With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition appertaining to electro-convulsive therapy and psychosurgery which has been signed by 15,960 of my constituents and others in the Greater London area. I shall read the petition.

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of we the undersigned Sheweth

that both electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) and psycho-surgery are largely empirical procedures; that ECT treats the symptom and not the cause and that it has been shown to cause cumulative and irreversible brain damage and to produce memory loss; that psycho-surgery also causes irreversible damage to the brain; and that the World Health Organisation has stated that psycho-surgical interventions are ethically doubtful. Wherefore your Petitioners humbly pray that this Honourable House will forbid the use of ECT and psychosurgery in the National Health Service and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

In order to save the time of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the 14 motions to approve statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

Before we begin the Adjournment debates, I should tell the House that it is important that every hon. Member who has been fortunate enough to gain a place in the ballot should keep to time. The first debate is due to end at 12 noon.

I take this opportunity, at the outset of the Summer Recess Adjournment debates, to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a restful and refreshing recess. No one serves this House with greater dedication, and no one better deserves a period of relaxation than yourself before the House resumes in the autumn.

May I, as Leader of the House, associate myself with the benediction of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert)?

This is a most extraordinary occasion. I am deeply grateful, especially for the blessing of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I am grateful to the House. I wish everyone a happy recess. I can say that because I shall not be here throughout the whole of the day.

In acknowledging my good fortune at being able to initiate the first of the debates that make up the last day of the Session before the Summer Recess, I regret that the issue that I have chosen is of the utmost seriousness, namely, inflation, which is the most important issue of all for many people.

The sombre black clouds that lie ahead on the horizon contrast very un- favourably with the summer sunshine streaming through the windows this morning.

The economic background to this debate is bleak. On the other hand, all of us on the Government side of the House—and, indeed, many millions outside the House—have been tremendously heartened by the demonstration of dynamic decision and determination given by the present Government in the three months since they came into office.

For the first time for many years we have an opportunity to take a new direction in our nation's affairs. As a country, we have suffered over the recent past from being overtaxed, overborrowed and overspent, but within weeks of the new Government taking office we had, on 12 June, a remarkable radical Budget that will enable the country to seize the opportunities that other countries have seized and to raise the level of prosperity to the benefit of all.

However, the policies that are being adopted by the new Government are necessarily unfamiliar to the public. In particular, inflation is to be curbed by the application of strict financial and monetary policies. This strategy needs to be understood in order to succeed. Unhappily, it must be said that the official Opposition are not likely to play very much of a part in achieving that understanding, with the Shadow Chancellor himself virtually inciting many working people to make inflationary wage claims in the next winter's pay round.

Therefore, in introducing the subject, my first task is to consider the immediate background of the past five years and then the even more recent past five or six months. It is common knowledge that in the past five years prices have more than doubled; they have risen by 110 per cent. Food prices have gone up by 120 per cent. Therefore, we have a background of rising inflation. No doubt the public felt that given a change of Government there might be a change in this unfortunate situation, but that has not been seen to be so in the past few weeks, because prices have continued to rise. Given the campaign waged by the Labour Party at the last election—that it had overcome inflation; that the rate was at least stable, although not going down any more—it is important to point out that inflation had actually been rising since last October.

I should like to give the actual retail price index figures for the annual rate of inflation. In October of last year, it was 7·8 per cent.; in November, 8·1 per cent.; in December, 8·4 per cent.; in January, 9·3 per cent.; in February, 9·6 per cent.: in March, 9·8 per cent.; in April, 10·1 per cent.; in May 10·3 per cent. and finally, the last available figure, in June, 11·4 per cent.

From those figures it is quite clear that there was a trend, slow to start but inexorable, in rising prices. Therefore, this problem of a new take-off in our inflation rate was already well established before the change of Government in May. Indeed, if one looks at the whole of the past 12 months, in only one month since June 1978 has inflation gone down, and only then by 0·2 of 1 per cent.

That is the stark, realistic background against which we must consider price rises at present. One of the first actions of the new Government, within a matter of a couple of weeks of taking office, was to announce the abolition of the Price Commission. At the same time, there was a sudden surge of price increases and, not unreasonably, many people will have seen that as cause and effect. In fact, that is not so. I should like to examine the Price Commission's general role before coming to the Price Commission (Amendment) Act, to show why that was not cause and effect.

Over the period of its existence the Price Commission has been understood to have had the purpose of keeping down prices. The very fact that prices have more than doubled in the last five years is at least an indication that it has not succeeded, or, if it has, that it has been only by an insignificant amount compared with the amount by which prices have risen. That is the state of the record in relation to the Price Commission. While inflation was rising rapidly, reaching a peak of 26·9 per cent. in August 1975—a rate that had not been equalled before—at the same time the Price Commission, in its way, was trying to stem that tide. But it could not do so, because the tide of rising prices was motivated by rising costs. There is no avoiding the implications of rising costs on prices. All that the Price Commission could seek to do was to root out excessive profiteering.

It cannot be in the experience of many hon. Members to imagine that one of our major problems is excessive profiteering—quite the reverse. Profitability in British industry and commerce in recent years has been at a derisory, low level. Therefore, the Price Commission had very little scope for acting in order to reduce prices. Where it did have scope, and where it took the opportunity to reduce prices, it was usually at the expense of profits, which, in turn, meant that companies did not have the necessary resources to invest in new equipment and to create new jobs.

On the one hand, for the major part of its activities the Price Commission has had a negligible impact on inflation and, on the other, has had a susceptible impact on some prices to a very small degree, which in itself has been damaging to investment and employment in the long run.

I do not believe that the British public has much confidence in the Price Commission, or that it will mourn its passing, for that reason. To take a homely analogy, the Price Commission is very much like a watchdog put on the chicken run. If at the end of the night the chicken run is found to be empty, and a mass of feathers, the dog can well say that it was on guard but that the fox had obviously been in and taken the chickens. It will not convince many people to suggest, as did the Labour Party, that what is needed is to strengthen the dog. Most people would either get rid of the dog, abandon chicken farming, or have doubts about the effectiveness of the guard system.

In the early part of this year, despite all the factors that I have outlined, which went against the very raison d'etre of the Price Commission, the Labour Government decided to strengthen the Commission by the introduction of the Price Commission (Amendment) Act. The significance of that was that for the first time the Commission had the ability to freeze prices for three months, notwithstanding the fact that this would be a contradiction of the profitability record of the company in question, or of the rising costs that led it to put in the price increase application.

The significance of this was very serious. The Act was fought in this House but eventually enacted. On the one hand, it was an attempt by the Labour Government to mollify the trade unions and to persuade them that something was being done about rising prices when, as I have indicated, inflation was on a rising trend, at a time when they were seeking wage restraint. On the other hand—this has to be said—it cannot have escaped the Labour Government's notice that the ability of the Commission to freeze prices for three months was very useful just at a time when the shadows of an impending election were casting themselves upon the Government Front Bench.

By the enactment of the Price Commission (Amendment) Act, the Commission was given the extra powers which, I emphasise, were to freeze prices, even though costs could be demonstrated 100 per cent. to justify those prices. It is fair to say that the Commission had the discretion to do that, and it took advantage of the power granted in the Act.

The result was that the increasing rapidity of the rising trend in the inflation rate was masked for a matter of weeks. It became apparent only after the general election, with the abolition of the Price Commission and the release of price rises that had been held up. For all that time, and certainly for the months since the Price Commission (Amendment) Act was put on the statute book, the most that the Commission could seek to do was to hold back prices—to defer the inevitable. It could not get to grips with the basic causes of inflation, which lay elsewhere, principally in the Government's economic policy.

In order that my view is not regarded as impossibly partisan and prejudiced, I quote the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Gordon Richardson, who, on 23 January, in the Financial Times, is reported as saying:

"the unavoidable consequence of action designed to prevent … excessive cost rises from being passed on in higher prices will be some forced curtailment of profits, production and employment."

That was so.

Sir John Methven, the director-general of the CBI, in the Daily Telegraph of 16 May—I acknowledge that he is a more interested party, but none the less a highly respected and authoritative voice of industry—said, in a valedictory report on the Price Commission, that the Commission had

"depressed industrial profitability by ten times as much as prices. Less money had thus been invested in factories to help provide new jobs and increased output which could again lead to lower costs and prices."

That undoubtedly was the effect of the Price Commission, but profitability in this country is so low that there was little scope for cutting back prices that are generated by rising costs.

I should like to examine some of the increases in the cost of the basic essentials of life that occurred in a spate in the month of May, immediately after the general election. It will demonstrate the power of my case that these price rises were justified by rising costs, were held back by the Price Commission—and in particular by the powers conferred on it by the Price Commission (Amendment) Act—and could not be avoided. They should not, therefore, be laid at the door of the new Government, because that undoubtedly would hamper their attempt to change direction, create a new climate and achieve new prosperity for the country.

On 5 May, only two days after the election, the Price Commission granted a further interim price increase of 1p a pint to Whitbread. That made up the full 3p a pint rise originally sought by Whitbread, which it claimed that it needed to maintain its then levels of profit. The fact that the Commission used the powers available to it to defer part of that rise is said to have cost the company £3·8 million, in an industry that, for all the abuse given to it, is currently undertaking a massive programme of reinvestment in new equipment, which is something that all Governments seek to encourage.

On 11 May the Price Commission granted Rank Hovis McDougall and Allied Bakeries an interim rise of 1p on the large standard loaf and ½p on the small standard loaf. The Commission had frozen those prices a week before the general election, after the original claim for price rises of 2p and 1p respectively. The lack of profitability in baking is notorious. Both major companies that dominate the market make the bulk of their profits from flour milling. It is well known from the recent demise of Spillers, the third major plant baker, how low profitability is in baking and how many jobs have been lost as a result during the period of price control. Both companies blame increased costs, such as wages, wrapping materials, fuels and overheads, and who is to doubt them? Consequently, my right hon. Friend, following the announcement of the abolition of the Price Commission, allowed RHM and Allied Bakeries the further rise of 1p and ½p respectively that they sought, making up the full justified increase in the price of bread. That was on 16 May.

On 12 May Bass Charrington was allowed a further interim increase of 1p on a pint of beer by the Commission. That increase again made up virtually the whole of the 3p per pint rise originally sought.

On 18 May there was worse news for British industry, because price rises of 8–6 per cent. for electricity and 8 per cent. for gas were announced to take effect from 1 June. Both those price applications had been stalled by the powers conferred on the Commission, and again it was only a deferment of the inevitable, which cost both those industries a substantial sum of money. In the case of electricity, about £20 million was lost as a result of that temporary deferment of price rises over the period of the general election. The British public should be told the reasons for these increases that were announced so shortly after the general election.

On 24 May the Post Office proposed a 1p increase in the cost of first- and second-class post from the end of July. Those increases were put back for a matter of months following representations that the notice given was too short. They will follow a two-year freeze on postal charges, and are the minimum needed to keep the postal business in the black and meet the Government target of a 2 per cent. return on turnover during 1979–80. Who could complain that a profit on turnover of 2p in the pound was unreasonable? It will also be necessary to cover rising costs and finance the postmen's pay settlement.

On 25 May we had a rise in the price of fuel. Oil went up by around 4½p a gallon, resulting in an increase of 5p to 6p at the pumps. These and subsequent rises were necessary to recover recent substantial increases in the price of crude oil.

Finally, on 26 May a rise in the price of milk of l½p a pint was announced to take effect from 3 June. It was again greeted with an outcry. It was virtually the first decision made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it was made by him because the previous Government had failed to carry out the regular routine review that would have given effect to these price rises at the beginning of April—again before the general election.

Food prices have been rising steadily as a result of the bad winter, and the turmoil in the Middle East—the Iranian revolution—will ensure that there are further price rises to come. I stress again that it is important to the understanding of the new economic policy that these prices be seen for what they are—a consequence of past actions and policy decisions. They are not immediate consequences of the new Government's taking office.

If we look this week at the three public sector monopolies—Post Office, gas and electricity—we find that we again have a crisis of understanding. People will not understand how it is that the Post Office can announce a profit of £375 million, the British Gas Corporation a profit of £360 million and the Electricity Council a profit of £251 million and at the same time give notice that prices will need to go up. Those sums are astronomical and beyond the comprehension of most people, who would imagine that those were profits in excess of anyone's wildest dreams. In fact, they are not. As a percentage of turnover, or by any other standard, they are a relatively small return on the vast amount of public money invested in these industries. If they are to reequip and secure the cost benefits of new equipment, they must be allowed adequate return on their investment on our behalf to ensure a continuing service to the British people.

That brings me to three points of policy relating to price rises, the role of the Price Commission and the retail price index. First, one of the most dramatically brave features of the Budget was a deliberate change from direct to indirect taxation in the form of VAT. That was necessary, in part, to compensate for the change in the levels of direct taxation. It is our intention to reduce taxation in general by a substantial amount, and especially direct taxation. That has the consequence, as this Government have seen, of a sharp immediate rise of 3½ per cent. in the retail price index. That will come in mid-August. That is another reason why we should advance our explanation for that rise when it occurs in the recess.

To my mind, it demonstrates the need for a standard of living index to supplement the present retail price index. That may be thought to be a way of masking the rising trend in inflation, but that is not the case. The RPI will continue to be published and give the bold treatment of the increase in prices. However, a standard of living index will put the VAT increases, which are sharp and once and for all, in the perspective of the tax reductions at all levels.

I was disappointed that in a comment on a proposal of the Institute of Fiscal Studies for what it calls a gross earnings deflator this morning, it should be suggested that because it does not show a remarkable increase in the standard of living, such an index should perhaps not be published by the Government. We cannot always change the rules to ensure the best possible result. We should seek a better understanding of the way in which the economy works. Sometimes it will go against and sometimes it will go in favour of the Government. At least it will not give the misleading impression that prices have gone up as a result of VAT increases without any compensating reduction in taxation.

Second, we must bring out powerfully our policy of reliance on competition as the best guarantee for lower costs and higher efficiency. Competition is an uncomfortable concept that perhaps is not popular with the public, but we have benefited in recent years by the intense competition in some sectors of our economy, notably in retail distribution. The supermarkets have been instrumental in keeping prices of many basic commodities to a low level. When we recognise that their profit level is of the order of 1 to 2 per cent. on turnover, it is again not an unreasonable return on their activity.

Third, we need to stress the need for improved investment and re-equipment. That is necessary not only to keep us in pace with the rest of the industrialised world but also so that we can by that means create more jobs and higher output at a lower cost and bring further reductions in prices, or at least a stabilisation of prices. To go on with old equipment and plant under capacity is bound to lead to high unit costs and increased prices in the shops.

What is needed is a massive programme of popular education—not adult education alone. That cannot start too early. It must start in the schools. That programme will need to explain three paradoxes. The first is that higher output and higher productivity mean more jobs, not fewer. The second is that rising prices are a symptom of inflation, not the disease itself. The third is that profits are the best defence of consumers' interests.

Higher output will make us more competitive in the world markets; higher productivity will also make us more competitive. The growth of output will mean lower unit costs and therefore lower prices in the shops. That will lead to more jobs as more people will be able to afford to buy our goods. Rising prices are inevitably a symptom and not the cause. They are the mechanical indicator of rising costs; they are not the source of inflation, which is economic policy. Profits are ultimately the best defence of consumers' interests. It is only from the resources given to companies by means of their profits that they may reinvest in new equipment and ensure that consumers can take advantage of the technological developments available at a cost in the modern world.

Only when those fundamental but complex truths are fully understood by people in all walks of life shall we be able by our own efforts to reach the levels of prosperity long enjoyed by our near neighbours in Europe. The alternative is absolute decline and real poverty by Western standards. I look to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs to play her important and unremitting part in the process of popular education and persuasion in the period that lies ahead of us.

The debate finishes at 12 o'clock. I understand that the Minister wishes to reply at 11.45 a.m.

The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) left several questions unanswered. He left opaque certain issues which otherwise should be quite clear. For instance, he laid great stress, including the points in his summing up, on what he called the three main factors which formed our best defence against inflation, including the competitive process, the claim that price increases reflect cost increases, and the claim that profits are the best defence of consumer interests.

What the hon. Gentleman did not touch on, and what has not been referred to by Ministers when speaking about competition, was the glaring anomaly between the profits of big business and average profits. For example, taking manufacturing as a whole, between 1968 and the beginning of 1977, whereas average real profits in manufacturing industry rose by only 7 per cent. real profits in the top 25 manufacturing companies rose by 70 per cent.—in other words, 10 times more. That hardly suggests that there is a model of competition working in which the costs of big business are greater than those of small enterprises. It indicates the position of monopoly profits of big business.

The hon. Gentleman referred to competition in the retail trade and profit margins which are normally low. But those profit margins, when he refers to 1 per cent. or 2 per cent., are lower than those available in the published evidence of the retail trade. The concentration of monopoly power in the retail trade is marked. While we had more than 3,000 enterprises accounting for the upper half of retail trade in the early 1950s, now fewer than 400 such enterprises account for half of the retail trade. Any consumer knows the vast concentration of power that occurs in that area and the problems to which it gives rise.

The hon. Gentleman referred to other cost factors in inflation. He cited bread. We know that, even though there is a relative degree of dispersion in that market, it was revealed in the mid-1970s that there had been a price cartel in the bread industry involving some 80 enterprises. That was an extensive cartel. It shows how inadequate is the mechanism of alleged competition even in relatively dispersed markets where trade associations, according to Adam Smith, can assure that when two or three producers are gathered together, either for merriment or diversion, they can seek to conspire against the public interest through some contrivance to raise prices.

In an issue of that complexity we need a mechanism such as a price commission to safeguard the interests of the consumer. The hon. Gentleman pays no account, when he refers to cost rises, to the fact that even the Shah of Iran, after the first OPEC oil price increases in 1973–74, made a statement pointing out to the Western world in general, and Heads of Government in particular, that there was a sheer discrepancy of $1 per barrel between the price increase which OPEC had charged and the price which was then being passed on to the consumer by the oil companies. We have to take account of the fact that the domination in that market by seven major producers puts them in a formidable and devastating position of joint monopoly power. That was clearly shown in relation to the major increase in the petrol price which followed the last OPEC price rise. There was a 20p increase on a gallon of petrol in most parts of the country within days of the Government declaring that it would abolish the Price Commission.

Coffee is one of the key commodities which, in the early 1970s, soared in price because of a particularly bad harvest in the dominant producer country, Brazil. Brooke Bond Liebig and Nestlé did not hesitate to pass on that sort of cost increase in their final prices for instant coffee. However, when the coffee price slumped in the mid-1970s there was not a parallel fall in the price of Nescafé, the retail Maxwell House brand or other brands. Because of the new producer sovereignty in big business structures, the new monopoly concentration, there is a new asymmetry in the price mechanism. Prices in no way reflect real cost structures or productivity increases in the manner that was suggested by the hon. Member for Romford or in the manner that the Government have assumed in relation to the Competition Bill.

A further factor to which Ministers have not yet paid attention is the evidence that is coming from the EEC—rather than the Price Commission—that

"Inflation is rife in the more concentrated sectors of European industry."

This is stressed in the introduction to its fifth report on competition policy, which follows a series of studies demonstrating that in the more concentrated industries within the EEC Nine—those industries that are dominated by a few firms—the rate of price inflation, even before the market cost inflation of the early 1970s, in the decade following 1964 was higher where there were fewer firms involved. That contradicts the claim that there is effective price competition.

Another important factor is the domination of international trade by multinational companies and, therefore, our import price structure. Already about 75 to 80 companies account for half our visible export trade. The total volume of production by our business abroad is double the total visible export trade. Almost half the trade undertaken by our biggest companies is between their subsidiaries in different countries. That enables them to charge prices in international trade which are outside the framework of the normal market. On those prices, they are able to charge themselves higher import prices in order to declare higher costs and, therefore, to claim lower profits. In that way, they can claim larger subsidies or the right to pass on higher price increases.

This phenomenon is well marked and attested at international level, for example, by the United Nations study "The Multi-National Corporation in World Development". But that sort of evidence is apparently not even known to the Government. It is staggering that in reply to my written question the Secretary of State for Trade said that the Government had no information on the ratio of foreign production to export trade by our business. That ratio affects the whole area within which our big business can manipulate trade in international prices and thereby inflate import prices and pass on notionally higher rather than real costs within the domestic market.

Unless the Government are aware of these factors, they have no chance of real success in serving either their Back Benchers or the British consumer by pursuing a Competition Bill of the sort that has been introduced. The Government might as well ask the Pied Piper of Hamelin to introduce a Bill on child road safety as to introduce a Bill of this character to protect the consumer.

I should like to associate myself with the good wishes expressed to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Leader of the House and by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert).

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford both on his initiative and good fortune in obtaining the debate and on the initiative that he has taken in drawing our attention to and casting doubt on the many murky areas about the Labour Government's prices record and the veil that has been drawn by Labour Members over what happened just prior to the general election. I also congratulate him on a number of important factors that he brought to the attention of the House in this short but important debate. He has ventilated an issue that needs to be ventilated, and I am only too pleased to reply both to him and, to a limited extent, to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland).

Labour Members have made a great deal about the price increases that have occurred since the general election. Much as everybody shares their concern about rising prices, price increases were not invented on 3 May of this year. A great many of those increases which have taken place were very much in the pipeline before the general election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford has shown—for example, postal charges, rates. rents, oil, petrol, beer, gas, electricity, seasonal food and many more increases that I shall not go into. The increases reflect the effects of world prices which are still working through and the effects of the road hauliers' strike earlier in the year. They were all in the pipeline before the election, but they have not yet worked through into the retail price index.

In addition to those matters, there were the hidden inflationary effects of the monetary expansion that were associated with the closing months of the Labour Government's term of office. That made the level of increase in VAT and interest rates higher than it would otherwise have needed to be. That was the legacy that we inherited from the previous Government. If the Opposition had come to power, given the level of monetary expansion and the spending commitments in their manifesto, they would have had to increase both indirect taxes by more than we have and put up income tax instead of reducing it. If they had not done so, they would have reneged on their manifesto commitments. We shall never know what they would have done, but I guess that it would have been a bit of each, leaving people with considerably less real income in their pockets at the end of the day than we have done.

Because I foresaw those problems, I issued a number of warnings during the election campaign about the rate of price increases in the pipeline that would have to come through after the election. I made clear that that could not be prevented or cured overnight. At the same time, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the former Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, knew all these matters but he was confidently predicting that there were no prospects of inflation taking off again. That is the sort of political dishonesty which characterised the previous Government's disastrous record on prices. That is why Labour Members have forfeited all right to give anybody any lectures about the rate of price increases.

Great play has been made by Labour Members of the abolition of the Price Commission on the basis that it could have prevented a number of price increases. I wish to make it clear that the Price Commission never did, and never could, prevent price increases. It could only delay them, as the record clearly shows.

Let me remind the House of that record. Out of 44 investigations since the inception of the new Price Commission in 1977, it was found that in only one case was a price increase, in effect, reduced as opposed to being merely delayed. In the year between August 1977 and August 1978, the first year of the new Price Commission, in 18 out of 24 investigations the entire increase was allowed at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the three-months investigation. We can only conclude from that evidence that in the vast majority of cases in that year the increases asked for were fully justified and the investigations were an expensive waste of time and resources.

During that year, 1977 to 1978, in only six cases were price increases even delayed beyond the end of the three months investigation period. As a result in that year of the expenditure of £7½ million, involving the employment of some 500 people and the use of an expensive building, the British taxpayer and consumer received in return a marginal short-term benefit in the prices of cement, plasterboard, some magazine prices, dry batteries, some horticultural products and West Wales coal.

More recently we have had the curious phenomenon of the Price Commission recommending a higher increase in the price of gas and electricity than the industries themselves had asked for. That was the achievement of the body which the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) described as

"the most effective instrument for stopping unjustified price increases".

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the Price Commission amending legislation and to the number of investigations which were begun just before or during the election campaign. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I said, in effect, that it would give the Government the opportunity to manipulater prices in the short term for political advantage, if that was what the Government desired to do. The fact that gas, electricity, beer, bread and oil prices were singled out for investigation just prior to or during the election campaign has led a good many people to observe this coincidence and to attribute to these investigations the political motives which I forecast on Second Reading. I sincerely hope that they are wrong, and I would not make any such personal accusations against the Price Commission itself, but one can understand how a good many people gained that impression from what occurred.

So much for the Price Commission. Example after example has shown that competition has a far more salutary effect on keeping prices power and standards higher—

rose—

I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has already taken up a good deal of time in this debate. I was saying that competition has brought standards higher than any short-term price controls have done.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall—who is too new in the House to know about the courtesies of this place and did not approach my hon. Friend the Member for Romford to ask his permission to take part in this debate—made an interesting contribution. I shall not attempt to follow the tortuous paths of his case. I can only say that, if I did not know already that he was an economics lecturer, I would have so gathered from his contribution. I suggest that the path of the economics lecturer is a very different one from that of the housewife carrying her shopping basket down the high street.

The hon. Gentleman referred to profits in British industry. The most important aspect of the level of profitability is the percentage of profit return on capital employed. That figure throughout British industry is about 4½ per cent. on average, and most companies which earn as little as that would be better off closing down and putting their money on deposit in the bank.

rose—

No, I cannot give way. I must get on with replying to the debate.

Disgraceful.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall then dealt with what he calls the concentration of monopoly power in the retail sector. Again, the hon. Gentleman is divorced from reality. If he were a housewife shopping in the high street he would know that the high street war among supermarkets has caused more prices to come down than any Price Commission could ever do.

The hon. Gentleman, as a theorist, then raised the question of the price of coffee. That was a most interesting example because it is the one area in which the Price Commission sought to intervene and brought about a 1p reduction in the price of coffee but in which consumer demand, as a result of one supermarket resisting the purchase of brand leaders, brought down the price of brand leaders not by 1p but by 8p. That was the effect of competition and consumer resistance.

I wish to remind those who sneer at the effects of competition as opposed to short-term price controls of newspaper reports this week showing the scale of some price increases which are currently being implemented in some Iron Curtain countries. Those increases arise from the same economic factors as face the rest of the world but in countries where no competition exists. In Czechoslovakia a 50 per cent. increase has been imposed on fuel prices; food prices in Romania have been increased by up to 112 per cent.; in Hungary food prices have risen on average by 20 per cent. in one go, and bread prices have also risen by a similar amount.

Absolutely irrelevant.

That is the situation in countries in which the same world conditions exist but where there is no competitive economy. Therefore, price rises in those Iron Curtain countries will be greater than in those countries which enjoy competitive economies.

If the hon. Member for Vauxhall is so keen on competition, he should give a wholehearted welcome to the fact that the Conservative Government, as opposed to what happened under the Labour Government, are dealing with competition policy and are determined to ensure that competition is fair and vigorous. We do not pretend that competition alone can cure inflation overnight, but we claim that a combination of competition policy and our monetary and fiscal policies will be far more effective in combating inflation in the longer term than were the short-term, cosmetic price controls imposed by the Labour Government. The Conservative Government intend to follow those policies with determination and vigour towards the long-term success that we are determined to have.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1979.

We should all like to wish you, Mr. Speaker, a good recess, sad though it is that the recess was not curtailed by a fortnight in order to enable hon. Members to discuss the many important issues which we should like to have dealt with yesterday.

I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this Adjournment debate, particularly because of the concern felt about the operation of immigration control. At the beginning of this debate it is necessary to remove some of the illusions which exist in certain quarters. First, immigration control is, and has been, tightly operated. There is no mass immigration and we are not being swamped. I wish to put on record the fact that the speech by the Prime Minister in January 1978 which talked of our being swamped was wholly misleading and racist in tone and content. The right hon. Lady's remarks undoubtedly harmed race relations and discouraged the level of fair-mindedness and tolerance which was beginning to develop and increase.

All hon. Members who deal with immigration cases know full well that for many years immigration control has been tightly operated. For example, if the wife of a Pakistani resident in this country wishes to join her husband—and the uniting of families seems to be a reasonably humane aim in life—she must apply to Islamabad and wait up to two years for an interview, and if there is any discrepancy between the account rendered by her husband and the account given by the wife, in almost every case her entry is rejected.

There are complaints that some of the questions asked at the embassy posts are wildly misleading and irrelevant. If an entry visa is obtained, that does not mean that there will be an open door at Heathrow. For example, a wife may be subject to further delays and threatened deportation at Heathrow. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure the House that, in spite of reports that we hear from time to time, control at Islamabad is free from prejudice and needlessly irrelevant or confusing questions. I have written to the Minister concerning a constituent of mine who raised questions regarding agency fees which apparently are required to facilitate an advance along the queue at Islamabad. I hope that this will he investigated with care and concern.

Immigration control clearly has to be fair and non-racist, and citizens who arrive at our shores, be they black, brown, yellow or white, must be treated with courtesy, dignity and fairness. I have no doubt that there are many immigration officers who do their job with patience, courtesy and tact. Equally, however, there are signs that in some instances this is not the case. Although it may well be that we are talking of a minority of cases, and I am sure the Minister will say that millions of people are dealt with under immigration control, the fact is that we are concerned with injustice or contemptible treatment. No matter how small the numbers may be, we must strive to ensure that the system is made as fair as is humanly possible.

The basis of continuing concern is the instructions given to immigration officers, because these officers are civil servants and such instructions must be clear and unambiguous. The first point which was raised in the public consciousness was the question of virginity tests at the beginning of 1979. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) raised this issue in an Adjournment debate on 19 February. The Home Secretary at that time said that such tests would end. That was widely welcomed. One matter that has never been properly answered is the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), when he was a Minister at the Home Office, issued instructions that such tests should not be carried out.

There appears either to have been laxity in carrying out the then Minister's instructions or a deliberate obfuscation over the years between the departure from office of my hon. Friend the Member for York and the subsequent exposure of the fact that these tests were being conducted. I am concerned that the Minister should be able to assure the House that the instructions given to immigration officers are clear, are carried out, and are not produced in such a form and with such ambiguity that, when the publicity has died down and a period of time has elapsed, those instructions are open to a much wider interpretation, with unsatisfactory results.

The then Home Secretary said in February that he was looking into the nature of all medical examinations

"in the immigration control context, to establish a standard and acceptable set of procedures."—[Official Report, 19 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 221.]

Since that debate the general election has taken up most of the time and the emphasis. I wonder whether the procedures which the Home Secretary said were being instituted have been instituted, whether they are still being undertaken and whether the Minister has established

"a standard and acceptable set of procedures."

Have virginity tests ceased at posts abroad? Will standards of conduct imposed here for ports of entry also apply at ports abroad? It would help the House a great deal if the movement towards greater openness in government was substantiated by the Minister's Department. I have to tell the Minister that in the general view of many Members of Parliament the Home Office is the most restricted and closed Department of them all. That achieves a considerable peak of official obscurantism. It would help the public at large and it would certainly help to establish that standards of conduct are high if the guidance and the rules given to immigration officers were to be published in the Library.

Does the Minister agree that secrecy is part of the process whereby abuse can develop? That is one area of concern about Government secrecy in all its aspects. Certainly here, where there is an element of concern and sensitivity, it is clearly an area where openness is extremely important. Are the Government applying tighter rules to immigration, tighter even than the Labour Government, behind this cloak of secrecy? I hope that the Minister can refute such claims.

The Guardian earlier this year neatly summed up the position in an editorial of 10 February when it said:

"These abuses of people trying to enter Britain raise two immediate points. The first has to do with the secrecy surrounding immigration procedures. How long would these abuses have continued if one woman had not been courageous enough to give the evidence needed to pin down rumours which have been current for years? It was her testimony that she had been subjected to gynaecological examination which started bringing all the rest to light. A system which can keep practices secret because the people who suffer are likely to be too timid, apprehensive or vulnerable to expose its defects cannot be a good system. And yet that, increasingly, is the kind of system that our immigration procedure seems to be.

The second point of concern is the extent to which port and High Commission medical officers are being shown to be involved in matters of policing which are not within their public health duties at all. We recognise and deplore the alliance of medicine and politics when it involves psychiatrists in the Soviet Union diagnosing and treating dissidents. The activities of medical officers in immigration procedures are not as distantly removed from that as we might care to think."

The Guardian editorial emphasised that the underlying cause of much of this concern was the issue of secrecy. I would accept the point if the Minister replied that this took place under a Labour Government and that that Government did not blow aside this cloak of secrecy. I say that that is so. I was a critic of the Labour Government for so doing. I am sorry that we did not carry out our 1974 election pledge to repeal the Official Secrets Act and to place the reasoning for secrecy on the institutional Government Department. That does not obviate the fact that secrecy still surrounds immigration control.

I shall come to another item of yet more recent import on which the Minister has commented. In June of this year The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian reported that secret codes were being used on immigrants' passports, by words being underlined, crosses placed on stamps and so on. They mean that the Home Office has additional information, or may have additional information or that a person has or may have been contravening conditions attached to his stay.

The Daily Telegraph, which is not a newspaper renowned for its Left wing sympathies, said on 5 June:

"The third contentious example concerns marks used by the Home Office when an immigrant applies for extension of stay. Here dates on endorsements are underlined showing that the person has been asked to leave, or has contravened, or tried to contravene the conditions attached to his stay, or that the Home Office has information about the passenger which does not necessarily justify a refusal of leave to enter."

Who decides that someone has tried to contravene the conditions attached to his stay? Would not it be a Home Office official, and would not we be greatly concerned if Home Office officials were using secret codes because of their own decisions to prejudice a person's stay in this country?

As The Daily Telegraph pointed out, the secret codes which were published in The Daily Telegraph may well have wider understanding, say, abroad, and they may well prejudice a person's entry to or or exit from another country when travelling on that passport.

I asked the Minister a question about this matter of secret codes, and he refused to end such practices. They are practices which he and I would condemn if they came to light in, for example, the Soviet Union. We might argue that that was the sort of country where secret codes might be used but that we rejected that sort of centralised Government interference with citizens' rights. Why should not we condemn similar practice when it operates in this country? I ask the Minister to end this secret code application and to publish the guidance and instructions to immigrant officers.

There is an interesting and useful parallel to this. From time to time the Government—I suppose Governments of both parties but certainly the last Labour Government—look at non-tariff barriers to goods, not people, to see what can be done to stem the flow of imported goods which has cost so many jobs and caused such concern. One of the objections to non-tariff barriers is that in effect they placed a great deal too much power into the hands of the civil servants operating these codes. We have a practice that the position of civil servants is clear and understood. They operate to guidelines which are not open to abuse, or, if they are open to abuse, the guidelines and the action of the civil servant can be seen to be clearly at odds. That was one of the reasons why the control of goods through non-tariff barriers was brought into question. The instructions were not clear, they were secret, and therefore they were open to abuse and to possible corruption.

I ask the House whether we should have lower standards for people than for goods. I should have thought that the reservations operating in that case would operate in the case of secret codes on passports.

I ask the Minister to institute a thorough and searching inquiry into all the immigration procedures to ensure that they are open and fair. This of course will involve the ending of secret practices.

Having sketched in the general background, I come to the specific causes of concern which underline that general background. I know that half a dozen cases or so do not make a general case, but I think that the concern about the code and about the virginity tests is sufficient to raise the issue.

Hon. Members are always getting cases which cause concern. The first one to give me concern was that of a woman arriving from Rhodesia to visit her daughter and son-in-law who are my constituents. She alone was picked out and detained for more than four hours at Heathrow airport. She was on a visit to her daughter and son-in-law. She was very upset by the incident. Her daughter who was waiting for her at Heathrow was not permitted to be informed about her detention, and her luggage was opened and searched repeatedly. Understandably, this caused her great concern. I might say that she was a black Rhodesian. I should be interested to know whether the Minister thinks that that might have had any relevance to her being singled out. I wrote to the Minister in May, and he said that he was instituting an investigation into the circumstances. I know that his Department is inundated with letters from hon. Members about such matters and wider matters, and I understand that he cannot produce an immediate reply, but I should have thought that by now some response was possible.

I point to an article in The Guardian of 24 July reporting that a pregnant Pakistani woman was pointed out as having been held in detention at Heathrow since 11 June. She was rushed to hospital early yesterday morning and last night was thought to be in danger of losing her baby. The woman, Nazim Akhtar, had been detained in Harmondsworth detention centre because immigration authorities did not accept that she was the fiancée of the man whom she said she had come to marry. It was said that the man whom she said she was marrying was already married and was in the middle of incomplete divorce proceedings. The article stated:

"The man whom she has named as her fiance, Mr. Afzal Shah, asked his M.P., Mr. Peter Walker, the Agriculture Minister, to take up the case. However, he was told by Mr. Walker's secretary that a Cabinet Minister could not interfere with decisions of the immigration service. Mr. Alex Lyon, the Labour M.P. who is chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, then took up the case with the Home Office. But he was told that Mr. Shah's M.P. had already considered the case."

Here was a nice Catch 22 situation in which it was claimed that representations were not possible.

I hope that that account in The Guardian is not accurate. I also hope that the factors set out are not as harsh as might be supposed. It seems inhumane on a technical argument to detain a pregnant woman in such circumstances and for such length of time on the decision by the immigration authorities.

I also draw attention to an early-day motion which I note has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Meacher). It is early-day motion 126 which I and a number of other hon. Members have signed. It says:

"That this House, bearing in mind that Mr. Abdul Azad, a 17-year-old Pakistani immigrant who had been in England for five years, was arrested after the murder of his mother on 4th October 1978, was kept imprisoned by the police for 10 days though obviously innocent of the murder, was made to sign a statement under duress that he was an illegal immigrant, was only then allowed to meet his father and see a solicitor, was then detained without trial for a further 13 weeks at Risley Remand Centre, and is still, 10 months later, under threat of deportation, believes that legal proceedings relating to the treatment of alleged illegal immigrants should be changed, and in particular that: (a) they should in no circumstances be subject to intimidation in order to secure a confession, (b) they should not be deported without first being given access to a solicitor, (c) they should be brought within the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Acts so that they are not subjected to imprisonment without trial, and (d) they should have a right to stand trial before a court, rather than having their fate determined by the discretion of the Home Secretary."

I endorse those views strongly. It seems quite wrong—indeed, outrageous—that because people are suspected of being illegal immigrants their legal rights are virtually non-existent: the right to trial by court, the right to habeas corpus and the right of access to a solicitor. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will take action about this.

The fourth item in this context which I raise concerns a constituent of mine who was treated in an appalling manner on 21 June of this year. He travelled from Cherbourg to Portsmouth on the date in question, and he is the holder of a British passport endorsed with a settlement entry certificate. He has lived here since 1972. On entry at Portsmouth, he was subjected to special treatment. First, the immigration officer threatened to keep his passport without any reason being given and when asked for a reason refused to advance any. Then he was asked without reason to fill in a form, though other British passport holders were not. The conversation was subsequently put on record by my constituent and I have sent the details to the Minister. The immigration officer said:

"You have got to fill in a form every time you come into Britain."

My constituent said:

"Surely not. I didn't see any other British citizens filling in the forms."

The immigration officer said:

"You are coloured so you must fill in a form. Now don't argue with me. Where do you live?"

My constituent tells me that he then furnished the required information which the immigration officer filled in on a white card. He stamped the passport which reads:

"Given leave to enter the United Kingdom for indefinite period."

There followed the immigration officer's number, two five-pointed and smaller six-pointed stars and the date 22 June 1979.

My constituent tells me that the immigration officer handed him his passport and said, just as my constituent was about to leave:

"Before you go let me tell you we don't want many of your kind in my country."

My constituent replied:

"Would you care to elaborate on your last remark?"

The immigration officer said:

"You must be bloody thick."

My constituent replied:

"Can you tell me your name?"

The immigration officer said:

"Bugger off. In future make sure you don't travel on the boat where I am the immigration officer."

My constituent replied:

"Why, what would you do? Throw me overboard?"

The immigration officer said:

"I'll give you hell. I promise that."

The interesting point about my constituent is that he is a serving police officer with the West Yorkshire metropolitan police force. The affair is most disturbing. He has written to the immigration authorities about the conduct of the immigration officer and has asked me to raise it with the correct authorities. As the Minister knows, I have done so.

The fact that my constituent was a police officer is highly relevant, but I am concerned that that sort of conduct could have been applied to people who did not have his stamp of authority—the frightened wife or the youngster. They would not have the presence of mind to follow the example of my constituent, who tells me that he recorded the account of the conversation in police officer's fashion. There are few black or brown people coming ino this country who have been trained, as a police officer is trained, to record information in great detail. Of course, my constituent has been trained, and it was fortunate that he used his training on that occasion.

I am gravely concerned at the notion that there are officers—I accept that they are in a minority—who feel that they can work in the immigration service and express such views. Another matter of concern is that a person with those views should be able to work in the immigration service and not feel that he is so alien to it that the record of courtesy, dignity and tolerance of immigration officers is breached. I know that those qualities are put under strain in all of us, but they must be present in immigration officers. Many of them have those characteristics and a sense of good humour which, again, must be strained in some circumstances. Unfortunately, the attitude displayed by the immigration officer who dealt with my constituent can exist, and that is a matter of great concern.

Let me summarise the matters of concern that I have outlined. The virginity tests indicated that immigration officers' instructions were too ambiguous and could be abused and that ministerial directions were not being followed as closely as they ought to have been. My hon. Friend the Member for York indicated that he had insisted that ministerial directions should be followed, and it appears that the power of the administrative machine must be more clearly defined and, where necessary, curbed.

Secondly, the secret coding is unfair and, against the background of abuse of ministerial directions, could clearly be a source of further abuse. In any event, the idea of public documents being used for the administrative convenience of officers should be abhorrent to the standards of government and administration in this country. The secret coding should be ended.

Thirdly, there is a sufficient number of individual cases of prolonged detention or abuse to cause concern. I have outlined some, but the Minister knows that he is continually receiving complaints through hon. Members on both sides of the House.

I accept that millions of people are subject to immigration control and that the majority of immigration officers work diligently and with courtesy and patience, but controls must be seen to be fair, open and non-racist. Instructions must be published, in part or in full, to be seen to be fair.

In the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking in February, the then Home Secretary said that it would not be possible to publish the instructions because they would reveal to those seeking to bend or avoid the immigration rules how best to get around them. That may be so, but the Minister could say that he will publish as many of the rules as possible without prejudicing that element of security—if it exists. I am doubtful whether that risk exists.

We are thrown back to the policy adumbrated in Labour's manifesto for the 1974 general election. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) is in the Chamber and he is much concerned with our election manifesto, and more power to his elbow and to the elbow of our NEC. But that is a slight aside. In that manifesto, we placed the onus on the Government body to justify secrecy. If the Minister has a case, let him justify it and say that he will publish all those areas of guidance that are not subject to reservations about assisting avoidance.

The laws regarding illegal immigrants must be enforced but be subject to the right of access to a solicitor and to habeas corpus. Early-day motion 34 headed:

"INQUIRY INTO INSTRUCTIONS TO IMMIGRATION OFFICERS"

sums up the position well. It says:

"That this House, whilst welcoming the Home Department's action in instructing immigration officers not to ask the medical inspector to examine passengers arriving in the United Kingdom with a view to establishing whether they have borne children or have had sexual relations, nevertheless calls for an independent inquiry into the conduct and control of the immigration service at ports of entry into the United Kingdom and of entry clearance officers overseas, and the publication of the detailed insructions upon which they operate."

I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with some of the points that I have made so that we may re-establish our reputation for fairness, civil conduct and courtesy in dealing with people who reach these shores, from whatever country they come and whatever the colour of their skin.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) on raising this important subject, which is of daily concern to so many of us. Parliament is to rise for the best part of three months, and during that time many people will want reassurance, because the problems of immigration will continue. It is a very delicate subject. The hon. Gentleman dealt with it with considerable restraint, contrary to the way in which the Labour Party dealt with it in the general election campaign. The hon. Gentleman's reference to cases in which those who should know better have shown acute irritation, which is utterly unforgivable, is a symptom of how careful we must all be to get the balance right.

No party has a monopoly of humanity in dealing with the problem. We on the Conservative Benches can point to the fact that the virginity tests arose under a Labour Government. On he other hand, it was the Conservatives who admitted the Ugandan Asians and who are playing a leading part in helping the boat people. So there is no monopoly of cruelty or of humanity.

The Labour Party claims that it brought the immigration figures down. I am not sure how it can claim that. The total number of settlers in 1978 exceeded those who came here in 1977. Every year under the Labour Government immigration exceeded by more than 13,000 the total of 55,000 which followed on the first year of the Conservation Immigration Act. From the New Commonwealth and Pakistan alone, the 32,000 entering Britain in 1973 rose to an average of 48,000 over the five years. So it can hardly be claimed that the last Government did much to control the level of immigration.

The last Government's height of irresponsibility was when they twice allowed people who had entered Britain illegally to stay, and refused an inquiry into illegal immigration, which hurt those members of the immigrant population who were rightfully here and who rightfully wanted to have their dependants enter this country. Dependants who were properly in the queue found that they were being excluded by those coming here illegally. Then the Government upheld that position. That was wrong. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that it will never happen under a Conservatime Government.

I also ask my hon. Friend to deny yet again the scurrilous and most alarming rumour that was spread in the general election campaign that the Conservatives were planning forcible repatriation. It is well known to everyone in politics that nothing could be further from Tory thinking, and that nearly all Conservative hon. Members would rather resign than see that sort of Hitlerite tactic. But it always pays for the Minister at every opportunity to continue to reassure those who are susceptible to the rumour by making a categorical denial.

In the general election campaign we made certain commitments to control immigration firmly for the future, in accordance with the manifest wishes of the British people, while maintaining our commitments in law to those who were permanently settled here by 1 January 1973. While restricting entry, we did not propose to do so to close relatives or in genuine compassionate cases.

Our restrictions were to be brought about by ending the practice of allowing permanent settlement of those temporarily here; severely restricting the conditions under which anyone from overseas can come and work here; settling quotas across the board on entry for all non-EEC countries; introducing a new British nationality Bill to remove anomalies and inequities; ending the automatic entry of husbands and fiancés, and helping those who want voluntarily to leave to do so without difficulty, and with as much assistance as we can afford.

Those were our commitments. So the question one wants to ask the Minister is this. Having made those commitments, and having put them fairly and squarely to the nation in the general election, how far along the line are we to implementing them? How soon can we see those promises put into effect?

I should like to ask my hon. Friend a number of other questions. More specically, when will the nationality Bill be laid before Parliament? What period of consultation will there be first? I should like to have seen it laid before the Summer Recess, so that we could have had the whole of the three months to look at its proposals and see what observations and comments could be made that would affect its implementation.

When we end the automatic entry of husbands and fiancés, will it be for the same reason as the Leader of the Opposition, as Home Secretary, in 1969 ordered the stopping of that procedure—the reason being the abuse that arises through the practice of arranged marriages? It is not the same freedom as applies to the British citizen, who has only one spouse at a time, that we seem to be offering to some of the immigrant communities, members of which can marry several times. The abuse of the system is well known to all of us who have some contact with immigrant problems.

When we introduce the restriction, can we be tolerant and understanding in its operation? In particular, will those who have begun the process of making application for their fiances and husbands—even though that process has not yet been completed, because of the length of the queue—still be able to have them in? Will the chop, as it were, come for future applications rather than those that have already been made by the date at which the relevant announcement is made? It would be unfair and unjust if we made the ruling retrospective. I seek reassurance on that from my hon. Friend.

When will the register be introduced? It was considered feasible by the independent Franks committee, because it would stop abuses and thereby end the fears and anxieties which have been aroused by racialist parties. It is so obviously desirable that it seems that its early implementation and introduction is very important. What are my hon. Friend's proposals on that matter?

I am also concerned about the possible abuse of the privilege of Members of Parliament to exercise their influence over organisations, particularly with reference to what seems to be happening at Heathrow airport. I understand that no right of appeal is laid down by any rule or statute against refusal of entry by an immigration officer. One would not want to end the bringing in of Members of Parliament to consider whether a particular position is fair. Yet there seem to be problems when hon. Members are brought in, perfectly properly, to consider whether there are legitimate grounds for refusing entry to immigrants who have actually arrived at Heathrow.

It seems that hon. Members can, however, as it were, lean upon immigration officers to change their minds and keep in this country persons who have no legitimate right to be here, persons who have only tried to cheat and are clearly seen by the immigration officers to be doing so.

It also seems that if an hon. Member says "I am satisfied that the procedure has been properly followed", the immigrant community can then go from Member to Member until it finds someone who will say "Under no circumstances must this person be put on the plane and sent back." I think that what is happening at Heathrow tends to be an abuse of the procedure. Has my hon. Friend any views or proposals on that matter?

I support the hon. Gentleman in hoping that my hon. Friend will remove all elements of secrecy. Codes are thoroughly undesirable in general, because those who properly watch for abuse cannot see whether it is happening. That is one possible reason why the codes and secrecy are introduced.

I also support the hon. Gentleman when he requests the publication of the rules and their being placed in the Library. I go further. I should like to see the Government publish a page of simple rules which every Member can have in his folder and every constituency office and every immigrant community organisation can have in its folder so that we simply know what is right and what is wrong. It is for this place to decide that what goes in those rules is fair and just—as I am sure it will be.

What counter-measures does my hon. Friend propose against illegal immigration? We have spoken about this before, but is anything more happening than some months ago? I should like him to give assurances that humanity in the operation of these rules will be uppermost. They have to be firm, but that does not mean to say that they should be inhumane. A constant effort has to be made to remove some of the hard cases to which the hon. Member for Keighley referred and of which we could all give some experience.

Finally, will my hon. Friend look again at the working of the Commission for Racial Equality? The community relations officers are no doubt a dedicated bunch of people, but they tend, do they not, to be activists in the immigrant community? There is a tendency, which always has to be resisted—it is a pity that it should be so—for community relations officers to have small chips on their shoulders which they tend to take up when appointed to an area, with the result that sometimes more harm is done to race relations than any good they do. Another look must be taken at the operation of the whole organisation, which otherwise I suppose has done some good.

This is a very tolerant nation. I think that the British people accept the need for some immigration, but there is a limit beyond which no one—or very few people—would feel it right to go. The immigrants in this country want controls so that they can be accepted for housing and jobs and in society and, above all, so that they may be happy. I hope that the rules which we shall introduce and implement in the near future will be just, fair and humane and acceptable not only to the immigrant community who are here but also to the vast majority of British people who feel strongly about immigration. I ask the Minister for any further assurances about their introduction and implementation that he can give.

Others have wished Mr. Speaker a happy recess. May I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a happy recess and thank you for all your labours over the past months?

The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) has raised an important topic, in a carefully reasoned speech. Whether I shall be able to answer all his points, I do not know; I am certainly not sure that I shall be able to answer all the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in his interesting intervention. However, if I do not take up any points now, I shall certainly do so in correspondence.

One thing on which both hon. Members and I can agree is the paramount need for fairness, courtesy and dignity in handling these difficult and delicate matters. There is no doubt that a difficult job has to be done. The hon. Member for Keighley stressed that he did not wish to remove immigration control. He was concerned that it should be carried out effectively and properly—and I share that concern. I do not think that I can answer in detail the specific cases that the hon. Gentleman raised, but perhaps it would be reasonable to make one or two comments.

In the case of Nazim Akhtar, a hearing is pending in the Court of Appeal. Miss Akhtar's removal has been deferred until the court has decided. She has been released on temporary admission. I understand that she is only four months pregnant and not as far advanced as the hon. Gentleman's press cutting suggested.

In the case of Abdul Azad, which was raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I have decided that Abdul Azad shall be able to remain in this country. I hope that from that point of view the matter is cleared up—although a number of other questions have to be raised about it.

As for the case of the police officer who apparently had a difficulty on the cross-Channel ferry, the hon. Member has sent me the details and the matter is now being investigated.

We are debating an important subject which is very much to do with how we treat individuals. It is therefore entirely proper that it should be discussed in this House, the ultimate source of remedy and redress for individuals. It is particularly important to discuss it because the system is based primarily on executive decision rather than on the courts. There is no underlying right to be admitted—it could be said that entry to this country is a privilege rather than an absolute right—and the role of the Home Secretary is crucial.

However, we have an Act which defines the basis of our system of immigration and which includes certain appeals procedures, and we also have detailed immigration rules. The Act embodies the administrative power to determine whether entry should be given and the power to detain and remove illegal immigrants. Again, however, there are statutory appeals procedures. Parliament created them and they provide important safeguards, and in addition there is the Home Secretary's power to take the final decision.

This power, of course, leads to large numbers of representations from hon. Members in particular cases. Those representations pose a considerable problem because their size and quantity are vast and almost unending. They place a great burden on officials, they create difficulties for me—which I have to accept—and they make for long delays. Hon. Members should remember that sometimes their representations lead to people being kept in detention, where they have to be in detention, for longer than would otherwise be the case.

These cases are very difficult to decide. The facts may be hazy; there may be arguments. Sometimes the case is clear-cut, but there may be strong compassionate considerations to set against that. One tries to do the best one can. We should remember that at the starting point of the procedure is the requirement that the immigration officer has to be satisfied that the immigrant is entitled to entry under the rules. To be satisfied, he will inevitably ask some searching questions. The duty is laid on him to refuse leave to enter where he is not satisfied and to send away those to whom he refuses leave unless there is an entry certificate, in which case there is an appeal heard here.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton did not get one point quite right. There is an appeal in other cases, but that appeal is heard abroad. It is not true that there is no appeal, as he appeared to suggest.

There is an argument, with which I do not think the hon. Member for Keighley went all the way, that these matters should be for the courts essentially rather than a matter of administrative decision. That would mean a major change—a total recasting of the whole system—and if the powers of decision were handed to the courts, there would be a risk of much greater rigidity and of great expense. There are considerable safeguards under the present system. We are all agreed that the control system must be fair, but it must also be firm. We are certainly committed to that dual principle—as, I believe, were the Labour Government.

The previous Home Secretary said of illegal immigrants:

"They represent a real threat to good community relations, a serious abuse of our immigration laws and an affront to those (mainly dependants) who may have had to wait a considerable time overseas to come here lawfully."—[Official Report, 20 July 1978; Vol. 954, c. 306.]

I hope that hon. Members will recall those words, because sometimes there is a temptation to feel that by exercising a special influence on cases they can do a good job for their constituents, as is the right of every hon. Member, when they may be doing so at the expense of others further back in the queue.

The control falls into three parts. There are the entry clearance procedures overseas, which are compulsory for those seeking settlement here. Then there is the control on entry at the ports, where passengers are examined by an immigra- tion officer. Last, there is control after entry, involving consideration by the Home Office of applications from people already here, as well as the tracing and possible removal of those who are here unlawfully.

We rely most heavily on that part of the system that concerns control of entry. As a result, we do not have in Britain the same intensity of internal controls—for example, the use of identity cards—that has been found necessary in other countries. The before-entry procedures give valuable and essential assistance to the control of the ports, however, especially in cases where people wish to enter for immediate settlement.

Attempts to evade the pre-entry control lead only to difficulty, as we have seen in a number of recent much-publicised cases where people have come to Britain or brought children here knowing very well that there are pre-entry requirements but ignoring them and thereby causing serious difficulties.

The examination which an immigration officer is bound to make is an inherently, and unavoidably, sensitive one. In extreme cases a decision may have to be taken on whether, for example, a woman and her children are really the dependants of the man who is said to be the husband and father. More commonly, the genuineness of a visitor's intention to leave after a short-term visit must be assessed. Any refusal of entry is a decision that requires a high degree of judgment. The inquiries which must be made before reaching a decision require considerable tact and understanding. The possibility that some passengers may feel that they are being discriminated against on the grounds of race or colour, where the immigration law states specifically that immigration officers are to carry out their duties without regard to race, colour or religion, is only one of the considerations that an immigration officer, an entry clearance officer or Home Office official has to bear in mind.

No passenger or person seeking an entry clearance, extension or variation of stay is likely to welcome inquiries of the type that sometimes have to be made. Why are such inquiries necessary? The simple answer is that without them immigration control could not be effective. There are bound to be cases where questions must be asked and in which the answers are found to be unsatisfactory, with the result that the relevant application has to be refused. That would happen to some extent in any system of immigration control. A feature of our own system and its operation, however, is the historical pressure for immigrants to come here for work and settlement. In some parts of the world those pressures continue and they inevitably create a temptation for people to pretend to qualifications to entry or to remain here that they do not really possess. The need for immigration officers to inquire into these cases is bound to be influenced by these factors.

The process would be easier were it not known that some people are prepared to go to great lengths to gain entry into Britain. During the Labour Government the Home Secretary made that point clear.

We are bound to face friction on these matters. Regrettably as they are, the fact that there may be friction cannot be allowed to interfere with the duty of the immigration service to inquire thoroughly into cases in which evasion of the control authorised by Parliament is suspected.

I turn a little more specifically to the points raised by the hon. Member for Keighley. One of them was the question of secret codes or endorsements on passports. There has been a certain amount of discussion about this. The endorsements made on passports are an essential part, in our view, of an effective immigration control system. Endorsements are commonly used in many countries as part of their controls. There is nothing peculiar to this country about them. They help to prevent evasion. They can be valuable in the interests of national security. Endorsements used in the United Kingdom are for the use of United Kingdom officials and have no international significance, and, at the same time, of course, endorsements do not determine decisions. They may give important indications, but what determines the actual decision are the facts of the particular case.

There is no special authority for the endorsement of passports and none is required. But I ask hon. Members to remember that a passport is not in any sense a personal document. It is an official or Government document which is intended to assist with the operation of an effective immigration service and to allow effective movement between countries. I really believe that it should be seen in that light.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of virginity tests. He suggested that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) had tried to stop them and that they had, however, been continued. That of course, was in the time of the Labour Government, and I cannot make any comment on it. But what I can say is that the instructions issued by the previous Home Secretary prohibiting immigration officers from asking the medical inspector to examine passengers with a view to establishing whether they have borne children or had sexual relations still continue. That is quite firmly our view. I can add to that that there is, as I think the hon. Gentleman knows, an inquiry being carried out by Sir Henry Yellowlees into the question of medical procedures. When we have the result of that, we can look at the whole matter and consider whether any changes need to be made.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of secrecy concerning the instructions. On this point my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, who is a lawyer, took roughly the same view. Firstly, I think both hon. Members referred to the rules. Of course, the rules are a parliamentary document, the immigration rules approved by this House. I think that they were talking about administrative instructions. Frankly, I am not sure what purpose would be served by publication of these instructions. The rules themselves are available. I shall always be forthcoming in my replies to hon. Members about the procedure and practices which may be authorised and which are required by the Immigration Act to be consistent with the immigration rules.

The publication of the instructions themselves, however, would be of considerable benefit to anyone wishing to enter the United Kingdom by subterfuge, and in my view there would need to be strong arguments to overcome that important objection. We must face the fact that a substantial number of people—I cannot quantify them, of course—are trying to break the immigration system. There is plenty of evidence that this has happened over the years. I really believe that the effect of publishing these instructions would be to make it that much easier for those who are trying to duck the system.

Will the Minister consider publishing sections of the rules where the considerations that he has mentioned do not apply? The reason for doing this would be to clarify a person's relationship to the immigration control officers so that he would know better whether he was being dealt with fairly. As the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) pointed out, there is no reason why community relations officers, political party officers and Members of Parliament could not have the rules and be able to issue much better guidance.

There is one further point on the secret code. How far does the secrecy extend? For example, do the police have instructions and knowledge of the secret code, so that when they, for example, for some reason, look at a passport in some circumstances, they will know what they mean? Why is this secrecy so necessary?

I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about the last point, which I cannot answer now. However, on the question of the instructions, I am disinclined to think that there would be much purpose in publishing extracts from them. What really matters is what the rules say. These say whether or not someone has an entitlement to come to this country. They give the appeals procedure, and so on. That seems to me what is needed by a would-be immigrant into Britain.

I do not think that I have left much time to answer the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton. However, I confirm, first, that there will, of course, be no forcible repatriation under any proposals that we bring forward. Secondly, we have no plans for a further amnesty for illegal immigrants. Thirdly, we believe in firm control of immigration for the future. But, as I think my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister, myself and the Home Secretary have said that we are not able at this stage to make announcements about the detailed implementation of our general manifesto commitments. I can- not, therefore, help my hon. Friend on one or two of his particular points.

We hope that the nationality Bill will go ahead this Session. I think that the framework of a possible nationality Bill is well known because the previous Government's Green Paper raised all the issues. Representations are being made on that basis and we are, of course, prepared to listen to anyone who has comments to make about the pattern of a new nationality Bill. We have not been able to produce it by now, as my hon. Friend asked, but I think that he will realise that this is a vastly complicated matter.

The other point that my hon. Friend raised was the possibility of abuse by Members of Parliament of the present system of handling immigration cases. This is something that I think about. I am very reluctant to accuse hon. Members of abuse. They have their duty to perform. But between us we have to think out whether we are handling the whole of this area in the most sensible and most effective way.

I have tried to cover some of the points in the time available to me. I should like to end, as I began, by saying that the hon. Gentleman did the House a service by raising this topic in the manner that he did. Whatever we may think about the detailed points, it is clearly essential to operate a system that is understood and as sensitive as possible under difficult circumstances. I will endeavour to pursue that objective.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the subject of the problem of roads maintenance. Those hon. Members who have been in the House for some time will know that this is an area that attracted my attention while the Conservative Party was in Opposition.

As long ago as 1970, the Standing Committee on Highway Maintenance, under Dr. Marshall, expressed doubt on the condition of many of our trunk and local authority roads. Since that time, various cuts in public expenditure, particularly between May 1973 and January 1975, have resulted in a substantial reduction in trunk road maintenance expenditure. This was made worse in July 1975 when cuts of 15 to 20 per cent. were expected from the levels of the public expenditure White Paper of earlier that year. The result was that by January 1976 the planned reduction in road maintenance had dropped to 25 per cent. I would expect that since then there has been some degree of stabilisation.

But the figures speak for themselves. At 1978 constant survey prices, we see that whereas in 1973–74 we were spending £134 million on trunk roads, this had dropped in 1977–78 to £93 million. Although it rose slightly to £104 million in 1978–79 and is £101 million in the current financial year, it is still a long way below the 1973 figure. The amount spent on local roads is not much better. In 1973–74 the figure was £626 million. This dropped to £537 million last year and is £539 million this year. The significance of these figures is that there is a reduction of about 25 per cent. being spent on trunk roads and a reduction of 14 per cent. on local roads. During that period it has been estimated that traffic on local roads alone has risen by 5 per cent.

Some people's response to these figures could be to say "So what?" If public expenditure has to be cut, they say, roads are less important than schools, hospitals and other social services. Should we not expect some inconvenience and some reduction in standards as the price that we have to pay to bring public expenditure under control?

Before attempting to answer that question, I should like to refer to last summer's "Transport Policy and Programmes" as submitted to the previous Government by the meropolitan and other counties detailing the effect of reductions in road maintenance. The Greater London Council said:

"Only those roads in the most urgent need of resurfacing will be treated. The consequences of deferring resurfacing works are:

(i) a disproportionate increase in the rate of deterioration of the carriageway as the period of deferment lengthens, causing much heavier and uneconomic expenditure when the remedial work is ultimately carried out.

(ii) increases in the need for temporary patching which eventually results in unevenness of the carriageway surface causing environmental problems (such as increased noise and vibration from heavy traffic), adverse effect on vehicles and the safety of both drivers and pedestrians, as well as increasing progressive deterioration of roadways."

South Yorkshire said:

"An indication of the need is that Yorkshire Traction have to replace springs on their buses 30 per cent. more frequently than any other subsidiary in the National Bus Company."

Tyne and Wear said that the number of claims against the county council for injury and damage had increased by 35 per cent. between 1974–75 and 1977–78. The insurance premium for the county was 16 times greater last year than in 1974–75. The council said:

"Changes in the incidence of claims are a reasonable measure of injuries and damage to pedestrians and motorists produced substantially by deteriorating maintenance standards even if other factors may also be involved."

West Yorkshire said:

"The police made a number of complaints concerning worn yellow and white lines and traffic signs which were dangerous or unreadable, some of which were making traffic orders inoperative."

Avon said:

"There have also been a number of costly structural failures because of inadequate previous maintenance and an increase in conditions which are giving rise to concern about safety."

Cornwall said:

"The policy of central government in recent years has resulted in the county's highway maintenance being held at a level below the minimum necessary to maintain the road fabric and instances of road failure are becoming more and more frequent."

Dorset said:

"On many principal roads the potholes and blocked drainage systems can be directly attributed to the reduction in cyclic maintenance."

East Sussex said:

"At the present level of funding it cannot be guaranteed that the surface of minor distributor and access roads will remain intact and any further reduction could lead to the structural collapse of some of the road."

I could continue with this catalogue, but I do not wish to weary the House. Apart from the widespread concern reflected in all those quotations, it must be stressed that the county councils have a legal obligation to keep their highways in a reasonable condition for the traffic using them. The Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961 states that the highway authorities have a duty to maintain and repair adopted highways so that they are free of danger to all users. I remind the Minister and the Government of this statutory obligation which was imposed by Parliament on the county councils. Therefore, the responsibility of this House should not be avoided or denied.

The situation that I have outlined relates to summer last year. I hope I have proved that we have already reached a situation where successive cuts have meant almost total neglect of many minor roads. In some counties, it has been colculated that on the present cycle of resurfacing they will not be treated for the next 1,000 years, which is rather outside the scope of any Administration.

If that were not bad enough, two other factors have aggravated the situation. On the one hand, there have been cuts in the road building programme itself. This has meant that both national and local roads have had a much greater use by traffic than we might have anticipated if the road building programme had gone ahead as originally forecast. Secondly, there was the hot summer of 1977 followed by two wet winters. This is a situation that no Government could have avoided. But it has meant a heavy toll on roads that were already in a bad state.

This brings me to the situation brought about by the recent very bad winter. There would, in any case, have been extra difficulties. In a severe winter, the frost penetrates deeper and stays longer than in a mild winter. The resulting damage to the roads is that much greater. Because of the situation that was reached last summer and because of the winter that we experienced, there is now a general feeling among county surveyors that our road system has deteriorated substantially over the past 12 months.

The cost of trying to put even last winter's problems right is very high. It has been calculated that the cost of putting the damage right, plus the cost of snow clearance and other work, adds up to £90 million. That, I understand, is the lower end of the estimate. Many would put the figure much higher. A figure as high as £125 million has been mentioned. But even the smaller figure is equivalent to 20 per cent. of national spending on the maintenance of roads in one year.

If this matter is not adequately dealt with, we shall go into next winter at a very great disadvantage, whether that winter is dry or wet, mild or severe. I accept that it is difficult for those who are not technically qualified to appreciate the full scale of what could take place. Some people may say that all that is needed is to fill in a few potholes. However, the damage to a road does not appear instantly. Once damage begins, it is progressive. The unusual climatic conditions of 1966–67 and last winter have resulted in our roads being in need of urgent treatment.

The danger which faces local authorities is that the delay in resurfacing means that in the long run many of the best roads will give and be weakened. The only recourse is to the total remaking of the roads at astronomical costs. I appreciate that the last Administration increased by 2 per cent. the amount made available for maintenance, but no one believes that that is sufficient to cover the bills.

The situation is not uniform. Problems are not so great in some areas. It is worth considering why the West Midlands is not encountering the same problem as many other areas. This is an area with a large population and heavy traffic. It does not have so many miles of road per 1,000 population as some rural areas. It has been able to treat its roads to a high quality of servicing. The West Midlands has reconstructed its roads more regularly than many of the shire counties. The result is that in the last few months, in spite of the bad winter, the damage in the West Midlands has been less than in many other places. It is an example of how good servicing is the best insurance against the effects of harsh winters.

That is the answer to those who ask whether road maintenance is important. We do not refrain from painting our houses, schools and hospitals, because we know that if we neglect them rot will set in and it will cost an enormous amount to put the matter right. The same is true of our roads.

The two motoring organisations share my anxiety. Mr. Hugh Palin, the chairman of the RAC motor cycle committee, described road conditions in the country as appalling. He said:

"This dangerous situation has been largely caused by the lack of sufficient funds following the Government's immense cuts in road expenditure … By cutting this expenditure the Government gambled and lost. The snow and ice of this winter has now turned large sections of the country's road network into potential death traps."

The Automobile Association, which has done a survey of 49 selected stretches of urban, suburban and rural routes, discovered that in 185 miles there were 1,367 defects, ranging from potholes to traffic signs and carriageway markings requiring attention.

The majority—85 per cent.—of those defects were caused by road surface problems or potholes. It is no wonder that the AA said that unless something is done soon road safety will cause concern in many parts of the country.

We have reached a serious situation. There have been reductions in the maintenance programmes for too many years. Present spending in many areas is below the level that will prevent further deterioration.

I urge the Minister to conduct a reappraisal of Government expenditure on transport so that the situation does not deteriorate. Good maintenance is an insurance. We accept that transport must bear its share of cuts in expenditure. A good road system is not only essential for the safety of those who travel on it but is an essential prerequisite for our economic survival.

We cannot succeed as a trading and manufacturing nation unless we have an efficient road network. I urge the Minister to take my words seriously and to bear them in mind when he makes decisions about expenditure.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for drawing attention to this matter. We are grateful for the work and research that he has done and for the figures that he has put before us. I support him as I am a road user but I have not done any detailed research or formulated figures from my experience. Most hon. Members will agree that the condition of our roads is unacceptable. It is a question of degree. In the past 40 years, when one came back to this country from abroad, one felt a sense of satisfaction because our roads were so much better than those of other countries. One used to feel the same about the railways and about many other things. A marked deterioration in our roads is noticeable.

It is not satisfactory that one should have to keep an eye on the road surface in order to avoid potholes and other hazards. One can no longer take the surface for granted. There are defects in the highway—potholes or areas of subsidence and roughness—which are dangerous to a motor car being driven at a reasonable speed.

When we were threatened a few weeks ago with an Underground strike, I hastily joined the House of Commons bicycle club. I could not think of another way of getting back to my accommodation in Kensington when the House was sitting late. The strike did not happen, but, being of Scottish descent and having paid my subscription, I wanted value for it. I have now had the experience of bicycling in London. Whatever one feels in a motor car one feels much worse on a bicycle. There are many patches which are dangerous to cyclists and which must be extremely dangerous to motor cyclists. One comes to know where one must not go close to the kerb because of the danger of being thrown off. That is something new in Britain.

We must not allow our roads to deteriorate in order to save central Government and local authority expenditure. We must not think that we can recover the ground by restoring at the same cost as that which has been saved. The cost of recovery and repair is much greater than the saving. I urge the Minister to bear in mind that this is an urgent and important matter.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for introducing this short debate on road maintenance. It is an important issue. I confirm what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, that anyone who uses the roads often must appreciate the importance of them. There may be controversy about the building of new roads, but there is no argument about the importance of maintaining existing roads to a satisfactory standard.

The only controversy is about what is a satisfactory standard. It is a matter of degree. There must be a safe and reasonable drive for the motorist. In deciding what safety demands, one must take into account the two-wheeled traffic since motorists can ride out minor deformities.

In the past we had excellent standards of road maintenance compared with other countries. There are those who would argue that there have been times when our standards of road maintenance were unnecessarily high given the need for some economy, and very high levels were achieved and maintained on minor rural roads that were not perhaps justifield. On the other hand, I accept entirely that it is false economy to go too far in the other direction. That creates dangers and, in the long run, greater expenditure if roads are allowed to fall into a state of disrepair and more money is required to get them back into a satisfactory state.

So it is a matter of judgment of where the balance lies between unnecessary expenditure on an undesirable level of excellence and a dangerous and uneconomic level of neglect. In the past such adjudgment has largely been arrived at locally by subjective tests working on an ad hoc basis from problem to problem.

One thing that the Ministry of Transport has tried to do is to determine standards based on a technical evaluation of road conditions. We believe that that would make it much easier to develop objective standards of maintenance and methods that would lead to better spending decisions, a wise choice of priorities and a greater return on capital investment.

The Department has been working with local authorities to monitor conditions of all classes of roads. There is a national road maintenance and condition survey which involves the collection and analysis of data from about 7,000 sites in England. The survey is now in its fourth year and the results so far take us up to last summer.

Although I accept entirely what my hon. Friend the Member for Welling- borough said about deteriorating conditions, the results so far suggest that there is no clear trend towards serious and widespread deterioration in the basic structural condition of the roads. Having said that, may I say that obviously we do not depend totally on surveys. I also accept that one snag with a national survey is the wide variation of local conditions and problems.

Apart from those surveys, we all have very subjective experience of last winter. There is no doubt that last winter was exceptionally severe, with temperatures close to, or below, freezing for most of January, February and March. We may not yet have surveyed the effects of last winter, but there is no doubt that they will have damaged the roads. Prolonged freezing conditions can damage both the running surface and the basic structure of a road.

Water held in voids in road material and the supporting ground expands when it freezes. This expansion weakens the structure and damage occurs when vehicles use the road during the ensuing thaw. I entirely accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said. A road which is properly constructed and maintained is far less susceptible to frost damage than one that has been neglected.

We also expect to find that the damage caused by last winter will be more severe on local and minor road systems. The motorways and trunk roads are built to such a standard that they are better able to withstand freezing conditions. So it is in local authority areas where the worst effects will be found.

Unfortunately, the severe winter came at the end of the period when the Labour Government had drastically reduced the level of expenditure on road maintenance. The key date was 1975, when the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) was Minister for Transport. The Government then called for an overall decrease of about 15 to 20 per cent. on road maintenance over a three-year period. That decrease was achieved. The announcement which I studied also proposed that there should be similar or lower reduction in trunk road and motorway maintenance, although that was not achieved.

Expenditure on trunk road and motorway maintenance has slightly increased. This was unavoidable. One cannot allow damage to occur on motorways because, with high speed traffic, dramatic accidents can occur even if relatively minor faults are allowed to develop. There has also been a more intensive use of motorways. They have carried far more traffic than they were originally designed to carry and the overall length of motorways in use has increased over the years. So on the motorway and trunk road side the level of expenditure has remained fairly stable or has slightly increased.

The level of spending on local road maintenance has drastically reduced. I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, that there was deterioration in the level of maintenance carried out on these roads. There is now considerable pressure not only from the general public but from a large number of local authorities which anticipate that they will need more money to put their roads into an acceptable condition and to adopt a sensible level of expenditure on road maintenance.

The current estimated level of expenditure on road maintenance for 1979–80, at November 1978 prices, is £80 million on trunk roads and motorways for which the Minister is responsible, and £483 million on local roads. The local road maintenance programme is a large part of the total local transport expenditure. Indeed, it accounts for about 48 per cent. of total local transport expenditure. So it is an important but difficult area in which to make the readjustments that are called for by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and others.

The transport supplementary grant made to the local authorities is a nonspecific grant. Although in their programmes counties put in bids based on their road maintenance, and the grant is made in a way which reflects the Government decision on the grant being divided up between different areas, local authorities are given a non-specific grant and they can move money about within their overall transport programme to meet particular needs.

For instance, very few counties will have made specific provision for the extreme weather conditions of last winter. However, the flexibility of the present grant system allows them to reallocate resources within their total budget to meet unforeseen conditions such as those of last winter. The counties have reacted well to the emergency by devoting more money to road maintenance.

In considering future grants, local authorities will have to determine their own priorities both in the bid that they put in to the Government for the grant and in any reallocation within the grant to meet specific needs as they arise. Local authorities will have to decide themselves what bids they want to make for road maintenance this autumn and in future years when applying for a transport supplementary grant from the Government.

It is not appropriate for the Government to tell local authorities how to use resources at their disposal or how to adjust their priorities, but it will be obvious that certain difficulties will arise. First, it is not anticipated that transport can be totally exempted from the present financial climate. Certainly we cannot conceivably anticipate that there will be an increase in the overall expenditure on local transport in the near future. As a result, it is for local authorities to determine their priorities when making their bid.

However, if the correct local priority is for an increase in the amount spent on the maintenance of roads, it is inescapable that that will have an effect on other parts of local transport policy. I hasten to add that at this stage we are not negotiating. We do not have the TPPs, and it is not for the Government to determine local priorities. It may well be that local authorities will have to look at the consequences for other areas of transport spending, such as revenue support for local transport and concessionary fares. There is no way in which the Government will have the resources to give grants for overall expenditure that allow for a major increase in local authority road maintenance and somehow disregard the consequent effect on other aspects of transport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough has made a cogent case. Local authorities will have to consider whether, in the present circumstances, they want to make a priority of road maintenance to get back to the acceptable standards that have been demanded by my hon. Friends and perhaps face the reality that that may be a more important priority in some areas than keeping down the level of bus fares to a totally artificial level or even undertaking other desirable activities that they would otherwise wish to do.

I suspect that a large part of the motoring, motor cycling and cycling public will endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield have said. I am sure that local authorities will reflect that pressure when they make their bids. The Government do not dispute the importance of this subject. I trust that we shall eventually reach some objective agreement on the right level of maintenance and the right priorities and resources, to ensure that road standards are brought back to a proper level.

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising a matter that I believe—I am sure that the House will agree—is of crucial importance. Many hon. Members realise that a large number of people in the community are dreading this coming winter because of the cost of keeping their homes warm. I refer to those on low incomes. Their fear about fuel costs this coming winter is a very justified fear indeed. Today's news is known to us—that electricity prices are again to go up in September. There will be an 8·6 per cent. increase, even though an 8 per cent. increase came into effect last month. That will only make the situation even more difficult for those people to whom I have referred.

I do not want to make a party speech today, but many of my hon. Friends are also concerned about the increase in paraffin prices. The people who will be mostly affected are the lowest paid or poorest in the community. I see no justification for the action that has been taken in relation to paraffin prices. It is of some interest to note that electricity is now about three times the price of gas.

Of course, there are the pensioners on small incomes. We know of the dangers of hypothermia. It is estimated that about 700,000 pensioners risk hypothermia, even in the milder type of winter, according to a survey carried out by the opinion research centre for the centre on environmental studies. These are elderly people with low incomes. A matter of great concern must be the fact that there are those pensioners who risk great danger to their health by not heating their homes during the cold spell. They want to save on fuel costs and, therefore, take the view that they cannot afford to use the fuel. By so doing, they place themselves in much health danger. I am sure that that is not the type of energy conservation that we want to see applied in the country. When the Under-Secretary of State replies, I hope that she will make it clear that elderly people should not put their health at risk by saving on essential fuel heating arrangements in their homes.

Apart from the pensioners, there are others in the community who need assistance with their fuel bills. There are the disabled, the handicapped and the single-parent families. In addition, we must not forget those who are in employment but who receive a low wage or salary. Very often in such households, where the main income earner gets a small wage, there are young children whose health can also be put at risk by lack of sufficient heating arrangements.

I am aware that the Supplementary Benefits Commission gives additional assistance for heating, although not for those in employment. As I understand it, there are various levels of additional assistance—85p, £1·70 and, in certain cases, £2·55 a week. But in all such cases the level depends very much on the circumstances. These are additional grants given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and according to the leaflet that I have looked at it is necessary to show that one comes within certain categories. They are by no means automatic payments to those receiving supplementary benefit.

I also understand that 80 per cent. of heating additions allowed go to pensioners who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. The 1977 annual report of the Supplementary Benefits Commission makes the following comment:

"we would … question whether the most appropriate way to help low-income groups to cope with the high costs of fuel is by the use of our discretionary powers to give additional help to our beneficiaries with exceptional circumstances."

I have held the view for some time, certainly since the cost of fuel, particularly electricity, has gone up, that what is really required is a comprehensive scheme that will give assistance much in the same way as assistance is given in respect of rates and concessionary travel arrangements. I remember writing to Ministers in the previous Government, and I made the point then that as heating costs had gone up it was difficult and unfair for those on low incomes to meet the price of the fuel.

At first the reaction was that since the Government were increasing pensions and other such allowances, no additional scheme was necessary. But that was not my view. If it is necessary to help people by way of rate rebates and concessionary fares—matters that are no longer of any controversy in the House—surely it is right and proper to try to find a way of introducing a fuel allowance scheme which, without too much red tape or officialdom, would mean that those in need would receive assistance, including those in employment.

When the Minister replies, I hope that she will comment on this matter. I am sure that she is aware that a number of organisations, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, have pressed both the previous Labour Government and the present Government to introduce a comprehensive system to give the assistance to which I have referred. I hope that she will also make it clear that the electricity discount scheme will remain in operation this coming winter and, moreover, that because of the increased electricity prices, the sums involved will be increased and that the scheme will be extended.

I am aware that the electricity discount scheme has certain weaknesses and anomalies. Recently, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Energy about one of my constituents. When the electricity meter was read in January, the sum involved was under £20. It was next read on 4 April, and because of that my constituent was not entitled to a discount, even though the electricity had been used during the winter months.

I was not happy about the reply that I received. I wrote to the Prime Minister and received a courteous reply, but at the end of the day the fact remained that my constituent—in my view unfairly—would get no assistance. Although there are these anomalies and weaknesses, I believe that the House should accept, as I am sure it does, that the electricity discount scheme has given assistance to many in the community who need such assistance. There can be no justification whatever for discontinuing the scheme.

However, if the scheme is continued, as I hope it will be, and bearing in mind the increase in electricity prices that has already occurred this year—about 17 per cent. by the end of the year—it will be necessary generously to increase the sums involved, otherwise it will tend to undermine the principal purpose of the scheme.

Of course, there are people in the community who do not use electricity—gas and coal users, and the rest—who also need any assistance that can be given. One of the advantages of the electricity discount scheme is that since it applies to those on family income supplement, those in employment who receive a low income can be assisted. Despite its anomalies and weaknesses, the scheme has given asistance, and that is why I want to see it continued.

I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that there is also a need to have better insulation in homes. Far too many homes in this country have poor insulation. If the Homes Insulation Act 1978 were properly implemented, it would provide a better home to begin with and certainly save fuel, which would be the right way to conserve energy. I hope that the hon. Lady will assure us that the Government intend that the Act should be properly implemented by local authorities. There is a strong case to speed up its implementation, if only for energy conservation.

If the Government feel that domestic users of fuel should pay the full economic price, they must also ensure that those who cannot afford to pay are assisted. The policy of the previous Government was thal fuel prices should increase, and that is certainly the belief of this Government. If they allow the price of fuel—particularly electricity—to increase without special provision for those in need, it will put at risk the health of hundreds of thousands of people. Through no fault of their own, pensioners and others do not have anything approaching an adequate income to meet the soaring costs of fuel.

I know of cases of hardship where disconnection has taken place, and I hope that in the coming winter there will be few, if any, such disconnections. I recognise that the fuel boards do not disconnect for fun but because there is a large debt. In many cases the debts are incurred by low-income families who have not been able to cope with their fuel bills, as they cannot cope with other aspects of their lives. There is a code of practice in operation, but there is still concern over disconnections taking place without proper consultation with the social services. It would be preferable if there were automatic liaison between the fuel boards and the social services before disconnection occurred. I do not believe that that is happening. There are cases where the Supplementary Benefits Commission deducts money to pay directly to the gas or electricity board. It is a way of avoiding debt, but it means that people on supplementary benefit are left with only a small sum to make ends meet.

It is a pressing problem, and it is our duty in the House to do what we can for those most at risk. I hope that the hon. Lady will give encouragement that will be of genuine assistance to those people to whom I have been referring.

At about this time of the year I have on a number of occasions in the past raised this topic from the Opposition Benches. I appreciate and share the concern of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The Government are in no way indifferent to the needs of the elderly and those on low incomes, and are aware of the problems of rising fuel costs. That matter has already occupied a good deal of my time, but there are no easy answers.

Daily we become more aware that fuel must be realistically priced if we are not to waste precious resources, and indiscriminate subsidies are not the answer. External forces have a great effect on prices, particularly the action of the OPEC countries. Fuel must be paid for, and that cost can be met directly by the consumer or indirectly by the taxpayer.

Increases in domestic electricity tariffs. To commence from 1 September, were announced yesterday. The increase is required mainly to offset the rising cost of primary fuel. The price of coal for use by power stations rose by 13 per cent. on 1 July and the price of crude oil has risen by about 30 per cent. since April. Although the latest domestic tariff increase took place on 1 June, it had been intended to apply from 1 April for industrial consumers. It was delayed through the intervention of the Price Commission, and when the Commission reported on its investigations the conclusion was that the rises were justified.

The delay has added to the industry's costs. The profit of £251 million for 1978–79 has to be seen against the size of the industry's operation. It represents a return of only 4·6 per cent. on a turnover of over £5,000 million, and on an inflation-adjusted basis the industry recorded a loss of £166 million. Profits are needed to maintain the financial wellbeing of the industry and enable it to provide for the future.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned paraffin. The previous Government held down the price of paraffin, and that caused severe shortages. Under those conditions it was economic to use paraffin as a premium fuel in place of kerosene in central heating systems, and it was becoming less and less worth while to stock paraffin.

There are those who find it genuinely difficult to pay for the fuel that they and their families need. I am talking not about those who can pay but who choose to court disconnection but about those who are genuinely short of money. The problem is not confined to pensioners; if it were, the solutions would be a good deal easier. Families with young children and sick and disabled people need to keep warm, and people living in all-electric homes face especially high bills.

Within all those groups the degree of need and difficulty in paying for fuel varies widely, and it is not a simple matter to identify those in need of help. Many of the people concerned are dependent on State benefits for their income. We must remember, however, that there are a number of people earning low wages who will be taken out of the tax net or have their tax reduced by the Budget. For people on benefit, national insurance and supplementary benefits go up in November, and at the same time the heating additions payable for supplementary benefit will go up.

Unlike the main benefit rates, those increases will take account of the movements in all fuel prices—coal, paraffin and oil, as well as gas and electricity—as far ahead as we can reasonably predict, certainly beyond November. The lowest standard heating addition is currently 85p a week, and that will go up to 95p, and the other rates will go up by equivalent amounts.

I remind the House of the criteria on which the Supplementary Benefits Commission can give the additions: first, the claimant's state of health; secondly, the ease of the claimant to get out and about; thirdly, whether the claimant is bedfast or needs a constant room temperature day and night; and, fourthly, the state of the accommodation—whether, because the rooms are large, damp or draughty, they are particularly difficult to heat.

The Commission recognises that those facts may give rise to higher than normal fuel costs. The additions vary with the degree of extra need. Furthermore, when none of these criteria applies, the Commission may give additions where a home is centrally heated, according to the number of rooms. Heating additions now go to about 1½ million supplementary beneficiaries. Within that, they go to over two-thirds of all supplementary pensioners. That is not quite as high as the hon. Gentleman quoted. At present, those heating additions cost over £80 million a year. That is a substantial contribution towards fuel costs.

I should like to deal with direct payments for a moment. The Supplementary Benefits Commission is also protecting over 100,000 fuel suppliers through the direct payment arrangements agreed with the fuel industries. The Commission recognised that those arrangements were not perfect, as the hon. Gentleman has quoted. But protection of fuel suppliers in this large number of cases through measures which are generally welcomed by claimants is again a substantial contribution.

Also, we must not forget that since the middle of last year the Commission has been clearing the debts of people on direct payment for two years—that is, where the direct payment is not finishing the repayment of debt. We cannot yet put a figure on the cost of this, but numbers of people will, as a result, have been enabled to have a fresh start with a clean sheet. That is an important step forward.

The Commission sometimes makes single payments to reduce or clear fuel debts in other circumstances, chiefly where the bill is higher than normal, for unexpected or unusual reasons, largely beyond the claimant's control. Following last winter's severe weather, the Commission reminded its staff of the possibility of making such payments. I shall ask the Commission to consider a further reminder this winter. Only limited data are available on the extent of this help, but in 1977—that is before any payments were made to clear debts in cases on direct payment for fuel—those on benefit in December that year had between them received 18,000 payments at an average value of £25. The actual number of payments will have been higher than this, perhaps by as much as one-third. I gather also that the Commission used that method of payment to help in some special cases where the bill came in after the end of the period under the electricity discount scheme, where it was possible to use that means of assisting.

We must recognise—it is a point that the Commission certainly recognises—that help such as the methods I have just described, which is confined to supplementary beneficiaries, obviously carries its own risks. The more help that goes to those on benefit, the more we run the risk of weakening incentives to work, and, on occasions, of aggravating the position of those in work who still have a problem, as compared with those who are out of work Therefore, cash help alone is not enough. It is important that people should get the best possible value, in terms of warmth, for the money that they spend on fuel.

The Supplementary Benefits Commission is also prepared to make lump sum payments for the costs of materials for simple insulation measures such as the draught-stripping of doors and windows. That is highly cost-effective, even if for poor consumers its benefit is likely to be felt through increased comfort rather than lower bills. However, I accept that the Commission feels that it is going beyond its responsibilities to provide money for major home improvements, the benefit of which may go as much to the landlord as to the tenant who claims benefit.

Nor is it for me to try to dictate to the Commission how it should use the discretionary powers that Parliament gave to it. However, I shall be asking the Commission to look again at the help that it is prepared to give to see what else can be done usefully within its powers to help the people most at risk.

Let me turn now to the wider question of insulation. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. As the hon. Gentleman asked me a question, I should like to comment on the Homes Insulation Act 1978. The powers under that Act provide special schemes under which grants to improve the thermal insulation of homes would be available specifically to those with special needs on the grounds of disability or, for example, lower income. I understand from my right hon. Friend that he is considering the possibility of further schemes in the light of progress on the first scheme last winter. That scheme gave grants of two-thirds of the cost of insulation, up to a maximum of £50. No doubt my right hon. Friend will announce his conclusions in due course.

Apart from insulation, and apart from the help that the Supplementary Benefits Commission gives, we believe that the fuel industries also have a part to play. I am not trying to turn them into welfare agencies. I do not believe that they are careless of the needs and difficulties of their customers, as some critics from time to time allege. I welcome the co-operation of the fuel industries with the SBC in the arrangements for the direct payment for fuel to which I referred. By allowing those covered by these arrangements to repay their debts at a very modest rate—currently 80p a week—they are undoubtedly helping those people.

I look forward to the results of the independent review of the operation of the industry's code of practice on the repayment of fuel bills, which the industries are arranging in concert with the two consumer councils. I hope that the industries will continue to develop their various schemes for paying fuel bills by instalments and that they will advertise the schemes as widely as possible. All those measures help in coping with paying the fuel bills in addition to the other help that may be given to those in special need. Members of Parliament and all those who come into contact with people who find it difficult to pay for their fuel can help a great deal.

May I take it that the Minister will refer to the electricity discount scheme?

Yes. I could not speak on this issue—although it is not a matter for my Department—without referring to it. I was just coming to it in the next sentence or so.

All Members of Parliament and people outside do a great deal to help those who find it difficult to pay. I mention that especially because we can alert people to the existence of the various schemes of the fuel boards and the advantages that they can bring. It is the sensible choice of economical equipment and the sensible use of equipment—how much things cost to run—that should be considered. That information is much more readily available now than it was even two years ago. It is information that we should spread around. In that way the industries are indeed helping themselves as well.

Let me come to the thorny question of the electricity discount scheme and whether it will be repeated this coming winter. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The hon. Gentleman referred to the weaknesses in the scheme. He especially mentioned the timing of bills, which many hon. Members have brought to me as problems when meters were read before Christmas because of the Christmas holidays. I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman the answer that he would like, simply because no final decision has been taken. As the House is well aware, a number of longer—term proposals for schemes for cash help have been canvassed and discussed over the past 12 months. Many of the ideas are ambitious, as they seek to cover all fuels—paraffin, oil and coal—as well as electricity and gas—and they seek to identify, with varying degrees of precision, the groups in need or at risk, those with high fuel costs.

Is the Minister aware that it will be disappointing if no statement is to be made? I believe that most hon. Members understood that there would be an announcement before the recess whether the electricity discount scheme would be continued. I cannot for the life of me understand why her right hon. Friend was not in a position to make the statement. Will a statement be made during the recess or must we wait until we come back?

I am sure that at the rate at which discussions continue some statement will be made during the recess. However, it would be right for us to continue with the work—not just the con- sideration of the scheme that has gone on in previous years but all the ideas that have been coming to us, particularly in the past four weeks, which enable us to look widely at what might be done. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question today.

We must consider those schemes that give benefits precisely according to needs and circumstances. However, they are costly. Therefore, we shall consider all the suggestions that were made to us against the background of the constraints that have been mentioned so many times in the House.

I am glad to have had this opportunity so early in the life of this Parliament to speak about this difficult issue. The hon. Gentleman will hardly have expected me to come here today with an answer to all the problems of fuel costs of all the needy groups in our society. I am sure that he and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends will join my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself in trying to produce further ideas over the years. A satisfactory conclusion to the problem has not been reached.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we wish to safeguard the health of the elderly and we shall alert the voluntary organisations to help. All that he has said today and all that has been said in many other debates both by myself and many others over the years is being considered carefully. I promise the hon. Gentleman that the Government will give all these issues the consideration that they deserve to help those who will be in need through the winter, whatever the costs of fuel.

Tourism represents many facets of our life. The beautiful countries in which we live, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are represented by the English, Welsh and Scottish tourist boards with the support of the British Tourist Authority. They cover villages, lakes, historic houses, public houses, theatres, fine arts, music festivals, shooting, riding, racing, sport of many kinds, the need for conferences and the infrastructure that is necessary in this country—for example, the South-West, which needs water and sewerage, and the South-East, where most conference centres are needed.

To co-relate tourism is a difficult task and it was one in which we felt that Back Benchers might well be able to assist the Government, strengthen the Ministry and help to raise the status and prestige of this vital industry. Therefore, for the first time in the House a specialised committee has been set up for the purpose. I shall be in the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Neubert), with his knowledge of tourism and trade, is vice-chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Sir N. Bonsor) is the secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, will look after Northern Ireland affairs, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) will look after the London interest. Welsh interests will be looked after by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best), Scottish interests by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Mackay), the interests of the West by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin), my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), with his considerable knowledge of these matters, will tender his advice, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Lee) will look after the interests of the North-West. These are only some of the hon. Members who will try to take up the particular interests of the regional areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich, who has sponsored a Bill on licensing, will pursue that and the question of the Shops Acts.

The committee representing these direct interests will be of assistance to the Minister and to those concerned with heritage and the infrastructure of the Ministry of Transport and other matters. We recognise that it is not a question of asking the Government for money, and we are not aiming to do that in any way. We are aiming to see what improvements can be made within the budget and to discover the many aspects where improvements can be made with little or no cost.

There is a need for staggered opening hours for petrol stations. It has been felt by those abroad that they could not visit the country as there might well be a petrol shortage and they might not be able to travel to Scotland. There has been a marked fall in the summer's tourist intake into Scotland. The Minister, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Transport, should make plain that that is not the case. Much could be done to secure staggered weekend opening hours of petrol stations to meet the need where it is necessary. However, there is abundant petrol in Scotland for all those who wish to go there and there is no truth in the suggestion that visitors will find themselves in difficulty and short of petrol.

Passing from that matter of immediate need, I turn to what I believe to be the most important matter—the need for tourist development areas generally and not only in assisted areas. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, speaking at the ABTA luncheon this time last year, said:

"Her Majesty's Government would cease to single out only industrial development areas for special tourism projects."

We have made it quite plain that our policy is to have special tourist projects, irrespective of the industrial development areas.

There have been many advantages hitherto for projects under section 4. About 1,000 projects have taken place and about 100 are being assisted. None of the projects is in the South or South-East of England because neither area is an assisted area. However, excellent projects are progressing in Cumbria, where there is a caravan project which will enable the area to be an effective gateway to the lakes. In Northumbria there is the Beamish industrial museum project.

In Yorkshire there is the North Yorkshire moors railway project, which is an admirable idea. Scarborough has the advantage of a good conference centre, plus the upgrading of many of its hotels. It should be noted that this privilege is in marked contrast to other resorts in other parts of the country.

In Buxton there is an opera house, and in the West Country, within the assisted areas, a great deal has been done to assist "winterizing" accommodation of the small hoteliers. All those projects are admirable, but what is not admirable is that they are limited to particular parts of the country. Those areas would not necessarily be chosen by those concerned in the English Tourist Board or in the regions. They are limited because they had to take place in industrial development areas. I hope that the matter can be looked at urgently and I hope it will be ensured that the EEC, which grants aid for many of these projects to the Treasury and thence to the boards and the particular project concerned, will be able to consider other areas for tourist development projects.

I trust that, with the full backing of the British Tourist Authority, we shall endeavour to promote Britain abroad. I hope that there will be no cuts in the authority's tiny budget. From everything that it spends we are rewarded many times over for its successful efforts.

Turning to legislation, we need to cut the licensing of buses and to amend the Sunday trading and Shops Acts. The Ministry of Trade can encourage the necessary legislation by the Home Office to secure that they are brought up to date. My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich takes a particular interest, as do I, in the possibility of changing the licensing laws. I believe that that can be done largely by all-party endeavours. Such action will benefit tourism considerably.

I hope that in the next Budget the tourist industry will be put on all fours with manufacturing industry. That would involve changing the allowance from 20 to 50 per cent, to put it on all fours with the capital building allowances. A cut in the development land tax could also be of great assistance to the industry.

I wish to deal with the subject of the registration of accommodation. On 30 July this year, for the first time, an order governing the price marking of food and drink in certain premises comes into effect. It will ensure that prices in hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, bars and so on will be known to clients. This is right and accords with the general run of events in other countries.

I hope that we shall be able, without invoking any bureaucracy, to take similar steps to ensure the proper registration of accommodation. This is required not only for hotels but for small boarding houses, guest houses and farm accommodation. It will enable tour operators to know what accommodation is avail- able. This can be done by precept through the local authorities, which have a great part to play in ensuring that people have the opportunity to advertise their services.

In return for such facilities, I believe that those who own accommodation should mark up on the doors of their premises the prices which they charge so that that information will be generally known. I do not share the view that such a system will require a paraphernalia involving inspectors. I believe that it can be undertaken by local authorities, in co-operation with local boarding house associations and the BHRCA. I hope that everybody will play a part in seeking a sensible system. If we operate the system in the right way, we shall enjoy all the facilities that we find on visits overseas, without the necessity for the bureaucracy which is so often associated with control. Linked with this desire is the growing part to be played by local authorities in promoting tourism.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade recently said that local authorities should be given greater discretion, within cash limits, to promote tourism. I hope that we shall carry that policy into effect and will encourage local authorities to play an effective part in tourism. This should relate not only to seaside resorts but to cities and towns throughout the country, including London. I emphasise the need to ensure that prices in all establishments are known and that the availability of accommodation is fully publicised.

I wish to refer to one matter which I know is close to the heart of the Minister. I hope that the Government, on behalf of tourists, will take up the cudgels with IATA. The power which IATA imposes on Brussels is well known, but, unfortunately, it militates against our interests in seeking lower fares and better facilities. I trust that we shall pursue a policy aimed at maintaining and encouraging air travel and lower fares.

Customs and immigration control go hand in glove with that policy. I trust that we will ensure that the procedures are adequate and that airports are cleaner and more efficient. In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) dealt in detail with immigration control. We recognise that many such controls relate to individual cases. I hope that we shall pursue the system which has recently been permitted at Manston in respect of immigration controls and customs procedures because such practices enable an airport to operate effectively. It is most important to see that the customs and immigration officers are available in sufficient numbers at airports and that the procedures are adequate for the job.

One could deal with a multitude of subjects under the label of tourism. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will liaise with our committee in order to create a co-related policy. There is still much to be done in assisting those who run historic homes. One appreciates that the EEC is always ready to give assistance in any transport infrastructure problems. A great deal can be achieved without the costs falling upon the Exchequer.

Although we may not require a Minister for tourism, I believe that it is essential for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to spend almost the whole of his time dealing with matters connected with tourism and aviation, because transportation is part and parcel of the success of the tourist industry.

I mention these matters in that new spirit, and I hope that we shall soon have further opportunities to deal with this problem. I appreciate that this is not an occasion on which my hon. Friend will wish to lay down any new lines of policy. However, I hope that he will be able to give the House some idea of the Government's plans to ensure that we maintain an industry which at present, for the first time, is showing a fall in the number of tourists coming to this country, following many years of immeasurable success. It is difficult, in the light of a strengthening pound, to keep the position stable. However, we shall be able to maintain the drive if we continue to act together in the right way.

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) for giving the House the opportunity to discuss tourism. His brief opening survey of the industry showed a close interest and an expertise which have been gained over many years. My hon. and learned Friend was closely involved in the consultations over the Development of Tourism Act 1969. As a consequence of his interest, that legislation was improved during its progress through the House.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on attracting such an array of talent to his parliamentary committee from among our colleagues, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), who is now present in the Chamber. I know that the members of the committee will be offering their help both to me and to the tourist industry in promoting tourism in Britain.

My hon. and learned Friend stressed the valuable contribution made by tourism to the economic well-being of the country, and indeed to our general well-being. Although we may find that occasionally tourists are filling what we think of as "our" theatres and other attractions in London and other points of tourist pressure, I believe that it behoves us to remember that many of those attractions would not be economic, and indeed in many cases would not exist at all, if it were not for the revenue provided by tourists who come to this country throughout the year. A record number of 12½ million overseas visitors came to Britain last year, and spending by those visitors earned the nation £2·5 billion. Even allowing for expenditure by our own countrymen on their visits and holidays abroad, we calculate that the net earnings to our tourist industry approach the figure of £1 billion. That puts tourism firmly in the top league of invisible earners.

I do not believe that we can expect to maintain the phenomenal growth of tourism that this country has experienced in recent years. That occurred mainly because holidays in the United Kingdom were extremely cheap. There is already, as my hon. Friend underlined, some evidence of a decline in tourist visits. That has happened principally because of the strength of sterling, which has changed the relative costs of holidays spent in this country compared with holidays abroad. I also believe that this winter's chaos had something to do with the fact that a great many tourists decided not to visit Britain. The newspaper headlines did not make encouraging reading for those overseas who were made aware of the industrial relations and economic chaos engendered by the then Labour Government.

Following that, we had the fuel crisis and the extremely unnerving stories of terrible petrol shortages in the regions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West was right to mention those because, although the Government were able to do something about correcting the stories, the best and most effective correction was made by the tourist boards—the ETB, the Scottish and Wales boards and the English regional boards.

I am happy to confirm that there are no parts of England, or indeed the United Kingdom, which are without petrol. As my hon. and learned Friend said, there is a difficulty sometimes at weekends because garages tend to close, but that will soon be straightened out by normal competitive pressures. The tourist authorities and I will do anything we can to encourage garages to run, say, a roster system to make sure, especially in the more remote rural areas such as Scotland, that there is always somewhere that tourists can buy petrol even on a Sunday.

A number of points have been raised, and I shall do my best to answer them. On the subject of tax incentives for hotels, the Government are in favour of such incentives as a means of helping to regenerate the economy. In this respect, hotels have always qualified for the 100 per cent. allowance for investment in plant and equipment. They now qualify for an initial allowance of 20 per cent. of capital investment in buildings, and an annual writing-down allowance of 4 per cent. to hotels meeting specified requirements.

It is correct to say that that is less than they would receive if they were industrial buildings. A powerful case has been made that there should be some changes in that area. I had better not say more about my feelings in that respect, except that I am aware of the case that has been made. Equally, I am aware that my colleagues at the Treasury would be reluctant to do anything that would reduce unduly its take of tax in these hard times. However, there is a balance to be struck and I hope that it will be a balance that we can demonstrate as sensible to the requirements of both raising revenue and encouraging investment.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, was able to introduce measures to help small businesses, which make up by far the greater part of the tourism industry. He raised the threshold of corporation tax and reduced the rate of development land tax. We will bear in mind the need for further action in that area.

My hon. and learned Friend referred to the unfair exclusion of the tourist industry from State aid in non-assisted areas. That applies to all sorts of industry, and I think that it is perhaps unfortunate in some ways that so much of the tourist industry is in areas that are not assisted. The object of regional assistance has been directed towards, not particular industries, but problems of unemployment in the region. In general, there is not massive unemployment in the South-East, although I accept that in some of the traditional holiday areas there are high rates of unemployment. We are looking at those matters in a review of the tourist industry which I am undertaking to see how we can best help it.

I noticed what my hon. and learned Friend said about the problems of bus licensing and the licensing laws. Those matters are for my colleagues at the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport. I can assure him that the Department of the Environment has already told local authorities—in April—that they should be encouraged to participate in tourism activities. That and the extent to which they comply with our advice are matters that are best decided by the local authorities rather than by me from Whitehall.

There is a good case for registration of accommodation, but it must be voluntary. We should not attempt to take powers, and then enforcement powers, with a further bureaucracy and inspectorate devoted to chasing landladies around because they have not registered their accommodation. I shall not comment on other reasons, although I can hear some muttering in the Chamber.

There are excellent guides, especially abroad, which are extremely accurate in listing available accommodation and prices. Although we may not do that quite as well in this country, we do pretty well.

I recollect that a year or two ago I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) about hotels in his part of Scotland. He promptly supplied me with brochures from the Scottish Tourist Board which provided excellent lists and an excellent account of the facilities and prices of those hotels.

My hon. and learned Friend raised the question of my dual responsibilities—more than dual, indeed. I am responsible for the airline industry, the provision of airports, and tourism, and I think that it is the first time that those topics have found their home in one section of one Department. It is helpful that I should have all those responsibilities together.

I am aware of the problems of the somewhat high fares in Europe, and in some areas the fares are very high indeed. As my hon. and learned Friend knows, the IATA fare-fixing edifice has been crumbling fast in recent years, principally due to the entrepreneurial activities of Sir Freddie Laker and others like him. In addition, we have begun to accomplish real reductions of fares in Europe. I think that we will continue to obtain those reductions within the limits of what is possible considering such problems as the price of fuel. Even the traditionally non-competitive airlines are beginning to accept that in the modern competitive world they will have to keep their fares down or they will go to the wall.

I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend about the possibilities of gaining from funds available through the European Community for the assistance of industry. I should not like to attempt, in the time available to me, to go very far into those matters. However, we are looking to see in what way we can use the European regional development fund, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred, and the other funds—principally, for example, those made available by the European Investment Bank.

There are considerable difficulties in the way of both of those, not least because the funds are available only in designated assistance areas. If we are to overcome that problem we must see either whether it would be possible to designate tourist areas or whether we could persuade our partners in Europe to take a slightly different view of the tourist industry from that which they take of other parts of assistance to the regions.

I am not unduly optimistic about either of those prospects, but certainly we will do our best to ensure that any money that is available from Europe will be directed to the tourist industry wherever possible.

There are one or two other matters that my hon. and learned Friend raised that affect other Departments, notably the problem of customs and immigration controls at airports. I have been well aware of the problems there and have asked my colleagues to see what they can do to help.

As my hon. and learned Friend said, there are so many matters that one could raise about this industry. He has raised a number of them and, to the best of my ability, I have dealt with them briefly. I look forward to co-operation between my Department and my hon. and learned Friend's new committee and, indeed, the boards and other authorities concerned with tourism. I hope that when I review these matters with the assistance of the boards and my hon. Friends we shall find that the future for tourism in Britain will remain bright despite the temporary difficulties.

During the general election campaign the Conservatives made a great deal of play of the changes that they intended to bring about in the way that our public services are financed. They made clear that their intentions were to shift from a system of direct taxation to a system of indirect taxation and to give a large amount of income tax back to a grateful public. Even this week we have been told that because of the Government's generosity in the Budget there can be no complaints if the current review of Government expenditure results in cutbacks in some public services.

In Cheshire we have one advantage that is not given to all counties, though it is given to rather more than is convenient. It is that we have a Conservative-controlled county council, and it announced recently that because it has gone well over its budgetary estimates it intends to cut £8·5 million off the public services supplied in Cheshire. Of that shortfall, £4·5 million will come from the education services.

A leading teachers' spokesman has already described the proposed cut as a declaration of war against the children of Cheshire. I am not sure that the Government have yet taken on board what is going to happen. We hear a great deal from the Conservatives about standards in education and the need for improvements in the three Rs. The Secretary of State for Education was apparently even suggesting at one point that we should lower the school leaving age, presumably because he felt that that would provide better fodder for the Government's economic policies.

If a cut of the size contemplated by Cheshire county council is made in a buudget for State education, the services will be materially damaged. I want to make clear that the cuts will be resisted not only by the unions concerned but by the parents of the children involved. Let the Minister be under no misapprehension about that.

Education is not quite like any other service. If a child in the State system is deprived of books, training and graduate teachers, and if a handicapped child is deprived of specialist teachers, they are being deprived of their future. In no circumstances can that be made up to them. It is vital that we should do nothing to make it more difficult for us to train our children for a highly complex, competitive and dangerous future.

Let us look at some of the suggestions of Cheshire county council. One hardly needs to say that the council is immediately freezing recruitment. The council is already making itself extraordinarily unpopular with surrounding counties because it has developed the bizarre policy of refusing to recruit from outside the county. Action is already being taken by other education authorities. The freeze on recruitment will result in posts that become vacant through natural wastage not being filled.

The council also intends to do away with teacher training and the advanced courses that are essential if our teachers are to keep up with advances in education. That policy can only damage the interests of the children.

It is also bizarre that Cheshire county council is prepared to see no alteration in the amounts available for uniformed police but proposes that in-house training for teachers and firemen should be abandoned—and that in a world where there are more complex safety standards being introduced all the time. Presumably it is all right to be suffocated by noxious fumes or burnt to death in Cheshire, but it is not all right to get mugged in the street. Those are the sort of priorities which the council is making clear that it intends to follow.

The council also intends to put up the charges for the use of schools. That will affect voluntary organisations, youth clubs, charities and all those who most need the facilities provided in schools. In addition, the council intends to increase the fees for adult education in a way that will prove to be an immediate bar.

I have had a number of letters from constituents who are appalled at the proposed charges for services such as the adult literacy sscheme. It is not difficult to work out that those who cannot read or write will not automatically find themseves among the highest paid members of the community. They have benefited greatly from the literacy scheme. It has been an enormous success in my constituency.

When the previous Government suggested that the money made available for the scheme should be discontinued, I made immediate representations to the Departments concerned and was given tremendous backing from the teachers in the constituency, who were able to make a foolproof case for retaining the service. The then Government accepted that the scheme was so useful that nothing should be done to put it at risk.

However, Cheshire county council intends to put up the price so much that, unless I am gravely mistaken, it will be virtually impossible to find people to follow the courses. Inevitably, they will say that they cannot afford the money.

There are other, much more dangerous aspects to the proposed cuts. A secondary modern school in my constituency had appalling facilities. I was so concerned about the physical conditions in the school that I had long talks with the appropriate Ministers in the previous Government.

I pointed out that the school had 16 mobile classrooms, on every piece of ground connected with the school. There were also intolerable problems inside the school. A private, if somewhat unscientific, examination of the children's circumstances showed that more than 30 per cent. of them came from families with five or more children and 25 per cent. came from one-parent families. The children desperately needed good education and good facilities.

The Department of Education and Science suggested a revolutionary plan, namely, a joint use scheme in which the borough council would provide facilities not just for the children but for other users in the area. So the Victoria Street scheme was born.

Cheshire county council, as the education authority, inevitably had a part to play, but it has recently decided to refuse to pay for the specialist staff to open the facilities that are of most use to the school. The DES and the borough council have made tremendous efforts to improve the facilities, but the county council is reneging on its part of the bargain.

It does not end even there. Almost every service that is of use to my constituents will be damaged. Adult education in Crewe will be virtually halted by the proposed rise in fees. Discretionary grants are to be phased out. Obtaining such a grant from the county council has always been a major undertaking, because it is probably one of the meanest county councils in the country and one of the least inclined to give discretionary grants.

If these discretionary grants are to be phased out altogether, it will be virtually impossible for anyone going for either further education grants or specialist grants to get any support from the county council. I do not merely speak about the straightforward educational facilities that exist in my constituency. There are colleges of further education in my constituency that hold courses for old-age pensioners, and TUC health and safety courses about safety at work. These courses are very fully subscribed to and will undoubtedly be damaged by the increases in charges that have been called for.

The county council intends to put up the cost of home helps. At least the county has said that it does not intend to cut them back any more, as it has already made a cut in home help services throughout the county. The county council claims to have taken the same percentage in cuts from everybody, but it fails to admit that there are areas such as mine that have an ageing population which requires more home helps, and therefore more facilities from the social services than other areas.

The county council proposes to close some of the residential and day-care centres and to put up charges for those who use them. That is the most extraordinary economy that anyone could devise. The reason for community care is that if one keeps an old person happy, healthy and moving about in the community, as opposed to occupying a bed within the National Health Service, one is actually saving the Exchequer a great deal of money.

Health care has moved more towards the maintenance of the sick, handicapped, and the old in the community because it makes economic and social sense. If day-care centres—of which Crewe has several excellent examples—are closed it will harm the elderly because it will isolate them in their homes and deprive them of facilities. It will give those old people the impression that they do not matter. The closures will lead to more money being spent nationally because those people will have to be put into hospital, where they will require full-time care.

Therefore, we are already in a situation in which the old will be materially affected. There will be no holidays for the handicapped, or transport for handicapped children from their homes to special centres. That will be cut back and in some cases, apparently, abolished There will be no day care for children under five yet that service make a tremendous difference to the families concerned.

I have received a letter from the Leonard Cheshire homes in Sandbach, which states that although an excellent occupational therapists' room is provided in the home, and fully used by the residents, the suggestions of Cheshire county mean that no teachers will be available to use those facilities. The people concerned will therefore be more isolated than they were previously.

Crewe needs its social workers. When there was a social workers' strike, it became painfully obvious just how much of our health care was underpinned by their work. However, there is to be no recruitment of social workers in the coming year. I spend much of my time in my constituency fulfilling the role of a social worker—as many Members of Parliament do—and it will be intolerable if the social workers so desperately needed are not provided.

There are joint ventures, such as the joint sports centres. The county council suggests that, where possible, it will hand them back to the local boroughs and where that is not possible it will close them. I cannot understand how people who eternally make emotional speeches about vandalism and the irresponsibility of the young can have the effrontery to close facilities that are now working properly, such as a joint sports centre. For example, because of a few problems with the floor, the county council intends to close a sports centre on a large housing estate in my constituency, where every facility is fully used.

That action will deprive the very children about whom they complain of the facilities that keep them off the streets and stop them breaking up various houses and local authority properties. Cheshire county council has announced a first wave of cuts which it admits is just a tiny proportion of the amount it will try to take out of the facilities that it will provide next year. If what is suggested now actually happens, we will not have a State education system in Cheshire and presumably we shall be sitting out intents and doing our work on slates, with bits of chalk.

If the cuts go ahead, and, on top of that, the Government ask for the £4,000 million cuts that are mentioned, the Government must heed this warning. The ordinary parent pays a large amount of his rates towards the £2 million that Cheshire county council spends on keeping a tiny group of children in independent schools. That parent will not at the same time be told that his child must take a much lower standard of education because the county council is only interested in a tiny group of privileged children and not in the State school or State child. If that happens, the Government will face considerable difficulty.

It will not just be Members of Parliament and the trade unions involved that will not accept that; it will be parents and children themselves, because one cannot consistently cheat a whole generation of schoolchildren and get away with it. The social costs will be very great and I will fight to the death before I allow that to happen.

I felt that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) poured far more gloom, despair and despondency upon the scene than exists. Before turning to the services in Cheshire, I shall give the House some economic background.

The Government fought the general election on a total commitment to reduce direct taxation and to give priority to the regeneration of the British economy. It was always recognised that in order to achieve these objectives we would need significantly to reduce public expenditure. The hon. Lady knows that the general election was fought upon those lines and the country took its view on 3 May.

The Conservative Party and many other people appreciate the need for a reduction in the role played by the State. To a large extent, that means a substantial reduction in the proportion of the national product spent by the State. The Government are still working out the implications of these policies in the context of public expenditure as a whole for 1980–81 and subsequent years.

However, for the current financial year, 1979–80, the Government had to take swift action. The hon. Lady knows that the worsening plight of the economy allowed no time for a systematic revision of policies. The Government, therefore, cut, in broad terms, some 3 per cent. from the expenditure for which they are directly responsible. In the joint departmental circular of 27 June, local authorities were asked to try to follow suit. That was backed up by the reduction announced in the Budget Statement of some £300 million in the level of rate support grant for 1979–80 to local authorities in England and Wales.

It is a fundamental concept of the present system of local government finance that, notwithstanding the fact that 61 per cent. of local government expenditure is met by central Government through the rate support grant, it remains for individual authorities to decide, and to defend at local level, their own priorities for expenditure in the light of their own assessment of needs and circumstances. The hon. Lady knows that very well from her experience in Government in the 1960s. By the same token, it is for individual authorities to decide how they will effect necessary economies, and it would not be proper for me to comment on the particular choices that authorities make.

However, the House may reasonably expect me to say something about education expenditure as a whole. I shall come in a few moments to the details of the social services and education expenditure in the Cheshire county. At about £7 billion currently, education expenditure accounts for roughly half of local authority expenditure on all services. Education clearly cannot, therefore, be insulated from the general requirement to reduce expenditure, but it is not our intention that the service should suffer disproportionately.

Fifty per cent.

The hon. Lady says "50 per cent.", but I shall examine the statistics shortly.

Indeed, it is our policy—this was indicated admirably in the Queen's Speech—that standards in the education service should be maintained and, wherever possible, improved. I really believe that the hon. Lady was painting a somewhat irresponsible and gloomy picture about the events that will occur in Cheshire as a result of our action.

Will the Minister note the fact that the figures and the comments that I have been using have come exclusively from Cheshire county council and this is the council's own assessment of the effects of the cuts?

I accept that. At the same time, however, I was complaining to the hon. Lady about the gloomy picture that she was interpreting from those statistics. I shall examine them in a few moments.

The rate support grant settlement for 1979–80 assumed that there would be scope for some modest growth in education expenditure nationally. For some authorities, therefore, restraint in the current year could mean abandonment of previously planned increases but, nevertheless, the maintenance of existing standards. I am interested to hear the point of view about standards expressed by the hon. Member. I understand that the chairman of the Cheshire education committee takes the view that education standards in Cheshire can be maintained despite the cuts.

indicated dissent.

My impression is that the quality of provision in Cheshire is extremely high in all sections of education—primary and secondary levels and special. The authority has a reputation for innovation—that record stands—and has been co-operating in my Department's 11–16 curriculum project. Seven schools in Cheshire are directly involved. I can report that benefits are already being derived from this co-operation. For example, the authority is looking at time-tabling and reorganisation within its schools aimed at protecting a balanced curriculum at a time of falling rolls and expenditure cuts. I should have thought that that was a most commendable and acceptable platform. This is a direct spin-off from the 11–16 project. I am certain that the hon. Lady knows more about that than I do, in view of her representation in that area.

Comprehensive reorganisation will also be completed. The council voted strongly in favour of going ahead with its very carefully planned proposals. I understand that these will be implemented in September this year. The authority is continuing its practice of providing an additional four teachers to each new comprehensive school in the formative period.

Pupil-teacher ratios in the county are good. In primary schools the ratio is 23:1; in the 10 to 16 age group, it is 16·9:1; and in the 16 to 18 group the ratio is 10:1. The overall pupil-teacher ratio in Cheshire of 20:1 is well in line with the national average, and is slightly better than that of other authorities in the North-West of England.

Detailed policies for 1980–81 and subsequent years have yet to be decided. In the meantime, we have been considering in consultation with the local authority associations where priorities should lie and what the implications of certain policy decisions might be. Throughout these consultations our overriding aim—which the Government are sure that local authorities will share—has been to ensure that the essential elements of the education service are preserved and maintained.

Perhaps the Minister would answer one very simple question. There is Department of Education and Science money in the Victoria centre. Frankly, I do not accept many of the figures that the Minister has given, because he has given averages across the county as a whole and, as he knows very well, this means that some areas are much worse served than others. As there is DES money in the Victoria centre, which presumably now will not be fully utilised because of the attitude of Cheshire county council, what will be the Minister's attitude if that situation arises?

It is my intention to refer to the Victoria project towards the end of my remarks, but I want to get on to the subject of social services, because the hon. Lady raised several important points. I should like the House to know that we accept a great deal of the concern and we are anxious to ensure that the hon. Lady is well aware of the Government's policy.

More than the Government are.

So far as social services are concerned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services recognises that any real improvement is dependent on improved economic performance. The better this can be, the more the old, the sick and the deprived will benefit. Through higher pensions and allowances, we are going the whole way to protect them in cash terms from the effect of the measures needed to get the economy right. The purpose of these measures is not just to improve the standard of living of the families of those at work but, when our policies have been successful, to raise the level of social provision for the vulnerable and the needy as well. The hon. Lady must surely share those objectives.

These policies inevitably involve cutbacks in public expenditure now. This, of course, must include local authority expenditure and, although it is too early to say what, in practice, the effect on the personal social services will be, my right hon. Friend has made it clear to local representatives that he does not expect these services to be exempt from cuts. Many authorities will, in fact, already have taken the wise precaution of reviewing their existing services and of drawing up contingency plans for a progressive reduction in expenditure which can be implemented to the extent necessary over the next few years, when it is known what order of cuts is required.

The particular points which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has emphasised as ones which authorities ought to have in mind during their reviews—and the general indications are that this is the case—are, first, the increasing importance of ensuring that all available resources, including professional dedication and skill, should be used to the best advantage, with increased efficiency wherever possible; secondly, his hope that authorities will do their utmost to protect services for the most vulnerable groups, such as the very old and frail, the seriously handicapped, the mentally disordered and children most in need of care; thirdly, the fact that the Government regard those parts of local authorities' child care services concerned with the prevention and treatment of delinquency as having the same priority as law and order services. This was underlined by the hon. Lady, and I hope that we can achieve some measure of agreement on that aspect. The fourth point is that there is still much scope for further encouragement of the voluntary sector and self-help by neighbours, family and friends.

State provision cannot be a panacea for all social ills, and there is unquestionably a need for a more fruitful relationship betwen the statutory and voluntary services and for the maximisation of the use of community resources.

I said to the hon. Lady that Cheshire was one of the first authorities to commit itself to community projects. I turn now, briefly, to the aspect of the Victoria community high school in her constituency. The hon. Lady knows that this is now under construction in phases in central Crewe. It will provide in the same buildings accommodation for an 11–16 school, for adult education and for leisure facilities for use by the community.

The first phase, now in use, provides in a remodelled building accommodation for the first two years of the school, a youth club and a family centre. Later stages will include teaching accommodation for the upper years of the school, a base for adult education and further community facilities. An important feature of the scheme is that because it is jointly financed from educational and locally determined resources this school and the community will obtain the maximum benefit from the deployment of scarce resources as well as from the use of existing buildings.

I should have thought that this kind of project demonstrated effectively that Cheshire is fully playing its part in recognising the importance of community provision and education in the county as a whole. I should have thought that the hon. Lady was being churlish when she suggested that Cheshire was one of the meanest counties in terms of public expenditure. It is interesting to note that her county spends a high proportion of its budget in education, about £145 million out of a total original budget of £231 million for 1979–80. This reflects the county's commitment, for this year's reduction is only 2·9 per cent. in education terms. This is some way below the national average.

The hon. Gentleman cannot skirt lightly over this matter. Whether he likes it or not, Cheshire county council will refuse to pay the wages of the specialist staff that will enable the facilities about which he has been talking to be put into operation. What will he do about that waste of the Department's money?

The hon. Lady must understand that this is very much a matter for the local authority. She knows from her previous involvement in Government that it is very much for the local authority to decide. As the Minister, I have no powers of intervention in that aspect. The hon. Lady should be gratified that this community project is now well off the ground. I hope that it will continue to play a fulfilling role within the community of her constituency. I do not believe that her case rests so far as Cheshire's contribution to the education and social services community of this country is concerned.

I am glad of the opportunity to raise an important matter affecting my constituents and adjacent constituencies in the North-West London area connected with the planned reduction in the emergency GPO telephone services in the autumn. I hope that the House will bear with me if I become inevitably technical in the arguments that I intend to deploy.

The title of the Adjournment debate was not constructed by myself and it may not, therefore, give the necessary emphasis on the emergency aspect of the services that concern me. The need for constraints in public spending of one kind or another is accorded widespread acceptance in this country, but much greater care and scrutiny has to be given when the services involved are regarded so automatically as being in the public sector. I would have thought that everyone would accept that this applies to the Post Office telephone service. When one considers the emergency telephone services, that argument becomes stronger. That is why I chose today to raise in general context some of the proposals for reductions in services which the Post Office is planning in telephones and other areas.

I wish to single out one specific example that concerns me and will concern many other people when they realise the consequences. The matter arose from newspaper reports in the spring, when the Post Office announced provisionally its intention to reduce the emergency engineer coverage of the telephone services in the autumn by cutting back at various exchanges. I thought it was right as Member of Parliament for an area that covers nearly a quarter of the North-West London telephone area to carry out research into the likely consequences. Once again, I apologise if I become a little technical.

At present, in this area, the emergency cover for telephones is provided by two men stationed at each of three centers—Colindale, Wembley and Watford. The plan is that on 1 September this year the coverage will be reduced by 50 per cent., so that only one man is engaged in giving emergency cover at each centre. I am mostly concerned with the specific areas covering the telephone area of Bushey Heath, Elstree, Stonegrove, Mill Hill, Grimsdyke, Colindale and Dollis Hill.

I am worried, first, that in a heavily populated area of London the public are not really aware of the proposal and, secondly, that it could cause enormous problems. By this proposal, the Post Office may be infringing its own code of practice and therefore letting the public down in terms of its contract to provide an adequate service, above all the emergency service involving 999 calls.

We know from the Post Office's results how successfully it is trading at present. That, too, adds to the general concern. I direct the Minister's attention to a specific technicality, which is important. The main problem will arise in connection with 999 traces. Some people, in a panic or in stress, when dialling the emergency service fail to give their telephone number, in spite of the clear instructions. That necessitates an emergency trace by a highly skilled engineer so that the emergency services can be deployed as quickly as possible. It is easy to imagine the terrible human conditions that form the background to such calls.

Each fault tracing can take 50 minutes to locate. On average, if one assumes that the number of calls involved is 170 a week—and these are my figures—it would take between 120 and 190 hours a week, depending on the intensity of work, to sort them out. The Post Office maintains that these faults can be attended to by one man, and that two men are not necessary.

One man working all the week—assuming that the faults arise smoothly—out of normal hours from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. on weekdays and all day Saturday and Sunday, would have only 110 hours to attend to emergency faults, allowing for meal breaks. That means that up to 50 hours a week could not be worked by one man. That is the crucial argument for having two emergency engineers on duty. Having only one man would mean that 55 emergency faults would not be dealt with in each of the three centres that I mentioned earlier. The Post Office says that it would deal with the possible gaps by calling out men from home to tackle the outstanding faults. It says that not all traces have to be dealt with quickly, because sometimes the emergency is imagined by the caller.

The cost of calling a man from home is three hours' minimum pay plus expenses to and from home. The average cost would be £12 per fault. The yearly cost would be just over £34,000. The saving planned by the Post Office by the proposed redundancy—one man's wages plus extras and one van—is about £14,000 a year. The deficit to the Post Office of £20,000 is the difference between those figures.

Since faults are not reported every 55 minutes in a regular rhythm, it may be assumed that one man will be engaged on emergency faults for only about 80 per cent. of his time in practical behavioural terms. The loss would therefore be higher than the best example that I have cited.

Under existing agreements the man at home who is off duty is not bound to respond to a call-out, since he does not receive a standby payment. The Post Office would have to depend on the good will of the staff. I am sure that the staff would wish to attend. But what if the call-out man is not available, or not fit for duty? I am not being censorious. I refer to normal social drinking or domestic matters. If the call-out man is not available immediately, a delay will occur in the clearing of the fault.

The Post Office policy is to save money and to allow the outstanding fault to be left for day staff, or to be left for several hours, so that one man can catch up with the backlog of the night's work in more peaceful conditions. Such a practice would be detrimental to the public and to individuals in moments of crisis. The solemn terms of the Post Office code of practice state that

"It is the intention that the customer service must be maintained and increased where possible."

The proposed redundancy flies fully in the face of that solemn proposition.

If the Post Office seriously intends what is laid down in this code it could use the two men who are already at each centre, at no extra cost. That is what I suggest, in contrast to the present proposals. This could be done by using existing personnel to increase security cover at unattended exchanges by random visits at night-time and weekends, to ensure that there have been no illegal break-ins. Non-emergency customer faults could be attended to when emergency faults have been dealt with.

It is important for the Post Office to think again about these proposals. What the Post Office proposes for 999 tracer calls will cause extreme difficulty for my constituents and members of the public in wider areas. It would cause difficulty for people in moments of great stress, such as calling for the police, fire and ambulance or any other service, including calling their local GP, and put at risk other parts of the emergency engineering surveillance service.

I shall cite various other matters about which all of us, quite naturally, know very little, first, because of their technical nature and, secondly, because they are done without observance behind the scenes and involve complicated procedures and equipment. Apart from 999 traces there are exchange failures. The faults dealt with in the 40 exchanges in the North-West area include incorrect charging of customer calls, the general danger of power failures, general loss of exchange facilities—that is, no dialling tone and a howl; manifestations which I think we have all suffered from—cable breakdowns, failure of medical telephone facilities, failure to transfer calls properly, and so on. All that is against the background of an increasing pressure on these services.

All public kiosks are maintained out of normal hours. What would happen to the maintenance of those kiosks in an era, unhappily, when so many kiosks are vandalised and put out of action? Doctors' emergency installations must be one of the most worrying aspects of this proposed cut.

Apart from 999 calls for fire, police and ambulance, problems arise because all lines connected with the emergency services are maintained by that same staff, including vitally important centres such as the police computer centre and the police communications centre which controls North and North-West London.

There are the bank alarm circuits, the high revenue line—so-called—and the general categories of emergency lines, and many other services that I could cite. The maintenance of security in Post Office buildings—not only the exchanges, but other buildings—burglar alarm lines, lines to enable temporary emergency services to be erected, lines used by the police authorities to deal with civil disturbances and serious crimes, are all at the sharp end of the complicated activities of Post Office engineers.

It may be that the same risks and dangers affect other areas of Greater London and elsewhere as a result of the Post Office looking at operational economies. I believe that these proposals require reappraisal.

I am aware that one of the standard responses from any Minister charged with dealing with a technical matter—we all understand why, and do not criticise it—is to say that the Government are not responsible for the day-to-day running of the Post Office and that all that he can do is act as an intermediary. pass on the anxiety expressed, and, in due course, get in touch with the hon. Member again. If the Minister were to give an assurance, I would understand.

I have deliberately focused on one specific technical consequence, and have singled out an economic as well as an operational effect of the planned 50 per cent. cutback in the number of engineers at each centre, to show the general dangers that may arise. If the Post Office wishes to make such economies in its engineering services, which in itself is a rather dubious proposition, surely it could look elsewhere. I believe that the specific proposal that I have mentioned should be deliberately excluded.

It may be that in recent weeks the Post Office has had second thoughts about this, in which case, if the Minister is able to announce that that is the case, everyone will be very pleased. With the current up-market advertising of the Post Office telephone services in the consumer sense, we increasingly think of the more agreeable manifestations of Buzby and his pleasant exhortations to make more calls to all sorts of people, as a way of keeping in touch in a social and human sense with friends, relations, girl friends and so on. That is all right. But when the public switches from that discretionary telephoning to the need to pick up the telephone in an emergency and to call for a service, we see where the telephone is of vital importance, not only to elderly people but to all types of citizens in all sorts of places. As I have already said, this is a highly populated area anyway.

With the pressure on those emergency services, the need for meticulous co-ordination between them is so adamantly and obviously pressing and crucial. Alas, we live in a time when not only must we put up with vandalised kiosks but there are also repeated instances where constituents have to wait much longer than one would normally expect for the arrival of an emergency vehicle as a result of a 999 call. We know full well that these services do their best, but unfortunately there are now delays that are often caused by traffic congestion which never used to exist in the old days. One can imagine the catastrophic consequences that would arise if added to that normal delay was the inability to trace a 999 call with the requisite efficiency of which Post Office engineers are proud.

To the extent that Post Office engineers can express an opinion, I do not believe that they are very enthusiastic about this proposal. It may look good at first sight on the figures of savings in wages, vehicles and infrastructural expenses, but this is a matter about which the Post Office should think again. If the Minister can allude to that rethink as soon as possible before 1 September—after all, we are now entering the holiday period which makes the problem all the more difficult and pressing—I, along with many thousands of people in the area, will be very grateful.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for the constructive and reasonable manner in which he has raised this subject and for giving me an early indication of some of the points that he wished to make.

My hon. Friend said that he would go into a number of points in detail. Recognising the tenor of what he said, and his natural concern in the way that he expressed it, I understand why he went into detail. For that reason, I should like to respond in perhaps a more detailed way than we might otherwise consider these matters, given the normal desire not to intervene in the management affairs of the Post Office.

I hope that the debate will provide an opportunity for the removal of what in some circumstances is a misapprehension about the true nature and effect of the decisions that the Post Office management has taken on the staffing of exchange maintenance services in the London North-West area. My hon. Friend has clearly given the matter careful attention. I think that he would agree that there is perhaps a general misunderstanding about the various types of maintenance and emergency services. I should like to spell this out.

I emphasise that these developments in London are of great significance in the Post Office overall. I believe that they are of significance not only in regard to the matter that he raised but also in relation to the way in which the Post Office is attempting, and indeed achieving, certain improvements in efficiency.

First, I fully understand and sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituents. It is typical of his assiduity, and I understand that he is expressing the views of those who are worried about the effect that the planned reduction in the numbers of employees engaged in standby maintenance duties may have on the telephone service.

I understand from the Post Office that the London North-West area management has decided to reduce the number of standby maintenance engineers working on a rota basis to repair faults arising on exchange equipment outside normal working hours. At present 10 men are employed at any one time on these duties at seven locations. At three locations—Watford, Wembley and Colindale—two men are employed at the same time. The intention is to reduce that number to one in each case. The total number working on rota maintenance duties at exchanges in the area at any one time will thus be reduced from 10 to seven—one at each location at present covered.

I gather that the reason for that decision is that with the improved performance of automatic equipment the Post Office has concluded that the number at present employed on standby maintenance duties at exchanges in the area is no longer required. Management studies have indicated that fewer people could provide a more efficient service. That was confirmed during industrial action by members of the Post Office Engineering Union last year, when it proved possible to provide standby maintenance cover using fewer people without adversely affecting the overall level of service.

There are three main points that I should like to make about that decision. First, it is part of a continuing drive by Post Office management to improve efficiency. That is an objective that we must all applaud. The Government attach great importance to the provision of efficient telecommunications services at reasonable cost. That is vital to business and to the community as a whole, and is the only way in which we can ensure that this country reaps the full benefits of the exciting prospects for growth in telecommunications services of all sorts in the future. The Post Office management has our full support in seeking to achieve improved efficiency.

Over the next few years the progressive modernisation of telecommunications equipment will entail widespread changes in working practices within the Post Office and considerable increases in productivity. I pay tribute to the POEU. It fully recognises that development, as is brought out in its recently published and impressive study on the modernisation of telecommunications. The changes in the manning of the standby maintenance rota at exchanges in the London North-West area that we are discussing this afternoon are part of that process.

Secondly—and this I must stress in view of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend—the Post Office has assured me that there will be no reduction in services to the public as a result of that decision. I am assured that there is little connection between the rota standby maintenance service, which is primarily concerned with the rectification of faults arising in telephone exchange equipment, a number of examples of which my hon. Friend quoted, and the 24-hour emergency service that is properly summed up in the 999 call. There is a distinction. The latter service is provided to cover emergency maintenance of telecommunications for life or death services such as police, fire and doctors, and those at special risk in the community, at the discretion of local management. The service is mainly provided by engineers, many of them with different skills to those on the maintenance rota at exchanges who are called out specially from home or from a central point to carry out repairs in the emergency category where necessary. That service—and this is the important assurance that my hon. Member would wish to hear—will continue to be provided in the London North-West area on exactly the same basis as at present.

My hon. Friend went into detail on the 999 traces, and I am not aware that they will be affected in any way. Recognising, however, the detailed work that my hon. Friend has put in, I should like to take further advice and get in touch with him again. I am sure that he will appreciate the importance of looking at the matter with the greatest possible care. I reiterate that I am presently assured that there appears to be no way that that would be affected, and the service will continue to be provided in his area on exactly the same basis as at present.

Will my hon. Friend none the less assure me and the House that if my arguments are borne out by his further conversations he will ask the Post Office to think again about that serious matter?

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall look at the matter that he has raised, but let us see what the answer is before we decide what is necessary thereafter.

To continue with the general argument on that point, I should like to emphasise that in the Post Office's view there is no danger that reducing the number of engineers on the exchange standby maintenance rota will significantly increase the risk of major breakdown leading to the interruption of services. At each location that is at present covered there will still be a maintenance engineer to identify any major faults as they develop, to take appropriate action and, where necessary, to mobilise help to put the situation right. In fact, on, the basis of its management services studies, the Post Office considers that under the new arrangements at the three locations directly affected there will still be a safe operating margin of extra maintenance effort to deal with unusual circumstances, but that will now be at a reasonable rather than an excessive level.

Thirdly—this partly answers my hon. Friend's concern; he will recognise that were the anxieties he expressed fully borne out he might well expect the unions in negotiating these matters to be somewhat more reluctant to agree—it is important in these technical areas to recognise that there has been full consultation between the Post Office management, the staff affected and their trade union representatives. I understand that there have been discussions stretching back over a considerable period between the management and local trade union representatives and that the management have been very willing to discuss different ways in which the reduction in the rota might be achieved so as to minimize the impact on the individual pay packets of the staff affected. The Post Office would have preferred to proceed with the full agreement of the local staff but, failing that, reluctantly concluded that the change must go ahead. I gather that the employees concerned have all received well over three months' written notice explaining the intended changes, which are now due to take place in September; and I am told that in deciding which employees are to be affected the Post Office will be having full regard to their personal circumstances.

I stress that there is no question of redundancy, but one naturally has a good deal of sympathy for employees who will suffer a sizeable reduction in overtime earnings as a result of this decision. However, it would clearly be wrong to continue these payments when they can no longer be justified on operational grounds.

I would not wish to let this occasion pass without paying tribute to the work of the Post Office telecommunications maintenance engineers. These men, working unsocial hours and often in extremely difficult conditions—as, for instance, last winter—keep the telephone system in operation which the rest of us tend to take for granted. It is right that we should remember the skill, hard work and devotion to duty that goes with this task.

Let me say, as I said at the beginning of my speech, that the significance of these developments is not confined to London. They are an example of the way that, on the one hand, genuine productivity improvements are being achieved in the Post Office and, on the other, are being viewed against the background of increasing job opportunities on the telecommunications side of the Post Office. The management and the Post Office Engineering Union are to be congratulated on their close collaboration in seeking developments of this kind. At a time when there is public disquiet about the Post Office level of services to the customer, it is heartening to see such improvements, which I hope may be more widely extended.

I hope that this debate has been useful in explaining the background to the London North-West area management's decision to reduce the number of engineers on rota maintenance in telephone exchanges in the area. I hope, in particular that what I have said has provided some reassurance to my hon. Friend's constituents about the effect of the decision. I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. I have already given him an assurance that I shall refer specifically to the question of the 999 traces. I should like to pay my tribute to the hard work that he must have done in looking into this matter. I shall ensure that the points he brought to my attention are, in turn, made available to the Post Office chairman. Meanwhile, I give my hon. Friend and his constituents the categoric assurance, based on that of the Post Office, that emergency maintenance services in the London North-West area will not be affected.

First, I apologise to the Minister. Instead of frolicking in the sea at Frinton or walking in Epping Forest, or whatever the burghers of Chingford do on such a glorious afternoon, he must be here listening to the problems of airport noise at Manchester. He brought the problem somewhat on himself because during a meeting of the Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., in reply to a question by me on this matter, he said:

"I am not saying that the climate around Manchester will get worse. I am saying that I am not promising that it will get any better."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c., 11 July 1979; c. 14.]

That might have been a prudent meteorological comment for the Minister to make, but as a comment about airport noise it will be disturbing to my constituents and to the constituents in the surrounding areas such as those of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton).

I am not an expert, as the Minister is, about the aircraft industry, airports and flying. When I did a lot of flying as international secretary of the Labour Party, I worked on the assumption that the chap up front knew a lot more about it than I did and that he had just as much interest as I had in getting the plane up and down safely. However, we are not talking about pilots' skills; we are talking about noise. Noise affects everyone, and the layman is as much a professional on noise as is the expert.

We are worried about the fact that Manchester airport is set on a period of expansion. I make clear that I and many of the local authorities, trade unions and trade and industry generally in the Stockport area do not oppose the policy of expansion. We appreciate that the airport authority is progressive and forward-looking. The development plans that have been issued for the end of the century show imagination in linking road and rail transport. The Minister could well spend his time in looking at the expansion of an airport like Manchester to take more passengers and traffic than in wondering where the third London airport should be situated.

Therefore, we are not against the expansion of the airport. We see it as a centre for attracting new technology, jobs and new industries. However, it is unfair that individuals and individual communities should be asked to pay an excessive price in terms of their local environment for facilities that benefit the whole region.

For that reasons, I ask for the Minister's comments today. I know that he could reply sharply and shortly that it is a matter for the airport authority and the local councils and that consultative bodies should be involved. But he must be aware of the widespread feeling that noise abatement measures are less beneficial in many respects in the areas around Manchester than they are near other large airports. If that is his judgment as well as the judgment of many local experts, he cannot push the matter aside as something to be justified and solved locally. He has a direct ministerial responsibility and I hope that, either by using the powers vested in him by Parliament or by persuasion—whichever is the more effective in his judgment—he will look at the problem of airport noise around Manchester.

It is felt that the present Manchester soundproofing scheme, in terms of the area that it covers, the amount of grant and the standard of soundproofing, is not as generous as that offered to British Airports Authority airports. The noise monitoring scheme gives an inadequate and incomplete picture of aircraft noise in the area and there is insufficient encouragement to airline operators to consider methods of reducing landing noise. Manchester is lagging far behind other airports, including those for which the Minister has more direct responsibility, on the issue of night flights. I understand that both Heathrow and Gatwick airports are hoping to phase out night flights almost completely during the 1980s. Manchester airport's approach is much vaguer.

I understand the problems that are involved, particularly in a time of energy crisis, in airline operators having to ground planes completely for many hours because of a ban on night flying. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that night flying creates among the most disturbing of airport noise and causes most problems for the local community.

The three authorities around the airport approached the Minister's predecessor last year and asked him to take direct action under the Aviation Act 1971, but the Minister decided not to do so. That may still be the advice given to the Minister, but several more months have elapsed during which little progress has been made. It involves finding the right balance in expanding the airport, obtaining benefits from having a major international airport in the region, and ensuring that local individuals do not suffer excessively.

I believe that there should be a national standard in respect of airport noise. It is ridiculous that the standard of assistance depends on which authority is receiving it. We all know what noise is, and it is no comfort to the individual who is affected to be told that if he lived near Health-row rather than in or near Stockport he would be more generously treated. The Minister should take powers, if he does not already possess them, to set a standard in respect of airport noise.

We must also consider the availability of grants. Perhaps the Minister could also insist on national standards in that respect, too. He kindly informed me that the Manchester scheme had already enjoyed a 75 per cent. uptake. I must be fair to the Manchester authority, because it backed one of the pioneering schemes in assisting people affected by airport noise. When people appreciate that the same problem is being treated in different ways in varying parts of the country, it is bound to cause distress, envy and a certain amount of bickering.

Is it not time to adopt a national approach to the problem of night flying? Could the Minister offer guidance to airport authorities, and indeed take powers himself to regulate such flying? Night flying probably causes more resentment than any other aspect of airport noise.

I wish to deal with the subject of techniques involving quiet approaches by aircraft. I believe that such techniques were experimented with at Heathrow and Gatwick and the Civil Aviation Authority published its findings. Have any similar experiments been tried at Manchester, and, if so, with what success? This is not an attempt to snipe at the airport authority or to talk away the benefits to the region flowing from the existence of a major airport.

The advantages that would accrue to an area such as Stockport, which wishes to be a centre for high technology and exports, with major international travel links, must be considered. Local community leaders are certainly behind the expansion of the airport. Ambitions in respect of the 1980s and 1990s, including rail and motorway links, will ensure that it is a forward-looking airport authority. However, ominous statistics point to at least a doubling in the number of passengers by the 1990s. Furthermore, there will be a great deal more air freight, and presumably many more flights in general.

I know that the Minister sets great store by the fact that the new generation of jets will be quieter and the older generation is being phased out. Those factors will help. If the Minister cannot look to new technological breakthroughs in new and quieter engines, I believe that he must adopt a national approach to see where regional airports fall short of the requisite standards set by the CAA. He should seek to bring about a national pattern.

I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle and a number of other hon. Members in the area face similar complaints and that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the opportunity to speak briefly in the debate. I know, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has a considerable interest in the airport, not least in the effect of aircraft noise on the ground as well as when landing. I take a special interest in this issue because, according to my information, 80 per cent. of the landing procedures of aircraft flying into Manchester take place over Stockport.

There will be a great deal of interest in what the Minister has to say on the subject. I trust that he will deal with how there can be a levelling-up of help to those affected by aircraft noise. Perhaps we might also hear how he thinks we can tackle the problems posed by quieter landings, better landing procedures and a wiser use of existing technology.

I join in the representations made by the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally), my neighbour in geographical terms, and endorse strongly the points of view that he has put forward. I am certain that not only his views but the highly constructive manner in which he has expressed them will be welcomed in the wider area of the Manchester conurbation, which is affected by aircraft noise and which, incidentally, is benefited by such excellent air connections.

Turning to the question of sound insulation, I have made frequent representations to the Manchester authority which owns and controls the airport and which is responsible for administering the sound insulation scheme. If I have one criticism to make, it is that these grants are too frequently administered with a degree of inflexibility. I hope that, following this debate, the authority will be a little less inflexible.

The question of flexibility is especially important as it relates to schools. There are local authority and privately operated schools in the area. The nearest is the Jewish school, which is right under the flight path. If there were some means which departmental assistance could be given to make reasonable provision for soundproofing, that would be most useful.

My third point is a point of principle rather than detail. I have said in my constituency and to the local authorities generally that far too often planning approval has been given for the erection of private buildings or schools or other establishments without giving proper attention to the impact of aircraft noise upon such buildings. The livelihood of many people who live in my constituency and the neighbouring constituencies depends upon the airport. They knew what they were doing in taking up homes in the area. There are, however, many people, especially the elderly and the sick, who are in a vulnerable position and are acutely conscious of the impact of aircraft noise upon their lives, particularly at night.

Although this debate relates to Manchester airport and its impact on Stockport, South Wythenshawe, Cheadle and other immediate areas, such as Hazel Grove, I feel sure that there are lessons to be drawn from our situation which could be embodied in a national planning policy for application at local authority level.

I come to my last comment. I am sure that it would be desirable to draw up national standards. They are drawn up, in fact. However, I should hate to think that the last resort was for Manchester airport to be taken into a national airports authority. The airport is unique in terms of its initiative, enterprise and its vital recognition of the importance which is attached to a major international airport. I hope that in the next year or two the Minister will produce some general guidelines about how airports should be operated, given their environmental impact, because it may be that the application of general guidelines of that kind will avoid making Manchester one of our national airports as a last resort.

In that spirit, I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply to the debate because so many of my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Stockport, South appreciate that their lives and livelihood depend upon Manchester airport.

With the leave of the House, I should like to reply briefly to some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheedle (Mr. Normanton). However, I want first to thank them both for the way in which they put forward their arguments, and I want especially to say how pleased I was to hear from both of them their support for the airport at Manchester and for its expansion into what I believe it should be, which is a truly comprehensive international airport having a full range of services—intercontinental, regional and local services.

It was because I had that in my mind during the debate to which the hon. Member for Stockport, South referred that I sat firmly on the fence when I was asked whether I expected the noise climate there to improve or to worsen. It is not easy to say. It depends very much on the rate of traffic growth as opposed to the rate of the introduction of quieter aircraft, and neither of those is easy to forecast.

However, we can say positively that the noisier aircraft on the British register will be forbidden to fly after 1 January 1986. Between now and then, the pattern of noise around Manchester airport will vary according to the rate of traffic growth and the rate of the introduction of these quieter aircraft.

I must confess that as a Londoner I was slightly amused—almost saddened—to hear the suggestion that somehow Manchester was lagging behind all that we were doing in London. There was a time when Manchester had that bounce of self-confidence to suggest that it was London which always waited to see what Manchester was doing and then limply followed. I do not know whether this state of affairs has anything to do with a certain newspaper becoming The Guardian as opposed to the Manchester Guardian, but it seems odd to me that Manchester was asking me, a southern Minister, to become involved in dealing with problems the solution of which was really within its own hands.

The Government take the view that, wherever possible, the responsibility for noise abatement measures should remain with the owners and managers of airports. To be really effective, those measures have to be tailored to the nature and scale of the operations at an individual airport and its siting in relation to nearby centres of population. Every airport is different. Every airport's operations are different. Its siting is different from that of every other airport.

We have designated the airports at Heathrow and Gatwick under the Civil Aviation Act, but they are particularly sensitive because of the volume of traffic that they take and the fact that at Heathrow, in particular, so much traffic has to approach or take off over crowded urban areas. In addition, those are British Airports Authority airports, so that the buck must stop on the desk of the Minister in the Department that sponsors the BAA. To that extent, it is right that hon. Members should be able to come to me with complaints about the BAA.

The Government are therefore reluctant to designate noise abatement purposes under section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act unless they have evidence to suggest that the relevant authority has been grossly neglecting its duties in that respect. That has not been suggested in the debate and I have no reason to believe that it is the case at Manchester International. Therefore, I do not propose to intervene to designate the airport. I do not believe that Manchester wants Whitehall to impose regulations upon it.

I understand that the noise abatement measures in force at Manchester are similar to those at Heathrow and Gatwick. Fairly stringent take-off procedures are laid down to minimise the number of people affected by engine noise and there are limits on the noise that aircraft are permitted to make at certain noise monitoring points—110 PNdB perceived noise decibels during the day and 102 PNdB at night. Those are the same restrictions as are in force at Heathrow and Gatwick.

There are also restrictions on training flights by jet aircraft, and airlines are requested to keep ground noise to a minimum, especially during the night. Minimum noise routes have been worked out by the air traffic service in consultation with the airport authority to take account of the density of population in the area, the navigational aids and the operational capability of the traffic using the airport.

I assure the House, from my experience, that pilots will adhere to those rules whenever possible because they realise that it is in their interests not to create needless noise and community hostility to an airport.

The airport has also taken a lead in introducing a system of rebates on landing charges for the relatively quiet jet aircraft. I hope that that will provide airlines using the airport with an incentive to accelerate the use of quieter types of jets.

I also understand that the airport authority imposes a quota on night jet flights, though they are in abeyance anyway, except on Saturdays, because of runway repairs. Surely that is also a matter for local decision rather than for imposition from Whitehall.

I am aware of other airports that are involved with the movement of mail at night. It would be wrong of me to impose restrictions across the United Kingdom that would harm local interests that want the mail flights into their airports in the general interest of their commerce and particularly in cases where the approach paths to the airports are not over areas that are sensitive to noise.

I know that there have been a number of criticisms in Manchester about the terms of the noise insulation grants scheme, but there are also criticisms of the scheme from Gatwick and Heathrow. If comparisons are made with London, one can get into a terrible muddle because those living around Heathrow have a greater volume of traffic to endure than do those living in Manchester.

Hear, hear.

My hon. Friend is a constant visitor to my office on that subject and a constant correspondent.

I understand that the Manchester grant scheme has been improved and extended on a number of occasions since its inception in 1972. Since the airport has not been designated under the 1971 Act, and since the scheme is wholly under the control of Manchester corporation, which provides the funding, I must ask the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle to refer their criticisms to the Manchester authority rather than to me, possibly through the channel of the airport consultative committee, which has been set up under section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1968 to act as a forum for the discussion of matters of this kind.

There was also the question raised by the hon. Gentleman—who was kind enough to refer to it before the debate—about the nature of other noise abatement procedures that might be used by aircraft. I think that he was referring particularly to the continuous descent approach and the low-power, low-drag techniques now in use at London. I am told that they are not yet in use at Manchester airport. I am also told—this may disappoint the hon. Gentleman—that their introduction would have little effect on the noise climate in the Stockport area. That is because the benefits gained are at the earlier stages of the approach, above 1,500 feet or 2,000 feet.

If I may rely on my own experience for a moment, I should say that it is the ambition of every pilot worth his salt, and certainly of every airline operator worth his salt, in these days when fuel is so expensive, not to make approaches, or to fly the aircraft, with a combination of high drag caused by the lowering of the flaps and the undercarriage unnecessarily early, that being overcome by the application of lots of power. Therefore, the techniques are basically ones in which a low power setting is made and the speed of the aircraft is controlled by variation of the drag, down to the last possible moment compatible with safety and reasonable operational requirements.

That means that by the time one is back down to 1,500ft. or 2,000ft. one must be in a virtually standard approach configuration. I understand that aircraft in general would be clearing Stockport at a height of about 2,000 ft. Therefore, I fear that it would not bring much help to the hon. Gentleman's constituents. That is no reason why the technique should not be adopted to bring relief to others, but this matter is perhaps best raised locally, because it affects the air traffic control techniques that are in use, as it is predominantly affected by the amount of traffic at the airports. I hope that that does not disappoint the hon. Gentleman too much.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the problems that arise from planning and the issue of planning consents in areas that are within the noise footprints of airports. The Department of the Environment already has guidelines that discourage such residential development close to airports. They are not mandatory, and I think that the Department would probably not wish to make them so, although of course I cannot speak for another Department.

Once again, it seems to me that if one accepts that the circumstances around each airport are different from those of other airports, it is only right that we should leave the maximum discretion to the local people concerned.

I am sorry to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle that he has sometimes found that the Manchester local authority is inflexible. It encourages me as a Minister to find that people come to me and say "My local authority is inflexible. You seem to be much more understanding and knowledgeable. Will you come and solve our problem for us?" But I am not sure that I should for long be regarded as so much more flexible and so much more reasonable if I took the powers to do so. I think that it would not be long before hon. Members were complaining, through their local authorities, that that dreadful Minister in Whitehall was being totally inflexible and unreasonable and imposing on them conditions that were suitable for other parts of the country but not theirs.

Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the fact that there is competition arising from the fact that Manchester is not a British Airports Authority airport, and that it offers a comparison with the performance of other airports nationally.

I thank both hon. Members for the way in which they have raised these matters. I assure them that I shall keep an eye on the overall noise climate in the United Kingdom so far as I can, but I am not willing to designate Manchester airport for noise. I believe that local people may well know best.

It being Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.

I wish to raise the subject of the stripping of blue asbestos in my constituency. I have to go back a little over the history of the matter so that it is clear and concise to everyone concerned. A decision was taken two years ago by British Rail to convert an existing workshop in its Ley Street sidings to use for stripping blue asbestos from railway carriages.

The problem was that the local authority, the London borough of Redbridge, did not learn about this matter until last May, although the decision was taken two years ago. I believe that British Rail failed, under circular 71/73, to give the local authority notice of what it intended to do with this shed, so the local authority had no opportunity to consider its conversion for this purpose.

Thus, the local authority's hands were tied when it came to giving an opinion about this use. The decision was made two years ago, and the likely expenditure by British Rail is more than £500,000.

I have to explain the planning situation. It is not mandatory for British Rail to tell the local authority that it will carry out this work, but I understand that an undertaking was given some time ago to a former Government that, wherever this type of work was likely to be done, full consultations would take place with the local authority. That did not happen over this shed, and that is serious. The local authority could not make the representations that it wanted to make.

Another matter which has concerned my local authority is that when it at last discovered in May this year, when the work was almost completed, that it had not been informed, it asked for a meeting with British Rail. The council has protested that, having had the meeting the person with whom it was dealing was transferred almost the next day from the Eastern to the Southern region. There was therefore a lack of continuity. Much of this matter revolves around article 4 of the general development order of 1977. I shall speak about that later.

My constituents, the local authority and I are deeply concerned. Most of us are now well aware of the dangers of asbestos and the asbestosis which it causes if taken in any quantity. Our main concern is that the siting of this shed is in a highly populated residential area. The nearest properties to the sidings are within about 50 yards. There are at least four or five schools in the almost adjacent area. The children at these schools number in excess of 2,200. The sidings are very close to a major factory of Plessey, where between 1,500 and 2,000 workers go to their daily work. They are also close to a milk bottling plant, which deals with 20,000 gallons of milk per day. The sidings are also close to the main swimming baths, which are used not only by the general public but by numerous schools within the area.

I have received many letters about this matter, not only from the general public but from governors of various schools in the area. I received a letter today from the local health authority, which is deeply concerned about this problem.

Another point concerning the positioning of this building which gives many of us great concern is that it is rather close to the main railway line. A few years ago a derailment occurred very close to this building. Although great precautions have been taken by British Rail to make certain that there will be no escape of asbestos fibres, if there were a derailment and the building collapsed as a result of that, or if a hole were knocked in the side of the building, it is quite possible that fibres could escape into the atmosphere.

There is also the question of human error. No one is infallible. I think that my constituents feel that perhaps this sort of building, with this sort of use, should be sited not in residential areas but away from them so that if there is a problem the siting immediately reduces the element of risk to people in the neighbourhood. Indeed, if one were discussing the location of an atomic energy plant, one would not be looking at residential areas in which to build it.

I should also explain that the work is carried out not in the building but in the railway carriages, which are sealed. The men working on this type of work have to wear special suits, rather resembling space suits. They are meticulous as regards washing down and other facilities so that dust does not get out into the atmosphere and reach the general public. However, I am a little concerned about the washing facilities, because it is possible for fibres to go down the drainage system. Having made inquiries, I under- stand that the water used goes into the surface water drainage system. I have not yet, in my experience and inquiries, seen any reports of the Thames water authority or other authorities which could or might be concerned about the fibres going into the water system. Therefore, there is an element of danger from that point of view.

There is also a very modern and well equipped negative air system which is, I understand—as are the filters—the best and most up to date that is available in this country. But again, although I understand that there is a secondary generator, or a second opportunity to use other electricity should that fail, if something went wrong with the negative air system mechanically, there could then be cause for concern and worry.

Another point that gives concern is that there has been vandalism in the past affecting this workship. Young people have been seen throwing stones and bricks through the windows. This is a danger because once the negative air system is turned off, as it could be at night, if a window were broken fibres could escape.

I should like now to deal with another aspect that has also been causing concern, namely, how the asbestos, once it is stripped from the railway carriages, should be dealt with.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) has been much involved in this matter. His constituency borders one side of the railway track. My hon. Friend, on hearing rumours that the asbestos was liable to be stored in polythene bags, one inside the other, in a car park in his constituency, was prompted to write to the British Railways Board, which assured him that this was not the case and that the asbestos would be stored in a building immediately adjacent to, and attached to, the workshop where the work is carried out.

I visited the site. It was a pleasant conducted tour. The party was made to feel very welcome by British Rail's representatives, who were kind and explicit in showing us round the works. Some local residents were also helpful. I was prompted to ask the same question. I was told that the blue asbestos in the polythene bags would be stored adjacent to the main building and collected by a special lorry under the jurisdiction of the Greater London Council. Seen by some members of British Rail in this building last Tuesday, I was given a third story—that it would be stored not in the building and collected from there but in an adjacent railway carriage. We have now heard three different stories of how the asbestos is to be dealt with and administered.

We are dealing with a very dangerous substance. We know the dangers that it can cause to health, not immediately, but 20 or 25 years after a person has been exposed to it. The storage of the asbestos and how it is dealt with is a matter of great concern. A railway carriage is not perhaps the right place. It should be stored under lock and key in a building provided for such storage. It would be better if the handling of the bags took place inside a building rather than putting the bags outside a building to be loaded on to a lorry or a railway carriage. An accident could happen. A bag could burst open and there would be immediate problems because the fibres would go into the atmosphere.

Another matter of concern which I learnt about during the last week is that until a year ago British Rail had been stripping asbestos in the open for a period of two and a half years. If that is so, albeit that it was inside a sealed railway carriage—I am told it was safe because small amounts only were being stripped—the fact remains that one cannot be equated with the other. British Rail is now concerned that the work should be inside a building. I suggest that the stripping in the open should never have taken place in the first instance. I would be interested in the Minister's comments.

This information came to me on good authority from the public health and engineering department of the Greater London Council. I am told that the Health and Safety Executive was happy with the situation. If it was happy that the work took place in the open but has now directed that it should take place inside, I fail to see how the two matters equate. The amount of asbestos handled is immaterial. Once a small amount escapes into the atmosphere, if the fibres are the right size, the danger to health becomes immediate.

In view of what has happened, and in view of the gross incompetence, I believe, of British Rail in not going to the local authority and making its intentions clear, the Minister should look closely at the 1977 Act and make it mandatory rather than simply seek an assurance that local authorities are kept properly informed. In view of what has happend at the sidings in Ilford, I urge the Minister to hold a full inquiry into this matter and to give an opportunity to the local authority to put its case in full.

Sir Richard Barlas is in his usual place in the House for what I believe to be the last time. I am sorry that time does not allow me to pay a full tribute or to give proper thanks to him for the help that he has given the House over the years. We all wish him well in his retirement. We shall miss him when he is not in his usual chair in future debates.

A serious problem has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall). I know how strongly he feels about the blue asbestos stripping carried out by British Rail in his constituency.

The residents of the area adjacent to the Ilford maintenance depot, where it is proposed that the stripping of blue asbestos should take place, fear that they may be exposed to a dangerous level of asbestos dust. Much alarming publicity has been given to this issue. I can understand the concern, because we now appreciate that blue asbestos is a dangerous substance.

I assure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the advice that I have received from those who have genuine technical expertise is that there is absolutely no public danger whatever from the operations that are going ahead at Ilford. Those operations are being examined by my Department's Railways Inspectorate working in conjunction with the Health and Safety Executive. The executive has an advisory committee on asbestos.

In whatever time is left at the end of the debate I shall tell my hon. Friend, from the material with which I have been provided from those who know about asbestos, precisely what the safety precautions are. Time will not allow me to particularise them. I shall write my hon. Friend the fullest letter setting out all the information that I have been given about the safety precautions at the depot. I am sure that he will circulate that to those who are interested.

There has been a dispute between British Rail and the Redbridge council about the way in which this matter was handled at first. I must explain briefly why the Ilford depot and others like it have been set up. Before 1969 the dangerous qualities of blue asbestos were not fully appreciated by anybody in this or any other industry. Unfortunately, before 1969 blue asbestos was widely used in railway rolling stock.

At Ilford we are particularly concerned with the interior trim of many drivers' cabs and guards' compartments where the blue asbestos was painted over. That finish is prone to damage by scuffing and abrasion. What that happens, the asbestos becomes exposed and there is a risk of asbestos fibres becoming airborne.

British Rail has carried out extensive monitoring of asbestos in the air on rolling stock. The levels of asbestos are well below the recommended threshold value for environmental and other purposes. Nevertheless, British Rail prudently concluded that the best course of action would be to remove all blue asbestos insulation to be certain that there was no risk to its operating staff or the public. British Rail put in hand a comprehensive programme to eliminate blue asbestos insulation from 800 locomotives and 7,000 passenger-carrying vehicles. That is a major task.

The task will take a number of years. The programme involves three separate stages. As an immediate precaution, any exposed insulation is sealed where it is in the vehicle, using a tough emulsion paint. At a number of depots, of which Ilford is an example, the task of stripping the asbestos insulation from driving cabs and guards' compartments will be undertaken.

At those depots, and at the main workshops where asbestos insulation is removed from locomotives and other vehicles during general repairs, the work is carried out in specially set up asbestos houses, of which the segregated portion of the carriage sheds at Ilford is a typical example.

I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with the steps that British Rail proposes to take. There is no danger whatever to the staff of British Rail or the travelling public. However, as a course of ultra prudence, British Rail decided to strip the blue asbestos from these vehicles. That is a safety measure that is hard to criticise. We now come to the locating of the asbestos house which British Rail chose to set up for the purpose of stripping.

My hon. Friend underlined the serious dispute between British Rail and the London borough of Redbridge. The borough complained to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about a breach of the code of practice which it believes British Rail committed. Before I give any reply I should make it clear that the dispute arises out of a complex area of planning law. Town and country planning law is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Therefore, what I say will be a general indication; as it were, a lay understanding by a Minister in another Department. What I say is subject to detailed guidance from the Department of the Environment. Specific queries about the law, or specific complaints about the code of practice, must eventually be taken up by my hon. Friend, and others who are interested, with the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The dispute concerns the question whether this development—opening an asbestos house at an existing workshop—constituted development under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. It is said that either this was a change of use which had nothing to do with the planning laws or that it was merely permitted development within the order that I have mentioned.

If British Rail had taken the view that this was permitted development, it would have followed the code of practice that it had undertaken in 1973 to follow, to which I have referred. I am assured that British Rail took the view, in good faith, that this was not permitted development within the terms of the order. It therefore decided that the code of practice did not apply. That is where the dispute arises.

The Redbridge borough council is not yet altogether clear in its complaints, but as it is complaining about a breach of the code of practice, I take it that it is a possibility that the planning authority in that borough now suggests that it thinks that this was permitted development and should have been notified.

If the Redbridge borough council had been notified, and if the local planning authority had decided to take steps, what would have happened? My understanding is that if at the time the local planning authority became aware, or was notified, that a permitted development was to take place, and considered that the circumstances warranted it, it could make a direction under article 4 of the general development order, thereby removing the general planning permission and requiring a planning application to be made in the normal way.

Had the code of practice been followed in this case, and had Redbridge borough council been notified and decided that the circumstances warranted it, it could have made a direction. I need not itemise at this stage the steps that might then have followed, which would certainly have given rise to the consideration of a planning application and a whole variety of procedures that would follow. It can sometimes lead to appeals to the Secretary of State for the Environment and public inquiries. That was not done.

At this stage, I can only describe the process which the Redbridge borough council says should have been followed. No doubt the borough council and my hon. Friend will receive a response from the Secretary of State for the Environment giving his opinion of the matter and also any matters arising out of it that my hon. Friend wishes to raise.

I am not expressing any opinion on the question whether this was permitted development within the terms of the requisite order. It may be that British Rail was entirely correct in thinking that this was not permitted development, but that is outside the scope of my responsibility. It seems to me that that is probably the origin of the dispute between the two bodies.

As to the handling of the matter generally, I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said and it seems to me that the great burden of his complaint—apart from the code of practice—is that residents of the area, and the local authority concerned, did not discover until a very late stage indeed that a decision had been taken that this plant was to be opened. In the light of what he said, I must consider whether that delay in notification and the lack of consultation has in itself contributed to the considerable alarm in the area, once it was found that something of this kind was going on.

Of course, there had been controversy about a similar asbestos house set up in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) two or three years previously. I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said and see whether there is room for discussions with British Rail about the handling of these matters, in order to make sure that, apart from the town and country planning laws—which are not my responsibility—there may be consultations when it is known that controversial matters of this kind are in hand, even though it is possible that the controversy is needless, that there is no danger, and that matters can be satisfactorily explained to the public once notification is given.

That is the position on handling. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to leave the matter there. I shall consider the matter further in the light of what he said, to see whether there is any difficulty that might be improved in future.

I shall touch briefly on the question of the safety of the plant, to which my hon. Friend referred, having said already that I will have to give fuller details in a letter. He mentioned in particular the disposal of the asbestos, and I shall try to deal with that. The handling of blue asbestos is controlled by the asbestos regulations 1969. These require, as a matter of law, exhaust ventilation arrangements in buildings where blue asbestos is being handled to prevent the entry of asbestos dust into the air of any work place. They also lay down that protective equipment be provided for persons working where asbestos dust is present. The regulations are particularly strict over the use of approved respiratory protective equipment and of protective clothing, over its cleaning after being worn and the training of staff in its correct use. Other sections of the regulations lay down the procedures to be adopted for storage of the blue asbestos and its movement from a factory or similar workplace.

My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of an accident, with a hole being knocked in a wall. The regulations control the atmosphere inside the workplace, so this is not a dust-laden workplace from which it is possible that clouds of fibre could be emitted if an accident occurred.

There are then important matters about disposal of the waste, about which my hon. Friend is obviously concerned. He said that he had received a lot of versions about this. Regulation 15 of the 1969 regulations requires that all asbestos waste in a factory should, when stored, be kept in suitably closed receptacles which prevent the escape of asbestos dust. Regulation 17 requires that where the receptacles contain blue asbestos, they should be clearly marked "Blue asbestos. Do not inhale dust." They are both legal requirements that British Rail is obliged to follow.

What is happening at Ilford is that the responsibility for checking the disposal of the waste rests with the Greater London Council. I am informed through the inquiries that I have made—I shall make further inquiries into the differing versions that my hon. Friend says that he has been given—that British Rail intends to place all waste collected as a result of the stripping operations in double-skinned, impervious bags that will be sealed and temporarily stored inside the asbestos house. Subsequently, those bags will be removed by a specialist contractor, listed by the GLC, and taken direct to a disposal site that is licensed to handle asbestos waste.

I have been authoritatively informed that that is what will happen. As I have explained, there are various legal requirements which mean that that is what should happen. I shall make sure that in due course my hon. Friend is notified and reassured that that is what will happen in future with regard to the disposal of the waste.

I cannot deal with other matters now. I shall write to my hon. Friend more fully. I warn him that I have the most intricate technical details to place in his hands, but I hope that the intricacy of them will reassure him that real expertise is being applied in order to ensure that there is no danger whatever to the residents of his constituency and to those who live in the locality of this asbestos house.