In the words of the Foreign Secretary last week:

"The issue of flexibility is probably the most important issue that is being discussed at the intergovernmental conference."

It is on a par with monetary union. I consider the words "flexibility" and "enhanced co-operation" to be typical Euro-speak. They have all the characteristics of the gobbledegook of "subsidiarity". Such language is a cover-up for reducing our veto and increasing the power of the European Union. That is why I have initiated this debate, which goes to the heart of the European question. We are discussing sovereignty and enlargement. As the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), said in his leadership speech to his constituents. "The issue is Europe." It was then, and it is now.

I have here the latest paper on flexibility and enhanced co-operation from the presidency of the European Union, dated 16 January 1997. It has not yet seen the light of day, but I shall put it in the Library after the debate. Referring to the Maastricht treaty—against which I voted 47 times on a three-line Whip—it states:

"EMU is probably the most highly developed form of flexibility"—

and what a mess that flexibility put us in. The whole concept of flexibility—which we then conceded—and its effect on us are now being taken into other areas of European government in the European Union.

The hon. Gentleman makes a great virtue of the fact that he voted against Maastricht 47 times. What, then, possessed him to vote for the Single European Act?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because my next words were going to be, "Trade, yes; government, no." That is the distinction, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen it.

But the Single European Act went way beyond trade. It was about co-operation as well as trade.

Trade and political co-operation are perfectly reasonable. The point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that, under the rubric of economic and monetary union, title 2 of the Single European Act was specified in brackets and referred to co-operation, not co-ordination. That is the distinction, and the Maastricht treaty took it that stage further. It is a case of, "Trade and political co-operation, yes; government, no."

I am listening with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Is it true that, at the time of the Single European Act, he said in a debate in the House that he thought that the dangers of qualified majority voting were very much exaggerated?

In the context of a number of matters in respect of trading relationships, there are perfectly reasonable arguments in favour of qualified majority voting. Otherwise, it would be impossible to remove the logjam and to increase the competition that is necessary for an enterprise Europe. That is the distinction.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of this Parliament is that, if we make mistakes and get things wrong, we can put them right? One of the great problems is that, under European legislation, we cannot do that. If we get it wrong, as we did with the Single European Act—which I did not vote for—we can put it right: we could have put that right in the House. That is what the argument is about.

I agree. It is, in fact, essential for us to apply ourselves to reforming the Single European Act. The principle may be acceptable, but the problem is that it has gone badly wrong in a range of areas, the most recent example being the 48-hour working time directive, which came in through the back door. A raft of matters require reform—but that is not to say that the principle of freeing trade in Europe is itself a bad idea.

Flexibility is a Heath Robinson idea. It is like a clock with differentiated and disconnected parts. We are not facing up to the absurdity that is inherent in the idea of variable geometry. For example, it is inconceivable that the European Union would work properly if three member states worked together in defence within a treaty arrangement, five or seven members worked together in monetary union, some worked together in transport and others in energy. The whole thing is complete nonsense. It reminds me of a famous book written by Edmund Burke, which included a description of the constitutional arrangements of Abbé Sieyès. Within the legal framework that has been created, it would be impossible for the European Court of Justice to deal with the differentiations as and when we had a pick-and-choose policy within the flexibility arrangements, as they are being proposed.

We are being seduced into a vast and complex labyrinth of current European policy, which is partly politico-cultural and partly lego-political, and from which we must find a way out. We are not. The continental political culture is alien to our political way of life.

Hon. Members may have come across a book written recently by Thomas Kielinger, a distinguished German commentator, called "Crossroads and Roundabouts: Junctions in German-British Relations". Page 209 quotes Adenauer and states:

"Adenauer knew exactly what the British represented. To him they were an essential factor in building the future Europe. Britain's inherent stability and liberal tradition"—

and these are Adenauer's words—

"stand in clear contrast to continental Europe."

That is the point. There is a fundamental difference and it goes to the heart of the problem that we face today. There is a significant difference between what Conservative Members might call the Burkeian tradition—the British tradition—and the Napoleonic system. That difference was explained in Burke's famous memorandum, "Reflections on the French Revolution". There is a fundamental difference between our approach to politics and to law and that which prevails on the continent.

Of course it is right to say that there are distinctions between us as an island people and the continentals, but most Europeans have wanted the contribution that the British could make, and that is why they wanted us to join the European Union. For example, Brandt gave strong support, as did Adenauer and Erhard. That is why Europeans want us to play a constructive role. That is why Chancellor Kohl does. Just because we can bring a different perspective to the European Union does not mean that that perspective is not also valuable.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I speak in Germany, in France and in other countries throughout Europe, as he does, and I have found much enthusiastic support for the ideas that we are advancing today. We are becoming not merely an economic role model for Europe, but a political role model for many people who are disappointed and gravely disturbed by the developments since the single market.

Continental Europe has a great tendency to be authoritarian. It lacks genuine accountability and abhors scrutiny. In the past century at least, that has led to the rejection of democracy and, in its worst form, to disorder, instability and even war. The proposed solution of flexibility, which is lego-political, aims to defuse the possibility of war by containing Germany, in particular, within a new acquis communautaire of a single institutional and legal framework, which has been established by Maastricht. It will not work. Far from it: it will hand over to Germany legitimated power on a plate, as those economically and politically dependent on her vote with Germany on all the crucial issues.

Enlargement would be damaged either by the fragmentation created by flexibility or by collapsing integration. It can be achieved only by a sensible balance of sovereign member states in trade and political co-operation. The Leader of the Opposition has expressed his opposition to the Government's notion of flexibility, because he is prepared to go along with federalism, deeper integration and the European notion of flexibility. That does not make our own tendency any better or more credible, for the very reasons that I gave in the debate on the confidence motion on Maastricht, where we sold the pass and when there was underlying collusion with the Opposition over its objectives. For some, we are back there again.

I did not vote against the Government on that motion because it would have let the Labour party in under John Smith and we still had time to change direction. The present Leader of the Opposition is clearly prepared, as is his shadow Chancellor, to go down the same unacceptable route. However, what I said to the Prime Minister on the day of the confidence motion debate was that, unless the Maastricht treaty was renegotiated, we would be faced with the unnecessary option of whether to leave the European Community.

Time is desperately short now, but we are still faced with the same option and, apart from some unclear shifts in phraseology, many of which I welcome, the need for renegotiation remains. The solution remains in the Government's hands. On last week's "Today" programme, following his meeting with our Prime Minister in Amsterdam, Mr. William Kok spoke of flexibility as a "compromise" solution. However, in reality, as with economic and monetary union in the Maastricht treaty, which should then have been fiercely resisted in the Conservative Cabinet and party, "flexibility" is not a "compromise", but an acquiescent, even appeasing concession to further and deeper integration and European government.

The hon. Gentleman uses the words "in reality". May I ask whether in reality the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with anything less than our country leaving the Community?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman made that point, because, as I have made clear time and again, and again today, my objective is not that we should leave the European Union. I am saying that the consequences of the direction in which we are being taken present a price to the British people, the electorate and the voters, which is taking us further and further towards that critical position. I am saying that, unless we renegotiate the treaties, we are set on a course that will lead us to the impossible question, which I put in the confidence motion debate, of whether we have to leave. That may be too high a price.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that such talk is certainly not reflected in the opinion polls? The Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph in December showed that there had been a 37 per cent. swing from the Conservative position in 1992, when we had the general election. Labour has a positive approach to Europe compared with such talk. According to the poll, the British people want us to be in Europe. There is no question but that they want us to play a positive role.

What complete rubbish the hon. Gentleman speaks. Apart from anything else, poll after poll shows that Britain wants a Europe that works within a single market, but that Britain does not want to come out. The tendency towards coming out is growing precisely because of the failure to clarify these questions. Much of the responsibility for that lies with the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.

Is not the counter-proposal the case, because poll after poll shows that a growing number of people—still a minority, but a growing number—have determined that outright departure from the European Community is the only solution, which is worrying? Is not that my hon. Friend's point? People recognise that there is an agenda and they do not wish to be part of it. That will grow if it is not faced up to.

My hon. Friend, who has fought many battles with me and other hon. Members who are in the Chamber, is right. The problem is the confusion and the lack of clarity, and the refusal to face the fact that the problem cannot be resolved unless we renegotiate the arrangements that are taking us deeper into the European Union. As that proceeds, it will lead us into greater difficulties.

I do not want to anticipate the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he said in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) that repeated opinion polls had shown that people wanted Britain to remain in a single market. The Government have frequently stated that the completion of the single market to our satisfaction was made possible only by the use of the veto. In the new renegotiated relationship that the hon. Gentleman seeks, from which aspects of the current single market would he wish to reclaim the veto?

I have made it clear that some areas in the single market require reform and that those reforms cannot be achieved without treaty changes, which require unanimity. I shall come to that later. I should have thought that it was in the interests of everybody in Europe, let alone hon. Members, to try to make the European Union work effectively. That is the bottom line. I am saying not that we should come out but that we could reach the point—and we are getting close to it—where that became a serious possibility

Perhaps I may offer the House an example. In European Standing Committee B. we shall shortly consider a particularly short-sighted proposal by the European Commission for a compulsory levy on the resale of all modern works of art. Not only is that a tax, but it will drive business away from London and the European Union to other art centres such as New York and Geneva. The tax is being imposed by the Commission on spurious single market grounds and can therefore be decided by majority voting. The issue is not only to retain the unanimity principle in central areas of taxation, but to ensure that the Commission does not try to circumvent those rules by proposing fiscal measures on single market grounds.

I am delighted by my right hon. Friend's intervention, because he has enormous experience in those matters, not least because he has been Paymaster General and Minister with responsibility for Europe, and was deputy Chief Whip during the Maastricht debates. I am delighted not only by the clarity and logic of his argument, but by his Damascene conversion, on which I offer him my heartiest congratulations.

We are being seduced into the slipstream of the critical mass of a federal Europe while claiming that we are against it. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is a Euro-duck. The rejection of the word "federal" means nothing if we allow the other member states to go ahead, as we did in relation to economic and monetary union under the third stage protocol. That accepts that the single currency cannot legally be vetoed by any one member state, including the United Kingdom. It also states that it is irrevocable, and we thereby condemn the United Kingdom to be on the sidelines.

It is ironic that it is we, the Euro-realists, who are often criticised by people who say that we are trying to put the United Kingdom on the sidelines. However, under the Maastricht arrangements, we were put on the sidelines by the opt-out. By failing now to insist on renegotiation, which we still have the right to undertake under article N of the treaty on European Union, we continue to sell the pass.

Renegotiation is not, as some of the more trivial commentators whom I shall not bother to mention have been stating, another way of calling for us to get out. However, renegotiation would wrong-foot the federalists. I hear siren voices claiming that we must renegotiate the treaty. I shall not mention names, because we have recently heard some of them. Stripped of all the camouflage, all that that amounts to at present is a proposal to renegotiate quota hopping or the 48-hour working week, while leaving intact the issue of economic and monetary union and the single currency, which would undermine our democracy.

We are prepared to veto the entire intergovernmental conference over issues such as quota hopping, but not on the question whether we can govern ourselves, which is what EMU and the single currency are all about. Why is that? I am afraid to say that it is simply because there has been an increasing concern that we are not admitting that we got it wrong over the disastrous exchange rate mechanism. That fed its way into our lack of credibility on tax and allowed the Opposition a field day, both on that subject, as we saw from what the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said a few days ago, and on the whole question of vulnerability on public expenditure. All that is tied up in the issue and in our prospects for the general election.

There is also an agreement, accepted by the Opposition, to let the other member states, including Germany, go ahead with EMU, which is driven by the Chancellor Kohl's obsession with political union. This is an issue of political principle upon which there can be no compromise, but which, far from being renegotiated, is being extended under the current proposals for the extension of the treaty on European Union, under the same flexibility arrangements that are accepted in the paper which I have here. Dated 16 January, it states that the most perfect example of flexibility is economic and monetary union. We must say no to flexibility now.

In the context of renegotiation, would the hon. Gentleman care to look at article 107 of the treaty? That makes it plain that virtually all the major economic decisions will be in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable European central bank. Astonishingly, that article makes it plain that it will be illegal for democratically elected Parliaments or Governments to influence that unelected European central bank. If we allow that to happen or if the matter is not renegotiated, at the general election, those who are elected will not have the powers to implement their manifesto, and those for whom people cannot vote will have power to make the economic decisions.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The central bank arrangements, which are within the aegis of the European Court of Justice, specifically state that the governors of the bank may not seek or take instructions from member states. That cuts across section 4 of our Bank of England Act 1946 and makes it crystal clear that the umbilical cord connecting Parliament and the electorate—the people who vote in line with their priorities, thus exercising the freedom of choice for which people in this country have fought and died—would be handed over to completely unaccountable, bureaucratic bankers with no guarantee that they will deliver. We have only to look at the mess of the exchange rate mechanism to imagine what would happen if the entire system were placed in the hands of the people who are running that.

My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Does he agree that one of the most sinister aspects of the matter is that those who are not even prepared to contemplate renegotiation are effectively saying that all the facts that my hon. Friend describes are so acceptable that one should not even contemplate renegotiation? What resonance does that have in the country at large?

My hon. Friend puts the matter well, and he is dead right. The problem is that, throughout the House, in the nation as a whole and elsewhere in Europe, concern has built up since the Maastricht treaty. That should lead us to re-evaluate the decisions that were taken at that time, but nothing is being done about that. I shall come to the mechanism that I propose to get renegotiation going. Everybody knows that the system is going ahead. Although the federalists are winning, there is a general protest that, somehow or other, we are doing something to stop the process. Some effective discussions are taking place, but they are neither negotiations nor renegotiations.

The Foreign Secretary—who, as I said, realises the importance of the issue—proposes to engage in a European tour, to explain to the peoples of Europe what is at stake. I entirely agree that we should do so. For what it is worth, for the past few years, I have spoken in Germany, France, Spain, Denmark and in other countries in Europe, at meetings and—as some may have noticed—in the media. The people of Europe are very receptive to the arguments.

I was very much encouraged by the Prime Minister's excellent interview with Hugo Young in this week's issue of The New Yorker, in which he rejected the idea that the United Kingdom would ever allow our right to determine our own electoral priorities at general elections—the very point made by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith)—to be handed over to an unaccountable European central bank. As I have often asked—I asked the then Foreign Secretary, during the Maastricht debates—what could be more centralising than a central bank, despite the Government's and the Opposition's claims at that time that the Maastricht treaty was a decentralising measure? What could be more centralising and undemocratic than a central bank?

I had better say that my question is based on the point of view that we should enter into the single currency at the first possible opportunity. Having been candid about that, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to be candid on another matter? How would he and his friends react if the Foreign Secretary of Germany or of France came to London, Stafford, Edinburgh or wherever, giving lectures on what we should do? What on earth would he say? What does he think that the Germans, the French and the Italians will say when our Foreign Secretary goes round Europe lecturing them on what to do?

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because, only a short time ago, Klaus Kinkel effectively said that he thought that the British people should vote for the Labour party, as a soft option—which is precisely what it is. I hope that those following the debate will take that point on board. The tour shows considerable determination and a desire to get the issues out into the open.

Are we a European Community or are we not? The hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on that point. If we are a community, and if the decisions being taken within the developing legal framework equally affect us and others, we have an absolute right—as I said when I went to Denmark for its referendum debate—to get in there to put our point of view. Otherwise, we shall be only affected by the debate, which relates to my concern about so much majority voting in European government.

Earlier this year, I went to France and gave a speech to a thousand Frenchmen from across France.

Did my hon. Friend speak in French?

After I had spoken to them in French—which surprised them as much as it surprised me—they gave me the most tremendous reception. The speech was shown on "Panorama". Those people listened, because they know that their destiny is tied to ours.

How then do we resolve the contradictions? We do so very simply. We have the inalienable right—in line with the Prime Minister's comments in the interview—to put on the formal agenda the issues of a single currency and extension of the doctrine of flexibility. We should combine those issues with the issues of flexibility and the veto, and then, at the intergovernmental conference, take the issue of political principle into the heart of Europe. We should then combine the Foreign Secretary's approach with the Prime Minister's interview, and confront Chancellor Kohl and the political elite of the European Union at the IGC with the democratically expressed views of their own people and their media. If they subsequently did not listen, we would have to veto the entire conference.

The issues are causing much turbulence across Europe and much difficulty for the electorates of Europe. We would get a tremendous reaction from across Europe if we were not merely to walk around Europe speaking to single audiences here and there, but, as a function of government within the IGC, if we were formally to seek to renegotiate the treaty by putting those issues on the agenda. Individual Governments and the leaders of the member states would then have to respond to the internal democratic pressures being exerted in their own countries. That proposal should answer the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on whether we would be interfering in the affairs of other member states by raising the issues, as the Foreign Secretary is quite rightly proposing to do.

The Foreign Secretary, in raising those issues, will be participating in the European Union and in the European Community. Moreover, if we put the issues on the IGC agenda, the people in individual member states will rise up—as they are already rioting in some countries—against the political elite, forcing it to change the treaty so that it is in line with the people's wishes. There is no other way forward. If we do not raise the issues, we shall simply be helping—despite our protestations to the contrary—to create and even to encourage a federal Europe.

We must take a stand, and let the electorates of Europe have their own say—with the intense media interest that that would generate—as they move towards their own imminent elections. Consider the effect of Britain taking a lead in the IGC—as the Pandora's box is opened—on electorates across Europe. Opinion polls in the UK, Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Austria already prove my point. There are riots and disorder in France and Greece. As the Maastricht criteria bite ever deeper, so my case will be proved. If we took a stand before our general election, whenever it takes place, our prospects would be transformed.

The March 1996 White Paper, however, pointed in exactly the opposite direction. Paragraph 12 stated:

"Revisions to the Treaty must be agreed by all. We must be realistic therefore about the sort of changes we can hope to achieve at the IGC, just as we are clear about the sort of changes we will not accept."

It goes on to say that, if we do not do so, an integrationist agenda will be imposed upon us. Such an agenda cannot be imposed upon us. However, we can put the items on the agenda for renegotiation.

The central and hopeless passage in the White Paper states:

"If we were to press ideas which stand no chance of general acceptance, some others would seek to impose an integrationist agenda which would be equally unacceptable from our point of view."

As I have said before, the White Paper is a monument to appeasement. It was endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition, who would not oppose it. The White Paper also endorses the principle of flexibility, promoted by the new paper of 16 January, from the presidency of the European Union, in line with the conclusions of the reflections Group. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office no doubt thinks back to his time as a participant in that group.

Paragraph 12 of the White Paper states:

"It is on this basis that the Government will be approaching the"

intergovernmental

"Conference."

It goes on to say that there is no serious or real prospect, and that it is not "expected", that the single currency issue will be on the IGC agenda. I do not care whether it is "expected" to be on the agenda. I am saying, for the reasons that I have already given, that it should be on the agenda.

There are merchants of doom, who see no way out at all; and there are merchants of despair, who subscribe to paragraph 12. A prime example of the merchants of despair is my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). I invited him to come to the House to listen to what I have to say. I doubt whether he is interested and I do not know where he is at the moment. On 26 January, writing in the Sunday Express, my right hon. Friend falsely accused me of being "Europhobic". I suggested that he be here today because I am replying to him. In the newspaper, he is described as

"one of the Prime Minister's closest friends and advisers"

who

"calls for a Conservative pact with Labour"

on Europe. From the article, he seems to be comfortable with the Labour party on this subject, and he advocates a single currency.

I repudiate the proposal of a pact with Labour, and I repudiate my right hon. Friend's ludicrous assertion that I am Europhobic; my speech and my record show that I am not. My right hon. Friend should know that perfectly well because he was, after all, the deputy Chief Whip and he was the Minister with responsibility for Europe. I trust that he is no longer listened to by the Prime Minister.

I now come to the more important part of what I have to say about my right hon. Friend's article, the rest of which is of no importance. He is wrong in his assertion that the anti-Europeans, who, he says, will "squeal like stuck pigs", are a minority; they are not. When my right hon. Friend claims that, on a free vote, his ideas would prevail, he should take on board the fact that research by Professor Andrew Gamble of Sheffield university and our research in the House show that, on the fundamental Maastricht issues, a substantial majority of approximately 60 per cent. of Back Benchers who were whipped by my right hon. Friend had different views. Things had not been properly explained and certain circumstances had not arisen—I make no complaint about that. Despite that, 60 per cent. of those who replied to the private survey said that they did not agree with the Maastricht treaty. In a new Parliament, my right hon. Friend will be proved even more wrong and he knows it. That is the important point on which I wished to reply.

I now return to my fundamental theme. The 1970 White Paper claimed, contrary to the present assertions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), that we would not lose our sovereignty and that we would not give up our veto on matters that were of vital or essential national interest. In the light of my right hon. Friend's present views, I have challenged him on the Floor of the House to repudiate the statements made in the White Paper, but he has refused to reply. Indeed, the White Paper went further and said that for any member state to give up its right to use its veto in its essential national interest, even if in a minority, would

"imperil the very fabric of the Community."

That is the point.

In other words, the whole concept of flexibility, which means moving down the route towards increased majority voting—that is implicit in the EMU arrangements, which the presidency paper says is the best example of flexibility—is in direct contradiction to the 1970 White Paper, which said that to go down that route would

"imperil the very fabric of the Community."

That comment is hardly surprising. Already, there are riots, disorder and all the rest of it. The unemployment rate is getting higher and there may be problems with defence and other matters. If member states create a compression chamber and then have majority voting inserted by treaty arrangement within a legal framework, who will be surprised if the fabric of the Community is destroyed? It is precisely for that reason that I repudiate the assertion made by hon. Members who oppose me when I say that I am in favour of the European Union—of the kind that I want.

Maastricht and its bedfellow, the doctrine of flexibility, will destroy the fabric of the Community. My criticism of those who advocate or acquiesce in the current proposals for the IGC—I include the proposals in paragraph 12 of the White Paper—is that they undermine our position in the United Kingdom and in the European Union. The treaty must be renegotiated in the present IGC and that requires a degree of political will among the political elite, who are far removed from present public opinion throughout the Union.

I invite hon. Members to look at the presidency conclusions of and the statement on the Dublin summit, which describe the single currency and the stability pact, which has yet to be debated in the House, in terms only of economic and not of political significance. That is a travesty. It is abundantly clear that the criteria are being fudged; that comes out in the Treasury paper and in my recent correspondence with Mr. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, which is referred to in The Times. We are seeing a welcome shift towards recognition of the fact that the criteria are clearly being fudged, even if people do not want to say so too openly. I am a plain speaker; I like speaking bluntly about these matters. The criteria are being fudged. Let us get them changed and let us renegotiate, so that we can start sorting things out.

We did not veto the stability pact when we could and should have done. The result is that, like the hard core of EMU, it has been allowed to go ahead, again under the doctrine of flexibility. One way or another, we shall pay for the stability pact as we have paid for so many other things. Indeed, even our opt-out from EMU is flexible and not permanent. Hon. Members may recall that the opt-out says that, even if we say no to begin with, we can say yes later.

The presidency paper of 16 January suggests that that approach would apply to all other policies brought within the doctrine of flexibility. Furthermore, as we already know with the social chapter and the European Monetary Institute, we are expected to pay for the running of policies under the doctrine of flexibility. That is made clear in the presidency paper under the heading "Financing". It says that it is expected that, if the doctrine of flexibility is introduced, member states within the general framework of the European Union will have to pay for the running of the institutions that service them. It is the same with the EMI and the social chapter; that is the name of the game. We are moving further and further down that route. We are allowing the whole federal arrangement to go ahead without using the veto when it really matters.

I come now to the areas of government now under threat and draw attention to an important distinction that must be made—the difference between trade and matters such as the social chapter, which are non-governmental, and those that are governmental, such as EMU, defence, foreign policy, justice and home affairs. It may be news to some that the new presidency paper includes defence as a "likely" candidate. I understand that the Government have, amazingly, not ruled that out. The reason is that, even if the other member states went ahead, they could not efficiently carry out a European defence policy without the United Kingdom. That idea needs to be hit on the head; it is dangerous stuff. If there is a serious intention that the doctrine of flexibility should be applied to defence, that is absolutely that. There is no question about it whatever. Monetary union, no; defence, no; foreign policy, no.

I recall Chancellor Kohl saying that the Union must not be slowed down to the speed of the slowest member. The U-boats knew all about that. No doubt their flexibility of movement was also regarded as enhanced co-operation.

Even taxation is mentioned in the presidency paper and there is a threat of action outside the treaty. In other words, if the federalists do not get their way, the gun will be put to our head and they will say, "We will carry on and we will do things outside the treaty if you do not do them inside." That is blackmail. Not only that, but it provides us with a perfectly reasonable basis not only to insist on renegotiation, but to veto the entire conference and put the federalists in the wrong. They are the ones who would say that they would do things on their terms, outside the treaty, whereas we would renegotiate under article N and would deal with all those questions in a proper and legal fashion. That is the difference. Why can we not take a lead on those lines?

Even the common agricultural policy is said to be inviolable under the proposed arrangements. My hon. Friend the Minister may shake his head; I hope that that is because he agrees with me that the CAP cannot be inviolable. However, my point is that that is the direction in which the presidency paper is taking us. It appears that the difference between our approach to flexibility and that of other member states is not one of principle.

We now know that EMU is regarded as the best example of flexibility. When I cross-examined the Foreign Secretary in the Select Committee on European Legislation in February last year, I asked him whether the single currency was a matter of principle. He said that he did not follow what I was saying. I know the Foreign Secretary too well to think that he could not follow what I am saying. I say that it is a question of principle and I am glad to note that even the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conceded that, saying that he has no objection to the idea of the single currency as a matter of principle.

All those issues are interwoven. I want the Government to win and I want Britain to win. I want us to renegotiate the treaty and to wrong-foot the federalists in Europe. If we do that, we shall be in line with the wishes of the people of Europe. We shall be performing a function of general benefit to the United Kingdom and to the people of Europe.

According to our White Paper, we are supposed to be against a hard core, but now we are refusing to rule it out. Perhaps we should not be surprised, in view of paragraph 12 of the White Paper, to which I have just referred. On 23 January—to show my hon. Friend the Minister that I have been following speeches on the subject closely—the Foreign Secretary said:

"Open to all, agreed by, all should be our watchword."

I hope to hear from the Minister today that we shall veto the proposals now on the table, even if that means contradicting the thoroughly flawed policy of variable geometry, for the hard core is variable geometry. If we rule out one, we must rule out the other. Otherwise, we shall be letting the process of flexibility go forward.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one who is not on your list to speak, may I point out that the hon. Gentleman who opened the debate has now been going on for five minutes more than half the time available—for 45 minutes? Was it the purpose of these Wednesday morning debates, which were meant to be a substitute for short Adjournment debates, that the hon. Member opening the debate should take more than half the time available?

To the best of my knowledge, there is no ruling on that. Certainly, it would be normal practice for the proposer to allow time for other hon. Members, but there is no ruling.

I issued an invitation to many of my colleagues, asking whether they wished to speak. Only one said that he wished to do so. I have had a series of repeated interventions from Opposition Members, which have delayed me, but I shall press on.

We are letting the process of flexibility go forward. There is a world of difference between having a veto and exercising it. The Leader of the Opposition gets away with his policy on the use of the veto by blurring that difference time and again. We do too little to stop him. There is a determination not to highlight the Maastricht treaty because it would show how much the Government sold the pass then and how much we are liable to concede.

In the White Paper in March last year, the Government said that there must not be a two-tier Europe with a hard core of countries or policies, but that is precisely what was agreed at Maastricht over EMU and that is the direction in which we are going. I warned the Conservative party manifesto committee against that six years ago in the paper that the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), asked me to write on Europe. I also warned against a two-speed Europe, because such a policy assumes that we have surrendered the principle of further integration. The same goes for words such as "variable geometry" and "multi-track".

That fits in with the concentric circles plan, which is what Germany wants in the pursuit of its national interest. It wants the European Court of Justice adjudicating over a federal Europe. Chancellor Kohl and his advisers, including Karl Lamers, make it clear that it is Germany's historic mission to use its will to achieve European integration. Karl Lamers even refers to one country, saying that the nation state is

"no more than an empty shell".

It is our historic duty to prevent them. That requires us to be at the table at the intergovernmental conference for the renegotiation of the treaty on European Union. The Government are not attempting to do that. That is as bad as the "wait and see" policy.

The Government are not negotiating or deciding at the IGC table on the single currency, despite what was said at the party conference; nor are they renegotiating or deciding on the essential issues. I should like to know why. If we do not renegotiate, either we are drawn further in by flexibility or we are faced with the question of getting out. That is why the sooner we stop pretending that we can live with flexibility, the better.

I thought that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) was going to treat the House to an explanation of his position on the national veto, because that was what the debate was apparently meant to be about. Instead, he treated the House to his usual extremely lengthy, wide-ranging, anti-European Union rant, with which those of us who had the misfortune to listen through all the Maastricht debates are all too familiar. Perhaps he was trying to justify his right to write his own manifesto when the time comes—we shall see—or perhaps he is giving a hint to one or two of his colleagues on what they should put in their manifestos.

That was his manifesto.

I understand that.

I should like to say a few words about the veto. I am strongly in favour of the Labour party policy of retaining unanimous voting—and therefore a national veto—on issues that are vital to Britain, such as taxation, immigration, defence, treaty changes, enlargement and the European Union budget, because they are so important. However, qualified majority voting has been valuable to the development of the European Union.

The hon. Member for Stafford and others of his hon. Friends who argue in favour of retaining the veto in all circumstances forget that, with unanimous voting, Britain's veto is also Spain's veto, France's veto and Germany's veto, so other countries can block policies that we support. That simple fact persuaded the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to support qualified majority voting on the single market. She realised that it was in Britain's interest to extend the single market as quickly as possible, but that without qualified majority voting others might block its development in areas vital to British national interests. There are many examples of how right she was. Qualified majority voting has helped to open up banking, insurance and public procurement to British firms.

Last June, for example, the electricity liberalisation directive passed through the Council of Ministers only because it was subject to qualified majority voting. Had the national veto been retained, France would have been able to block that measure. Qualified majority voting will also be needed to open up the gas market.

In practice, the so-called opening up has not happened. Qualified majority voting may produce a certain decision, as the hon. Gentleman claims, but the decision has not been put into effect: the two-way street in electricity is not in existence even now.

That, I am afraid, is totally incorrect. There is no doubt that the single market has been substantially successful. If the hon. Gentleman had read the European Commission report on the success of the single market, he would understand that many markets have been opened up to British exporters, among others. We have been one of the major beneficiaries of the single market, as Baroness Thatcher well understood. That was one of her sensible policies on the European Union.

The general agreement on tariffs and trade would not have been achieved if trade issues had not been subject to qualified majority voting. If the national veto had applied, France could have blocked the agreement and pushed for a more protectionist policy. For example, we would all like to see reform of the common agricultural policy, but the reforms achieved so far—the MacSharry reforms—would not have been passed without qualified majority voting. Further reforms will be achieved only with qualified majority voting.

Qualified majority voting has been extremely useful. The so-called Euro-sceptics are so defensive about these matters that they do not understand that it is possible to build up winning majorities and that Britain very often does so. I understand that the United Kingdom was outvoted only seven times out of 261 in 1993–94—the latest year for which figures are available. It is therefore sensible to consider qualified majority voting in a pragmatic case by case assessment of where the British national interest lies. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary said in evidence to the Select Committee on European Legislation:

"If there were an area of European Union policy which could only be advanced through majority voting and which we were convinced would serve important United Kingdom interests, then it would be foolish and illogical of us not to support majority voting in that area."

That is a sensible approach and one that we should adopt at the intergovernmental conference.

Is not the hon. Gentleman emphasising the case of those whom he describes as Euro-sceptics? Every example of qualified majority voting that he has cited has been in relation to trade. Conservative Euro-sceptics are in favour of a proper and full trade arrangement with Europe, but do not want it to trespass into matters that we consider to be of sovereign and constitutional importance to Britain.

The single market was always much more far-reaching than Conservative Members supposed. It always had certain political implications and subjected more decisions to what they call the "interference" of the European Court of Justice. If a single market has rules, there has to be some means of settling any dispute. The Euro-sceptics would like to rule out the European Court of Justice altogether. I will cite some more examples, which the hon. Gentleman may find more difficult to rebut.

First, there is a case for extending qualified majority voting to regional and structural funds, which account for 25 per cent. of the EU budget. If EU membership increases, the amount spent on structural funds will increase proportionately. If membership reached 27, for instance, those funds would double. Clearly reform is needed to prevent that from happening and to protect the British taxpayer. It will not be possible to reform regional and structural funds and keep them under control without qualified majority voting.

Secondly, we stand to benefit considerably from European research and development programmes, but the current system of negotiation works against British interests and denies us funds for which we would qualify on competitive grounds. Again, qualified majority voting in those matters would suit the British interest.

Thirdly, the Government say that they are in favour of tough anti-fraud measures; but these are subject to the national veto, and it is quite easy for national Governments to veto tougher measures if they consider them to be against their national interests. Again, qualified majority voting would help us and safeguard the British taxpayer.

I have drawn attention to three areas in which the extension of qualified majority voting would help our national interests. If the European Union accepts more members, there is a case for the extension of qualified majority voting; otherwise, the EU will be brought to a halt. I appreciate that that is exactly what certain Conservative Members want, but the vast majority of European people do not agree with them. That is a further argument for extending qualified majority voting.

I will not follow the hon. Member for Stafford down the path of flexibility, although I share his view. I am against the so-called French-German clause of strengthened co-operation as it will encourage a hard core, which would be against British interests. It was devised as a result of British obstructionism and I am not in favour of it; I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

I have listened to the speeches of the hon. Member for Stafford on many occasions, so I am beginning to get the measure of the points that he makes. He boasts of having voted in favour of British entry into the European Union, but apparently he had not yet read the treaty of Rome. He says that he is in favour of a free trade area. The Common Market was always much more than a free trade area, so the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what it was all about.

The hon. Gentleman says that he is against British withdrawal, or at any rate that he is not in favour of it at the moment, but the problem is his attitude to the European Union. He says that in principle he is against Britain joining a single currency and he is quite prepared to wreck the intergovernmental conference on the veto, flexibility clause or any other issue, and that he wants to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That would amount, if not to total withdrawal, certainly to a semi-detached Britain. That is not a position for a major country to take.

As the hon. Gentleman knows—because his family has suffered, as has mine—anything that happens on the continent is vital to Britain, and it would be extraordinarily dangerous for us to detach ourselves from Europe in that way. The hon. Gentleman allows his anti-German prejudices—which he sometimes admits, and which he admitted again this morning—to cloud his judgment as to where Britain's national interest lies. Not only is he a danger to the Tory party—we do not mind him splitting the Tory party, as he has been doing very effectively for the past four or five years—but he is a danger to Britain because he does not understand where British national interests lie. I hope that after the general election we shall have a Labour Government with a constructive policy on Europe to promote British national interests.

Time is short, but that shows how quickly time passes when we are enjoying ourselves. I thoroughly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). As he said so much that I would have said, I shall be brief.

My first point is that we cannot go on in this way. Essentially, we are in the European Community under false premises. When we joined, we thought that we were entering a common market, for that is what it was called, although the intellectual elite among us—or those who like to consider themselves as such—might have read the treaty of Rome and realised that, far from being a Common Market, it was actually a mere stepping stone towards a federal destiny.

The first time I read the treaty of Rome, it was in my red box when I had to go to Europe to speak on some matter because another Minister was ill. I realised then that we had been misled by the Government of the day.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, but I have very little time.

When I read the treaty, I realised for the first time that we would have to have a great deal more sympathy with our European partners' perception that we were not very good Europeans. We joined what we thought was a common market, but it was no such thing. At the time, we were assured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) that any idea that we were moving towards a federal Europe was scaremongering. He said:

"There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty … These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified".

We know now, under the 30-year rule, that the advice tendered by the Lord Chancellor of the day was that there would be an inevitable and crucial compromise of sovereignty.

Although it may be our fault that we went into the European Community under false premises, that is the position that we are now in. We have to say to our European partners, "You have a vision of the future and if you want to follow it, that is entirely right for you; there is nothing ignoble about wanting a federal destiny, but it is not right for us." We must say that the Europe in which we could participate as good and enthusiastic Europeans is essentially a trading arrangement.

I and others like me say that we do not want to leave the Community, and indeed we do not. In some ways, it would be much easier for people like me to say, "Yes, I am in favour of leaving the Community," but I am in favour of a European relationship with which we can feel comfortable—and that means renegotiation. Before there can be any possibility of such renegotiation, however, one crucial event must take place: the Conservative party must win the next election. Despite what people try to suggest about some great split in the Conservative party on Europe, there is more than sufficient in common in all shades of opinion in the Conservative party for us to be able to offer a unique and distinctive alternative to the Labour party.

Whatever differences the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I might have on Europe, we would be at one in saying, "This far, and no further," on federalism. That is my position and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and it is completely distinctive from that of the Opposition parties. As we have seen today, their idea of renegotiation is to put in a pre-emptive cringe and go along with federalism because, they say, we cannot stand on our own two feet in the world. I look forward to a time when we can renegotiate and when we can have a relationship with Europe that is good and comfortable for both sides, but the prerequisite for that to happen is a Conservative victory at the next election.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on his success in winning the ballot. This seemed a surprising subject for an Adjournment debate as it is so wide-ranging, although I could understand it if the hon. Gentleman felt that there had not been enough occasions to debate the issues on the Floor of the House. I share the criticism that the Committees which scrutinise European legislation and others have made that the Government have not allowed enough time for many of the wide-ranging European issues to be discussed and have tended to hide the discussions away in Committee rather than allow them to take place on the Floor of the House for more widespread scrutiny and debate.

We heard a lengthy speech from the hon. Member for Stafford, which I regret, as there were certainly Opposition Members who wanted to speak. The hon. Gentleman said that he had ascertained which of his hon. Friends wanted to speak and that there was not much demand. If he is really as keen on democracy as he says he is, it would have been courteous to ascertain how many Opposition Members would have liked to contribute to the debate. I have come to the place in my notes where I noted that I should refer to the speeches made by other hon. Members. Unfortunately, there were only two because of lack of time, but I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who showed himself to be more of a Euro-realist, to use the hon. Member for Stafford's term, than the hon. Gentleman himself.

I also listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). He referred to his right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who played such an important role in this country becoming part of the European Community. I must point out, however, that the right hon. Gentleman contests the view put forward by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. A recent article in The Daily Telegraph pointed out that at that time—as those of us who followed to debate will remember—it was not simply a question of joining some kind of free trading agreement or common market. Many speeches were made by right hon. and hon. Members from all political parties pointing to the issue of sovereignty. I remember those debates taking place in my party and I remember reading about those debates taking place in Parliament.

I remind the hon. Lady that between 1972 and 1975 those of us who had read the treaty of Rome and pointed out what was involved were constantly told that we were wrong. We said that the treaty of Rome was much deeper and much more than just a common market, but we were told that we were wrong.

The fact that the hon. Gentleman says that he pointed out those issues shows that they were raised in the debate, and anybody who took an interest in European policy at the time knows that they were raised by many people. The most perfunctory reading of the treaty of Rome, especially the preamble on the first page, would have made the position completely clear.

Did not the heads of state refer in that preamble to the ever closer union of their peoples?

My hon. Friend cites the preamble, with which we are all familiar. The hon. Member for Stafford said that he was proud of his record in having opposed the Maastricht treaty, although he seemed less forthcoming about his role in supporting the Single European Act, which, as we know, was guillotined through the House of Commons by the Government, led by Baroness Thatcher.

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

No, I will not give way any more because of lack of time.

At the time of the Single European Act, the hon. Gentleman said that he believed that the dangers of qualified majority voting were much exaggerated. It is, of course, fair for him to change his mind, but it is not fair for him to claim that he has been entirely consistent on the matter.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the working time directive and said that it had come in through the back door. I have to contest that, as the working time directive is based on the health and safety provisions contained in the Single European Act, which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends supported. The fact that the Government then negotiated an opt-out from the social chapter does not negate the other legal possibilities for social and employment legislation, including the health and safety provisions of the Single European Act. Far from being a back door, that is an obvious route if one is concerned that excessive working hours and lack of holidays have an effect on health and safety, which has been well proved even by information from by the Department of Health.

The Government now tell us that the working time directive is a make-or-break issue for the intergovernmental conference, although somewhat confusingly they tell us that quota hopping is also a make-or-break issue. Other issues raised in the Government's White Paper also seem to be make-or-break issues. When the Minister replies—I appreciate that he has not so much time to respond to the debate as he might have wished—perhaps he will tell us what support he is getting from other Governments on those various make-or-break issues, so that at least the House can be better informed by the Government than we have been up to now.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stafford, have raised the issue of flexibility and I agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham on the subject. Certainly, if "flexibility" is simply a code for a two-tier Europe in which Britain loses influence, we would not approve, but at this stage most of the discussions about flexibility are not entirely clear and we must see exactly what is proposed.

Mention was made of the Foreign Secretary's tour of Europe to appeal to the peoples of Europe over the heads of the Governments. I appreciated the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on that subject. As he pointed out, when Mr. Kinkel made similar comments about the United Kingdom's position, that was criticised by Members on both sides of the House as interference. It therefore seems strange that the Foreign Secretary is embarking on that tour of Europe.

It is also rather strange because the Foreign Secretary seems to have a great deal to do to convince his own party and the British people that he is representing them effectively in Europe. He seems unaware that we shall be having a general election, and proposes to spend most of his time abroad converting European populations to his cause, or perhaps he has already admitted defeat in the general election.

The hon. Member for Stafford also referred to the Government's White Paper. He was one of those who were most vociferous in calling on the Government to produce a White Paper, but was of course extremely disappointed when it was produced. In an earlier debate, he called it

"a whited sepulchre … dead on the inside."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 567.]

Today he even seemed to consider it a monumental mistake. We believed that the White Paper was schizophrenic because it was trying to appeal to two different audiences. It was trying to placate the remaining Europhiles in the Conservative party while at the same time placating Conservative Euro-sceptics. Not surprisingly, therefore, it failed woefully.

One of the issues of which the Government made great play in the White Paper was the role of the European Court of Justice. The Government were again schizophrenic in saying on the one hand that they wanted a strong European court to defend the rights of countries in the single market and to ensure that countries were compelled to live up to their obligations, while on the other hand they wanted a weak European court where obligations would have to be fully complied with only in serious or manifest breaches of Community law. Those two attitudes seem completely inconsistent. Will the Minister resolve that inconsistency and tell us how much support other countries have given to their comments on the European Court of Justice?

We believe that the dangers of some conspiracy against the British veto, which the hon. Member for Stafford seemed keen to point out, are not present in the European Union in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. During the Government's policy of non-co-operation in Europe, we saw the large number of issues that are decided by unanimity. We do not propose to make those issues not subject to the veto—certainly those that came up during the period of non-co-operation.

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman studies the list of proposals that were blocked at that time. The number of issues that are dealt with by unanimity in the European treaties may give him some comfort. The draft document being put forward by the Irish presidency, which looks ahead to the intergovernmental conference, is cautious, pragmatic and realistic in tone rather than super-federalist, and does not fulfil the conspiracy theories of which the hon. Gentleman seems to be so fond.

Although the veto is obviously important, it is also important in the European Union to build alliances. In many ways, whether something is determined by unanimity or qualified majority voting is not always the point. Despite the fact that QMV operates in agricultural policy, which has been mentioned in this debate, in practice countries tend to talk around the issues to reach a consensus. That is very often a sensible way forward in the European system.

I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that we need a different approach to the European issue. We need an approach that will give the British people a better deal from their EU membership and make for more constructive co-operation on economic, environmental, employment and social matters, all of which are important. The British people will get that better deal only under a Labour Government.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) not only on securing this debate but on the best speech that I have heard him make on this subject in all the many years I have listened to him. I grant that it was not the shortest speech, but then that is a pretty difficult race to win. Although I obviously do not agree with everything that he said—not least his apparent comparison between Neville Chamberlain and myself in respect of appeasement—I certainly felt that he addressed the issue vigorously, as did the whole House.

A number of very perceptive interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford highlighted how important and central the issue of flexibility is. I am sure that flexibility will be the central axis of the negotiations in Amsterdam, and there will be a great deal of movement around it at that time. I am delighted that he has taken the role of John the Baptist in going around Europe before my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, preparing the way for him. I trust that my hon. Friend will have a better fate than the original John the Baptist.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) highlighted perfectly the issue that is at the heart of flexibility: the difficulty of squaring the circle between those who want one vision of Europe and those who want a federalist Europe. His input was very good. I also enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice). He and I do not agree on many aspects of Europe, but I recognise how hard he has fought his case in his own party over the past decade.

How would the Minister feel if Klaus Kinkel went around Britain lecturing us?

I was asked that question on the radio. After five minutes of discussing what Mr. Kinkel said, the radio interviewer attacked me for not being more critical of him. I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to ask what right my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has to put his views. The answer is a very great right. Our argument is recognised and supported by many of the peoples in Europe, and it is perfectly right for my right hon. and learned Friend to say, "This is a better future for Europe than the one being offered by some distinctly federalist Governments around Europe."

The debate has largely focused on flexibility, which has been hung on the hook of enlargement of the Union in the past. Enlargement to include the new democracies of the Union is certainly this generation's greatest challenge and opportunity. It is a vital vocation for the Union. Flexibility within it is driven by two views of the future after enlargement. On the one hand, there are those countries which argue that widening should mean deepening, to use the jargon of the art.

That view is virtually adopted by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who in December attacked the idea of maintaining Britain's veto after enlargement on a number of grounds. He said:

"let's disentangle those two quite separate concepts … let's take first the issue of majority voting and then we can look at the issue of centralisation".

He missed the point entirely, of course, because majority voting is quintessentially about centralisation. By definition, majority voting means overruling nation states, and overruling nation states means moving power from the nation state to the centre. However, I shall not labour that point for too long, as I have only a few minutes to address the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford.

The other view of Europe is our view: Europe's strength lies in its diversity. That is the British vision. The approach that we support is designed for a Europe which respects the differing political traditions, social cultures, historical experiences and geographical features of member states, a Union with which all member states feel comfortable, which develops on the basis of consensus as well as diversity—exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge.

Flexibility is already a reality in Europe. Not everyone agrees with it, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford highlighted that. The obvious examples are the provisions on monetary union and the United Kingdom's social protocol opt-out, but there are other, less obvious, examples of flexibility. The issue of zero rating of value added tax has been somewhat controversial recently. Britain and Ireland are the only two countries in Europe to maintain a derogation on zero rating on VAT on food and various other items. That demonstrates flexibility within Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised the question whether flexibility would make Britain a second-class citizen and aid the on-rush of federalism in Europe. We differ on that issue. However, if he was describing the effect of the Franco-German proposal, I would agree with him wholeheartedly. That would certainly have the effect that he described. France and Germany have proposed a form of flexibility in which no member state would have a right of veto: it would be a veto bypass—there is no other way of describing it—and we oppose that wholeheartedly. That is—

Order. We must move on to the next topic.

I am grateful for the opportunity to express my concerns and the concerns of the Scottish National party about the operation of the cold weather payments scheme and the problem of fuel poverty in Scotland. The scheme was intended to ensure that our most vulnerable citizens had enough money to finance extra fuel requirements over winter. I aim to highlight the fact that it has failed on several fronts to achieve its aim.

To be eligible for a cold weather payment, an individual must be entitled to income support or income-related jobseeker's allowance and either be in receipt of a pension or disability premium or have a dependent child aged under five years. Payments of £8.50 a week are triggered only if the average mean daily temperature is 0 deg C or below for seven consecutive days or if such temperatures are forecast for the next seven days. The Meteorological Office monitors temperatures on behalf of the Benefits Agency at 70 weather stations in the United Kingdom, 18 of which are in Scotland.

It is widely recognised that anomalies in the existing system mean that it is failing to meet the requirements of those in need. The cold weather payments scheme was intended to prevent our most vulnerable citizens from getting into the dreadful position of being unable affordably to heat their homes during the cold winter. Its success or failure must be measured against that aim. The prevalence of fuel poverty among Scotland's poor therefore reveals the inadequacy of the current system.

Fuel poverty is defined as the inability to afford adequate warmth in the home because of low incomes and energy-inefficient dwellings. Energy Action Scotland estimates that about 800,000 households in Scotland still experience fuel poverty. That represents a staggering one in three Scottish homes. Poorer households tend to live in the least insulated and hardest to heat homes.

The 1991 Scottish house condition survey found that single parents, large families, the unemployed and retired people were far more likely to live in properties affected by condensation and damp, in both the public and private sectors. To achieve adequate warmth, such housing requires more fuel, so the poor have to designate a greater proportion of their disposable income to fuel costs.

An accepted definition of affordable warmth in purely monetary terms seems to be that no more than 10 per cent. of disposable income should be spent on fuel, yet Energy Action Scotland estimates that poorer families and individuals generally spend as much as 20 per cent. of their weekly income on fuel, compared with the UK average of only 5 per cent.

Research conducted by the Scottish Consumer Council has confirmed that low-income families tend to have electrical heating systems, which usually consume more fuel and are more expensive to run. The imposition of value added tax on fuel therefore has a proportionally greater impact on those who can ill afford to pay it. Once again, the Government have revealed their twisted priorities, adding to the misery of the poor instead of alleviating it.

Fuel debt is also a major problem in Scotland, representing the second largest form of debt after rent arrears in the social rented sector. In May 1995, 44,805 income support claimants—8 per cent.—had fuel costs deducted at source from their weekly benefits, to assist debt recovery.

Although the number of electricity disconnections has decreased, there has been a significant increase in the installation of prepayment meters, which are often offered as a last-resort alternative to disconnection. A study conducted by Scottish Power in 1993 found that each year about 7,500 households repeatedly go without electricity for more than 24 hours. That is effectively a system of self-disconnection. Almost half the respondents to the survey explained that they could not afford to buy power cards, which is a cause for great concern.

All those factors have a devastating impact on the health of the nation. The number of deaths from hypothermia significantly increases during the winter months. It is widely recognised that official records grossly under-record such deaths and gravely underestimate the problem.

During the debate on the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), said:

"Wearing my medical hat, let me say that hypothermia … affects many people who die of chronic heart failure or chronic obstructive airways disease. I have no doubt that for thousands of people death is hastened by hypothermia even though it does not appear on their death certificates."—[Official Report, 17 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 586.]

A more accurate measure of winter mortality rates is to assess the number of excess winter deaths by comparing the number of deaths from December to March with the number in the four months on either side.

I asked the Library to provide me with those figures, and I was told that the number of deaths in December 1994 to March 1995 was more than 600 per month higher than in the adjacent months, giving a total excess of 2,500 deaths for the December-March period. A survey of preceding years shows similar figures. Research has confirmed that most of the excess winter deaths are accounted for by elderly people, most of whom die of respiratory or cardiovascular disease. I am certain that those deaths are cold-related, and the fact that many of them could be avoided enhances the horror of the Government's tolerance of fuel poverty.

The present Prime Minister acknowledged the fact that there was a problem as long ago as 1986, when he was a junior Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security. He said that the excess winter deaths had

"perplexed successive Governments for years… The real problem, then as now… is not hypothermia, but the additional deaths from all causes, particularly heart disease, strokes and chest infections, which tend to occur in winter. It is a long-standing problem that our excess winter mortality rate is higher than that in other countries with severe winters, such as Sweden."—[Official Report, 2 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 834–35.]

Nothing has changed. If the Prime Minister and his Government have not learnt the lessons in the intervening 10 years, I hope that he will take the time to read the debate and to listen to the voices of the numerous voluntary and professional organisations campaigning to eradicate the obscenity of fuel poverty.

During the winter of 1993–94, a group of Scottish doctors undertook a study of urban hypothermia in the west of Scotland. The results were published in the British Medical Journal in September 1995. The group studied patients coming to hospitals in Glasgow, Paisley, Coatbridge and Airdrie. It estimated that, because of the difficulty of determining the cause of deaths in the home, there could be an under-recording of deaths from hypothermia of more than 300 per cent.

The report confirmed my fear that excess winter mortality in Britain is greatest among socially deprived people with the worst heating. The majority of the patients—53 out of the 93 studied—were found inside the home, and most lived alone. All but two of the patients had heating, but two thirds of them had it switched off when they were found. The report noted that one of the explanations for the reluctance of elderly people to use heating in winter was the cost or perceived cost of fuel.

The prevalence of fuel poverty and cold-related deaths clearly demonstrates the extent to which the cold weather payments scheme fails to meet immediate need. One major problem is that there is no guarantee that payments will be made when the freeze comes. Without that predictability, people will simply not take the risk of running up fuel bills that they know they cannot afford to pay.

It is conceivable that we could experience five or six days of freezing temperatures, followed by a thaw that significantly increases the temperature for only a short time, bringing the average temperature for the seven-day period to above 0 deg C. In this lottery, is it any wonder that the elderly are too frightened to turn up the heat when they are left with the worry that they may not be able to meet the payments?

The scheme's eligibility criteria are far too restrictive. If we take the number of households on means-tested benefits as a measure of poverty, it includes 35 per cent. of households in Scotland, compared with 28 per cent. in England. I have already noted that fuel poverty is compounded by low income, yet the Government's scheme falls far short of providing assistance to Scotland's poor. In addition, the Department of Social Security estimates that between 34 and 41 per cent. of pensioner households eligible for income support fail to take it up, so they are denied access to cold weather payments.

Thus, the amounts paid out, even in the exceptionally cold winter of 1995–96, understate the need for extra help. It is not enough for the Government to make excuses and do nothing about it. If the Minister's conscience does not bother him and he does not share our sense of moral responsibility, perhaps he prefers to view the problem in financial terms. Scottish hospitals spent an estimated £20 million last year alone on treatment of respiratory illnesses.

A fundamental flaw in the existing scheme is its failure to take account of climatic variations in different parts of the United Kingdom. The payment, when it is triggered, is a flat rate of £8·50, regardless of whether the temperature is 0 or minus 15 deg C. That failure arises in spite of the Department of the Environment's admission in response to a parliamentary question in 1994 that it took more fuel to heat a house in Scotland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. To heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating takes 23 per cent. more fuel in Glasgow than in Bristol; 28 per cent. more in Edinburgh; 32 per cent. more in Dundee—I see the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) here this morning; he may be interested in that figure—41 per cent. more in Aberdeen; 52 per cent. more in Lerwick and 66 per cent. more in Braemar. Those figures may underestimate the real costs.

Using the climatic severity index, independent experts found that 69 per cent. more fuel was needed in Lerwick in the Shetland isles than to heat a house of the same standard in London. It is worth considering that it is roughly the same distance from Lerwick to Southampton as it is from Southampton to Madrid. No one would deny that the latter was significantly warmer.

The location of the designated weather station is a key issue. People who live in upland villages and towns are sometimes linked with weather stations in lowland areas many miles away, where the temperature is warmer. It is too early to judge whether the recent increase in the number of weather stations, following a recommendation by the Meteorological Office, has adequately dealt with the geographical anomalies. It is interesting that the Met Office review included a proposal to provide post code-specific weather reports at no extra cost, which could allow a far more localised trigger. I wonder why the Government chose not to introduce such a system.

I am sure that the hon. Lady will develop her and her party's argument for a fundamental change to the system, but does she agree that she, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I have seen some interim improvements, and that more sensitivity has been displayed in terms of location of weather station, although glaring anomalies are still very much to the fore? I could cite several from my area, such as the Isle of Skye, mid-west Ross and Inverness. Does she agree that, at least as an interim measure, the Minister should consider a review short of a fundamental, wholesale review of the system?

Absolutely. That is a fair point. My party would like to see a complete change, but there is no doubt that even the present system could be made far more responsive.

Although on 18 December we discussed the new stations and, for example, Salsburgh in the uplands of Lanarkshire was supposed to be substituted for Turnhouse, I checked with the research department of the Library this morning and found that Turnhouse was still used for the calculation of the January payments. Does the hon. Lady realise that my constituents and others in central Scotland may have been denied payments as a result of that?

That is clearly a matter of concern. I am grateful for the information. I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that we are making.

Wind chill is a measure frequently used in weather forecasts on the broadcast media as a means of expressing how cold the wind will make us feel. As the British Medical Association noted in a press statement on 17 January this year, even a moderately windy day, with a wind speed of 9 mph and an air temperature of 5.5 deg C, produces an effect on the body equal to freezing point.

In its review, the Met Office confirmed that, if it were taken into account, the wind chill factor would have a significant impact particularly in the Scottish isles and the far north of Scotland. I understand that it proposes to pilot a study of six weather stations in Scotland, which will cost only £600, to assess the appropriateness of including wind chill in the assessment of cold weather payments. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), noted in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the Government were consulting the Met Office on the issue. Will the Minister say today whether the proposed pilot scheme is to go ahead?

I understand that last Friday, Conservative Members behaved appallingly when they deliberately made long and unnecessary speeches to prolong the debate and to deny a Second Reading to the uncontroversial Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise). That hardly leaves us with confidence that the Government will proceed with even moderate reforms.

Within the constraints of the existing scheme, the right to warmth campaign group recommended that the Government should consider using the climatic severity index to determine cold weather payments. The index measures the energy stress on a house rather than a body and, for that reason, may be a more effective measure than merely the wind chill factor and air temperature combined. It takes into account not only air temperature, wind and degree of sunshine but the standard of the house, the size and orientation of its windows, the degree of draught-proofing and so on. The weather factors can be obtained at the touch of a button, and the house factors can be found in any energy rating of a house such as the national home energy efficiency rating system, which local authorities now widely use to audit their stock. Those measures would improve the scheme. I should welcome the Minister's comments.

Unless, however—this is a crucial point—the inherent uncertainty is removed from the system, it will remain fundamentally flawed and will continue to act as a disincentive to turn up the heat. To alleviate the problems inherent in the existing scheme, the Scottish National party has long advocated an additional cold climate allowance. We are committed to introducing such an allowance paid from December to March—the coldest winter months. We recognise that, even within Scotland, there is significant climate variation. The payment would be £7°40 a week in central and southern Scotland and £11°15 in the colder north and the island communities. The payments would be made automatically to all those on a retirement pension, income support, family credit or housing benefit. By that means, our elderly and vulnerable citizens will be guaranteed the help that they need.

The policy that we advocate builds on the good practice of SNP-controlled local authorities such as the former Tayside regional council, which included my constituency. It successfully operated a "warm up for winter" campaign in the winter of 1994–95, with a comprehensive package of assistance worth £503,000 to provide extra help for the elderly and others in need. Even now, faced with a Scottish local government financial crisis on an unprecedented scale, Angus council has recently launched a cold weather initiative to provide free home care and lunch clubs for two months.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case and has shown the inadequacy of the Government's provision for winter warmth. Will she, by contrast, point out what SNP-controlled Angus council has done in providing a two-month free home help and care package, and the fact that, during February and March, free lunch clubs will be provided for all pensioners and groups at risk in Angus. Those are practical measures that show what can be done to give warmth and sustenance to pensioners and other groups and how inadequate the Government's scheme is. We need a national cold weather payments scheme for the whole of Scotland. The sooner it is created, the better.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving further details of the Angus scheme. It will obviously result in great savings for individuals within that period. It is worth a great deal of money to those in receipt of the benefits which accrue to them from living in Angus.

In Scotland, a cold climate allowance scheme along the lines that I have described would cost £170 million a year. That may sound like a lot of money, but it is not much when one considers that Treasury accounts show a £27 billion surplus paid from Scotland to the Exchequer since 1979. Although we are committed to introducing the allowance in the first year of an independent Scottish National party Government, we have also campaigned for such an allowance to be available UK-wide. Since 1984, the Scottish National party has introduced cold climate allowance Bills in Parliament on no fewer than six occasions, and I commend the relentless efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) in her campaign over the years.

Such a scheme is not without precedent. Our closest European neighbour—the Republic of Ireland—operates a national fuel scheme, which provides an automatic payment of £5 per week to those in receipt of any one of 15 qualifying benefits, including the state pension. In comparison to Scotland, Ireland has next to no resources, yet its Government manage to provide guaranteed cold weather assistance to those in need. It is not a lack of resources that prevents a similar scheme operating in Scotland or the United Kingdom but a lack of political will on the part of the Government. I am sorry to say that such will is also noticeably absent among Labour Front Benchers.

Although we strongly believe in the necessity of such a scheme in the medium term, we recognise that any cold weather assistance scheme can be viewed only as a short-term solution to ease the existing situation, and must be accompanied by long-term solutions to address the root of the problem. For the most part, the root problem in Scotland is the standard of housing and it is that factor which most clearly explains why winter mortality rates in Scotland are about 16 per cent. higher than in the colder Scandinavian countries. One in 20 houses in Scotland are below the tolerable standard; one in eight suffer dampness; and one in five suffer the effects of condensation and, in some cases, mould growth. Those factors contribute to the fact that, on a scale of one to 10, the average energy rating of a Scottish home is only 3· 3.

Despite those staggering statistics, the Department of the Environment imposed a 31 per cent. reduction in funding for the home energy efficiency scheme last year, with the result that 20,000 fewer Scottish homes will receive basic insulation or draught-proofing measures. In addition, this year the Secretary of State for Scotland imposed the most devastating cut to date in the housing budget, forcing local authorities to use 75 per cent. of their capital receipts for debt repayment and effectively cutting the budget by 30 per cent. in real terms. Those cuts leave little scope for the improvement of deteriorating housing conditions, which are widely recognised as being a major cause of fuel poverty.

Considered alongside the limitations of the cold weather payments scheme, those cuts reveal the Government's complete lack of a strategy to address both the causes and the effects of fuel poverty. Many of the problems of fuel poverty are associated with poor insulation and housing standards. It stands to reason that a commitment to upgrade and expand the housing stock and a determined effort to tackle dampness and disrepair would go some way towards eradicating fuel poverty and could reduce the number of elderly people who needlessly die every winter. Eradicating the misery caused by fuel poverty is not only a moral obligation for elected politicians, but makes sound economic and environmental sense. The connection between fuel poverty, bad housing and ill health is obvious.

The Scottish National party considers that the right to a warm, dry and affordable home is a fundamental human right. Eradicating the misery of fuel poverty requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the root causes while alleviating the effects. At the bare minimum, it is for those responsible for the social security of our citizens to ensure that assistance is available to all those who need it. That is clearly not achieved by the existing system, which leaves too many needy people without assistance and discourages people from adequately heating their homes.

In conclusion, I quote the observation made recently by Energy Action Scotland:

"The next millennium is only lour years away and yet Scotland still has an estimated 800,000 households experiencing fuel poverty while the country is rich in fossil fuels and sources of renewable energy."

Scotland has more than enough fuel to meet the need. The Chancellor will rake in £3·5 billion in North sea oil and gas revenues in the current year. What we in Scotland lack is the power to ensure that our vast resources are used to eradicate poverty in Scotland. The prevalence of fuel poverty in energy-rich Scotland is testament to the fact that the cold weather payments scheme is utterly failing to meet essential need. The Government are failing the Scottish people.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). All hon. Members would agree with her objectives: we all want Scotland's elderly and vulnerable residents and others who are infirm and require additional heat to be looked after in the best possible way that the country can afford.

The hon. Lady was less than gracious about cold weather payments. Between 1964 and 1970, there were no cold weather payments under the then socialist Government; and between 1974 and 1979 there were no cold weather payments under a socialist Government. The Scottish National party and even the Liberal Democrats are fairly closely allied to socialism today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought we had a new Lib-Lab pact to hound the Government, albeit without success.

Because the right hon. Gentleman has such a reputation in the House for decency, the record should show that even he could not keep a straight face when making that last comment.

I am simply thinking of the practical results of what is going on among Opposition Members—they seem to be hounding away together, trying to defeat the Government.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross gave scant details of the cost of what she had in mind or, indeed, of the cost of the present system. In fact, in 1995–96 there were 7·2 million payments at a cost of £62 million, which shows that the Government provided a substantial amount of money for cold weather payments—and rightly so. I am strongly in favour of cold weather payments, but those figures show that, if the scheme was extended to a global system, such as the hon. Lady mentioned, without first calculating the cost, it could run to many hundreds of millions of pounds. She did not indicate from where that money would come and what might be dispensed with in exchange.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for displaying his characteristic courtesy in giving way to me. The statistics he quoted plainly show the extent of poverty among elderly people.

The right hon. Gentleman is remarking on my speech and I wish to point out that I clearly put a cost on our proposed scheme—£170 million per year.

It seems to me that it would cost considerably more than £170 million to run the cold weather scheme continuously from the end of November through to March, given that it cost £62 million last year for a comparatively short winter, albeit one in which conditions were extremely severe around Christmas.

I want to concentrate on the importance of removing anomalies, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Meteorological Office carried out a comprehensive review of the number of weather stations that resulted in an increase in their number from 55 to 70 and thus improved local sensitivity. I was involved in these matters when I was a Minister and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) was responsible for cold weather payments.

We all know that Eskdalemuir is the premier meteorological station in Scotland. It is located in the highest part of my constituency, yet the triggering station for my constituency was not, as one might expect, at Eskdalemuir, but at Cargenbridge near the ICI factory to the west of Dumfries, which is not in my constituency and is on very low ground. That meant that payments to my constituents were triggered by temperature measurements at a site about 100 ft above sea level. Many of my constituents live at a much higher level and therefore missed out on payments. They found it equally provocative that payments to people living in the area of southern Scotland stretching from the Borders to the east coast were triggered by Eskdalemuir in my constituency, yet they were not allowed to use measurements at that station.

I am glad that that problem has been sorted out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea changed the triggering station so that payments for the high ground in my constituency are now triggered by Eskdalemuir. We are rightly fine-tuning the system to ensure that payments for the higher ground in Scotland are triggered by the nearest possible meteorological station.

As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, the £8·50 addition is triggered by the seven consecutive days forecast as well as by recorded temperatures. That is done automatically and there is no need to claim. Once a householder is on the benefits list for cold weather payments, payments are made automatically and no further action is needed. That is an important step in the right direction.

I am very glad that we have started to fine-tune the system and I believe that we should continue to do so for as long as possible, so that we make the most accurate possible meteorological map of the country relative to height above sea level.

Usually, the higher one is the colder it is, but that does not always apply. Some years ago, I learned that the coldest part of the United Kingdom is not, as one might expect, in Scotland, but on the north-east coast of England between Newcastle and Norfolk, where there is a fiendishly cold chill from the north-east wind whipping across the North sea. We must take local conditions into account, and aim to make our map as accurate as possible.

I am sure that Opposition Members will call for cold weather payments to be much enhanced. One would love that to happen if it were financially prudent and if the Government could do it. If Opposition Members call for that, the House has every right to hear from whence that money will come, bearing in mind that the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer has made it clear that there will be no additional expenditure. It would be wrong of Opposition Members to say, "We want another £100 million on cold weather payments," without saying how they would provide it.

No doubt the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) will give us an idea, but I very much doubt it, because I heard him make some astonishing erroneous statements on the radio this week, which made me wince, even at 7 o'clock in the morning. I hope that he will not say things like, "The Conservative Government will put VAT on food," when they most certainly will not do so. That is the sort of thing that he is saying, now that he is becoming a professional operator in the Labour party policy making that attacks alleged Government policies that are not in place.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two things? First, perhaps the windfall tax will pay for the wind-chill factor to be taken into account in the new formula. That is a possibility, certainly for the first year of a Labour Government, and we would all welcome it. Secondly, he talks about VAT on coal. In 1995, the House voted against the Government's proposal to impose the second tranche of the increase in VAT on domestic fuel. Scotland was immediately penalised for that, because the shortfall went on the cost of whisky.

Order. Before the debate continues, may I say that I hope that there will not be a wide-ranging debate on taxation, which I would not regard as being in order?

I would love to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but in view of your comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not do so.

The Government deserve a great deal of credit for introducing cold weather payments, which were not available under Labour Governments, and for doing their best to fine-tune the system to bring it up to date with the latest thinking of the Meteorological Office. Although we want cold weather payments to be extended and old and vulnerable people to be helped as much as possible, we should not denigrate what has been achieved.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on being conscious at 7 o'clock in the morning. That is a notable achievement for a man of his age, and wincing at my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) is even better.

Any farmer listens to the farming programme at 6.10 every morning.

That is a very good put-down; I accept it entirely. The right hon. Gentleman normally speaks very well.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on initiating this important and serious debate which, even if it is not gathering much attention in the House at the moment, will receive a lot of attention in Scotland. People who live in Scotland and suffer from the cold weather there will be interested to hear what Parliament says about it this morning.

I am astounded that, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Dumfries, not one Conservative Member of Parliament from Scotland has bothered to attend the debate. There is no Scottish Office Minister on the Treasury Bench—Scottish Office Ministers have sent one of their English colleagues along to deal with the Scots, much in the way that Edward I tried to deal with us a long time ago. Scottish people will notice that, on the eve of a general election, Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament show a complete lack of interest in a very important subject such as this; that is to be deplored.

I thank the right hon. Member for Dumfries for talking about socialist Governments. It brought a nostalgic tear to many an eye on the Opposition Back Benches.

The hon. Gentleman is an historian.

I am not an historian; I am an optimist. We may again see a socialist Government like the one that was in power from 1945 to 1951, although I suspect that that may be some way off.

I shall discuss some of the key characteristics of the current cold weather scheme organised by the Government, and start by discussing who qualifies for payments.

When the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross introduced the debate, she gave us a list of the people who qualify under the present scheme, describing them as perhaps the most vulnerable people in society—those in receipt of income support and income-related jobseeker's allowance, people who receive a pensioner's premium or a disability premium and people with children under five. Those are important groups, but they are not the only vulnerable groups in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Many vulnerable groups are currently excluded from cold weather payments.

The right hon. Member for Dumfries referred to the figures for last year. I have looked up the figures. If we study those for 1990–91 to the present day, including those given by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday during Question Time, we find that about 20 million cold weather payments have been made in the past six and a half years—an average of about 3 million a year. Some of those will have been repeat payments so, each winter, fewer than 3 million people in Scotland receive cold weather payments—but every poverty group will tell us that more than 10 million people are living in poverty. The vast majority never qualify under the cold weather payments scheme devised by the present Government.

Statistics published by Ministers tell the same story. Every year, they publish a document called "Households Below Average Income," which examines the income of all groups in society. It says that, between 1979—the year, unfortunately, the Conservatives came to power—and 1993–94, the last year for which figures are available, those in full-time work or self-employment declined as a percentage of the population. They decreased from 71 per cent. of the population in 1979 to only 59 per cent. in 1993–94. The figure is probably lower today.

Meanwhile, the unemployed—or, as the Government describe them, "others not in work"—increased from 8 per cent. of the population in 1979 to 17 per cent. in 1993–94. The unemployed are now the fastest-growing section of the population. Some of them, of course, receive a disability premium, and some have children under five, but many do not have such qualifications and are not eligible for the Government's cold weather payments.

The unemployed are the only group in society whose incomes, after taking housing costs into consideration, were lower in 1993–94 than they were in 1979. The poorest and most vulnerable section of the population is excluded from the cold weather payments scheme. The Minister should reflect on that. The scheme is not comprehensive, does not cover enough poor people and leaves far too many of them at risk of having their power supply cut off.

The right hon. Member for Dumfries claimed that the scheme was generous. He mentioned the year 1995–96, when £62 million was paid out under it. He did not mention the previous year, when only £77,000 was paid out, or the year before that, when the figure was £12·4 million. The scheme is nowhere near as generous as Ministers pretend. They tend to pick the year when most payments were made and give the impression that every year the Government dole out £62 million under the cold weather payments scheme, when nothing of the kind happens.

About £164 million has been paid out by the Government over a period of six and a half years, which works out at £20 million a year on average. I know that the sum of £20 million cannot be dismissed—it is a great deal of public money—but we should compare it with some of the public spending priorities that the Government have announced recently.

The Government spend just under £70 million on cadet forces. We understand that that sum is about to be doubled—another £70 million a year is to be allocated to make kids go to school and learn how to shoot rifles. That has suddenly become a bigger priority than looking after people who are vulnerable to the cold. A sum of £60 million is to be spent on a royal yacht. A luxury yacht for the monarchy is a greater priority for the Government than looking after the poor, the old and the frail who are suffering all round the country.

The Child Poverty Action Group has pointed out that, since 1979, £31·8 billion has been given away in tax cuts to the better-off, and almost one third of that sum—more than £10 billion—has been handed across to the top 1 per cent. of earners in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that any Government can justify handing £10 billion over to the richest in society while claiming that they cannot afford to keep the poor warm in their own homes. That makes no sense.

The Government's own family expenditure survey has shown that the fuel bills of the rich are falling, while the fuel bills of the poorest are rising faster than those of any other section of the population. The bottom 10 per cent. in terms of national income spend 10 per cent. of their total income on trying to keep their homes warm. It is very different for the rich.

The point about the state of the housing stock in Scotland was well made by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross. That is why it is a tragedy that the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland could not be bothered to be present and take part in the debate. Housing is central to whether people can keep warm in winter.

We know from the national house condition survey, which the Government commissioned and published, that the state of Scotland's housing stock is a disgrace. There is dampness and mould growth in more than half a million homes. As a result, asthma among children is on the increase, and there are excess winter deaths every year. What a terrible phrase that is. There were 7,000 excess winter deaths in Scotland, according to Shelter: 7,000 people who died not from natural causes, but because it was cold and they could not afford to keep themselves warm.

I remember attending one of the Scottish Grand Committees—the one in Hamilton, I think—where groups were lobbying hon. Members as they came in. Leaflets were handed out by the Edinburgh Tenants Federation, which stated:

"Our world has cold, damp homes which need new windows and new healing systems …

Our world has health problems caused by cold damp homes …

In our world we need public investment in public sector homes to improve health, to reduce benefit dependancy by putting people back to work, to raise educational standards.

Our world has politicians too stupid to see the need—are you one of them?"

I hope that I am not one of them, but I suspect that there are a number of stupid politicians on the Conservative Benches, who cannot see the simple logic of the Edinburgh tenants' case.

Since that meeting, the Government have announced a 28 per cent. cut in housing investment in Scotland. There is a 75 per cent. rule which states that, of the receipts gathered by the local authorities across Scotland—about £227 million in the past year—75 per cent. must be diverted to reducing local authority debt, and taken away from investment in housing.

In other words, £170 million has been withdrawn from investment in new heating systems and double glazing to keep people warm in their homes. Shelter reckons that, if spent through the public sector, £170 million would make more than 72,000 homes in Scotland warm, dry places where people could survive, rather than places where they are likely to die.

I realise that there are other options. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross put forward on behalf of her party an alternative that should be debated seriously by all parties. I accept the comment of the right hon. Member for Dumfries that, if we speak about improving the scheme, we must specify where the money is to come from.

Britain is a wealthy country. My hon. Friends are fond of saying that, through the public sector, we spend £300 billion every year. We have a £700 billion economy. There is far more in the private sector than in the public sector. At some point, the House will have to make up its mind where its priorities lie. Do they lie in stopping the poor dying from cold in the winter, or in giving the rich more to spend on luxury yachts and luxury life styles? That is what the debate is about and, like the right hon. Member for Dumfries, I look forward to the return of a socialist Government who will do something about it.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate, and on the excellence of her speech and the arguments that she deployed.

I shall intrude on the time of the House for only a minute to amplify a point that the hon. Lady was kind enough to allow me to touch on in an intervention.

The Minister was kind enough to meet the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and me in advance of last year's review. Subsequently, there have been some greatly appreciated—let me put that clearly on the record—improvements as a result of more sensitive monitoring locations for the highlands and islands. There are, however, other anomalies, which arise from those changes which I bring formally to the Minister's attention for further consideration in due course. If he could indicate at the appropriate time that that will happen, it would be appreciated.

A written parliamentary question from me last year elicited the response that, in the history of the scheme, the island of Tiree had never triggered payments. As a result, a substantial chunk of my constituency was linked to different monitoring stations at Loch Glascarnoch and at Aultbea. Hansard will love me for my map references this morning.

The island of Tiree continues to be used as a monitoring station for the Isle of Skye. Although someone looking at a map might think that an island such as Tiree bears some resemblance to the Isle of Skye, anyone who has looked at them from ground level knows that there is a vast climatic difference between an island that boasts, for example, the Cuillin hills and a rather severe climate, and Tiree, which is firmly located in the gulf stream. Will the Minister look into that? It would make more sense for Skye to be linked to a mainland monitoring point, or to the monitoring point that is available at Waterstein on the Isle of Skye itself.

My next concern is the town of Inverness. Parts of Inverness have been securing cold weather payments over the recent difficult period of weather, but others have not. Because of the postal code structure, they are linked to different monitoring stations. That causes fury in Inverness, because people who may live only one mile apart, and who experience essentially identical climatic conditions, find that some are eligible and receive payments, while others are ineligible and receive none. Would it not make more sense to use a common monitoring point?

Finally, it would be more sensible to link mid-Ross and places such as Achnasheen—that will add to my popularity with Hansard—which are presently linked with Aultbea on the west coast, with Loch Glascarnoch as that is geographically closer. If we remain tied to postal codes, anomalies will be inescapable. That is why I echo the plea of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross for a more imaginative system of allocating cold weather payments. Despite the efforts to improve or tinker with the present system, people will always be on the wrong side of a line or will be linked to the wrong weather station given any set of climactic conditions. I would appreciate a positive response from the Minister.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak this morning, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on cold weather payments. This is our third opportunity in recent weeks to discuss the issue—we discussed it in a Delegated Legislation Committee and, a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) introduced the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which the Government deliberately talked out.

The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross highlighted two issues: first, the fact that we must consider cold weather payments in the context of poverty and, secondly, the question of political will. The Government lack the political will not only to address the problem, but to take it seriously. The problem of poverty in Scotland is obvious. In a so-called civilised society, in 1997, people must choose between heating and eating from November to February or March every year. More than half a million Scottish people claim income support. If we add dependants to that figure, we are talking about 1 million people—20 per cent. of the Scottish population—who depend solely on income support. That is a scandal; anyone can see that.

According to Government figures, 35 per cent. of Scottish households rely on one or more means-tested benefit. One in five of all non-pensioner households in Scotland have no one in work. It is scandalous—and it is clear from those statistics, supplied by Government sources, that poverty is an immensely important issue for every political party in Britain. Cold weather payments should be viewed in that context.

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Is he saying that it is wrong to provide more public money, means-tested or otherwise, and that the Government should change their policy?

I am conscious of the feet that the hon. Gentleman has just entered the Chamber, and I regret allowing him to intervene. He misses the point completely. The Government's economic failure has resulted in the largest increase in poverty in a generation. There has been an explosion in the number of people who depend on the state, and the Government have sought to use taxpayers' money to support them. We object to that morally, socially, politically and economically. That view is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and we are trying to address the problem.

I have highlighted the extent of poverty in Scotland, but another factor is even worse. Some 100,000 pensioners in Scotland who are eligible for income support do not claim it. The Government do not pursue that issue; they have not introduced a take up benefits campaign. Despite the fact that nearly 10 per cent. of Scottish pensioners are below the breadline, as defined by the Government, they cannot claim cold weather payments.

I shall explain why cold weather payments are necessary. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, income poverty is linked to fuel poverty and poor housing. Government must institute a practical programme. Fortunately, within weeks—certainly within months—a Labour Government will start to address the issue seriously. The Government use data matching to intensify their attack on fraud; we must ensure that that technology is used to try to link pensioners who do not receive income support with resources. That would allow more Scottish pensioners to access not only income support, but cold weather payments. That must be a priority for any Government with a sense of justice—even a Government as mean and miserable as this one.

We must remember that the Government imposed value added tax on fuel. They told people that they would have to pay more for fuel not because their incomes had increased, but because they wanted to raise revenue. The Labour party in government has pledged to reduce VAT from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.—the lowest possible rate under European law.

Not a cynical ploy any more, then?

I shall ignore the hon. Lady's sedentary intervention.

Another key issue is home insulation. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to poorly insulated and damp housing. Low-income households may spend up to 10 per cent. of their incomes on fuel, compared with middle income households who spend 4 per cent. Home insulation would prove a significant practical benefit for everyone. Labour intends to use the environmental task force, funded by the windfall levy on privatised utilities, to ensure that people are employed to insulate pensioners' homes.

Our strategy will include a review of the cold weather payments scheme. It is instructive that hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have referred to injustices, anomalies and inconsistencies caused by the current system. It must be reviewed. The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) referred to the weather stations that are used to trigger payments in different localities. The Government have improved the situation slightly by increasing the number of weather stations from 52 to nearly 70, but some fine tuning must be done, and there is consensus in the House about the Department not dragging its feet.

Linked to the review is the issue of wind chill factor, which was raised in the recent Meteorological Office report to the Government about cold weather payments. The Government are always keen to draw attention to the negative parts of that report. There are clear problems with the wind chill factor. As the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, the Meteorological Office offered the Government a trial in Scotland comprising six weather stations at a cost of £600—that is not a large sum when compared with a social security budget of nearly £100 billion. When given an opportunity to take the matter seriously, why is the Minister dragging his feet?

It is utterly baffling that the hon. Gentleman should make that comment. Before Christmas, I made it clear to the Standing Committee of which we are both members that the Government will continue the annual review, investigate the wind chill factor and conduct the trials mentioned in the report. The cost is rather more than the mere £600 for the data, but the Government have promised to examine the matter this summer as part of the ordinary annual review. That has been our position for some time.

It is slightly warmer in the summer. If the people of Britain were to elect this Government again—that is highly improbable—they would consider the matter during the summer, the tests would not be run in Scotland until the winter, and a report would not be published until next year.

rose—

I want to finish my point.

I want to know from the Minister whether the Government will now accept the Meteorological Office's offer and whether the trials will start immediately. Will the Government then urgently consider the implications for cold weather payments of the results of the trials?

The hon. Gentleman is blathering. We have said yes. He should be aware of the fact that the annual review will lead to statutory instruments being laid by the time the autumn scheme comes into effect. The process of examining this problem will be complete by the time it is necessary to lay the statutory instruments for next winter. If it is practical and sensible to introduce a wind chill factor, we will consider it.

I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. If I understand him correctly, the trials are now under way in six stations in Scotland.

It is a matter of modelling existing data: it is not a question of opening six weather stations to perform an experiment.

I am grateful to the Minister for intervening again. The Meteorological Office's report suggested that a trial would take place involving six weather stations in Scotland—Scotland was the key target—at a cost of £600. Are those trials—in whatever form; either practical or theoretical and based on modelling—under way today: yes or no?

They will be under way to the extent that they will be complete by the time it is necessary to make a decision next summer.

The answer to my questions was no, the trials are not going on—so the Government are dragging their feet.

In this debate, insult has been added to injury. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross laid out her case. We have put cold weather payments in the context of poverty, and we have put the wind chill issue in the context of cold weather payments. Even the small concession that we hoped the Government had made does not exist.

The Government are not interested in poverty or in giving cold weather payments priority, and now we learn from the Minister's interventions that no trial is taking place on the wind chill factor. As they would say in the other place: I rest my case. We argue that the trials should be carried out urgently. However small their impact may be, that would send a positive message to pensioners' organisations and to families living in poverty that the Government are anxious to improve cold weather payments. I suspect that the Government will not act. A Labour Government will soon be in office, and we will review the cold weather payments scheme as quickly as possible.

I am aware that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) wants to speak, so I shall try to be brief.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing a debate on this important subject, and I thank hon. Members who have participated in it.

The Scottish National party has pursued this issue for many years. I should like to point out to the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that the six Bills that were introduced by Dr. Gordon Wilson or me had the full support of the House and the whole country. Every part of the country and every party was represented. We have always argued that this matter must be considered in an overall context. This debate is about cold weather payments in Scotland, but I am as worried about a pensioner in Elgin as I am about a pensioner in Ealing, Perth or Preston. We are genuinely concerned about the implications of how we deal with fuel poverty throughout the United Kingdom. None the less, this issue has a particular importance for Scotland.

The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), whose Bill on the wind-chill factor I sponsored, had hoped to attend the debate, but I spoke to her yesterday evening and she has caught the dreaded lurgy that many of us have suffered. She gave her apologies, because she had wanted to be here.

I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross. This is a matter of conscience and morality. Every legislator must search his or her conscience and decide how funding should be allocated.

I go back many years on this subject: when I first raised it in the House in the 1970s, there was a Government with a different perspective. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) laughs wryly at the memory of that socialist Government. In the 1970s, I was accused of scaremongering: people said that I should not raise this subject because it would frighten people who lived on low incomes, especially pensioners. I was then a much younger Member of Parliament—like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: indeed, we came into the House at the same time—and I was new to the procedures of the House. It took a long time for this issue to come on to the political agenda in the House of Commons and in the other place—Lord Gray of Contin works hard on behalf of Energy Action Scotland and has raised the issues in the other place.

The problem was not taken seriously until much later, when people began to realise that excess winter deaths were related to cold weather and to the poor quality of our housing stock. We have made massive strides forward and the problem is now recognised. I do not deride the cold weather payments scheme, although it could be much improved.

I refer the Minister to the 1991 United Nations demographic book. Excess winter deaths were earlier called an obscenity. The study examined various aspects of life styles, and the book shows that Sweden had a 14 per cent. excess winter death rate, Norway had a rate of 10 per cent., Germany 12 per cent. and Great Britain 31 per cent. That is a massive figure of excess winter deaths. Yesterday, I referred to the comparison between Scotland and Finland: Scotland has a 16 per cent. excess winter death rate, whereas Finland has a rate of 9 per cent.

Those statistics are frightening. They involve our elderly people, our disabled people, unemployed people and people who live in poor quality housing, all of whom are the most vulnerable members of our society. In cold snaps we probably turn our heating up or put it on for a bit longer, but we often forget that many of those families cannot do that. For many people, winter means living, eating and sleeping in one room, because they can afford to heat only that one room. The Government claim to value family life. What kind of family life can people have if they are forced to live, eat and sleep in one room?

The situation was exacerbated by the imposition of value added tax on domestic fuel. I noticed that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not like my sedentary intervention, but, when the Scottish National party tabled an amendment to reduce VAT to 5 per cent., we were told by the shadow Financial Secretary—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—that it was a cynical ploy. We have also argued that standing charges should be removed from those on the lowest incomes, particularly pensioners. I am sure that all our mailbags are full of letters making such points.

Let me repeat that we want to hear from the Minister how the Government are dealing with the offer from the Meteorological Office, which my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross raised in her competent, wide-ranging and definitive speech. The Meteorological Office has offered to carry out a pilot study of the wind chill factor in Scotland, and I was not sure what the Minister's response was. One of my hon. Friends said, "I do not think that I would buy a second-hand car from this gentleman."

What the Minister said was confusing. He said that the cost would be considerably more than £600, but how much will it be? When will the pilot study be conducted? I can assure the Minister—living, as I do, in Lossiemouth, where we have a substantial wind chill factor—that there would be no point in conducting it in June, July and August; it should be carried out during the cold winter months. What is happening to that experiment? The offer seemed very logical to me, and I do not understand why the Government have not taken it up. The Met Office has also proposed the use of postcodes as local triggers. Every speaker this morning has mentioned the anomalies in the present system.

This has been a long-running issue, and, while I do not deny that improvements have been made, we need a long-term strategy. We need to improve our housing stock, for instance. The poorest people usually live in the poorest housing, and are the least well insulated. Energy efficiency should also be improved; the home energy efficiency scheme has been cut substantially Furthermore, we should keep these matters in mind not just during the winter months but throughout the year. In July, members of the all-party warm homes group—of which I am convener—went along to the Department of the Environment, complete with a polar bear which nearly melted in the July heat, to point out that the issue should be considered all the year round rather than just between December and March, and that we needed to find ways in which to improve the lot of our people.

Our resources should be used properly. Scotland is an energy-rich nation; why should so many people die of cold there? People in my area look out on to the Moray Firth and the oil and gas platforms that bring so much money to the Exchequer. What a contrast they must see!

The SNP also has policies relating to the redistribution of wealth—

Order The debate is about cold weather payments, not the redistribution of wealth.

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not mean to be out of order. I was trying to put the matter in a general context, because I do not think it can be viewed in isolation. I was merely going to say that my party is not afraid to consider the redistribution of wealth through, for instance, tax policies.

The Government must deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend in her excellent speech. We are prepared to discuss our own views and recommendations with them, and I hope that we shall hear a positive response today. The entire debate has been underpinned by the argument in favour of an egalitarian society and valuing people's lives.

Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on securing this debate on an important subject that must be discussed. It is not just a party matter; it is not the domain of just one Opposition party. It concerns everyone, and the Government are not doing enough. There have been too many partisan comments today.

Local government has introduced many innovations in an attempt to prevent the tragedy of death and impoverishment. My local council, when I was its leader—having taken the seat that had belonged to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)—introduced double glazing and central heating in every council house, which is now being provided in much of Scotland. In my council area there is heat leasing, because the Government will not give the council enough money to introduce other schemes to deal with bad housing fabric and inadequate insulation. Everyone is trying to innovate, and we should not become involved in a Dutch auction to keep rents down in order to challenge the opposition when that means that homes cannot be properly heated.

The real problem is the system that the Government have introduced. People are becoming more aware of the fall in temperatures, and the cost of trying to maintain decent heating. The seven-day system is entirely inadequate. In my area—as I have told the Minister, I checked this with the House of Commons research department this morning—Turnhouse was still being used rather than Salsburgh, which was specified in the regulations that we discussed on 18 December. It was claimed that, over a seven-day period in January, the average temperature was 1·2 deg C, so no payment was triggered in my area.

In November, there were high winds—so high that they tore five windows out of the summerhouse in my garden—and temperatures dropped sharply, but the average did not fall below zero in a seven-day period. In Turnhouse, it was 0·5 deg, so again no one received a payment. That is nonsensical: if the wind-chill factor had been taken into account, as we were told in the debate on 17 January, 1·5 deg would have become minus 6·5 deg in Yeovilton, and it would have been similar in my part of central Scotland. As I have said, this is not a party matter; nor is it merely a Scottish matter. I am as concerned about Yeovilton residents as I am about people in my area.

According to Age Concern, if the wind chill factor had been taken into account, only £20 million would have been added to the bill for cold weather payments. That does not seem much to me.

I was shocked by the estimate given by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross, who said that between 34 and 41 per cent. of elderly people who could receive income support do not claim it. According to research that I have consulted, the percentage is much lower, but it is at least 10 per cent., which means that as many as 1,000 to 1,200 people in every constituency in the United Kingdom are not claiming. More than 1,000 are not claiming in my area. Age Concern also estimates that 50,000 elderly people in the UK have died because of cold-related factors. If we accept the 10 per cent. estimate, that means that 5,000 have died in Scotland—far too many.

We must get together at local and national level to work out a cold climate allowance. I hope that the next Government—a Labour Government—will find a way of obviating the problem of deaths in cold weather.

I have only a short time in which to reply to this full and detailed debate. During the three minutes in which I was able to speak on Friday, I did not have time to deal with the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which has featured in today's discussion.

I am grateful for the recognition that practical improvements have been made. I know that some people want much more money to be spent, and others want a different type of scheme; but we have attempted each year to "fine-tune"—the expression that has been used—the modern version of the scheme, which has operated since 1991, and to improve the links with particular postcodes and weather stations.

The hon. Members for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) came to see me last spring to make representations about their constituencies. As a result of that discussion, we introduced two new weather stations in Ross, Cromarty and Skye. I stress that any hon. Member is most welcome to see me if he or she has detailed points. Of course, any representations made in writing or otherwise will be most carefully considered as part of the annual review.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made some important points. He said that the scheme was an achievement of the Conservative Government and that, if we moved to some other scheme, the costs would be considerable. He welcomed the fact that we were sorting out the anomalies, and mentioned one involving Eskdale.

Eskdalemuir.

I am obliged.

My right hon. Friend mentioned an anomaly in Eskdalemuir, which arose before I was in my present position, but which has been happily resolved. He also made a forceful point—in relation to which I was a little puzzled by the comment of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham)—on the importance of forecasting. That is one of the crucial elements of the present scheme. People do not have to wait for seven days when the temperature is below the limit. When the Meteorological Office in their region forecasts that the temperature will be below the limit for seven days, they know that the payment will come, normally shortly thereafter, probably before their fuel bill.

As that is done automatically, without a claim, by computers, which use postcodes as a convenient way of dividing the country by local area, it is possible to run an automatic system that gives comfort, because people know that, if it is advertised locally that the temperature will be low for seven days, and if they are in one of the qualifying groups, they will receive their payment. That is an important feature, which I stress.

Some criticisms were made of the scheme. Figures were quoted in respect of quality housing, for example. I appreciate that there is a long-running argument about the quality of Scottish and British housing. Through the home energy efficiency payment scheme, however, the Government have spent £350 million in Great Britain since 1991 and have improved the insulation of about 10 per cent. of total housing stock. That is a dramatic improvement, because insulation is the other side of paying for heating bills. I think that everyone agrees that, the better insulated the home, the more likely it is that people will be both more comfortable and have a more economical system.

Various hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Perth and Kinross and for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), mentioned excess winter mortality. The figures are shocking and a matter of concern, but there is no simple, easy scientific explanation for the link. The hon. Member for Moray did not mention the fact, if it is a question of cold weather, that the figures are even higher in Portugal and Israel. In the past five years, they have been higher in England than in Scotland, so, although that important scientific matter should be investigated, it is a little unfortunate and overstates the case to put the figures quite as high as certain hon. Members did.

Is the Minister seriously saying that, in his opinion, the excess mortality, a well-observed scientific fact through the winter months, bears no relation to the coldness of the climate and ability of certain people to afford heating?

The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I said that it is not possible to correlate this in the simplistic fashion in which that has been done by certain hon. Members. For example, there is no doubt that cold climate has an impact on winter mortality—no one challenges that for a moment—but waiting at a bus stop on an icy day is likely to have more effect than many other factors, and obviously there also is the incidence of disease and such matters. It is a matter of concern, but it is being studied and there is no consensus on it.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I am going to move on, because I have noted well over two dozen points, which I want to answer quickly in the time left to me.

The basic problem of eligibility was raised by various Opposition Members, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries put his finger directly on the difficulty: if we increase the groups, we will have to pay much more money. Let me make that clear. If, during a winter of last winter's severity, we extended the present system to all recipients of income support, the additional cost would be £100 million; if we extended it to all pensioners, the cost would be £150 million to £200 million. Therefore, there would be a £300 million to £350 million extra cost on a winter of last winter's severity, which, it is fair to say, was one of the more severe.

It is all very well for the Scottish National party to make pledges in Scotland. It is not likely to have responsibility for the United Kingdom Government. It pledged £170 million of expenditure, apparently in Scotland, but, again, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries said, there will be anguish in parts of England, particularly on the east coast, which sometimes has colder weather than Scotland.

When we discuss these matters, it is important that we study all the facts. My hon. Friend will know that the Royal Air Force built bases at Dalcross, Lossiemouth and Kinloss because of the weather factor—the best in the United Kingdom—and because of the fact that, on the east coast, for instance at Binbrook in Lincolnshire, the wind chill factor is bound to be much higher. The RAF would not be able to fly there at given times of the year.

My hon. Friend makes important points, with which I respectfully agree.

Will the Minister give way?

May I make a little progress before giving way? Let me pursue the matter.

I have discussed the problem of fine-tuning the present scheme, but I have not yet come to the wind chill factor, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) has mentioned. I notice that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross referred to last Friday's debate and said that the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill was uncontroversial. I point out to her that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) spoke for 47 minutes. I had three minutes to reply. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross says that the Bill is uncontroversial, but it appears to be controversial with the Labour Front-Bench team.

The Bill—I will explain what is wrong with it at the moment, because that will illustrate the difficulties with bringing the wind chill factor into account—is too vague to cost with any particular accuracy.

rose—

Let me continue, please.

The difficulty with the Bill is that the cost, again on a winter of last winter's severity, would be several hundreds of millions of pounds. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) explain what the Labour party would do. He did not promise to support the Bill. It is easy for Back Benchers to raise expectations, but the difficulty is that those who pretend to government have to make some pretence that they have some ability to add up.

The difficulty over the Bill is simple. It sounds a good idea—we are all used to the graphics that appear on televised weather forecasts—to bring the wind chill factor into account. The Government are aware of that argument. That is why last summer we commissioned the Meteorological Office to report to us specifically on the issue and to review the state of the arguments. We not only obtained that advice, but published it and placed it in the House of Commons Library. Paragraph 9.7 of the advice summarises as follows:

"for much of the country the additional domestic heating requirements generated as a result of the effects of exposure of houses to wind are too small and too highly variable"

to be incorporated into the scheme. The difficulty is that that is the basis of the advice.

The difficulty with the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill is that it instructs the independent adjudicating officers, first, to take wind chill into account in respect of assessing the necessary temperature. It does not tell them how to do it. If that had come to pass in the middle of this winter, the only result would have been chaos, because the Bill did not explain how such an assessment was to be done, and there is no consensus on how it should be done.

Secondly, and more seriously, the Bill instructs the independent adjudicating service to take into account forecasts of seven days. That cannot be done to the requisite standard with the present state of technology. That is why the Government are commissioning further research on the matter—to find out whether this is practical and sensible.

The Bill is wholly unnecessary, because, under section 138 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, we have the statutory power—the power that we use to make the regulations each year—to fine-tune the scheme. We are able, if we wish and if we are persuaded that it is right and proper, to take that into account. The difficulty is whether it is right and appropriate to do that. [Interruption.] I have tried to introduce an element of clarity to show the absurdity of the proposal. I shall now explain the matter, because it is obvious that the hon. Member for Moray is impatient.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making the speech that he did not make on Friday. Is it in order to reply to this debate with such a speech?

The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

Hon. Members have repeatedly mentioned wind chill and it is important to explain that we are studying that matter. Officials will ensure that the necessary inquiries are made in time for the matter to be properly assessed by next autumn, when the orders have to be laid.

There has been a misunderstanding. The Meteorological Office data form only a small part of the analysis. The difficult questions relate to what scientists recommend on the way in which wind chill affects buildings and whether that can be measured in a way that will enable it to be sensibly incorporated in a practical—

Order. We now move to the debate on elective ventilation for kidney transplants.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise an important issue of public health—the transplantation of kidneys and other organs, and the decline in the number of organ donors which is being experienced in the 1990s after a steady rise in the 1980s. Some 20 years ago, in the 1970s, there was a great deal of optimism about an abundance of kidneys for transplants—we just had to go out and get them. Some 20 years later, it is plain that such optimism was very wide of the mark.

During the 1980s, various factors combined to increase the number of kidney transplants from 814 in 1981 to 1,736 in 1990. Despite that, the waiting list of patients doubled from 2,000 to about 4,000, and the latest estimate is of more than 5,000. We need about 3,500 transplants a year to meet the demand. Since 1990, the number of transplants each year has fallen despite intensive efforts by the Government and health authorities to obtain kidney donors. The current refusal rate in the United Kingdom for organ donation is 25 to 30 per cent., but that is radically corrected if relatives know that a potential donor had wished to donate organs.

The excellent report by a working party of the British Transplantation Society makes several suggestions for improving the situation. However, I should like to concentrate on a method that was introduced in the Exeter transplant unit in 1988 but which had to be abandoned in 1984 after ethical objections, which resulted in a ban on legal grounds by the Department of Health.

The system is known as elective ventilation or interventional ventilation. Under it, patients who were dying, mainly from strokes, were put on ventilators in the intensive care unit until they were declared brain-stem dead, at which point their organs were retrieved for transplantation. That was done with the full permission of the patients' relatives and of clinicians, and in accordance with the Exeter protocol.

The Exeter unit achieved significant success with elective ventilation from 1988 to 1994. Whereas, throughout the country, dialysis numbers were steadily increasing, in Exeter they remained constant and under control, and the number of transplants went up year by year. In 1993, the Exeter unit performed 43 transplants and was one of the busiest in Europe, based on transplants per head of population. It had an 80 per cent. increase in donors. In 1994, when the system was banned in the second half of the year, there were only 23 transplants. In 1995, the figure dropped to 20, and was down to only 10 last year.

In 1993, with optimism running high at the unit, the Exeter and district community health council reported,

"a patient in Exeter could almost be guaranteed a transplant within 12 months."

Sadly, that has now radically changed, and, as the transplant rate has gone down, the number of patients on dialysis has grown. There is a national shortage of donor organs, because the number of deaths among those whose organs are suitable for transplantation has decreased. For example, because of increased car safety, there are not as many road accidents.

Renal units are full of people who cannot receive transplants because of difficulty over the supply of kidneys. The consequences of that for patients' quality of life and for the effective use of resources has been devastating.

In October 1994, as a result of a medical practitioner in, I think, Bristol complaining that, under existing legislation, it was illegal and unethical for a patient to be kept on a ventilator when there was no hope of survival purely to accommodate procedures of contact with relatives to gain approval for organ donation, I took a delegation of renal experts to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), to try to find a solution to the problem.

The Minister was sympathetic but was reluctant to move towards a change in the law on this ethical problem in the absence of consensus within the medical profession. He suggested that the profession should consult and seek such a consensus, following which the Government might legislate to bring us more into line with most other European Union countries in which procedures allow seriously ill, comatose patients to be routinely admitted to intensive care units while undergoing investigation, often while ventilated. In those countries, interventional or elective ventilation is not necessary: patients already receive such treatment.

We are caught in an ethical trap. Our common law principles state that patients have the right to give or withhold consent to treatment, but that such consent extends only to treatment that is intended to benefit the patient. If, as in these cases, the patient is unconscious, treatment may be given in the absence of consent, but only to the extent that is necessary to save the patient's life, and provided it is not against the patient's known wishes. If the clinician considers that there remains any possible benefit from intensive care, the treatment is lawful. The problem is that of obtaining the consent of a patient who is effectively brain-stem dead.

Throughout the country, thousands of relatives and renal consultants would like legislation to re-establish elective ventilation as a possible avenue to organ donation in cases where both the transplant and intensive care unit teams are in favour; where the next of kin agree; and where pressure on the unit's facilities permit.

The working party of the British Transplantation Society, in taking account of ethical concerns in the medical profession, proposed that certain precautions should apply. For example, it proposed that a clinical trial by a nationally agreed protocol could assess the risk of persistent vegetative state, which is one of the worries that has been expressed. In 1995, the British Medical Association asked the Government to introduce legislation, and, on the issue of ethics, both the BMA and the Royal College of Physicians have approved of elective ventilation, as have health trusts and health authorities.

The report by Exeter and District community health council, which was compiled between April and September 1996, states that the council did not meet a single individual, whether patient or professional, who supported the current ban on elective ventilation. I have a letter from Frank Howarth, the co-chairman of the National Kidney Federation, which represents more than 24,000 renal patients in the United Kingdom. The letter states:

"The current waiting list for kidney transplants in the UK at 31 December 1996 was 5,421; therefore, it is imperative every avenue is explored to ensure this waiting list is reduced.

I was fortunate enough to receive a kidney transplant in 1991, which still functions well and will testify to the difference it makes—it really is the 'Gift of Life'—and the most cost effective method of dealing with end stage renal failure.

Elective ventilation was the subject of a discussion document published by the British Transplantation Society in September 1995 This paper outlines a recommended protocol and, amongst other recommendations, recommends the Government should introduce legislation to enable elective ventilation to be re-introduced as an avenue to organ donation by making specific exemptions from the requirement to treat for the patient's own benefit."

I also have a letter from Professor Fabre, of the Institute of Child Health, and should like to quote a couple of important passages from it. He writes:

"elective ventilation remains a potentially extremely valuable additional avenue to organ donation and, most importantly, it is a source of donors entirely distinct from and additional to the current pool of potential donors. Every single donor obtained by elective ventilation is a donor that could not possibly have been obtained by any initiative other than elective ventilation (or a massive increase in intensive care facilities). When"

the Minister

"says that there is no evidence that elective ventilation increases organ donation, it is clear that he does not understand this fundamental point."

Professor Fabre continues:

"The Department says that it will not contemplate changes in the law for elective ventilation while the medical profession is divided. This is a transparent cover for sitting on their hands. They know that the medical profession (and indeed any other group) will always be divided on any ethical issue. Abortion is a good example where differences of opinion (strongly held) do not preclude legislation on the basis of a broadly held consensus, with doctors and patients proceeding as their individual consciences dictate.

Elective ventilation has the support of the BMA, the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners and several other august bodies. This hardly represents a divided profession. However, the Department has not taken a single constructive step or made any suggestions whatsoever as to how we might proceed on this issue. My feeling is that it does not matter how many influential medical organisations support elective ventilation. Fear of the vocal minority will keep the Government from acting."

Powerful bodies of medical opinion have found the procedure ethically justifiable, yet the clinical practice has been stopped by a point of law raised by some medical practitioners.

On an emotional level, I remind the House that many families with a terminally injured loved one would prefer to have the opportunity of saying their farewells while their loved one is still on the ventilator, with blood circulation maintained, rather than when he or she is completely brain-stem dead and with the ventilator switched off. Those relatives might also take solace from the thought that organ donation gives life to several other desperately ill patients, and that some good will come from their personal tragedy. It is well known that such thoughts sometimes help grieving relatives to come to terms with their loss.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept the case for giving elective ventilation a chance—to enable a substantial increase in kidney transplants and many more heart, lung and liver transplants. By doing so, the overall benefit to patient care in Britain will be considerable, and the anguish of many sufferers will be relieved.

Last weekend in Taunton, a young man was admitted to hospital suffering from a massive brain haemorrhage. He was obviously going die, but his wife—who was extremely well informed on the transplant crisis—asked that his organs be used to help others. That young wife was most aggrieved when she was told that, under current law, her husband, because he was going to die, could not be put on a ventilator. Her sense of bereavement was intensified.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take the initiative now in asking the leaders of our esteemed medical colleges to set up without delay a working party to secure a consensus on this matter, which we all desire.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) for providing this opportunity to speak about organ transplantation—which is a wonder of modern medical science and has, as he said, truly been the gift of life for so many people. I appreciate his long interest in health and disability issues. In this debate, he spoke with his customary eloquence and feeling.

It has been little more than 30 years since people diagnosed as having end stage renal, heart or liver failure were bound to die within a few months. Thanks to the marvel of organ transplantation, it is now possible for such people to live long and active lives—to work, to enjoy taking part in strenuous sports—and to do all those things that fully fit people can do. I pay tribute to the doctors who regularly perform those modern miracles, and to the nurses, transplant co-ordinators and other support staff who contribute to transplantation.

I should also like to express my deepest gratitude—I am sure that all hon. Members in the Chamber, although they are few in number, will join me—to those who have donated their organs so that others might live. In the United Kingdom each year, more than 1,500 kidneys, 300 hearts and 600 livers are transplanted, thanks to the selflessness of others. Lungs, pancreas and bowels can also be transplanted, and increasing numbers of those operations take place every year. Moreover, each year about 2,500 corneal transplants are performed, giving precious sight to others. All that is due to the generosity of those who have died, and of their families. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter will agree that it is a wonderful success story.

We should not forget, however, that 6,000 people are currently on the waiting list for organs, and that 5,000 of them are waiting for kidneys. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to those figures. The number of those waiting is due not to a lack of money or of clinical expertise but to a shortage of donor organs. Usually, only organs from people who have died from sudden brain injury are suitable, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, vastly improved road accident figures and improvements in neurology have reduced the pool of potential donors. Furthermore, the organs of some of those in the pool will be unsuitable because of damage or disease. Sadly, the chronic shortage of organs is a worldwide problem.

It is for those reasons that we continue to encourage people to become organ donors. The Department of Health currently spends over £1 million a year on publicity to achieve that goal, and the publicity's value can be judged from the fact that almost 4 million people have joined the NHS organ donor register since we launched it a short time ago, in October 1994. A tremendous amount of publicity is also provided by voluntary organisations. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking them for their splendid efforts on behalf of organ donation.

After all the publicity, the number of transplants is being maintained. Demand is rising, however, and supply is not keeping pace. It is therefore unsurprising that radical solutions to the problem have been suggested, including the procedure known as "elective ventilation".

The majority of organs for transplant are taken from people who, having suffered sudden brain injury, have been taken into intensive care and placed on life support systems—with the object of saving their lives—but who, sadly, have died there. If they or their families have agreed to organ donation, their bodies remain in intensive care and their lungs remain artificially ventilated so that blood can continue to circulate until the organs can be removed. That has to be done, or the organs would rapidly deteriorate and be unsuitable for transplantation.

Some people who might be suitable as organ donors die in hospital, although not in intensive care. A few years ago, doctors at one hospital devised a protocol under which patients on ordinary wards who were expected to die shortly were—with the permission of their families, as my hon. Friend said—taken to intensive care and placed on life support systems, so that their organs could be maintained until they could be removed for transplantation after death was pronounced. That is a description of the procedure known as "elective ventilation", which is the subject of this debate.

In 1990, details of the elective ventilation protocol and the results obtained were published in The Lancet. The article suggested that the procedure could achieve a significant increase in the number of transplants performed. However, many people, both inside and outside the medical profession, had grave reservations about the ethics and the legality of subjecting a patient to invasive procedures that were of no benefit to that patient but aimed solely at maintaining organs for eventual transplantation into others.

As far as I am aware, elective ventilation was practised very little outside the hospital where it was originally devised, probably because of the concerns about the ethical and legal position. My hon. Friend is slightly at variance on that, because he suggested that it was rather more widely practised than I understand it to have been.

In 1994, an independent research study team informed the Department of Health that they had received a legal opinion that elective ventilation was unlawful. The Department of Health therefore sought and obtained an opinion from Queen's counsel, which was that elective ventilation was indeed unlawful, because any intervention made without the patient's consent must be in the patient's best interests, or it could be judged to be an assault. Clearly, elective ventilation is of no benefit to the person receiving it.

The United Kingdom Health Departments informed the national health service of counsel's opinion, and the practice of elective ventilation ceased at that point. To have done otherwise could have left health authorities, NHS trusts and individual clinicians open to prosecution. I am sure that none of us would have wanted that to happen.

Understandably, the supporters of elective ventilation, especially the people at the hospital that pioneered it, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, were unhappy about the effect of the legal opinion. A number of them met my predecessor, as my hon. Friend said, and put to him their arguments in favour of the procedure. In essence, those were that, under the protocol, the procedure was carried out only with the fully informed consent of the patient's relatives, and that, without elective ventilation, the number of transplants would fall. The supporters of elective ventilation also suggested that a change in the law might be sought to enable it to take place.

For the law, the issue hinges on consent to treatment. As I have said, legal advice is that any intervention, if it is not done in the interests of the patient, could be judged an assault, even though the patient's relatives have given consent. There are sound reasons for that: the patient would not, for example, otherwise have protection against unnecessary major surgery. Intubation of a patient in intensive care is not a minor procedure, and the question of anticipated death is worrying for many people.

At what stage is it possible to say that a patient will inevitably die? Placing people in intensive care under such circumstances also carries the risk, albeit probably a small one of inducing persistent vegetative state in the patient—a subject to which my hon. Friend referred. Such a scenario could do great harm to the cause of organ donation, as other bad news—and, indeed, rumour—has done in the past. It would, of course, also be a cause of great distress to the family, and would place them under additional stress.

The general principle that a person may not, without consent, be given treatment that is not in his or her own interest is clearly important. Anyone attempting to alter that principle would find themselves in a minefield. They would have to find a way of modifying the principle without leaving a breach through which others might gallop. It could be argued, for example, that a patient expected to die should, before death, be subjected to treatment that would facilitate research on his or her body after death. Justification for such treatment might be claimed on the ground that the research might result in saving other lives. Many people will find that argument unacceptable.

In 1994, when the NHS was informed of the legal opinion on elective ventilation, some people expressed fears that the number of transplants would drop. Happily, that did not happen. In 1993, there were 1,571 cadaveric kidney transplants in the United Kingdom; in 1994, there were 1,601; and in 1995, there were 1,645. Heart transplants, including heart and lung transplants, rose from 338 in 1993 to 366 in 1994; in 1995, there were 349. In 1993, there were 534 liver transplants; in 1994, there were 620; and in 1995, there were 667. The cessation of elective ventilation does not appear to have had an effect nationally, although I accept that the story may well be different in the hospital in Exeter that my hon. Friend knows so well.

Having made that point, I make it clear that we are not complacent—indeed, we are far from complacent—about the transplantation figures. The numbers of kidney and heart transplants have not increased greatly in recent years, although the figures for liver transplants have been somewhat better. The so-called plateau effect in kidneys and hearts is being experienced in other countries which, like the UK, have been performing transplants for a number of years.

We have therefore introduced a number of measures aimed at maintaining and, if possible, improving the transplant figures. Apart from the NHS organ donor register, which I have mentioned, we have introduced donor declarations on driving licences, a reimbursement scheme for hospitals whose intensive care units maintain organ donors, multi-organ retrieval teams which have resulted in more organs being retrieved per donor, and support for the education of hospital staff involved in organ donation and transplantation.

We continue to monitor and review provisions for organ procurement and publicity for organ donation Together with the medical and nursing professions, the transplant co-ordinators and the voluntary organisations, we will continue to consider carefully all suggestions put to us that might result in more transplants and the gift of life, about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently, for many more people. In that context, I welcome my hon. Friend's specific suggestion about discussions between the royal colleges. Such discussions could be extremely valuable, and I will look into the matter sympathetically.

I am grateful for the opportunity to draw attention to the needs of people suffering from neurological conditions, and the needs of their families and carers. Early-day motion 252, in my name and supported by 55 right hon. and hon. Members, briefly states the issues on which I would like to enlarge. The words of the early-day motion are:

"That this House notes that some 1.8 million people in the United Kingdom are significantly affected by a neurological condition, that the needs of many of them for both health and social care are complex and inadequately met and that organisational structures and interests may obstruct the provision of appropriate services; and calls upon local authorities, health authorities and NHS trusts to apply both the letter and the spirit of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 through joint planning and commissioning of services for people affected by a neurological condition."

I am indebted to the Neurological Alliance for encouragement and advice in pursuing these matters. The Neurological Alliance is an umbrella group of 30 charities concerned with individual neurological conditions. It contains household name charities concerned with certain disorders that are common: Alzheimer's, epilepsy, stroke, migraine, Parkinson's and multiple sclerosis. Other charities within the Neurological Alliance represent sufferers from uncommon conditions, such as Huntington's disease, forms of muscular dystrophy and hereditary ataxias.

Research shows that, in an average health district of 250,000 people, there will be 4,000 to 5,000 people aged over 16 with a disabling neurological condition, and of them, perhaps 1,500 will be so disabled as to require help for most of their day-to-day activities. People with neurological conditions make up 20 per cent. of acute admissions to medical wards. A minimum of 3,285 people will be seen annually in outpatients' departments in each health district. People with neurological conditions are 13 per cent. of disabled people living at home and 30 per cent. of disabled people living in residential institutions.

It is useful to consider neurological conditions together, despite the great variety of those conditions, because the needs of sufferers, their families and carers have certain things in common. People with neurological conditions are a major responsibility of the health service and of social services departments, yet for that large group of people deserving of the best care we can give, we have not—I use the phrase advisedly—got our act together.

I will not dwell on how much more might be done to prevent some of these conditions. Of course we should do more to promote better health care. Alcohol and drug abuse, including smoking, can result in neurological damage. Improved road conditions and better lighting could prevent accidents that lead to neurological damage. Genetic information and counselling need to be available to people who may pass on a genetic condition.

At the onset of medical conditions—for example, after an accident—there is a short interval in which it may be possible to arrest or limit major brain damage. Whether that can be done depends on access to accident and emergency units, quick and accurate diagnosis in them, and the availability of scanning and intensive care equipment. A survey of consultants in 1995, however, found that only 17 per cent. of consultants worked in a hospital where there was a physician or neurologist with special responsibility for stroke. Although a brain scan is a critical element in diagnosis, the Stroke Association reports that an estimated 30,000 patients a year with acute stroke are admitted to a hospital with no CT scanning facilities.

I want to emphasise the complexity of the needs of sufferers from neurological conditions. The disorders cross the boundaries of health and social care and hospital and community services, and the divisions of physical disability, mental health and provision for children, adults and the elderly.

Many neurological conditions have a range of symptoms that require specialist expertise for recognition and treatment. Early and accurate diagnosis is of great importance. Undiagnosed neurological symptoms cause enormous insecurity.

Certain conditions are so rare that a general practitioner may see only one or two cases, or even none, yet specialist services are in short supply. The Association of British Neurologists tells us that we need one neurologist per 100,000 of the population. Even if we had that many, a large number of stroke victims would still be seen by a practitioner in an alternative discipline, and the majority of those with Alzheimer's disease and some with late onset disorders such as Parkinson's would still be seen by geriatricians and psycho-geriatricians.

The Multiple Sclerosis Society points out that only a consultant neurologist may prescribe beta interferon, but, because of the long waiting lists, patients who would benefit from that drug cannot have it for long periods.

With the shortage of neurologists and the inevitable lack of specialised knowledge among most general practitioners, it is all the more important that there should be guidance for referral and re-referral, and systems for exchanging information and advice on management.

Neurological conditions have an impact on all aspects of people's lives. Some conditions are variable and unpredictable. Some are slowly degenerative. All require timely and appropriate input, ranging from information and counselling through to rehabilitative treatment, special housing and respite care. A range of disciplines and services needs to be involved, supported and co-ordinated. Each sufferer and each sufferer's carers need comprehensive and co-ordinated care.

People with neurological conditions have an array of problems that need to be recognised and addressed. They have needs for appropriate medical intervention, including therapies for improvement and maintenance, monitoring the side effects of drugs, avoidance of pressure sores, incontinence aids, optimal nutrition, comprehensive information, mobility equipment—the Government's withdrawal of the mobility component of disability living allowance for adults who go into hospital for more than 28 days does not help—communication aids, opportunities for employment and leisure.

Patients require a holistic approach to their needs—medical, social and emotional. They are bewildered by the array of agencies and professionals. Without co-ordination, they will not receive timely and appropriate treatment and services and continuity of care. Co-ordination is often lacking. The work load of neurologists is such that they have little opportunity to explore beyond the medical needs of their patients. Service provision is fragmented, and liaison between neurology departments and social services departments is too often poor.

We should be able to expect that a neurological team will have a spectrum of expertise—neurologist, rehabilitative physician, occupational physio and speech therapists, psychologist, nurse, social worker, dietician and, very importantly, a designated co-ordinator with responsibility for ensuring that the right things happen at the right moment. The co-ordinator, as the central point of contact for the patient, the patient's family and the professionals, should be able to ensure proper communication between all concerned, continuity of care and ready access to information or services from the appropriate person. Evidence makes it clear that those stroke patients, for example, who are helped by a multi-disciplinary team tend to make the best recovery.

That model is not, regrettably, what we generally find. The reality is too often a deficiency of relevant expertise and a passing of the buck, particularly between health and social services. The concentration in the health service on acute needs is too much at the expense of proper attention to long-term, progressive, but less acute, needs. The market trading system in the NHS is not suitable to achieve the teamwork and co-ordination that neurological sufferers need.

In 1995, only 21 per cent. of consultants worked in hospitals with a stroke multi-disciplinary team. There is a lack of neurologists and of specialists in rehabilitation—in 1995 only 44 per cent of consultants had access to a stroke rehabilitation unit—and the distribution of rehabilitation centres is unplanned and arbitrary. Some areas do not have such a service, while others can provide help only to acute cases. Lack of access to multi-disciplinary rehabilitation teams is the result not only of lack of funding but of lack of understanding by other professionals of its importance, as well as lack of co-operation between different health and social care agencies.

Social services departments do not generally consider people with neurological conditions as a distinctive, though varied, group, but usually bracket them with the physically disabled or the elderly. Neurological conditions pose challenges to structures and working practices that most social services departments are not meeting. In spite of that, the Government are pressing local authorities to privatise social care.

If social services departments are unable to establish proper procedures and standards, how can we have any confidence that they will insist on them from private contractors? The Carers National Association has recorded its concern with the wholesale contracting out of services for accountability, quality of standards, choice and monitoring.

The 7 million carers in our society—1.5 million of them caring for a person for more than 20 hours a week—do not receive the support they should. The aspirations of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act, introduced two years ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), need to be turned into reality.

The additional personal tax allowance for people who work as well as care is available only to men. It is extraordinary that women are not eligible. Invalid carers allowance is an exiguous benefit of only £36.60, with no taper, hedged about with restrictive rules, which were recently tightened by the Government's new regulations on computation of earnings.

Some 20 per cent. of carers have never had a break. More respite provision is urgently needed. The predicament of young carers needs special attention, and is often a particular anxiety for a patient suffering from a neurological condition. A thorough review of support for carers is needed in the context of an overall review of the funding of long-term care.

Let me illustrate how things can go wrong in our present pattern—or lack of pattern. My first example is of a sufferer from Huntington's disease, about whom I learned from the Huntington's Disease Association. Huntington's presents a uniquely grim combination of mental health problems and profound physical problems.

Philip was 37 years old when he died, having been diagnosed with Huntington's disease for 12 years. He was cared for at home by his wife, who received the help of a carer for four hours in the morning and a night sitter. When she needed respite, social services said that Philip would have to stay in a long-stay geriatric hospital as it could not afford hospice fees. Philip's wife visited the hospital, and decided that that would not do.

Philip's condition deteriorated fast. Social services suggested nursing home care, but, after two weeks, the nursing home said that it could not cope. The suggestion for his future care was the long-stay geriatric ward. Philip's wife asked again if he could go to the hospice. Social services again said no, because it could not fund that. At that point, the health authority said that Philip did not fit into its criteria for continuing care.

A case conference was called. Everyone agreed that Philip needed terminal care, and an assessment in a unit specialising in Huntington's disease, so that his needs could be clearly established. Then, when the issue of funding arose, came disagreement. Eventually, the health authority agreed to fund the assessment, but Philip died in a general ward in a hospital on the day that he was due to be transferred to the unit. He had spent the last three months of his life being transferred in and out of hospital while people decided whether he met the continuing health care criteria.

The Alzheimer's Disease Society tells me of the case of an elderly woman in the advanced stages of Alzheimer's—deaf, blind and virtually immobile. Her husband was told last year that, with the introduction of new eligibility criteria, she no longer qualified for NHS continuing care, because she was neither unlikely to die in the next six weeks nor in a coma. He was therefore asked to move her to a private nursing home, where he would have to pay.

Shortly after being informed of the decision, the husband fell seriously ill and has been diagnosed with cancer. The health authority continued to insist that his wife must be moved, and that

"the health of the carer, regardless of the seventy of the illness, is not a consideration in the decision to move her."

She is still in the ward, and it remains to be seen what will happen.

Finally, let me describe a case reported to me by the South Warwickshire Council of Disabled People. AD is a 37-year-old woman who has suffered from multiple sclerosis for a number of years. She developed psychotic behaviour. She was treated in hospital, and her condition settled. She was given a date for discharge. One week before that date, the social services department informed her that it was unable to fund her care package at home and that her case needed to be reviewed between the social services and the health authority. There ensued an argument between social services and the health authority so protracted that it was another five months before the woman left hospital.

I strongly endorse the words of the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People in Bradford on 7 January about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. He said:

"The first rights of access under the Act place duties on service providers not to refuse service and not to provide it on less favourable terms."

The Government, however, have a duty to ensure that health authorities and social services departments have the means to fulfil their duties. I quote from the findings of a joint review team from the Audit Commission and the social services inspectorate on Warwickshire's social services:

"Because of financial constraints, the Department was in danger of reducing its role to a minimalist reactive one, concentrating only on its statutory obligations to those most at risk and neglecting those capable of rehabilitation, which is not a viable long term strategy."

We can only be ashamed of the inadequacy of current service provision. Against the inevitable financial constraints, the need for the cost-effectiveness that properly combined and co-ordinated holistic provision could achieve in the support of sufferers from neurological conditions is all the greater. The Government should set national standards and models; they should also, I suggest, top-slice funds from the health service and social services to support the network of regional specialist centres that is needed, and to provide financial leverage to ensure the co-ordination and co-operation of the various services involved.

I pay tribute to the voluntary organisations—those in the Neurological Alliance and others—that play such an invaluable role in supporting sufferers from neurological conditions. Voluntary organisations play a vital part in representing service users, providing information, advice and guidance, and establishing local support groups. In many cases, they directly provide advice, comfort and support—often including equipment and sometimes financial support—working alongside the statutory services.

The organisations work at all levels—individual, local and national—and across all boundaries. Their work, which is vital today, will become of increasing importance as the number of people requiring long-term care is likely to increase. In many cases, advances in treatment and management will not produce a cure, but will stabilise or slow down the decline of patients so that lisfe is prolonged. Today, there are more than 670,000 people with dementia. By the year 2021, the number is expected to be nearer 1 million.

The charities are working to promote the collection and exchange of information on neurological conditions, to organise and participate in training programmes, to act as channels for mutual collaboration on models of care, technology and research and to inform and influence policy makers about the needs and circumstances of people with neurological conditions.

The Government need to be clear in their own mind about the role that they expect voluntary organisations to perform. They need to be consistent in the manner in which they work with voluntary organisations. Voluntary organisations, as expert representatives of sufferers, should play a key role in partnership with the Government in policy formation. As they know better than any of us, in all too many respects, we have a long way to go to reach the standards of care for sufferers of neurological conditions that we could and should provide.

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) for raising this important subject. I was particularly interested to hear the valid and important points he raised, although I suspect that he would not expect me to accept his interpretation or analysis of certain issues.

As the hon. Gentleman said, neurological disorders affect large numbers of people. The Neurological Alliance estimates that about 1·8 million people suffer from them. Whether they are relatively common conditions such as Alzheimer's, stroke, epilepsy or Parkinson's disease, less common ones such as motor neurone disease, or very rare conditions such as progressive supranuclear palsy, they impose an enormous burden on sufferers and their families. In addition, statutory health and social services clearly have a vital role in providing appropriate and effective services and treatment.

The Neurological Alliance has produced a very useful document: "Living with a Neurological Condition—Standards of Care". I am more than happy to endorse its broad thrust and its general message, as my predecessor did with the alliance's 1992 document—of which it is a revision. I am sure that health authorities, NHS hospital and community trusts and GP fundholders will find it a useful aid when they are drawing up contracts for services for people with neurological conditions.

Patients with neurological disorders—and their carers—are the real experts in what it means to live with neurological conditions. That is why one of the six medium-term priorities for this year and next requires the NHS to give greater voice and influence to users of NHS services and their carers in their own care, the development and definition of standards set for NHS services locally and the development of NHS policy locally and nationally.

As far as the development of policy nationally is concerned, Ministers and officials of the Department of Health have close contacts with the Neurological Alliance—which includes nearly 30 charities representing people with neurological conditions and their carers. Indeed, my predecessor formally launched the alliance in the House in February 1994.

The alliance is receiving five years' core funding from the Department, amounting to £91,000 in total, and in 1996 we funded the production of its document, "Providing a service for people with neurological conditions", that includes a model of care which purchasers and providers of health services may wish to adopt. The alliance contributed to the NHS executive's listening exercise on the primary care-led NHS, and provided some very helpful comments.

We attach great importance to the need to involve users of services and their carers and representative bodies in the development of policy. We also have close contacts with many of the Neurological Alliance's member organisations, several of which have received funding from the Department under the section 64 general scheme of grants.

For example, officials at the Department are working closely with the epilepsy charities on the Department's epilepsy initiatives, for which funding has been provided amounting to more than £300,000 so far, including more than £30,000 to NHS epilepsy services development projects. The MS Society was closely involved in the guidance we issued last year on the introduction of beta interferon to the NHS.

Some people argue that the Government should prescribe at national level what treatments the NHS should provide, including treatments for people with neurological disorders. I do not believe that that would be right. No such list of treatments could ever hope to accommodate the range and complexity of the different cases that individual clinicians face all the time. It would be entirely inappropriate to take decisions out of the hands of the clinicians treating patients and into the province of others who possess neither the experience of caring for patients nor the expertise to make such decisions.

The role of the centre is to set the strategic direction for the NHS—as we do in the annual priorities and planning guidance and in other documents such as our recent White Papers on primary care and "A Service with Ambitions". We said in "A Service with Ambitions":

"the NHS and its partners should give increasing priority both to the prevention of physical and sensory disability, and to the problems associated with disability where it has been diagnosed. At the point of diagnosis people should be informed honestly, sensitively and fully of the nature and consequences of the disease and given access immediately to counselling, advice and support."

Is it not a disgrace that, in some parts of the country, it can take up to six months from examination by a general practitioner to examination by a neurologist? My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made a key point about the shortage of neurologists. In Lancashire, it can take six months to get an appointment to see a neurologist.

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I hope to address later in my speech the question of the number of neurologists and what is being done to increase it to provide greater care for people suffering from neurological diseases.

The White Paper continued:

"The NHS should be leading the way in changing public attitudes towards disabled people."

I am sure that no hon. Member would disagree with that. We all, regardless of our political views or prejudices, should work together to advance that cause.

Patients need to be confident that those working in the health service have the right knowledge and skills to do their jobs properly. The White Paper "Choice and Opportunity—Primary Care, The Future" sets out proposals to ensure that professionals working in primary health care have access to education and training that matches the needs of their patients. It responds to calls for more opportunities for multi-disciplinary learning, for better continuous education, for more training outside hospitals and for improved research and development and clinical audit in primary care.

Primary care has developed rapidly in recent years. Advances in medical knowledge, backed up by new technologies, larger teams of dedicated staff bringing new skills to primary care, and increasing investment, have raised both the quality and the range of services provided. At the same time, many primary care teams have taken on a wider role in the provision, planning and management of services through GP fundholding and GP-led commissioning.

However, those changes and opportunities have also led to pressures on the service. Changes in the work force, including expectations and aspirations of those involved, have contributed to the pressures. Although services have generally improved, we acknowledge that the effect has been patchy. Some parts of the country and some groups of people continue to be less well served than others.

The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon raised a valid and important question about GPs. He was right to say that GPs may only once or twice during their working lives—a relatively short time—see patients suffering from one of the more complex or rarer problems that he described. Obviously, one cannot expect GPs to be experts on the subject and to be able to address the problems of those patients, but it is important—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees—that they have the ability and the knowledge to refer such patients to the relevant neurologist or other clinician who can deal with those cases.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the number of neurologists working in the health service at present. There are currently some 260 consultant neurologists in England and Wales, and their number has increased by about 4·3 per cent. in the past five years. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Department of Health and the specialist work force advisory group will continue to monitor the need for additional neurologists and to seek to redress the problem, if the research shows that to be necessary.

The hon. Member also mentioned collaboration between agencies, which is critical for the provision of a first class service. Collaboration, both at a strategic level and at the level of individual care packages, is essential to meet the needs of people with chronic diseases, such as neurological disorders, and for older people with complex needs. Groups representing people with chronic conditions have emphasised the need for care co-ordination and management responsibility to be clearly assigned within primary health care teams.

The Department of Health, working with the Department of the Environment, has encouraged innovation in collaborative working, through guidance on joint commissioning and through training and development support. Further work is in progress to identify good practice in collaborative working across primary and social care boundaries.

People want and need information that will tell them about specific conditions and diseases, especially chronic conditions. The voluntary sector has developed a wide range of such information. For example, the British Epilepsy Association, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and the Parkinson's Disease Society all produce good, up-to-date, user-friendly literature to help to inform those who contact them. The freephone health information service puts callers in touch with appropriate support groups and provides condition-specific literature. The voluntary sector also provides people with information on appropriate services as well as advising what people can do for themselves to control or improve their condition.

I join the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon in paying tribute to the voluntary sector and to carers. They play an important role in providing practical and emotional support. In many ways, they are the unsung heroes of society, whose work all too often passes unnoticed because of their professionalism and commitment. They do not seek praise or attention: they get on with doing the job. By definition, people who are determined to get on with the job do not necessarily attract the thanks, support and praise that they richly deserve.

One of the principles of good primary care is that professionals should be knowledgeable about the conditions that present in primary care, and skilled in their treatment and in contribution to their prevention. Professionals need to be knowledgeable about the people to whom they are offering services, and services need to be co-ordinated by professionals who are aware of each others' contributions—including inter-professional working—and who know when to refer people for specialist care.

There should be no gaps in services. Necessary services should be accessible to people regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, disability or health status, and should reflect the needs and preferences of the individuals using them. Patients need to be confident that those working in primary care have the right knowledge and skills to do their job properly. That calls, in turn, for primary care staff to have access to high-quality professional education, training and development.

Such important issues cannot all be resolved overnight, but I am confident that we are working along the right lines and that what we are doing will benefit all people using the NHS, including people with neurological disorders and their caring families.

I wish to discuss the Year of Engineering Success, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last Wednesday, and also to propose two changes in legislation that would encourage more students to become engineers. Before I begin, I wish to thank my constituent, John Evans of Lichfield, and Steve Potter, of the House of Commons Library, for their research, some of which I will be using today.

Engineering is big business. The United Kingdom engineering industry employs 1.8 million people, with forecast total sales for 1996 of £163·5 billion and exports of £81·5 billion. It is successful in comparison with other industries: the average share price of United Kingdom engineering companies rose by 120 per cent. between September 1992 and the middle of 1996, compared with a 70 per cent. rise in the FTSE share index during the same period. Despite that, engineering still suffers from a poor image, especially as a career choice among young people.

The Year of Engineering Success was launched on 22 January, and followed a meeting four years ago between the then President of the Board of Trade, now my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and the Institution of Electrical Engineers, of which I happen to be a member. The initiative is the most recent of an on-going series to raise the profile of engineering as a career choice and as a significant contributor to the economy.

The Government state that YES recognises the potential impact of engineering on society from its traditional industrial applications to modern, applied technologies, such as keyhole surgery and virtual reality. It will co-ordinate a range of events that will take place throughout the year, is being supported by more than £1 million-worth of investment from the Government and the private sector—including companies that have recently been privatised, such as British Airways, British Gas, BP, National Grid, National Power, Rover Group and Vickers—and involves the engineering institutions.

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, a launch of the Year of Engineering Success in Parliament in December—sponsored by the all-party engineering development group—made two points, on which I am sure he will touch. One is that every year should be a year of engineering success, and the second is that this year provides a chance to draw attention to the career opportunities of engineering and the requirement for better school education in mathematics and physics, and better further education to take advantage of those opportunities.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I recall attending that very opening ceremony in the other place last year. I shall be touching very shortly on the question of education, especially for those entering university. I support everything that he has said.

The events taking place during the Year of Engineering Success will be organised by a group of committees and will centre on the many key areas of engineering applications, including energy, construction, transport, agriculture, the environment and communications.

In fact, I understand from the Institution of Electrical Engineers that, today, it and GEC Marconi will be announcing jointly a new initiative to assist in-service training of teachers in electronics, which is one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) mentioned. The scheme will be known as "Marconi Days" and is expected to provide training for up to 1,000 teachers annually. The detailed programme will be developed with the teaching profession, and pilots are expected to be launched in the autumn.

The application of engineering in industry is one of the central strands of the Government's science policy that was published in 1993. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes has said, this year should not be the only year of engineering success. Indeed, there have been previous such years, and I hope that there will be many in future. I shall point out the dangers that face us, which could result in years of engineering failure—but I shall reserve that until the end of the debate.

The practical and financial benefits that engineering can bring about when applied to industry are well documented. One engineer who invented a new type of metal nut to overcome a glitch in the air-powered starter motor of a type of jet engine, has saved his employers, British Airways, a potential £1 million a year in quicker aircraft turnarounds.

At the other end of the scale, many people have heard of the Scottish engineer who has designed an automated cash dispenser that uses friction rather than the present vacuum system to pick up notes. His invention, on which he worked during his university course work in mechanical engineering, has won several awards, and will double the speed that cash machines take to dispense money—which will not be pleasing to some of my colleagues whose wives use their cards to dispense cash.

One of the best publicised inventions by a British inventor in recent months has been of the clockwork radio, which was invented by Trevor Baylis. Baylis decided to invent the clockwork radio after watching a television programme about how difficult it was to get educational information on AIDS to people in Africa because batteries were expensive or unobtainable and electricity supplies erratic.

Through my former company, I supplied and installed systems for Radio Uganda and Uganda Television. Part of that work was funded by the World Health Organisation for the very purpose of conveying educational information on AIDS. How good it is that the output of my excellent radio studios will be well received on clockwork radios. Twenty thousand such clockwork radios are produced every month in a South African factory, which employs more than 150 staff, most of whom are disabled.

All is not rosy, however. A former colleague of mine, John Forrest, chairman of a working group established by the Royal Academy of Engineering, has said:

"The UK produces some of the best engineers in the world but many firms, especially small and medium ones, are complaining they cannot recruit the right kind of engineer."

Encouraging more young engineers to train to the level to meet industry's needs is one of the main objectives of the YES campaign.

The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has recently produced a survey, which was conducted for it in December 1996 by MORI. Schoolchildren aged between about 14 and 16 years were asked, "How much do you know about engineering?" "Not very much." answered 45 per cent. of them, "Nothing at all," said 39 per cent. and only 11 per cent. said that they knew "a fair amount/a great deal" about engineering. That is a sad indictment of the present position.

More worryingly, when the children were asked, "How likely or unlikely are you to consider a career in engineering?", 62 per cent. said, "Very unlikely," and 14 per cent. said, "Fairly unlikely." That is worrying for a nation that became Great Britain through engineers such as Isambard Kingdom Brunel, who put the "great" into Great Britain and gave us the wherewithal to form an empire.

How can we overcome the problem? I should like to propose two remedies. The first is to broaden the education system, and the second is to raise the status of engineering in the United Kingdom. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology is not responsible for education matters, so I shall be relatively brief on the first issue. I ask him to pass on my comments.

I believe that Britain breeds inarticulate engineers and innumerate art graduates. Either way, Britain often ends up researching wonderful products and leaving the development to the Japanese or the Americans. Both research and development are important; the two go together. A broad base of knowledge is needed so that scientists and engineers can communicate the details of their work and financial accountants and marketing men can understand the potential of that work.

We specialise far too early in our education system. We have, of course, introduced national vocational qualifications, which have provided a port of entry into further and higher education for many students who might not otherwise have got there. But what of academic students? In England and Wales, the A-level system, the so-called "gold standard", forces 15 and 16-year-olds to choose just two, three or sometimes four subjects in which to specialise. That has to be wrong.

Scotland's system of highers and the German gymnasium matriculation all offer a wider choice of subjects to study before entering university. Fifteen-year-old artists do not abandon science and mathematics; scientists do not abandon history, languages or literature. Semi-A-levels, as I call them, such as "use of English" and "general studies" are merely tinkering with a flawed system and are no substitute.

The Department for Education and Employment argues that English and Welsh students could take GNVQs or AS-levels, but all universities say that they prefer the depth of A-level courses. I am not sure why that is. With the proliferation of examining boards and the variety of options available, there are about 253 alternative syllabuses—or is it syllabi?—for maths alone. [Interruption.] It is a gerundive, so it is syllabi.

Universities cannot begin their courses where A-levels leave off. Far from being the gold standard, A-levels have damaged our education and economy for years. The means of entry to higher education should be reassessed and reformed. One of our goals for the 21st century should be to say goodbye to the schoolboy specialist and greet the schoolboy polymath.

The question of raising engineers' status directly affects the Minister's Department. I believe that we could achieve that aim by the statutory registration of engineers. The Law Society was founded in 1825, followed in 1832 by the British Medical Association. Those and other professional groups secured statutory registration, but engineers did not.

We are all no doubt familiar with the proliferation of titles containing the word engineer. Examples include the sign, "Environmental Engineers" on trucks belonging to waste disposal companies; I believe that toll collectors on freeway bridges in America are members of the Brotherhood of Professional Engineers; and the lad who replaces one's car exhaust is often mistakenly referred to as an engineer.

Historically, "engineer" was the term used for military practitioners who dealt with all aspects of engineering. The word "ingénieur" was first used in 17th-century France as a professional title for a scientifically trained technician in the public service. In Britain, the title "engineer" was probably first used for a non-military individual in 1702, to describe a George Sorocold of Derby.

To avoid confusion and to distinguish themselves from their military colleagues, the civilians adopted the description of civil engineer. The first in Britain to use it was John Smeaton, in 1768, not long after he completed the Eddystone lighthouse.

The Society of Civil Engineers was formed in 1771. Soon, all non-military engineers adopted the title, regardless of whether they specialised in engines, canals, roads, bridges or other branches of engineering. We are all familiar with James Watt, Thomas Telford, George Stephenson and Isambard Kingdom Brunel. Who has not felt pride in the achievements of the canal era and the railway age, when British engineers led the world? Indeed, I recently visited Sweden and travelled on the railway line between Gothenburg and Stockholm; that line was built by British engineers.

The designers of many magnificent mediaeval cathedrals, including the glorious 800-year-old cathedral at Lichfield, which thousands of people visit, would, in today's terminology, be called structural engineers. As technology developed, the civil engineering profession gradually became subdivided, and today we have mechanical and other types of engineer. Gone for ever are the days when non-military practitioners were all called civil engineers.

Despite the long and honourable history of engineering in this country, engineers have been hard done by compared with architects. I shall explain that carefully, as the former chairman of my local Conservative association is an architect. The professional activities of architects have always been intimately linked with those of engineers. As late as the 1920s, there were architect members of the Institution of Civil Engineers, even though the Royal Institute of British Architects had been established in 1834.

There are other examples of the close relationship between engineers and architects. The Civil Engineers and Architects Journal was popular in Britain between 1837 and 1868, and the American Society of Engineers and Architects was founded in 1852. On the continent of Europe, the two disciplines remain to this day closely connected, and many practitioners are proud to describe themselves as architect-engineers.

In the construction industry worldwide, the initials AEC stand for architecture, engineering and construction, thereby testifying to the continuing close association between those related activities. In this country, the title of architect was safeguarded by the Architects (Registration) Act 1931, but the title of engineer remains unprotected. As a result, the law allows an unqualified or inexperienced individual to adopt the description, regardless of fitness for purpose.

In New Zealand, legislation was enacted 72 years ago for the registration of engineers, and several other countries have introduced similar provisions. Paradoxically, statutory registration is already mandatory in the United Kingdom for small groups of engineers. For instance, the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 restricts the design and inspection of large reservoirs to suitably experienced civil engineers appointed by Government.

More recently, on 3 September 1985, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, addressing the first assembly of the Engineering Council, said:

"It is for the Government to create the right background conditions, but it is you engineers who can grasp the opportunities and make our future prosperous and I am here today for one reason: to show the importance this Government attaches to your work, your profession and your role in our future. Our country's success needs you."

The Minister should note the words

"It is for the Government".

In February 1992, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), then Minister for Housing and Planning, announced an intention to review the Architects (Registration) Acts and appointed an assessor, Mr. Warne, who considered observations submitted by several professional organisations. He found that the Institution of Civil Engineers

"saw no major reason for maintaining the system of registration for architects alone",

and said that the institution envisaged

"a much wider issue of statutory registration of all professional members of the construction industry".

That would include civil engineers. However, nothing has happened.

On 2 February 1996, at the inauguration of the reformed Engineering Council, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said:

"You know my view that engineers and engineering are exceptionally important but their full potential is not being realised in certain key respects. A number of steps are needed to remedy this, including: fundamental reform of the selection, education, training and use of engineers and technicians."

He went on to say that a subsidiary objective was

"to ensure that the importance of engineering to the British economy, as recognised in the Science and Technology White Paper, is properly reflected in Government policies".

I believe that the time is right to ensure that the term engineer is used correctly in this country, to raise the status of engineers and to encourage more students to study engineering. One valuable way of achieving that is to follow the path of other countries and adopt a statutory register of engineers.

The law and its administration need not be complex. We already have the title of chartered engineer. Corporate members of existing engineering institutions, such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers may all be chartered engineers. All those institutions have high standards for corporate membership: at least a first degree in engineering, and senior professional experience.

No new bureaucracy need be established. I propose simple legislation stipulating that only a chartered engineer may legally call himself, or herself, an engineer. I hope that the Minister will consider that.

What of the future? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes said, we want not only this year, but many years of engineering success in the future. The Engineering Employers Federation has produced a booklet entitled, "Engineering: Creating Wealth for our Future". Referring to the future of the United Kingdom within the European Union, it says:

"the UK should retain its Social Chapter opt-out because labour market restrictions should be reduced, and not increased. The best way to provide improved employment conditions is through enhanced international competitiveness, rather than legislation."

It also says that we require

"national rather than EU legislation".

I certainly agree with that.

The EEF also talks about creating a flexible labour market. It says:

"The EEF does not support the introduction of a National Minimum Wage since it would indirectly reduce the competitiveness of the engineering industry by increasing the costs of many contracted-out services. It would also have an inflationary impact upon pay structures as it would inevitably result in pressures to maintain existing pay differentials.

Furthermore, any regular increase in a National Minimum Wage will open the real possibility that, during pay negotiations, this will be regarded by employees and their representatives as the minimum acceptable increase, irrespective of their employer's economic and financial circumstances and labour market conditions."

These are the people who know. These are the people who work in the engineering industry. These are the people who employ people in the engineering industry. Yet the Labour party talks about the very policies that the EEF says would create unemployment and destruction of the engineering industry in Britain.

My saddest fear for engineering is that, if perchance there were a Labour Government, we would see not years of engineering success but years of engineering failure.

This has been a truly excellent use of these short debates. A cornucopia of information about the engineering industry came forth from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant). I give him full credit for initiating the debate and giving us all the information, indeed for being a veritable polymath—an engineer who can correct his own gerunds. He is a great tribute to the House of Commons.

I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend, because he is one of the people, a little like myself, who started life with the disadvantage of studying economics. But he rose above that and became a chartered engineer. He is a fellow of the Institution of Electrical Engineers—one of only two in the House The other happens to be an Opposition Member, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Ban (Mr. Rooker). I am reliably informed that there are only six chartered engineers in the House of Commons. I am sure that, if I have got that wrong, I will receive letters from colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) also took part briefly in the debate. I recognise all the work that he does as chairman of the all-party engineering development group in the House and elsewhere to advance the interests of the engineering industry.

The backdrop to the debate obviously has the support of the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Council, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred, as well as the various chartered institutes and many others with an interest in engineering. The Year of Engineering Success is one of those wonderful inventions which, while it uses the term "year", is slightly elastic. I have been participating in the Year of Engineering Success since last summer, but it will run until the end of 1997. Mary Harris, who is running it, is a fireball of energy, and is doing a wonderful job in activating people at all levels to support the cause.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade formally launched—any year has to have a formal launch as well as informal ones—at the BBC on 22 January. We decided that it was highly appropriate to launch the year at the BBC, because of the excellence of the engineering that has enabled us now to accept broadcasting as one of our daily pleasures; and we are about to anticipate the next leap forward in broadcasting in terms of the digital age. The BBC engineers and all those engaged in the 60 years since television began, which we celebrated only recently, are the embodiment of what engineering can do and how engineering at the forefront of technology enables something which is otherwise simply a good invention or a good idea to become something that we can all enjoy.

The importance of engineers in the translation of a brainwave into something which can go into mass production and become available at a price that people can afford is often underestimated The skill of engineering at all stages of history has been most remarkable. I pay tribute to Trevor Baylis, who invented the clockwork radio, and the work that he has done for inventors, but many inventors need engineers to help them carry their ideas through to the marketplace.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire made two central points, first about education and secondly about the status of engineering. In the few moments that remain. I should like to respond to those points.

As my hon. Friend rightly says, education is obviously broadly a matter for the Department for Education and Employment, but, as Minister for Science and Technology, I have a profound interest in the subject. We need to ensure that more of our young people have an opportunity to prepare themselves for a career in engineering. That means that they need to be numerate, although perhaps in the context of the House too much stress on numeracy this week is not appropriate.

Young people need to have an excitement about the opportunities available to them through the sciences if they are to meet the qualifications required and the hurdles set for them to go into engineering in later life. Therefore, at school it is necessary to trigger that enthusiasm and give young people the belief that the career they might want to follow will be worth while.

The education figures are not that discouraging. I do not have time to go through them all, but we have seen an increase in the past year, for example, in the number of students taking mathematics and computing at A-level. We have also seen a worrying fall in chemistry and physics. Biology was about even.

The figures are not absolutely clear. One of the things that Sir Ron Dearing will have to do in his review for the Government of the future of higher education is to take account of the work that he has already done on A-levels and vocational qualifications to see how we can increase the opportunities for our best young people to go into science, engineering and technology at university. A survey in 1992 showed that 29 per cent. of all degrees awarded in Britain were in science or engineering, with engineering disciplines accounting for almost half.

The other aspect is the status of engineers. It is worthwhile underlining the fact that the job opportunities for engineers are extremely good That is part of the status. There are 84 chartered engineers on the boards of the top 100 companies. The Royal Academy of Engineering tells me that one has a higher chance of being a director of one of the leading companies in Britain if one is an engineer than if one is an accountant. That is a promising opportunity for those who are looking to come into the market.

Of the engineering graduates going into the job market, 37 per cent. secured places on graduate training schemes, compared with an average of 25 per cent. of all graduates; and 75 per cent. of engineering and technology graduates are able to secure first jobs in the career of their choice. Engineering graduate salaries are higher than those of many of their peers. The average starting salary of an engineer is £15,900, compared with an average starting salary for all graduates of £12,250.

it is important to bring such statistics out into the open, because too often it is thought that potential engineers will be in a difficult position. Not least, it is important to stress that the unemployment rate for engineers, at 2·5 per cent. in the United Kingdom, is significantly lower than general unemployment of 6·5 per cent. and graduate unemployment of 5 per cent. Those statistics underpin the good news about engineering.

The task for the Year of Engineering Success is to take that good news and broaden the appeal of engineering and increase the estimation of the value and status of engineers in our society and what they contribute. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire made about the legal use of the term "engineer" I know that it is a regular subject for discussion I pay tribute to all those people who have made the effort to become chartered engineers, and to the incorporated engineers who do a great deal of the day-to-day engineering tasks in industry and elsewhere. I also pay great tribute to those in the science world who do basic research in engineering and make a long-term contribution to the success of the economy. All of them have their merit.

I should certainly like to raise the status of engineers, and I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said, but the Year of Engineering Success is a tremendous tribute to the work now being done by those companies which back it in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that it is genuinely a success, because the British economy will increasingly need engineers to be competitive in this difficult world, adding value, coming forward with ideas, and making them available to members of the general public.

If more of the general public looked around their households, they would clearly see how many of the products on which they depended—