I wish my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment a happy birthday, and I apologise for calling him in on his birthday to answer the debate.

I asked for this debate to bring attention to the success of the enterprise allowance scheme, which is relatively new and which, by its success alone, was finding itself in trouble, and to request that the efforts and the expenditure which will be necessary to bring it to fruition will be forthcoming from the Government.

Of all the schemes that have been introduced, this scheme has possibly had the greatest success. The uptake by people has been such that, instead of a two-week period approximately from when people apply to when they start on the scheme, we have now moved to far longer waiting periods of 15 weeks on average. In my area, the period of waiting approaches 24 weeks. That is of considerable concern with something as successful as this scheme.

It has been called rightly a very imaginative scheme, and I shall deal later with some of the successes that have shown how imaginative the people involved have made the scheme. First, I wish to consider the origin of the scheme, and why it was introduced. A few years ago, when one went round one's constituency, people made the point that they would like to do something for themselves, but said that, immediately they started on a scheme, they lost the employment benefit or the social security benefits that they had hitherto received. That was a great deterrent. Having been made redundant, and, in many cases, having received only a small amount of money in redundancy payments, they had a little money in the bank. At the start of a venture, when even the smallest businesses have a period in which they need support, these people felt that they could not afford to put their families—particularly if they were young married couples with families—in jeopardy. It was the support in the early days of the business which was so important to them.

It was a tremendous step forward, therefore, when the scheme was introduced first as a pilot scheme. Five areas, including my neighbouring town of Coventry, took part in the first pilot schemes. They involved some 3,300 people. From that the scheme was developed.

On 13 November 1981 the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said that one of the reservations of people wanting to go into business was:

"They would have little to live on during the early stage, and, by determining to set up their own business, would lose their entitlement to benefit. It is increasingly put to me by many small firms' counsellors and at many BOP sessions that that is proving a real and psychological barrier to the unemployed taking such a step."—[Official Report, 13 November 1981; Vol. 12, c. 769.]

The scheme developed successfully out of the initial 3,300, because in August 1983 the scheme became nationwide and the Government set aside the money to fund 25,000 places up to the end of March. The former Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingforcl (Mr. Tebbit), said:

"This decision underlines the Government's commitment to encouraging initiative and stimulating new business. I am confident that there is sufficient flair and entrepreneurial talent amongst unemployed people for the scheme to be a success nationally … The potential benefits are great, not just for the person who manages to set up a successful business but also for others who may subsequently secure jobs in that business and for the community as a whole."

We have seen since just how true that statement was and what an opportunity the scheme has given to many people.

The scheme has been welcomed more and more as the months have passed. I have to confess to being a reader of The Guardian. Just occasionally it prints items with which Conservative hon. Members can agree. It reported:

"Enthusiasm for the scheme has been widespread since it was introduced on a pilot basis in 1982."

It described the scheme on Friday 9 December as

" an imaginative idea which was quickly developed from a pilot scheme in five areas to be extended this year to the whole country because of its success. Perhaps the only real criticism which can be levelled at it is that insufficient funds have been allocated to it, which limits the numbers that can benefit."

For that to be the only criticism by The Guardian suggests that it must have been a great success. The success of the scheme has brought with it a difficulty in allocating places to those now applying.

Many people have gone into conventional manufacturing businesses and enterprises supplying the general services that we expect. But there have also been some remarkable attempts by people to consider ventures which no one could have expected. For example, one person went into business with a breathable cushion. It occurred to him that in summer car seats could become extremely hot and uncomfortable, so taking advantage of the enterprise allowance, he developed a cushion that would breath. We have people making snooker tables. Other people have gone into the textile industry which, as we all know, has many complaints about competition.

With enterprise allowances, people have been prepared to tackle these problems. Another example is of a firm making hand-made paper which has managed to be successful. We have people engaged in sports coaching, sound engineering, a telecommunications agency, and even a man who went in for aerial advertising by blowing up balloons. In my constituency a 55-year-old man has set up a business manufacturing cycles. He is now taking on apprentices, which is a real step forward. All this has developed quickly from very small beginnings. It is clear that the enterprise allowance is creating a lot of initiative.

One gentleman in my constituency who has complained about the waiting period wants to go into business as a curative hypnosis practitioner. I do not know whether that is a common trade, but it is an example of people using their imagination.

The problems which come with the increasing waiting period are considerable. The very people who have the initiative and want to go into business but who have not the financial support to go into much larger enterprises, having got the idea that they want to start a business, find it quite a blow to discover that they cannot receive the support that they need very quickly. As I said earlier, two weeks was the original time between applying and getting under way. Today the period is much longer. That in itself is discouraging. People start thinking of all the snags, and the impetus and enthusiasm that the scheme is meant to develop drains away. That is very unfortunate.

It also has more practical disadvantages. When people apply to join the scheme they must be in receipt of unemployment or social security benefits. If they have to wait too long—in the west country and in my area as long as 24 weeks—they may go out of benefit and no longer be eligible.

The Manpower Services Commission, quite sensibly, allocates allowances in monthly blocks across the regions. It is possible to transfer any surplus from one region to another. But, fortunately in one sense and unfortunately in another, the take-up is so good overall that there is no surplus to distribute. At the moment the MSC is allocating about 600 places a week. But the demand rate is about 1,000 a week. We are desperately short of places for people to take up. If the national average delay is 15 weeks—and some areas run to 23 and 24 weeks—people can easily drop out of benefit in that period.

The scheme has had a snowball effect. As it becomes better known—and it has been in full swing only since August last year—people will see friends and acquaintances succeeding in small one-man businesses, and that in itself will generate an increasing number of people wanting to take up the scheme. That is what we want, of course, but we must be able to meet the demand much quicker than we can at present.

Whenever a new scheme is introduced, there is always an initial demand which is larger than we can expect to continue. It will reach a peak, but we are a long way from that peak. It will occur in the months ahead, but it is not with us yet. That again means that the delays could get longer, and that would be counter-productive to the scheme.

It is not possible for people to be given the opportunity to go ahead until the necessary money is available. They go on a waiting list. They attend information sessions or seminars. It is only then that applications are considered and accepted. From then it is only a short time, perhaps a couple of weeks, before they are given the go-ahead. Before that happens, there is a long period of delay and uncertainty.

The success of the scheme is demonstrated by the fact that, so far, 27,600 have been able to take advantage of it, of whom some 26,000 are still in business. The dropout rate has been about 10 per cent., which is fairly small compared with the business enterprise sector as a whole. On 6 December last, the Minister referred to a three quarters survival rate, which compares very favourably with other small businesses.

For the people who manage to set up businesses in this very small way there is the great satisfaction of doing something for themselves and a great restoration of confidence. One must accept that redundancy involves a kind of sickness and that after the minimum qualifying period of 13 weeks people may become quite depressed about their future. The scheme therefore provides a great boost to their confidence. Although the minimum qualifying period is 13 weeks, about 30 per cent. of applicants have been unemployed for more than 12 months. Few other schemes—the community programme is one—provide such opportunities for older people and the long-term unemployed. The considerable take-up by the long-term unemployed and its availability to the unemployed of all ages up to 65 is another reason for requesting additional support for the scheme.

The scheme is now receiving better publicity as people begin to understand its advantages. Moreover, the cost is not as heavy as it seems. The maximum allowance is £2,000 over 52 weeks and the applicant must have £1,000 backing for the business. Those are relatively small amounts, but they are not small for the people needing them. Few people receive redundancy payments of £10,000, £15,000 or £20,000, as provided by some large organisations. For many people, payments are just a few hundred pounds. When companies go into liquidation, many people made redundant receive only the relatively small amounts guaranteed by the statutory scheme.

Those taking part in the scheme receive £40 per week for 52 weeks, but they are no longer eligible for unemployment or social security benefit. The net cost to the Exchequer is thus probably no more than £1,000 per year. In some cases, because the applicant was receiving more in benefits, the result would be a net contribution to the Exchequer. Therefore, despite the administrative costs, I believe that the scheme may even be of benefit to the Exchequer. The profits made are taxable and people are brought back into tax and national insurance contributions far more quickly. Money is not being doled out in huge amounts. A certain amount of money is, as it were, borrowed from the Exchequer, but the scheme is almost self-financing in the return that it generates.

The scheme also discourages that nasty animal the black economy. People are working honestly in business and following the normal tax procedures. It encourages people to take the first important step to create something for themselves. That is why it is important that it should receive full financial support. People should be able to start their own businesses as soon as possible after coming up with a viable idea.

The scheme does not conflict with the Government's financial constraints and the attempt to hold down public expenditure but is complementary to them. Resources may need to be switched from one part of the MSC or some other pocket of the Exchequer, but it is well worth while because the return is so important not only for the Exchequer but for the community.

The scheme provides jobs not only for successful applicants but for the people whom they later employ. It has been estimated that for every 100 new enterprises 40 additional jobs may be created. That, too, is highly valuable. Another attractive feature is that most of the initiative takes place locally and is not taken away to other areas.

The scheme has been very popular and a great success in every way but one. The only failure is the delay which now threatens the reputation and effect of the scheme. I hope that the Minister will take that seriously and will try to influence those who dole out the money so that full financing is available to meet the demand as it arises. The scheme provides great encouragement and costs almost nothing compared with the estimated £30,000 per job in some regional aid schemes. We must not pour cold water on people's initiative by the present limitations.

The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) has initiated a very important debate. I hope that the Minister will take the point about the comparative cost of regional aid. We should like to know the off-the-register cost of the scheme, as we believe that it is very small.

I have consistently supported the Government on the scheme since its inception, even when that was not popular among Opposition Members, because I have always believed that the scheme had an important part to play in creating employment, especially in the peripheral areas with very great unemployment problems.

The Government should now review the operation of the entire scheme and consider increasing the allowance by at least £10 per week as well as substantially increasing the number of places so that the scheme can work even more effectively. It already makes a major contribution to the reduction of unemployment not just through the direct off-the-register cost but through the spin-off effect of new employment created by those who set out and succeed in business as a result of the scheme.

In areas such as mine and that of the hon. Member for Nuneaton, there are long waiting lists of applicants. I have written to the Minister about this. I appeal to him to increase the allocation to my region and certainly to my constituency because we cannot afford the current delays. I hope that he will press the Secretary of State to argue in the Cabinet for a greater allocation being made to the Manpower Services Commission for all the related schemes so that they can be made to work more effectively. We desperately need those jobs now. I appeal to the Minister to take action on this.

I warmly welcome the chance to echo the welcome that both sides of the House have given to this excellent scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) has done the House a service by using his Adjournment debate to draw our attention to it. I should also like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) who has always been a staunch defender of the concept behind the scheme, even when some of his hon. Friends regarded it with a good deal of scepticism. It is one of the most imaginative and purposeful of our special employment measures to help unemployed people. No one is more delighted than me that it is proving so popular and successful. It is helping unemployed people to create their own jobs by encouraging new small businesses and it is helping to stimulate local initiative and create additional employment opportunities. The really constructive element of the scheme is that, as an applicant's business takes off and becomes viable, he often generates employment, first part time and then full time. I know of cases where as many as 14 additional jobs have been created by a beneficiary of the scheme.

I must emphasise, however, that the scheme is not intended as a general small business subsidy. It is intended specifically to help unemployed people who want to set up their own business but are deterred from doing so because, as my hon. Friend said, they would lose their entitlement to unemployment or supplementary benefit. It is a big step to discard such entitlement which is often more substantial than an applicant receives as allowance under the scheme. such people's self-confidence might well have been diminished by being made redundant. They might be depressed, uncertain what to do and hesitant to abandon the support to which they are entitled through unemployment and supplementary benefit.

Perhaps when the Minister reviews the scheme he will take on board a point that has been raised with me. It is that, when someone applies for assistance under the scheme, and the business depends on the granting of a lease which the applicant firmly believes he has obtained, he is gazumped after starting on the scheme but before taking full possession of the premises and finds that he is without premises. In the service sector, a person without premises has nowhere to go. Such people then find that they must lose their place on the scheme and repay the money that they have received. Moreover, they discover that they are not entitled to apply for the scheme again. That is the sort of tragedy that arises with gazumping which perhaps could be taken on board when the scheme is re-examined.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not see that the allowance would necessarily have to be repaid. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has got that idea. Each circumstance is different, but when an applicant has been taken onto the scheme and, for one reason or other, the commercial arrangements that he has made in anticipation of it are vitiated, my advice would be to tell him to stay on the scheme, draw the allowance and post haste see what alternative arrangements he can make. I shall look carefully at the case the hon. Gentleman has raised and will write to him. It is extremely inadvisable to lose a place on the scheme as it is in such demand.

We all know that unemployed people who become self-employed and start their own business lose their entitlement to benefits as soon as the business starts to operate. Even though it may be some months before the new business can develop sufficiently to generate a regular income, applicants will draw the regular but by no means generous allowance.

The hon. Member for Workington asked me to increase the allowance and the amount of money available. In the light of the scheme's proven success we shall do our best to examine all the ways in which we might find scope for adding places to the scheme. He will understand that it would not be proper for me to give specific undertakings about financial provision, but I can tell him and my hon. Friend that we bear the matter in mind and are exploring all the possibilities. I cannot, however, agree with his request that we should increase the allowance. There is far greater demand for the allowance than there are or will be places, whatever provision we might achieve. The popularity of the scheme testifies to the fact that the large majority of applicants accept the scale of the allowance as being perfectly fair and just.

By helping to compensate for the loss of benefit during the first year while the business is being established, the allowance tips the balance of risk a little more in the entrepreneur's favour and makes the decision to go ahead a little easier to make. We are concerned with an incentive, not a subsidy.

This type of scheme is new to Britain and we thought it right to test its effectiveness first and gauge potential demand in a pilot scheme. As hon. Members will know, the trials began early in 1982 in five areas. Three were in England, at Coventry, Medway and north-east Lancashire, one was in Wales, at Wrexham, and one was in Scotland, in north Ayrshire. The response was extremely encouraging and, although the evaluation exercise had not been completed, early results were promising enough to allow us to announce in last year's Budget that the scheme would be extended to the whole country on 1 August 1983 to provide grants for 25,000 people to 31 March 1984.

On 17 November 1983 I was pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) that resources had been made available for a further extension into 1984–85 and an extra 35,000 grants. We have now committed some £130 million to the scheme. To the end of March 1984, a total of 31,000 unemployed people, including 3,331 in the earlier pilot trials, had taken advantage of the scheme to start their own businesses and some 27,000 are now receiving the allowance. That testifies to the high and satisfactory survival rate of those who have been taken on to the scheme.

As can be expected, a wide range of businesses are being set up with the help of the scheme. Many are in traditional sectors such as shops, general building repair and maintenance, motor repairs, clothing manufacture and hairdressing. When I travel around the country I always make a point of visiting applicants who are taking the enterprise allowance to see how they are getting on. It is encouraging and enlightening to see their enthusiasm and success. It is especially encouraging to discover that hitherto latent craft talents have been discovered and exploited commercially—the people concerned are often surprised by the success of their endeavours. To take examples at random, I have visited brass engravers, jewellery repairers, woodworkers and others who have capitalised on what many, including they and their families, would regard as a hobby and turned it to good commercial account.

The question that I always address to these people is, "How do you think you will fare when the allowance stops?" In 80 per cent. of the cases—I ask it of everyone I visit—I am told that there is no doubt that the person will continue. He will be sorry to lose the allowance but, having been launched, the business is going so well that he will be able to stand on his own feet. Many of these people have been made redundant and have carried forward expertise accumulated over many years to exploit the training that they acquired in the industry that made them redundant. They are showing their former employers how to do the job of selling or producing and are making a great success of it. There are also people who make a success of agricultural smallholdings producing fruit and vegetables, and of new technology ventures such as microcomputer programming.

Our experience in the pilot areas, where we have completed our survey, suggests that only about 12 per cent. of those who join the scheme will drop out over the course of the year on the allowance. We do not yet have full evidence about what will happen in the longer term, but early follow-ups show that about three quarters of those who remain on the scheme for the full 12 months are still in business some months after the termination of the allowance. From my experience, I would put the figure even higher.

One of the most heartening features of the scheme is that not only will it provide worthwhile employment for those on the allowance but that new businesses are generating a significant number of jobs for other workers. This distinguishes the scheme from all other special employment measures, which are essentially on a one-to-one basis. Here we have something that has the potential to make serious, positive inroads into the unemployment total.

Evidence from surveys of those who have been receiving the allowance for nine months suggests that on average, for every 100 firms set up under the scheme, almost 50 further jobs have been created. About two thirds of these are part-time jobs, but as the businesses flourish we can expect the proportion of full-time jobs to increase.

Employment generation among the firms that survive and continue to develop after the payment of the allowance has stopped is showing signs of being even higher. This is natural, because after the difficult trial period has passed and the firm is positively established and ready to cast off on its own it is to be expected that it will be even more capable of generating employment than it was in the rather tentative earlier experimental stages.

The recent increase in demand for places on the scheme confirms our belief that there is no shortage of entrepreneurial spirit even among those who find themselves unemployed. The fact that we are debating the scheme today is ample evidence of its popularity, and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton has vividly described the problems that this popularity is causing in his constituency. He referred to them as problems of success, and that is what they are. The demand is generated purely on a word-of-mouth basis. The Department has spent no money on advertising since September last year and that was with only a short local campaign. The recommendations are done entirely on a personal basis by those who are benefiting and those who are succeeding among their friends and colleagues.

Hon. Members must see in their constituencies that the level of demand is greater than the number of places available, and to stay within the cash limits—the scheme is cash limited—we have to restrict the numbers that we can take on each week. As my hon. Friend has said, this is leading to waiting lists even for those who wish to attend the initial information session. Over the whole country, it is now taking on average about 15 weeks from initial inquiry to starting on the scheme, and in some cases the period has been as long as 24 weeks.

I accept that delay is frustrating and that it is not easy to convince people who have heard about the scheme and who believe that they have a good business and will be eligible for an allowance that they must wait for a further three or four months, and in some cases longer, to secure a grant. This can be portrayed as a period of enforced idleness that is contrary to the spirit of the allowance. Although I regret this, I must emphasise that the scheme is still in its infancy. We are delighted with its success and with the constructive contribution that it is making both to the economy and to reducing unemployment. It has genuine popular support, and on that basis we are doing our best to explore the possibilities of increasing the number of places.

I should like both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Workington to know that I attach high priority to the scheme. I hope that in the fullness of time I shall have better news on this subject to bring to the House.

I wish to raise the pressing and desperate problem of homelessness in London. The debate this morning starts and ends with housing needs, with families who are living in appalling conditions in seedy, sordid bed-and-breakfast hotels, people who are sleeping rough on the streets of London, people who form the tidewrack of Thatcher's prosperous Britain of the 1980s. It is not putting too fine a point on it to say that homelessness, particularly in inner London, is probably the most pressing scandal that we face. I hope that this all too brief debate will shake some of us, and particularly the Government, out of the complacency that has affected us.

I shall start by describing briefly some of the conditions which homeless families, who have either been referred by their local authority or have referred themselves, are having to endure in bed-and-breakfast hotels in London. There are clusters of these hotels, some in Finsbury park, and now a growing number, at the moment about 50, in the Bayswater area.

The description that a journalist in The Guardian of 5 March 1984 gave of one of these Bayswater hotels needs no embellishment from me. She said:

"This one housed 500 homeless people, most of them families with children. The old stain-sodden carpet gave off a sour smell. The bannisters were broken in places, leaving lethal gaping drops for small children. The partitioning of rooms made the place a warren of corridors and cramped winding staircases—a death trap from which few residents could hope to escape in a fire. The bathrooms were squalid and shared by five or more families. There were no cooking facilities at all—though most families had an illegal electric ring in their room, another perpetual danger to their children."

That scene is all too familiar to thousands of families in London.

Articles appeared in the Daily Mirror two weeks ago by John Pilger, who accurately described the appalling conditions in Princes Lodge hostel in Commercial road. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will be able to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to raise the particular problems of this hostel. John Pilger said of the hostel:

"I have not seen worse … in the blitzed shadows of New York or Detroit. It is on a par with a similar 'hostel' I once inspected in Calcutta."

This is supposed to be a civilised and prosperous society, yet we have families with children facing insanitary conditions in bed-and-breakfast hotels, with no recreation or play facilities and with access even to television sets limited, with no cooking facilities, growing problems of malnutrition, health standards that would make any hon. Member blanch, schooling being denied to many children because of the problems faced by their families and often, because many families come from the ethnic minority communities, severe language problems and difficulty communicating with the relevant authorities. Those problems are the subject of the debate.

We must remember that it is not only demeaning and depressing for the families concerned to live in such accommodation, but that it is an atrocious waste of money for the Treasury and local authorities to house them in such places. Many local authorities in London spend millions of pounds a year to keep families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services about the cost to the public purse of keeping people in the Princes Lodge hostel, which is only one of many such hostels in London. I was told that at the end of March benefit was being paid by the taxpayer in respect of 203 claims at the hostel, of which 134 were claims from single people and couples and 69 were claims from families with children.

Vast sums of public money are being spent to keep people in insanitary, unsatisfactory and demeaning conditions, while the people who run these hostels and hotels are making substantial profits out of the public purse and the conditions in which they are keeping the families that are supposedly in their care.

We should recognise that we are facing not merely a continuing problem which has been with us for a long time, but a growing problem. Any London Member, particularly Labour Members for inner London constituencies, will know that the problems of homelessness and bad housing are growing at an alarming rate, particularly in inner London. The figures show that an increasing number of families are reporting to local authorities as homeless each year and are having to be accepted by those authorities as a statutory responsibility for rehousing. That does not include the numbers who have to find their own accommodation because they do not qualify as vulnerable or in housing need under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.

We should also realise that London has a far bigger problem than the rest of the country. A recent study showed that nearly 3,000 families are living in temporary accommodation in London at any one time and that 6·5 per thousand households in inner London, compared with 2·2 per thousand in England—nearly three times as many—are living in temporary accommodation. That does not include homeless single people and couples who do not qualify as vulnerable.

Major problems face some London boroughs. The most obvious example is the London borough of Brent, where 500 families have to be accommodated in bed-and-breakfast hotels, simply because the council has no where else to lodge them.

My borough of Islington, having struggled admirably for the past 18 months to keep homeless families out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation, is being forced occassionally—fortunately, it is only occasionally at the moment—to place them in such accommodation. The strains on its housing stock will be such that I doubt whether it will be able to hold out for much longer.

The problem is especially severe in London. It is much more severe here than in the rest of the country and it is especially severe, and growing, in inner London.

The impact on families from ethnic minority communities and, particularly, on women, especially single women with children, is extremely severe. They have to cope with dreadful conditions while trying to bring up families and preserve some sort of family life, which I thought the Prime Minister was concerned to preserve. These women have to try to preserve decency and dignity for their families in appalling conditions.

Two other problems will make the difficulties faced by such families even worse in the next few years. The first is the Government's proposed abolition of the Greater London council, which is the only body that looks sensibly at the problems of the single homeless throughout London —the difficulties faced by those with nowhere else to turn and who end up either under the arches at Charing Cross or in appalling conditions at Camberwell or the Rowton hotels.

The aid given by the GLC to some of the voluntary agencies which attempt to deal with these problems is the only source of support from the public purse for many of them. I do not believe that the borough councils will pick up the tab. Even if they want and try to do so, they will be rate-capped by the Secretary of State for the Environment and told that they are spending too much money. The problems for single homeless people in particular will get worse.

The other difficulty is the proposed closure of the Camberwell reception centre and the valiant attempts by a number of local authorities to deal with the problem posed by the Rowton hotels. The Government have not provided sufficient resources to allow proper and decent replacements for that accommodation. If they think that the housing associations' programme of small hostel replacements for Camberwell is going far or fast enough, they are deluding themselves. I shall not dwell on the problems of the Princes Lodge hostel, because I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar will be able to do so. However, not only are there appalling conditions at that hostel, but we have witnessed recently the spectacle of three families being evicted for daring to complain about conditions there.

I hope that the Government will consider the problems of that hostel which is so notorious that—thank goodness—no London borough is referring families to it. I hope, in particular, that the Government will look sympathetically at the proposal of the London borough of Tower Hamlets to put a closing order on the hostel and follow it up, if necessary, with a compulsory purchase order. It would be a major step if the Government would give us an assurance that they will look sympathetically and with concern at any such proposal.

What can we, and in particular the Government, do in the light of these dreadful circumstances? Part of the responsibility must lie with the local authorities. The way in which they operate planning constraints on places which seek to operate as hotels, and the way in which they implement environmental health regulations, is important and much can and should be done by the local authorities.

There are, however, two steps which the Government should take to try to alleviate the situation. First, they should consider ways by which those who are at present not covered by the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act can be helped. That Act does not go far enough. Consider, for example, the way in which people are denied statutory rehousing by local authorities, either because they do not qualify as vulnerable under the Act or because they are declared to be intentionally homeless; and the operation of intentionality by some local authorities is practically an outrage. The way in which those loopholes are used is a scandal, and that should be dealt with by the Government.

Secondly, and more important, for those who really suffer at the raw end of this deal—families with children who are referred by local authorities to bed-and-breakfast accommodation because there is nowhere else to house them—the Government should show some responsibility. On behalf of those people I make a major and desperate plea to the Government to make more resources available to local authorities to help them to provide the alternative accommodation that is needed.

It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say, as she said in answer to a question from me two weeks ago, that the problem would be solved if only local authorities would fill the empty flats available to them. That denies the reality of the situation, which is that many empty flats are not fillable because work on them is in progress or is about to start, because they are on estates which are being decanted of occupants so that work can take place or because they are in such an appalling condition that they are almost worse then the bed-and-breakfast conditions in which families are living.

Some local authorities, whatever their political control, are not good enough at filling their empty flats. It is not, however, the answer simply to say that the use of that accommodation could provide the solution. It could not, and one need only consider the situation in the borough of Brent to appreciate that. That borough has one of the best records in London in filling empty properties, yet its 500 homeless families must be referred to bed-and-breakfast accommodation.

We must also recognise the appalling difficulties faced by local authorities in trying to judge between the competing demands of their transfer lists, waiting lists, and the homeless families who report to them. No local authority in inner London has sufficient housing stock to meet those competing demands with ease of satisfaction.

Nor is it good enough to say—as I suspect the Minister will say in reply—that local authorities are at present underspending their capital allocations. Some are, but others, including my local authority, have a proud record in this respect. The way in which local authorities are able to plan forward, with proper programmes of construction and renovation, is crucial and cannot be dealt with by lurches from year to year such as we have experienced in the last three or four years.

My local authority has found that, in real terms, its housing investment programme allocation has been halved in the last four years. That halving of the amount of money available to create the necessary accommodation for all the demands that are placed on local authorities is the real reason why so many, and an increasing number of, families are having to end up in such appalling conditions—in Bayswater, Finsbury park, Princes Lodge and so on—and in seedy and horrible bed-and-breakfast circumstances.

I hope that the Government will not brush aside the pleas that are being made, with talk about the necessity to get value for money, about public spending cuts and about the resources that they have made available to local authorities. That will not wash. We appeal to the Government's remaining shreds of concern, compassion and conscience. Families with children, the future of Britain, are living in such insanitary and unsatisfactory conditions that the Government must recognise that deep social problems of this kind are an outrage and a scandal in the 1980s and cannot be brushed aside.

They require the taking of emergency action and concerted steps by local authorities and the Government, with immediate meetings to be arranged between the local authorities concerned and the Department of the Environment to map out a programme of action to tackle the problem.

More than that, they demand a recognition by the Government that families cannot and should not be subjected to conditions of this kind in this supposedly prosperous country. It is not just scandalous, but frightening, that this problem is not only with us, is not only being assiduously ignored by the Government, but is growing at an alarming rate. I hope that the Government will sit up, take notice and take desperately needed action.

In the few minutes available to me I shall fill in some details about Princes Lodge, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred, and which is undoubtedly and by far the worst of the many scandals connected with homelessness in London.

Princes Lodge is owned by a company called Namecourt Ltd. We all thought that the hideous scourge of Rachmanism was a thing of the past. Namecourt is proudly bearing the banner of Rachmanism in the 1980s.

In Princes Lodge there are nearly 350 people, including many children, living in conditions which would have been a disgrace in Dickensian times. They are a double disgrace in the latter years of the 20th century. They are living in conditions of overcrowding, squalor, hideous pollution, filth, cold, damp, deplorable lack of hygiene and, perhaps worst of all, of children at risk. As my hon. Friend said, it is so bad that the boroughs, desperate though they are, will no longer put homeless people into Princes Lodge.

An independent survey was carried out into the building last February by an expert environmental health group, and I will relate its four principal conclusions. The first was that in the building there were massive infringements of the standards laid down for houses in multiple occupation. The second was that there was gross statutory overcrowding. The third was that there was in the building a statutory nuisance contravening the Public Health Act. The fourth and most conclusive was that the building was unfit for human habitation.

For years Namecourt has made a bomb out of this building. It has made huge profits and at the same time has been promising the borough council's officers that it would carry out a programme of improvements. It has been stringing the officers along, and I do not believe for a moment that it ever intended, or that it now intends, to carry out any of the improvements. It is not a trustworthy company. It still has not filed with the registrar its accounts for 1982, despite the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry has given it a pretty sharp reminder.

When I was quoted as having made a comment about the company a week or two ago I received a letter from its solicitors saying that representatives of the company would like to meet me either in its solicitors' office—I am always rather suspicious of companies that never write to one but get their solicitors to write, even on matters not connected with the law—or in this place. I replied to the letter and said that I would like to meet them and that the best place to talk to them would be Princes Lodge. At that stage the invitation was hurriedly withdrawn. That tells us something about the company.

The company is entirely untrustworthy, but, unfortunately, it has succeeded in pulling a confidence trick on the officers of the borough council. I am sorry to have to say that the officers have not been bright enough to see through it. However, there is some movement now. Because of the threat of statutory action

"the devil a monk he'd be."

A meeting took place yesterday at which the Namecourt representatives were rather more forthcoming. They have adopted this approach because they want to hold the council off and persuade it not to go for a control order. If the company succeeds, it will revert immediately to its "do nothing" attitude.

I believe that a control order is essential and that it should be obtained now before some awful disaster takes place. I have nightmares about Princes Lodge. When I switch on my radio to listen to the 8 o'clock news I am always frightened that I shall hear that some poor woman in Princes Lodge, driven out of her mind by the foul conditions and the inability to get out of them, has committed suicide and orphaned her children, that 100 people have been rushed from Princes Lodge into the London hospital with dysentery or some other pollution-induced epidemic disease, or that there has been a fire, with massive casualties. Any of these things could happen, and I am not being alarmist. I do not want us to wait for them to happen before ensuring that a control order is obtained. I expect to see full support from the Minister's Department for the council if it moves in that direction, as I think it should.

A peculiar role is being played by the DHSS. Namecourt increased its charges a few weeks ago by about 60 per cent. I have calculated that that will involve the DHSS in additional annual expenditure of £350,000. The DHSS will send a snooper round to a woman who it thinks is cheating it of a few bob a week, but it has taken this extra subvention to this rotten company right on the chin without doing anything about it. There is not time for me to go into that in detail today, but I shall seek another opportunity of doing so. In the meantime, I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend. I trust that the Minister will have something positive and constructive to contribute to the debate.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) on introducing a highly important and topical debate. It has been of considerable media interest recently and the subject of a debate in another place. There is no complacency on the Government's part, and it is certainly not a subject which we have ignored, as the hon. Gentleman implied in his closing remarks. I shall outline some of the initiatives that we have taken recently to try to tackle the serious problems that remain.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the GLC and its proposed abolition. The £3 million which the GLC is currently spending on propaganda might be used more effectively to tackle some of the problems which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Anyone who is a Member of Parliament representing a London constituency will be under no illusion about the sheer misery that is associated with homelessness. Those of us who have regular advice bureaux in inner London constituencies are confronted with the problem regularly. It is not an easy decision for anyone to approach the council for help with no idea what the future holds in store for him. Any period that is spent in temporary accommodation is demoralising.

The hon. Gentleman outlined the problems that arise when there is not enough to do and not enough space for children to play. In some establishments the person who has been given temporary accommodation is encouraged to go out and to stay out for most of the day. In these circumstances, there is difficulty in planning ahead. However, I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want to imply that all bed-and-breakfast establishments are like the ones that he described. Many of them are decently run establishments, and I do not accept his implied criticism in all instances and his contention that there is no role for the private sector to play in meeting the needs of the homeless. The answer must be satisfactory permanent accommodation as soon as possible, and on that I think there is no disagreement between us.

The legislative framework which enables help to be given to the homeless is clear. Responsibility for meeting local housing needs and helping homeless people rests with the locally elected housing authorities. Under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 authorities have a duty to make appropriate inquiries when someone applies to them as homeless. If, as a result of those inquiries, the authority is satisfied that the person is homeless, has a priority need—here we are talking mainly of families with dependent children or people who are vulnerable through age or physical or mental disability—and is not homeless intentionally, the authority has a duty to ensure that accomodation is made available.

We reviewed the 1977 Act thoroughly less than two years ago. One issue was whether the categories of priority need laid down in the Act needed to be extended. The problems of the single homeless were recognised during the review, as were the housing difficulties of those at the top of the local authority housing waiting lists, whose needs must not be forgotten. Any widening of the priority categories under the 1977 Act would, in effect, have been at the expense of those at the head of the normal waiting lists. There are difficulties of equity in proceeding too far down that path.

We were also under pressure to make the Act more stringent, but we concluded that the present provisions represented a reasonable balance. We agreed to issue a revised code of guidance to local authorities about the exercise of their functions under the Act. The revised code was issued in July 1983, after extensive consultation.

The legislative position is clear: primary responsibility rests on local authorities. But that is not to say that central Government, having introduced the legislation, stand back and do nothing. Government action on homelessness and on housing generally is aimed at providing a framework, removing obstacles and increasing the range of options open so that authorities can use their resources most efficiently to meet the housing needs in their area. We have taken a wide range of initiatives to help, either directly, or by producing capital receipts, which can in turn be applied to improve or increase stock.

We have greatly stimulated improvement work in the private sector. The number of grants paid rose from 70,000 in 1981–82 to 130,000 in 1982–83. The total should approach 250,000 in 1983–84. Spending has increased from about £90 million in 1979 to about £800 million in 1983–84. We have introduced the priority estates project to improve the management of public sector estates. These measures should give a new lease of life to property which would otherwise, in time, become inhabitable.

We have stimulated the letting of empty property in the private sector by introducing shortholds and making it easier for residential landlords to regain possession. We have introduced the assured tenancy scheme to encourage the building of new homes for renting at market rents outside the provisions of the Rent Acts. The tenants charter which we introduced in the 1980 Housing Act helps council tenants to use spare accommodation more effectively by allowing them to take in lodgers without the need for prior approval and, subject to the local authority's consent, to sub-let part of their dwellings. We have much increased home ownership with the right to buy and shared ownership, which has enabled local authorities to generate receipts for reinvestment. Private sector starts in London increased from 3,084 in 1980 to 7,196 last year.

All these initiatives can benefit the homeless directly or indirectly by, for example, encouraging those local authority tenants and those on the waiting list who want to and can afford to do so to buy their homes, thus reducing pressures on the waiting list and generating receipts for more work to be undertaken.

If the Minister is so proud of all the Government's initiatives, will he answer two questions? Does he really expect that homeless people will benefit directly from shared ownership schemes by the ability to purchase property? If all these initiatives have benefited local authorities and made more accommodation available, why is there less than half the accommodation available in any particular week for letting by the borough in which my constituency falls than there was three years ago? That is the reality, whatever fine words are used, of what is available for letting to people when they are homeless or on the waiting or transfer lists.

The hon. Gentleman has added some more questions to those that he has already posed, through which I was quietly ploughing. If he had listened to what I had said he would have heard that I did not say that they had all directly helped the homeless. I specifically said that some had indirectly helped the homeless. A number of the measures that we have taken have increased the supply of rented and other accommodation in London. By increasing the overall supply the homeless indirectly benefit, because many people move out of local authority accommodation into, for example, some of the new private sector homes being built in London under the low-cost home ownership scheme. That action enables a local authority to make more rapid progress.

We have encouraged local authorities to dispose of land, on which they are sitting with no prospect of developing, to the private sector in return for the private sector nominating the first buyers from people on the waiting lists or existing council tenants. Such initiatives have enabled the local authorities to get relets at no cost to themselves. One must look at the overall picture of supply and demand for housing in London if one is to arrive at a solution which helps those who are right at the bottom of the pile—the homeless.

The housing investment programme allocations made to London authorities for 1984–85 amount to £545 million, which can, of course, be supplemented by the use of capital receipts. Those allocations are substantial sums of money. I hope that where authorities see the need for additional expenditure to meet the needs of the homeless—for example, in response to the cases made by the hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo)—they can give the work the necessary priority within the available resources.

It is worth pointing out, because the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned Brent, that the allocation for Brent for 1984–85 represents an increase of 6 per cent. over that for 1983–84. That was the second highest proportional increase among the London boroughs and shows that we can and do give special recognition to authorities facing particular problems.

The voluntary housing movement is vigorous in London, complementing the work of the statutory authorities. We make grants under section 13 of the 1977 Act to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness. In 1983–84 we made grants of £300,000, compared with £168,000 in 1979–80. In the main, grants are made to national bodies, but, in recognition of London's particular problems, two London organisations are grant-aided, and between them they account for more than half the overall grant total. The London boroughs give a number of grants, as does the GLC, to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred.

Worry has been expressed about how those bodies funded by the GLC will fare after abolition. The day before yesterday, the House was told by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the abolition Bill would provide a statutory basis for collective grant giving by London boroughs.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to bed-and-breakfast accommodation, which has attracted considerable publicity recently. Bed and breakfast is an expensive and unsatisfactory way of meeting the needs of homeless persons. The advice that we have given in the code of guidance is that that accommodation should be used only as a last resort. Some authorities manage to avoid using bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but it is for the authorities to decide when that is appropriate, in the light of local circumstances. Sometimes, there may be a need for short-term accommodation, with no suitable alternative available to making use of a bed-and-breakfast establishment.

The use of bed-and-breakfast accommodation has fluctuated remarkably. In 1982 less use was made of that accommodation in London than in 1979. The figures for the end of 1983 are not yet available, but the usage at the end of June suggests that 1983 will show some increase over 1982.

Recently, many allegations have been made of unsatisfactory standards in bed-and-breakfast establishments. That must be a matter for local authorities. They have adequate powers to prevent overcrowding and to ensure that proper facilities are provided.

The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar referred to the high cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I have seen the exchange of correspondence between the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security. It is up to the local authorities to negotiate the best terms. They are empowered to make reasonable charges to the families concerned, but, understandably, there is often a substantial gap. The basic message must be, "Do not use it unless you absolutely must."

The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar referred to the Princes Lodge hostel in Tower Hamlets. About 70 families are in residence, as well as a large number of single people and couples. I understand that conditions at the hostel are unsatisfactory and that discussions have been held between the London borough of Tower Hamlets and the owners about the works needed to bring the hostel up to an acceptable standard. Some works have already been carried out or are about to start. I am advised that yesterday there was a further meeting at which the company presented to the council its plans for further work.

As the hon. Gentleman may know, local authorities have wide powers available in respect of houses in multiple occupation. The London borough of Tower Hamlets can, if it considers it necessary, serve a control order under the provisions of the Housing Act 1964. It needs no consent from Ministers. This is an initiative which the council can take if it wishes.

In response to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, I point out that my Department has had no application from Tower Hamlets to do anything. If the Department receives an application it will, of course, consider the application promptly, but at this stage the initiative rests with Tower Hamlets. The council has powers at its disposal to take action if it wishes.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury mentioned void properties. It would be too simplistic a view to suggest that if local authorities brought all their empty dwellings into use the homelessness problem would be solved. Clearly, at any one date there will be a significant number of empty properties which have recently been vacated, where the new tenants have not yet arrived, and dwellings undergoing repairs, which have involved decanting. One cannot reduce the number of empty dwellings to nil, but I honestly believe that more vigorous efforts to reduce the numbers of empty dwellings could help to alleviate the homelessness problem as well as have other advantages, such as reducing vandalism and increasing rental income.

It is especially worrying to note the number of dwellings that have been empty for more than a year. On 1 April 1983, more than 10,000 local authority-owned dwellings in London had been standing empty and unused for more than 12 months. One borough alone reported 1,700 dwellings in that category. Those empty dwellings represent a substantial waste of assets and a neglected opportunity. I shall put that figure in perspective—10,000 empty dwellings unused for more than 12 months compared with the accepted number of homeless in London of 21,000 in 1982. I believe that there is scope for more activity in that direction.

The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury referred to the single homeless and touched on the problems arising from the closure of the Camberwell reception centre, the threatened closure of the three Rowton hostels in London and major operations to other hostels, such as Bruce House, which are current issues. He did not mention the Government's hostels initiative, which we launched in the House in September 1980. That initiative was to improve standards in existing hostels and to provide new hostel bed spaces.

Funding is being channelled through the Housing Corporation to housing associations, many of which work in co-operation with other voluntary bodies. For the first time we have made a specific allocation for that purpose. In 1981–82 the allocation was £12 million, in 1982–83 it had risen to £18 million, and last year it was £31 million. We shall shortly announce the allocation for 1984–85. That initiative puts a slightly different complexion on the allegations of complacency and inaction, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Under the present Government the Housing Corporation had, to the end of last month, approved accommodation for more than 9,600 bed spaces in shared housing, including hostels. That includes newly built and rehabilitated accommodation. The accommodation approved under the Camberwell reception centre replacement programme is included in that number. More than two thirds of those 9,600 bed spaces are for single homeless people. The number of hostel bed spaces approved in 1983–84 was considerably greater than the figure in 1978–79.

A great deal of useful work has been done by a variety of other agencies which are trying to tackle the problem of homelessness. We want a more pragmatic and less dogmatic response from some London boroughs. When public expenditure is inevitably constrained, it is only sensible to involve private sector expertise and finance as extensively as possible.

House purchase by those who can afford it releases accommodation and funds for those who cannot. When the supply of accommodation is constrained, it is only sensible to take measures to bring empty property back into use, even if it means sale to the private sector or reviewing allocation policies.

We shall continue to monitor the framework within which local authorities operate and give them discretion as to how best to provide for the housing needs of their residents. We are not complacent. We have done much to help and we hope to make further progress.

I do not often quote my own speeches, but I think that it is relevant to say that on 21 December 1979 I drew the attention of the House to the escalation in the number of drug addicts in our society. I said that the evidence was there for all to see. I recall saying:

"We do not need to go to New York or to Rome to see the squalor or the degradation caused by drug abuse; it is on view here in our capital city."—[Official Report, 21 December 1979; Vol. 976, c. 1067.]

Since then the problem has escalated further. It has spread outward from the big cities. It is rearing is head in quiet county towns in the shires, and it is raging in Wales and Scotland. It is no respecter of class or education. It is no more endemic in depressed areas than in relatively prosperous ones.

Last November, the Evening Echowhich circulates in my constituency reported

"children of 12 in South-East Essex are hooked on the killer drug heroin as addiction rages out of control."

A police spokesman in Southend-on-Sea was quoted as saying:

"Drugs, and heroin in particular, are a problem that is growing so fast it's quite uncontrollable … We are only scratching the surface with our inquiries and arrests."

At the beginning of this week The Sunday Times reported on its front page:

"Thousands of teenagers in south-east London have become regular users of heroin in an alarming youth craze that is sweeping council estates from the Elephant and Castle to Bermondsey and Rotherhithe. In the northern part of the borough of Southwark there are about 1,000 regular users."

The report went on to quote Dr. Judith Morgan, a consultant psychiatrist at Southwark's nearest drug dependency clinic who had said:

"It is not going too far to call this an epidemic."

The report alleged

"some of the new users are spending £200 a week on heroin. They obtain the money through theft and petty fraud—or by becoming dealers themselves. There are now 40 dealers operating within a half-mile radius of the Old Kent Road."

We know that the number of addicts notified to the Home Office has increased dramatically. In 1974, 807 new addicts were notified; that was equivalent to about 67 a month. Last year, 4,200 were notified; that is equivalent to 350 a month. The Home Office knew of 10,271 addicts last year, but the field workers tell me that that represents only about one tenth of the total.

Even if one relies solely upon the Home Office figures up to 1982, it is clear that there has been a frightening escalation during the past decade. In approximately a five-year period from 1978 there has been a 57 per cent. increase in London, 93 per cent. in the south-east, 148 per cent. in Wales, 437 per cent. in Scotland and 480 per cent. in the Midlands. We do not yet have last year's figures—I do not know whether my hon. Friend will be able to produce them—but all the evidence is that the figures are soaring.

Despite these warning signs, there appears to be little understanding, or even concern, in this place, or in the country as a whole, about the immediate or even the long-term effects of what can only be described as a grave illness and a terrifying social evil, encouraged by the ruthless criminals who import and distribute illicit drugs.

I do not disguise from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that my purpose in raising this matter is to shock Parliament and the public into an awareness of what is happening under their noses, and to obtain from the Government a clear statement of how they view the problem and that precisely they are doing about it.

Until the mid-1950s, the number of known addicts remained fairly stable—probably between 400 and 600. By last year the number was at least 10 times as many, and the figure of 50,000 used by people who are knowledgeable about what is happening does not include occasional and intermittent users.

The scene is also changing in other ways. Until two years ago most heroin addicts were in their 20s and 30s. Now much younger people—schoolchildren in fact—have started taking heroin. The reasons are complex, but one factor undoubtedly is a greatly increased supply which means that it is easier and cheaper to acquire. The heroin available is also much purer than it was in the past. Another factor is that the effect sought does not need to be obtained by injection as it can now be smoked and inhaled. Cocaine is also being taken more widely, and is being smoked rather than sniffed, a practice which carries great dangers to health.

Moreover, as this evil trade grows, it becomes more and more profitable and professional criminals become increasingly involved as the profits are substantially greater than those realised from major robberies. It is not too much to say that our society is being undermined and corrupted at the same time on a scale that few people seem to have grasped.

My first question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is whether he has any idea of the scale of the problem and the rate at which it is now accelerating. He will know, of course, that there is a wide discrepancy between the number of addicts notified to the Home Office and the total number of addicts. But how wide is it? The Times of 4 May 1983 reported that when a doctor took over the regional drug dependence unit in Manchester in February 1982 there were 50 problem drug users on the books. Within about a year there were 1,000. If that was the experience of one doctor in a major British city, it is likely to have been repeated elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend know the true figure?

Then again, why is the age level of addiction dropping? Over 10 years ago, a survey by the Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence found that 9 per cent. of pupils in the 14 to 18 age group had taken drugs other than nicotine and alcohol. In some areas the incidence was far higher. In a study of 16 to 17-year-olds in Glasgow, it was found that one in eight of the sample had taken LSD. What would similar surveys reveal today? Have the Government the slightest idea? If not, should it not be a priority to find out?

What we do know is that the volume of illicitly imported heroin and cocaine is growing in an alarming fashion. One gets some idea from the seizures by our understaffed customs service. In 1981 the total quantity of heroin seized by customs officers was 93 kilograms, in 1982 it was 176 kilograms, and in 1983 it was 200 kilograms. Those were substantial quantities, but they represented only the tip of the iceberg.

Has my hon. Friend any idea of the fatalities among young people hooked on hard drugs? Has he any measurement of the cost to the nation of the ill health that is caused by drug addiction? He would agree, I am sure, that the effect on the health of the addict is appalling. Unsterilised methods of injection can lead to blood poisoning, gangrene and the amputation of limbs. About 8 per cent. of addicts are either carriers or are incubating infective hepatitis, which in some patients may lead to chronic liver disease, which can be fatal. The effects during pregnancy on a young woman and the baby she is carrying can be damaging and prolonged.

Premature death and suicide are the wages of drug abuse. But there is also a price that society must pay. There are also diverse psychiatric and psychological disorders which result in the addict becoming mentally unstable, insecure, deceitful, violent—sometimes very violent—and, because of the compelling need for money to satisfy the hunger for drugs and to buy the next dose, criminal as well.

A heroin addict's daily requirement may cost him from £60 to £100, or between £400 and £700 a week. Inevitably that is driving many to petty and violent crime, and prostitution. The police forces in all our major cities know that to be the case. They are battling against an almost impossible problem. To that we must add the devastating effects of the addict's behaviour upon his own family. Often the parents simply do not know what is happening and when they begin to realise what is happening are reluctant to accept it. The effect is devastating. It can lead to the break-up of hitherto stable and loving relationships, to marital breakdown and worse. Perhaps now one can begin to grasp the immensity of suffering that this problem is causing all over the land.

Since it was known that I was attempting to raise the matter, I have had many heartbreaking letters from parents. In some cases their addicted sons and daughters are no longer alive; in others the way back to sanity and health has been long, hard, painful and immensely costly. But in all cases the feeling of hopelessness was made worse by the difficulty in finding help or support.

Alas, so often the complaint is that general practitioners—the first line of defence against ill health—have little knowledge of the problem. Organisations that can help are difficult to find. Professional advice is often diverse and leads to confusion. That is the message conveyed to me by many of my correspondents. A distinguished consultant has written to me saying that treatment is rarely available within the National Health Service, and in many parts of the country there are no treatment centres whatsoever. Even where treatment facilities are available there is almost always a long delay, sometimes up to two months, before even an initial assessment of the addict can be provided, and an even longer delay—three months or more—before definitive treatment facilities are made available.

Let me summarise the position as regards treatment. First, in general, society does not want to know about the problems of drug addiction. There are many people in the NHS itself who do not want to know about it. For them drug addicts are problem children; there are higher priorities and more pressing needs elsewhere.

Second, there is a paucity of information for addicts and their families as to where help can be found during a time of crisis. I shall not weary the House by mentioning the experiences that have been recounted to me, but the word "despair" appears over and over again in letters. People ask, "To whom can we turn?", "Where can we get advice?", and "Where can we get help?" We must bear in mind that the addict himself is often unaware that he needs help, so the problem is very serious for his family.

Third, there is a lack of expert, comprehensive and sustained treatment within the NHS for the various phases of the drug addiction illness.

Fourth, doctors tell me that their own profession lacks understanding and knowledge of what is clearly an illness, even if it is largely self-inflicted, and should be treated as an illness.

As the House knows, I was chairman of the National Council on Alcoholism for some eight years. During that time I had an uphill task convincing people that alcoholism was an illness. In the early stages people did not want to know—alcoholics were a nuisance, their behaviour unpleasant and embarrassing. But that has changed, I am glad to say, and today there is a much wider understanding of the illness of alcoholism and what needs to be done to treat it. God help us in this country, if we ever reach the stage already reached in France, where half the hospital beds are occupied by patients with alcohol-related illnesses. That is another subject and I shall not pursue it this morning. But just as there has been a need for education about alcoholism, and just as there has been an awakening to its awful social and economic cost to our society, there is now a need to face up to what is happening in regard to drug abuse.

Does my hon. Friend agree that everything that he has just said is clear evidence that calls which sometimes come from surprising quarters for the de-criminalisation of heroin abuse are, frankly, lunatic?

I have always taken that view. I thought that my hon. Friend was about to refer to calls for the de-criminalisation of the possession of cannabis. Unless society has a clear idea of where it is going in relation to all drugs, it will sink into a position from which it will be difficult to rescue the victims. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I do not believe that Parliament, which is a responsible body, would ever agree to anything along those lines.

I am aware of the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took last year following the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. I do not dissent from the view that there is a need for co-ordinated activity between regional health authorities and voluntary agencies at the grass roots. I am not asking for a national solution to the problem, which must be dealt with in the regions. However, my understanding is that we are still a long way from full implementation of the sensible recommendations made by the advisory council about 16 months ago.

The plain truth is that regional health authorities do not appear either to me or to many people in the medical profession to be taking the problem as seriously as they should. In many parts of the country there are no services available for people with drug problems. There are no specialist services in the NHS in Cornwall, Devon, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Kent, Essex, Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Cumbria, Yorkshire, Hereford, Worcestershire, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Durham, Bedfordshire, and in many other counties. I do not know about the position in Wales or Scotland. Even in London, where there are 15 specialist hospital services, some boroughs are outside the catchment areas of those services.

The advisory council made more than 40 recommendations, one of which was that each regional health authority should ensure that the extent of problem drug-taking in its region should be monitored to assess the extent of the services required and should develop a policy for meeting local needs. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the authorities to report to him by about September, but has he any idea of the extent to which such monitoring is being carried out? The months are slipping away and the problem is growing. More importantly, what new services are being introduced to meet regional needs?

I hope also that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will address his attention to two other pressing requirements. First, there is need for a major effort in drug abuse education in schools, and in university and medical schools. Second, there should be introduced specific training schemes in the treatment and management of drug addiction for the health professions.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) for not being present to hear the earlier part of his speech, which began earlier than was scheduled. Does he agree that, in relation to regional needs, there is some correlation between youth unemployment and drug addiction? In some parts of my constituency 94 per cent. of youngsters are unemployed. They have idle hours and no responsibilities and are ready and waiting for those dreadful people who abuse youngsters. Will he ask the Government to consider reversing the cuts in the customs and excise service so that more people can be employed to apprehend those criminals?

The hon. Gentleman was not here at the beginning of my speech and he intervened before I reached the part when I proposed to deal with his latter point. Had he been here at the beginning he would have heard me say that, although I concede that high unemployment might be a factor in causing frustration and difficulty among youngsters, the evidence shows that drug abuse does not necessarily reflect the economic circumstances of an area. It affects the highly educated as well as school drop-outs. It is present in areas of reasonable employment and prosperity and is only now beginning to appear in areas of high unemployment. However, we should not exclude the consideration that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. We should exclude nothing, because the problem is far too serious. However, there is no compelling argument for saying that drug abuse is a direct consequence of unemployment. We are witnessing the product of the greater availability of hard drugs combined with activity by criminal elements, conspiracy against society.

Another but equally important aspect of this terrifying problem is prevention. This, of course, is not the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend's Department, but he will expect me to say something about it—the illicit importation and distribution of addictive drugs must be stopped. In the first instance this is a matter for international co-operation. Secondly, there is a need for the utmost vigilance on the part of customs officers at the points of entry and the police on the streets. Thirdly, we must make an example of the criminal elements who import and push the sale of drugs. Those who are engaged in the destruction of the health and often the lives of young people should, if I had my way, be rooted out and put away for the rest of their lives.

It was reassuring to have the view of the Lord Chief Justice last year that long sentences should be imposed for drug trafficking, and the assurance of the Home Secretary that he will introduce legislation during this Parliament: to provide for confiscation of the proceeds of crime. My right hon. Friend told us last December:

"In some cases traffickers prefer to serve a prison sentence in the knowledge that they can enjoy the fruits of their crime on release. Allowing this to continue would be a mockery of the penalties available."

However, we should be under no illusion. There can be no effective crackdown on the drug traffickers unless the law enforcement agencies have the resources to carry out their task. As matters stand, my hon. Friend's Department and the National Health Service must pick up the pieces and meet the costs of cure and rehabilitation. I beg my hon. Friend to urge the Treasury and the Home Office to reinforce the promises with adequate manpower.

Incredibly, until now the trend has been the other way. During the past five years the customs have lost at least 1,000 officers. That is false economy and it is grossly irresponsible to reduce our front-line defences in this way when the problem of drug abuse is growing. Nor is that all. The Metropolitan police drug squad is seriously undermanned. I shall not give the figures, although I know what they are, but I should be surprised if the commissioner were not concerned. Since the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolis, he too should be concerned.

I am strongly in favour of economy in Government expenditure, but not in an area where the savings in manpower are outweighed one thousandfold, if not ten thousandfold, by the social damage and economic cost daily being inflicted by drug abuse on our society. Action must be taken soon, and must be seen to be taken. Meanwhile, the Government can expect constant questioning until it is clear that the dreadful scourge of drug abuse has been brought under control. I look forward eagerly to my hon. Friend's reply.

I very much welcome this debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine). It reflects his deep and abiding interest in issues of social concern that cut across party lines and political boundaries. A month or so ago I answered a debate introduced by my hon. Friend on the ethics and moral issues surrounding kidney and other organ transplants. That in its turn has prompted a considerable and most useful public debate on the issue.

I hope that this debate will serve to ram home to the people of this country how serious the drug addiction problem is, how rapidly it is growing and the desperate need for all of us—the Home Office, the Department of Health and Social Security and, most important of all, families and society generally—to become gripped of this subject.

My hon. Friend asked me a considerable number of direct questions, which I shall do my best to answer in the time available. If there are any question which I cannot answer before the time at which the debate is due to end, I shall write to my hon. Friend with all the information as soon as possible.

The first point that my hon. Friend raised was on the difficult question of the scale of the problem, and the number of addicts, particularly heroin addicts, in the country. I must be honest. I do not know the exact number, nor do the Government. The reasons must be obvious. It is very difficult to get people to come forward and admit that they are addicts, particularly those who are trading in what is an illegal activity. The only firm figures are the notifications to the Home Office by medical practitioners under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. My hon. Friend is right in saying that these show 4,200 new notifications in 1983 which was a terrifying increase of over 50 per cent. on the previous year—and a total overall of 5,100 addicts recorded as receiving notifiable drugs on 31 December 1983.

My hon. Friend is right also in saying that that is a considerable under-estimate of the nature of the problem. Field work experience in London and provincial cities such as Newcastle shows that that is probably an underestimate by a factor of four or five. In 1982, for example, there were 21,600 seizures—twice as many as in 1974. That is a measure of the scale of the problem, although it is only an indirect measure.

What concerns my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State and myself, and the Home Secretary, is not just the growth of the problem or the way in which it is percolating out from the metropolitan centres into smaller towns, and, indeed, into rural areas—there is evidence from East Anglia, Essex and elsewhere of the problem growing in rural areas—but the fact that the problem is hitting increasingly hard lower and lower down the age scale. More and more children, it is reported, are being misused by drug traffickers in this way.

My hon. Friend asked why this should happen. I do not know why it happens. However, it is part of an overall trend of young people misusing a whole range of things. Wherever one looks, one sees that this is a growing problem, whether it is under-age smoking, about which there is great concern, or the misuse of solvents—glue sniffing as it is commonly called. It is all part and parcel of a trend. Sometimes, and tragically, there may be a chain, from smoking, to solvent abuse, to the addiction to soft and then to hard drugs amongst young people. The pushers of these drugs to young people are the scum of contemporary society.

I agree with my hon. Friend's carefully worded views about the overall social picture of hard drug misuse. Some unemployed people are involved, of course, but it cuts across all sorts and types of society. Indeed, in London I have heard one person describe cocaine use as the "Sloane Ranger's" disease. This is not restricted to the poor and under-privileged, and when one considers the sums of money that it costs to purchase heroin on the street that is not surprising. It is alarming to reflect on the fact that the price is coming down yearly, and that the sources of supply seem to be increasing around the world, even though we are doing all that we can, in co-operation with the United Nations and with foreign police forces, to limit the dissemination of drugs in this country.

That is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is visiting North America this week. Because he takes a deep personal interest in the topic, he is looking at drug prevention in America in particular, where the problem is much worse than it is here, and heaven forbid that we ever have the problem that exists in America. We must do all that we can to cut it off now.

I deal next with the important topic of prevention, an issue primarily for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. That is why I welcome the action that my right hon. and learned Friend is taking to try to stem the flow of drugs from abroad. It is important to recognise in this context that we are increasing the amount of aid that we make available to the United Nations for drug abuse control, in producer countries in particular. I think that the posting of law enforcement officers from this country to Pakistan and the Netherlands in particular is a welcome additional step.

My hon. Friend dealt next with the important and contentious issue of the number of customs and excise officers that are available for control purposes. That is not a matter for me, or, indeed, for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, but rather for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. None the less, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that the number of customs officers specialising in, and concentrating on, the prevention of heroin trafficking has been doubled since 1979.

Thirdly, the Association of Chief Police Officers has promised continued high priority for measures directed against drug traffickers, while my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has also taken steps to control other drugs that may be abused. I cite to my hon. Friend the fact that from 1 April this year Diconal has been added to the list of drugs for which doctors require a special licence to prescribe to addicts.

rose—

No, I shall not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have only a few minutes in which to reply to the long, complex and important remarks made by my hon. Friend.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's support for the view of the Lord Chief Justice that long sentences should normally be imposed for large-scale importation of drugs. This view has been endorsed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and, indeed, he intends to restrict the granting of parole to such offenders. Offenders who calculate that they may make a number of substantial gains, thereafter serve a relatively short prison sentence and possibly get out on parole rather early, will have to re-examine that equation, following the views of the Lord Chief Justice and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. Among other measures that he is taking, the Home Secretary has announced that legislation is to be introduced to provide for the confiscation of the proceeds of crime.

There is also the important work, moving more towards the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Social Security, of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This council has a duty to keep under review social problems arising from drug misuse, and, in a concerted view, to advise Ministers on the ways of dealing with them. It has recently submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary a report on prevention. This will be published shortly, and will be considered carefully by all the Departments involved.

Although the control aspects of prevention which are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary are a major element in the prevention strategy, action on this front by my Department and other agencies for which my Department has responsibility is also important. I cite as an example the work of the Health Education Council in this context.

The professions have a responsibility as well for the fact that their members have the training that they need. There I take to heart my right hon. Friend's remarks about the perceptions and views of the medical profession and the paramedical professions about drug abuse. Training and education among the professions is perhaps as important as training and information among the general public about the risks and dangers of drug abuse. We shall be giving careful consideration to the implications of the prevention report.

I come finally to what in some ways is the core of what my hon. Friend said. I have in mind his remarks about the need for greater and more adequate treatment. I have some good news for him about the growth of facilities for treatment, albeit that it has happened only recently. But it is happening, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured.

The report about the facilities for treatment which the advisory council submitted in 1982 was very important in this context. The council challenged the traditional tendency to treat specific forms of addiction. Instead, it said that we should try to adopt a broad approach aimed at responding to the range of problems encountered by drug misusers. This is very important. The report listed 80 hospitals in England known to be providing some facilities for the treatment of drug addiction as well as 16 residential rehabilitation establishments for drug misusers and 24 non-residential establishments. But the report highlighted deficiencies in the service.

It is my thesis that the Government have responded in a substantial way to those views of the council. For example, in December 1982 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services announced as an initial response to the report the provision of funds, to be provided centrally, for local organisations to deal with the problem. I put it to my hon. Friend that although we in the House must at all costs take a national view of provision, the nature of drug abuse, the drugs used and the people involved vary so much regionally and locally that the best ways of dealing with them are deeply seated in the local community and trying to draw on the resources of the local community.

I agree.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's assent. Rather than some grand and nationally directed strategy, we have gone for what my civil servants are fond of describing as "the bottom up" approach by going out to the local communities and asking them to put in suggestions for projects. We are making available £6 million over three years, and already about £5 million of that has been allocated to about 80 projects. Examples include the provision of new clinics in Cambridge and Wolverhampton, the strengthening of the North Western regional service and the introduction of new clinics in Newcastle and Kingston upon Thames.

Using the resources of the voluntary sector is also very important. We are helping new advisory and counselling services in Bradford and in Surrey. There is a new residential rehabilitation unit to be helped in Sheffield. There is a telephone advice centre in Birmingham. We are helping a self-help group in Harrow to provide counselling for drug abusers who wish to come off the habit. There it is tranqueliser misusers, because another part of the problem is those who rely on valium, libroxin and other substances, where the help that those tranquilisers gave turns with misuse into abuse. The response to my right hon. Friend's initiative has been most encouraging, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point will agree that the range of new services that we are providing should go some way towards filling the gaps in services referred to by the advisory council.

My hon. Friend put his finger on the need. We want to make sure that the 14 regional health authorities and, through them, the 192 district health authorities, play their part in this process. We have asked them to report back rapidly about what they propose to do in their own areas to draw together all the resources there are in local community groups to help in this most critical and growing problem.

I can only say that I welcome my hon. Friend's initiation of this debate. I hope that I have gone some way towards reassuring him that in terms of both prevention and treatment the Government are very well aware of this growing problem and that society itself will have to play a fundamental role in contributing toward its solution.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject on the Adjournment. I am particularly grateful to the Minister. I know that he had some important meetings arranged for this morning, but I do him the credit of suggesting that he is aware of the importance of the subject and that with local government elections coming up in May it is right that the House should spend a little time looking at the problems of public sector housing in Scotland.

Having said that there are district elections in the offing, I do not propose a particularly party political speech. Public sector housing problems are so important that they should transcend some of the worst excesses of the party political banter that the House sometimes witnesses.

With that in mind, I turn to the first topic to which I wish to address the minds of right hon. and hon. Members. It is the need for a housing condition survey north of the border. The Minister cannot doubt that the professional bodies in Scotland—housing officials, the Scottish Housing Institute, Shelter and others—are deeply interested and concerned about the Government's reluctance to carry out a housing condition survey. The Under-Secretary will be aware that every other part of the United Kingdom has had the benefit of such a survey involving as it does a detailed inspection of between 10 and 15 per cent. of the housing stock—private as well as public—which is followed up by a four-page report on every house surveyed, prepared by a surveyor.

The Scottish Office refuses to acknowledge the need for such a survey. In the recent past it has changed the system of the district councils' requirements in terms of reporting the condition of their stock by reducing the need for annual housing plans to be submitted. The requirement now is that only a four-yearly cycle is required, with the exception of Glasgow district council. The Scottish Office conducts a summary check list of questions which it compiles and sends out. It receives information in that form from each local authority. But the information is not published. The Department's officials sit in Edinburgh saying, "We have the information that we need, and we are satisfied that no further information is required." With as much restraint as I can muster I tell the Minister that that is causing a great deal of concern north of the border. It is felt that the need for a housing condition survey is great and is getting greater all the time.

The Minister will be aware that in 1981 a housing survey was carried out in England. It had a major impact on the appraisal of housing stock south of the border. It served to reinforce what at that stage was still piecemeal evidence that was beginning to appear, especially in relation to fast-build, high-density, non-traditional types of council building in England—the Bison and the Orlit type of construction. It showed clearly that the extent of the problems in these areas was greater than had been anticipated previously. It showed that post-war council building by new non-traditional methods with materials that were supposed to give a 60-year lifespan was suspect. Once the results of that survey were known, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other organisations could plan to meet the needs that had been identified.

There is concern in Scotland that we may be sitting on a problem of far greater dimensions than is widely appreciated. The recent Select Committee report on dampness and condensation provides evidence for that. As one would expect, the Select Committee conducted a thorough investigation with a wide-ranging programme of visits, but recognised that its work was constrained by the lack of hard data about the condition of the stock across the national spectrum. Even with the limited information at its disposal, however, the Select Committee estimated the repair bill for eradication of dampness and condensation at about £500 million. To judge from the problems in my area—no doubt the Minister has found the same in his own constituency work—that is probably an under-estimate. It is a serious problem and that is a serious sum, but the problem and the cost will inevitably increase the longer the Government allow the problem to spread, causing untold misery and stress for the families involved. The Government must produce proposals and funds to tackle the problem once and for all. I know that it is early days yet, but I look forward to the Government's response to the Select Committee report.

Dampness is just one example of the problems that a housing conditions survey would quantify and clarify so that a far better informed debate could then take place. I note that the housing associations south of the border have decided to set up a special committee on their own—I believe that it is to be chaired by Prince Philip—to produce a United Kingdom-wide analysis of the needs confronting such associations.

On Wednesday the Minister replied to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about the need for a housing condition survey:

"The resources to provide the same level of information could be better spent in other ways to provide more direct information of the type that we need to make our assessments."—[Official Report, 11 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 371.]

That is a pretty vague statement. Perhaps the Minister will take time today to try to persuade me that it is correct. I believe that there is a real need for a housing condition survey north of the border and that it is a reasonable request. I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory, but if the survey does not take place the suspicion will be that the Government are not prepared to undertake it because they are afraid of what it will show. That would be regrettable.

The recently announced plans for general expenditure on housing show that in 1979–80 the Scottish Office devoted £1,720 million to housing costs north of the border. The Government's published plans for the future, however, show a predicted allocation for 1986–87 of only £620 million. Assuming about 5 per cent. inflation, that is a 51·2 per cent. decrease in funds devoted to general housing expenditure compared with an aggregate decline of about 10 per cent. for expenditure in all categories. I am not daft, and I know that the Government seek to constrain expenditure and I recognise the economic constraints on the public purse. Nevertheless, if those figures are correct that is a very severe reduction in general housing allocation.

I accept that there have been some increases in Scottish Office programmes, especially on law and order but also in health and social security, but there have been also considerable reductions—for example, a reduction of 12·4 per cent. on roads and 14 per cent. on education. We find those cuts politically unacceptable, but, even leaving party politics aside, the amount shaved off the housing budget in the period 1979–86 is astonishing. Based on 1984–85 prices, capital allocations for Scotland as a whole have fallen from £364·7 million in 1979–80 to £227·5 million in 1984–85, and it is especially worrying to note that the provisional allocations announced in December were decreased by a further £14·5 million when the final figures were announced in March this year.

I appreciate that there are political problems and differences between the Government's perceptions and those of some rogue authorities. Nevertheless, many smaller and less politically troublesome authorities are being clobbered as they are caught in the crossfire between the Government and some, mainly Labour-controlled, rogue authorities. Inverclyde, for example, despite a rent increase of 75p, or 9 per cent., which is almost double the rate of inflation, will be penalised by the loss of £1·5 million, or 33 per cent. of its capital allocation. That is a very hard blow. In Orkney, too, which is not a troublesome council by any definition, a 7·7 per cent. increase in rents still resulted in a 16 per cent. cut of £120,000 in provisional capital allocation. It is difficult for local authorities to live with such serious reductions.

The dilemma faced by most councils as a result of the expenditure cuts is whether they can afford any major renovation schemes at all. The post-war traditional stock is more or less catered for, but that leaves the major problems of the non-traditional stock built in the 1960s and the 1970s. Councils are lumbered with continuing loan charges. Sales receipts are now tailing off and councils are severely limited in the action that they can take to prevent their housing stock from real and in many cases abject deterioration.

We are also greatly concerned about waiting lists. Shelter estimates that 155,000 households in Scotland are waiting for accommodation, and that is probably an underestimate. Another matter of concern is overcrowding. According to Shelter, about 14 per cent. of Scottish households suffer severe overcrowding, compared with 3·4 per cent. in England and 2·8 per cent. in Wales. In other words, 25 per cent. of the population—one and a quarter million souls—suffer cramped conditions in houses with more people than there are rooms to accommodate them. That, too, is a serious problem.

I support the Government's housing sales policy, but it is beginning to impinge on the availability of council housing stock. That, too, will present serious problems in future. In 1979, local authority council house starts were running at 6,070 per annum. By 1983, the total had fallen to an estimated 2,050. That is quite a serious decline. The Scottish housing statistics show that public sector housing, including that of local authorities, the Scottish Special Housing Association and new towns, has fallen from 1,080,000 in 1981 to 1,049,000 in 1983. The number of houses held by local authorities has fallen from 894,549 in 1981 to 875,268 in 1983. Therefore, the number of council houses available for let has fallen.

A recent parliamentary answer gave the percentage of council houses that have been sold from January 1973 to September 1983. In September 1978, the date on which the figures were based, 3·7 per cent. of the local authority housing stock had been sold, 8·8 per cent. of the SSHA stock had been sold and 21 per cent. of new town stock had been sold. The combination of those figures suggests that the flexibility available to local authorities is diminishing rapidly. The Government should take that into account when formulating housing plans.

I accept that housing need not necessarily be provided by the public sector. There is scope for public building, for development through housing associations and joint ventures. We need a flexible policy that is built around the right to buy, but we also need to safeguard the public sector to prevent it from becoming the poor relation and developing into ghettos in which no self-respecting tenant is prepared to live. We should also consider the problems of first-time householders. Young married couples now find that, because the public sector housing stock is diminishing, it is difficult to find anywhere to live. Why should we not consider a grant or loan to get them on to the first rung of the housing ladder? That is worth considering.

I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to the complex problems of specialist housing. If we are selling off the local authority stock, and if the level of starts is decreasing, the problems of the single homeless, single parent families, the disabled and the elderly will become even more acute. The straightforward sale of houses is no policy at all for such categories of need. The Government have presided over a serious cut in capital allocation and revenue support through cuts in the housing support grant. There is a danger that Scotland will go into a housing crisis. There is a major need for immediate investment in and repair of post-war estates. There is also an urgent need to assist with the problems of the system-built housing of the 1960s which was encouraged by Governments of both major parties. I do not attribute blame solely to the Conservatives. Such housing is now subject to damp and structural problems. None of those problems can be tackled seriously by local authorities with the level of finance which is now available to them. The Government should be increasing capital investment. If the money from council house sales could be used as additional investment, some of those problems could be tackled.

Although many of the problems require substantial sums of money, there are others which require little money. For example, the Government could encourage local authorities to improve the quality of service that they give to tenants through better staffing levels in housing and direct works departments and the better training of housing management staff. We look forward to the imminent publication of the right-to-repair regulations. We should also encourage tenant co-operatives. Seminal work has been done in Liverpool where groups of tenants have instructed architects on the improvements that they require and have become housing co-operatives. That does not involve a great deal of expenditure and yet would help significantly.

We should consider carefully some of the build-for-sale schemes that have been pioneered by local authorities such as Inverclyde, which, incidentally, was Liberal-controlled at the time. That would ensure that councils meet land but not necessarily building costs and the 40-year duties that that involves. I know that the Minister has taken an interest in sheltered housing. There are some interesting developments in my area. Princess Anne opened an excellent sheltered housing scheme in Kelso only about 10 days ago. There are guidelines as to the quantity of sheltered housing that local authorities should provide, but almost every local authority fails significantly to reach that level. The Liberals would accord priority to giving additional resources to sheltered housing schemes, especially those with wardens.

Real problems lie ahead of us and I look forward to our debates between now and the local authority elections. There is a real and urgent need for increased expenditure to enable local authorities to attend properly to the defects that they perceive in their housing stock. If we do not put the problems right now, they will cost more in the future. I urge the Government as strenuously as I can to spend money now to remedy some of the problems before they get significantly worse.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on raising this important topic and giving the House the opportunity to discuss public sector housing in Scotland before we return to Scotland for our Easter recess. It is appropriate that the hon. Gentleman should raise the issue now because, as he said, housing is perhaps the issue that is most often raised by constituents.

In the past few months the House has given a good deal of attention to public sector housing. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our debates on the Tenant's Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill before Christmas during which many of the subjects that he has dealt with today were covered at some length. More recently, during our consideration of clause 6 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill several of the issues that he has raised, especially the balance between capital and revenue in housing accounts, were dealt with fairly fully.

Although the hon. Gentleman rightly said that this is not a party political issue—I pay tribute to him for that—there is a tendency among Opposition Members to suggest that public sector housing in Scotland is undergoing a crisis. It is important to see the issue in perspective. Some people suggest that the Government are doing nothing to cope with the crisis. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for not falling into that easy political trap. Some of our critics have gone so far as to suggest that we have no housing policy at all, although they argue in the same breath that our policy of encouraging a larger private sector in housing demonstrates our lack of concern for the public sector. I find it difficult to see how they can suggest that we have no policy when they argue that our policy is one with which they do not agree.

I should be the last to deny that there are serious housing problems in Scotland. The Government take those problems seriously. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recently highlighted one problem—condensation and dampness. The Government hope to publish their response to the Committee's report shortly. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the housing condition survey for Scotland. Although I shall make a few comments about it, because it was dealt with in the Select Committee's report, we shall deal with it in our response to the report. Obviously it would not be right for me to pre-empt the response this morning before we had had time to receive the report and consider our response.

It is worth reminding ourselves that the Committee did not regard the case for a housing condition survey to be conclusively proven. I had doubts about its effectiveness. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the House at Question Time on Wednesday, which he quoted. A national survey would need substantial resources if it were to meet all the possible requirements for information. A sample of the same size in Scottish terms as that of the survey done in England would not provide the level and detail of information that would be of any use. If we were to have a national survey designed to provide the right level of information, it would take up substantial resources that could be better used in directing research at specific areas of the housing stock where problems have been identified.

Is the Minister saying that we would. require a bigger percentage sample in Scotland to provide the same level of information as in England? Is he saying that if we were to use the 1981 English formula in Scotland it would be inadequate?

It is partly the size of the sample, because if one takes a percentage sample of a smaller area the information is less applicable. There are different problems in different areas—the hon. Member himself is seeking information on that point from the survey. From the point of view of local authorities and the Government, it is the particular needs in particular areas that are of most interest when local authorities decide their priorities and the Government look at the requirements for the allocations that have to be made.

The Government have been carrying out ad hoc surveys in particular areas. There have been a number of them over the years and there is now one under way into private sector inter-war stock in 1,000 houses in four cities which is concerned with all aspects of housing conditions linked to the social survey. The idea is that, if there is a particular problem in a particular area, information on that problem is the most useful, and not generalised information of the sort that the hon. Member admitted came from the English housing condition survey.

Information on matters such as material and design is useful, but that information is available, and where further information is needed, as has been the case with the Orlit houses, it may be obtained from the Building Research Establishment. The hon. Gentleman must realise that there is not necessarily any great virtue in having a survey for its own sake. The Government are concerned to ensure that the information that is required is made available. We shall be answering in more detail his specific questions when we consider our response to the report of the Select Committee.

Over the next few months, we shall hear much more about the problems of defective system built houses. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we shall be debating the Housing Defects Bill, which has recently been published, and this will cover particular types of defects. I hope to show that the Government are taking positive steps to assist housing authorities to deal with the problems that they face. That is the proper role of the Government in housing.

I deal now with our overall policy. We have never concealed the fact that we wish to see a larger private housing sector in Scotland. Over 53 per cent. of Scottish houses are in public ownership—one of the highest proportions in Western Europe and higher than some of the countries behind the iron curtain. We believe that the present balance of tenure reflects neither the needs of the economy nor the aspirations of the people. That is why our right-to-buy policy, which has already led to the sale of over 45,500 houses, is so important. It is also why the Government are taking steps, through the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill, to extend both discount and the right to buy.

Our policy has been criticised, and I understood that there was veiled criticism in the hon. Gentleman's remarks, on the basis that it will reduce the stock of houses available for rent as though the sale of public sector houses reduced the total stock of houses rather than shifting the balance of tenure. The policy reduces the stock of public sector rented houses, but it does not reduce the total housing stock. It is important to realise that the transfer from public tenure to private ownership of itself has no effect on waiting lists, and nobody has yet succeeded in producing any evidence that those who buy their council houses would otherwise have bought on the private market and left those houses available for renting. It is important that the hon. Gentleman and the House should appreciate that the Government are not seeking a reduction in the number of houses by this policy, but a transfer from public tenancy to private owner-occupation. This policy also frees resources that would otherwise remain tied up in bricks and mortar. It enables authorities to spend more on the urgent and important tasks that face them, such as those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman this morning. For instance, we estimate that during the current financial year the receipts from the sale of council houses will amount to some £111 million, releasing money that will be available for the modernisation and upgrading of stock remaining in the public sector.

The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that it would be possible for funds and resources so released to be used in addition to the allocations. That is the position already. Although these estimates are made and agreed by my Department and the district authorities, if they are exceeded by any authority that decides to promote a vigorous sales policy the resources released over and above the estimate are equally available for use.

For that reason, in some cases authorities that deliberately put a damper on the policy of sale are doing themselves out of resources that they could usefully use. Although this is not on the subject of the sale of council houses, I was surprised to read the reports in today's press that the Glasgow city Labour party, which is in control of the Glasgow city council, had decided to stop releasing land for private housing development within the city. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen that report.

That district council and all other district councils have a responsibility to consider the totality of housing need and provision in their area and not simply the public sector. The balance between the two is an essential part in any housing policy. The decision that I understand has been taken by the Glasgow city Labour party is all the more regrettable given the significant benefits that have accrued to Glasgow in recent years from its policy of encouraging private house building on what have come to be known as brown field sites, which has led to a steady increase in private completions to a figure of 1,502 in 1983. The decision is all the more regrettable in a city with 63 per cent. of its stock in the public sector.

I agree with the Minister and regret the decision reported in today's press. Is he aware that some authorities, such as the Glasgow district council, are deliberately reducing the receipts that can be made available to them by disposing of land in stock, and are waiting until their stock is in such a state of disrepair that the Government have to decide that they have to do something about, for example, Glasgow? That will mean that district councils that have been doing things properly, realising sums of money and attending to their stock will be penalised again. If the state of the stock in places such as Dundee and Glasgow is so bad that the Government are obliged to do something about it, it will be at the expense of the proper management authorities.

In fairness to Glasgow district council. I should say that it has made substantial progress in making provision for private sector house building in the city. I used to work in the city and I know that the changes wrought there in the past 10 years show the value of private sector building.

I hope that the Glasgow city Labour party will think again before finalising its manifesto. Otherwise, I think that it will be clear to the electorate of Glasgow that the decision owes more to political ideology than to good housing policy.

I understand that the decision has been presented as a retaliation for lack of cash for council house building in Glasgow, but I remind the House that, despite the reduction of £5·5 million—which could have been used for dealing with the problems that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned—which Glasgow brought on itself by exceeding its rate fund limit, the council will still receive £46·7 million on its housing revenue account block, which is one fifth of the Scottish total, and £80 million for its non-HRA block, which is half of the allocation for Scotland. Those are substantial sums by any reckoning and I hope that the decision of the city Labour party is put into that context.

We are very concerned about the quality of housing and the quality of life for those who remain renting in the public sector. That forms the second leg of our policy. Our tenants' rights legislation—I emphasise that it was passed by a Conservative Government—has given tenants a range of new rights, including security of tenure, the right to a written lease and, under the Bill in another place, the right to repair. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his interest in those matters. Of course, one cannot have quality without paying for it and the Government believe that that must mean the concentration of resources of capital expenditure rather than the subsidisation of current expenditure.

The reductions made in the housing support grant and the steps that we are taking to control rate fund contributions to the housing revenue account result from that assessment of priorities. Labour Members often present those policies as a sustained attack on council house tenants and they suggest that the fall in housing support grants, which has been reduced from about £228 million, divided among all 56 housing authorities, in 1980–81 to about £52 million, divided among 26 authorities, in the current financial year, illustrates our lack of concern for public sector housing. Nothing could be further from the truth.

A large part of the reduction in housing support grants is attributable to the fall in interest rates since 1979. Recently the fall has been considerable. But the reduction also reflects our judgment that tenants should make an appropriate contribution to the costs of their houses and that the taxpayer should no subsidise authorities that, on reasonable assumptions—I stress those words—can be expected to balance their own books.

The average rent of a council house in Scotland in 1983–84 was £9·87 a week, which is less than 7 per cent. of the average weekly earnings of a male manual worker in full-time employment. That compares with an average rent of about £14 a week in England, where the average weekly earnings are similar. The hon. Gentleman can draw his own conclusions from those figures.

Information from local authorities shows that average rents in the current financial year will increase to £10·45 a week. That does not seem to be an excessive amount from people to pay for their housing. I admit that rents will be higher in some areas, but equally, as the £10·45 is an average, they will be lower in other areas. About 50 per cent. of tenants receive support towards their rent and half of those have their rents paid in their entirety. Housing benefits mitigate the effect of rent increases on those who have difficulties paying them.

The expectation that the ratepayer and taxpayer should make excessive contributions to subsidise the housing costs of those who do not need subsidising has for too long pre-empted resources which would have been better spent on improving and modernising our housing stock. It is particularly disappointing that this year 26 authorities have exceeded the very fair rate fund limits which we set them, resulting in a reduction in the sums available for capital expenditure on the local authority housing stock throughout Scotland of over £20 million. To put it another way, almost 9 per cent. more capital expenditure could have been directed towards treating the pressing problems of the Scottish housing stock if authorities had not decided to budget for excessive rate fund contributions. That is why the powers that we are taking to regulate contributions from the rate fund to the housing revenue account under clause 6 of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill are of such vital importance.

Despite those regrettable reductions in capital expenditure—which arise entirely from decisions taken by local authorities—we have made substantial resources available for capital expenditure on the Housing stock in Scotland. For local authorities we have allocated £227·5 million and authorities that can generate additional receipts through increasing the level of their sales of council houses will be able to use those receipts to increase their capital expenditure.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the news published yesterday that the Labour-controlled Aberdeen district council has had so many applications for the purchase of council houses in the past few months that it will have to take on another solicitor to carry out the conveyancing.

I am pleased to hear that, because I have always believed that there is a demand among council tenants to purchase their houses. Sales not only help tenants, but assist councils by making extra resources available to them.

Some authorities have pressed the Government for additional resources to help them deal with, for example, problems of defective houses, condensation and dampness. The resources that have been allocated will permit substantial progress in dealing with such problems. I have taken careful note of the requests that authorities have made for additional resources, and if further resources become available I shall, of course, consider those requests carefully.

I am also aware that authorities have criticised the allocations as providing insufficient resources for new starts. However, the main problem facing us is not the need for large numbers of new houses—many current problems stem from our previous preoccupation with the number of completions—but the need to improve the existing stock and to provide housing for those with special needs—the elderly and the disabled. Our allocations take due account of those needs.

We have also made substantial resources available to the Scottish Special Housing Associaton and the Housing Corporation. We have made £50 million available to the SSHA and in 1984–85 housing associatons, which are making a substantial contribution to meeting the housing requirements of those with special needs, can look forward to a programme worth over £100 million. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have always strongly believed that the housing associations, through the Housing Corporation, can meet this area of need. The allocations which we have made since coming to office—considerably more than those which were available to housing associations previously—underline our commitment in that direction.

The hon. Gentleman raised the question of waiting lists. I do not believe that such lists are a reliable measure of demand. Local authority housing plans and check lists provide more reliable projections of housing needs, and these are taken into account in determining allocations.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boxburgh and Berwickshire for giving us the opportunity of having what has been a short but useful debate. I have taken note of his anxieties and I will bear them in mind. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Government's housing policy reflects those concerns in practice and that it is directed towards the aspirations of all our people in the public and private sectors of housing.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce a brief debate on prospects for the beef cattle industry, and I am fortified by knowing that it will perhaps reach a wider audience.

The Economist of 7 April described the 31 March EEC agricultural settlement for the coming year in these terms:

"An EEC farm reform that has enraged fanners in virtually every member country of the European Community cannot be all bad."

The beef industry in the United Kingdom is not enraged, but it is concerned for the future. I speak on behalf of my constituents in Kettering, Northamptonshire—my constituency includes part of the rich grassland of the Welland valley, which traditionally has been used to finish cattle bought in from the dairy herd—and beef farmers generally in the United Kingdom, who currently graze about 1·3 million head of beef cows, which compares with the British dairy herd of 3·4 million.

The EEC farm reforms—in part secured by the contributions of British Ministers, including my hon. Friend the Minister of State who will reply to this debate—will be broadly welcomed as helping to ensure a sensible future for the EEC. However, the details, particularly as they affect the beef cattle industry, bear further review. I understand that the Government hope that the economic returns of the beef industry in the coming year will be no lower than in 1983–84. The House will be anxious to know what proposals Ministers have to ensure this, because, on the basis of the 31 March settlement reached in Brussels, the industry, certainly in my constituency, looks set to suffer a 10 to 15 per cent. cut in its real income. Perhaps I am being unduly pessimistic and exaggerating the case. I shall be interested to hear from my hon. Friend what hope he can give the industry.

It may help the House to appreciate the present state of the industry before considering its prospects. In recent years United Kingdom domestic sales of beef have been relatively stagnant, despite a vigorous campaign by the Meat Promotion Executive, to which we should pay tribute. For about half the weeks in the past marketing year, 1983–84, the market price, plus the maximum slaughter premium—that is, therefore, the return to the farmer—was below the target price.

In the first three months of this calendar year the shortfall was about 5p per kilo, and without exports, which amounted to about 10 per cent. of total clean beef production in this country, the shortfall would have been bigger. Therefore, the industry has not enjoyed recent prosperity, and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in the last quarter of 1983 the slaughter of calves doubled compared with the same period in 1982. That shows a growing lack of confidence in prospects for the industry.

The 31 March settlement looks, on balance, to make matters worse for the industry, for three reasons. The first is that the cutback in the United Kingdom dairy industry, which will reduce milk output by, say, 10 per cent. on what was originally planned for the coming year, is bound to have an effect on the prices of beef. Although farmers may reduce feeding quantities to their dairy cows to reduce milk yields, many dairy cows and clean dairy heifers will come on to the market. That is inevitable. I understand that the National Dairy Producers Association has predicted that 10,000 dairy farmers in the United Kingdom will go out of business in the next three years.

Secondly, there is the potentially depressing effect on the income of beef cattle farmers of the proposed reduction of 1 per cent. on average of the target price and, more importantly, of the maximum beef premium. Finally, there is the introduction of clawback on the slaughter premium on exports to the EEC and worldwide, which will harm the domestic market. That will happen because exports will be re-directed back to the domestic market. As I have said, about 10 per cent. of the output of clean beef in the last marketing year was exported.

Before examining the terms of the settlement reached in Brussels it might be useful to consider the basic principles that should apply to price regulations and support within the beef cattle industry. I suggest that three basic principles should apply that will be in the interests of the consumer, the housewife, the producer, the farmer, and the taxpayer. The first principle is that the price of beef to the housewife should be kept attractive so that beef can compete in relatively difficult economic times with its many competitors. Hence I support the continuation of what, in effect, is our traditional deficiency payment system in support of industry, which is the beef premium I welcome its continuance.

The second principle is that the industry should be kept intact and efficient and that its overall economic return should remain unaltered. The third principle is that any cost of support to the taxpayer must be rigorously controlled. The financial impact upon the taxpayer should be seen to produce real benefit to the nation. I understand that our premium system cost about £110 million for the year that has just ended. The House will know that 60 per cent. of that is paid by the United Kingdom and that the balance of 40 per cent. is paid by the EEC. Indirectly, the United Kingdom pays a proportion of the 40 per cent. that is met by the EEC.

The Buckler cow premium cost about £17 million in the marketing year which has just ended. Other costs are relevant, such as the net cost of intervention and the cost of export rebates. I do not have accurate or meaningful figures for those two costs, but, overall, the costs are modest for a system that achieves good prices for the housewife and ensures that quality food is available at all times in our shops.

The industry is thankful that the variable beef premium remains following the agreement that was settled in Brussels. In March the Minister said:

"the scheme has served producers and consumers well."—[Official Report, 1 March; Vol. 55, c. 325.]

On behalf of the industry I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on resisting demands for the abolition of the variable slaughter premium. However, the House will wish to know that, on average, 1 per cent. has been taken off the target price The maximum premium payable has been cut by 20 per cent. from 10·76p per kilo live weight to 8·74p per kilo. Secondly, the Government have agreed to operate what is called a clawback mechanism. This will have to be agreed in detail by Ministers over the coming weeks, but it will apply to exports of our beef which originally qualified for the slaughter premium. The clawback is the price that the Government have had to pay to keep even the reduced slaughter premium.

Thirdly, the suckler beef premium has been doubled from £12·37 per cow to £24·74 per cow. That is most welcome. It helps to encourage breeding from the better quality herds as opposed to the dairy herds, which will inevitably diminish in numbers. The industry appreciates that the increased cost of the suckler premium is coming from the British taxpayer and not from the EEC.

One proposal notable for its absence, thank heavens, from the Brussels settlement is for quotas to apply in the dairy sector. I believe that the imposition of beef quotas would be unjustified.

I would welcome comments from my hon. Friend on the requests for help from the industry. Four requests make much sense and are practical and modest. They are designed to ensure the preservation of an efficient and fairly remunerated sector, which is important to our rural life and the agriculture industry.

First, we want an assurance from the Government that for the coming marketing year, through a combination of intervention by support arrangements and the premium system, the farmers return price will achieve the target price. As the House knows, and as I have said, that did not happen for part of the marketing year 1983–84. With the lower slaughter premium for the coming year, it is even more important that intervention should work effectively. The industry would like the intervention system to operate in a more flexible and a more thorough-going fashion at all times of the year, and without limitation to the parts of the carcase. We would like the intervention systems to operate in conjunction with the variable slaughter premium, so that the farmer can achieve the indicated target price.

It might be helpful to remind the House that, according to Hansard of 30 March 1984, there are only 20 days' supply of beef in total EEC intervention stores, compared with 188 days' supply of butter and 219 days' supply of skimmed milk powder. The country has nothing of which to be afraid from the intervention system for the beef cattle industry. I regret the 20 per cent. cut in the variable slaughter premium and the inevitable need for the Government and the EEC to rely on intervention to play a much bigger role if the fanner is to get his target price.

I read with great interest the Select Committee report from the other place in March 1983 on the EEC beef regime. The Select Committee got it right when it said that it wanted the variable premium to play a much bigger part in relation to the intervention system. Unfortunately, because of the Brussels settlement, we have gone the other way and, inevitably, must place greater reliance upon the intervention system and, sadly, less on the premium. The Select Committee got it right when it supported greater reliance on the premium, because in that way market forces will have a much greater role to play in determining supply and demand.

The second request to my hon. Friend is that the exceptional extra supplies of meat resulting from the slaughtered dairy herds should go into exports outside the EEC, as far as possible, with the help of an improved export subsidy scheme. I suggest that my hon. Friend should consider the idea that one way of reducing the degree of slaughter of the dairy herds would be by the payment by the Government of a flat grant of, say, £100 a head per dairy cow taken out of milk production and put to suckle calves. That would be a sensible way of removing the pressure on the meat export market and, possibly, the domestic meat market.

The third request is that the clawback system should be modified to exclude our exports to non-EEC countries. I refer in particular to the contracts which some United Kingdom exporters have carefully built up to supply not just third countries, but NATO bases within western Europe. They would fall outside the definition of an EEC country, and hence if some amendment could be made to the proposed clawback system it would benefit those farmers who have long-term supply contracts with those NATO bases.

It is ironic that we have just seen renewed vigour in the Food from Britain Campaign designed to improve our beef exports, at the time when the clawback system is likely to be introduced which will significantly hit our beef exports.

Irish exporters of beef to the United Kingdom have long enjoyed being able to qualify for our variable beef slaughter premiums. Now that we have accepted the concept of clawback, albeit with the amendments and modifications that I have suggested, the Irish, in my judgment, should be encouraged to switch their exports from the Republic away from the United Kingdom domestic market to other countries.

I hope that my hon. Friend will take my remarks constructively. The industry believes—I certainly speak for my constituents—that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister have also been constructive. We are all worried about the growing imbalance between cereal and livestock production. I hope that we can ensure, through sensible modifications to the Brussels proposals, that we do not encourage our beef farmers to put part of their farmland under the plough.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) for providing this opportunity to debate the prospects for our beef cattle industry and also for his understanding, welcome and support for the reforms of the common agricultural policy, which, as much informed comment has shown, moves us considerably in the direction of a more sensible, justifiable, realistic and secure basis for the future of European agriculture.

As my hon. Friend said, the livestock sector represents one of our major industries. The beef cattle industry is the major component of that sector. It is estimated that in 1983 United Kingdom production of fat cattle and calves was worth over £1·8 billion. Consumers' expenditure on beef and beef products amounts to some 8 per cent. of their total expenditure on food. It is clear from those few figures that our beef cattle industry is of major importance, and my hon. Friend has spoken of how important it is to his constituency.

It is equally clear that the industry has been having a difficult time of late, here and throughout the European Community. The balance between supply and demand has grown out of kilter. Stocks have risen fast, having doubled from 200,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes in 1983. Expenditure has risen fast, too, having increased by 50 per cent.—that is subsidy expenditure—to £1 billion in the same period.

The European Commission was forecasting that the imbalance between supply and demand would worsen for as far ahead as it could see. In other words, although my hon. Friend referred to days' supply being much less than in the dairy sector, the important point is that surpluses are piling up and, without corrective action of the kind that we have had to take, would have gone on piling up.

The United Kingdom can expect to see home production rise above last year's level to the point where we are likely to be in surplus. It would not take much extra production before we reached that position. In the last annual review White Paper it was forecast that home production of carcase beef and veal in 1983 would amount to 98 per cent. of total new supply.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the position is far more serious in the rest of the Community, where almost every member state is contributing to the surplus, but we are in a common market and one cannot just consider individual areas or parts of the Community in isolation, as I know my hon. Friend would agree. We have to consider the position in Europe as a whole. Clearly, on that basis, the Council of Ministers should not be pursuing policies which enable European producers, including ourselves, to produce ever more beef for which there is no economic market inside the Community and fewer and fewer possibilities of disposing of the surplus outside.

It is against that background that we must view the Council's decision that the management of the Community beef market had to be brought under stricter control and that the common support prices had to be reduced. That meant restraint this year.

In the light of the budgetary position—I mean the overall Community budget and the fact that the money was running out; I am not referring to the question of budget refunds to Britain—the restraint had to be applied to all commodities, including beef. Those were the circumstances in which decisions had to be taken.

My hon. Friend referred to some of the decisions and I shall summarise them quickly. First, as he said, the common support prices were reduced by 1 per cent. It was the first time in the history of our membership of the Community that the beef support prices were reduced, but I have explained, in relation to the surpluses and the costs of those surpluses, why it was necessary.

Secondly, it was agreed that intervention would be based on the carcase classification grid, that after a transitional period of two years the same intervention prices would be paid for the same qualities of beef throughout the Community, and that the old special arrangements for particular member states would disappear. That should be to our advantage.

For certain member states—especially France, Italy and Greece—there will be a considerable reduction of intervention prices. For Ireland—this is important in view of what my hon. Friend said about Ireland—there will be a considerable reduction of intervention coverage. For us there will be a modest increase in support prices and better intervention coverage. That is of considerable importance to our industry.

The end result should also be that the Commission will be able to manage intervention buying more efficiently and effectively, which is, of course, in our financial interest as well as the Community's.

Thirdly, I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the advantages of the beef variable premium scheme, but the opposition within the Community to the renewal of the scheme was universal and intense. It was only after the most tenacious and determined battle that my right hon. Friend was able to secure its renewal for yet another marketing year.

I have already referred to the need for restraint on all commodities, and it was for that reason—because it was applying to all commodities and to all member states in their different ways—that we had to agree to a slight reduction in the maximum amount payable on the beef variable premium scheme. That still leaves it higher than it was in 1982. But the other member states absolutely insisted on an end to the absence of clawback on our exports of beef to their markets or to others. They pointed out that clawback already applied to our exports of live cattle and in the sheepmeat sector as well. Therefore, they saw no reason why it should not apply to beef. They argued that it was disruptive to their markets and amounted to what they saw as unfair competition. Some of them even wanted it to apply to all our beef exports, but we were able, quite rightly, to get agreement that it should apply only to beef that had benefited from the premium.

I hope my hon. Friend will be reassured by the fact that, as by far the greatest proportion of our exports of beef consists of cow beef, most of our exports should escape the charge altogether. For those who have received the premium, however, there will be no exemptions and that has already been agreed.

I know that many would have liked to see our exports to third countries exempted from clawback, as is the case with the sheepmeat regime, but the two situations are not comparable. With lamb, we are virtually the only important Community exporter. With beef, we are in direct and intense competition for very limited world markets with virtually all our Community partners. Therefore, they were simply not prepared to grant us exemption for our third country exports. We shall be trying to exempt existing contracts. I can, however, give no guarantee that we shall succeed. Our officials are now working in very close co-operation with the industry to set up detailed arrangements which will apply from a date yet to be decided, but in all probability from next month.

My hon. Friend mentioned Irish exports to our markets. I should make clear the position on this. First, it was by no means the Irish alone who insisted on clawback As I said, most other member states were equally determined to resolve the matter since they saw it as a disruption of their export markets and the penetration of their domestic markets by our subsidised exports. There was a general view in the Council that there was no reason why our exports should continue to benefit from this subsidy, and there was no way in which we could have commanded enough support to retain it.

Secondly, it has from the outset been, and continues to be, a condition of Irish agreement to our having the beef variable premium scheme that their exports to us should also qualify for it. They argue that our market is their biggest export market and say that their beef could not sell in competition with ours in our market if ours is subsidised and theirs is not. That is a fact of political life in the Community. However, there is no reason why they should get a penny more than British producers would get by way of subsidy; and we shall be making doubly sure that arrangements for the payment of subsidy to the Irish are as tight and rigorous as they should be.

The other decisions taken on beef in the price-fixing settlement—this emphasises the point that general cuts are significantly affecting all member states—included a 60 per cent. cut in the FEOGA-funded calf subsidy, which will substantially reduce the benefit that Greece, Italy and Ireland have been getting from the Community. The subsidy will be similarly reduced in Northern Ireland, but there the improved intervention arrangements which will give it parity with the South for the first time should be of considerable benefit.

The decision on the milk super-levy will, as my hon. Friend said, have repercussions on the beef sector. My hon. Friend knows well the reasons why the Council had to act in the milk sector and why, ultimately, the least unattractive option that we could agree was the milk super-levy. The surpluses in the dairy sector are huge, and the subsidies to which the United Kingdom is contributing substantially are equally huge and increasing. It is too early to forecast exactly what the impact will be, because much will depend upon the detailed arrangements for the application of the levy, which have yet to be finally decided, although I hope that we can announce them soon. It will also depend upon the reactions of individual producers. Some of the instant reactions in the press about what is likely to happen are much exaggerated, and I should not expect the impact to be on anything like that scale.

The agricultural development advisory service will be available to help producers in making the right decisions in relation to their circumstances, but, clearly, as my hon. Friend said, we must be prepared for an increase in the amount of beef available on our markets, which will in the short term tend to depress prices. Once that process has been completed, however, producers should be able to look forward to more stable and better-balanced conditions.

As I said at the outset, we recognise that the beef industry has not had an easy time, despite the considerable assistance that we have given to it during the past year. My hon. Friend said that a key factor was that the cost to the taxpayer must be rigorously controlled and must be seen to produce a real benefit to the nation. I agree with him on that, but it is worth underlining the fact that our assistance amounted to nearly £270 million in 1983. One of the worst affected sectors has been the specialist beef herd. That was why we decided to double the suckler cow subsidy to £24·74 per head, which is the maximum permitted under Community rules. I heard what my hon. Friend said about this, but he must agree that that is a substantial increase which takes us to the limit of what the Community permits. That decision should help the specialist beef sector, and has already been widely welcomed in the farming industry, as it was by my hon. Friend this morning.

We recognise that the process of getting supply and demand into better balance in the milk and beef sectors of Europe as a whole involves some difficult but necessary adjustments. However, in all the circumstances, and relative to other member states, what we have managed to secure this year is undoubtedly a good deal for British beef. The beef variable premium scheme substantially remains, and the changes in the intervention arrangements, our support to the market and the doubling of the suckler cow premium will considerably help the specialist producer. We believe that the measures we have taken will set the beef cattle industry on a course towards a healthier future in a better balanced and more realistic market. I am sure that this is an outcome which all of us who are involved with this important industry earnestly wish to see.

I wish to raise the question of redundancy payments for fishermen. I am anxious to find out in particular what the Government's plans are to make redundancy payments available. I am also anxious to press the Government to tell us as soon as possible whether they intend to proceed with their plans, bearing in mind the impact that the common fisheries policy is having on the fleet. The fleet is still in decline, and people are still being made redundant. I believe that there is an authentic problem in the industry.

Immense changes have taken place, which started at the time of the cod war, with particular effect on the deep water fleet. We have had the common fisheries policy, and in the short term we have the restructuring of the fleet which is beginning to emerge as a result of the common fisheries policy. So far there have been a number of decommissioning grants for the owners of vessels, but the people who have served the industry so loyally have had absolutely nothing. Statutes and other technical matters prevent compensation being given to these people.

A matter of key concern is the casual nature of the industry. When people go to sea on trawlers, they sign on as they arrive at the vessel, and when they come back from sea they sign off. When they do that, they are regarded as not having been in continuous employment. Even if they were to sign on the same day with the same company, or on the same vessel, they would be deemed not to have been in continuous employment. This leads to people being unable to establish the minimum two years of continuous employment to qualify for redundancy. It is absurd that such a situation should exist in 1984.

I feel strongly that these anomalies should be overcome without delay, particularly since the fleets are still in decline. Another anomaly arises from the fact that people who have worked in the industry have paid into the redundancy fund through their stamp, but, because they are casual workers, they cannot get the money that they have paid into the fund or that their employer has paid into the fund on their behalf. That is outrageous. I have done some research. Although I do not say that the figure is an absolute one that we should set in concrete, I believe that approximately £330,000 in the Government's redundancy fund is owed to people in Hull, and that assumes a conservative investment policy for the fund. I believe that the money is there.

The EEC has had an immense impact on the industry. No industry in the country has been affected so greatly by the EEC policy as the fishing industry. The coal and steel industries have been restructured, but the country's fishing industry has not been restructured to cater for the change. I do not regard the provision of a few decommissioning grants as restructuring. If an industry is to be restructured and geared up to fit in with the new common fisheries policy, the people involved must clearly be taken into account as well, especially as this is a labour-intensive industry. Workers in the steel and coal industries have had incomparable treatment. It is a matter of urgency now that we bring fishermen into line with them.

One of my constituents who until recently worked for BUT in Hull as a trawlerman received £385 from that company, equivalent to three weeks' wages, after serving as a trawlerman for 19 years. I ask hon. Members to compare that with the money given by the Government, through Brussels, for decommissioning vessels. Owners have been receiving about £400 for every gross registered tonne. The Government appear to regard a man who has served the industry for 19 years as of less value than one gross registered tonne of rusty trawler.

The number of people in the industry has declined dramatically. In Hull just a few years ago there were about 10,000. Today that is down to about 1,000. There were more than 100 deep-water vessels. Now we are clown to virtually none.

One problem is that the skills of the people in the industry are non-transferable. It is difficult for them to adapt to other jobs with the skills that they have acquired. Therefore, there is a need for special treatment for these people.

In addition, people have been very loyal to their industry. They have been loyal to their country as well bearing in mind the way in which they served during the war. They are very hard working. They work in appalling conditions which are not just uncomfortable but dangerous, and they have very low pay. All that they have received by way of compensation following the changes that have come upon the industry is a kick in the teeth from the Government. Their jobs have been snatched from them and their livelihoods have been destroyed, as have their communities. Redundancy payments are a key factor in helping them to rebuild their lives after all these changes. So far, they have had nothing.

I am staggered by the Government's failure to take action on all the anomalies to which I have referred. The matter has been raised on numerous occasions by hon. Members on both sides of the House. On 18 January I wrote to the Minister of State, Department of Employment referring to a constituent of mine, Mr. S. Heywood of 105, Hawthorne avenue, Hull. He had worked in the industry for 35 years with BUT. He claims that he was in continuous employment except between November 1978 and the following May, although he was contracted and received payments in that period. Eventually he was made redundant in 1979. I asked the Minister to investigate the case with a view to making retrospective redundancy payments. I wrote:

"since so many fishermen have been so seriously affected by the decline of the UK fishing industry, would the Government consider introducing legislation which will enable these people to be reasonably compensated after contributing so much to the UK fishing industry and economy."

The response from the Minister on 9 February this year was that the possibility of a special Government-financed scheme for redundant fishermen would raise difficulties since similar claims could be advanced on behalf of other industries in decline. He went on:

"it would require separate legislation which would be a matter for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food."

That was a piece of buck passing and an absolute disgrace.

What are the difficulties to which the Minister referred? How much money are we talking about? It is peanuts. Just now I referred to what had been given to the steel industry. It may be argued that that was done by the British Steel Corporation. It was not. After the 1974 investment programme,' British Steel was running at a deficit. To all intents and purposes, all that aid was provided by the Exchequer. I hope that the Minister will tell us exactly how much money would be involved.

I then wrote to the Minster of State at MAFF asking him to provide some mechanism for compensating fishermen who had lost their jobs. He replied on 7 March:

"I realise that some fishermen will be disappointed that the finance made available from Community funds for restructuring the industry did not include any provision for redundancy payments. We have considered very carefully suggestions that we should nonetheless take action of our own so as to be able to compensate those fishermen whose terms of service prevent their qualifying for payments under the existing employment legislation. Our considered view is, however, that it would be inapproprate to seek to make special provision for future redundancies in the fishing industry at this very late stage".

I draw attention to the final words. Is it suggested that the Minister was unaware of the problem before that? I remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) raised the matter more than a year ago in March 1983 and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) sought to deal with it in a private Member's Bill which was defeated the same year.

We are extremely disappointed at the Goverment's attitude towards the fishermen. The Government were told about the anomalies, but they have done absolutely nothing. Clearly they are not interested in fishermen.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in 1978, when redundancy was not applicable, the Labour Government made £250,000 available for compensation to fishermen for difficulties arising out of the conflict with Iceland? The Treasury has already crossed the bridge of precedent. We ask the present Government to do the same.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valuable point. The Government seem to have no interest whatever in eliminating the anomalies that I have described relating to terms and conditions of employment and the casual labour aspect of the industry which prevents the fishermen from claiming reasonable redundancy benefits under the law.

Why did the Government not raise the issue of compensation to fishermen in their discussions in Brussels about decommissioning grants for the industry? There was considerable compensation for the owners of the vessels, but the men who worked on them received nothing. Alternatively, did the Government raise the matter but fail yet again to get a reasonable deal in negotiations with the EEC? The country wants answers to those questions. The fishermen of Hull want to know exactly where they stand and they are very bitter about the way in which the Government have treated them.

Finally, I commend two proposals to the House. First, will the Government introduce a compensation scheme for the workers so savagely affected by redundancies in this industry? Secondly, will the Government give some of the money contributed to the redundancy fund to the fishermen who have been so seriously affected? That is only fair and equitable. I hope that the Minister will give specific answers on those two points.

With the permission of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) and the Minister, I wish to make a brief contribution.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on all the work that he has done on this issue. Members of Parliament for Humberside have waged a long and at times bitterly frustrating campaign on it. It is essential to keep up the pressure, to spread the information and to keep the issue at the forefront where it deserves to be.

It is also essential that we keep to a responsible middle course and keep our eyes on what should be the main issue. Social Democratic candidates in Hull and Grimsby have used the issue in a politically irresponsible and unforgivable way. No Social Democratic Members are here today, but candidates have raised false hopes in an attempt to secure support. They have whipped up a fever of expectation, which is bound to be disappointed, in an attempt to alienate redundant fishermen from Members of Parliament and the Transport and General Workers Union who serve their interests and have worked hard on their behalf. The Social Democratic candidates have spread false information. For example, they have argued that legal aid is available for tribunal cases when it is not. They have deliberately misrepresented and exaggerated what they have been told at meetings by Ministers. I took a deputation to see a Minister and was horrified by what the Social Democrats told the press afterwards. What they said bore no relation to what the Minister had said. It is essential to maintain a responsible stance and not to behave in a politically opportunist and vicious way.

We should be clear about the issues. Any recently redundant fishermen should apply immediately to their employers for compensation. The three recent cases from Hamling's show that when there has been some form of retainer and something more than the usual casual relationship between employer and fisherman, there are prospects of getting redundancy pay. Most of the Hamling cases have been brought before a tribunal by the TGWU and have yet to be decided. However, there is a possibility of compensation when there is a retainer.

Other cases should be taken up with Members of Parliament. I have taken a couple of cases to the ombudsman, although without success. People have not applied for compensation because they have been under the impression that, because they are casual workers, redundancy payments would not be available to them. It was the Department's responsibility to dissipate that impression, but it did not do so. We need to be aware of cases of people being told by officials of the Department locally, directly or indirectly, that there is no point in applying for redundancy payments as they are not eligible.

It is essential that, at this late stage, the Government enforce a decasualisation scheme and impose a redundancy scheme on the industry. It is regrettable that the owners have refused to make a joint application. I am horrified that the laying-up and restructuring scheme makes no concession to the fishermen. The money simply goes to the owners. We have been unable to secure a response from the EEC on that issue. I should have thought that it also has a responsibility. There will be more redundancies in the industry. The numbers involved might not be as great as those which have already occurred, but it is essential that people be treated with justice and that in this last stage of the rundown, we do not make the same unforgivable mistakes. It is important that the Government should do justice to the fishermen and trawlermen who have been made redundant.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West on bringing home the point that £300,000 has been paid into the redundancy fund on behalf of fishermen. The money is morally theirs. They are entitled to it as it was contributed for their future and redundancies. It is ridiculous to say that the money has gone and that they are not entitled to it. There must be an inquiry into how they can be compensated for the loss of their jobs when they have contributed a lifetime to the industry and when they have seen coal industry workers, car workers and workers in many other rundown industries receive massive compensation. The fishermen—the bloody infantry of the industry—have been treated contemptuously. The big owners have now moved out of the industry and become landowners and pub owners and involved in all types of alternative businesses. They have made their pile and run. The fishermen are left to carry the burden, and it is the Government's responsibility to set up an inquiry, now that it is clearly the only way forward, into how this money can be paid to people who are morally entitled to it.

As I have already replied to one debate, I ask for the leave of the House to reply to this one.

I am glad that we have another opportunity to consider the problems of the fishing industry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) on securing this debate. I appreciate the attendance of his colleagues, the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I know that they have been tenacious in expressing their constituents' interest in this matter.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about SDP candidates in his constituency. All of us who are elected to this place are familiar with the various ploys that people who have no real prospect of election unscrupulously take advantage of, and how little regard they have to truth or responsibility. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his sufferings from that.

I present the apologies of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment who, as hon. Members know, normally deals ably with these matters. Unfortunately, he had already made critical engagements which were arranged before the subject of this Adjournment debate was known and I hope that hon. Members will allow me to reply.

The issue is whether redundant fishermen are being unfairly excluded from the redundancy payments scheme, either because of the technicality about the semi-casual nature of their work or because those who have a sound claim have been wrongly advised by Department of Employment officials and others and their claim is now out of time. These are fundamental points, but before I deal with them it may be useful if I say a little about the background to the debate.

It was on 18 March 1983 that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment responded to a similar debate opened by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. I know that since then my hon. Friend has met and written to a number of hon. Members and spokesmen of the trawler fishing industry. As recently as 10 April, he wrote to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. The hon. Gentleman has become a Member of the House since that first debate and I shall recap on the main difficulties that have been identified in our discussions.

Trawler fishermen generally work on articles for a single trip or a succession of trips over a period not longer than six months. When they return from trips they often sign on for unemployment benefit, and this disjointed pattern of employment has led to their being regarded as casual workers. Doubts have consequently arisen as to whether they satisfy the qualifying conditions for redundancy payments, and in particular the requirement for at least two years' continuous service with a single employer. As a result, until recently, many fishermen and their employers never even considered that redundancy payments might be due and as a result did not apply.

In the past 12 months there has developed a much greater concern about fishermen's redundancy entitlements because the recession in the industry, to which hon. Members have drawn our attention, has regrettably reduced the amount of work that is available, and also because the collapse of the Thomas Hamling company has led to a number of claims for direct payments from the redundancy fund being submitted for consideration by the Department. There are two main problems about some of the applications: first, many of them may not meet the continuity of employment conditions, and, secondly, many of them are out of time.

I stress that at no time has my Department ever suggested that fishermen could not qualify for statutory redundancy payments. There is no doubt that, with the special exception of share fishermen, who count as self-employed, the provisions apply to fishermen on the same basis as to all other employees.

The problem has been that the nature of fishermen's contracts makes it difficult for them to meet the two-year continuity of service condition. However, the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 offers a remedy for untypical working patterns, in the form of a section 96 exemption order, provided that the two sides of the industry can agree a scheme that meets appropriate criteria, enabling successive periods of employment to be aggregated.

That is, in the first instance, a matter for the parties and so far no mutually acceptable scheme has been forthcoming. If the two sides can succeed in getting together, my officials will certainly do all that they can to assist them and to ensure that the trawler fishermen can benefit.

As regards the legal status of fishermen's redundancy claims generally, there have emerged in recent months a number of grey areas, which my Department would like to have clarified by courts and tribunals as soon as possible. As hon. Members know, and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his letter of 10 April, it is not possible for him to comment on a number of those cases until they have been settled by the courts.

It remains our view that when a fisherman sails successively with different companies he cannot preserve continuity of service. However, where there is a record of years of service with the same company, even though consisting of separate voyage contracts or articles for a fixed period, such as six months, it is possible that the man could be held to have a single contract of indefinite duration or that, even if he were dismissed each time, the breaks would be treated as temporary interruptions.

A further ambiguity is whether a man can be properly regarded as dismissed at the end of a voyage, or whether the contract is discharged by performance, in which case no question of redundancy can arise.

Those considerations have recently been highlighted by a major insolvency in the industry, the Hull-based freezer trawler company of Thomas Hamling Limited. Because the company is insolvent, any claims for redundancy payments lie against the Department, and about 100 applications have so far been referred for adjudication.

Also relevant is a recent decision by the House of Lords in the case of Ford v. Warwickshire county council to the effect that a succession of fixed-term contracts served by a teacher could be deemed to run continuously. The length of time employed in relation to the length of time between employments was thought crucial in that case.

A number of tribunal test cases are pending on these questions and, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained when he wrote to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), there is little that he or I can add on the legal issues until they have been heard.

Another point worries the hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friends who have met Ministers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who met my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Why did the Department withdraw the Miller case from the tribunal by paying Mr. Miller out of the central redundancy fund? What precedent was it trying to establish, or was it trying to make sure that a precedent was not established?

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman because, for reasons that he will appreciate, I cannot answer that question now. However, I will ensure that he receives as soon as possible a letter setting out the grounds for our action.

Some fishermen say that they did not pursue their claims within the requisite time limits when their employment ended because they were under the erroneous impression that no fisherman could ever be eligible for a redundancy payment, although that has never been the advice of my Department.

When my hon. Friend the Minister of State met a deputation on 22 November, he undertook to consider, out of time and on an ex gratia basis, any authenticated case of a claimant whose claim would apparently have been well-founded being given misleading advice by local departmental staff. My hon. Friend was at pains to stress that we are tightly constrained by the law in these matters and cannot consider claims outside the legal time limits unless there is clear evidence of misdirection by staff. Plainly we cannot assume responsibility for wrong advice from other quarters, such as employers, union officials or other employees among whom this unjustified rumour was circulating.

In later correspondence with the British Fishermen's Association, my hon. Friend clarified the criteria which he0 would expect to be satisfied before considering making an ex gratia payment, and it may be helpful if I repeat to the House what was agreed. It was that the applicant or his employer should approach a Department of Employment office about his redundancy payments claim within six, or at most 12, months; that written evidence thereof shall generally be required; and that in any event, any such evidence will not qualify for payment those who, in the opinion of the Department of Employment, would not have succeeded had they pursued their claim to a tribunal.

I welcome the opportunity to initiate a short debate on an issue of great importance and concern to many people in my constituency. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has, I know, come to answer the debate at some personal inconvenience.

This is indeed Friday the 13th for the Chilham way sub-post office in my constituency, because tomorrow the post office will close its door. The purpose of this short debate is to register the strongest possible protest on behalf of myself and my constituents at what we regard as an arrogant and arbitrary decision by the Post Office.

Chilham way is part of the Hayes place estate, which is a small post-war council estate. It was completed at about the time when I was first elected to Bromley council for that ward in 1953, so I know the estate well. A feature of the development was the provision of accommodation for the elderly in the vicinity of Chilham way, where the council also provided a small shopping parade, including the post office and newsagents shop, which is now to close.

This little precinct within the estate is a meeting place for the elderly. The present sub-postmaster, Mr. Wiggins, who is retiring—which is, I think, partly the reason for the closure—tells me that no fewer than 80 per cent. of his customers are pensioners, which is, I believe, an above-average proportion for post offices. There is now a fear that without this post office the other shops in the precinct will no longer be viable and will also close. That would be a tragic blow to the whole community in that part of my constituency.

The closure of this post office has aroused anger and anxiety among many people living in the Hayes area of my constituency. On the afternoon of 24 February of this year I visited the Chilham way sub-post office to receive a petition which had been signed by well over 1,000 local residents. The petition pleaded for the retention of the post office. I recall that it was a bitterly cold afternoon, and for me it was a moving and touching experience to see how many elderly, frail and infirm people had turned up to make their personal plea to me for the retention of their post office.

I passed the petition which they presented to me to the local head postmaster, and I wrote on a number of occasions both to him and the chairman of the Post Office. I was left with the distinct impression that the decision had already been taken and that the representations from myself, from Bromley council, from the Hayes Village Association, from the parochial church council and from countless individuals within the area were being treated with scant regard and with minimal concern for the interests of the Hayes community. It is our feeling that the decision has been taken in a rushed and precipitate way, which to us shows that no real consideration has been given to the many representations which have been made for further thought about the closure.

My hon. Friend will know that in 1981 a code of practice on the closure of sub-offices was agreed between the Post Office and the Post Office Users National Council. It is my contention that the code has been breached in this instance. In the code are six specific points which the head postmaster is required to review in reaching his decision. Apart from the distance of other offices and the amount of business done, point 3 is:

"The type of business done (eg are a lot of pensions paid?)"

Point 4 reads:

"The difficulty customers would face in getting to another office (eg is there a suitable bus service? Would there be steep hills?)"

I have already said that the Hayes place estate, in which the sub-post office is situated, houses an above-average proportion of pensioners. I have told the House that 80 per cent. of the users of the post office are pensioners.

In a letter to me dated 23 March the head postmaster, Mr. F. Wade, who has recently come to the post office in Bromley, told me:

"Our first and primary consideration is whether closure would result in undue inconvenience to the local community, and in the case of Chilham Way we are content that it would not and that adequate alternative Post Office counter facilities exist."

I challenge that. The head postmaster maintains that the nearest post office in Hayes street in Hayes village is less than half a mile away and that there is another post office in Station approach, which is within three quarters of a mile. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will advance the same arguments when he replies. I agree that the two nearest post offices are half a mile and three quarters of a mile away from the Chilham sub-post office, but in both instances there is a lack of public transport and a steep incline for elderly pensioners to negotiate.

I asked the head postmaster whether he could quantify the financial savings that are likely to result from the closure of the sub-post office. We have all assumed that that is the principal reason for the decision to close it. The head postmaster's reply was extraordinary. He said that

"it would I feel be a distortion to quote the financial grounds since this would tend to cloud the main issue."

He did not specify the main issue. He went on:

"Suffice to say that having satisfied ourselves on the service to our customers aspect, the closure of this office will produce a worthwhile financial saving."

Again he gave no more details. We are entitled to more precise information and I hope that my hon. Friend will be a little more specific.

In a letter to me dated 1 March, the chairman of the Post Office, Mr. Ron Dearing, who, throughout the controversy, has tried to pass the buck to his local head postmaster, told me that the Post Office

"have to balance carefully the service we give our customers with the cost of providing it".

I accept that, but we, as customers, are entitled at least to see the balance sheet.

Later in that same letter Mr. Ron. Dearing dismissed the possibility of hardship being caused to the elderly by the closure of the Chilham way sub-post office. He said:

"You may find it helpful to know that where pensioners are unable to make the journey themselves we offer the facility for a friend or relative to collect their pension for them and this works very successfully in many places."

That may be so, but that comment ignores the social benefit that pensioners derive from meeting and chatting with people during their weekly visits to the post office. For many of them that is their only outing of the week. To take that outing from them in that way is cruel and insensitive.

I have been in touch also with the Post Office Users National Council, whose role has been somewhat less positive than I should have liked or expected. In its reply to me of 5 March, POUNC referred to the pressures that have been building up in recent years with a declining agency business and tight Government financial targets. In his letter to me, Mr. J. F. Heath, the secretary of POUNC said that the pressures

"are putting the Post Office in an increasingly difficult dilemma with trying to provide a valued social service at the same time as running a commercially effective retail network."

I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that point, because it is important to reiterate that the Post Office is more than just a commercial operation and that the Government's financial targets, necessary though they may be, must take accont of the Post Office's social obligations to the community it serves. I hope that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that principle.

I hope that my hon. Friend is prepared to ask the Post Office, even at this eleventh hour, to look at this closure again to ascertain whether it can, after all, recruit a new postmaster and continue to provide a local service that is much needed for and valued by the residents of the Hayes place estate. In almost 20 years as a Member of Parliament I have rarely felt a greater sense of anger and outrage at any official decision than I have at this one, which crucially affects my constituency.

I hope that my hon. Friend will tell the Secretary of State and other Ministers that we in Bromley have recently been living in what I can only call "a climate of cuts". It has been a depressing and demoralising experience. We have had cuts in our local health service and train service, and now we have the closure of this post office. It is affecting the quality of life in my constituency in an unwelcome and unacceptable way. I hope that we shall have no more of it.

May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) for the kind things that he has said about me. I fully understand his anxiety about the Post Office's decision to close Chilham way sub-post office in his constituency. I pay him a warm tribute. He is always vociferous and diligent on behalf of his constituents. I recognise that no post office closure is popular because, by definition, it means that some people who have used that office will have to travel further to the nearest alternative. It will also mean a change in the routine for customers.

I fully appreciate that for many people, especially the elderly and the infirm, that can be unwelcome. I am sure that I do not have to convince the House of the valuable role that post offices play in local communities, not just as providers of services, but often as community meeting places that fulfil a social need—a point on which my hon. Friend touched.

The Government recognise that role. However, it should be recognised that the Post Office is a commercial organisation, and it is right that it should look at ways of improving efficiency. While always mindful of its social obligations, it must strike a balance between those and the need to provide services in a cost-effective way. In the case of the Chilham way sub-post office, the Post Office feels that striking that balance requires that the office should close.

I should stress that the Post Office does not take such a decision lightly. As my hon. Friend will be aware from the vigorous representations that he has made to the Post Office in connection with the Chilham way sub-office, although it is not a statutory requirement, the Post Office follows a careful procedure which ensures that there is full consultation before a final decision is made. My hon Friend responded to the invitation to submit his views to the Post Office in his customary and conscientious manner.

The sub-postmaster of Chilham way tendered his resignation on 16 January this year, to take effect as from 16 April. In accordance with the Post Office's standard practice, the continuing need for the office was reviewed. Such reviews take into account the distance from other offices, the amount and type of business that is done, the difficulties that customers would face in getting to another office, the ability of nearby offices to absorb the additional work and the likely future development of the area.

In the case of offices such as Chilham way, which are in built-up areas, the Post Office has for many years aimed to provide counters at one-mile intervals. Given that there are four offices within a mile of Chilham way, and taking account of the other factors that I have mentioned, a preliminary assessment was that the office could be considered for possible closure. On 13 February, in accordance with the usual consultation procedure, the Post Office wrote to the interested parties, including my hon. Friend, the local chamber of commerce and the London borough of Bromley, seeking their comments on the proposed closure.

After carefully considering all local views, including a petition which my hon. Friend presented to the head postmaster at Bromley, it was decided that the office should close, and interested parties were informed on 13 March. Taking into account all the circumstances, the Post Office does not believe that the closure will cause undue inconvenience to the local community, given the close proximity of alternative offices.

My hon. Friend mentioned the code of practice agreed between the Post Office and the Post Office Users National Council in 1981, and asked whether it has been followed in this case. I am satisfied that it has been. I am told that Hayesford park sub-post office is 1,300 yards away. That, of course, is the walking distance. Westmoreland road sub-post office is about one mile away, and although the Post Office would not regard this as a suitable alternative for many of those who currently use Chilham way sub-post office for pension and other benefit payments, it is possible that some of those who use Chilham way may live in parts of Hayes, which would make Westmoreland road sub-post office a reasonable alternative.

To the south of Chilham way sub-post office, on the other hand, there are two other sub-post offices which the Post Office considers to be reasonable alternatives. Hayes sub-post office—generally referred to as Hayes village post office, I believe—is less than half a mile's walking distance away. The sub-post office in Station road, Hayes, is also an alternative, being only about 1,000 yards from Chilham way sub-post office and, of course, being close to Hayes main line station, it will be convenient for those who use Chilham way sub-post office and also use the train from time to time.

I am informed that the nearest chemist's shop is in Hayes village, that the Station road sub-post office is situated in a shopping area, and that the terrain is not unduly hilly or difficult. Many people using Chilham way sub-post office will make regular visits to one or other of those areas. If, however, there should remain people who, while able to reach Chilham way, are unable to reach one of the alternatives that I have mentioned, the Post Office provides a facility for pensions to be collected on their behalf by a nominee.

My hon. Friend pointed out that many pensioners use Chilham way. An post offices have a number of pensioners among those who use their services, and I hope my hon. Friend will see from what I have said that the Post Office does take into account the needs of pensioners when coming to decisions on closures. While I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment with the decision not to keep Chilham way sub-post office open, it should be recognised that it is an operational one for the Post Office to take and not one in which the Government may intervene.

The Post Office was a Government Department until 1969, when the Post Office Act established it as a public corporation. In common with other nationalised industries, the Post Office was given considerable powers of autonomy in that Act for the management of its day-to-day business. It has been accepted by successive Governments that it is for the Post Office to run the business, with Government involvement limited to detailed discussion of broad policy matters and, of course, the setting of financial and performance targets. My hon. Friend referred to those targets in his speech and questioned whether they were instrumental in the closure of Chilham way sub-post office. While the Post Office naturally has proper regard for its financial targets, the decisions that head postmasters take on sub-post office closures are based not on those targets but on the applicaton of long-standing Post Office criteria.

On a related issue, my hon. Friend referred to the fact that the head postmaster had been unwilling to quantify the savings from the closure of the sub-post office. I do not find that surprising, partly because such information would be commercially sensitive, as it would relate largely to the remuneration of the present sub-postmaster.

The Government's concern is in the Crown and sub-post office network as a whole, and in the adequacy of the network to enable the Post Office to fulfil its statutory duties and provide efficient services which meet the needs of the community. The Government have consistently made clear their commitment to the maintenance of an adequate network. However, it is up to the Post Office to run that network and make decisions about opening and closing specific offices.

As I have mentioned, since 1945 the Post Office has aimed to locate post offices at one-mile intervals in urban areas. This, it believes, is representative of the fair balance between the service its customers would like and the costs involved. This distance standard is not applied rigidly. Account is also taken of other factors, such as the age of the population, the terrain, likely development in the area and the availability of public transport, and the ability of neighbouring offices to absorb the additional work.

Up to the late 1960s the network grew due to new housing development, population growth and growth in business. During the past 15 years, however, there has been a decline of population in inner city areas. A review of the urban counter network, the first for many years, was carried out in the early part of 1983. It showed that while a major network of post offices was well justified, there was over-provision in urban areas against the distance criterion. It was this review that led to the announcement by the Post Office in February of its decision to phase out a number of main and sub-post offices.

The Government were fully advised by the Post Office of its plans to reduce the network in inner-city areas and are satisfied that the Post Office has taken ample account of its social duties in reducing the network to a more efficient size without prejudicing the one-mile distance criterion. Neither the review nor the closure programme extends to offices in rural areas.

The Post Office has confirmed that in making decisions about specific closures within the overall programme the existing procedure for consultation with interested parties will be maintained, as the Post Office has no desire to cause hardship and would wish to be fully aware of any special circumstances which it would consider before coming to any final decision on whether to close or keep open a sub-post office.

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, in this case, the time scale has been extremely short? He said that the original closure proposal was made on 13 February and confirmed on 13 March to take place on 14 April. That is inconsistent with his assertion that adequate time was given for consultation.

I considered carefully the timetable, recognising, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, that full consultation took place. I am satisfied that adequate time was given.

I would just add that there are already in existence schemes for compensating sub-postmasters whose offices are closed by the Post Office, and an improved scheme for closure in connection with the network review has been agreed with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters.

I should stress that the review of post offices in urban areas and the programme of closures should not be seen in isolation. To do so would be to give a misleading and negative picture of the future of the network. The review of the provision of counters in cities is part of the overall strategy to secure the long-term future of what will still be by far the largest retail network in the country. Also included are the Post Office's recently announced plans for automatic counters. These plans are not just aimed at reducing costs, although as a commercial organisation the Post Office must clearly give a prominent place to these factors in any plans for the future. The plans are more than that; they look to establishing an extensive network of post offices which are linked by computer both internally and externally to their main customers and present exciting possibilities for the Post Office to offer new services and facilities for customers. It is not only right but essential for the Post Office to keep its operations under review to ensure that it responds both to the needs of its customers and the need to operate efficiently and effectively.

The Post Office is very conscious of the fact that a decision to close a sub-post office is unpopular with certain members of the community. It is aware that decisions need to be taken carefully and only after a thorough consideration of all the relevant circumstances. It is aware of the importance of sub-post offices to the local community, and it serves it no purpose to offend or upset the people who use the services provided over its counters network. I have seen no evidence to suggest to me that its decision on Chilham way departs from its normal thorough and reasonable consideration of all the issues, including local representations.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the COCOM regulations and the Export Administration Act of the United States. I am grateful to the Minister for attending at this late hour before the Easter Recess to answer the debate.

On the last occasion on which the House debated new technology, I managed to speak for the utterly disgraceful length of 37 minutes. Today I have about 15 minutes to cover an even larger amount of ground. I hope that hon. Members will therefore forgive me if I do not take any interventions. However, I do not think I am in much danger from that.

I shall not repeat the details that I gave to the House in the debate on 17 February as they are contained in Hansard of that date. Suffice it to say that I agree, as I imagine do most other hon. Members, on the need to control and protect our important high technology from falling into the wrong hands. My case is that the mechanisms for doing this—COCOM and the United States Export Administration Act—have fallen largely into disrepute, and are damaging this nation's best interests.

I remind the House that COCOM is supposed to be advisory, but, in my judgment and in that of many, it has become almost completely under the influence of the United States. Furthermore, it has its origins in the late 1940s, it meets in secret in Paris, and it has never come before the House for discussion, or for ratification. The current COCOM list of controlled goods is out of date, and includes items which, far from being important from a security point of view, are in common everyday use. For instance, it is technically illegal, I understand, for me to leave Britain with the watch that I am wearing without obtaining an export approval for the chips that are contained in it. Similarly, certain heart pacemakers require export licences, as do many electronic toys, according to the COCOM regulations. COCOM is now considering a new list. The American proposals about what the list should contain cover some 400,000 items, it is said—basically a total inventory of the current United States electronics warehouse. For us to accede to this proposal would be virtual technological suicide.

Meanwhile, there are clear attempts by the Americans to enforce the current COCOM regulations down to the level where they would include even such basic computer "toys" as the ZX80. Indeed, the ZX80 was forced to be withdrawn from the other side of the duty-free barrier at Heathrow airport recently, apparently as a result of American pressure.

The Secretary of State has said that he is opposed to such a nitpicking approach. On his return from America recently, he said—and I quote from the Department of Trade and Industry press release of 6 March:

"One of the points I pressed upon the US Administration was that control of Acorn computers which are freely available in almost any high street in Britain would be counter-productive."

That may be the Secretary of State's view, but it is clear that the Americans do not wish to pay any attention. In an interview given by Richard Perle, one of Mr. Caspar Weinberger's deputies, to United Kingdom journalists on 23 March on this issue, Mr. Perle made it clear that the United States would insist on controls over the export of just such computers. Pressed on this, he explained that the United States used such toy computers to control its nuclear weapons. He said—and I quote from the transcript:

"We are now using Apple 2 computers to target nuclear weapons—Apple 2 computers with standard software."

I shall not comment on the frightening thought that United States nuclear weapons are being targeted by these virtual toys using eight-year-old technology and one of the most inefficient programme languages known to man. Suffice it to say that it is clear that the United States wishes to use COCOM to impose restrictions upon high technology trade which would be very damaging for our own high technology industry.

What is more, there is now clear evidence that the United States Government are prepared to use the COCOM provisions to block Britian's high technology trade while their salesmen move in and clean up. During the debate on 17 February I mentioned the case of Plasma Technology which was unable to get a licence for the export of certain high technology goods from the Department of Trade, I understand, because of COCOM regulations. Meanwhile, American firms, Plasma told me at the time, seemed free to bid for the same contracts. In that debate I warned:

"I fear … that a major … high technology firm will be blocked from exporting … to China … and that the Americans will relax the rules unilaterally, and move in and clean up."—[Official Report, 17 February 1984; Vol. 54, c. 496–504.]

That is exactly what has happened. On 20 March a director of Plasma wrote to me saying that he had lost the order, worth £1 million, because he could not get an export licence and that Plasmatherm, a different and American-owned firm selling the same equipment, had won the contract. Similarly we have heard recently that the United States Government wish to block our magnificent system X telephone exchange under COCOM regulations. In his interview on 23 March Mr. Perle explained that this was because system X had a stored programme facility. Meanwhile, the American giant ITT has sold to the Chinese, through its subsidiary, Bell Telephone Manufacturing Company of Antwerp, four complete microchip manufacturing lines designed to make telecom chips. I understand that these include the highly advanced Tegal 803 system for Planar etching. These are two of many examples.

While the United Kingdom has been blocked from selling computers to the East, the United States has sold no fewer than 30,000 DEC PD 11 computers through an established agency in Yugoslavia, by its own admission. While our own exports have been curtailed under COCOM, United States high technology trade with Hungary has gone from £12 million per year to £26 million per year between 1980 and 1982. While such firms as Plasma Technology and Hadland Photographic have been inhibited from gaining Chinese contracts, United States high technology trade with China has moved from £71 million in 1981 to £500 million this year.

It is clear that COCOM is being used as an instrument in the high technology trade war and not as an instrument to protect the security of our high technology secrets. It is time that the House of Commons had a chance to review the operation of the COCOM structure.

However, it is not just COCOM which is now impinging upon our high technology industry both inside and outside Britain. For some time the United States Government have been seeking to apply extra-territorially their own legislation—the Export Administration Act—to firms and individuals in this country. Again, the Secretary of State has recognised the problem. In an interview given in The Sunday Times on his return from the United States he said about the issue of extraterritoriality:

"The point I put to them was that they are welcome to have that principle, put it in a nice leather covered book, and let it get covered with dust. So long as they do not seek to assert it, well what does it mean?"

That may be the view of the Secretary of State, but it is clear that it is not the Americans'. In December, IBM sent a letter to many of its customers requiring that they should apply to the United States Administration for permission before moving certain of their computers even within Britain. Questioned about what sanctions would apply if this United States Government instruction was not adhered to, a Department of Defence official in Washington threatened

"A complete embargo against any country which refused to comply with United States regulations."

Since nine out of 10 computers in Britian are of American manufacture, since both industry and Government are dependent on these computers, and since those computers are essential to the operation of the Inland Revenue, the Ministry of Defence, and even GCHQ, such an embargo would not only cause havoc in our industry but also threaten our national security.

Furthermore, it is now clear that the United States would wish to extend these countrols from machines even to people. Mr. Perle has made it clear that he would include individuals with computer knowledge in their heads as, in certain circumstances, being in the category of those requiring export licences before leaving the country. There is disturbing evidence coming to light that the United States is now beginning to block access to scientific conferences in the United States as an expression of this new policy.

Before the Secretary of State went to the United States, he promised to take up this matter. We waited with bated breath for his return, hoping that he would have protected our interests. His comment on arrival back in Britian was merely that what happened in Britain was subject to British law only—but that companies should look after their own commercial interests. A more Janus-faced comment could scarcely be imagined. It was not up to the Department to protect companies—they would have to protect themselves.

Things might have rested there, but two further events have given cause for even greater concern. In mid-March President Reagan passed part of the responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the Export Administration Act from the Department of Commerce to the Pentagon. At about the same time, British companies, especially leasing companies, began to come under pressure from the United States Administration to provide lists of customers within the United Kingdom and abroad. Indeed, one United States-based company, the Digital Equipment Corporation, has been forced to provide such lists. At a meeting with British leasing companies at Epsom on 29 February, a commercial officer of the United States embassy is reliably reported to have said that if British companies did not comply the United States Government had sufficient information about them to

"slap the irons on most of you".

When pressed about the source of that information, he said that the United States Government had had two officials within the Ministry of Defence with access to such information, which they were supplying to the United States Government.

This is such a serious charge that I felt that it could not be right to make it on the Floor of the House without first writing to the Secretary of State for Defence for clarification. I wrote on 27 March but have not received a reply, although he knew that this debate was to take place today and I asked for a reply before the debate. A similar letter was sent to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 March, but a reply has yet to arrive.

I felt that the information about the meeting on 29 February was so serious that I should also visit the United States embassy to ask for clarification. The official whore I saw there denied any such operation but confirmed that two United States customs officials were working in the embassy assisting United Kingdom customs on high technology matters. A parliamentary reply to me yesterday, however, revealed that there were not two but four such officials. At that time I was prepared to accept the embassy official's denial. Indeed, on balance I still find it inconceivable that people should be working within the Government in the fashion originally claimed.

On 4 April, however, Mr. William Casey, director of the CIA, speaking to Californian business men in Palo Alto, revealed that the CIA was busy in Western Europe investigating high technology matters and that it had intimate details of 300 Western European firms which it claimed were involved, and the CIA in Washington has recently confirmed that United Kingdom firms are among them. The most recent issue of the computer trade magazine, Computer News, reports that United Kingdom firms that it has interviewed believe that United States treasury and customs officials, among others, are being used as a cover for CIA operations.

In his interview on 23 March, Mr. Perle seemed to corroborate that when he said:

"The budget for the customs service to enforce existing COCOM and United States export control has gone from 1 million dollars a year to 31 million dollars a year because the Defence Department contributed 30 million dollars."

With even more candour he went on to reveal that British intelligence was involved, when he said:

"The British Government has become increasingly concerned … it has launched an expanded intelligence effort of its own".

I repeat that I am in favour of protecting our important technology to ensure that it does not pass into the wrong hands, but it is clear that the COCOM regulations are now in chaos. They are now being taken to ridiculous lengths, perhaps even to the point at which their use is not so much to protect technology as to provide an instrument for the prosecution of United States high technology trade supremacy and an expression of the present United States Administration's paranoia.

Matters are made even worse by the fact that the Government seem powerless to stop the crude attempts by the United States to enforce the writ of United States law on companies and citizens of this country. In addition., there is the possibility—perhaps the probability, although personally I am tempted to reject this—that the CIA may conceivably be operating with the knowledge and assistance of the British Government to enforce United States laws against the interests of British firms and citizens.

In short, our high technology trade is now threatened in a way that may place us in permanent technological subservience to the United States and is likely to threaten our very sovereignty. What do the Government intend to do about it?

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is to be congratulated on initiating a debate on an important subject which has been debated only rarely. I hope that he will forgive me for saying that I cannot accept quite a lot of what he says, although I share some of his worries about the operation of extra-territoriality.

There is common ground between the hon. Gentleman, myself and the Government on the need to control the export to the Soviet Union and its allies of strategic high technology equipment and know-how. Surely it must be agreed throughout the House that such controls are essential if we are to play our proper part in protecting our security, in which our vital technological lead plays an essential part.

There can be no doubt that the need for control is as clear today as it has ever been. It has been evident for some time that the Soviet Union and its allies are putting considerable efforts into the acquisition of advanced western technology, often of direct benefit to the development of the Soviet military equipment programme. If the West allows this technology to be transferred, it loses a strategic advantage which it has developed at considerable expense. A good deal of further effort and expenditure of money and intellectual resources, often at considerable direct cost to the taxpayer, is required before we can re-establish our lead. I do not think that there is any disagreement about that among the member Governments of the Alliance.

Any measures designed to control the flow of western technology to the East must be organised on an agreed uniform basis. None of us could operate an effective embargo, which it is agreed is essential, if each member country went its own way and did not co-ordinate its action with others. Action by one member state to impose controls against the wishes of the other allies would do more harm to the cohesion of the Alliance than to those against whom the controls are aimed. I do not think that there can be much doubt about that, but if there is we have only to consider the disruption that took place in the Alliance in 1982 when there was disagreement about the supply of equipment from western European countries to the Soviet Union for installation in the west Siberian gas pipeline. Therefore, it is essential that such disputes do not occur.

It is valuable that the hon. Gentleman should put on record his concern about some of the activities of the American Government. I do not think that they are all well founded but it is important that such concerns should be publicly ventilated. It would be only in the interests of the Soviet Union and its partners if any member of the Alliance, whether it is the United States, the United Kingdom or any other member, were to break ranks from the uniform basis of control.

The form in which the common approach to the embargo is worked out is known as COCOM which is a co-ordinating committee. The member states meet at COCOM to co-ordinate their policies towards the embargo. It is not a treaty-based international organisation. It is merely a forum for meetings that are attended by the various member states. It was set up in 1949 and its function is to control and co-ordinate the strategic export control policies of the members, which are the members of NATO, less Iceland and Spain, and Japan. It works on the basis of unanimity. That is an essential safeguard that ensures that no policies can be adopted and that no policies can be changed without the unanimous consent of all the members.

The hon. Member for Yeovil drew attention to his view that some of the list of goods subject to the embargo are out of date. The lists are revised periodically to bring them up to date and such a review is in progress now. I very much hope that it will reach a conclusion later this year. It is right that measures should be taken from time to time to bring the lists up to date.

The British Government's view is that the list of embargoed goods should be as short and as precisely targeted as is consistent with the needs of our collective security. It would be wrong if the list were to be cluttered up with products that might have been of strategic sensitivity years ago when they were at the forefront of technological progress, but have been overturned more recently by modern developments. What is the point of denying the Soviet Union equipment to which it already has access? Lists that are too lengthy greatly complicate the task of enforcing export control by blurring the ability of the authorities concerned to focus on what is essential.

Export controls on items that are not generally strategically sensitive undermine public confidence in and the support of the industrial community for the embargo as a whole. It is right that the list should be brought up to date, but we must not jeopardise the genuine, widespread public support within the United Kingdom for the aims of the embargo, provided that the lists are up to date, and it is administered sensibly.

It is common ground that one of the ways in which the list is badly out of date is in what it has to say about computers. The present COCOM arrangements for computers were agreed as long ago as 1974 and that means that substantial revision is required to ensure that only computers, software and computer-controlled equipment of strategic significance is covered. We agree with the United States on the need to cover genuinely strategically sensitive computers. However, we do not share some of their strategic assessments, particularly as regards low-power computers and in respect of a wide range of goods that are now controlled by microprocessors. Discussions on this topic are continuing and we shall give special attention to it.

The Government have made a careful strategic assessment of our attitude towards controls on computers. The British computer industry has been kept fully in touch with developments by my Department. Some of the present computer items in COCOM are out of date, but there are provisions that enable us to issue licences at national discretion for certain computers. The hon. Member referred to his digital watch, but claims that people who export such things are committing offences are incorrect. Programmable pocket calculators require an export licence but provided that the Customs and Excise is satisfied that the calculators are being exported as personal effects, it has discretion to waive the requirements of a formal export licence.

The hon. Gentleman made one accusation with which I should deal in case there is any misunderstanding either in or outside the House. I can confirm that no Ministry of Defence officials are co-operating with the United States embassy on export controls. I think that is the answer to his question. It is true that representatives of the American customs in the embassy are co-operating with the investigation division of our Cusoms and Excise, and that is perfectly normal.

Is the Minister confident that any information supplied or obtained by British firms does not get used for any other purposes than those relating to customs? I wish to know in particular whether that route is one by which the alleged 300 firms that are on the CIA's books have obtained their information.

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Therefore, I can deal with the point about which he has written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I am sure that he will receive a letter on that point shortly.

An essential element of this is enforcement. We have decided to put more into enforcement because there is no point in having controls if we do not enforce them. These measures are already beginning to bear fruit. There are a number of cases pending in the courts where British subjects are facing charges of illegal exports of embargoed equipment to Eastern Europe. We are pressing ahead with trying to enforce the rules, which have been commonly agreed.

I share the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about extraterritorial jurisdiction by the United States. The exercise of purported jurisdiction by the United States beyond its frontiers is a matter of very great concern to the Government, in this context and others. For example, I have already mentioned American measures against the supply of western equipment for the Siberian pipeline.

We have made it clear time and again to our friends in the United States that our harmonious relationship is threatened by the American Export Administration Act. Although the Act lapsed in October, Congress is considering successor legislation and, in the meantime, controls remain in force under emergency legislation. We believe that measures to give effect to the strategic embargo must be a matter for agreement and co-operation between members of the Alliance.

The United States is prepared to negotiate with its partners in COCOM a multilateral system of export controls, but it insists on substituting its own judgment for the judgments of its principal allies. It is not acceptable in political terms for American export restrictions to be extended to the British subsidiaries of American corporations or to the re-export from the United Kingdom of goods or technology of American origin.

It is also not acceptable for the authorities of another country to extend legislation to companies in the United Kingdom in ways that displace British policy and may harm employment and profitability in British companies. The Government believe that such measures are contrary to the generally accepted principles of international law. We have urged the American authorities to ensure that the new Act will not include claims to have power to impose or maintain restrictions that have extra-territorial effect.

I am grateful for that assurance, but will the Minister go further and confirm that, in advance of the agreement, his Department will protect any British firm that comes under commercial pressure from the United States to obey American law?

I shall deal with that in a moment. We have to recognise that, despite all our efforts, and those of our allies to persuade the Americans that their extraterritorial pretensions are bad law and bad policy, they will exist for a bit longer.

Therefore, we have been urging the American authorities to adopt measures that, without prejudice to their position on the principles of international law, may nevertheless result in the practical application of those measures in a way that will minimise the political and jurisdictional difficulties. So far, we have had some success.

My answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that in the last resort we have at our disposal the powers in the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980, which the Government introduced specifically to combat the extraterritorial application of foreign law. We used those powers in the Siberian pipeline case and the aviation antitrust case, and the Government are ready to use them again if we are left with no alternative. Obviously, we would not wish to use them, but we are prepared to do so if there is no alternative.

The hon. Member mentioned Mr. Perle, an official at the American Defence Department. It is important to remember that, unlike the British Government, the American Administration is not monolithic. We have a tradition of collective responsibility, but the United States has a tradition of senior officials speaking in terms that do not necessarily reflect an established consensus. The extension of the role of the Defence Department is limited and is an internal matter for the American Government. There has been no change in American legislation.

I will deal with what the hon. Gentleman said about Plasma Technology if I have time, but I wish first to answer the claim that American export laws extend to business dealings with companies in the United Kingdom. That is not a new claim, but it has no validity in British law. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State emphasised that on his recent visit to the United States and I shall repeat it when I visit Washington soon after Easter. In Britain, British laws must be observed.

We should like the Americans to renounce their claims once and for all, but the really important point is whether the American claims result in any practical damage to United Kingdom interests. We are continually in touch with the American Administration on this matter and they can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this country on the issue, nor about the potentially harmful effects on the interests on American multinational companies. The Americans have a stong interest in avoiding problems of this kind.

If, however, firms find themselves in difficulty as a result of attempts to enforce American export control laws in the United Kingdom, I hope that they will inform my Department at once. We shall pursue the matter vigorously and defend British interests wherever we can. The British Government feel most strongly about that.

In 1982, about £1 billion-worth of British goods were exported to the destinations covered by the COCOM embargo. Only 4·5 per cent., worth £45 million, were goods controlled by COCOM. Of that 4·5 per cent., £38 million worth were licensed under our national discretion procedures, and only £7 million worth of goods had to be put through the COCOM procedures. Although, therefore, some of the hon. Gentleman's fears are exaggerated, he has raised a serious and important matter that we shall continue to study.

I wish to raise the right-to-buy case of Mr. E. Bacon of 6 Periton road, Eltham, London, SE9, but first I shall give a brief general background to the case.

Although my council of Greenwich is controlled by another party, I try to have not only correct but reasonably friendly relations with the authority. After all, we are both elected to serve the interests of the residents, ratepayers and, in many cases, the tenants of the borough. Indeed, the motto of Greenwich is, "We govern by serving."

Under the 1980 right-to-buy legislation, many tenants applied to buy their homes. Greenwich council originally took the view that it would not abide by the law, but when it eventually agreed that it would abide by it, it created all kinds of delays and put obstacles in the way of many tenants who wished to buy their homes.

The council put forward arguments about service charges and tried to exclude the sale of garages, even though that meant excluding a garage built on land that was clearly let as part of a home. Some cases are still outstanding. One involves a tenant who is trying to buy the gate and path which runs adjacent to his house but which the council still believes should be regarded as common land.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being here to answer the debate. I thank him publicly for the efforts that he and his Department have made, including, on occasions, consulting Greenwich council. On behalf of many tenants and ex-tenants, I say a public "Thank you" to my hon. Friend and all who have been concerned for the amount of success that they have managed to achieve. In each case it might have been possible for Greenwich council to be obdurate and to take county court action but in the main the council has in the end shown itself able to decide on a reasonable course of action.

Mr. Bacon's father was once the tenant of 6 Periton road. Mr. Bacon junior, if I may call him that, has lived there all his life. His father used to use some of the land behind the houses as an allotment. After the war the allotments were used by the tenants in the area, but in the 1950s it was decided that they should not continue as allotments but should be allocated to the gardens of the houses forming an inverse square around what had been the allotment site. Every part of the old allotments, and the service alleys, are now incorporated in somebody's garden. It became clear that the land which had been let with his home to Mr. Bacon senior had continued to be fenced and had been used for probably 30 years by the two Mr. Bacons.

In 1966, the present Mr. Bacon—Mr. E. Bacon—was granted a tenancy by Greenwich council. I have asked the council, giving, I believe, reasonable notice, for any evidence to show that any part of the land which Mr. E. Bacon has used as his garden, has been fenced as his garden and has been drawn as his garden on ordnance survey maps has not at any time since he was granted his tenancy been part of his garden. No written evidence has been given to me. I have received only an assertion that it was allowed to him on licence. I do not intend to get involved in detailed legal technicalities as, if the matter is not resolved, it might go to court—although I have an assurance that no court hearing has been set down. I believe that I am therefore free to speak in general terms. I shall not go as far as I could because, even if I have the freedom to do so, I would not want to prejudge any eventual action.

No written evidence has been given to Mr. E. Bacon or me to the effect that part of Mr. Bacon's garden was separately allowed for his use under licence. Therefore, from 1966 until 1981, everyone assumed that the land was part of Mr. Bacon's tenancy. As part of his tenancy, Greenwich council had no choice but to sell it to him as part of his right-to-buy application. Even if the council had told him that it was let under licence in 1966—it did not—I believe that, having been under constant cultivation by the family for 30 years or possibly more, Mr. Bacon would still have been able to claim that the land was let to him as part of his tenancy. However, we need not touch that hypothesis because Greenwich council did not at any stage from 1966 to 1981 advise, inform or give notice to Mr. Bacon that the land was anything other than part of his garden. Anyone who went along to the area and asked, "Whose land is this?" would have been told, "It is Mr. E. Bacon's."

Mr. Bacon put in his application to buy and Greenwich as usual, did not respond within the time limit laid down in the Housing Act 1980. We let that pass because, sadly, that was the case with thousands of people who applied to buy in the borough of Greenwich. A few months later, presumably under general instruction from the council, a council official told Mr. Bacon that part of his garden would not be sold to him. I assume that that official believed that a licence had been granted to Mr. E. Bacon at some stage after 1966—that was a false assumption as there was no such record from 1966. Mr. Bacon then discovered that a neighbour—I do not want to say anything against the neighbour as this case applies purely to Greenwich council's handling of the matter and what the House provided in the 1980 Act—was informed that he could take down Mr. Bacon's fence.

I think that Greenwich council has forgotten that the 1980 Act also contained a tenants' charter which no longer allowed local authorities to take back, at will, Iand that was let to a tenant. Here again Greenwich council is out of order and ignoring legislation passed by the House—I cannot believe that it is ignorant of the legislation. Mr. Bacon protested and matters continued until he came under severe pressure to complete the contract to buy at least that part of the house and land which Greenwich council was eventually prepared to sell to him.

Hon. Members who are lawyers may be willing to stand up to the authority of the London borough of Greenwich and may have legal advisers with as clear an understanding of the law as I have. However, Mr. Bacon, presumably after consultation with, if not the advice of, his legal advisers decided that it was better to go ahead with the purchase so that he could at least have his house. If necessary, he could then sell it to move elsewhere or pass it on to his children—the sort of reasons people consider when applying for the right to buy.

The allotments incorporated in other people's gardens could be sold as part of the right to buy without any question about whether a licence at the time of the carve-up had been converted into an integral part of the tenancy. It is peculiar that only in Mr. Bacon's case was the land apparently not incorporated with the garden because of Greenwich council's decision, taken with hindsight 15 years after Mr. Bacon had taken over the tenancy.

During the past two months I have requested Greenwich council to provide a detailed explanation of what happened at each stage. I asked the council whether it would produce the written evidence of any licence arrangement. No such evidence has been forthcoming. I asked a senior official of the council for a copy of any legal advice given to the borough council. I was informed that I could have a copy if the council members agreed, but might not be permitted to quote it. I asked whether I could have copies of any advice given contrary to the story I am now telling the House. Presumably there is nothing wrong with knowing the advice on which the council based its case. I have not received that copy of the advice.

I have been told that if the issue developed into a county court action, which the council would be required to take against the occupier of the land to get the land back—that is necessary because the tenants' charter gives protection to tenants—there is a prospect that the council would succeed. The trouble is that that action would cost each party about £3,000. In effect, to test Mr. Bacon's rights would cost an extra £6,000. This matter involves only a small piece of land. The council believes it was licensed separately from his tenancy until 1981 when his application to buy came forward.

I have strong views about Greenwich council's actions in this case. I make it plain that what I am saying is not partisan. I would say exactly what I am saying now if I were trying to help a tenant in a local authority area controlled by my Conservative friends.

Greenwich council is a public authority and one expects such an authority to maintain a certain standard of behaviour and strict observance of the law on matters such as the right to buy. Sadly, for the first two years after the legislation on that subject was passed, this public authority generally did not do so. That was a purely political decision. This action on the right to buy was started by mistake, probably during a general period of obstruction. I believe that someone made a decision without searching for the evidence. Perhaps someone searched for the evidence but did not find it.

The central part of my representations on behalf of Mr. Bacon is that there is no evidence that at the time that he became the tenant of 6 Periton road there was any question of a licence. The council, he and his neighbours did not know of it. There was nothing from the person occupying the home that abuts the part of his garden that Greenwich council now believes is his, not Mr. Bacon's, in 1966, 1967, 1968 or any of the years up to 1981.

It seems that, after perhaps some deliberate political obstruction and then possible a genuine mistake, Greenwich council forgot its duty to Mr. Bacon. Its duty to him is not to use threats of legal action or obstruction to deny him the rights, which I assert are his, to continue not just to occupy the house but to own the land that it was the duty of Greenwich council to sell to him when he made his right-to-buy application. One of the sad features about the case is that it can sour relations between the ratepayer and the council and possibly between the Member of Parliament and the council. Such a case certainly takes up a great deal of the time of council officials and probably council members which might be used to greater advantage.

Greenwich council and myself are of one mind in trying to improve conditions for tenants generally, although we have different views about the level of rates. We share a common interest in the welfare of the ratepayers and the residents, the owner-occupiers and tenants who live in the London borough of Greenwich.

Greenwich council has a high reputation to protect. I do not wantonly try to drag its name in the mud. I contacted the council in February and said that I had heard what for me was a worrying story. I said that I hoped to hear what proposal it would make to restore the position to what it used to be. The land had to be part of the purchase. I was, I thought, co-operative; I told the council that I would not say anything in public until the matter had been reviewed. After about a month, it was revealed by the housing sub-committee. Unfortunately, it did not feel that it was right to reverse the view that it had taken, contrary to all available evidence, some time before.

I then wrote to Greenwich council and said:

"I believe there is no evidence that Greenwich Council reserved part of the land when Mr. E. Bacon was granted his tenancy. If I am wrong please let me have that evidence"

by the time I proposed to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate. It is perhaps an illustration of how seriously I view the matter that this is the first Adjournment debate that I have had in my nine years' membership of the House. My letter continued:

"I believe that the only advice you could have given the Council and its committees was that the land was his and should be his. If you gave contrary advice, please may I have it by Friday."

I said that I believed that it was wrong of Greenwich council to use its financial power to institute court proceedings which would use ratepayers' money in an attempt to seek what could, to me, be only a perverse and unlikely court decision—that Mr. E. Bacon would have to give up the disputed land. I continued:

"I would like to receive by Friday any evidence that I am wrong. If you are able to send me legal advice which, although supporting my contention, may not properly be used in the House, perhaps you should delay it until after Friday."

I do not think that a Member of Parliament could have taken a quieter approach. I was quiet but determined. I am determined in this case. When a public authority, in my view wrongly—and wrongly even to a more impartial person than I am—pursues a doubtful line of argument, created after the event—the tenancy for Mr. Bacon in 1966—it should not use its might to put at risk what this House clearly granted to any tenant, that is to say, the right to buy with his house the land which had been let with it at the time that he started his tenancy.

My hon. Friend has listened patiently. I think that his Department has shown perhaps as much forbearance as I have in dealing with the London borough of Greenwich. I hope that he will accept it from me that I am not making a partisan attack on the borough. I am trying to redress Mr. Bacon's grievance. I believe that I have pursued it properly, and I intend to continue pursuing it in every way that I legitimately can until I am satisfied that common or garden justice is done, in addition to the possible pursuit in other ways of legal justice. I hope that the end of this tale will be that Mr. Bacon has his land, that Greenwich council will not feel that it has lost face, and that the council and I will have shared in trying to restore to a ratepayer and a previous tenant of the borough the land which has been his since he took over the tenancy. The crucial issue is whether it was part of the tenancy or not. I believe that clearly it was.

The House has listened with care to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and to his moving explanation of the problems that have been experienced by his constituent, Mr. Bacon.

I am sure the House will share the view that it has been a curious and sorry tale. I applaud my hon. Friend's attempt to resolve the matter for his constituent and bring to public attention what he clearly believes to be an injustice. It has been wholly in accordance with his reputation as a first-class constituency Member of Parliament. Mr. Bacon is fortunate to have such a powerful advocate on his behalf.

My hon. Friend's constituent is in dispute with the London borough of Greenwich about the area of land which he believes should have been conveyed to him as part of his right-to-buy purchase. Although he has successfully purchased the property in which he is resident, Mr. Bacon understandably contends that he should also have been given title to a small piece of land at the bottom of his garden which has apparently been in his use and that of his family for a very long period.

The status of the dispute between Mr. Bacon and Greenwich council is not exactly clear. The dispute remains sub judice as far as the council is concerned. Therefore, the House will appreciate that I should not comment on the case, nor express any view on the issues involved, except in general terms, given the possibility, as I believe is the position, that the matter will come to court in the near future.

What I can say is that, under the right-to-buy provisions of the Housing Act 1980, there have been a number of cases where tenants seeking to buy their homes have complained that land they were using, as they believed, under their tenancy was not being included in their right-to-buy purchase and was instead being withheld by their landlord. The land in dispute has included garages in or next to the house, gardens often on so-called open plan estates, allotment or orchard land next to the house, pathways and passageways and so forth—and, indeed, in my hon. Friend's case, apparently a gatepost.

The position under the 1980 Act is that a tenant is entitled to buy all the land included in his secure tenancy. Section 50(2) provides that land let

"together with a dwelling-house shall be treated as part of the dwelling house unless the land is agricultural land exceeding two acres".

This means that any such land is included in the secure tenancy of the dwelling house. It also means that where a garage or other land is let under a separate tenancy to a secure tenant—this is not an uncommon occurance—it may still be within the secure tenancy and hence come within the right to buy.

Whether, as a matter of law, land let under a separate agreement in any particular case is "land let together with" will depend on the facts of that case, and there is a good deal of case law, built up in the context of the Rent Acts. which in the Deprtment's view is relevant. Such disputes as arise however, may, apart from the application of case law, prove difficult to resolve because lettings by local authorities of land or facilities associated with the dwelling have tended to be informal or were made some time in the past.

In either case the position is frequently encountered that plans showing the precise extent of land let to the tenant were not provided, so that there remains room for debate about what is and is not the present extent of the tenancy for the purpose of implementing the right to buy.

Partly to cater for this problem, and partly because we recognise that secure tenants might be occupying land adjacent to the dwelling house under licence, we also provided in section 3(4) of the 1980 Act for land to be included in a right-to-buy sale by agreement where it was used for the purposes of the dwelling house.

The concept of trying to reach agreement with a local authority has not always proved practical, however; unfortunately, any provision that has allowed a landlord unfettered discretion to reject a tenant's request has proved to be of little help to tenants when dealing with an authority that has apparently set out to make life difficult for those wishing to exercise their right to buy. Such has seemingly been the case with the London borough of Greenwich.

Disputes of the sort that have arisen have undoubtedly caused tenants much anguish and distress. I can best illustrate by quoting from one of a number of letters received from tenants of the London borough of Greenwich aggrieved at the restrictions imposed by the council on the sale of garages:

"We appealed against the decision not to allow us to buy the garage on the grounds that it was built in our garden, the whole of which had formed part of the original tenancy agreement … the garage is only 7 ft from our house, with a window at the back looking onto the house, so a considerable amount of privacy and security will be lost if it is let outside the family. Our case was duly considered by the Housing Committee in February, but again we were refused the chance to buy the garage … the garage was built at our request … We made the decision to go ahead with the house purchase even without the garage because after 18 months of contant effort and haggling to establish our legal rights we were beginning to feel that we were getting nowhere".

I am happy to say that the result in a recent and similar complaint in which my hon. Friend represented the views of a constituent to Greenwich council was altogether different from that which I have just recounted, and a solution was rapidly and readily provided by the authority. One can only hope that this marks a change of heart on their part.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the case of at least one tenant to whom Greenwich council will not sell a long leasehold tenancy house although the tenant owns the freehold. That is another sign that there is more work to be done, and my hon. Friend and I will have to continue doing it.

It is depressing news that the obdurate attitude of Greenwich council persists. In a moment I shall say something about a provision in the Housing and Building Control Bill that might bring some relief in some cases. It is none the less the case that in the light of experience, principally gained in respect of Greenwich, we have decided to repeal section 3(4) of the 1980 Act and to replace it with another under which the tenant will be able to require to be included in the right-to-buy purchase any land used for the purpose of the dwelling house where it is reasonable in all circumstances for the land to be so included.

That provision is contained in the Housing and Building Control Bill which the House debated yesterday. We believe that it will get over the difficulty of whether land forms part of the secure tenancy: as long as the tenant can show that he has used the land for the purposes of the dwelling house and that it is reasonable to include it in the purchase, he will be able to buy it. The onus will then be upon the landlord to establish the contrary.

My hon. Friend has commented on the record of the London borough of Greenwich in implementing the right to buy, and I can certainly confirm that the council had, and apparently still has, a history of implementing the relevant provisions in a manner which I would regard as unhelpful to its tenants. I could catalogue a range of problems which have been reported to the Department. The council has, for example, only recently derived and begun to implement what it hopes will be a solution to a long-standing dispute with its right-to-buy purchasers about the imposition of service charges on freehold sales—a matter on which my hon. Friend brought a deputation to see me.

We have always been doubtful whether the requirement to pay the charge such as has been levied accords with the provisions of the 1980 Act. My Department has discussed the question at length with representatives of the council. Again, it is as a result of the experience of dealing with the problems of service charges at Greenwich that we have brought forward in the Housing and Building Control Bill proposals which will provide right-to-buy purchasers with further protection and recourse against the imposition of unreasonable charges.

I commend again the initiative of my hon. Friend in championing the right of his constituents to have the rights which Parliament meant them to have under the right-to-buy legislation. I know that his constituents are grateful for his work on their behalf.

Before I put the Question, may I wish hon. Members and our staff, who serve us so well, a happy Easter recess.