which they live.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight), who has been listening intently and who knows Sheffield well, may not be completely satisfied by what they have heard me say today. I hope, however, that I have been able to convince him that I take his concerns seriously; and that, to the extent to which it is in the gift of the Department to do so, I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that we shall look carefully at the child care regime at the open children's home in Dore, and at the proposals and procedures for secure accommodation, if it is offered. If planning permission for a secure unit at Limb lane is granted, we shall ensure that it is designed with the protection of the residents, both internal and local, fully in mind.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of casualty services in south London. I am chiefly concerned about the services provided at King's College hospital in Denmark Hill. I am also concerned about how current proposals for other hospitals are likely to impact on that hospital.

The other proposals that I have mentioned are, first, the closure of the accident and emergency service at Greenwich general hospital. Secondly, there is the closure of the A and E service at Brook general hospital—both services are to be transferred to the military hospital at Woolwich. Thirdly, there is the absolute closure of the A and E service at Guy's hospital, which currently takes about 60,000 emergency cases a year.

There are already some restrictions on access to casualty services at Guy's. Restricting admissions from GPs there is already beginning to have an impact on the casualty services of other hospitals of south London, not least King's College.

Hospitals nowadays have to make two judgments. They have to make a financial judgment about the work for which they will tender as well as a medical judgment about the work that they are capable of performing. I am afraid that sometimes the financial drive to gain part of the market in health services may throw into doubt the medical judgments that are made.

To give some idea of the flavour of the problem, I offer a summary of an independent report, recently published in summary in the South London Press on 16 December. We learn that serious doubt has been cast on plans to axe the major casualty department at Guy's. The report says that the overspill of patients from the closure of the unit at Guy's could prove too much for the neighbouring St. Thomas's hospital at Waterloo, according to an independent study by top consultants KPMG Peat Marwick. The report goes on to say that the NHS has little experience of closures of such a large unit; Guy's serves about 60,000 patients a year. The report describes how the displacement of patients, combined with the probable move of services from the other two hospitals I have mentioned, is likely to push St. Thomas's above the 100,000-a-year patient limit.

I shall now discuss King's College hospital. The report, which was commissioned by the Save Guy's Campaign, but which is nevertheless wholly independent, expresses anxiety about whether King's College hospital and Lewisham hospital would be able to cope with increased numbers of patients. King's College hospital is my main concern, although I shall mention others in south London in passing.

King's takes about 70,000 accident and emergency cases a year, of which 14,000 involve what are called accidents at home, at work or at leisure—there appear to be a large number of leisure accidents—and about 1,600 result from road accidents. I say to the Minister that there is strong evidence that King's College hospital is unable to cope with the number of accident and emergency cases that it receives at the moment, let alone with any increment that would result from the closure of Guy's casualty department or closures further afield.

Why do I say that? The present building is not reassuring. I do not pretend to quote exactly, but I think that it was described by John Pilger as being rather like a front line in a war zone. It is outdated and cramped, and a poor relation of the advanced services that are provided at King's College hospital. In its present condition, its physical facilities compare poorly with those at Guy's or St. Thomas's or St. George's—another hospital in south London. I appreciate that it is being rebuilt at the moment, that it is improving, and that most patients are "triaged", or analysed, by a nurse within five minutes of arriving. I think that it is up to almost 100 per cent. However, being analysed by a nurse within five minutes of arrival at hospital is not the same thing as being treated.

I do not want to denigrate the hospital or to detract from the efforts of the staff there, but I remain worried about its ability to cope with its present volume of work, let alone the increase that might come about as a result of the closure of Guy's. I do not think that it is capable of withstanding the pressures that might accrue from any further closures.

As a starting point for making that judgment, let me quote, not from the Peat Marwick report, but from a report that was published by the Minister's Department in 1992, when there was an inquiry into casualty services at King's College hospital following tragic cases, some of which involved my constituents. The report first recognises—as I do—that the accident and emergency department at King's is being rebuilt, but it says:

"Rehousing the department is necessary but not sufficient. If King's College Hospital do not alter the circumstances in which the accident and emergency department has to operate, staff will find it difficult to provide a good quality service and patients will still be at risk. The accident and emergency department staff have much to do to prepare for the difficulties they face as the department is being refashioned around them and for the challenge of functioning efficiently in the new environment. Preparation should start soon; it should include a rigorous review of operational policies, medical and nursing records, manuals, procedures"

and so on.

I think that the crucial paragraph in the summary of the report describes the conditions in casualty in 1992. On the subject of management decisions, the report says:

"we think that they ought to have been taken sooner. It ought not to have been necessary to set up an external inquiry to ensure that the hospital and the health authority took action. All clinicians and managers at King's ought to have seen as their concern the unacceptable conditions for patients in the accident and emergency department. The Community Health Council's record of complaints received from patients highlights the distress and dismay of patients and relatives who have encountered these conditions.

The failure to grapple with those problems is a failure of the whole organisation.

Experience has shown that at King's it will require unremittingly determined management to make sure that these problems do not recur."

That was 1992, and it is beyond question that there was anxiety then. However, two years later, one is entitled to examine the performance and to acknowledge that there has been an improvement, but to say that shortcomings remain in that performance, which call into question putting any extra pressure on that hospital until it is able to cope with its existing problems.

To describe what I regard as continuing inadequacies, I first draw from a publication called "Casualty Watch", which is published by Southwark community health council. It takes half a day, one day a month, and considers how long it takes people to be treated in the accident and emergency department at King's. The day chosen for most of the following material is 28 November.

A 93-year-old woman waited eight hours, 24 minutes in casualty following an epileptic fit before a decision was made to admit. That is far too long.

On the same day, a man of 53 waited six and a half hours in casualty with a collapsed lung. I know something about that condition because 32 years ago I went to the same hospital group with a collapsed lung. That was before the days of high technology and concentration, when Dulwich hospital was open, and I was admitted to a ward almost immediately. I think that that was the last time that I was treated as an in-patient in a hospital. For a man of 53 with a collapsed lung, six and a half hours is far too long to have to wait.

To show that there are pressures elsewhere in the system, on the same day a patient waited six hours for admission to St. Thomas's hospital. I saw some figures yesterday, 19 December, showing that another patient had to wait six and a half hours in Guy's. If Guy's is closed and pressure is put on other hospitals which already have long waiting periods, what will be the consequence?

Some people say that if Guy's is closed patients can be sent north of the river. That means sending them in an ambulance through the Rotherhithe tunnel where a blockage could result in an equal period of waiting.

I have mentioned "Casualty Watch", but I am bound to cite some individual cases, not least because a number of constituents have asked me to raise them in the debate.

I start with the case of Miss Maloney, the correspondence about which arose in February 1993. Miss Maloney was brought to King's College hospital on 1 February 1993 suffering from injuries sustained in a fall outside her warden-controlled flat. She first attended the casualty department at 9.20 am. She had suffered a number of small strokes and had high blood pressure problems. In the afternoon, it was decided that she was fit to go home. In a letter to me a relative of hers says:

"She was very unsteady on her feet and we had to get a taxi as no other means of transport was offered".

Miss Maloney returned to her warden-controlled accommodation, but the warden was extremely alarmed at her condition and telephoned the general practitioner who telephoned the casualty department requesting an ambulance immediately to return her to the casualty department at King's College, having first established that a bed would be available.

Miss Maloney arrived at the hospital at 6.15 pm, but no doctor examined her until 9.30 pm. Her son arrived and stayed until 4 am. In the same letter her relative says:

"I apologise for the lengthy description of events, but feel that two pages of writing is not too much to read compared with a 79 year old lady spending approx. 29 hours on a hospital trolley."

I come next to the case of Mr. Moffatt. I shall not go into any great detail, but simply quote what the hospital said about his case:

"It is quite unacceptable that patients should be kept waiting for admission in the Accident and Emergency Department for 22 hours but it has got nothing to do with the cutting back of hospitals, or for that matter closing wards … In fact we … have opened more than 30 beds in the last few weeks to try to deal with the unprecedented increase in emergency cases that have been coming through our doors."

That is all very well, but there is no mention of how many beds have been closed before those 30 beds were opened. To be fair, the hospital goes on to blame the local authority for the time that it takes to take patients out of care at King's College hospital, particularly when they are elderly.

It is often argued that the problem with accident and emergency services is that under community care the local authority does not take patients out of hospital quickly enough. But there are dangers in getting patients out of hospital as soon as possible. An example of that was given in an article in the South London Press on 16 December. It reads:

"Last Friday the South London Press highlighted the case of bedridden Lilian West (84) who died alone in her Herne Hill home without support. She had been released from hospital two days earlier and taken home by ambulance without a message reaching Southwark social services."

I am not talking about Lambeth council.

"Mrs. West was found dead by her doctor on November 25. She had died from bronchial pneumonia."

A great deal of care needs to be taken to ensure that people who leave hospital under those circumstances, particularly the elderly, will go to a safe environment and will not have to come back very quickly, as happened in the previous case.

There is yet another case. I quote now from a letter from King's College hospital. It reads:

"I would like to begin by offering my condolences on the loss of your daughter and sincere apologies for the distress both you and your daughter were caused by the lengthy wait for admission to a hospital bed from the Accident and Emergency Department."

That was February 1994. Again, I do not want to quote too much, but just give a flavour. The hospital—not the relatives—says:

"She left the Accident and Emergency Department for the ward at 12.00 noon on 5 January, ten and a half hours after a decision to admit her had been taken and 16 hours after her arrival in the Department. I can only apologise for what is an unacceptable delay."

I come to yet another case, a Mrs. Harmer. A constituent who wrote to me said:

"On the day of her admission she was given reasonably prompt care and attention by the medical staff in the Accident and Emergency Unit and I left her later that day having been assured that she would be admitted to a ward by the evening. On telephoning …at 9.00 pm I was shocked to receive the news that she was still in the Emergency Unit and, in fact, she remained there until the early afternoon of the next day. She had, therefore, spent a total of 27 hours on a hospital trolley bed in the Accident and Emergency Unit which was, for most of that time, extremely busy and cramped"—

as anybody visiting the department at King's College hospital would know—

"and where her own health was put at further risk by the stress of such an environment and the physical discomfort she suffered."

In response the hospital said that it was its standard

"to admit patients"—

to the wards—

"within 4 hours … In your mother's case a decision to admit was made at 18.30."

It said that the

"Accident Department treated 201 patients of whom 41 required admission one of the highest numbers admitted during the month of January."

That was January 1994. It goes on to say:

"Again I am sorry that Mrs. Harmer waited such an excessive length of time in the Accident Department."

I am afraid that the list just goes on and on. There is the case of Mrs. Crowley. She had been taken to hospital after being mugged. She was discharged back to her own home. There is some disagreement about the medical judgment, but her GP felt that she should not have been sent home. I shall now quote from the rather sad paragraph of the letter from the hospital:

"However, the GP subsequently wrote to the hospital on 20 January, to confirm that he wished Mrs. Crowley to be readmitted to hospital as it was proving difficult to manage her at home. She was admitted on 21 January and, as you know, sadly died on 4 February from acute peritonitis and a ruptured bowel."

That is a case of "Let us vacate the hospital bed", and shows a difference in judgment between the accident and emergency department and the local GP.

I was talking yesterday to my local community health council. It gave me further examples, all arising in 1994. In January 1994, a 90-year-old woman was received at King's College hospital. She had fallen at home, injuring her hip, and was admitted at 10.10 at night, where she remained on a trolley until 5.30 pm on 27 January 1994—a period of 21 hours—having received minimal care and a small amount of painkillers.

The patient has asked for confidentiality, so I will not, therefore, quote the name. I raised the matter with the hospital and with the South East London health authority. Its comment is somewhat surprising. It said:

"Whilst I would not wish to underestimate the seriousness of the situation at King's it is worth noting that other local providers such as Lewisham, other parts of London and our Region, indeed in England as a whole, are undergoing similar pressures about which we know very little."

I do not find it reassuring to be told by the health authority that such problems exist not only at King's College hospital but all over the country and that the reason for them is not understood. The letter continues:

"We are trying to piece this together so that we can make sense of the whole."

Let us remember that this is in the context of a proposal to close a major casualty department. It states:

"I am determined that we get to the bottom of what is happening so that the proper arrangements to guarantee our residents a decent service can be made."

I am not reassured by that.

The Minister may be aware of an unfortunate incident that occurred in June this year. The London Evening Standard reported:

"The Department of Health has furiously denied yesterday's story in the Evening Standard about how a war veteran was left dying on a trolley at a London teaching hospital until his family offered to pay for a private bed."

There was some dispute about whether the family was required to pay, but the incident nevertheless reveals a lamentable state of affairs.

I have details of yet another case of a woman left on a trolley from lunchtime on 17 March of this year until 7 pm the following day. Most of the cases that I have mentioned involve constituents who have come to my advice surgeries. I have not trawled through such cases in order to tell horror stories, but I suggest that the catalogue of incidents must prove that the hospital is not yet ready to have further pressures placed on it.

I acknowledge that King's College hospital is aware of its failings. I know that its buildings are inadequate and that that is not the hospital's fault because it inherited them. The hospital is doing what it can and is building a new accident department, but it would be dangerous to close Guy's and Greenwich hospitals until King's College hospital is up to standard. It has not yet learnt to live with what is from time to time a deficient ambulance service and a community care service that leaves much to be desired.

Most people go to hospital only as a result of an accident or an emergency. They are entitled to an ambulance service that is quick and reliable, which is not always the case in London. They are also entitled to prompt, reliable and effective treatment and to be discharged into secure surroundings, especially if they are elderly or mentally distressed. In the present circumstances, those rights will be abrogated or put at severe risk until there is an improvement in services at the casualty department at King's College hospital. Until there is an improvement in the ability of other casualty departments in south London to cope, it would be wrong to proceed with the present proposals. The Minister needs to tackle the problems that I have outlined. I wish the hospital well. I want it to succeed, but I have a duty to my constituents to express their concerns.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) on raising a matter of great importance to his constituents and those of surrounding areas in south-east London. I thank him for the constructive way in which he outlined the problems and must apologise for the disturbance caused when a pair of crutches belonging to a Government Whip which had been placed on the Table—not for the debate but for other purposes—fell off. That perhaps serves to remind us that even the Whips Office is vulnerable to the type of accidents that we are debating.

I am certainly aware of the difficulties that existed and which, according to the hon. Gentleman's evidence, continue to occur from time to time at King's College hospital's accident and emergency department. One of the first things that I had to do as a Minister in 1992 on a trip around the regions was to go to a studio in the midlands to discuss the tragic case of a lady who had died following a wait on a trolley at King's. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, efforts have been made since then to try to ensure that the A and E department at King's is able to deal with the enormous demands placed on it by the local population and the way in which health is dealt with in London. I say that advisedly; we are all aware that because of the weaknesses in primary care that have grown up in London there is enormous pressure on accident and emergency departments.

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is an £8 million building programme in progress at King's. It has been difficult to advance that as quickly as we would have liked, for the simple reason that it has to take place around the existing department, so that people are sitting in what may sometimes seem to be a building site. There have been great attempts to ensure that the quality of care is kept up, despite those difficulties, but the new facilities will not be ready as soon as we would wish.

Apart from that investment there have also been considerable efforts to prevent problems such as trolley waits occurring unnecessarily. This year the demand for emergency admissions at King's has increased by more than 10 per cent. in terms of numbers of attendances, and I shall return to that subject later. However, the hospital now believes that, thanks to the efforts of the clinical staff and of management, it is now constantly achieving about 85 per cent. of admissions within four hours of the decision to admit.

The overall performance on discharge has improved too, with increases in day care and day work. That has enabled King's to reduce lengths of stay in hospital by 10 per cent., and occupancy to 90 per cent. Many of the cases that the hon. Gentleman cited are indeed shocking and should not have occurred. Efforts will continue to be made to avoid such long trolley waits in future; it is fair to say that such problems are probably more severe at King's than at any other hospital in the country.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a letter that he had received from the health authority referring him to the overall problems caused by increases in demand for accident and emergency services and admissions to hospital. All around the country, especially last winter and in recent months, there have been sharp rises in the numbers of emergency admissions; it is not known for sure what the causes are.

There may be some social or demographic factors, or the increase may have something to do with asthma or bronchitis—last winter the onset of 'flu was certainly a big factor. However, it is not 100 per cent. known what has caused the increase in emergency admissions all over the country. Much work is being done to establish the causes so that, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave, we can plan. We need to know what is likely to be the future demand on A and E departments.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned problems on discharge. Certainly there have been instances, many in London, of insufficient co-ordination between hospitals and social services departments so that people have not been properly looked after when they got home. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that all those instances are avoidable; they do not necessarily arise from questions of resources, whatever anyone may say. What matters is achieving good organisation in social services and in the hospitals so that the two work closely together. No one should be discharged from hospital without adequate provision being made for them when they get home, and I am sorry to hear about some of the cases that the hon. Gentleman has described.

There are bound to be changes in A and E provision both in London and in the rest of the country. It is increasingly being recognised that A and E departments are high-tech, in the sense that they need all the best equipment, and to have all the clinical specialties concentrated within them, so that as much as possible can be done for the seriously ill people who arrive there.

The hon. Gentleman may be aware of the trauma centre at Stoke, which is still experimental in the sense that it is a pilot project. There is round-the-clock consultant cover. It appears from studies that dozens and possibly hundreds of lives have been saved by taking people to that centre rather than to local district hospitals where a team can be assembled which can ensure that very seriously ill people and particularly trauma cases from serious accidents can benefit from all the necessary facilities together and ready. Paramedics call forward by radio to alert crash teams. That is likely to be a feature of the future. We must be aware that it will entail concentration of accident and emergency facilities in some hospitals.

The hon. Gentleman rightly issued a warning that proposed closures of accident and emergency units elsewhere might put too much pressure on, for example, St. Thomas's and King's. We shall watch that closely. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance, which has been given before, that closures will not take place until adequate provision has been made elsewhere. In London that is a case of not only the considerable investment that is being made in improved accident and emergency facilities at King's, Lewisham and St. Thomas's, to name but three, but desperately needed improvements in primary care so that more of the people who attend accident and emergency units inappropriately either go to doctors or attend minor injury units elsewhere.

It has been stated that perhaps up to 25 per cent. of all who attend large units such as King's could probably be better treated elsewhere. That is not to blame the public but to point out that we are not using resources efficiently and that we must make other facilities available. I have heard from London ambulance personnel—those who are in the front line driving ambulances— that the figure may be even higher than 25 per cent. in London and that we need to do a great deal to ensure that people do not attend accident and emergency units inappropriately. The result of their doing so is unacceptable delays. We need to get on with the large investment that is being made in primary care in the London area.

I conclude by reassuring the hon. Gentleman that we will not close accident and emergency units without making adequate provision. We shall continue to ensure that those who need better primary care and facilities other than accident and emergency units have those services provided. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the cases that he raised in the debate to my attention. If he wishes to give me others in which he would like the names to be kept confidential, I should be happy to look into them.

"My son is sick," she said, "please can you help me." The woman opposite me in my advice bureau, a middle-aged mother like myself, was clearly very worried. Her son, she explained, was a professional soldier who was still serving. He had a distinguished career behind him and had several years before retirement. He had served in all the trouble spots, including Northern Ireland, but since he had returned from Operation Granby in the Gulf he had not been well. In deference to her wishes, his identity is confidential. There are several similar families in my area. Their efforts are being co-ordinated by a former soldier, Terry Walker, of Littleover in Derby. Terry is unwell, but has been unable to obtain an accurate diagnosis or explanation.

We talked about the issue on Remembrance Sunday around my kitchen table at home. The families convinced me that Gulf war syndrome, as it has been dubbed, is genuine. If that is right, the way in which the Gulf veterans complaining of it have been dealt with so far is a national disgrace.

I shall rehearse a few facts that, I hope, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will accept. The forces sent to the Gulf were facing an enemy known to be equipped with chemical and biological weapons, and not averse to using them. It was essential to protect the troops as effectively as possible. Everything that occurred was carried out with the best motives—there is no argument about that—but good motives are not a substitute for good practice.

What appears to have happened? First, the troops were given an astonishing range of injections, which included two types of anthrax, plague, pertussis, polio, cholera, botulism, typhoid, hepatitis and yellow fever: nine within four days. I understand that the Minister has since admitted that they were also given injections against meningitis and tetanus, which brings the total to 11.

Several of the injections were given jointly. The pertussis vaccine was given to enhance the effectiveness of the plague vaccine. One soldier counted 27 injections before leaving England. There was no choice in the matter. Richard Turnbull, ex-RAF, told the Channel 4 "Critical Eye" programme, broadcast on 13 October this year, that station routine orders were issued stating that disciplinary action would be taken against any refusers.

It is not unusual to give vaccines conjointly, but by any standards this was an untried cocktail. In response to one of the many parliamentary questions that I tabled to the Minister asking what independent research he had commissioned into the possible after-effects of inoculation against the various diseases, he said:

"None. All known vaccine interactions are published in standard medical text books and the British national formulary."

My hon. Friend the Minister should try reading the British National Formulary—it lists only three vaccines: influenza, rabies and typhoid, which are all shown as interacting with certain drugs, including treatment for asthma and anti-malaria tablets. Most of the concern in the BNF is that the vaccine may be rendered useless if other drugs are in use—it is not looking particularly at the exacerbation of side-effects.

According to the BNF, the anthrax vaccine is supposed to be administered by four injections with intervals of three weeks between the first, second and third injections and six months until the fourth. That is not the pattern that many war veterans report—everything was done with far greater haste. In any case, the plague vaccine was not licensed for widespread use in that way. It was available only on a named doctor-named patient basis, as were the nerve agent pre-treatment set tablets. It is no wonder that neither treatment is in the BNF—like thalidomide, the products were regarded as too dangerous for general use.

The nerve agent pre-treatment set—a chemical whose correct title is pyridostygmine bromide, a carbonate closely related to organo-phosphorus compounds—had to be taken every eight hours for the whole time that someone was in the Gulf. It was not licensed for general use at the time and still is not. It appears to have been thoroughly nasty stuff and is the main target of complaints in the United States of America. It caused violent side-reactions and many subjects quickly stopped taking it.

Therefore, we have two aspects—injections and NAPS—but there are more possible contributory factors. Other organo-phosphorus compounds were in common use, including malathion as a delouser, and a product called DEET—diethyltoluamide—which is used against sandflies. My hon. Friend the Minister may well tell me that malathion is found in head lice shampoo, but one is not supposed to breathe it in. Various chemicals were used against rotting animal corpses and garbage, which can themselves give rise to infections.

There was widespread atmospheric pollution due to the burning of oil wells, to which many soldiers were exposed for months on end. We in Derbyshire know that, among the products of incomplete combustion of hydrocarbons is the killer chemical, dioxin. There was at least one possible chemical attack on 20 January 1991, witnessed by many of the troops, and perhaps more. American veterans have testified that some of the dead Iraqi soldiers that they brought in had few marks on their clothes, but badly blistered and burned flesh—the hallmarks of chemical attack, including by mustard gas. Not surprisingly, those who handled the contamination became sick themselves.

I add two other possible factors. First, however safe a single injection or exposure might be, in combination the results could be highly dangerous. The presence of minute quantities of certain compounds can make proteins more active and serious damage is therefore that much more likely. Secondly, there may also be susceptible individuals. I am an asthmatic. The gene that gives rise to asthma is quite common— it is present in about one third of the British population. It also causes hay fever, rhinitis, eczema and related conditions, all involving heightened reactions to outside stimuli.

I have a mild allergic reaction to certain things. My daughter had contra-indications for the pertussis vaccine and she did not have it. Anything can trigger the problems, particularly in a subject who is in stressful circumstances as these men and women were.

When I asked the Minister whether any links with asthma or hay fever had been investigated, he answered that individuals with a history of asthma

"could be susceptible to one of the protective measures, NAPS, the active constituent of which is pyridostigmine bromide".

He continued:

"However, asthma is generally not compatible with service in the armed forces and potential recruits with a history of this condition would not be accepted for service".—[0fficiai Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 305–307]

He appears to be saying that no one who carries the gene could possibly have been in the Gulf. That is rubbish, particularly when we take into account all the civilians who were present. I questioned one of my constituents about whether there was any asthma or a tendency to hay fever in the family and the answer was yes.

In a recent debate in the other place on 12 December, in answer to a question from the Countess of Mar, the relevant Minister, the noble Lord Henley, stated that full research on all the protective products had taken place at the Ministry of Defence's own establishment at Porton Down. That is the only place that does such research and much of its work, I think quite rightly, is classified.

Tests were conducted on healthy volunteers for two weeks at a time. They were then paid £200 and returned to their regiments. One must observe that that was hardly a sound basis for treating thousands of men and women who were taking tablets for months on end under battle orders. Given the amount of junk pumped into the soldiers, we should not be surprised if some developed illnesses, the symptoms of which have persisted long after their return from the Gulf. It would have made medical history if no side-effects had resulted.

In the United States of America, several investigations have been under way at Senate level. One conducted by Senator John D. Rockefeller of the Congress Committee on Veterans' Affairs recently branded the US Government's usage of the products in this way as "reckless".

I can appreciate the difficulties involved. The conditions that have been dubbed "Gulf war syndrome" seem to fall into various categories that tend, confusingly, to produce similar symptoms.

Some illnesses appear to be associated with an infective agent. Dr. Vivien Lane, formerly senior medical officer at RAF Stafford, nursed a group of sick soldiers who had been invalided out of the Gulf. She fell seriously ill herself and required intensive care. She has since suffered from chronic sickness, weakness and fatigue, chest pains, skin sores and severe debilitation. Three years later, she is still poorly. A visit to America revealed the presence of large numbers of unknown bacteria in her urine. Intensive antibiotic treatment has helped. She never, at any time, visited the Gulf.

The Library informs me that some US veterans have been diagnosed as suffering from leishmania tropica. So far, 12 have shown evidence of a new strain—viscerotropic leishmaniasis— which does not show up in ordinary blood tests. It is at least possible that the bacteria mutated in the exotic circumstances that I have described.

There are also psychiatric conditions: depression and intense anxiety. Some men seemed to get high when taking the NAPS tablets, while others developed explosive rages or bouts of uncharacteristic aggression. Some soldiers have been referred to psychiatrists and others were told that they were suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome.

No one appears to have noted that these symptoms are the recognised results of organo-phosphoric poisoning. The fact that exposure to certain chemicals can cause severe and persistent personality changes is known throughout the medical world, but not at the Ministry of Defence.

Still others seemed to have some form of neurological damage or a change to their immune systems. They reacted badly to something that they were given or to a combination of the vaccines, NAPS and other agents to which they were exposed. For some, the effect was immediate and catastrophic.

Corporal Robert Lake, formerly of the 11th Armoured Workshops, collapsed after an anthrax injection and was unable to breathe. He is now severely disabled. He is the first to receive a war pension because, in the view of the War Pensions Agency—although not yet of the Ministry of Defence—his condition was caused by the injections that he received.

Kevin Wilson of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers had a kidney infection, breathing problems and a persistent skin condition. Paul Ash, of the same regiment, was vomiting blood and still gets pains in his legs and sweats profusely on exertion. Eddie Blench, formerly of the 1st Armoured Division, also has aching joints, bruises easily, can walk only slowly and at one point lost his sight, which has only slowly returned. I was told that 20 of our local regimental band went out to the Gulf. In wartime, they are the field hospital orderlies. Four of the 20 have come back ill.

Yet, no one can tell those people what they are suffering from and no effective care pattern has been offered. Instead, medical records have been altered and, in several cases, requests for records have been ignored or denied.

To those men and women, the words of Colonel Box of the Defence Medical Services directorate are incomprehensible. I quote from correspondence with him, in which he said:

"There is absolutely no scientific or clinical evidence that a medical condition exists which is peculiar to the Gulf conflict."

Colonel Box's statement, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not repeat, is tantamount to saying that those veterans are mistaken. One soldier had "hypochondriac" written on his records. That is not merely deeply cruel and thus bad military practice—the wrong way to deal with sick soldiers—but bad medicine, too. The result of that extraordinary denial is all too apparent. The only people prepared to come forward are those who have left the armed forces. Those who wish to continue their careers face an impossible dilemma. If they seek help, they are officially branded as malingerers.

What should we do? Anecdotal evidence of the type that I have presented is clearly unsatisfactory. We need a proper inquiry, which could be conducted jointly by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Health. The objective would be to find out what the condition or conditions might be, as a first step towards treating the victims effectively. An investigation conducted by medical personnel of the highest standing would gain the confidence of all concerned. All the possibilities—infections, neurological conditions, psychological damage and all the multiple causes—must be checked out thoroughly.

With the national health service, the United Kingdom is in a unique position to perform medical research of that calibre, but the research must be thorough. Only if we have access to the whole population of sick people and they are all dealt with honestly and with a genuinely open mind, will we get to the bottom of the matter.

The Ministry of Defence can help by issuing regimental part I orders, insisting that anyone who has shown the symptoms must come forward. I am assured that, if they are ordered to do so, they will, and they will be secure in the knowledge that, by obeying orders, their future careers will be protected.

Sooner or later, the matter will be out in the open. More than 400 veterans are suing the Ministry of Defence and some have been granted legal aid. The Ministry is in the same position as the Department of Health found itself in over vaccine-damaged children and haemophiliacs infected by HIV. In both cases, Health Ministers recognised the inevitable. Treatment was guaranteed, compensation was paid and court cases, which are so distressing for all concerned and are of value only to the lawyers, were avoided.

My constituents tell me that all they want is diagnosis, care and treatment for the sick. I hope that Ministers can properly accede to that reasonable request. We could go a little further. In conjunction with the Americans, French, Canadians and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies, we could far better establish what precautionary treatment to give soldiers in the field of war and what to avoid. We will still need to protect our troops, but if we could develop better measures out of the current misery, all would benefit—the armed forces, the soldiers and their commanders and the causes for which they so willingly and bravely serve.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) for putting her case so powerfully and sensibly. I hope to deal with most of the points that she raised. She mentioned a number of very important matters, some of which she was good enough to inform me about in advance, for which I am grateful. I will do my best respond to those questions, but inevitably I shall take the opportunity to write to my hon. Friend on some of the details after the debate because of the time factor.

This is the first time that the matter has been debated on the Floor of the House, but it has been the subject of a considerable amount of interest in the past few years. I acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friend, whose constituent rightly came to see her to express concern.

First, I must say—my hon. Friend, who is a former and distinguished Minister at the Department of Health will know this—that the health of the members of our armed forces is clearly of paramount importance and a first and cardinal responsibility of the Government. I therefore want to begin by explaining the Department's involvement with the issue of what is alleged to be a medical syndrome which has become known as "desert storm syndrome" or "Gulf fever".

We first became aware of the claims that United States Gulf veterans were suffering from illnesses which they believed were due to their service in the Gulf conflict at the end of 1992. The symptoms claimed were numerous and diverse, and covered many that are commonly experienced among the general population. They included diarrhoea, hair loss, bleeding gums, breathing difficulties, joint pains and fatigue, but it was not until some months later that media reports surfaced in this country alleging that similar unexplained illnesses were being suffered by our troops.

The causes alleged to be responsible for the illnesses were diverse. They ranged from the use of depleted uranium shells, sandfly bites and smoke from Kuwaiti oil fires—as my hon. Friend rightly mentioned—to the medical protective measures rightly administered to the troops against the clearly and definitively assessed threat of chemical and biological warfare agents in the theatre. All those theories were examined fully by my Department's scientific and medical specialists, and no evidence was found of any harmful exposure of troops to those agents. Nor were the symptoms reported of the type which would be expected to result from such exposure.

From the outset, our medical specialists determined that the only way to establish whether there was a genuine health problem among the Operation Granby veterans that was peculiar to their service in the Gulf was by a systematic examination of all those complaining of the symptoms. Shortly after the initial reports, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), made vigorous public requests in the media for all those suffering from ill health which they believed to be due to their Gulf service to come forward at once for a medical examination. Those who had left the service were, for reasons of medical ethics, advised to seek referral through their GP. Service medical officers were also clearly directed to refer for assessment any serving patient who had been in the Gulf and was suffering from unexplained and inexplicable symptoms.

I should like to repeat that invitation once more. It is extremely important that concerned individuals come forward for examination.

Despite the appeals, by the end of 1993 fewer than 20 veterans had come forward or had been referred by medical officers. By mid-1994—a year after the initial request—the figure had risen to about 50. All those examined were, however, found to be suffering from recognised medical conditions, none of which was peculiar to service in the Gulf.

Despite the initial findings of our investigations, reports of veterans suffering from unexplained illnesses have continued to surface, and those have been reinforced by allegations from the families of Gulf veterans who were also suffering from ill health. Thorough investigations of the continuing allegations have revealed them to be a mixture of unsubstantiated rumour, incorrect information or a repetition of earlier allegations which have been fully investigated and found to be unsupported by the facts.

My Department's approach has continued to be to subject all the allegations to rigorous medical and scientific examination. Only in that way can an objective database be built up, from which increasingly firm conclusions about the existence or otherwise of a Gulf illness can be drawn.

To date, our investigations of all those issues have failed to establish scientific or medical evidence of the existence of an illness among Gulf veterans, or their families, peculiar to their Gulf service.

Since the middle of 1994, increasing numbers of veterans have come forward for examination under those arrangements. Rather than a medical phenomenon, it appears to be the result of a specific request that we made to solicitors representing some 440 veterans who, as my hon. Friend said, are potential claimants against my Department in seeking compensation for ill health which they claim is due to their Gulf service.

I find it rather difficult to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we are not getting a true picture of the problem as those who are serving are reluctant to come forward because of their anxieties that their employment and promotion prospects will be adversely affected. Having said that, my hon. Friend related her views about why she believed that is so, and I therefore give her my absolute personal assurance that those who come forward with genuine concerns about their health will be treated fairly and sympathetically and that their future prospects will in no way be jeopardised.

Medical officers in the services are much closer to their patients than a civilian GP, and if service personnel were suffering the debilitating symptoms claimed but not seeking help, their service doctors would soon become aware of it, as would, just as important, their immediate commanders who deal with them, see them and have them in the palm of their hands every day.

My hon. Friend suggests that one way of ensuring that more individuals come forward is to order them to do so. I understand her argument but do not believe that it is advisable or necessary to take such an extreme step. To do so would create unnecessary concern among service personnel and their families. We have said publicly, often and regularly that people will be treated sympathetically and in full medical confidence and I have repeated that assurance again today.

I shall now give more details of the medical assessment programme which we have been operating since the middle of 1993. To date and to ensure consistency, all those coming forward for assessment have been examined initially by the service consultant physician at the Princess Alexandra's RAF hospital, Wroughton, although other service consultants will be employed on initial examinations at times when the patient load requires it.

Under the assessment programme, each patient is examined as an individual and the examination tailored accordingly. Approximately 208 people have now come forward to enter the assessment programme and 67 have so far been assessed. The majority of those now being seen are from the group of potential claimants to which I referred.

I recognise that the rate of examination has not been as rapid as, ideally, it should have been, and have taken action to double the rate of assessments to 20 a week. The progress of the programme has, however, been hindered by a high proportion—about half—failing to turn up for their appointments. That is not only foolish but risks slowing down the work rate as a consequence, as my hon. Friend will know only too well because of her experience in the Department of Health.

All patients have a thorough medical examination, which includes taking a full medical history, blood tests, urinalysis, X-rays, ultrasound scans, electrocardiograms and vitalograph studies. If considered clinically necessary, further tests or referrals to other civilian or service consultants are then arranged depending on the patient's individual circumstances, and may include assessment of immune status or toxicological tests.

While the assessed patient sample has not yet been able to catch up fully with the recently increased numbers, there is still no evidence emerging of an unexplained illness peculiar to service in the Gulf.

The symptoms complained of are varied, often unverifiable by objective tests and most of them are commonly suffered by the general population. The only observable pattern to the symptoms seems to be a commonality, in about half the patients seen, of vague tiredness, fatigue and depressive-type symptoms, but with no evident link to Gulf service.

A recently published survey of psychiatric morbidity in Great Britain clearly demonstrates how common these symptoms are in the adult population: 27 per cent. complain of fatigue, 25 per cent. complain of sleep problems, 22 per cent. complain of irritability and 20 per cent. of general worry. I have no wish to diminish the importance of such complaints when they arise in Gulf veterans, for all symptoms are very real to the patient and must be taken seriously, but I am bound to point out this day-to-day background of common symptoms so that the issue is seen in its proper perspective.

There were 45,000 UK troops in the Gulf and it is a statistical inevitability that a proportion of them would have suffered illness, including the symptoms most commonly linked to the alleged syndrome, even if they had not gone to the Gulf.

Much concern has been expressed about the measures taken to protect service personnel from the assessed threat in the Gulf from Iraqi chemical and biological warfare agents. My hon. Friend dealt responsibly with that matter. To protect against nerve agents, servicemen were required to take one 30 mg tablet every eight hours from their nerve agent pre-treatment set, commonly known as NAPS.

The constituent drug of NAPS, pyridostigmine bromide, has been used for many years in civilian medicine in much larger doses over longer periods without long-term adverse health effects. NAPS was fully tested for safety and efficacy and has been granted a licence by the Medicines Control Agency.

My hon. Friend should be aware that it is licensed for use with very sick people suffering from myasthenia gravis. That is not exactly the same as giving it to healthy people.

I cannot deal with that point now, but I shall happily take it up with my hon. Friend when she comes to see me.

To counter the possible Iraqi use of biological warfare agents, vaccines to meet the assessed threat were offered to UK personnel on the basis of voluntary informed consent. I regret that I can neither give, nor confirm, details of the vaccination programme because they remain classified for operational reasons, in order to protect the position of our forces who might have to face a similar threat in future. I can assure my hon. Friend, though, that the vaccines had well-recognised civilian applications and were fully tested and cleared for use.

When judging our protective programmes, I ask my hon. Friend to recall, as I know she does, just how serious the threat from Iraq was at the time. I know she will agree that we owed it to our troops to give them the best protection against this threat and that it would have been indefensible for us to have held back from providing available measures that might well have proved life saving.

We have also investigated the other causes which have been suggested for the alleged syndrome, but no scientific evidence has been found that our forces were exposed to any harmful levels of toxic substances or that the medical protective measures, either singly or in combination, could lead to long-term health problems.

My hon. Friend asked that an independent inquiry be established. I have to say that in the absence of any confirmed scientific evidence that there is a health problem resulting from Gulf service, I do not believe that there are any grounds at present for such an inquiry.

Having said that, I have some sympathy with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend, and I can assure her that I will look again very carefully at the case for such an inquiry—we shall discuss that in more detail when we meet—should any evidence emerge, or indeed if there is anything else that my Department can reasonably do.

In closing, I should like to emphasise that despite the lack of scientific evidence we keep a genuinely open mind. We shall continue our investigations based on a medical and scientific evaluation of the growing data bank resulting from our medical assessment programme and we shall monitor other developments closely, especially those in the United States of America.

My hon. Friend has raised an extremely emotive matter, which is clouded in debate in the press with so much nonsense and foolishness that it was a pleasure to hear her present her case with such clarity. It is a serious matter, to which we attach the greatest importance. We do not take it lightly, and we shall do everything possible to lay at rest the minds of those people who are concerned, but they must come forward for examination. They may come forward in full confidence that everything will be treated as they and their families would hope, and that it will certainly not affect any of the prospects of serving soldiers, sailors or airmen.

This season intensifies all emotions. We have children around us, going over the top with excitement; loneliness becomes more intense; road accidents at this time of year become more tragic. It is therefore appropriate to discuss road safety in urban areas, because there are bound to be some tragedies throughout the country and along the way.

I have asked for this Adjournment debate because of a sad case in my constituency of a five-year-old boy called Ryan Monk, who was knocked down by a car on 11 July 1994 and was in hospital for many months, very severely injured. He may never quite regain all his capacities.

You can therefore imagine Ryan's parents' feelings, Madam Deputy Speaker, when they were told informally by the police that they were not prepared to prosecute the driver for any offence, especially as the parents had received a copy of the accident record of South Yorkshire police dated 21 July, which showed that the driver was travelling at about 39 mph on a main road that has a 30 mph speed limit. The brake marks extended 24.9 m and the accident report says that, had the vehicle been travelling at 30 mph, the braking distance would have been reduced to approximately 14 m. If the approach speed had been at or less than the permitted speed and the child had entered the carriageway at any spot between the origin of the marks and the limited braking distance, the impact would have been considerably less, and if the child had entered the road slightly outside that area, the impact would not have occurred.

Ryan's parents met me and said that they were very worried. I wrote to South Yorkshire police and was surprised to receive a letter from them saying that they had reviewed the case and were not prepared to prosecute, because

"in reality, we would rarely prosecute any driver for driving at 39 mph in a 30 mph area, even based upon accurate technological evidence."

Having received that reply, I pursued the matter because it seemed to me that if 30 mph was the appropriate speed limit on an especially dangerous main road in my constituency, 30 mph it should be. In that case, even though there was no question of the driver being at fault in the sense that the child ran into the road, the impact could not have occurred, had the speed limit been complied with.

A comparison of braking distances shows so accurately what we all know—that the speed at which a motorist is travelling is probably the most significant factor in the severity of any accident. Therefore, I welcome the £2.5 million that the Government have recently put into the effective campaign urging people to kill their speed, not a child. If those are the facts and we are prepared to put that sort of money behind such a campaign, it should be part of an integrated programme to reduce accidents on busy roads in urban areas so that the £2.5 million is not wasted.

In pursuing the matter of the 39 mph figure with the police authority, I was told that the Association of Chief Police Officers suggests a 10 per cent. variable in its guidelines. However, 10 per cent. of 30 mph is 33 mph, not 39 mph. I understand that it is common to suggest another 3 per cent. variable in case the speedometer is wrong, and yet another 3 per cent. variable in case the police monitoring is wrong. The Government have an opportunity here to act with much greater firmness by clarifying the speed tolerance and making it clear, rather than giving so much discretion to police officers, that if it is 10 per cent., that is the tolerance that should be accepted.

When I asked what was happening to prosecutions for speeding offences in police force areas around the country, I was surprised to find a remarkable drop between 1992 and 1993, mirrored almost police force by police force—161,352 in 1992 dropping right down to 110,571 in 1993. In Yorkshire generally, the number of prosecutions dropped from 12,447 to 7,117—a remarkable drop.

I accept that the bulk of the drop in the number of prosecutions is accounted for by the increased use of fixed penalties and cameras and that that may be a more cost-effective way of dealing with people who break speed limits than prosecuting them. But using spot fines and camera checks makes it easier to be clearer about speed limits and therefore to clarify that a speed limit of 30 mph means just that.

In addition, having three sets of figures—for prosecutions, for fixed on-the-spot penalties and for motorists caught as a result of a speed camera—makes it more difficult, and unnecessarily so, to monitor the efficiency with which police deal with speeding in their areas. Simply collecting the number of prosecutions does not take account of the number of people whom the police know have committed a speeding offence but have not prosecuted.

Following on from that, my next assumption—it is possibly wrong—was that the reduction in the number of prosecutions might have been a convenient way in which to reduce the crime statistics, which, as Labour Members know, have been particularly embarrassing for the Government, as they have shown their appalling record on law and order over the past 10 years. I understand, however—I should like some clarification from the Minister on this—that motoring offences, certainly not offences such as speeding, are not counted in the crime statistics. That is the information that I have from the chief constable of south Yorkshire.

If motoring offences and speeding offences are not recognised as criminal statistics, it seems to me that the Government are saying that it is more of a criminal offence to have stolen a car than to be driving a car at a speed at which somebody could be killed or seriously injured. That is not necessarily an issue for the Department of Transport, but it is of concern to me. If somebody is sitting behind the wheel of a car and is driving outside the rules of the road, that person is a danger. If people are driving at excessive speeds, they are driving almost with criminal intent, because of the potential damage that they can do to the life and limb of other members of the public. I would like some clear answers from the Minister on that point.

Before I leave the question of enforcement, it is important to say that there is room to operate much more effective monitoring, to recognise, clarify and publish the motoring offences clearly, police force by police force, and to look at that matter of public safety in the same way in which we look at other crime statistics.

I have paid a lot of attention to the question of enforcement and prosecution in connection with road safety, because I think that it is possibly the simplest, most sensible and easiest way to make a major contribution. I can remember the time when seat belts were not compulsory. There was much opposition before that legislation was enacted. As soon as the legislation was enacted, the opposition to it vanished and it made a major impact on the number of people who were badly damaged in road traffic offences.

I shall deal now, within the same theme of an integrated approach, with specific road safety measures. The Government have many ways in which they can make a positive impact on road safety. Burncross road in my constituency is a major road—the A629. It is built up on either side, as are many main roads in the outskirts of urban areas. It runs for perhaps two miles without any pedestrian crossing, without traffic lights at junctions with other roads that cross it and, therefore, without any natural break to ensure that cars travel at only 30 mph. Incidentally, that is another reason why, on roads where they have the necessary discretion, the police should make it clear that in such areas the speed limit must be adhered to. The police wrote to me as recently as April to say that 37 people had been injured on Burncross road since 1986. It clearly has an extremely poor accident record.

I recognise that local authorities, highways authorities and police authorities are working closely together to develop an approach to speed and road safety which emphasises the provision of breaks so that motorists have to reduce speed. Groups of constituents come to my surgery asking for road humps or pelican and pedestrian crossings but, when I put their case to the authorities, I am told that the prime reason why they cannot be provided, or at least not in the foreseeable future, is finance. I am aware that five or six road humps along a suburban street can cost several hundred thousand pounds. In Sheffield, about two pelican crossings are installed each year. Any other requests for such crossings have to join a queue, often for many years.

Will the Minister guarantee that there will be a redistribution of finance from the roads budget to road safety in urban areas? I am especially disappointed that Sheffield's road settlement, which it received last Thursday, does not reflect that notion. Sheffield asked for £750,000 for road safety measures but was offered only £350,000. Its road improvement budget also suffered a cut of £18,000, but without the necessary finance we can do nothing to increase the number of pelican crossings, road humps or school crossing patrols. There have also been cuts in the latter in Sheffield.

I put it on record that I welcome the reduction in spending on new roads. The fourth key criterion in road safety in urban areas is the need to encourage people out of their private cars and on to public transport. However, I cannot welcome what the Government have done to public transport in Sheffield in the past 10 years. The arguments have been well rehearsed in the House and I shall not repeat them. Sheffield had the best integrated public transport system in Europe but it has been destroyed by the deregulation legislation introduced in the mid-1980s.

I seek an integrated policy on urban road safety. The Government should back up their campaign against speed by issuing unambiguous guidelines to police authorities about what a speed limit really means and ensure that prosecutions can be undertaken simply and efficiently, with fixed penalties for excessive speeding if necessary.

Finally, the Government must back that up by redirecting the finance for road safety measures to local authorities in urban areas, and they must work co-operatively on those issues with the Home Secretary, with local authorities and with the police authorities that must enforce such measures.

We have heard an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), articulating the view that we should reduce the road programme. That is a commonly held view, which has led me to define a new law of politics. It was Churchill who said that we are all in favour of reductions in general and of expenditure in particular. My new maxim is that we are all in favour of abolishing the road programme, except in our own constituencies. Anyone who listened to Question Time yesterday would have heard Labour Members urging the Secretary of State to build roads fast in their constituencies, because they recognised how vital those roads were to the economic regeneration of the parts of the world that they represent.

I tell the hon. Lady in passing that when I came to the Department of Transport two and a half years ago, I had the dubious pleasure of examining Sheffield's transport infrastructure. I came to the clear conclusion that nothing had destroyed the public transport infrastructure of the town so successfully as the efforts of Sheffield council. Much of what has happened there has been inflicted entirely by the local authority—in marked contrast with what is happening in other cities all over the country whose public transport infrastructure is excellent, and operates under exactly the same Government regulations as apply in the people's republic.

However, let us deal with the serious points that the hon. Lady raised about road safety. First, I am sure that the whole House would want to send young Ryan Monk our best wishes for a speedy recovery. Let us hope that he can recover as completely and speedily as possible and enjoy a happy Christmas.

Much of what the hon. Lady said about the operation of speed limits and the way in which prosecutions are brought was entirely sensible and fair, and I want to underline one or two of the points that she made. First, whoever was responsible for the accident, and whether or not the young child ran into the road without giving the motorist sufficient notice—it is not for us to judge what none of us witnessed—suffice it to say that the more slowly the vehicle that hit the child had been travelling, the greater would be the prospect of the child's surviving, and of his suffering only minor injuries.

As the hon. Lady said, that was one of the key messages of the campaign, and I am glad that she appreciates it. It is not a matter of politics but the result of hard work by the excellent officials in the Department who produced the campaign based on the slogan, "Kill your speed, not a child". I shall say something later about how that is developing as part of our integrated approach.

Prosecutions must be a matter for the appropriate chief constable and for the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I make it clear for the record that the speed limit is the limit. Decisions about prosecutions—taken, essentially, in local circumstances, and having regard to the desirability of achieving convictions—do not disguise the fact that the limit is the limit, and remains the limit. If authorities wish to raise or lower limits, they are at liberty to do so. I am sure that the hon. Lady will appreciate the fact that it is dangerous to speculate on individual decisions.

I shall write to the hon. Lady about the relevance of speeding convictions in relation to overall crime statistics. I fully understand that although speeding offences may not be in the same category as other areas of criminality, I am advised that some categories of motoring offence are included in the national statistics. More to the point, though, I know that such offences can cause terrible tragedy. Indeed, if one were to try to evaluate such matters one would find that their consequences can be out of all proportion to those offences that are regarded as more serious in terms of penalties.

The hon. Lady spoke about enforcement. Let us develop that. She was right to see enforcement as an important issue, but even more important is changing attitudes and habits. The remarkably successful drink driving campaign started by telling people that drinking and driving was unlawful and that if they did it they were likely to lose their licence for a long time. That, indeed, was the case and remains the case. It is worth underlining that.

It is interesting that what changed people's habits was changing the message to a more subtle but much more powerful one. We told people that drinking and driving was anti-social and was not funny and that they might do something that would live with them for the rest of their lives. They certainly might be imprisoned, heavily fined and lose their licence, but that would be the least of the scars that they would bear. They would have on their conscience an avoidable accident which the driver allowed to happen by unwisely drinking. That remains the theme that we have adopted in this year's campaign launched on 6 December. We point out that normal, decent, law-abiding people can make an unwise decision about a Christmas drink.

Let me underline if I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, that by all means people should have a great Christmas party, enjoy it and have as many drinks as they like. But for goodness sake, at the end of it they should not go anywhere near a motor car. That remains consistently good advice.

The same message applies to speed. We have used the concept of inappropriate speed in an attempt to change mental attitudes. As well as going for enforcement, which the hon. Lady is right to highlight, we should induce in motorists the realisation that speeding is not about absolute speeds. Ironically, the speeding problem is a problem of urban areas, not motorways. Proportionately, far more accidents occur in urban areas than on motorways. Through the campaign that we are running, we are trying to show motorists how they might well be operating within a legal speed limit but still be driving at a speed which is inappropriate to the conditions.

The classic example that we used is that of a vehicle travelling past a school at the time of day when children are leaving school. To travel at 25 mph may be to be travelling far too quickly. It is important to underline that. The concept of appropriate speed is difficult to get across. We may not have succeeded entirely in our last campaign. I have received letters from people who are worried that we seem to suggest that someone who is acting law fully and driving within the speed limit is none the less doing something wrong. We have had to explain that we are talking not about something that is criminal in the legal sense of the word but about something that is clearly inappropriate to the driving conditions.

As for resources, I have personally ensured that, in the past two years, we have maintained £50 million a year for local safety schemes throughout the country. I cannot comment on the amount for which Sheffield bid. Undoubtedly, it consistently bid for more than even it believed that it could spend. That money goes into local safety schemes and is effective. We have 130 20 mph schemes. I opened the 100th scheme in my constituency in Epping Forest in a rural context. It was an interesting variation of the usual urban scene. Such schemes are producing good dividends. We have achieved about 70 per cent. overall casualty reduction. Better news still, there has been an 80 per cent. reduction in child accidents. That is a good pointer to the future.

None of the measures works all the time. They all have to be seen in context. We have produced a new, user-friendly booklet entitled "Safer by Design", which includes a glossary of all the measures available to us. Speed control humps, speed cushions, chicanes, narrowings and so on all offer us an opportunity to take on even more work in speed control.

On the subject of casualty reduction targets, if the hon. Lady had been here on 25 November she could have participated in an excellent debate in which we made it clear that, although we have met our fatal and serious injury targets seven years in advance of the target date, we still have further to go. No one in the House is complacent about road deaths despite the fact that there have been fewer this year than at any time since records began in 1926. No one will be complacent as long as, sadly, approximately 80 people are killed on our roads every week. It is a challenge to us all—an all-party challenge and a challenge to both central Governmen1 and local authorities. I hope that Sheffield, as elsewhere in the country, will be willing to participate in that challenge so that we can do something about such dreadful and needless deaths.

My constituency is in a predominantly rural area and contains some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain. We cherish and love our rural community, but we are constantly aware of the threats to it and to those practical farmers who work the land and are so industrious.

What I have to say is partly national and partly local. I shall first mention the scale of the problem and the pressures. Some 12 million people—23 per cent. of the population—live in the countryside and there is inevitably much pressure from visitors who make 900 million trips a year to the countryside. We must take into account the desire of the millions who belong to the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, ramblers and others who want to use the countryside. We have constantly to strike a balance between providing facilities necessary to enable people to enjoy the countryside and ensuring that the countryside is not diminished by over-invasion and misuse.

It is also fundamental to our way of life, our culture and heritage to devote a significant amount of time and policy making to the countryside and the rural community. In that respect, village halls are immensely important. There are several in my constituency, including in Ashley, as well as the new Grosvenor centre at Gnosall, which was refurbished, voluntarily, by local people. I hope that some effort can be given, for example through the lottery, to help people who make such a positive effort to help others in their local rural neighbourhood.

People often associate crime primarily with urban areas. But Peter Cadbury—a relation of mine—recently, and famously, commented on the problems of rural law and order. He is right. The problems have grown significantly worse in our area and elsewhere throughout the country. In many places—even in some reasonably sized towns—local police stations have been closed so that one can obtain immediate help from the local police only by means of switches through the local police telephone network system, which causes much concern.

The House of Lords recently produced a report on rural housing. Some 39 per cent. of parishes have no shop, 60 per cent. have no primary school and 74 per cent. have no general practitioner practice. A great number of changes have been made, but I am trying to show that people who think that life in the countryside is some sort of idyllic Fragonard-style life are sometimes unaware of the fact that rural inhabitants do not always have brilliant communications. Sometimes, more elderly residents do not have facilities that people living in towns take for granted.

The Government have taken important initiatives in relation to using housing associations as a means of drawing money from the Housing Corporation and so forth. Between 1990 and 1993 those initiatives produced only 11 per cent. of the projected need. We must look again at the very important question of rural housing. The House of Lords report said that the issue was considered by some witnesses to be the most pressing of all in rural areas in the United Kingdom. We need to take careful note of that point.

Hunting, shooting and fishing are part of the culture and identity of the countryside. Many people associate those pursuits with elitism, but that is not the case. Fishing is one of the most popular hobbies in the United Kingdom—I believe that as many as 3 million people go fishing. Before he moved to London, Izaak Walton lived in Stafford and wrote many of his great works with the area in mind. He left his estate to the burghers of Stafford with the proviso that, if they did not behave themselves, the remainder of his estate would pass to a rural area called Eccleshall.

Shooting is not an elitist activity by any means; it is now enjoyed by a broader section of the community than ever before. Hunting is a controversial issue. I have expressed my strong objections to hare coursing and badger baiting, but I believe that foxhunting is a traditional country pursuit which should be allowed to continue.

We must reform the common agricultural policy and, in the process, reform the support that is given to farmers. Today the Council for the Protection of Rural England produced a new policy paper which shows that an extraordinary amount of public money is spent on farm support throughout rural England, but the quality of the English landscape—its flora and fauna—continues to decline at an alarming rate. It says that the farm support system must be changed.

The balance of opinion in the agricultural community is shifting. British farmers must be given a fair and reasonable deal, not only by this Government but by the European Community and the general agreement on tariffs and trade. British farmers deserve a fair deal for their industry, high efficiency and the quality of their products. Although one welcomes reports such as this, it is important to make sure that they have the right emphasis and look after the British farmer as well.

The set-aside policy is not welcomed enthusiastically by farmers in general; they do not want it. There is something extraordinarily perverse about the scheme. As a result of European Community directives, land is compulsorily put to one side and farmers see their land, which they would prefer to use, covered in weeds. That practice is counter-productive to the wonder and the beauty of the countryside. Thistles and weeds spread from one field to another, which means that farmers must use more pesticides to eradicate them, and they may tend to use too many concentrated fertilizers on the remaining land to increase the volume of production. There is something fundamentally wrong with the way in which the scheme works.

Gerard Manley Hopkins, T.S. Eliot, Wordsworth, Shakespeare and Herriot drew inspiration from our countryside. We should examine to what extent rural life is destroyed by the vast amount of red tape which farmers face. Farmers in my constituency are tearing their hair out over the volume of paperwork about set-aside and so on with which they have to deal. It is exhausting to have to fill out paperwork late into the night when one has been up since 5 am. Most farmers are small business men and they have to contend with an enormous burden of paperwork.

The movement of livestock is very contentious. I have made my position clear. Farmers are being badly treated. As I told my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee the other day, they should not be put over a barrel because of the monopolistic activities of the ferry owners. I am glad to see that there has been some movement, but we still have a long way to go, as my hon. Friend knows.

Perhaps the code of conduct that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food agreed is a move in more or less the right direction, but the real problem is that farmers are up against it and need as much help as possible.

On the use of nitrates, it is highly inappropriate for European directives and rules to be applied throughout Europe when the water tables, aquifers and water supply systems are different in each country. Often, the person convicted or harassed about bad pollution did not cause it. The polluted water often seeps through the sandstone or whatever and percolates to another part of the countryside and the person held responsible is not the person who caused it. We must deal with problems of that type.

We should pay more attention to the new reed bed proposals, which will help to combat pollution and sewage in streams and rivers. I understand that that is a brilliant, simple and cheap way to reduce the sewage and other pollutants that get into our river system.

As I am not much of a chemist, I do not know about sonochemistry, but I understand that it is a system designed in the United States, which is a highly effective means of cleaning up water in a cost-efficient manner.

Leisure is another important factor. The English tourist board should be encouraged to provide more help for getting the balance right. People know of my strong opposition to car boot sales. When 20,000 cars descend on Eccleshall in my constituency they cause pollution, destroy the environment and are a noise nuisance. The sales are also unfair to other small businesses. We have debated all those factors before and I hope that in the near future an hon. Member will take up the Bill that I tabled last year.

The criminal element is associated with such sales. We heard how Peter Cadbury found that articles were stolen from his and his friends' garages and outhouses. The relationship between car boot sales and the development of crime is important. It is a serious problem.

Also, we do not want the countryside to be turned into theme parks. I shall merely leave that as a general thought for my hon. Friend.

Farmers need a proper economic return from agriculture and the rural economy must have the capacity to provide them with another source of income. Farmers in my constituency, whom I meet regularly, are deeply concerned about several issues, for example, the lack of sheep quota for developers. That means that young farmers who have taken on a larger farm cannot obtain milk quota or an increase in their allocation of sheep quota to match their increased acreage. The policy should be carefully thought through.

The proposed removal of the waste grant means that the smaller farmer, who has endeavoured to acquire sufficient capital to install a slurry management system, will not be able to proceed.

The problems associated with livestock exports are increasing, not decreasing. Despite some of the efforts that Ministers have made, the result will be an oversupply on the British market and a collapse in prices, which will affect small farmers who do not have milk quota.

I shall refer to the 1994 Budget proposals. Farmers and rural communities are deeply concerned about the question of taxation placed on fuel in an attempt to increase the use of public transport. But public transport is not generally available to those in rural areas—at least, not on the scale on which it is available to others.

The proposals to remove the tractor licence exemption facility will seriously affect many farmers, particularly those whose farms are divided by roadways. That is a practical point, which means that a farmer wishing to gain access to his own buildings and land across a road cannot do so legally without the purchase of a full tractor licence. Something must be done about that. The Budget also included proposals to reclassify the agricultural vehicle excise duty, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at that in her discussions with the Treasury.

I now come to the vexed question of milk. I was selected for my constituency on the day that milk quotas were announced in May 1984, and I will not forget that in a hurry. I was not pleased when the Chancellor did a deal with the Italians, despite their fraudulent activities, regarding the milk quota. I will not go into that now, as I might have the Whip taken away.

On the black marketing of milk, the industry would support any action taken by the intervention board, but we must remember the serious problems which face the milk industry at present due to the price of additional milk quotas. In some cases, farmers are having to deal with quota at twice the value of production levels, and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister will look at that.

There are also the problems of pig farmers. I have written to my hon. Friend on a number of occasions regarding stalls and fairness for the British pig fanner in relation to those in the rest of Europe. Over and over again there are distortions and there is a lack of enforcement of the rules in other countries, whether in livestock, transport, milk quotas or environmental standards and pollution.

This is not just Europhobic waffle—it is what is going on in other countries. People such as myself want the European Community to work effectively and have continually said so. We raise questions about what is going on, but sometimes we do so in language which is not thought to be entirely desirable. None the less, there is a fundamental dishonesty about the way in which European Community issues tend to get dealt with. It is not always deliberate, but it turns into a real problem because we get a mismatch between the promises and the performance. That makes people extremely unhappy.

British farmers are suffering from the uneven playing field in comparison with their European counterparts. They feel strongly that we must take a more realistic approach, bearing in mind some of the unfair competition that is currently coming from Europe.

There is another, and final, point. Yes, we must reform the common agriculture policy, but the benefits of coming out of the exchange rate mechanism have led to an improvement in fanning incomes in the past two years. We have a new opportunity with regard to the volume of meat which is apparently now being consumed by Brazil and the Asian countries. That is liable to increase, and it could completely distort the basis on which GATT was calculated with regard to beef production and exports. We should be wary—as in some other matters on the European scene—of getting ourselves locked into rules which have no regard to the reality of the movements in the marketplace.

There are some useful papers coming out on the subject, which must be a good indication of the fact that people—including my hon. Friend and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—are thinking through the problems in the light of the new circumstances. I am delighted, for example, with the constructive paper produced by the Country Landowners Association which said that we must make agriculture in Europe more competitive in world markets, bring supply and demand into better balance, be compatible with the single market and—in relation to the environment—improve the countryside to make it clean and attractive. It continued to say that we must support environmental programmes, develop rural communities, diversify the economies of rural areas and support the economic programmes where there is a market failure. Those are constructive ideas and I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend will take in good part the fact that I am not trying to criticise now or at any time but hoping desperately that somebody is listening.

I am grateful for the opportunity provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) to have a debate on so important an issue. He began by outlining the importance of the rural economy in his constituency. I assure him that I, too, am familiar with Stafford, having canvassed for him at his by-election some years ago.

I shall touch on a few specific points which my hon. Friend mentioned before dealing with the general context of his speech. On difficulties with the live transportation of animals for export, I hope that he will be reassured that, having put at the top of our list the importance of animal welfare, which also concerns farmers and exporters, the Government will introduce new measures on 23 January to ensure that we cut out the cowboys in the trade who have done a grave disservice to a legitimate and legal trade. I hope that we can then continue to export animals with the highest standards of animal welfare and bring before the UK courts those who try to cheat and break the rules. That will greatly benefit the industry.

My hon. Friend mentioned sheep quotas. When proposals for sheep quotas were put on the table, the UK Government opposed them because we had the experience of milk quotas and find quotas extremely inflexible. However, other member states disagreed and we have had to apply them. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but sheep quotas have been allocated for this year, which means that some people who may have expected to receive a quota have not received one.

My hon. Friend also mentioned the pig industry. He may be aware that in a debate on the pig industry under the Consolidated Fund motion last week, I outlined to the House the measures taken by the UK Government in respect of the French, who have not played fair and have put our pig industry at a competitive disadvantage. We have already placed those measures before the Commission because matters such as the Staviporc scheme and interest-free loans in the French pig industry are not in line with regulations. We shall pursue those issues vigorously.

Before looking at the relationship between farmers and the rest of the rural community, I shall expand a little on the rural community as a whole because the sweeping importance of rural communities formed the basis of my hon. Friend's speech. Some important changes have taken place in recent years in the jobs and life styles of people who make up the rural community and it is questionable whether, in many traditionally rural areas, there is a truly distinct community dependent entirely on the economy of its local village.

In the period between 1981 and 1991, the population of rural areas in England increased by just over 7 per cent., with a corresponding decline in metropolitan areas of nearly 5 per cent. Those of us who have lived in rural areas for all or most of our lives understand why people wish to leave urban areas and enjoy the quality of life in rural areas. During the same period, the number of new businesses in England increased by 33 per cent. net and employment by 15 per cent. in rural areas.

Part of the influx to rural areas has resulted from greater access to cars, which enables people to work in towns yet live in the country. Improved mobility has also given rise to employment opportunities that have little connection with traditional village life, such as light industries or financial services, which we now find increasingly in rural areas.

It may not be surprising to find that agriculture accounts for only 2.2 per cent. of the total national work force and contributes only 1.4 per cent. to gross domestic product. Yet anybody visiting the countryside will not fail to appreciate how much—more than three quarters—of the landscape is still predominantly agricultural. It is essential, therefore, that our rural development policies take account of environmental and conservation concerns in an integrated approach—my hon. Friend touched on that, too—while also recognising that rural areas are not homogeneous. For instance, in my home county of Devon, farming accounts for one fifth of the work force—above average for the United Kingdom. Although farming may account for only a small contribution to the rural economy, it still has an important part to play in the wider issues of countryside development.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will have noted with interest the announcement made on 22 November regarding the rural White Paper. It is being produced jointly by my Department and the Department of the Environment, and will be drawn up in consultation with other Government Departments as well as a range of non-governmental organisations.

My hon. Friend mentioned several aspects of rural life that might not seem immediately relevant to agriculture but which are part of the rural culture. He mentioned difficulties with village halls, crime in rural areas, housing needs, village schools and leisure and rural sports. The aim of the White Paper is to produce a long-term strategic outlook for the future of rural areas, and it will be set in the context of the Government's sustainable development strategy.

I agree with my hon. Friend that an area that needs urgent attention is the changing role of agriculture and the future of the common agricultural policy. In addition to the White Paper, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 6 December that he is establishing a CAP policy group to provide advice to the Government on all aspects of United Kingdom policy on the CAP.

The reform of the CAP is one of the most important challenges facing us, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we intend to press for a rational policy which better serves the UK's interests. It should also meet the needs of an expanding European Community; the countries of central Europe wish to join at the end of this century and that will have an important effect on CAP policy.

Although we are concerned to achieve a fairer CAP regime, we believe it important that other member states also recognise that, with other countries joining the Community, the CAP has to be resolved not just in this country but on an EC-wide basis. For instance, as part of the structural funding arrangements to aid structural readjustment, six predominantly rural areas in England have been designated under objective 5b, with the overall aim of improving socio-economic conditions.

The projects and schemes approved under these arrangements will be financed by a partnership between the Government, the European Commission and, when appropriate, the private sector. Funding will be limited, and it is intended that this assistance will enable businesses to become self-supporting by, for example, securing new markets for their goods or services.

My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of diversification by agricultural businesses. The agricultural component of this structural readjustment is aimed at moving away from traditional agricultural support to a wider economic base, providing a more market-based approach which can survive without the necessity for Government handouts in perpetuity.

Another area in which we have made progress in partnership with Brussels is with agri-environment measures, which were introduced as part of the 1992 CAP reform settlement. Under the EC agri-environment regulation, we have implemented a number of schemes that encourage environmentally friendly farming. As part of the CAP reforms, farmers are increasingly looking to diversify their businesses to supplement traditional agriculture. It is indefensible to continue growing food that is surplus to requirements and yet to support farmers for doing so. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with that.

Structural adjustment, agri-environment measures and diversification are therefore some of our key tools in the implementation of a more sensible, rational approach to agricultural support.

I have highlighted the development of reform in a European context, but we should not forget the other important contributions that the UK Government are making in their own right to improve structural matters, such as the proposed agricultural tenancy law reforms. A dynamic tenanted sector will be important if agriculture is to respond to market and policy changes. I hope that it will also be of help to the group that my hon. Friend mentioned—young farmers entering farming for the first time.

To tackle the decline in the amount of rented land available, the Government published their Agricultural Tenancies Bill on 18 November. The Bill has already started its progress through the House in another place.

It must also be remembered that there is a range of Government policies aimed at other aspects of rural areas, their economies and communities. Industrial, education, housing and transport policies all have special significance for rural areas. We want a vibrant rural economy, covering both agriculture and non-agricultural sectors, in which people work and live and make an invaluable contribution to the national economy.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has introduced a wide-ranging debate, but I hope that I have convinced him that the new measures being taken, especially by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, will consider some of those issues in a much broader context.

I am grateful to be given the opportunity to raise this issue today. I want to focus specifically on the insider share dealings of Lord Archer, and I do so because he has chosen not to reply to any of the letters that I have sent him about his share dealing activities.

In September, I wrote a fairly lengthy letter to Lord Archer, posing detailed questions; he chose to ignore it. I followed that letter with others, and he also chose to ignore those. He has jumped into the undergrowth and is refusing to answer the questions that have been asked of him, legitimately, by Members of the House. I think that is an absolute disgrace for a Member of Parliament, albeit an unelected Member of Parliament—

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I remind him of our very important rule that criticisms are not offered to any Member, either in the House or in the other place, unless on a substantive motion. Such a motion is not before us today, so I must counsel caution in what the hon. Gentleman says.

That puts me in some difficulties, but I shall endeavour to be circumspect and allude to various matters tangentially perhaps rather than directly.

When The Sunday Times broke the news of Lord Archer's share-dealing activities in August, there was astonishment in my constituency—a constituency that was represented, before I came here, by a Conservative Member of Parliament for 13 years. When my constituents read that Lord Archer had made £80,000 in share-dealing transactions in two days, there was outrage.

The very week that Lord Archer made—I say "made", not "earned"—£80,000 in share-dealing activities, a job was advertised in the job centre in Nelson, which is in the heart of my constituency, for a kitchen assistant and cook, with pay of £2.92 an hour. That person would have had to work 27,397 hours or a 40-hour week for 13 years to make what Lord Archer made in his share-dealing activities in the space of four days last January.

As we approach the anniversary of that share-dealing activity, I invite the Minister to reject or perhaps tell the House whether he condones the activity of a man who was very close indeed to becoming chairman of the Conservative party. In fact, he was widely regarded in the press and among Conservative Members as being an heir apparent until that matter blew up.

The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), who retired as chairman of the Conservative party, was succeeded by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). He urged Lord Archer to speak out, as I have. In September, the right hon. Gentleman, speaking to the Financial Times, said:

"Geoffrey will find it probably better to speak out rather than not."

That is what I am urging the noble Lord to do—to speak out.

When The Sunday Times broke the story in August, Lord Archer's reaction was astonishing. When the story first reached the public prints alleging that he had bought shares in Anglia Television—a company in which his wife, Mary, was a non-executive director—he said:

"It is completely untrue. I did not buy any shares. I am not going to make a statement. That sort of accusation is libellous."

I will be guided by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but there are people who would say that that was just a downright lie.

Order. I am giving guidance. I do not think that that is an appropriate comment to use in this context. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not pursue that line at all. I remind him that the topic that I read out before he spoke was simply "Insider Share Dealing". It makes no reference to any named person. I must therefore caution him again.

I seek your further guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, because when I applied for the debate to Madam Speaker, I recall that I linked the share-dealing activities of Lord Archer with insider trading. That was the specific issue that I sought to raise.

I am not party to what took place in any guidance that the hon. Gentleman may have received outside the Chamber, but I am very clear about what may or may not take place inside the Chamber now. It is important that he realises that comments that reflect upon the honour or integrity of a Member of the other place are not in order now, except on a substantive motion. I have made that point before, but I make it again. No such substantive motion is before us at this time.

I shall try to weave my way through the thickets as best I can, Madam Deputy Speaker, given what you have just said, but is it in order for me to say that the quotation from Lord Archer which was carried in the national press in August was economical with the truth?

Order. As that now has a clear derogatory meaning, I must rule that out of order as well.

Well, I have tripped over that particular thicket, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find that the constraints are such that I cannot make the speech that I had intended to make.

I shall, in conclusion, simply say that the country has not received all the answers that it requires about the share-dealing activities of Lord Archer in January. Many national newspapers across the political spectrum have highlighted the gaps where Lord Archer has not been forthcoming.

The editorial from The Guardian on 26 August this year said:

"Lord Archer has admitted a 'grave error' in buying shares in Anglia television and in causing 'needless embarrassment' to his wife who is a director of the company. But he strongly denies that the transaction was carried out with the benefit of any insider information."

It seems to me that it is virtually impossible to secure any conviction under the Financial Services Act 1986, or the relevant legislation, if the parties to any insider dealing resolutely stick to their story. So if Mary Archer did not say anything to Lord Archer, and if he did not say anything to Mr. Broosk Saib, and Mr. Broosk Saib did not know what time of day it was—he hardly knew of the existence of Anglia Television—I invite the Minister to comment on the point that it is impossible to secure a conviction.

The editorial continues:

"There must therefore have been other reasons why he"—

Lord Archer—

"didn't use his normal stockbrokers, but chose instead"—

Order. I am concerned that this, too, is, in its own way, reflecting on Lord Archer's conduct in a way that is not suitable for this type of debate. I think that the hon. Gentleman would be wise to follow his own advice of concluding fairly rapidly.

I will do so, but with great disappointment, because I thought that, in this forum—of all forums—it would have been possible to discuss in an unemotive way a matter of great controversy, which has triggered a response not just from the Conservative party but from the public prints. It is disappointing that I do not have an opportunity to raise these important issues in this forum, but I shall seek to do so in another way.

I am answering a debate which, in a sense, has not happened, but I make no complaint about that, because my responsibility as a Treasury Minister is with policy relating to insider dealing, whereas the investigation thereof and, indeed, prosecution, is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry.

It would be wholly improper of me, both in a departmental sense and as a matter of parliamentary privilege, to comment on many of the allegations that the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) has chosen to make this afternoon under the privilege of the House. If the hon. Gentleman had clearly said that the debate related to the noble Lord Archer, there might have been a different Minister at the Dispatch Box seeking to answer his debate, but the title of the hon. Gentleman's debate relates to insider share dealing, which is a serious and very important matter and so is a matter for me to deal with.

Insider dealing is not a victimless crime and the Government have, on a number of occasions, by introducing legislative change and prosecution thereunder, sought to deter, detect and, indeed, penalise wherever possible those activities, which do cause pecuniary loss to some and bring markets into disrepute as well.

With regard to the noble Lord Archer, all I can do this afternoon in response to the points that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to make is to reassert the position that has been put before. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his Department propose to take no further action in the matter, which has been thoroughly investigated by independent inspectors and subject to independent legal advice. As my right hon. Friend has also explained, there is no legal provision for the publication of the inspectors' report, and it would be quite improper for him to publish it. It is just possible, with the consent of all parties and with all the evidence concerned, that disclosure of a report could take place, but the clearest—

Will the Minister give way on that point?

No, I will give way later, but it may be helpful if I just explain a few further facts, which are already in the public domain and which may answer the hon. Gentleman's point.

In February of this year, two independent inspectors—a Queen's counsel and a chartered accountant—were appointed to investigate possible insider dealing in the shares of Anglia Television, just before a bid for the company by MAI plc in January of this year. On 7 July, the Secretary of State confirmed that Lord Archer was one of several people subject to the investigation and also in July the inspectors submitted their report. They concluded that there was no basis on which to prosecute Lord Archer. However, the report was referred to independent counsel who also advised against prosecution.

Accordingly, on 28 July, the President of the Board of Trade announced that, on the basis of the report and departmental and other legal advice, he had concluded that the DTI should take no further action against any of the parties under investigation. In those circumstances, as explained by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, I have nothing further to add to the facts that are already in the public domain.

However, I should like take this opportunity to comment a little further on insider dealing, which may be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, although he has not sought to use the precious opportunity afforded by this debate to raise such matters. They were, of course, of great interest to the House during the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, previously during the passage of the consolidating Company Securities (Insider Dealing) Act 1985 and, originally, during that of the insider dealing legislation introduced in 1980. This Government were the first to make insider dealing a criminal offence. Therefore, we are fully aware of the serious consequences that insider dealing can have for the operation of the financial markets.

The markets are the channels for a large proportion of individuals' savings, invested directly or on their behalf by institutions and on which individuals' future well-being depends. In turn, the financial markets channel those savings to companies on which our national prosperity ultimately depends.

To meet the objectives of investors and companies, the markets must operate efficiently and fairly. If market participants feel that there is a risk that they may be disadvantaged by insider dealing, they may be less willing to invest via the capital markets or may demand a higher return from companies for doing so. Either way, market liquidity could be damaged and the cost of raising capital increased. That effect would, of course, be in addition to any loss that an individual investor may suffer if insider dealing were unchecked.

The Government are therefore firmly committed to insider dealing legislation that allows people who take advantage of privileged information to be caught and punished. That is why the Government made insider dealing illegal in 1980 and why we extended the prohibition on 1 March this year to cover a broader range of misconduct than was previously the case. For example, it is now illegal for an employee of a company to sell a competitor's shares on the basis of the inside information that his employer has won an important contract that would prove detrimental to the competitor's business prospects.

The new legislation also covers a wider range of securities and applies to off-market transactions which involve a professional intermediary as well as to business transacted on investment exchanges.

Our approach to insider dealing has been to define in statute what constitutes the offence and what is meant by the terms "inside information" and "insiders". In doing so, we have recognised that there is always something of a trade-off between the degree of certainty that can be incorporated into the law and the avoidance of loopholes which would allow the real insider dealers to go about their wrecking business within the law.

We believe that the insider dealing provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1993 draw the line in the right place. That should mean that the real insider dealers can be caught while the people engaged in legitimate activities are left to go about their business. The legislation does not, therefore, threaten legitimate communication between companies and their individual institutional shareholders and investment analysts. Nor does it jeopardise properly conducted corporate finance transactions.

Underpinning the legislation are the systems for detecting insider dealing. The Government greatly welcome the improvements in market surveillance which have been brought about through the introduction by the London stock exchange of the integrated monitoring and surveillance system. We also welcome the exchange's decision to consult on ways to curb disorderly markets. Although we recognise the fact that evidence of insider dealing can be difficult to obtain, the ability of the system to monitor the stock market on a real-time basis, stricter legislation and tougher procedures for handling disorderly markets will send a clear message that insider dealing will not be tolerated.

The Government believe that the seriousness of the offence justifies criminal sanctions, as it harms not only individuals' interests but the integrity of the financial markets, and affects the costs to companies of raising capital. We also believe that criminal sanctions have a considerable deterrent effect on would-be insider dealers, which helps to mitigate those harmful effects.

That is not to say, however, that civil sanctions do not exist to punish insider dealing; they certainly do. Civil remedies are available—for example, where there has been a breach of the rules of a self-regulatory organisation or of a contract of employment. In addition, there may be circumstances in which claims for compensation could be made.

The Government accept, of course, that the nature of the offence means that insider dealing can be difficult to establish. That would be true under any system of enforcement, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the law against insider dealing is kept under review to ensure that it is as effective as possible.

I do not believe that the offence of insider dealing is a matter of bipartisan difference. It is a matter of great concern to those outside and inside the House because it affects the integrity and liquidity of the markets, and the respect for contractual arrangements. When insider dealing occurs there is undoubtedly pecuniary loss to those who may have been taken advantage of by others with inside information.

That is why it was the Conservative Government who made insider dealing a criminal offence. As the Minister responsible, I decided not to take the opportunity offered by the European Community directive to decriminalise the offence. That would have been possible and many, including some in the House, have urged the case for making insider dealing a civil offence because that may carry a lower burden of proof. They have argued that although the offence exists and the penalties are strong— limitless fines and up to seven years in prison—the number of prosecutions has not been substantial, and nor has the number of individuals convicted.

Nevertheless cases have been brought, people have been convicted and penalties have been imposed. Moreover, we cannot quantify the deterrent effect that that may have on the marketplace, preventing people who would otherwise have been tempted to do so from engaging in insider dealing.

Does the Minister accept that there would be greater public confidence in the system that he has described if there were greater transparency? He said that it would be possible to release the DTI report on Lord Archer's share dealing if all the parties agreed. Will he urge his noble Friend to agree to that?

No I would not, because the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that not only did he obtain one set of legal advice from a chartered accountant and a Queen's counsel—that was the advice of the inspectors, given to him as the Secretary of State—but he then chose not simply to take that advice but to submit that report to a second opinion, as it were, by putting it to counsel. Both sets of advice were clear: no foundation existed for prosecution in that case.

Although under section 179(1) of the Financial Services Act 1986 the Secretary of State is allowed to disclose information collected by section 177 inspectors, provided that he has the permission of

"the person from whom the primary recipient"—

that is, the inspectors—

"obtained the information and if different, the person to whom it relates",

the point is that that would require such permission from each separate person who gave a statement to the inspectors. Even if that were practicable, there is no express power for publication in the report itself. I am bound to observe that a more mischievous objective than a desire to ensure the integrity of the law or decisions of the Secretary of State prompts the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the matters have not been properly considered.

There was a full debate about the confidentiality of submissions to inspectors in such cases in the House of Lords. Indeed, the ministerial undertakings that section 177 reports would normally never be published were made during the Lords Committee stage of the Financial Services Bill by Lord Lucas of Chilworth. That is the case in this instance. That may not be a decision that the hon. Gentleman likes, but it reflects the proper way of dealing with such cases.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that such matters are considered carefully. I have not seen the report. That is also entirely proper. It is not for me, a Treasury Minister responsible for overall policy and the integrity of the financial markets as a whole, to second-guess reports, proposals and recommendations put to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

My right hon. Friend has made his position clear. The hon. Gentleman is going over history. There is nothing new to elucidate and I have said nothing new in my remarks this afternoon which should encourage him to believe that there will be any change of mind on the matter. The points that he raised were more about pursuing an individual high-profile case and claim than a genuine attempt to improve the effectiveness of our insider dealing legislation. It is important legislation. It sends broader messages to the financial markets as a whole. Its aim is not served by dwelling on cases and making comments such as the hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon.

If the hon. Gentleman were really concerned about the wider implication of loss through insider dealing, he might have dealt with some of the issues surrounding how the new legislation was working out in practice and the new monitoring and surveillance systems of the London stock exchange. We heard nothing about that from the hon. Gentleman. I have no wish in the last moments of the proceedings of the House before we adjourn for Christmas to take the hon. Gentleman to task in this season of good will, but the Government attach great importance to the legislation, great seriousness to the crime of insider dealing and great precedence to the legislation and the cases that we have seen through.

The debate was an opportunity to have a more wide-ranging and important debate of interest to people outside the House. Having said that, it has provided me with an opportunity to set out the importance that the Government attach to the subject and some of the legislative history. I hope that that will be of reassurance to a wider audience outside the House, if not to the hon. Gentleman.

It being two minutes to Three o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to resolution [16 December].