I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

My short speech will not reflect the diversity of family law matters that are covered in the four parts of the Bill, the first three of which deal with separate Law Commission reports. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude, which I am sure is shared by the whole House, to both the English and Scottish Law Commissions for all their hard and magnificent work, which is ably illustrated by parts I to III in respect of law reform.

Part I gives effect to the recommendation of both commissions that is contained in the report entitled "Custody of Children — Jurisdiction and Enforcement within the United Kingdom". This part, by providing uniform jurisdictional rules for the determination of custody disputes and the procedural means whereby a custody order may be recognised, registered and enforced throughout the United Kingdom, will deal with the internal United Kingdom problem of child abduction.

Part II gives effect, with modification, to another joint report entitled "Recognition of Foreign Nullity Decrees and Related Matters". This is a technical law reform matter and is designed to assimilate the grounds for the recognition of foreign nullity decrees to those grounds, which are also modified by part II, for the recognition of divorces and legal separations that are contained in the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act of 1971.

Part III carries out the recommendation of the English Law Commission that is contained in its report entitled "Declarations in Family Matters". This part provides a new code for England and Wales for the granting of declaratory relief in matters of matrimonial status, legitimacy, legitimation and adoption.

Lastly, clause 64, in part IV, which relates to miscellaneous matters, enlarges the rule-making powers of the Matrimonial Causes Rule Committee to enable that committee to make costs rules which distinguish between legally aided and privately funded cases. Only with these wider powers can scales of costs be prescribed separately for legally aided cases as the legal profession desires. The clause was amended in another place and I understand that both branches of the legal profession are now content with this provision. Clauses 65 to 67 make technical amendments to other legislation dealing with international and criminal aspects of child abduction that will make them more effective.

The Solicitor-General's Second Reading speech struck a nice balance between general explanation and detail, and there is a considerable amount of detail in this technical and complicated measure. The Bill is welcome and I have no intention of trying to delay its passage through the House, at least not unduly.

I shall take this opportunity to say a few words about family law, including matters that are in the Bill and others that are not and perhaps should be. The Bill's title may raise hopes in some quarters which its contents will fail to meet. For example, the Law Commission has recently reported on illegitimacy. In summary, it recommends that the legal consequences of illegitimacy, as they affect the non-marital child, should be removed from the law. I support that recommendation. In a written answer of 4 June the right hon. and learned Attorney-General promised that legislation would be introduced "at the earliest possible opportunity", in response to the recommendation. That legislation does not appear in the Bill, but perhaps that is something that we shall be debating in the next Session, perhaps when dealing with a family law reform Bill. At a later stage we may consolidate such a measure with this Bill.

Equally disappointed will be the supporters of the family courts campaign. The Bill does not have anything to do with family courts either, but there are good reasons for initiating family courts. Such a system would unify and thereby simplify various jurisdictions for family affairs. It would provide a vehicle to introduce simpler and quicker procedures which emphasise conciliation and the desirability of agreement between the parties. It would be possible to provide adequate conciliatory and welfare services and to remove family matters from courts that are accustomed traditionally to dealing with contested matters, and, in the case of magistrates courts, criminal matters.

A family court system would reflect the increasingly sympathetic approach to divorce which takes such matters beyond those which are normally considered by courts of law. Family courts exist and function successfully in Austrialia, New Zealand and some parts of the United States of America. Our present system creates more bitterness than is necessary and encourages people to spend money, sometimes public money, via the legal aid scheme on lawyers. I an not convinced that good always comes of spending money on lawyers, and certainly not in the realm of family law. However, the Bill does not deal with family courts.

The Bill is based on the work of the English and Scottish Law Commissions and I associate myself with the Solicitor-General's remarks about his gratitude to both commissions for the work. In 1981, in its 15th annual report to Parliament, the commission stated:

"It becomes very difficult for us to plan our work if the Government does not express a view on recommendations made by ourselves and others within a reasonable time after delivery of the reports containing them."

It continued:

"A number of important law reform proposals made by other bodies during the past 10 years or so have not been implemented. In some instances it is not even known whether they are accepted by the Government in principle."

Things have not improved. In its most recent report, the 20th, the commission lists a further 15 reports, two of which go back to 1981, which have not resulted in Government action.

The House recently debated the Lord Chancellor's salary increase. Whatever that substantial rise was based on, it was not productivity.

indicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General seems to object to the idea of productivity improvements in the Lord Chancellor's Department, which should certainly take place in the higher echelons. I cannot understand why he takes such a view.

The main argument that is usually advanced for delaying the recommendations of the commission—some of them are highly technical but non-controversial— is that parliamentary time cannot be found. This excuse is advanced by a Government who intend to take the Bill through all its stages in this place this morning. The House does not delay any non-controversial legislation that is based on the work of the commission. Nor has such legislation been unreasonably treated in another place. It is the Government's failure to bring such matters to Parliament which is the major obstruction to law reform.

The Bill is highly technical and perhaps it needs to be. I feel, however, that it makes heavy weather of some fairly simple matters. Would it not have been possible in some way to treat the separate jurisdictions in the United Kingdom as different contracting countries for the purposes of the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985? The Solicitor-General will recall that I moved an amendment to that measure when it was in Committee and that the Attorney-General said that there was a technical objection to it. He said that it contained a "fatal flaw" and claimed that it was inconsistent with section 25(1)(b) of the 1985 Act

"because once the United Kingdom custody order has been registered, that clause would cancel it. That is a technical reason".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, Tuesday 9 July 1985; c. 4.]

I am not entirely convinced by that argument. I have to say, however, as I did in Committee, that there can be no political objection to taking the route that is outlined in the Bill instead of that set out in my amendment.

The Bill is divided into four separate parts, and part I gives effect to the recommendations of the commissions on the recognition and enforcement of custody orders between separate jurisdictions in the United Kingdom.

The only matter that I wish to raise on part I arises from clause 42(2) and (3). Those provisions mean that, once a child's parents are divorced in one part of the United Kingdom a custody order cannot be obtained in another part of the United Kingdom unless an order as described in this section is first obtained from the court in which the divorce was obtained. Thus, if a child's parents divorce in England or Wales and the child subsequently becomes habitually resident in Scotland it would be necessary to obtain an order from the English or Welsh court. That does not appear to be the case in the converse situation as the exclusion does not apply if the child is either habitually resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or present there and not habitually resident in another part of the United Kingdom. There is no similar provision made in respect of Scotland, so there appears to be a significant difference between the respective jurisdictions.

However, significantly, if the special provision in respect of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is correct, it makes the exclusion redundant. In effect it is saying that, where there is jurisdiction, the exclusion will not apply. In that where there is no jurisdiction the exclusion is superfluous, I find the purpose of that exclusion hard to define. Will the Solicitor-General deal with that point?

Part II deals with the recognition of the validity of divorces, annulments and legal separations. It would not be right not to refer to the one aspect of this part which has occasioned public comment — the issue of the Moslem family law ordnance. Clause 54 states:

"'proceedings' means judicial and other proceedings"

and deals with that. Under the Pakistani Moslem family law ordnance, provision is made for a procedure to replace the talaq in Moslem law. A talaq is a simple pronouncement of divorce by the husband. It is not obtained through proceedings, but under the ordnance it is held to be so obtained. A declaration of divorce is made and the wife and a Government official are notified. After notification there follows a period of 90 days in which the official may, but need not, attempt to reconcile the parties. At the end of the period, in the absence of any reconciliation, the parties are considered to be divorced.

The issue is whether that procedure merits recognition on the grounds of the residence, domicile or nationality of only one party to the marriage or whether it should be recognised only if both parties are domiciled in Pakistan and neither is habitually resident in the United Kingdom. The question is not whether we should recognise Pakistani law, but what limits should be placed on the jurisdiction of that law. Should a Pakistani national habitually resident in the United Kingdom and married to a United Kingdom national be able to obtain a divorce in that way? Should a United Kingdom national married to a Pakistani national habitually resident in the United Kingdom by going to Pakistan be able to obtain a divorce in that way? If not, perhaps proceedings should be defined in order to exclude that possibility. The principal objection to a talaq is that it discriminates against women because the procedure is available only to men. If a Moslem woman wants a divorce she must initiate judicial proceedings.

Part III is based closely on the Law Commission's declarations on family matters. I can find nothing objectionable in it, not even clause 61 which must be largely of historical interest.

Part IV is entitled "Miscellaneous and General". Clause 64 deals with the power to make rules of court. It may be thought to be unexceptionable, but it provides:

"Rules of court made by the rule-making authority … may amend or repeal any statutory provision relating to the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court."

Is there any precedent for empowering an extra-parliamentary body to make by amendment or to repeal statute law?

Although the Family Law Bill is tortuous and is a roundabout way of achieving certain objectives, it deals with an important matter and I do not wish to delay its enactment unduly.

I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) has given the Bill and for his kind words about the Law Commissions. I note his disappointment that the Bill, which is not insubstantial, does not do more in one fell swoop than implement the provisions of three substantial reports of the Law Commissions.

On the reform of the law relating to illegitimacy, he and those whose interests he properly represents will not be long disappointed. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor's Department has issued a consultation paper on family courts. The period of consultation expires at the end of this month and my right hon. and noble Friend looks forward to considering the representations made during that consultation period. I must reply to the hon. Gentleman's friendly criticism of the Lord Chancellor's productivity. The House will accept that he has been the most vigorously law reforming Lord Chancellor this century.

The hon. Gentleman raised many detailed questions and he will not expect very detailed replies. On his point about clause 42(2) and (3), which relates to custody orders, I must say that Scottish law, from which we have learned, adapted and adopted so much, is different and imposes technical requirements which have had a significant role in the formulation of clause 42.

On part II, the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the discriminatory effect of the talaq and other informal divorces against women. These are complicated and difficult matters. The Bill's policy is to take a more restrictive approach in respect of divorces obtained other than by judicial or other proceedings. It takes as its basis the present law of recognition of such informal divorces contained in section 6 of the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971, but it is more restrictive than that. Informal divorces will be recognised only if granted in the country where both parties to the marriage were domiciled or where a party to the marriage was domiciled and the other party was domiciled in a country under whose law the divorce, annulment or legal separation is recognised as valid. No such decree will be recognised if one party or both partes have been habitually resident in the United Kingdom for at least a year before the divorce was obtained.

In addition, clause 51 provides grounds on which the court may refuse to recognise informal divorces because there is no official certificate certifying that the divorce is effective in the country in which it was obtained or where one of the parties was domiciled in another country, but there is a certificate that the divorce is recognised as valid under the law of that country. The Bill's policy is the necessity and desirability to have some objective certification or assurance of the validity of the relevant divorce.

Lastly, under clause 64, the hon. Gentleman asked whether there is precedent for the formulation that gives to the Rules Committee power to amend statutory rules in the terms that the hon. Gentleman accurately quoted. The answer to his question is yes. The matter was gone into at considerable length in another place. There is precedent, which is very tightly controlled and restricted in this Bill. Nevertheless, it is desirable. The alternative is that main legislation would be required whenever minor amendments needed to be made.

I hope that I have dealt adequately with these matters and that we may now proceed.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This Bill consolidates the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts from 1949 to 1979, together with a small number of related enactments. It brings together the law relating to the establishment of parliamentary constituencies and the process of reviewing the distribution of seats undertaken by the Boundary Commissions for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Bill, which was prepared by the Law Commission, has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That Committee reported to both Houses on 25 June that the Bill is pure consolidation. No change in the present law will be effected.

Our thanks are due once again to the Law Commission and the Joint Committee for their work on this useful contribution to the continuous process of keeping the statute book in easily accessible form.

The Bill is pure consolidation, and on that basis it is acceptable. I add my thanks to those of the Solicitor-General to both the Law Commission and the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills for their valuable work. It is right that we should thank them when consolidation Bills come before the House.

The purpose of consolidation Bills is to make life easier for practitioners and those who have to refer frequently to our legislation. I am not sure how frequently this Bill will need to be referred to— not very often, I should have thought. It is pure consolidation, and I see no reason at all why the passage of the Bill should be delayed.

I beg to move,

That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (England) (No. 2) Order 1986 (S.I., 1986, No. 1689), dated 29th September 1986, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th September, be approved.

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that it would be convenient to take this and the other orders on the Order Paper together.

If that is agreeable to the House, so be it.

On Saturday 26 April 1986 the very serious accident at Chernobyl occurred. However, it was not until Monday 28 April that the detection of increased levels of radioactivity by the Swedish authorities alerted the West. On the day after, Tuesday, the Ministry of Agriculture initiated daily testing of milk and obtained meteorological forecasts of wind movements. The air current carrying the radioactive material went in a wide arc over Europe in the course of the next few days, On Friday, an increase in radioactivity was detected by the Ministry's Lowestoft laboratory. Arrangements for more extensive monitoring were immediately put in hand, with particular attention being paid to those foodstuffs that were most immediately affected — milk and leaf vegetables.

Although the House is not exactly full this morning, the details of how we dealt with this problem are important to have on the record simply because we had not expected that the powers that were given under an Act that had been passed only a year before would be so early used. One might say that public confidence is illustrated by the fact that vast numbers of angry, shouting Members of Parliament are not here to complain that the public were not properly looked after. Public confidence depends upon the public feeling that there is an adequate system to deal with even such horrific accidents as this. Therefore, I hope that the House will allow me to sketch quickly those measures that were taken so that if Opposition Members wish to raise particular points about what was done they will do so against a logical background that will be on the record.

It was quickly apparent that the major radionuclides were iodine and caesium and that, of these, radio-iodine was initially the most important. It will be recalled that these radionuclides work according to different time scales. Therefore, one was able to concentrate upon the one rather than the other. However, we also appreciated that radiocaesium would build up over a longer period.

On the Sunday, at 2 pm, the Ministry opened its operations room to enable those who until then had been in constant telephonic communication to co-ordinate their assessment and monitoring results and to handle inquiries from the general public centrally. My right hon. Friend and I have laid down a clear policy that the public should be fully informed of matters of concern such as this. All relevant detail is provided so that the public can rely fully on our statements. However, this policy opens the way for some to add unfounded fears and speculation to very real concerns. To put the figures into context, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculuture, Fisheries and Food made a number of television and radio appearances over the bank holiday weekend to reassure the public that radiation levels in food did not present a hazard to health and that there was no need for anyone to change their normal consumption patterns of milk and other fresh foodstuffs.

Our monitoring over the bank holiday weekend showed that levels of radioactive iodine in milk had peaked. Levels in cows' milk generally did not exceed a few per cent. of the derived emergency reference levels—I am sorry that one has to use such phrases but there is no other way to be accurate and if we are not accurate the technical press will soon pick it up—for radio-iodine recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board in line with the recommendations of the International Commission on National Radiological Protection. I think that we can accept that as being a reasonable level against which to measure our concern. Peak levels on individual farms in the areas of highest rainfall did not exceed 20 per cent. of that level.

We made a distinction between giving all the information necessary and not giving particular information about a particular farm. If a farm is tested, but not its neighbour, it would not add to anybody's information and it would certainly increase the difficulties in getting the testing done. We averaged the results and gave the top, bottom and middle levels. We felt that that was the best way and I think that that has been generally accepted.

Activating our existing contingency plans, we set in train one of the most extensive monitoring operations of foodstuffs ever undertaken. As the monitoring of food was only part of a full-scale monitoring of water, air and the environment generally, it was agreed that the composite data would he made available through another of those curious organisations, the co-ordinating technical information centre at the Department of the Environment, and that such data should be available for consultation in London. In addition, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made food data available at the Ministry's regional offices. Attention was drawn to that in the daily press bulletins put out by the TIC on 10 and 15 May. When the TIC was stood down in the middle of May, my Department continued to issue results of monitoring in press notices.

Our monitoring showed that levels of radioactivity in milk and vegetables declined. However, it was recognised that radiocaesium, being a longer-term problem, would need continued monitoring as it built up in the muscle of animals grazing contaminated pasture. From about the middle of May levels of radiocaesium in young unfinished lambs not then ready for slaughter in areas of high rainfall over the bank holiday weekend showed such levels building up. We immediately intensified our monitoring to identify the exact locations where radiocaesium levels in sheepmeat might cause concern.

We also commissioned the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology to undertake more detailed surveys of deposition patterns across the country to identify the precise areas likely to be affected. That information was available early in June and, with the monitoring results which we had built up, identified areas where levels in sheepmeat were likely to be high.

Since most early lamb comes from lowland areas it was there that action had to be considered most urgently and it became clear by mid-June that we would not be able to guarantee that radiocaesium in all sheep would fall to acceptable levels before some animals from those areas went for slaughter. Although our acceptable levels have a wide range of safety built into them it is still important to keep them as the clear levels by which we work.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I therefore decided to use, for the first time, powers available under part 1 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and an order was made on 20 June placing restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep for 21 days in certain areas of Cumbria and north Wales. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced similar controls in parts of Scotland on 24 June. The purpose of those controls was primarily to ensure that no animals with levels of radiocaesium above the internationally recommended action level of 1,000 bq/kg would reach the consumer and also to enable us to monitor closely the levels of radioactivity in those areas.

Soon after the imposition of controls, monitoring showed that radiocaesium levels in parts of the designated areas had fallen to an extent which allowed those parts to be released from restriction. However, levels above 1,000 bq/kg continued to be found, particularly in upland areas where the greatest deposition occurred, and made it necessary to continue restrictions after the expiry of the original 21 days. Therefore, further orders had to be made on 3 and 8 July continuing the restrictions in areas of Cumbria, north Wales and Scotland for a further period of 21 days. Restrictions were lifted progressively as monitoring showed that it was safe to do so.

I am pleased to say that our models were right in predicting falling levels in most areas. However, no model is perfect and in the upland areas we encountered a number of special factors arising from the terrain and grazing habits of upland sheep. We must be clear about the remarkable achievements of the scientists who carry out the preparatory work in the event of an accident such as this. Their models proved to be successful.

However, there are particular elements in upland areas which we have discovered as a result of this accident. I think that hon. Members will agree that it is inconceivable that in making such predictions we would get everything right. We have learnt a good deal, about the effect of the deposition of radioactive material from rain of which we previously had little experience. One factor is the effect of different kinds of soil and the pattern of growth of grass.

When the Minister began by saying how accurate his model had been I was worried that the Government were becoming complacent. It is mainly the upland areas that are affected by sheep restrictions and those are the very areas where he has admitted that things are going wrong. On 24 July the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), said that there had been alarmist reports that restrictions might be necessary for another six months. It is now clear that the restrictions have not only gone on for six months but are likely to go on for a further six months. Does the Minister now admit that there is a danger that the restrictions could continue for another six or nine months in those areas?

We want to be as accurate as possible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was referring to alarmist views that large areas of the Principality, Cumbria and Scotland would continue to have restrictions. In fact, restrictions have already been removed from large parts of those areas. Having lived through that time and having been involved from day to day in considering how we dealt with the problem, I can say that one of the difficulties of being open, as we have been, at every point with the information that we had is that there are those who constantly want to pretend that there is something that they have not been told. We were trying to say that we were giving all the available information and acting on it. Widespread restrictions have not gone on for a long time, but that was just one of the predictions with which we had to deal at the time.

Our models are based upon a series of different possibilities. One would have been that the rain fell over the lowland areas at a particular time. Another would have been that the cloud was blown in a different direction. All I am saying is that all our models show clearly what would happen. The only areas in which we had difficulties were in the precise prediction of the effect of radiocaesium in a particular mixture in particular circumstances. We have learnt a good deal, but the action that we took was right in protecting the public's health in the circumstances.

I did not want to go through my speech without paying tribute to those who have done such a good job in preparation for such an accident merely because we are bound to concentrate on those things from which we have learnt for the future. That is not complacency. A bit of gratitude, given the hours that those people have worked and their input, is necessary.

The restrictions were lifted progressively. We were able to lift the restrictions in some areas in time for farmers to proceed normally, but in some other areas we could not do that. To meet the problem we introduced a scheme which would allow sheep marked on the head and neck with long-lasting paint to be moved out of the designated areas. Restrictions on the slaughter of such sheep remained in operation.

Since some parts of the designated areas were known to be likely to be ready for release earlier than others, the designated areas were divided into higher and lower deposition areas, depending upon the extent of contamination by radiocaesium. Sheep released from the higher deposition areas had to be marked with blue paint and those from the lower deposition areas with green paint. Restrictions on slaughter were to be removed only when all restrictions in similar areas in the United Kingdom had been lifted.

I am glad to say that it was possible to release green marked sheep from all restrictions from 30 September. The mark and release scheme was extended on 15 September to permit, under consent, the sale and movement of breeding animals inside and outside the designated areas. Such sheep were marked on the head and neck with red paint. I assure hon. Members that none of the colours had any political significance.

All this caused losses to the farmers and from the outset the Government pledged to compensate them. Throughout, we were determined that our schemes would be tailored to real needs rather than to producing speedy solutions which would have turned out to be inappropriate.

Our conversations with the farming unions proved how complex it was to try to find a system which met particular needs. One cannot have a prejudged system to meet such compensation needs. The farming unions were faced with the same problems in that the situation was changing rapidly and it was not easy to know what their members would need. As the conversations proceeded, the farmers' priorities changed as they saw the effects of the scheme on the ground.

Our first compensation scheme was designed to help producers of those finished lambs which, through being held back by the restrictions, were subsequently rejected for variable premium on the ground of overfatness when their areas were released from the restrictions. Later we introduced a second scheme to compensate producers for their market price losses on marked sheep which were released from the designated areas and presented at store markets and sales, as well as liveweight certification centres. Our third scheme, announced last month, provides assistance towards the direct costs incurred by producers of finished lambs and cast ewes.

This brief account of the principles on which we have based our compensation understandably does not go into the considerable detail of the methods of assessing the market price losses, the "price blight" attaching to marked animals and our headage payments for direct losses sustained on certain sheep enterprises. In trying to work those out, we discovered that the details were complex. The complexity was necessary because the simpler solutions which we sought would not have met farmers' needs.

When one examines how the rest of Europe dealt with the problem it is noticeable that we were the most clearly prepared and that we provided the most carefully worked out and comprehensive compensation scheme. Some countries imposed restrictions on farmers but did not compensate them. Others imposed no restrictions and did not pay compensation. Some imposed restrictions and provided some compensation. No country went to the lengths that we did to ensure that the farmers were properly looked after.

The compensation that we gave to producers was provided as soon as we were able to establish and fully meet the real needs of the situation. Our compensation took account of marketing and sales patterns, already disrupted by the late spring, and poor finishing conditions. Detailed discussions with all the farmers' unions involved have, of course, been necessary. This has been hard work for all concerned. Ministry of Agriculture staff worked all hours. They and the people with whom they dealt in -the farmers' unions should be congratulated.

We believe that the totality of compensation arrangements that we have now agreed—we are giving priority to paying out the sums as quickly as possible—represents a fair and balanced response to the needs of producers.

Looking ahead, I am aware that many farmers are anxious to know how long the controls will continue in force and I should like to say a few words about that. The restrictions introduced on 20 June imposed controls on more than 4 million sheep in Great Britian. I hope that that is remembered by those who suggested that there was an easy way of putting all the sheep under cover. Such people obviously never understood the figures or the details.

Today fewer than 300,000 sheep remain under restriction and many would not normally leave the upland areas before the spring. Progress has therefore been excellent, but radiation levels in sheep in some upland areas have not been falling as fast as in lowland areas.

There is a combination of factors at work and our research has been greatly assisted by the recent development of new instruments by British instrument manufacturers — sometimes good comes out of ill —which were encouraged by the Ministry. They enable us to live-monitor sheep under field conditions.

One of the biggest problems was that there was no accurate way of dealing adequately with live animals. The animals had to be slaughtered and this was followed by a long period of testing. That was a problem which was foreseen but we had to be more restrictive. We had to assume that any one sample was a general sample.

Two factors appear to be contributing to the persistance of radiocaesium in the upland areas: first, the dietary and grazing habits of the animals, both of which are significantly different from animals with unimpeded access to relatively fast growing lowland pasture grass; secondly, the peaty soil conditions in many parts of the upland areas. It is well established that clay and other mineral soil materials have an affinity for caesium and quickly immobilise it within the soil. In well-drained soils whatever is not immobilised tends to be quickly removed by the surface run-off or seepage away from the rooting zone. The problem in the upland areas is that there are pockets of land poorly drained and in some cases totally devoid of mineral-binding agents.

It is quite clear that the sheep themselves show the same biological characteristics as other sheep when transferred out of the upland areas and radiocaesium levels fall away very rapidly once animals are moved to totally clean pasture. This indicates that once the affected areas return to normal the problem will be resolved.

Two natural processes may be expected to make a significant impact on the situation during the coming months. The first is the effect of winter conditions, including frosts, which will break up the soil and allow enhanced drainage of surface water and the second will be the new plant growth which will be coming through in the spring.

There is now extensive scientific evidence from many countries that deposited radiocaesium rapidly becomes immobilised and unavailable to biological systems. There is no reason to expect the long-term behaviour of Chernobyl to be markedly different. We are, however, looking at various ways to see if we can find action to speed things up. That is difficult because we are talking about very large areas which are often high and isolated. Many different holdings are involved. One can talk about reducing the numbers involved from 4 million to 300,000, but we must remember that 300,000 sheep are spread over large areas, so the ability directly to affect the nature of the land artificially is not easy.

Tests have already been carried out on the use of clay-like materials to absorb radiocaesium, both within soils and within the animals themselves. Preliminary results are encouraging and we shall continue to work in the hope that some simple treatment may be available to ensure the earliest possible return of these hill areas to their full productive potential. A considerable amount of research work is already under way both within my Department and by a number of independent research organisations acting under Ministry funding to ensure that we get the right solution.

In the meantime, we shall do whatever we can to ease the burdens on those farmers affected and will keep the mark-and-release scheme under continuous review. Operation of live monitoring equipment should now reduce to a minimum the number of sheep that need marking. In this way we should be able to ensure that any price blight will be minimised and the marketing pattern for sheep in the area concerned returned to normal as soon as possible.

Finally, I pay tribute to the farmers in Cumbria, Scotland and Wales who have co-operated with the Government on the introduction and implementation of the controls which were brought into effect through no fault of theirs.

I remind the House that we have an absolutely prime duty to care for the health of the nation and it must be in the farmers' own interest to recognise that prime duty. If there were any possibility that the Government had acted in any way which was not putting that duty first, considerably more damage would have been done to farmers and to the production of lambs. It is not easy to draw up regulations, They are the product of many months of work and on them depend the lives and livelihoods of many men and their families. For that reason, the actions taken depended very much on the cooperation of the farmers and the actions were taken in circumstances in which they were bewildered and worried about an accident the like of which we had not had before.

I hope that no one has ever accused me of any kind of complacency. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will know that I have Sizewell A and the putative Sizewell B in my constituency and can never be complacent about nuclear power or the possibility of nuclear accidents. The one thing in which we can take a pride is that when the facts were fully expressed and despite the actions of those who wanted to make more of them for all sorts of reasons, we were able to carry on a sensible and rational approach with the support of the farmers. We were able to do that with remarkably little, although some, anxiety and did not have the sort of panic which could so easily have arisen. Throughout, people recognised that food produced and presented on the market was absolutely safe for consumption. They recognised that no one needed to take any special measures about diet and knew that that was because of the action of the Government and the farmers and because of the carefully planned arrangements for monitoring and for taking action. That is a tribute to the large number of people who worked together to make such a situation possible.

We have to learn from this that things may not always turn out as plans predict. Every circumstance will be different. I hope that this sort of thing will never happen again, but we must be prepared for such events. If it did happen again—or if some other kind of accident of a parallel nature happened from a source other than nuclear energy — the shape of the cloud, the movement of the wind, the distribution of rain and the land and soil upon which the fallout took place would all introduce different factors. Even with the experience that we have had, there is no way in which we can predict how best to approach that.

Because we had to go through this difficult period we now know a good deal more. What is more, we have shown that the broad base of the system is satisfactory. What we have done and what we must now do formally is to ensure that all the lessons we can learn are learnt. That process will go on until the last restriction is lifted and the last alteration is faced. We must learn those lessons so that we can continue to have a society in which by freely admitting the extent of a situation and clearly stating the dangers and the action that we are taking we can ensure that the population can have confidence in the pronouncements of the Government and of scientists. That alone will give people the chance to get through such a difficult period without the sort of panic that some people expected to happen.

I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for taking all these orders together. It has long been one of my ambitions to have a say in Scottish legislation, and your action has enabled me to achieve that ambition. 1 should like to express my thanks to the technical staff in the Ministry who, as the Minister said, worked long hours unceasingly. The best way in which we can express our gratitude is to make quite sure that the administrative and legislative framework in which they act is as good as possible. That is part of our job in this debate.

Secondly, I express my admiration for the way in which farmers accepted this event and adapted and responded to it. They showed remarkable restraint. I was about to say that farmers adopted a stoical attitude, but that was not always so, as I discovered when I spoke to worried people in Wales. They accepted and adapted to the situation in a remarkable way. We must never forget—the Minister did not, but I do not think sufficient attention was paid to it—that farmers' livelihoods were affected and that at one stage the future of their farms was in the balance. I hope that economic prospects are a bit better for them now, but for a long time they were worried people, not least because they were borrowing at absurd rates of interest which are likely to rise.

Not the least of our problems is the parliamentary procedure for debating this incident and its aftermath. As the Minister fairly said, the orders were made in late June and here we are debating them in late October. I say we are debating them, but that is not strictly true. This week it has not been easy to find out what we were to debate this morning. I first tried the House authorities and drew a blank. I then approached my side of the usual channels, my side being the riparian owners of my side of the usual channels, but they did not know either. They approached the Government side and matters became even more alarming because they did not know which orders were to be debated. It was only when the Ministry was approached that the orders to be debated were specified.

We are not debating the original orders because in many cases they no longer exist. We are debating their grandchildren and great-grandchildren and often much more distant offspring. For example, one of the orders before us, I think it is the Scottish order, is described as the No. 8 order. Orders have come into existence and have been amended and died without the House ever having considered them. It could be said that the reason for that is unfortunate timing. It was close to the Recess and we had a month and the emergency was to deal with other issues. It could be said that that was the main reason, but whatever the reason it has precluded the House from voicing the fears of people who are intimately involved. I recognise that that is far less important than the compensation and the protection for those whose livelihood is affected, but part of that protection is that we scrutinise regulations to test their adequacy. I hope that one of the lessons that we will bear in mind for the future is the importance of the adequacy of the arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny.

As the Minister said, this is not the first time that we have considered at least the framework in which such happenings occur. I was involved in the passage through the House of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. At that time Ministers were adamant that compensation was completely covered by two factors. The first was the principle that the polluter pays and the second was insurance. At that time we urged the Government to set up a national compensation fund as a fallback. There was a long debate about insurance. I want to give the Minister who opened the debate an easy ride, but I will give the Minister who is winding up the most difficult question. How many of the people affected had insurance or were able to insure against that happening? We were pooh-poohed when we said that it was an uninsurable risk, even though various insurance bodies had said that.

Under international law, surely the country of origin of the incident — in this case the Soviet Union — is responsible for paying compensation. However, there appears to be no prospect of it doing so. I want to predicate an event that I hope will never occur and which must be avoided by all means. What would happen if a French nuclear power station had an incident similar to that at Chernobyl? Would the Government take the view that farmers should sue France in the international court? Would the Government sue France? Would the Government once again provide compensation for farmers?

After the incident at Chernobyl, the fine principle about the polluter having to pay came to nothing and the Government had to set up their own compensation fund. I am glad that they did so, but I want to be quite clear on how much of the philosophy of the 1985 Act must now be jettisoned. An agreement should be established now, so that in any future incident either the principle that the polluter must pay is applied or a compensation fund is made available.

Is there not a case for an international agreement, as wide as possible, to cover such contingencies? Should it not establish the responsibility of national Governments to provide compensation when incidents within their countries contaminate other countries? Are the Government pressing for such an agreement, or is Britain's susceptibility and tenderness on the question of acid rain precluding that?

The hon. Gentleman's last comment is certainly not true. We are currently discussing these matters with all of the countries involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one important matter is the original notification and details of any accident. The Soviet Union is a closed regime where there is no real public opinion and no real ability to question. Therefore, there is no questioning of the initial placing of a nuclear power station, its building or its safety mechanisms. There are no regular articles in The Guardian discussing how these matters should be handled; there are no Friends of the Earth arguing whether there should even be nuclear power plants.

That is why I made the distinction about the date of the accident and the date when we picked up the information —we picked it up; we were not told. Our primary concern has been to ensure that a better vehicle for information is established. The Soviet Union has moved some considerable way to meet that objective—as it has had to do under international pressure.

The other issues all predicate upon one point. We have reserved our position on whether the Soviet Union will be required—as it should be if the case is proved—to pay compensation. Whatever comes out of the discussions, whether or not the Soviet Union pays up and whether we have an international agreement, the crucial point for the British farmer is that he knows that compensation is not dependent upon long-winded international discussions. After Chernobyl, the farmers needed to know that compensation would be dealt with immediately.

I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's last point. It is a pity that the excessively theoretical approach of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 about relying on the polluter paying plus any insurance proved to be the source of a great deal of worry —even in advance of Chernobyl.

Like the Minister, I hope that the Soviet regime—which is showing a more refreshing openness about incidents that previously would have been kept hidden from the international gaze — will feel able to release information on disasters promptly and widely. The sinking of the nuclear submarine is an example of its change of heart, and I hope that that continues. Nevertheless, we need a framework of compensation for the future. The current scheme, although it is comprehensive, is ad hoc. I hope that we and other countries will together consider what can be done for the future.

Although I concede that in the latter stages of the incident the position very much improved, I do not think that the Minister's description of everything having run smoothly at Government level from the start is a fair reflection of what happened. The Government were caught on the hop and there was considerable confusion and chaos. Many lessons were learnt and we must ensure that they are applied in future—

rose—

I shall not give way. The right hon. Gentleman made a three-minute intervention in my speech, having already spoken for well over half an hour. He must listen occasionally. He cannot have the last word, the last but- one word and the word before that. If he listens he may pick up a scintilla of information that he does not already possess and that might be helpful to him.

The Minister did not take part in the debate on the 1985 Act, so I can tell him that it proceeded very much on the basis that we were discussing a domestic nuclear incident. We discussed areas of land close to nuclear power stations that would be affected. As the Minister conceded, Chernobyl threw up a different position because the contamination came from outside Britain and initially was not specific to any area. The Department of the Environment, which was originally nominated as the lead department, did not handle matters well. One problem was that it did not have the same familiarily as MAFF with procedures for communicating with farmers. I am actually giving the Minister a plug for his Department, so I do not know why he is looking so choleric. When MAFF became the lead Department the position improved. When something happens for the first time, it is a learning process for the future. We are now assessing what happened. Several Departments, along with the National Radiological Protection Board, had unclear remits. In future we must avoid such contradictory and confusing information.

The Government have launched an internal review of procedures that is due to report before the end of the month. Indeed, it may even be on Ministers' desks already. I urge the Minister to publish the report in some suitable form so that the whole country will know the lessons that have been learnt and what we propose for the future. The European Commission recently proposed common European procedures to deal with nuclear accidents. That is superfically attractive, but I do not know whether it is just a pious hope rather than a worked-out scheme. The Government do not appear to be too receptive to the proposal. Will the Minister address himself to that point when he replies and inform us of the Government's attitude to the European proposal?

We have to deal with the time scale. I understand the question of the radiocaesium and the time scale that affects it as opposed to that which affects iodine. However, the contamination reached us on 2 and 3 May, but the order was made on 20 June. That seems a long delay, particularly as there were stories in the press about high radiation levels for about three or four weeks before the order was made. Therefore, we have to ask whether the restrictions could have been made sooner. I assume that the Ministry is satisfied that no contaminated lamb got into the food chain, but nevertheless if restrictions are to be made, the sooner the better in such incidents.

With hindsight, we realise that it would also have been better if the Government had been more frank with the industry when the restrictions were imposed. The idea was given that this was a short-term matter and the situation would soon be back to normal. It would have helped farmers had they known the length of time that the restrictions might have been in effect, because they would have been able to make arrangements to cope better.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) about how long the order will last is important, and needs to be dealt with. In certain areas, levels are dropping more slowly than had been anticipated, as the Minister said. A number of people have been given a voice by the hon. Member for Caernarfon. They feel that these restrictions will be in existence in some areas well into 1987. The Minister did not answer the question about how long the restrictions would be in place. One always hopes that such restrictions will be short-term and that there will be more amending orders and more farms being taken out of the restriction zones as quickly as possible. We must know whether it is likely that another three, four, five or six months may be involved.

What plans do the Government have if such areas are to remain under restriction for next year? Do they plan anything about the sheep and the effect on grazing areas? There will come a time when the Government will be invited to cut their losses and slaughter and dispose of sheep that are still above the safety limit. Those questions must be answered frankly if we are to know what the future holds. What advice are the Government to give farmers about grazing?

Despite the Minister's talk of alarmism, I must raise what reputable agriculturalists such as Professor John Bryn Owen of Bangor have been raising about the longterm possible genetic effects on sheep. I do not know the truth of this. I was excluded even from O-level classes in biology, never mind the rarified levels in which these debates are conducted. Serious problems are being raised, and the Farmers Weekly carried an item about them recently. I should like the Government to assure me that they will monitor the long-term effects of this kind so that we shall know whether there have been effects. The Minister did not concede that in his encomium of openness. Nothing will be gained by hiding long-term genetic defects and I hope that monitoring will continue.

Contamination of silage affects cattle rather than sheep. Again, the Government have given reassurances that it can safely be fed to animals. I presume from that that the Government are satisfied that no risk is involved. Again, a continuing monitoring process would be helpful.

Compensation is dealt with in three different ways— the original fat lamb scheme, the compensation associated with market release and, now, agreed only on 7 October, compensation for direct losses. The farmers' unions to which I have spoken are reasonably happy with the final package, although on the third element, being paid on a headage basis will mean rough-and-ready justice. It is justified because individual assessment on a farm-by-farm basis would be a difficult and lengthy process.

However, the farmers' unions are critical about the way in which the Ministry has dragged its feet about these matters. First, there was a reluctance to accept that compensation was justified, and then the principle of compensation for direct losses took a long time to agree. As the restrictions impinged on the commercial activities of farmers, and they readily accepted it, should not the Government have responded in the same spirit by offering a realistic compensation package at an earlier stage? I hope that a Government compensation scheme will be clearly in place, and will leave no one in any doubt that, should, unfortunately, people be affected by another such instance, they will be financially indemnified from the consequences.

For how long will compensation provisions continue? Can the Minister give us an assurance that, as long as farmers continue to suffer indentifiable losses as a result of the Chernobyl disaster, they will be compensated for those losses? For example, if it turns out that there are long-term genetic effects, or a loss of fertility, will compensation be paid? That is important.

I hope my speech has not criticised in a partisan way or carped about the deficiencies, but the job of the House is to learn from experience so that the future is better safeguarded. If the Minister answers my questions, we shall have taken some steps towards doing that.

I am sure that the House will wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his exposition. I wish to associate myself with his remarks and those made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) in thanking not only the staff for dealing with the emergency when it arose but the farmers who had to bear the brunt. I also express the thanks of the House to consumers, who had a deal to contend with, partly as a result of the campaign in the media which tended towards hysteria, particularly in those portions of the press which rely more on pictures than on words for appeal. The people responded in a placid manner, and that is to be welcomed. Consumers have a voice in this debate and as I represent no farmers I shall speak for them.

I associate myself with many of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, but I rather parted company with him when he referred to chaos and the Government being caught on the hop, and made other remarks that nearly brought my right hon. Friend the Minister to his feet, but he was pushed back. That is not a fair reflection on the way in which the matter was dealt with. The speed with which the Government responded to an emergency that they could never have predicted, far away in the Soviet Union, is a remarkable achievement.

The order relating to England speaks specifically about Cumbria. I want my right hon. Friend the Minister to make it clear that the reason for the place of Cumbria in the order has nothing to do with Sellafield. I mentioned the media's attitude to these matters. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency to hint that the presence of Sellafield in the part of Cumbria which is affected by this order may be the reason for its continuation as a restricted area. That is an unfortunate suggestion, and I hope that the Minister will make it abundantly clear that this order relates only to the after-effects of the Chernobyl disaster, not to any activities by British Nuclear Fuels plc at Sellafield. It has its own problems, and it is right that those problems are clearly dissociated from the problems that we are discussing today.

I assure my hon. Friend that that is precisely the case. These orders are limited to the aftereffects of Chernobyl.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that assurance. It is important that that should be put on the record, because some people will still insist that the opposite is the case. Only by continuing to state that fact can we hope to give the lie to remarks that are sometimes made outside the House.

Do the hon. Gentleman and the Minister accept that we should monitor the total radiation that affects animals? To the extent that radiation from civil nuclear power stations may contribute to that total radiation, as has been shown in the case of the fish in Trawsfynydd lake, it must be taken into account together with anything that comes from Chernobyl.

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend would wish to take responsibility for dealing with that question, which lies well outside his brief, but from my experience and knowledge of the matter, I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon that that is indeed the case. There is continual monitoring in the area around Sellafield. Indeed, it has been established that if a man were to eat 50 tonnes of whelks from Morecambe bay in one year, he might be slightly ill, but it is hard to say whether it would be as a result of radioactivity or as a result of overeating.

My hon. Friend the Minister has dealt with my first point, and I need not press him for any further comments when he replies to the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State did not say, when he opened the debate, whether there had been any prosecutions under the orders which are supplanted by those before the House today. It might be helpful to know whether the proposals in the previous orders have had to be put into effect by way of prosecution.

I wish to reinforce the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd on compensation and the maintenance by the Government of their efforts to ensure that compensation is considered as an international matter. It cannot be right that the British taxpayer should shoulder the burden for an affair which is in no sense the responsibility of the British Government or people. I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister will give that assurance to the House when he replies to the debate and that the Government will be unceasing in their efforts to ensure that there is adequate compensation, as a matter of international agreement, when this affair comes to an end.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that 4 million sheep were initially affected by the orders, and that the figure is now down to 300,000 sheep. That is to be welcomed, but it would be wrong for the Government to be tempted to remove the restrictions a moment sooner than was safe for the British people, especially in relation to the lamb which they might eat at a later stage. I entirely sympathise with hon. Members who represent the areas seriously affected by the orders, and for their sake I can only hope that the restrictions will be lifted soon. But at a time when it is clear that the orders must continue, at least for the foreseeable future, it would be wrong for hon. Members to press for a commitment which might put the Government in an invidious position later. We are debating public health. Public health must be the paramount consideration for the Government and the House.

It is probably too early to go too deeply into the lessons that can be learnt from the affair, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say whether he believes that lessons can be learnt about the position of lowland areas. Clearly, we shall learn much about the biological impact on the uplands, which will be extremely valuable, but it is important to those of us who represent the bulk of the United Kingdom to know whether similar lessons can be learnt from Chernobyl. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that when he replies.

I am glad that this debate is taking place. We have had far too little debate on this serious issue, which has been especially serious in the county of Gwynedd, which is home to a large proportion of the sheep that are still restricted. It is unfortunate that we do not have a larger attendance in the House this morning. I should have though that such a subject would dictate the presence of more than 10 hon. Members, but I am glad that at least one Member from each of the four parties in Wales is in the Chamber, and I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will respond to the debate.

I make it clear at the outset that I have not criticised and I do not criticise the Government for introducing the orders. It was necessary to give complete confidence to domestic consumers and those abroad, who are an important part of the sheep market, that the Government would take all the steps necessary to maintain safety for the general public. I also underline the congratulations and thanks that have been given to those who have undertaken considerable hard work over long hours in this matter.

The Minister of State should have given even greater thanks to the farmers than he did, because farmers have abided by the restrictions in a remarkable way, despite the great difficulties that many of them have faced. Not one instance has been reported of a farmer infringing the restrictions. That is something for which they deserve considerable thanks and congratulations. In that context, perhaps they were justified in wanting to know more about what was going on and wanting more coherent information at an earlier date. Although the compensation package is now broadly acceptable—some details still cause problems — even as late as 18 September the National Farmers Union issued a press statement entitled

"Government sheep scheme a shambles."

That shows the uncertainty that existed for several months after the problems arose.

There is also a question about the degree of safety since the Chernobyl disaster. We must not only monitor what has happened at Chernobyl, but must keep a close eye on what happens in our nuclear industry. Some people with a scientific background who are in a position to know suggest that dangers arise from our nuclear industry. We should always bear that in mind.

I am not sure whether we should take the line that the Soviet Union should be taken to court and made to pay compensation. I disagree with hon. Members on both sides of the House about that. The Russian people have suffered enough and have had to pay an enormous price for their suffering. If we continued to say that those who caused the disaster should pay for it and we take the Soviet Union to court, where would we stand in relation to the difficulties that we have caused to the Scandinavian countries because of our contribution to the acid rain problem? I would advise caution on that.

I was merely seeking to point out the inadequacy of the principle that the polluter must pay. I was not advocating a court action. My two points were that there should be Government compensation and an international agreement.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to enforce the principle that the polluter must pay and we need greater international co-operation on pollution matters, particularly those relating to radioactive pollution. The conference in Vienna on 25 August was satisfactory and open. The delegates from Wales were impressed by the openness shown by the Soviet Union at that conference. We must build on that for the future.

We should not be too complacent about how public health could have been affected by the Chernobyl incident and we ought to note the comments of some people on the scientific side. A New Scientist article entitled "How Ministers misled Britain about Chernobyl", written by Mr. David Webster, who has been an adviser to our Select Committee on the Environment, aroused considerable attention and led to a leading article in the magazine. The leader said:

"While the National Radiological Protection Board was advising the government on the likely health effects of the accident, ministers were making misleading statements to the public … Kenneth Baker, the environment secretary, claimed that there would be no risk to health in Britain. Perhaps Mr. Baker does not count 'a few tens' of deaths, the NRPB's first estimates, as a health risk.

When ministers make such stupid statements, is it any wonder that people do not believe them when they claim that it is safe to build nuclear power stations?"

That needs to be put on the record. We should not be alarmist, but nothing will be lost if we admit openly that when there is an increase in radiation there will be greater risks and some people will suffer. That is unfortunate, but it is a matter of fact and we should not try to hide from it.

The NFU briefing to hon. Members on today's debate says:

"the Government must now make clear that the high levels of radio activity measured are exclusively the result of the Chernobyl accident, and not linked to nuclear power stations in the area."

In view of the radioactivity levels in fish to which I referred in an intervention, we need to monitor and identify, as far as we can, what radioactivity is directly associated with the Chernobyl accident and how much is general background radioactivity. If some radioactivity is identified with our nuclear power stations programme that should also be identified. Such a breakdown of information would make it easier for us to have confidence.

The Government clearly did not expect the restrictions to last for so long. I quoted in another intervention the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), who suggested that I had made alarmist comments in the debate on 24 July when I referred to reports that the restrictions might have to continue for another six months. In fact, there is every likelihood that the restrictions will continue for another six or nine months. It would be useful if the Government acknowledged that that could be so in some areas.

Figures on radioactivity levels have been published, and the Government figures for Gwynedd a couple of weeks ago referred to 2,200 bq/kg of caesium in lamb. One farmer in my constituency said that he had a level of 4,000 bq/kg on his farm. If it takes 70 to 90 days for radioactivity to halve its intensity, it will take nearly three months for the level on that man's farm to fall to 2,000 bq/kg, another three months to halve to 1,000 bq/kg and nearly another three months to fall to 600 bq/kg, which is the safe level that the Government look for to clear areas. If that is the case, let us be open about it and admit that a limited number of people may be in that position. It would have been much more satisfactory if that had been done at the start.

There have been criticisms about the delays that occurred in the testing for radioactivity. We must avoid that mistake at all costs. We are on new ground and there have been helpful technological developments so that if, God forbid, a similar accident happened in the future, we would be in a stronger position.

There also appear to have been delays in communications between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Welsh Office in May. Following replies to correspondence after the debate on 24 July, I am far from satisfied, that we were ready to act as quickly as we should have acted in Wales. I do not believe for one moment that the public have been endangered, but we need to examine how we can act more quickly.

I underline, as I do every time that I speak on this subject, that I do not believe that there is any danger to people who eat lamb. Steps have been taken and there is confidence. I encourage the public not to be misled by alarmist stories that suggest that there are dangers in the lamb in shops. I do not believe that.

We need machinery for monitoring live sheep as quickly as possible. If that had been done this year we could have reacted quickly to move animals without causing great difficulties for farmers. There have been difficulties. Some farmers have moved their sheep just before the restrictions were introduced. Some sheep were moved in preparation for being taken to market and I know one farmer who moved his sheep a few miles inland. Those sheep were locked in for weeks.

The traditional pattern in agriculture in Wales is that sheep spend the summer on the high land and come down to the low land in the winter. The Minister of State gave the impression that sheep would remain on the high ground throughout the winter. Many sheep would have been moved for the winter and the fact that that could not be done involved farmers in considerable costs. Many do not believe that they have been adequately compensated for their loss.

Farmers who did not take their lambs to market within three weeks of the ending of the ban are suffering. Many just did not know what to do at that time. They were afraid that markets would be flooded with a glut of animals and were unsure about how things would work out. Some were under other agricultural pressures and did not realise that the three-week period would be critical. It would be unfair if they missed out on compensation.

The Farmers Union of Wales suggested that a buy-up and relocation policy would have prevented many of the problems that occurred. Under such a policy the Government would have bought store lambs from the affected areas, taken them to graze in areas where radiation levels were lower and recouped the money spent on buying lambs and paying for grazing by selling the animals. The Government should have considered adopting that policy. I hope that it will be on the agenda if similar problems arise in the future.

The fat lamb compensation appears to be adequate. The mark and release scheme was introduced to release pressure in other areas, but between 19 and 25 August the system was a shambles. Farmers experienced considerable difficulties. It was 11 September before the situation was put right, following discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales and no compensation has been paid to farmers who suffered from the confusion that arose. That point should be looked into.

I turn to the direct losses. The headage payment had to be accepted not because it was the best way of paying compensation but because assessing the compensation due on an individual basis, which would have been much fairer, would have taken a year to 18 months, and there would have been cash flow difficulties. Thus, there was an element of rough justice, and some people may have missed out.

There is also the allied question of compensation for those farmers who have suffered from the effects of radiation on their silage. The topic was raised earlier, and is obviously directly relevant. The situation has been highly unsatisfactory. Bryn farm in my constituency, three miles from Caernarfon, is farmed by Mr. Peter Sturrock. In late July and early August the level of radiation in the silage was found to be 563 bq/kg. That silage was to be fed to dairy cows which would consume between 40 and 50 kg per day, amounting to between 20,000 and 25,000 bq per head. The farm was initially told that the safety level was 5,000 bq per head per day. In other words, that silage would have contained five times the safe level of radiation. Obviously, the silage was not used to feed the cows. Indeed, a consultant was taken on who worked for five days and who advised the farmer on how to cope.

Eventually, about six weeks later, the Welsh Office told the farmer that apparently, as a result of tests done in Germany, the silage was safe and could be used without diluting it by one part in five, as previously advised. But when it was asked whether it was safe to feed dairy cows the silage and to drink the milk there on the farm, as the farmer's familly normally did, there was some hesitancy as to whether it would be safe, undiluted.

Such confusion does not add to confidence. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the situation relating to silage. Why has such uncertainty persisted? A few weeks after saying that the level of radiation was five times too high, how could it be said to be perfectly all right to use? Will the Minister also clarify the reports that employees at the Trawscoed agricultural research centre in Aberystwyth have refused to work with soil because of the level of radiation? Such reports lead to great uncertainty and dissatisfaction, and that does not help anyone.

We must draw lessons from the disaster, so that if there is any difficulty with our nuclear power stations or with those of other countries, we can deal with it more coherently, fairly and quickly. Although a reasonable compensation scheme has been arrived at, we must ensure that those who have missed out because of the rough justice meted out are shown some flexibility. That is necessary if confidence is to be maintained in the industry.

Welsh lamb, in particular, is close to my heart, and I hope that the Government will help to project Welsh lamb and will help the marketing programmes for it so that after this year's hiccups, farmers can look forward to a more confident future, and so put this chapter behind them.

I support what has been said by the other Opposition Members about the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, but I must first congratulate officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and from the Welsh Office on having worked so hard to establish the facts. A tremendous amount of work was done. Farmers have suffered greviously, but they have adopted a very responsible attitude. They have suffered severely financially and in many other ways, and so they, too, are to be congratulated.

Understandably, farmers have shown great concern from time to time, but we can learn from mistakes in the past so that they do not happen again. When the emergency first arose, officials seemed to be unsure about the working of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985. They were somewhat muddled in their approach at the beginning. In some parts of north Wales the first three days of restrictions were busy days, because lamb is marketed on Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Sometimes vehicles were not stopped. Indeed, I refute the suggestion that there was no confusion. There certainly was confusion, and there is some evidence that, as a result of the uncertainty about invoking the Act, problems arose.

Many farmers are unhappy about how the boundaries were drawn for restricted areas. The boundaries did not always follow farm boundaries, but often followed roads and streams instead. As a result, holdings were sometimes split in two. On one farm, half of a flock of sheep was inside the restricted area, while the other half was not. Thus, the Welsh Office did not conduct a very confidence-inspiring operation in that regard.

Some farmers have still not received the results of animals slaughtered as long ago as last May or June. That is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. There is also some evidence that in the initial period there was not very good communication between the Welsh Office and the county emergency planning officers. As time went on, that problem was ironed out, but once again, a lesson can be drawn.

The frontiers of the restrictions on the movement of lamb and sheep were gradually moved back, and that is understandable. But it led to very slow movement and caused some uncertainty. In future, we should be more precise about announcing what is to happen. I know that that is difficult when one is waiting for the results of tests on lambs, but perhaps a more formal method could be worked out for the future.

There is evidence of price reductions of up to 20p per kg for some lamb sold in parts of north Wales. That means a £3 loss per head for a 15 kg lamb. The marking of lambs has also caused problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) that on the whole the fat lamb compensation scheme is not too bad but the situation affecting marked lambs, and particularly blue marked lambs, gives rise to concern. They are being held until January, and there is some evidence that farmers with cash flow problems have been forced to sell to dealers, even though the lambs cannot be marketed until January. Some of those buying blue marked lambs will make a tremendous profit, because farmers have had to sell them at very low prices. That is unhealthy, as the money should clearly have gone to the primary producers.

There is still a feeling that compensation should have been paid on a weekly basis. The arguments have been exercised as to why, on an individual farm basis, that would have taken a long time to sort out. Perhaps the element of rough justice that has been mentioned must stand in this case.

I ask the Minister whether any lambs were tested in the areas affected before the disaster occurred in early May. If any lambs were tested as a matter of routine, are results available with which we can compare post-Chernobyl results? I do not know whether such work has been done, but it would be useful to know whether it was and whether any information is available.

We in Wales are concerned about the problems of marketing and, in more recent times, the collapse of Welsh Quality Lamb, which was a sad case. There is no doubt that the delay in the marketing of lambs in north Wales must have been a contributory factor in the collapse of Welsh Quality Lamb. Obviously it is difficult to put one's finger precisely on how the disaster affected that organisation, but clearly it did. There may have been a case for the Welsh Office giving direct support to Welsh Quality Lamb to keep it going through a difficult period. The difficulties that exist between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment have been mentioned.

The orders before us relate to lamb. However, I shall make some general comments as I feel that we have some lessons to learn for the future. I believe that access to information should be automatic and accessible from the start of any like emergency. From some of the comments made this morning, that was not the case in this instance. There are problems of regional differences and inconsistencies. I believe that tests should take place in all areas —perhaps that was done in this case, but it was not always made clear—and the results should be published over the period of the emergency for all areas so that we can have a factual discussion and some confidence in the results regarding the production of food in unaffected areas. The information published was not clear enough. There needs to be better communication in the form of leaflets as well as the press information that was given out at the time.

I believe that there should be uniform standards throughout the EEC, and perhaps over wider areas than that. There is no doubt that there is evidence that this country's standards are inadequate for measuring radioactivity compared with those of other EEC countries. That needs to be sorted out. On some occasions, coordination with local authorities on market restrictions on a regional basis could have been better so that inconsistencies could have been ironed out a little better. Advice for consumers and producers must be concise and informative from the beginning. I have already mentioned the publication of leaflets.

I and many other people are worried about the omission of certain livestock which might be expected to show increased radioactive caesium concentration. For example, at a late stage, fish stocks were identified as a problem area. Perhaps those results were known earlier, but certainly they were not published. That is a worrying matter. Some of the radioactivity levels in fish in the River Conwy were extremely high. I ask whether there have been results from other herbivores in the wild; in other words, were rabbits or hares tested? Clearly, they were also affected by the incident. I am sure that grass samples were tested. They should have been tested — perhaps they were, but we do not know — at different heights of growth, in grazing areas and in grassland.

Mention has been made of the testing of forage and the unknown factors, especially in silage, and even hay, although hay was not badly affected. However, we need better information on silage. Obviously, testing took place on water supplies. That needs to be monitored carefully in future. Milk is well catered for regarding testing, but what about butter, cheese and other milk products made from the milk tested? It was difficult to get blanket testing in this case. We must not forget imports of dairy products from Europe.

There are many lessons to be learnt from the Chernobyl disaster. The farming community has been tolerant. It has suffered seriously financially. Certainly, in terms of cash flow, the incident has been a disaster. There have been problems from a marketing angle. I congratulate those consumers who have stood by lamb as a product and have continued to consume it. They have shown a great deal of sense, and they need our congratulations.

There are many unanswered questions about the incident. We can learn a great deal from it. I hope that in future we shall have a better ordered investigation. I hope that such an incident does not occur again, but we must be prepared for whatever may confront us in future. We must use information wisely and go on our way with confidence.

We have had a constructive debate. Hon. Members from all parties have taken part in debating an issue that has been of great concern to three specific parts of the United Kingdom for many months. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in opening the debate, gave a detailed background of the chain of events that led to the tabling of the orders. I shall not attempt to repeat that chronological account or to deal with it in terms of the Welsh position except to say that all the steps that he illustrated have been undertaken with equal determination in both Wales and Scotland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay)—is present for today's debate.

When the ban on movement and slaughter of sheep in north Wales was first imposed on 20 June, it affected 5,100 holdings and 2·1 million sheep throughout north Wales. With the most recent lifting of restrictions on 16 October, around 323 holdings and 143,000 sheep are still affected — less than 10 per cent. of the original total. Throughout that difficult period we moved to lift restrictions as soon as we were in a position to do so. As my right hon. Friend said in opening, we will not keep areas still covered by these orders restricted for a moment longer than necessary.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and others have asked how long the restrictions will continue, and the hon. Gentleman referred to my remarks in the debate that took place on sheep radioactivity on 24 July. The press reports that were flying around at that time were alarmist and suggested that wide restrictions were likely to remain in force for a long time to come, but the events of the summer have shown that those reports were inaccurate. I would not want, however, to say precisely when the final restrictions will be lifted. We are in the business of safety and not that of gazing into crystal balls. As the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, safety has been paramount in the decision to impose restrictions.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) spoke about the procedures of the House. Far be it from me to comment on that, but it would be a sad state of affairs if lengthy procedures were to prevent restrictions being lifted the moment that we were in a position to take that course. Throughout the summer recess we have made announcements that restrictions would be lifted as soon as possible. That has been our response at all times—hence the real change that has taken place since July.

I associate myself with all the tributes that have been paid to the farming community and the farmers' unions, specifically in Wales. They have been involved throughout in consultation processes in respect of compensation and they have done whatever they can to help allay confusion and uncertainty. It is inevitable that both confusion and uncertainty will arise when we find ourselves in the uncharted waters that the Chernobyl incident has produced. The hon. Member for Pontypridd and others have talked about polluters, an issue which I think my right hon. Friend covered in his comments. It is worth reporting that the United Kingdom has reserved its rights in respect of any compensation claims that it might consider making to the Soviet Union. These issues are better discussed in wider international forums so that international agreements can be reached to cover such events in future and more certainty can be introduced than is currently the position.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) emphasised the responsible way in which the farming community reacted at a time of great difficulty. It was important to allay confusion as quickly and constructively as we could. There is no point, however, in jumping the gun and providing incorrect information, which only results in making things worse. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall be examining the lessons learnt from this unfortunate incident. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will take note of the suggestion that we should consider publishing a report of the conclusions when they are ready.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd said that he was reserving the difficult questions for me. He asked a specific question about insurance and asked me to produce figures. I suspect that he knew that I would not be in a position to produce them. Such insurance policies, if they exist, would inevitably be in the hands of private firms and the statistics would not necessarily be easily available. It is unlikely that farmers took out such insurance, even if they knew of its existence. If they had done so in any numbers, we would not have faced the requirement to provide compensation with which we were confronted. That illustrates that the Chernobyl incident resulted from what insurers like to describe as an "act of God", although the Chernobyl instance was perhaps an act of man.

It has been said that there is a need for openness. I can say categorically that in the aftermath of the Chernobyl incident the Government have done everything possible to provide information to the public. I have a weighty folder with me containing all the information that has been presented over the past months to those concerned in Wales, and this information will continue to be presented.

It has been suggested that incidents such as the Chernobyl disaster are seen in isolation, but that is not so. Our regular monitoring processes were in operation before Chernobyl, and the moment that there were readings showing higher levels of radiocaesium in Wales, we intensified the monitoring activities. Those activities will continue and all the information that is gleaned will be analysed so that comparisons can be made post-Chernobyl with pre-Chernobyl and the time of the disaster.

Can the Minister say whether lamb consumption is back to normal in Wales and in Britain generally?

The figures show that lamb consumption is at a healthy level, especially when compared with consumption last year. One of the reasons for this is that the Government acted swiftly to reassure the market. Ministers have been at pains in all debates and discussions following the Chernobyl incident to emphasise the importance of convincing the public that Welsh lamb and other lamb is safe to eat and is safe in the food chain. The figures show that that has been a successful exercise.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon referred to a paper by Dr. Webster. The paper is based on some fundamental misunderstandings and serious factual errors. The result is unnecessary alarm. The National Radiological Protection Board has already rebutted publicly the arguments that are advanced in the paper and has issued statements that milk is entirely safe to drink. Our tests show that even peak value levels of radioactivity are well below those at which appropriate action should be taken.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the monitoring of other products, and we have continued the monitoring of agricultural products throughout the recess. The programme has been undertaken throughout the United Kingdom and has not been limited to the areas where we imposed restrictions on the movement and slaughter of sheep on 20 June. The produce tested includes milk and milk products, cereals, vegetables, fruit, game birds and other meats, and the results confirm that all the foodstuffs produced in the United Kingdom are perfectly safe to eat. In accordance with our policy, we have already published and will continue to publish the results of this monitoring programme.

Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, asked about silage. The issue, which was also raised during the summer was whether any problems were likely to arise from feeding silage with levels of radiocaesium to livestock. That was especially a cause for concern in Wales. As part of the general monitoring programme, agricultural Departments carried out a comprehensive testing of silage, particularly in areas of high deposition, to obtain a full picture of the situation. In north Wales about 400 such tests were made. They confirmed that generally first cut silage produced in the higher deposition areas had been the most affected.

The results have shown some variability between samples with the maximum levels found in silage being 854 bq/kg in north Wales, 302 bq/kg in Cumbria and 454 bq/kg in Scotland. Experimental work carried out by the United Kingdom agriculture Departments, including feeding silage with known levels of radiocaesium to dairy cows to assess the uptake in milk, have confirmed that no problems for human or animal health are likely to arise from feeding silage to livestock and there remains no reason to believe that restrictions will be necessary of the feeding of silage to stock.

Can the Minister clarify whether the Government reconsidered their position during August? If a level of 5,000 bq/kg per head per day was the danger level on 30 July for the farm of Bryn near Caernarfon, why was that regarded as safe by early September? Did new information become available?

Throughout the whole Chernobyl incident we have been constantly reviewing our procedures and ensuring that the information that we were receiving was the information that we needed and that it was accurate. That has been our guiding principle. As every item of public concern has been raised, including this one, we have considered it intensively. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are satisfied that the results of our research are accurate and that the position is as I have described it in my speech.

Our information is also supported by trials carried out in Germany which involved feeding silage with levels up to 4,000 bq/kg, which is more than four times the levels found in the United Kingdom. The experimental work that we have undertaken and the tests in Germany have shown that, on a daily basis, less than 10 per cent. of the amount of radiocaesium taken in from silage is carried through into milk. The levels of uptake of radiocaesium and radioiodine in milk are well below any level at which any action would need to be considered. The results of our experimental work will be published in due course. I assure the hon. Member for Caernarfon that reports about silage turning blue are not evidence of radio-iodine.

Chernobyl has focused the public's attention on radiation, and people are rightly concerned for their welfare and for the natural environment in which they live. We wish to do everything possible to meet this concern. That is why we shall continue to publish all the data that we have collected. I am sure that the House welcomed my right hon. Friend's announcement in July that he has arranged for the survey of radiation levels in Wales being carried out by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment to be extended to include data obtained after the Chernobyl accident. This survey, commissioned by the Welsh Office in 1984, was designed to establish a baseline of radioactivity in soil, crops and sewage and the extension will make it possible to assess the impact of the Chernobyl emissions upon these. This is a further example of the Government's responsible approach to the matter.

Before my hon. Friend gets too far into his conclusions, will he deal with the two questions that I put to him? The first is about the number of prosecutions, if any, under the orders previously in existence. The second is about what may be learnt by lowland farmers as opposed to upland farmers from the activities since the Chernobyl disaster.

I was coming to my hon. Friend's first point, but I shall gladly answer him now. There have been no prosecutions. That emphasises the highly responsible way in which farmers throughout the United Kingdom have responded to this difficult situation. Regarding the implications for lowland farmers, we shall monitor all the lessons from the incident and see how they should affect our future policies. In that respect we have heard a great deal about how the Government should have blueprints to deal with these incidents, but any disaster of this scale and nature is bound to produce its own set of circumstances. With the best drafting will in the world it is not possible to cover all the eventualities that may arise.

Our discussions on compensation and why the Government did not do earlier all that they have done rightly formed and important part of the debate. Hon. Members asked why the Government did not produce a comprehensive package instead of announcing three separate stages. The need to provide compensation has evolved as the position has developed. When the initial restrictions were announced nobody knew how long they would last. We have been in constant discussions with the farmers' unions and as a result compensation has been agreed. It is already being claimed and the system is working satisfactorily.

I note the point of the hon. Member for Caernarfon that some farmers may feel that they missed out on compensation because they did not claim it on time. Tremendous publicity has been given to each compensation scheme as and when it has been announced. The farmers' unions have done everything in their power to disseminate information. The schemes are hardship schemes and the reason for time limits on them is to encourage farmers facing genuine hardship to come forward as soon as possible. It is always open to the hon. Gentleman to draw our attention to specific cases in which extra hardship has occurred. If he knows of such cases, I hope that he will write to me about them. Our paramount principle is compensation for direct loss, not incidental loss.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon also mentioned the fears at Trawsgoed. I must point out that they were allayed on the day they were expressed. The advice of the NRPB is that trials undertaken there have posed no hazards to the operators undertaking them.

I remind the House that we faced new problems with the Chernobyl fallout which affected many areas. The Government reacted quickly and restrictions were imposed as soon as there was evidence of radioactivity levels in sheepmeat high enough to cause concern, should they enter the food chain. We have continued to test sheep and other agricultural produce. We have published the results of all the monitoring that has been undertaken and will continue to do so in the future.

That has placed a great strain on civil servants in all the agricultural Departments and I would like to pay my small tribute to all who have worked extra hours to ensure that everything has been implemented as swiftly as possible.

We have adopted a flexible approach to permit farmers in restricted areas to move their sheep, while at the same time ensuring that no sheepmeat enters the food chain until it is absolutely safe to do so. We have introduced fair and equitable compensation schemes for producers affected by the restrictions and we have released areas from restrictions as quickly as it is possible so to do. We shall continue to do that.

In this debate hon. Members have emphasised the importance of monitoring the long-term effects. Once again, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) that I agree entirely with the sentiments that he has expressed. We are already doing that as we shall publish our conclusions.

The measures that the Government have introduced were necessary, and they remain necessary. I have already said that they have successfully maintained public confidence in the sheepmeat in our shops. After the initial reaction, the demand for lamb has remained buoyant and prices for lamb have remained as steady as one could have expected in the general market conditions. Were it not for the action that the Government have taken and for the wholehearted co-operation of the farmers who were affected, the situation could have been very different. I commend the orders to the House.

I beg to move,

That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (Second Replenishment) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

My I first say how pleased I am to be in a position to move this order today, especially when I had thought that my main appearances at the Dispatch Box this week were going to be during debates on sex education and allied subjects. There is, I am sure, a wise and divine purpose in our affairs. I should also like to say what an honour it is to follow in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). He has made, and will continue to make, we all hope, a significant contribution to development matters. He now has a wider canvas for his honest and thoughtful approach to politics.

As the House will know, IFAD is a specialised agency of the United Nations. In several ways it is unique. It was set up following the 1974 world food conference. It began operations in December 1977. Its main objective is to raise more money, on soft terms, to help developing countries to improve their food production systems and related policies and institutions. Its priorities are to increase food production in the poorest food-deficit countries, and to improve as well nutritional standards among the poorest people in these and other countries. It is the only lending body exclusively concerned with these targets. It has specialised in trying to get aid through to peasant communities, and particularly to women, whose role as farmers and traders is so often neglected.

IFAD is unique in another way, too. It was founded, and it functions, on the basis of a partnership between three distinct groups of countries. Each of them holds one third of the voting power and one third of the board of directors. Category I consists of OECD countries, category II of OPEC countries, and category III covers the non-oil exporting developing countries. Its president is traditionally an OPEC country national. Only category III members are eligible for assistance from the fund. With modest administrative and financial resources, IFAD has in the short time of its existence already put its stamp on rural projects worldwide. Up to the end of last year, 28 Commonwealth countries had received from it loans and grants worth about $635 million since the beginning of 1978.

Because IFAD is a partnership, it has always received its funding from contributions negotiated jointly between category I and category II. It started off for the period 1977–80 with $1,024 million, on a burden-sharing ratio of 57 per cent. from OECD countries and 43 per cent. from OPEC countries. Category III members made further contributions of $19 million. The Western donors had always believed that each group should make equal contributions, as each held an equal stake in the institution. This was resisted by OPEC members and in the end — a triumph for pragmatism — a compromise was struck.

The first replenishment of the fund was meant to cover the period 1981–83. This had to be extended as its start was delayed. There were again arguments between category I and category II members about the right balance in their relative contributions. These were hard to resolve. Agreement was eventually reached early in 1982 for a replenishment of $1,100 million, in the ratio of 58 per cent. OECD and 42 per cent. OPEC. Category III members contributed $30 million.

Negotiations for the new second replenishment began in July 1983. They were even more difficult and prolonged. Category II members continued to challenge the concept of the comparative levels of contributions. They also argued that their reduced economic circumstances—the price of oil was falling—justified a smaller share of the funding. Category I members held to their original view that funding should be evenly shared between the two groups. The delay meant that IFAD's resources had to be stretched out again to cover a much reduced regular lending programme in 1985 and part of 1986.

In the end, agreement was reached at the fund's annual meeting in January this year for a replenishment of $460 million, of which $276 million will come from OECD countries and $184 million from OPEC, which is a ratio of 60:40. On top of this, category III countries have pledged about $24 million.

The fall in IFAD's core funding has been dramatic and very disappointing, but its effects will be much reduced if donor members ratify their agreement and make payments promptly. The money will then be committed over two years or so, to the end of 1988, instead of over four years. However, it is very clear that things cannot go on like this. All members have therefore agreed, under section IV of the governors' resolution on the second replenishment, that the president should report to the governing council on IFAD's future financial base. The president has set up a high-level expert group to examine all the relevant issues. I understand that its report will be submitted to the next governing council in December. We then expect to give our initial reactions to its proposals and to take part in detailed discussions over the following months.

My hon. Friend mentioned the 58 per cent., now 60 per cent., that is contributed by OECD countries. The OPEC countries claimed that, because of the fall in the price of oil, their contribution should be lower. Their claim was successful. During the next round of negotiations, can the House be assured that discussions will take place not only on the OECD and OPEC contributions to IFAD but also on the proposition that they should be regarded as part of the total overseas aid contributions of individual OECD and OPEC countries? That would reassure many people who feel that the OPEC countries should be playing a much greater part in overseas aid generally, if not through IFAD in particular.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's point will be raised in future discussions, together with a number of other proposals—for example, the further fragmentation of IFAD's activities, a point to which I hope to be able to return later.

The discussion that will be taking place from next December will be crucial to the future and to whether IFAD can still realise the original vision of its founders.

The draft statutory order authorises the Secretary of State to pay the British contribution to the new replenishment. If Parliament approves this order we shall contribute over £9 million, which is equivalent to over $13 million at the agreed exchange rate. Our share of the total OECD contribution remains the same as for the last replenishment, that is about 4·8 per cent. We intend to pay in three instalments, by depositing non-interest bearing promissory notes. The first of the notes has to be deposited within 30 days of our instrument of contribution coming into effect, the second on the anniversary of the entry into effect of the replenishment, and the last by 31 December 1987. We expect them to be encashed over a period of years from about January 1989. The arrangements include provision for other countries to modify their contributions pro rata if one or more donors fail to meet their obligations in full.

To help keep IFAD going while we are waiting for ratification by the necessary number of other contributions, I have decided to release our first year's tranche for commitment as an advance contribution under paragraph 7 of the governors' resolution.

IFAD's special programme for Africa was proposed last year, in the wake of the famine, at a time when finalisation of the replenishment itself was still in doubt. But it was only launched formally this January. It is being financed by pledges which are entirely voluntary, rather than negotiated. Although it has a target of $300 million, only $40 million—already contributed—was needed to start it off. It is restricted to the 24 countries most liable to droght and desertification. It is not financing famine relief, but longer-term development, designed to improve the self-reliance of those it helps. In fact, these activities are practically indistinguishable from IFAD's regular programme in such countries.

Special programmes or trust funds of that kind pose dangers, as I am sure the House will understand, to the integrity of the institutions to which they are attached. They encourage the risk of eventual fragmentation into a range of funds contributed for restricted areas, or restricted purposes, distorting the overall priority which each institution or recipient ought to preserve. They are more costly to administer. As time goes on, donors tend to put more and more money into such funds and less and less into core programmes. We have seen this over the last few years, for example, with the United Nations development programme which has not grown nearly as much as special purpose funds in the United Nations development system.

In the case of IFAD, a voluntary fund of this kind and size also poses clear dangers to the whole system of negotiated contributions, on which the institution is founded. So far, though several Western donors have promised contributions, not one OPEC country has made a pledge to the special programme for Africa. Our own policy is therefore to make contributions to such funds only in very exceptional circumstances.

What is more, we have been giving increasing emphasis to agriculture and food production in our own bilateral programme over the past two years. In 1985 our bilateral aid to agriculture and related activities in Africa totalled £92 million, of which some 90 per cent. went to sub-Saharan countries where the need is greatest. Recent allocations include new commitments of £10 million to the western savannah project in Sudan, and £10 million for rural development in Zimbabwe. We also support research into tropical agriculture through the Overseas Development Administration's scientific units, the Plant Breeding Centre and the international agricultural research centres. In our bilateral programme, we are placing increasing emphasis on long-term agricultural development, and, of course, much of the assistance that we provide in this area has for a number of years been in the form of grants, not loans. It is also reasonable to point out that we make substantial contributions to other multilateral programmes for helping Africa and its agriculture. We are committing £75 million to the World Bank's special facility and £800 million to the latest instalment of the European development fund, much of it for Africa, and, of course, much of it going to agriculture.

Nevertheless, IFAD does face exceptional problems. And there is an obvious need to boost what we are all doing to revive African food production — a point widely recognised outside and inside the House—at a time when so many African Governments have pledged themselves to very far-reaching reforms in their agricultural policies and institutions. I have therefore decided, in addition to our replenishment contribution, to offer IFAD £7 million, or some $10 million, towards the African special programme. This amount, which is more or less what Germany and the United States are at present considering making available, is rather more than we should have expected to pay had the special programme been part of the total replenishment. I am sure that that news will be welcome on both sides of the House.

In making our offer we shall reiterate our very strong concern that the special programme should be incorporated into IFAD's core programme again when the third replenishment comes to be put in place, since we do not believe that it ought to be a permanent and separate operation. I hope the decision to contribute to this special programme will be seen, as it should be, as a reaffirmation of our commitment to strengthening the development of agriculture in the Third world, and particularly in Africa — a commitment manifest in our substantial bilateral and multilateral contributions.

I commend the draft order to the House in the conviction that its approval will help IFAD to continue its profoundly important work, with the full support of the British Government and people.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the important post of Minister for Overseas Development. He comes from a good intellectual stable. Indeed, he almost provokes me to make that remark by wearing the badge of it around his neck and having shared it with him it is a pleasure to see him across the Dispatch Box.

I trust that the Minister will be able to make a major contribution to a change in Government policy towards not only agricultural development but other aspects of development policy. Labour Members would he glad to have the assurance that he will be seeing the Prime Minister a little more often than his predecessor did, and that the fight for development, which in one sense he has started today with his contribution to the special fund, will be continued with a challenge to the downward trend of overseas development assistance as a share of the gross domestic product and a reversal of the cuts in the programme which the Government have taken.

It is important that the IFAD special fund should be supported and we are glad that the Government have been able to come into line with the contributions which have been made by other countries such as Japan, West Germany and others. The question is whether the resources will be enough and whether they can at this stage, in any meaningful sense, offset the fall which has taken place so far in IFAD's core funding.

The Minister referred to the fact that not one OPEC country was prepared to contribute to the special programme. That is hardly surprising. The fall in the oil price is devastating enough for this Government's economic policy. But this is a diversified developed economy and most of the OPEC countries are not. Therefore, their resources are more constrained by the fall in the oil price than are those of the other OECD donor countries.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the negotiations about the replenishment have been going on for some time and began well before the more recent and substantial fall in the price of oil.

I recognise that, but in his statement the Minister mentioned the massive fall in the original target for funding. That cut is not offset even by the special fund contributions. We must take that into account in our evaluation of the Minister's statement.

Earlier this year the Foreign Secretary, in his speech to the special session of the General Assembly on the economic situation in East Africa, said:

"For too many years too little attention has been paid to the most basic need, the production of food. Africa needs adequate, reliable and cheap supplies. Africa has the capacity to feed itself. Yet in Africa hunger persists in many places. That should be an affront to our consciences."

The Foreign Secretary claimed that the short-term situation had improved, but in reality it has not. The short-term position has become worse.

Let us examine the underlying trend and consider the growth in per capital food output in the 24 low-income countries in Africa to which IFAD's contribution is most relevant. Only five of those countries have a negative food growth output in the 1960s but now 18 countries have a negative food output. That is three and a half times the 1960s level.

Of the total African countries, only 10 had negative growth in the 1960s whereas today 28 have negative growth. That is a threefold increase. That increase in terms of need is not reflected in the Government's overall strategy to African agriculture.

The point was well put by Shahid Javed Burki, the director of the World Bank's international relations department in a paper which he presented in Harare. He said:

"The reason for pessimism concerns the prospects of the increasing domestic output of food in the more vulnerable parts of Africa."

Mr. Burki does some simple arithmetic, taking the poorest among the poor countries—Ethiopia, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda. Between 1978 and 1980 those countries produced 14 million tonnes of cereal equivalent which was equal to 80 per cent. of the World Health Organisation requirement. At that level of domestic output, mass starvation would have occurred, so the countries imported 500,000 tonnes of food, equivalent to 5 per cent. of their export earnings. Mr. Burki asks what would happen in the 1990s. If the population increases by 3 per cent. per annum and if food output also increases by 3 per cent., in 1990 they will produce a total of 19 million tonnes, leaving an import balance of 6 million tonnes to avoid famine. That level of importation would be equivalent to 50 per cent. of their projected export earnings.

Thus contributions from the special IFAD fund at a reduced level are simply not enough. They do not take account of the underlying facts and the difficulties of agricultural food production within increasing population growth in several of the poorest countries, not only in Africa but in the rest of the world. Nor do they take account of the overall crisis in sub-Saharan Africa caused by increasing interest rates on debt and falling commodity prices.

That argument was well put by Professor Reginald Green, who is now attached to the university of Sussex. He stresses that, in the 1980s,

"sub-Saharan Africa is characterised by low and falling GDP per capita, rising debt service requirements, declining import capacity and current account deficits. This has resulted in Draconian import cuts leading to what can only be described as import strangulation."

During the period, the terms of trade have massively worsened for these agricultural exporting countries. The estimates made by Mr. Aqarwala for the World Bank are of a deterioration in terms of trade of about 10 per cent. Other estimates, which I believe to be more realistic, reckon that the terms of trade have worsened in recent years by as much as 25 per cent. This means a fall in revenue from export earnings for cash food products combined with a rise in interest rates on the debt.

Until we address the question of IFAD's special contributions in that wider context, its measures will be remedial rather than enable African countries to restructure their underlying agricultural problem.

The issues addressed by IFAD, including the role of women in agricultural development, are welcome. One of IFAD's better features is that it takes its involvement in agricultural development seriously and can go beyond the formal provisions in the Lomé convention so that women can apply directly for agricultural development funds.

In East Africa, on average, women work 40 per cent. more than men but are paid 60 per cent. less. That sexual inequality is recognised. Credit should be given where credit is most due — to women and to women's agricultural co-operatives. Co-operative forms of agricultural development should be supported.

Mozambique has recently experienced a political tragedy which has aggravated the crisis in that front-line state. It has horrendous problems with agricultural development. One of the reasons why the United States Administration is not prepared to give full backing to IFAD is because of IFAD's agricultural development programmes as reflected in Mozambique where the strategy is that of communal village projects for agricultural development or of agricultural extension projects. A communal strategy is necessary, not for ideological reasons, as the United States believes, but because it is the way to provide schools and health posts to serve rural populations on a communal basis. The United States has been giving aid to the small private farmers in Mozambique but has been refusing to support the communal development programme. This is the kind of area where IFAD can play an exceptional role. The tragedy is that the role it is playing is offsetting the negation of public intervention in agriculture on the United States' own support programmes.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the extent to which the internal political instability in some of these countries is directly related to their problems? Both sides of the House acknowledge that those countries have severe internal intrinsic problems in agriculture and that if they were to address themselves to improving political stability, they could solve a great number of the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

I am glad that the hon. Member has asked that question, because it enables me to tell him that the political instability in the front-line states is caused minimally by themselves and to the maximum extent by destabilisation from South Africa. That is well seen, even in the question of how the plane carrying Samora Machel fell out of the sky. It has been estimated in the front-line states that the cost to them of destabilisation of their domestic development by South Africa has been running at $2 billion to $3 billion a year. The indirect cost to their own joint economic cooperation through SADCC and the SADCC conference, even assisted by the Nordic countries, has been massive. If the United States were to play the role that it should be playing in relation to South Africa and if the Reagan Administration were to put their weight behind the sort of view that we have recently seen in the United States Congress, we might get more political stability in the region as a whole and have a chance for a real agricultural development.

Another point is implicit in that which the hon. Member for Stafford said. One of the limitations about the World Bank approach is born-again marketeering, which we see not from Burki's international division within the World Bank, but from its economics division. The United States Administration assumes that only market forces can achieve agricultural development. [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to get to his feet rather than make his point from a sedentary position. That is the emphasis that is being given.

I shall not detain the House by outlining the emphasis given to it in the Foreign Secretary's statement during the debate in the UN special session. The fact is that agricultural producers are on the margins of existence and cannot possibly hope to cope with falling commodity prices and high interest rates. Farmers in rural areas are being crucified by the higher debt costs to their countries. They cannot sustain their indigenous agricultural development programmes against a background of falling commodity prices.

The whole cash crop export system is in question. We should not be surprised at that because of the problems of drought. But drought alone would not have caused famine in so many African countries if there had been sufficient support programmes in rural areas to sustain many of the farmers over a period of shortage of rain. Several of us in the House are interested in these issues and are well aware that even in a full drought period a tropical rainstorm can occur. It can last several minutes and bring down tonnes of water which rush down the rivers or the wadis and escape into the soil, simply because steps to provide such basic measures as coffer dams and catchment areas have not been taken. These are the most elementary programmes that can be undertaken to retain water over the long term.

Such problems are being addressed by IFAD. The Minister's declaration of his willingness to support the special fund is welcomed by the Opposition. It brings us into line with other OECD countries, but does so at a far lower level of overall finance than should be the case. The Minister spoke about the way in which the Government have supported overall agricultural development in Africa through their rural development assistance programmes. Overall, the aid allocations have declined from £10 million per annum in 1980 to a much lower average level. Of the £95 million emergency food for Africa programme undertaken by the Government for famine relief, only some £9 million was new money.

The Minister tells us that the Government are giving increasing attention to tropical agricultural support and to the tropical seeds research institutes. It is a pity he has been so badly briefed in this matter. If he had been able during the Recess to read some of the debates in the House, he would have seen that there exists on both sides of the House the gravest anxiety about the cuts his predecessor undertook in that area. If he increases programmes which at already down to less than £1 million or £2 million, then in terms of the needs of Africa as a whole, he might as well be multiplying zero by zero.

A further point in the case for supporting IFAD and one which the Minister has not stressed are the benefits that such action gives to British industry and employment. The point was made by Mr. Jazairi when he was in Britain and saw groups of hon. Members and some individual hon.Members. It is clear that more than 70 per cent. of the United Kingdom's global share from dispersements under IFAD projects has been achieved in sub-Saharan African countries and that more than 85 per cent. of this has resulted only from procurement in projects financed in countries selected for the special programme. To put it simply, the United Kingdom gets back £2 in orders for every £1 it puts into IFAD. That parallels the position stressed by the Sport Aid commercial that the BBC would not run—"Bury the debt and not the dead"— whereby Africa is actually paying back £3 to £4 for every £1 that it receives either in capital contributions or through aid programmes.

I wish to raise a specific and concrete issue concerning agricultural development and disease. Following the drought, the Horn of Africa faces a real problem from locusts. On 21 October, the Minister said that the Government were giving £2·5 million of British aid for locust control and spelt out where that would go. We welcome that special contribution, but are not sure that it is enough. There is a special problem in the Horn of Africa and one of the regions most afflicted by drought is Tigre; the Minster must address himself to that.

The locust invasion has come from outside Tigre — from Eritrea, Sudan and the Arabian peninsula. However, there is an extensive breeding area for the rest of the Horn of Africa now in eastern Tigre, especially in the Danakil plains. The swarms have now reached the hopper stage and are doing extreme damage to pasture lands and crops in the area. Once they begin swarming, they will do untold damage to pasture lands and crops throughout Tigre, Wollo, the rest of Ethiopia ad Eritrea and could also spread to the Sudan.

Because of the political position in Ethiopia —1 am sure that the Minister is following my argument closely — the reality is that the Dergue is not allowing the spraying of crops in Tigré in line with the spraying programmes taking place elsewhere. The only weapons at the disposal of the Relief Society of Tigré are sticks and branches. It has no pesticides or equipment to launch its own protection operation. The society has made a statement to me, in which it says:

"If no measures are taken within this month the consequences will be worse than the recent famine. People and animals will again start dying within a few months, as they ave no reserves whatsoever to fall back on. Those who survive will once more trek in their hundreds of thousands to Sudan."

What the society asks is what we ask — that the Government will make the strongest possible representations to the Dergue in Ethiopia that such a spraying programme be undertaken. Given the urgency of the matter, I hope that the Minister will make that commitment from the Dispatch Box today. If the spraying programme is undertaken, the Relief Society of Tigré has given an assurance that it will

"co-operate with any measure taken to save crops and lives."

If the Minister ignores this matter, he may find that it hangs around his neck for the remainder of the relatively short time that he holds his office — [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) may laugh, but this is precisely the sort of advance warning of a real tragedy and pest problem in the Horn of Africa that was given to the House about drought during the past two or three years. We had advance warning that, unless this Government, with other Governments, did something through multilateral action about the railway from Port Sudan to Darfur province, the railway would break down and the relief could not get through. The hon. Gentleman does not do himself justice. If this House does not address such issues, it is not fulfilling its role.

I made a speech in the House about the railway. I am not laughing about the serious problem of locusts in the Horn of Africa. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister two months ago to ask what we could do, and he will no doubt tell us the figures to show how we have contributed to try to offset those difficulties. However, I am laughing at the hon. Gentleman's suggestions that the Dergue Government and Ethiopia will take any notice of a letter written by my hon. Friend. I suspect the Dergue Government of using the locust and food problems in Tigre to starve those wretched people into submission. I am laughing at the futility of writing that letter. I am also laughing at the suggestion that my hon. Friend will not be long in his office. I hope he is there for a long time, because overseas development will benefit enormously.

That intervention is depressing. It means that, faced with such a tragedy, the Government cannot take the multilateral action that the Minister says is the best action in such circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is right, all we have is talk, talk, and talk again when what we need is action to offset the drought, deprivation, crop disease and death afflicting the Horn of Africa. Will the Minister rise to the challenge? He has been told that he has been sent to the salt mines and, quite rightly, he rejected that. Those of us concerned with development do not consider ourselves to be either in the salt mines or the Siberian power station. We are in the potential power station for global development. What greater challenge can any Minister wish?

However, how will the Minister face up to the challenge and how will he deliver? In the case of the Sudanese railway, which collapsed with such disastrous consequences, putting so many lives at risk, the Minister's predecessor said that we had to work through multilateral agencies and bring our EEC partners with us, because these things take time. However, were this Minister to make available light aircraft flown by our pilots to spray the crops it would be relatively difficult for the Dergue Government to oppose such an operation, certainly with the kind of aircraft it has at its disposal, which are baroque, over-developed technology MiG fighters flying at high altitudes that could have difficulty swatting a light plane.

Why does not the Minister use his imagination? I said that to his predecessor in the case of the Sudan debt crisis. I told him not to play around with the multilateral agencies and that if he wanted to make a mark on behalf of not only his party but the House and the British people, he should cut the Gordian knot and, instead of waiting for multilateral pressure, do something himself. I pointed out that we are a shipping and oil-producing nation, while the Sudan has tremendous problems with fuel and its distribution. I suggested that he should commission a tanker, fill it with fuel and send it to Port Sudan, and then send the bill to the EEC Commission. In the case of the locust crisis in the Horn of Africa, why does not the Minister immediately get on to the Ministry of Defence and ask about the technical feasibility of getting our light aircraft there? They could easily be transported from Port Sudan and start proper spraying.

Has not my hon. Friend the Minister, in the short time that he has been in the Ministry, already taken a significant initiative in relation to the European Community? I speak as one who is on the Select Committee on European Legislation, who has noticed this. My hon. Friend's initiative was extremely important, having regard to the utter condemnation by the Court of Auditors about the way in which the EEC Commission operated as regards the food crisis in Africa last year and the year before. My hon. Friend has already taken a significant initiative and deserves congratulations, not strictures.

The hon. Gentleman mistook my opening remarks. I have a high regard for this Minister. I saw him when he came to university, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, to start his undergraduate course. It was an excellent intellectual stable, and I am only sorry that the Minister left by the wrong political door. I am challenging, encouraging and urging the Minister to be serious about this.

Such action has been taken before in the drought crisis of the early 1970s, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), who was then Minister for Overseas Development, got conflicting reports about the nature of the drought in sub-Saharan Africa in Chad, Niger, Mali and Upper Volta, as it then was. She sent me out to see what was going on and make a recommendation in a report. We came back with a simple finding. We needed four-wheel-drive, five to 15-tonne vehicles to get the food out to the areas where the drought was biting hardest and to avoid people having to come to main distribution centres to get the food.

The Minister will have difficulties if he tries to replicate what my right hon. Friend did. No such four-wheel-drive vehicle was to be had on the market. My right hon. Friend got on to the Ministry of Defence and said, "Can you let me have those vehicles?" The Ministry said, "We cannot spare them." She said, "I will buy them from you at face value. I will replace them if you will let me have them." The result was that, within a few days, those vehicles were being driven across the Sahara to help with the food aid problem.

That is the sort of challenge which the Minister faces in relation to the locust problem in the Horn of Africa. I hope that he will fulfil the promise that he has shown and our high expectations of the role that he can play for development. I hope, especially, that he will start not only with the good measure which he has taken in terms of the contribution to the special fund for IFAD, but by tackling the problem of locusts and crop disease in the Horn of Africa.

I, too, warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new Department. I am sure that he will live up to the high expectations held by hon. Members on both sides of the House. If his tenure is short-lived, I hope that that will be due to promotion to the Cabinet in the not-too-distant future, to which he would bring the great advantage of experience of overseas development. That could only be for the good.

I also welcome my hon. Friend's initiatives to date, especially on the special fund. It is vital that we do more for agriculture in our bilateral assistance and our multilateral programmes. To date, I regret that we have been lax on this. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). About 24 per cent. of the amount that we give to multilateral agencies goes to agriculture while, as the excellent report written last year by the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development shows, aid to agriculture represents marginally less than 30 per cent. of our total bilateral assistance. That is far too small a proportion when the main challenge in development is assisting recipient countries to develop suitable agriculture — not high technology taken off shelves from western Europe, but suitable technology for them to develop the agriculture best suited to their development programmes and needs.

To that end, I hope that the Minister realises the importance of increasing, not decreasing, United Kingdom manpower to assist in agriculture, especially in Africa. Regrettably, over the years, there has been a major reduction in manpower aid to agriculture in Africa and, indeed, to Africa as a whole. The figures speak for themselves — from 7,402 in 1972 to 4,242 in 1977 and down again to only 1,782 people in 1982. We must reverse that trend to assist the development of agriculture in Africa.

I am delighted that, through the special fund, we shall have an opportunity to increase the proportion of money that we disburse to agriculture, because that sector provides one of our biggest challenges. I am sorry that this has not been mentioned in more depth so far. What we give in aid with one hand we are massively taking away with the other through iniquitous agricultural protection by industrialised countries. Many developing countries have internal political problems that are to the detriment of development, but in developing countries that do not have internal political crisis, development programmes are put in jeopardy as a result of agricultural protectionism in the industrialised world.

Many of these countries are involved in sugar production. Although it is not relevant, perhaps I should declare an interest as I have had a long association with Tate and Lyle. European Community farmers received 18 cents a pound for sugar in 1985. That sugar was dumped on the world market at 5 cents a pound, but the Community continued to buy imported sugar at 18 cents a pound. That sort of subsidy is iniquitous because there is a marginal and comparative advantage for countries in the developing world to produce cane sugar. The United States Government give massive subsidies for irrigation and land clearance projects and then pay farmers not to grow crops on that land. That is another example of subsidisation.

IFAD is in many respects the equivalent of the World Bank's International Development Agency, which works for the poorest countries in the world. The IFA 13 works in agriculture for the poorest nations and, particularly through its special programmes, for the countries most affected by the sub-Saharan famine.

I hope that the challenge of agricultural problems in sub-Saharan Africa will be taken up following the replenishment and that IFAD will go from strength to strength. Sub-Saharan Africa has the highest birth rate in the world, at 3·2 per cent. The population will double in 22 years and quadrauple in 44 years. The population of Ethiopia in 1950 was 18 million; by 2025 it will be 106 million. The population of Nigeria was 40·6 million in 1950; by 2025 it will be 295 million. The population of sub-Saharan Africa, where the special fund will be most important, is 363 million; by 2025 it will be 1·2 billion.

Even the most optimistic growth rate for agricultural development in sub-Saharan Africa— 2·5 per cent. per annum over the next two decades — will not keep up with the projected population increase. That means that there will be even more malnutrition and that the punishing years of famine will become even more frequent unless we take up the challenge of assisting in these areas of development. Those are the facts and the challenges that IFAD must face.

As I said in a sedentary intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), I see more care and attention, not less, being given by IFAD and the World Bank to, among other things, the solutions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. During part of the summer recess, I worked as a consultant to the World Bank, concentrating on the medium-term economic growth programme for Bolivia, a country with which IFAD is closely involved, and examining its development problems. Much more emphasis is being placed on women in development programmes. That is a vital area which has been overlooked in the past, not least in Africa where women do most agricultural work but take up too few of the training places in colleges. Back in the fields they are much more significant than the ratio of men and women in the colleges would suggest.

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is pleased that he is giving advice to Bolivia. I trust that the Bolivians are just as pleased.

In terms of the World Bank's economic philosophy and what it is doing, it is not simply a matter of reading the most recent World Bank report, which is a paean of praise for market forces from beginning to end and is one of the most disreputable documents ever published by the World Bank. We must also consider the role played by the Anne Kriegels and the Lals of the economic division, who are born-again marketeers. They advocate market solutions for countries where they are irrelevant. They export the south-east Asian model to sub-Saharan Africa, which is about as relevant to the needs of the real world as astrology is to astrophysics. The World Bank should not be operating like that. I trust that the hon. Gentleman has remedied the situation in Bolivia, but it would be a good idea if the World Bank changed its approach too.

I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman and would love to have a lively debate on that point, but I cannot do so now. The economics division has projected market forces as an important concomitant to the sort of approach that I have been pursuing and considerable attention is being given to it in the projects department. It represents appropriate technology and is working well in the agriculture sector in respect of colonisation programmes, as they are called in south America, smallholder schemes, and so on. Such work, along with credit programmes for rural farmers, is important. I am delighted to report that it is now being actively pursued by the World Bank. I hope that more will be done, as it represents an important part-solution to the problems of agriculture in the developing world.

Perhaps I can underpin my remarks by explaining why I believe IFAD is an appropriate vehicle for development. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked with that body and I know at first hand just how efficient it is in the implementation of programmes and in its operations. It is not a fat and over-bureaucratised organisation, as some might argue that UNESCO is. Thus, it is inappropriate to say that it is inefficient or in need of modernisation. It is a very efficient tool.

IFAD also addresses the medium and long-term processes of structural reform in agriculture. It recognises that the productive capacity of smallholders must be rehabilitated. The question is how that is to be achieved. It is argued by IFAD that extension services should have a greater role and that their credibility should be enhanced. It is also argued that credit services should be allowed to work with and through the private sector, and that much more emphasis should be placed on traditional agricultural production. In other words, one should be looking for market opportunities for such products of sub-Saharan Africa as cassava, millet, sorghum, and yam. It is argued that they should be developed, rather than concentrating—as other bilateral donors have done—on crops that are primarily geared to export, such as wheat, rice and maize.

Thus IFAD is looking at traditional agricultural production. As it is one of the few agencies to concentrate on that, we should support it. But it has also turned its attention to small-scale irrigation schemes which are appropriate in sub-Saharan Africa. That is important, because world-wide there are too many examples of very large-scale irrigation projects that have not necessarily benefited their recipients. Small-scale irrigation projects, including the provision of wells, are an important feature. I am glad that IFAD has concentrated on them, as they are conducive to agricultural development.

I am also pleased that IFAD has concentrated on soil conservation and on the problems of soil fragility and of conservation-based agriculture. Every year, the world loses a billion trees. Consequently, it is important that we should have at least one major international lending agency that concentrates on conservation-based agricultural policies. IFAD does that, and I welcome it.

One of the great advantages of the Minister's decision to support the special fund is that it will act as a snowball and countries sitting on the fence regarding possible donations to the special fund will come forward and support it as strongly as it should be supported. Unless decisions have overtaken my knowledge, I understand that Australia, New Zealand and Canada have been hesitant about joining the fund. Now that the message has gone out from this House on the special fund, I hope that it will receive further support from those countries and others that have yet to make a decision. In that sense, today's announcement is especially important and appropriate.

In conclusion, I shall give an example of one project that I know well and on which IFAD has concentrated in Bolivia. It is an innovative project. It is recognised that in agricultural extension it is important for the beneficiaries actively to participate in the implementation and planning of projects. Too many projects around the world are imposed on communities without involving them in the initial decision making, planning and project preparation. I welcome the fact that IFAD has taken that initiative and has set up a model project in Bolivia which has had quite remarkable success.

The dispersal of agricultural credit to beneficiaries has already exceeded the original target. A total of 130,000 new plants are growing in an afforestation effort. I mentioned earlier the importance attached to afforestation projects by IFAD. More than 50 fish breeding ponds are in operation. Similar increases in Bolivia have resulted in crops, and incomes have resulted from many other projects of a similar nature in other countries.

It was seeing that project and the work done in Bolivia during the summer that led me strongly to urge the Government to support the special fund. I am delighted that I have not been put in the embarrassing position, as a PPS who is meant to be rigidly attached to the party line, of arguing strongly for this additional income for the fund. I must say that this was somewhat unexpected when it was announced at the Dispatch Box, but if it is a portent of what is to come from my hon. Friend the Minister, I strongly welcome his presence in the House for such debates and I wish him every success in future.

I congratulate the Minister for Overseas Development on his appointment and the well-deserved tribute he paid to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison). However, I thought that the tribute was a rather backhanded criticism of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for sacking someone with such an honest and thoughtful approach to politics.

I draw the Minister's attention to a minor error in the draft order. It is an error that rankles with me and, I hope, all hon. Members. There is a spelling error in the draft order which is unforgivable from any Government Department. The spelling of the adjective in the phrase

"one of Her Majesty's,principle Secretaries of State"

is incorrect. It should have read "principal". That should have been changed before the order was laid.

The IFAD position, as the Minister described it, is not at all good. While one welcomes his contributions to the special fund, one must bear in mind that a vastly reduced amount of money will go to agriculture, especially in Africa, through IFAD as a result of the reduction in contributions by OPEC members. The figures that I have been provided with suggest that the total will be only $460 million compared with $1,100 million previously. Any such reduction in the present state of agriculture, especially in Africa, is to be deplored.

One good thing about the second replenishment for IFAD is that it takes place against a change in perception on the part of Governments in Africa about the importance of agriculture in their economic development and economic growth and the fact that many of the policies pursued in the past have not contributed to the welfare of the rural economy or the growth of agricultural production.

I shall quote briefly from the document which the African countries prepared for the United Nations special session on Africa earlier this year. They stated:

"A substantial raising of the level of productivity in all sectors, particularly in agriculture, is the sine qua non for putting the African economies on the road to development."

They continued:

"In any programme of action for African recovery and development, the rehabilitation and development of agriculture demands the highest priority. There is also an urgent need to take fundamental measures to deal with the problems of drought and desertification".

Another passage reads:

"The satisfaction of food requirements for the African people hinges on the rapid reversal of the declining trends of productivity in the rural areas. The alleviation of the problem of growing mass poverty, the capacity to increase foreign exchange earnings and the subsequent dynamization of internal demand forces also depend largely on the rapid improvement of rural incomes and the revitalization of the rural sector."

This is an important document, which shows that there has been a change of heart by all African Governments.

My final quotation from the document reads:

"IFAD's recently established Special Resources for Sub-Saharan Africa should be strongly supported by the international community, and the future financial strength of the institution should be secured."

I heartily welcome, as I know the whole House has, the Minister's announcement that he is reversing the policy announced by his predecessor. We congratulate him on that.

As the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) said, the dimension of the problem, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is becoming worse. It is sad that, although international attention is more concentrated on the problem, there seems, according to IFAD, to be fewer resources available in total to deal with the problem. The Food and Agriculture Organisation estimated a short time ago that Africa would have to double its food production in the 1980s to have enough to feed itself. It pointed out that Africa is the only part of the world that now grows less food per head of population than it did in 1960. That is a devastating indictment.

Since 1960, food production in Africa has increased by less than 2 per cent. a year, and the growth rate is now falling. The population, however, has grown by well over 2 per cent. a year, and that rate is rising. From 1960 to 1970, the amount of food available to each person in sub-Saharan Africa increased marginally by about 01 per cent. each year. Between 1970 and 1980, it fell annually by 1·2 per cent. a year. That is not the position in any other part of the world, so we need to give special attention to Africa. This is not a matter for IFAD and individual donors alone. The World Bank is playing a major part and it is a welcome sign that it, as well as the IFAD, donor Governments and African Governments, is increasingly regarding agriculture as the crucial sector in development.

The new president of the World Bank, Mr. Barber Conable, in an address to the board of governors in Washington on 30 September, said:

"We will regard agricultural development in the poorest nations as central and critical in the battle against poverty."

In "World Bank News" in May there was a special article on economic development in Africa. The article addressed the population dimension, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East, and focused on the connection between population and the need to increase agriculture production. Part of the article talks of

"the threat rapid population growth poses to the natural resource base"—

it is obviously a considerable one—and says:

"Throughout the African continent, natural support systems are under growing strain."

This is not merely, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said from the Opposition Front Bench, because they are threatened by locusts and civil wars.

The paragraph continues:

"In country after country, sustainable yield thresholds of forests and grasslands are being breached. Soil erosion, the loss of soil organic matter, and the depletion of soil nutrients are diminishing land productivity over much of Africa. Although essentially agrarian, African countries are losing the ability to feed themselves. In 1984, approximately 140 million of its 546 million people were fed entirely with grain from abroad."

That proportion is likely to increase between now and the end of the century.

My final quotation from the World Bank report is taken from a memorial lecture given recently in Washington by Mr. Robert McNamara, the former excellent president of the World Bank. He said:

"Altering the economic policy environment in sub-Saharan Africa more in favor of agriculture would dramatically alter the economic scene. It would apportion scarce economic resources more rationally across the economy. It would improve the international competitiveness of the agricultural sector. It would provide incentives to farmers both to produce more, and to produce more efficiently. And it would stimulate more employment, more exports, and more income-earning opportunities."

If anyone understands the problems of Africa and its agriculture, it is Mr. McNamara who spent 12 years as president of the World Bank and a great deal of time visiting African development projects. We must pay great attention to what he says.

I end as I began, congratulating the Minister, welcoming his announcement and hoping that he can persuade his colleagues, especially the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, that aid to Africa and its agriculture is vital if we are to avoid further crises in that sad continent. We need more aid and more development, both bilateral and multilateral. The Minister has made a good start. We wish him every success in the battles that he will have in his Government to increase the amount of overseas aid.

I join hon. Members in warmly welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to his new post as Minister for Overseas Development and I do so in no routine and formal way. We know of his excellent record in ministerial office and other capacities and we welcome the strength, deep understanding and compassion that he will bring to debates about some of the poorest people of the world. We welcome the lead that he will give our nation to help those countries to help themselves. He will build on the programme of his predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), to whom I wish to pay tribute. He fought the battles in the ODA in an unpromising climate within our Government and largely succeeded in reversing a reduction in the ODA budget.

I wish my hon. Friend the Minister good luck in his first battles, which will be on the size of the ODA budget.

I hope that he will be strengthened by our support in convincing the Treasury that we need a larger budget to accommodate the additional resources that he has announced. In spite of advice and pressure not to do so from his Department, his announcement will make money available for IFAD, the special fund for Africa.

IFAD was promoted by the developing countries to find a way of generating money from the oil-rich countries which had huge surpluses in the mid-1970s. It was founded in 1977 with the objective of using those surpluses for the benefit of the poorest people in the world and we should pay those oil-rich countries tribute for that generosity. However, the position has altered dramatically. I welcome the Minister's announcement that serious consideration will be given to how we can carry on with IFAD, given the relative impoverishment of the oil-rich countries which is undermining the basic idea behind the formation of IFAD.

IFAD has established itself in a special role within the United Nation's system of agencies. It has concentrated on the poorest countries and on peasant farming agriculture. Because of the starvation that we have witnessed in the last few years in sub-Saharan Africa, peasant farming is of the greatest importance. Multilateral agencies have been unable to give the kind of attention to it that IFAD has been able to give to it. There was a gap in the system. Quite often it was filled, although sporadically, by bilateral aid. Now IFAD has stepped in to fill that gap. We must find a way to continue that aid and to provide much better finance for peasant farming.

The drop in IFAD's resources from $1,100 million to a pledge of $460 million for the next three-year period is completely inadequate to meet the expanded challenge that IFAD must now confront. The special fund for Africa has tried to redress that shortfall in the context of the 24 poorest countries in Africa, and IFAD's success deserves my hon. Friend's support.

I am worried by my hon. Friend's account of why the ODA is reluctant to respond to special appeals. He said that the UNDP core budget had been reduced because of the special fund that it has launched for Africa. I ask my hon. Friend to examine that statement with care. The British Government have considerably reduced their contributions to the core budget of the United Nations development programme.

The example set by our Government has been followed by other Governments. Thus, the UNDP core budget has been reduced still further. Like IFAD, it is a voluntary fund. That reduction was justifiable in the circumstances connected with the total ODA budget. To argue that, because the core budget has been reduced and the special fund for Africa is in some way connected with it, and therefore is diminishing the core activity of the organisation, is a thorough non sequitur.

The reason for officials advancing that argument to the Minister is the contraction of the bilateral budget of the ODA, compared with its multilateral contributions. That is a direct result of keeping the ODA budget too small.

Of course we must accommodate the multilateral agencies and make contributions to them. In the case of many of those agencies we have to make contributions; contracts and international treaties have been made and we have to provide our proportionate share. That is particularly true of the European Economic Community's budget for overseas development, to which we are obliged to respond in proportion. That is the major cause of the increase in multilateral contributions. In 1979 we contributed 40 per cent. of our total bilateral budget to multilateral institutions. Now our contribution is approaching 60 per cent.

After a budget has been reduced in real terms and then begins to increase in real terms, the bilateral programme is squeezed. Therefore, we must resist any suggestion that we should provide even more money for multilateral aid. My hon. Friend said that it was argued that this represented a distortion of the core funding, that it distorted overall priorities within the programme and that this is a mere rationalisation, resulting from the nature of the problems that confront his Department. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has overruled those arguments and that he has made a contribution of which we can all be proud. I congratulate him on it.

The amount of money that my hon. Friend has contributed is more than just a token, but let me examine the figure. My hon. Friend announced a contribution of 10 million United States dollars, or £7 million, for the special fund. That is half the amount that I understood, after reading the World Development Movement's brief, would be our proportionate share of any special fund.

In addition, my hon. Friend made no reference to the period over which he would expect to contribute that. As I understand it, the social fund is expected to be drawn down over three years and that would mean that the ODA's contribution would be only about £2·3 million per annum. That is not to be sneezed at, but it is a small sum. It may be proportionate to the contribution of the United States and others, but it is a small figure. I urge my hon. Friend to consider whether this is an adequate response to the needs of the special fund. However, I understand, as I have outlined, why he would have difficulty in arguing for a still larger sum. None the less, it is a small figure to deal with the special difficulties with which IFAD is being asked to deal.

Many of the programmes in our bilateral budget are of immense importance. In particular, I welcome the announcement that my hon. Friend is giving additional money to the research being carried out in western Sudan into sub-Saharan African problems of dry farming. There are some significant developments in that area which could transform it. First, it is clear from the research done so far that the wadi bottoms in the desert are capable of being farmed. They retain sub-surface water which could be tapped and could provide the farming necessary to support the much larger populations about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) are deeply concerned.

Unfortunately, the nutrients in that soil are so limited that it is doubtful whether they will be able to support the necessary crops for any length of time. After one, two or three years the nutrients will be absorbed and will not be renewable, leading to the disastrous type of shifting agriculture that has been the traditional practice in the area over the years.

However, there are developments, to which I hope our money is going, which will provide moisture at the roots of the crops and trees being planted in the area which involve injecting into the soil an absorbent material which retains sufficient moisture for plants to absorb the nutrients in the material and to survive, prosper and provide the food needed. That is the sort of investment in rural development in small areas which our bilateral budget is designed for and is supremely able to give. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has seen fit to contribute in that special way.

I do not want to undermine our bilateral budget because it has worthwhile projects which have become more efficient and better focused over the past seven years or so. We owe a great deal to the ODA and people working in it for the quality of their work. As I have made clear, we should he doing even more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) have pointed out that, from the IFAD fund, we gain £2 of procurement for every £1 that we contribute, so there is a self-interested motivation for contributing to the special fund. It probably has not escaped my hon. Friend the Minister's attention that if we had not contributed to the special fund we would not have been able to benefit from the procurement under that fund from which, as I have said, we disproportionately benefit.

I want my hon. Friend the Minister to give serious consideration to a fact that I learnt on a recent visit to Washington with the all-party committee on overseas development. The Japanese Government and the Japanese tenderers tender for every contract put out by the United Nations agencies. One wonders how they can do it. To tender for those contracts is an expensive business which involves research and travel. Indeed, the production of the documents is a costly business. The Japanese Government meet all the costs. The Japanese do not benefit from their contributions on a 2:1 basis as we do; they benefit by 13:1.For every Japanese yen put into the World Bank the Japanese draw out 13.

There is a lesson for us. For many reasons, we should support tenders for UN contracts and put them on a level with the Japanese. That could be a potent source of export orders and therefore a means by which we can reduce unemployment here, particularly in your constituency, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it would be involved. Such a scheme would be of mutual benefit to us and to the countries overseas.

I hope that the Minister will take that suggestion up with the Minister for Trade to whom I have written on the subject. We must support our tenderers. I hope that in future we receive more that £2 of procurement for every £1 that we invest.

A parallel fund is that operated by the IDA. That fund has recently been agreed at $11·5 billion — a major reduction on the IDA-6 in real terms, but an increase on the IDA-7. This is too small an amount. To keep up in real terms with the increased call on its resources by China and India, the fund should amount to $20 billion.

The finance director of the World Bank, Mr. Moeen Quereshi, recently said that many of the African countries would not have been excluded from further IMF support because they could not pay the short-term high-interest loans without balance of payments support if a more generous contribution had been made to IDA-7. That would have assisted productive enterprise and prevented the need to import food. That food could have been grown at home with the help of grants and assistance from the IDA.

The IFAD special fund and the IDA fund are too small. Per capita food production in Africa is declining. There is also a net flow of capital and interest payments out of Africa to the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the developed countries. Can the world justify taking resources out of such countries without trying to put back more money?

I welcome the Minister's support for the special fund but I hope that he will be able to persuade the powers that be in our Government and elsewhere to offer more support. The Minister has already made progress with the food aid programme within the EEC. I hope that larger funds will be produced domestically and internationally so that these serious problems can be addressed.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) because we were together on the recent visit to Washington by the all-party group on overseas development. I agree with some of his comments about that visit. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. If 1 have any regrets, they arise from the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) who suggested that there might be some Balliol collusion. I hope that no such collusion will exist across the Dispatch Boxes. I speak as one who attended a different but no less illustrious college at the same university.

I agree with a number of things that the Minister said. I agree with the decision that he announced and I think that it has had an almost universal welcome in the House. What he has announced may not be enough but the principle behind the decision to contribute to the special fund of IFAD was the right one to make. When the Minister's predecessor was asked about this subject, he said:

"I agree that the development of agriculture is a high priority throughout the Third world. IFAD does a good job, but I remind my hon. Friend that the more we put into multilateral agencies such as this, the less is available for our own bilateral programme".—[Official Report, 2 December 1985; Vol. 88, c.17]

I am afraid it appears that the consequences of the Minister's action are that to that degree there will be less for our own bilateral programme. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we need more money. I understand the anxiety in the Department that an ever larger proportion of our aid budget goes to multilateral agencies and that an increasing proportion of that multilateral budget goes to the disgustingly inefficient European development fund and the programmes that it runs. That is sad, because, like the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), I agree that our bilateral programme is on the whole well run, especially in agriculture, about which I shall say something later. But there is a problem and it will eat further into the bilateral programme that Britain is able to mount in the developing world.

I have no doubts about the value of our contribution and I echo many of the congratulatory remarks that have been made about IFAD and its relevance to the problems of agriculture in the Third world, especially the relevance of the special programme that it recently mounted for Africa. Some hon. Members spoke about water conservation and the importance of forestry. I should mention also the emphasis placed on the importance of seeds, implements and fertilisers and the emphasis that is given to traditional crops such as cassava, sorghum and millet in the more vulnerable areas of the African continent.

The fund quite properly emphasises the importance of production in small units by smallholder farmers. For some years there has been an argument about overseas development and about what is and is not real aid. I have become more and more impatient with this argument. It is as though there was special merit in providing for food production as opposed to crop production for export or in placing emphasis on agriculture rather than on infrastructure developments of one kind or another. In many respects these are false arguments because crop production and the production of food by the farmer and his family are of equal and complementary importance to his standard of living. The road that carries the crops out and is used to carry supplies to rural areas is also important. I approve of the road that Britain provided in the Embu and Maru areas of Kenya. That is an example of a road that opens up an area in which there can be increased production of crops for export, which helps Kenya's balance of payments.

The emphasis on smallholder farming is important where it produces both crops and food for the family. In certain more favourable climes it can often produce a variety of crops so that the very diversity that an individual smallholder produces can, to some extent, shield him against fluctuating commodity prices. That is a powerful case.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most outstanding examples of that is in Kenya, a country that he knows well, where the smallholder tea and coffee plantations also produce cash crops for the markets, and therefore provide food not only for the family but for the wider population in those areas? Those co-operatives were started by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which comes within my hon. Friend the Minister's Department but which my hon. Friend may not yet have had an opportunity to see.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I, too, wish strongly to recommend to the Minister that he takes an early opportunity to see the tea and coffee production that was originated by the CDC in Kenya. It is now the responsibility of the Tea Development Authority in Kenya. If the Minister has the opportunity to visit that country, I hope that he will also see the Mumias sugar operation that I saw earlier this year. I did not actually visit the factories, but I saw, at a distance, the enormous change that it has made to the whole terrain. I discovered that farm incomes and the general level of prosperity in western Kenya had been considerably enhanced by that development, which can only be good.

It is important to emphasise that so far I have been talking about the relatively well endowed parts of Africa —areas fortunate enough to receive two crops a year because the rainfall pattern makes that possible and where there is a high level of fertility in the soil so that farmers can reap modestly good incomes even with the sort of difficulties mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall arising from the desperate position in which their Governments find themselves with the fluctuating and often falling commodity prices, although Kenya is relatively fortunate in the way in which tea and coffee prices have moved. Nevertheless, it is possible for many farmers to provide for themselves and also to receive a cash income, which makes their position fairly reasonable.

One of the strong points that came out of the report of the all-party parliamentary group on overseas development published just over a year ago was, alas, that, contrary to what the Minister said, Britain does not seem to figure very well in the more vulnerable areas of Africa. When the Minister's predecessor spoke, quite properly, about the value of the British contribution to agriculture in Africa, he sometimes failed to recognise the degree to which the more vulnerable areas were sometimes neglected. If the Minister has not yet had the opportunity, to glance at the report, he may be interested in what it says on pages 20 and 21 which refer to the distribution of British aid. At the bottom of page 20 the report states:

"Rural development expenditures have remained a very low proportion of total spending. In fact, the figure for allocation — rather than expenditures — shows an even sharper decline from £3·7 million in 1979 and £10 million in 1980 to under £0·2 million in 1984."

Those are the areas about which we need to be concerned. We need to find more money for the more difficult matter of rural development in the vulnerable areas. That is more difficult and it takes longer—it may take five, 10 or 15 years before one is able to restore the position in areas that were vulnerable in the recent famine.

In that connection, I hope that the Minister will look carefully during his first few months in office at what has happened to the old scientific units such as the Tropical Development and Research Institute. That aspect of the Department's activities has been severely cut both in staff and in ability to provide the scientific advice that is badly needed by countries affected by drought, locusts and poor conservation of soil. We have a special contribution to make in that sector, whether through organisations such as IFAD or through bilateral programmes.

We have an enormously important contribution to make. Yesterday I met representatives of the British Consultants Bureau, which has a variety of professional advice available to the Department and international agencies and is unrivalled in the expertise that it can offer. Many hon. Members will be aware of the significant contribution that the water industry is making, in particular through Water Aid, which is practically and voluntarily supported by the staffs of Thames and other water authorities. Those are important contributions and they can be of a special order because of our experience and our tradition as a former colonial power. For instance, the number of people who worked as agricultural officers and the number of institutes in our universities and research institutes are the inheritance of the institutions set up to back up the work done by the Colonial Office in earlier days.

I had the great opportunity of going to Canada with the CPA delegation in July, and heard that that country is thinking about ways of exporting its water. Has the hon. Gentleman heard of this, and does he regard Commonwealth co-operation on such a scale and in such a way as realistic?

There are some occasions when I feel that we would he well advised to export some of our water. However, I suspect that this would be an expensive operation and I prefer the suggestings made by the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford about water conservation. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall spoke about other forms of water conservation for use during dry periods. We must recognise the fact that in the African continent the rains may fail. A survey that I did many years ago showed that in one area—a particularly well endowed area not far from Lake Victoria — the rains failed on average this century once every three years.

Such experiences are written into many traditional methods that African farmers use, from which we should he learning. Sometimes we are all too apt to go out to Africa and tell the world how to live—I have made this point before — forgetting that many of the traditional methods of African agriculture are born of such experience. Often, we can reinforce what that experience teaches because it is based on the practical experience of African farmers.

I underline my support for IFAD, and for the step that the Minister has taken, which is absolutely right. I hope that it is the forerunner of more pressure by the Minister on his fellow Ministers and, indeed, on the Cabinet. Most hon. Members will be behind him. He will know that a growing and articulate body of public opinion supports him. He has already said that overseas development will be an issue in the next general election. I hope that, both within and outside the House, he w ill give the subject a higher profile than it has enjoyed in the past.

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well. I also congratulate him on his announcement this morning of additional support for the International Fund for Agricultural Development's special fund. Our problem is that, in the decade up to 1983, United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa decreased in real terms. Let us hope that his announcement this morning will reverse that trend, because during that decade, Japan, the United States, Canada and even the OPEC countries increased their contributions. However, from what we heard this morning, OPEC is no longer in a position to increase its contribution.

The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) mentioned the gap between a 2·5 per cent. increase in food production and a 3 per cent. increase in population in many of the countries which we are discussing. That is one of the most serious statistics with which we must wrestle. Food production cannot catch up with population growth unless we have a crash programme to help the African countries especially to help themselves.

References have been made to the problem of locusts in the Horn of Africa. That is a serious problem that must be tackled immediately. We cannot wait a minute longer. Another unfortunate problem is the war in the Sudan, which is causing tremendous disruption and hardship and increased poverty and starvation among the people of that country. The staff of the college at which I used to lecture — the Welsh agricultural college — are engaged in a programme in the Sudan to try to assist the people there. They are training the trainers so that the people of the Sudan can learn how to help themselves in developing their agriculture, but they have a difficult task because of the present conditions in that country. The low technology development of the innate farming practices in African countries must be encouraged. In that respect, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett).

The statistics on starvation in the African continent are alarming. In the few years up to 1985, 1 million Ethiopian people died from starvation each year. In the wider context of the Third world, 12 million children under the age of five died in 1978, and recent statistics suggest that the present figure may be 15 million. The World Bank has estimated that 800 million people are starving. No one in any Western country can be proud of those figures. We must tackle the problem urgently and with a great deal of spirit and direction.

The most telling statistic that I have heard is that it costs $400 to transport I tonne of grain or wheat to Africa, but that an African can grow I tonne of wheat a year for the next 20 years at a cost of just $200. That is an astonishing state of affairs. We must help those countries to help themselves. The Minister's announcement today is a move in the right direction.

We have not met the United Nations target contribution of 0·7 per cent. of GDP in aid for Third world countries. We have been stuck at about 0·35 or 0·36 per cent. of GDP. Knowing the Minister's record. I am sure that he will do something to put that right.

The development of local agriculture is the key. The IFAD has a major role in developing African and Third world agriculture and we must back it. I believe that, with our encouragement, the Minister will show the way.

I endorse the sentiments of hon. Members who wish the Minister well in his new job. He has a challenging task and I am sure that he will enjoy his job and will help those who are less fortunate than we are.

Earlier this year I joined hon. Members from both sides of the House on a visit to Somalia. I plead on behalf of the people of Somalia. I have heard hon. Members arguing that solutions must be found to long-term problems such as the development of local agriculture, but I believe that the biggest problems are the short-term problems.

The parliamentary delegation visited the camps in Somalia where millions of people live in hope that i:heir next meal will come from somewhere. I saw women queueing all day for a week's rations. It was a depressing sight. On the other hand, we in the Western world produce so much food, but we leave the surplus in intervention stores for years and then dispose of it at a giveaway price or dump it in the sea. There is something radically wrong with our marketing and distribution system in Europe.

We were invited to see what we were told was a brand new school in northern Somalia. We discovered that the building consisted merely of branches that had been pushed into the ground. A few camels had been slaughtered and skinned to provide some cover from the sun. The children had nothing to write on, they could only listen to the teacher. Partitions between the classes were also made of branches. I thought to myself how fortunate we are in the West where we live in prosperous nations.

The President and other members of the Somalian Government told us that they were not interested in loans, because they would never be able to repay them. They were interested in grants and aid from other countries and organisations. We are all morally bound, no matter which party we support, to try to persuade people in power to help such countries.

The countries of the world spend enough on arms in a fortnight —$17·5 billion—to feed, house, educate and look after the health of every individual in Africa for a year.

Some of us believe ourselves to be Christians, and are thus morally bound to try to help those who are less fortunate than we. On their behalf, I urge the Minister to give them more aid. Perhaps he could ask the Agriculture Minister to try and persuade his European counterparts to do something with the surplus food. I know that it would be difficult to persuade them, that it could be sent to other countries, and to Somalia in particular. That country has good roads to the camps and an excellent port which could accept the food.

I hope that my little plea will be heard by someone somewhere, so that those unfortunate people can be better cared for and to live in a better society in the future.

Perhaps it is appropriate that we should he debating this order on United Nations day. Indeed, it may or may not be appropriate that the debate should have been launched by two hon. Members from the same stable — which was not Trinity. However, if the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was in the Chamber, I would not want him to think that there was a conspiracy. Indeed, I mean no disrespect to the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) when I say that if the Liberal party's spokesman on these matters had been in the Chamber, the hon. Member for Greenwich might well have thought that a conspiracy was afoot, as he is also entitled to wear the same halter as I have on today.

I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). Last time I heard him speak it was in the Oxford union with, I believe, Richard Crossman. I agree with some of what he said, and about the importance of examining with some urgency the basis of IFAD's future financing. Indeed, I mentioned that at the beginning of the debate. I hope that we shall be able to make substantial progress after December. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the trend of IFAD's activities was insufficient. But if the new replenishment and special programme are committed, as planned, until the end of 1988, IFAD will be providing $300 million or more each year. That is well above the level for every year since 1982. In a sense, no amount can be enough, but IFAD is not the only player on the field.

From the Minister's earlier remarks, I assume that the £7 million involved is spread over a three-year period, and so amounts to about £2·3 million a year. However, the minimum necessary is at least double that amount. The target figure should be at least £5 million a year. I hope that he and his colleagues will work on that point so that IFAD's funding is more in line with real needs.

I also hope that the Minister will deal with the locust problem. It is a matter not simply of whether light aircraft can get into Tigre but of getting backpacks in to spray crops, and so on. The Eritrean Relief Association has made a submission to the Minister, and if he has not received it, we can let him have it. I hope that he will be able to respond to it.

I certainly want to consider the contribution that we are making to the special fund, its amount and its proportion in relation to what other countries are doing, and the important question of locusts which the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech, but perhaps I could do that in sequence of argument so that my remarks may be easier to follow than they otherwise would be. The hon. Gentleman spoke extremely eloquently about the problems of Africa. However, I did not agree with everything that he said, as I shall make clear later and as I hope to have opportunities of making clear during many similar debates over the next several years.

I remind the House of what we are doing for Africa. We have made and continue to make a substantial contribution to development in that continent. We have provided over £2,000 million of aid through bilateral and multilateral channels to Africa since 1982. A total of £570 million was provided in 1985 alone, when 43 per cent. of all British aid went directly or indirectly to Africa. In terms of bilateral aid, Sudan received over £42 million last year; Kenya, £34 million; Zambia, £26 million; Zimbabwe, £24 million, and the list continues.

We shall continue to provide effective assistance to those African countries which have demonstrated their need for it and their ability to use it to good purpose. Two recent examples underline that commitment. We have offered £25 million in fast spending aid for Tanzania to support economic reforms agreed with the International Monetary Fund. I recognise the courage and the difficulty which some of those reforms will involve. I have just announced £6 million of grant aid for the Gambia in support of its economic recovery programme, which is backed by the fund and the World Bank. Britain has also been ahead of many other donors in converting past aid loans to the poorest countries into grants. I think that we are well up at the top of the field with the Germans. That policy has been worth £1 billion to those countries. Africa alone has benefited to the tune of £260 million.

It is important for OECD countries and those in the developed world to give African and other developing countries the help they need, especially when they adopt policies which are more likely to lay down solid foundations for sustainable development in future. That is especially relevant to agriculture on which we rightly contribute much of our effort.

I listened to what the hon. Member for Vauxhall said. I thought that there was a disjuncture between his remarks and some of the speeches that I read made during the United Nations special session. For example, I thought that there was a disjuncture between what the Senegalese Foreign Minister said at the end of the session and the action programme drawn up largely by the African countries. An increasing number of African Governments are a great deal more realistic about economic policy than the hon. Gentleman.

When the hon. Gentleman has spent more time at the Dispatch Box—he is new to the portfolio—he will realise that Senegal is not among the least developed African countries. It is the main beneficiary from the Lome programme. Senegal does well out of virtually every programme that goes south of the Mediterranean. A speech by a Senegalese Minister is not exactly definitive proof that we are remedying the problems of sub-Saharan Africa.

I can help the hon. Gentleman by sending him, in addition, a speech made by President Kaunda, that I read the other day. I am not sure whether he would apply the same arguments to President Kaunda, in his position. I should be perfectly happy to go through with him what the Tanzanians have just agreed to do, I think sensibly, and what the Gambians have agreed to do.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned some names with which I am still too much of a tyro to be acquainted. He referred at some length to what he regards as the World Bank's market-oriented solutions, which he considers not to he relevant to African countries. That argument is refuted by the clear economic revival in Ghana and the great increase in agricultural productivity in Zambia. Both Ghana and Zambia have taken difficult policy decisions, which are decidely market oriented, on World Bank advice.

The reality is, as the Minister will learn if he talks to President Kaunda, that both he and the Tanzanians who talked to me about this matter were made an offer that they were not in a position to refuse. It was a "godfather" offer from the International Monetary Fund that was backed by the British Government. In other words, his predecessor would support a bilateral programme only if Tanzania would agree to IMF conditionality. That was deeply resented by the Tanzanians. Ghana has a debt of $2 billion and it takes 67 per cent. of its export earnings to finance the repayments on that debt. It is a crippling debt. Only two days ago I was talking to those in the Ghanian presidency about this matter and they said that they would like the Minister to do something about it.

I am not able yet, though I look forward to being in the position, to drop names in the hon. Gentleman's style, who in time will be a formidable competitor for the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr Healey). He still has some way to go along the road. The hon. Gentleman's experience and his remarks about Africa are not borne out by what has happened or by what has been happening in a number of African countries. I look forward to returning to the Chamber with a great deal more anecdotal experience. I look forward also to trying — I am sure successfully — to move on the hon. Gentleman from the formidable intellectual position which he now occupies. He seems to be stuck in a rather early stage of Tanzanian socialism, which has gone out of fashion everywhere except the National Executive Committee of the Labour party.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred in passing to European food surpluses and the situation in Africa. He will know how much importance I attach to that. With respect to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), I do not think that my analysis and his would necessarily tally, but I confess in saying that that I do not represent an agricultural constituency. It is vital for us to reform the European Communities food aid regulations. It took nearly five years for us to gel: the present entirely inadequate regulations in place and we shall be trying in a matter of months to reform the regulations.

I hope that we shall have the support of organisations such as the World Development Movement, which I understand has organised a petition on the subject throughout Europe. I hope that we shall be able to make significant progress at the next development council meeting in November. Even if we cannot bring off a new food aid regulation from that council. I hope that we shall be able at least to make sufficient progress to see a new regulation introduced as soon thereafter as possible. That is vital because I think that public opinion is increasingly outraged by the cruel paradox of substantial surpluses in Europe and famine and deficit in Africa and elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to locusts. We have provided a total of £2·5 million this year for locust and pest control in Africa, over £800,000 of which was recently announced as being available for urgently needed insecticides, spraying equipment and transport in Botswana, the Gambia, Mali, Senegal, the Sahel and Niger. Of the remainder, nearly £1 million has been provided for various forms of pest control in Ethiopia, especially in connection with the drive against armyworm.

I listened with interest and sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman said about Ethiopia. As he will be aware, there are certain difficulties in dealing with sovereign Governments. I do not mean this as pejoratively as it will sound, but an approach which has at least something in common with gunboat diplomacy, however admirable and humanitarian its objectives, is difficult to carry through. However, there is a substantial problem, of which I am aware, with the villagisation and resettlement programme in Ethiopia. We are considering how best we can deal with that now both on our own and through multinational organsiations. I am hoping to send a senior official from the ODA to Ethiopia shortly to see what more we can do in terms of rehabilitation and generally.

At the meeting of the joint assembly of the European Parliament and ACP countries I was able to talk—I am name-dropping again—to the Ethiopian ambassador to the European Community and to an Ethiopian Minister whom I learnt to call Comrade Mersie. I put these points forcibly to them and, as I have said, we are hoping to send a senior official to Ethiopia shortly. I shall ensure that I see the document about the situation in Tigre and Eritrea, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

I was particularly grateful to my hon. Friend i:he Member for Lewisham, East for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box in this guise. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), whom I know cannot be present for my reply and who had the courtesy to explain that he had a constituency engagement, both referred to population policy and its importance to our multilateral and bilateral aid programme. Population policy will be on the agenda of the development council meeting on 11 November. The Commission has put forward a paper on the subject and I hope that we shall have an interesting and useful discussion. There are considerable sensitivities on the issue. Some of them are even greater in donor countries than in recipent countries, if I may make that slightly provocative point. We should attempt to reach a commonly agreed position in the EC next month.

My hon. Friend also referred to women in development—a subject which I was able to discuss with the president of the World Bank on Monday. He made some interesting remarks in his speech to the governors of the World Bank at the end of September, to which the hon. Member for Walthamstow also referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested that I should make as many early visits as possible to some international financial institutions and I hope to begin with a visit to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the beginning of the new year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford, whose speech reminded me what a tiro I am in these matters, dealt particularly with the relationship between core funds and special programmes. He took me to task ever so nicely, as he is perfectly entitled to do, about what I said. I gathered from his remarks that he thought that what I said had been planted in my mouth by a Department which I have already learnt to respect and enjoy. I am grown up enough to be responsible for anything I do or say these days.

Quite apart from the arguments about the relationship between bilateral and multilateral aid, I am disinclined to accept fragmentation. One consequence of the multiplication of special programmes is that one avoids dealing with basic problems — for example, IFAD's replenishment. Special programmes mean more bureaucracy for the administration of small amounts of money. Special funds are administratively more costly than core operations.

My hon. Friend asked me about the amount of money that we are making available for the special programme. He was right to refer to the time scale. The money will be drawn down over three to four years. I must again emphasise that, proportionately, we shall be contributing more than a number of other countries will be contributing. If OPEC had contributed to the special fund, and had it reached $300 million, our contribution to the programme would have been less. If the programme fetches up without OPEC at substantially less than that amount, our contribution will be above our normal share.

In my judgment, it would be wholly wrong for our contribution to the special programme to exceed our contribution to the replenishment. I understand the importance of obtaining a good share of the procurement which follows on from the work of the fund. I shall take up my hon. Friend's remarks, following his visit to Washington earlier this autumn.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to a number of matters concerning Sudan. I was able to discuss these matters about 10 days ago during the extremely valuable visit to this country of the Prime Minister of Sudan. The hon. Member also referred to the position of children in developing countries. He may know that recently I have announced an additional grant of £1 million in response to a UNICEF appeal for assistance to children in certain African countries, particularly for immunisation. That is over and above our normal grant, which is about £6·5 million.

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) sugested that our contribution to the special programme would mean that we should have less money to spend elsewhere. I am pleased to say that we are making this contribution from a budget that is now growing in real terms. It will come out of our unallocated reserve. I realise that these terms of art are even more familiar to certain hon. Members than they are to me. Whole books, not to speak of House of Commons Select Committee reports, have been written on such subjects. Nevertheless, I am pleased to be able to say that our contribution to the special programme will not displace any other bilateral programme that may be proposed.

The hon. Member for Greenwich also referred to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I am looking forward to seeing some of its work. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford also referred to the CDC. Its contribution to developing countries has been impressive. I note also what the hon. Member for Greenwich said about the important role played in the work of the ODA by its scientific units, in particular the Tropical Development and Research Institute. I have heard much about the excellence of its work, particularly in agricultural research. I am looking forward to visiting it soon to see its activities for myself.

Finally, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) reminded us, with his admirable and characteristic Welsh eloquence, of the objective of our aid programme. I hope that, with other hon. Members, I shall be able to play a small part in helping to achieve that objective and, as a step along the way, I should like to commend again this order to the House.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House and particularly grateful to so many of my hon. Friends for coming in to listen to this important debate on the future of south-east Dorset. I understand that we may be interrupted by other business in about 10 minutes.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for being present to listen to a matter which is of overriding concern to my constituents. It is customary to try to link one debate with the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development did not mention the excellent work which is being done in the Sudan by British railway locomotive engineers in restoring to working order some of the steam engines there. That gives me the opportunity to apologise —while my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is on his way to the Chamber, in case my hon. Friend the Minister is wondering why I am discussing this —for the fact that I had to forgo the pleasure today of being in Barry in south Wales to name a 9F locomotive in order to be here to do what I consider to be even more important than that.

I make no apology for raising again an issue which I was able to raise on the Adjournment on 12 June 1985. The future of south-east Dorset's environment is fundamental to my constituents. Since that debate, Dorset county council has produced a first review of the south-east Dorset structure plan. I have to tell my hon. Friend—I hope that it is not his fault—that there is growing disillusion among the people of south-east Dorset about whether their views count for anything in the consultation that takes place from time to time about the future of the environment in which they live.

The chairman of the county council's planning and transportation committee, in her introduction to the document, says:

"Before making any decisions, they"—

that is, the county council—

"will consider fully all views which are expressed to them by those concerned for the future of South East Dorset."

The council may well "consider", but what my constituents want is not consideration of their views but acknowledgment of their views and action in accordance with what they believe they are entitled to expect from the Government and their county council.

My hon. Friend the Minister knows that we are awaiting the result of one of the most controversial and contentious planning applications that has ever been seen in Dorset put forward by the Carroll group. It is contrary to the present structure plan and to the Government's declared green belt policies. It is opposed by all the local authorities— Christchurch, Wimborne and New Forest —as well as by the Dorset county council, and it has outraged local opinion. A great deal of store will be set in Dorset by the Government's final decision on that application.

But the latest threat comes not from an application from a developer but from proposals put forward by the county council itself in the first review of the south-east Dorset structure plan. In the past few weeks my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North and I have been innundated with concern about and objections to the county council's proposals. There is almost numbed shock in our part of Dorset and almost universal opposition to what the county council proposes.

The only friends which the structure plan proposals seem to have are a handful of the county council's officers, a handful of Dorset county councillors and one or two district councillors. But the elected councillors who support the proposals are very shy indeed. I would not mind if elected councillors had the courage to stand up and support what they think should be done, but that, I regret, is not the luxurious position in which we find ourselves.

The fact is that the plan as put forward by the county council is being blamed on the Government. The purpose of this debate today is to probe just how much truth there is in assertions by county council officials that they have put forward a plan that they know to be disliked and unpopular, not because they want it and not because the people want it but because they believe that it is essential in accordance with Government policies emanating from the Department of the Environment.

We in Dorset spent 18 months in long earnest discussion about the structure plan which was finally approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment in 1980. It was a compromise plan but it was accepted locally and by the Department. That plan has been overtaken by events outwith the control of the local authorities most affected.

There are two main causes for the rape of the 1980 structure plan. First, appeals by developers against planning refusals, particularly by Wimborne and Christchurch councils, have overwhelmed the housebuilding levels set down in that plan. We are told constantly by the district councils, particularly Wimborne and Christchurch, that they have lost control over their own environment.

They have all lost control.

We should all take note of the problem. It is serious if local government cannot control its own planning environment.

Secondly, the policy for housing starts in Dorset has been statistically ravaged by Bournemouth's deliberate policy to build, build, build, regardless of the structure plan.

I have statistics relating to the five district councils in south-east Dorset. The five areas are Bournernouth, Christchurch, Poole, Purbeck and Wimborne. The structure plan proposals for housing starts in 1976–86 were 3,600, 3,200, 8,400, 1,200 and 4,600 respectively. The actual completions in Bournemouth, instead of 3,600, were 8,492; for Christchurch, instead of 3,200 they were 3,637; for Poole, instead of 8,400 they were 10,350; for Purbeck, instead of 1,200 they were 1,326; and for Wimborne, instead of 4,600 they were 7,083. The percentage overbuild in those years was 135 per cent. in Bournemouth, 14 per cent. in Christchurch, 23 per cent. in Poole, 11 per cent. in Purbeck and 54 per cent. in Wimborne.

The difference is that Bournemouth has been deliberate whereas the results in other areas are mainly caused by overturning planning refusals.

I shall not weary the House with statistics for the rest of Dorset, but planning overruns on this scale should be of concern to us all. The plan is as much the Minister's, since it was approved by his Department, as it is the local authorities'.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker), in his eloquent and straightforward manner, has described the proposals in the structure plan review as "an environmental disaster." I echo his words.

Dorset county council claims that it is operating at the behest of the Department of the Environment and in accordance with Government policy requirements. That is why the proposal in the 1980 plan for 35,000 new dwellings has become 62,000 new dwellings.

We need to probe the Government's attitude towards the creation of structure plans by county councils. For that reason I have given my hon. Friend the Minister a list of 10 questions which I propose to ask him this afternoon. It is now 2.29 pm, so before I start to read them out I shall continue to preamble until 2.30 and start again after the Foreign Secretary's statement.

There is irrefutable evidence that Dorset county council is blaming the Government for having to produce thoroughly unpopular and unnacceptable proposals. I have given notice of the 10 questions to my hon. Friend the Minister. If they are fully answered they should satisfy those people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North about where the blame lies for the production of these wholly unwanted and extraordinarily unpopular plans.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on AngloSyrian relations.

The House will be aware that the trial of Nezar Hindawi at the Central Criminal Court ended today. Hindawi was found guilty of attempting to place a bomb on an El Al aircraft at Heathrow on 17 April and was sentenced to 45 years' imprisonment. Hindawi has been convicted of a monstrous and inhumane crime. If he had been successful, hundreds of innocent lives would have been lost. The way in which he deceived his pregnant girl friend into carrying the bomb was particularly wicked and has aroused deep and universal repugnance.

There is conclusive evidence of Syrian official involvement with Hindawi. The House will recall that in May after Hindawi's arrest the Government demanded the withdrawal of three Syrian embassy attaches whose diplomatic immunity the Syrian Government declined to waive so that the police could question them. Evidence at the trial revealed something of the part these attaches played in this affair. The Syrians claim that they dealt with Hindawi throughout as a bona fide journalist. That claim is frankly incredible.

Evidence was produced at the trial that Hindawi spent some time in hotel accommodation reserved for Syrian Arab Airlines crew, and that Hindawi spent the night after the bombing attempt in Syrian embassy accommodation, where his hair clippings and hair dye were found. Certain facts are undisputed. Hindawi travelled on an official Syrian passport in a false name; his visa applications were on two occasions backed by official notes from the Syrian Foreign Ministry; and he met the Syrian ambassador, Dr. Haydar, in his embassy after the discovery of the bomb.

In addition, we have independent evidence that the Syrian ambassador was personally involved several months before the commission of the offence in securing for Hindawi the sponsorship of the Syrian intelligence authorities. We have equally compelling evidence that during his detention Hindawi sought to contact secretly Syrian intelligence officials in Damascus with a request for their assistance in securing his release.

The whole House will be outraged by the Syrian role in this case. It is unacceptable that the ambassador, members of his staff, and the Syrian authorities in Damascus should be involved with a criminal like Hindawi. We have therefore decided to break diplomatic relations with Syria.

Dr. Haydar was informed of this decision this morning and was told to close his embassy and leave the country within 14 days. The British embassy in Damascus will also be closed. We shall seek to make alternative arrangements of the usual kind for the protection of British interests in Syria. We are also tightening the security arrangements surrounding the operations in London of Syrian Arab Airlines by imposing special controls on all Syrian Arab Airlines aircraft and crew, including stricter searches of personnel, passengers and baggage. The House will recall that last June we introduced a tougher and stricter visa regime for Syrians wishing to enter the United Kingdom. We shall maintain and strengthen this regime.

We are taking urgent steps to inform our European partners and other friendly Governments about the details of the case and the measures that we are taking. We are impressing on them the wider security implications of the involvement of the Syrian authorities and are urging them to take appropriate supporting action. We regret that these actions have been forced on us by the unacceptable behaviour of the Syrian authorities. We remain determined to play our full part with moderate Arab states in the search for peaceful settlement of the region's problems, but we remain second to none in our determination to continue the fight to stamp out terrorism in our midst.

The Opposition enthusiastically applaud the sentence of the court upon this evil man, and share the Government's sense of outrage at the role of Syrian officials. If the Foreign Secretary is convinced that the Syrian ambassador was knowingly involved, it is clearly unacceptable that either he or any of his staff involved should remain in this country. The Foreign Secretary will know that in the past the Opposition have always endorsed the strongest action against international terrorism and all efforts to coordinate effective international action against it.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of evidence that Mr. Hindawi, together with his brother, was also involved with the Abu Nidal movement from Syrian bases in the Berlin discotheque bombing? If, as a result of new evidence, that is the case, does it not at least throw some doubt on the justification for the bombing of Libya in response to that outrage?

Is the Foreign Secretary convinced by the evidence that the Syrian Government, at the highest level, were involved in the Hindawi incident?

On the question of our allies, as the Foreign Secretary referred to independent evidence against the ambassador predating this offence, to what extent have our allies already been alerted about the evidence available to us and our likely action in response — quite irrespective of today's jury verdict and the sentence?

In the light of the Tokyo agreement and the EEC declaration on combating terrorism, can we assume that both our EEC partners and our American allies will be fully behind us in preparing a similar and co-ordinated response? As the Soviets have made frequent declarations of their own opposition to international terrorism, should not we at least try to put them to the test with the evidence that is available to us?

It is clear that our own national response will be very much weakened if we do not have the support of our allies, including the USA, in response to this outrage. We believe that a clear message should come from a united House that terrorism, from whatever source, will be met with a speedy, robust and exemplary response.

I begin by thanking the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has approached the matter and for his plain and outspoken endorsement of the approach adopted by Her Majesty's Government to this serious and difficult matter.

On the Berlin bombing, there is no evidence implicating Syria or any country other than Libya in the bombing of the La Belle discotheque last April. That remains the position.

On the question of the implication of the Syrian Government, I have spelt out the series of matters that show the plain involvement of the Syrian intelligence agency and the Syrian ambassador. Quite frankly, it is absurd and untenable to argue that a Government are not responsible and accountable for the actions of their intelligence services and ambassador. That is the basis on which we have formed our conclusions.

The evidence involved in the case is either, as I have described, evidence given in court, evidence about which there was no dispute in court or evidence in respect of which the Government are in a unique position to make their own judgment on the reliability of the information and about which we are completely satisfied.

There has been a limit to the extent to which we have been able to take action to alert in advance our Community and other allied partners because of the inhibitions properly imposed by the dangers of contempt of court. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the importance of a concerted common response to governmental misconduct of this kind. That is why we have taken such care to promote commitments in Europe, and at the Tokyo summit, to such concerted action.

It must be said, as I said in a speech in Bournemouth the other day, that we have not yet reached the point where a country in the front line in such a situation can look to the scale of unity in response from other countries that we would wish. Certainly, we are doing everything that we can to promote the united action for which the hon. Gentleman has pressed. I shall take into account his suggestion that the Soviet Union should similarly be invited to participate in this case.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the whole House will want to endorse his comments on the sentence passed by the court and that the whole country, in the light of the unassailable evidence available to it and all our allies, will want to welcome the prompt and firm action that the Government have taken?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observation.

Has it not been apparent since before this vile plot was mercifully foiled that a bloodstained trail has been left by Syrian-sponsored agents in Europe and all over the middle east, and that now that trail has been proved to lead back to the doors of the Syrian embassy? Has not the world preferred to turn a blind eye to Syria and concentrate instead on the activities of Libya? The Foreign Secretary's decision is right and justified, but what else is he considering? If we are to stamp out terrorism, we have to make sacrifices, arid must we not look further at actions such as the cessation of Syrian Arab Airlines' flights into this country? Will the Foreign Secretary pursue vigourously the point put by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about reminding the Soviet Union of its responsibility to use what influence it has over one of its allies and clients?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining, in his last observation, the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). As to the general involvement of Syria, it is not prudent for me to make any broad observations. Suffice it to say that the evidence in this case is clear-cut and beyond doubt. We have had to evaluate that evidence in deciding what action to take against the Syrian Government and in relation to Syrian Arab Airlines. There is clear evidence of the involvement of the airline. accommodation and perhaps of the crew to the extent that I have specified, but there is no evidence to support the allegation made by Hindawi that Syrian Arab Airlines is involved in bringing in firearms, explosives and drugs to the United Kingdom. Therefore, we judged that the evidence in this case does not justify stopping its services. We are taking the firmest possible action to step up the surveillance and control of aircraft, crew and passengers.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his prompt statement will receive widespread approval in the country and will be a considerable relief to those of us who have for some time been concerned about the activities of Damascus and its missions overseas in international terrorism? Will he take this opportunity to look again at the activities of PLO representatives in London and ask himself whether something needs to be done about them?

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his endorsement of the action that I have taken. As he says, if we mean what we have said on so many occasions about our commitment to fighting terrorism, we cannot shirk, and must be ready to take, such tough decisions, and we must be ready to take them when the evidence justifies such a conclusion. I shall bear in mind his observations about the PLO, but in each case one is concerned with the evidential quality on which one makes a conclusion.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his positive response to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that he pass to the Government of the Soviet Union the information which he is passing to other Governments. Is it not a fact that the Government of the Soviet Union have more influence with the Syrian Government than any other Government have? Is it not also a fact that there are some signs that, in the past year or two, the Soviets have become a bit disillusioned with Syria as an ally, and is there not a possibility, therefore, that the Soviet Union may turn out to be very helpful in this matter?

One must proceed with some caution in this area, although it is certainly true that the Soviet Union has been expressing a more significant interest in the need for international co-operation in the fight against terrorism than has been the case in the past. It is also a fact that there has been and still is a relationship between the Soviet Union and Syria which justifies, in general terms, the point made by the hon. Gentleman. But I cannot say how practically effective that link may turn out to be.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that not only the whole House—as is obvious already — but the whole country will applaud the prompt and effective action that he has taken and that all of us share his horror and repugnance for this abominable crime and the Syrian connection with it? Because of the serious implications for all civilised exchanges between nations, is my right hon. and learned Friend in close touch with all our allies as to the next steps that must be taken to deal with Governments who are actively engaged in terrorist activity around the world?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support. As I said in my statement, we are in touch with other friendly Governments, including moderate Arab Governments, about the way in which to handle this problem in the future as well as up to now. One returns to the central proposition that the principles of our response are not in doubt. We must improve the detailed extent to which we co-operate with each other in the sharing of information, in the preparation of warnings and in the extent to which we support each other by taking the necessary action in proven cases. We shall certainly press for an appropriate response in this case, but I must confess that I am by no means certain that we shall get as universal a response as I would wish. I shall do my best to achieve it.

The Secretary of State must be commended on the action which he has announced. Is he aware that many of us recognise the even-handed attitude which Her Majesty's Government adopt to middle eastern problems and that the decision which he has announced today could not have been taken lightly? Therefore, it must have rested upon conclusive evidence in the Government's possession. May I also commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that the Soviet Union be brought into the matter? The Soviet Union holds the key to the problem which has been shown by Syrian involvement in this matter. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Soviet Union does not wish to be a party to international terrorism and would assist if it was brought into the discussion on this serious matter?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for endorsing the balanced way in which we have tried to approach this and similar matters. It cannot be made too plain that we remain determined to play our full part, with moderate Arab states and others, in the search for a peaceful settlement to the problems of that region. We are determined to achieve such co-operation as we sensibly can with the Soviet Union in that respect as well.

It is no secret that the attitude of the Soviet Union has been changing in relation to these matters. There has been a well-known connection between the Soviet Union and Libya over many years, but that has not enabled the Soviet Union, if she wished, to achieve the restraint that we would all have wished from Libya. So one must be cautious about expecting too total a conversion, but it is certainly right to take advantage of the renewed willingness of the Soviet Union to address herself to these matters seriously.

Before we allow ourselves to wallow in an orgy of self-congratulation, may I put one or two points to my right hon. and learned Friend? There are some rather odd points about all this and they need to be answered. He talks about controls on airlines, but has he considered the fact that the bomb in the bag was apparently carried through all the checks at Heathrow, which have been particularly stringent of late, and was discovered by members of the E1 A1 staff in the E1 A1 departure lounge? If my right hon. and learned Friend is thinking of putting controls on an airline, might he not ask himself or the authorities at Heathrow whether something else needs to be done to see that bombs do not get through all the normal checks into a departure lounge, if that is indeed what happened?

My right hon. and learned Friend said that Hindawi went to the Syrian embassy. Are we to believe that part of the plot involved Mr. Hindawi walking through the front door of the Syrian embassy in Belgrave square? If the circumstances are as they have been described to us, I find them slightly unusual.

Finally, I wish to draw a serious matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. On 10 October an article by David Watt appeared in The Times under the headline

"What shall we do about Syria?"

It was a straight lift from the prosecution case in the trial and seemed to me quite clearly likely to pervert the jury in what it was trying to do. That was accompanied by the expulsion of six Syrians from this country. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend at least to get the Attorney-General to discuss with The Times newspaper whether it is appropriate that such one-sided articles should appear in the middle of a trial when they could undoubtedly do nothing but affect the jury.

I am sure that the House can often look with confidence to my hon. Friend to prevent us from indulging in an orgy of self-congratulation. A number of the points that he has raised deserve to be considered by the appropriate authorities. His first point about the control and surveillance of luggage at London airport will no doubt be considered in the light of all the evidence in the case.

My hon. Friend asked about Hindawi's access to the Syrian embassy and whether he passed through the front door, but I am not in a position to answer that question precisely. My hon. Friend is certainly right to say that there are a number of slightly unusual features about this case.

The article by Mr. David Watt in The Times was only one of a number of articles that have been written during the trial, some of them quite recently, speculating on what would be the appropriate reaction by the Government if a conviction were recorded. In so far as those had or may have had any bearing on the conduct of the trial, one would normally expect that point to be directed to the attention of the court either by the very experienced trial judge or by the very experienced defence counsel. As far as I know, that did not happen in this case.

Has the Foreign Secretary any evidence or suspicion that diplomatic bags were used to smuggle terrorist items into the Syrian embassy? Even if it does not apply in this case, following the departure of the Syrian people, are there not grounds for reopening the discussion about whether diplomatic bags should be searched as a matter of routine? The documents in the bags would not be read and would be kept confidential, but such searches should be carried out, possibly in the presence of representatives of the embassies to which the bags were sent.

As far as I know, there is no evidence in this case bearing on that problem. In a sense, that highlights the importance of the point put by the hon. Gentleman. He will recall that the question was carefully considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee about 12 months ago and by the Government at the time. But the problem remains that, if the legitimate value of immunity from inspection for diplomatic bags is not to be challenged and overthrown worldwide, oné must stop short of committing search as a general rule. I believe that the Foreign Affairs Comittee endorsed our view that in certain exceptional circumstances, where danger to human life is anticipated, the right to search may arise. I do not think that the debate has yet advanced beyond that, but I am aware of a continuing interest in this question on both sides of the House and outside this country. It is extremely difficult to see how we can advance beyond the position defined by the Select Committee.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the House will wish him to convey our thanks, and those of the country, to those whose vigilance prevented a tragedy and to those whose diligence brought this man to justice? Is he further aware that the vast majority of our fellow citizens wish to maintain friendly relations with the moderate people of the Arab world? However, at the same time we have had more than enough of our country being used as a battleground for warring factions in the middle east. Consequently, we warmly welcome the court's sentence and the diplomatic action that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken today.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as it is right to remind me to convey the thanks and congratulations of the House to all those who detected the crime and brought it successfully to a conclusion in a court of justice. My hon. Friend was also right to underline the point that I have already made twice, that we certainly wish to co-operate with all members of moderate Arab countries in order to try to bring about a solution to the problems of the middle east. That must involve a willingness to approach the matter in an even-handed fashion and to require Israel as well as the Arab countries continually to readdress the fundamental injustices in the region. Only if we tackle the root causes can we be confident of having destroyed the atmosphere in which terrorism can so easily breed.

What is the size of the British community in Syria? What steps have been taken to notify it of the Government's decision to close the embassy in Damascus? What steps will the Foreign Secretary be taking to protect the interests of the British community between now and the embassy's closure in 14 days' time?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. The British community in Syria is approximately 250-strong. Through Her Majesty's ambassador in Damascus, we have made it clear to the Syrian authorities that we hold them responsible for guaranteeing the continued safety of the British community there. In response, the Syrian Government have confirmed that they will continue to take responsibility for the safety of British lives and property in Syria. Even so, British citizens must understand that if they decide to travel to, or reside in Syria, they do so on their responsibility and that of the Syrian Government. We intend to establish an interests section in Damascus under the auspices of a protecting power, but it is important to be clear that such representation cannot provide the full range of consular protection.

Is it not clear that the Government should be supported for reluctantly taking this step? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Syria is a major factor in the Lebanon, the Gulf war and in the search for a settlement to the Palestinian question? When the dust has settled, a certain amount of damage limitation will be called for by my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues if Britain's trade with that part of the world is not to he adversely affected. Will he confirm that the vast majority of Palestinians on the occupied west bank and in Gaza are totally opposed to international terrorism?

One of the ironic tragedies of terrorism is that in virtually every case it is not endorsed or welcomed by those on whose behalf it is deployed. I have met Palestinians on the west bank and my impression is that they recognise the extent to which their cause is damaged by its identification with terrorism. My hon. Friend is right to point out that Syria is, and will remain, an important power in the region. We have no wish unnecessarily to increase tension there. The fact is that any damage at this stage to bilateral relations is the responsibility and fault of the Syrians and not ourselves. I hope that as a result of this the Syrian Government will realise the strength of the sense of revulsion in Britain and the rest of the world against terrorism and states that give support to such terrorism. We look forward to being able to co-operate with Syria, as with every other state in the region, in helping to solve difficult problems.

Will the Secretary of State accept my assurance, as a London Member of Parliament, that Londoners will welcome any effective measures that the Government can take to convince foreign Governments that their diplomatic missions in London should be used for that purpose and that purpose only and not used ever again as bases for international terrorism or threats to the life and limb of people who live in London, or as bases from which to harass students and citizens of other countries whose diplomatic missions are located in London? Will he also accept that the application of one single rigorous standard will help in that, because we cannot have a double standard? We must be opposed to Syrian terrorism in London and, equally strongly, to French terrorism in New Zealand.

I cannot on an occasion such as this be drawn into commenting on questions of a different and more complicated nature, whether or not the hon. Gentleman is a London MP. I am certainly ready to endorse the observations made by the hon. Gentleman. It is of the utmost importance that Governments should take effective action so far as they can to prevent terrorism bursting on the streets and citizens of our capital city and any other in the world. In trying to do that, it is important to apply a uniform standard. This Government have done and will continue to do everything that can be done in that direction.

rose—

Order. The statement has already run for half an hour. In view of the importance of the subject, I shall call hon. Gentlemen who have risen, but I ask them to put their questions briefly.

My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that, following the sentence on Hindawi of 45 years, there is some concern that Abu Nidal might seek to take reprisals against bases in Cyprus or British legations around the world or in London. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise me what steps, if any, have been taken regarding that matter? What action would the Government take if such steps were taken by the Syrian Government?

I think my hon. Friend is right in underlining the anxiety that must be felt about the risk of reprisals as a result of such action in any circumstances. Our response to that is twofold: first, we must make it plain that the Government cannot and will not flinch from doing what must be done in such cases because of fear of reprisal. To adopt any other attitude would positively encourage terrorism. Secondly, we must take the fullest possible range of precautions, especially for premises overseas, to protect those who might be threatened by reprisals. Sadly, so long as terrorism remains a threat, one cannot produce a complete guarantee against it.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his robust and prompt action and join others who have done so. I ask him what measures he is taking to ensure that people who are appointed here in a diplomatic role arc bona fide diplomats and are not in some way agents of either their secret service or terrorist organisations. Is he making certain that all diplomats are properly vetted before they are accepted as proper representatives of their country in London?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. He is right to draw attention to that point which, as he knows, was considered by the Foreign Affairs Committee. We seek to scrutinise the qualifications of those appointed to diplomatic positions in this country with those factors in mind, with particular vigilance where there is special reason to do so, and take action as appropriate. This case will serve to underline the need for further care and vigilance in that respect.

In congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the robust and swift way in which he has handled the matter, will he assure the House that if, as has come to light in the past few weeks of the trial and the heightened interest in the matter, there is any evidence that there is terrorist activity being run from other embassies in London, regardless of where they come from, he will not hesitate to act again?

I am sure that the House will need no reminding of the extent to which we seek to apply a uniform standard in relation to all these matters. Terrorism, especially if it is promoted or provoked by diplomatic misconduct, cannot be tolerated.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that to say to him that his action will meet with virtually universal approval in this country is not, as has been suggested, to wallow in congratulation but simply to state a fact, a fact which I feel sure will be recognised by the tacit support and understanding of responsible Governments in the Arab world? In view of the notorious record of the Alawite regime in Syria, whose sinister activities have gone unpublicised and unpunished for far too long, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that our security forces will now be placed on an exceptionally high level of alert against further possible Syrian terrorist action?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to underline the importance of precautionary action of the sort that he has described. It is right that we should be especially vigilant in our security precautions at this time. It is right also that we should continue to leave the Syrian Government in no doubt of our abhorrence of terrorists and those who support them. We have discussed this through normal channels, as it were. I have done so myself with more than one Syrian Foreign Minister and with the Syrian president. Sadly, the earlier discussions do not seem to have been taken to heart.

What can the civilised world do about those who indulge in barbaric behaviour and skulk behind diplomatic immunity?

You will get $64,000 for answering that.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for an unusually helpful and encouraging observation. The irony of the problem is that diplomatic immunity, properly exercised, is essential to the conduct of representation of Governments around the world, which is in itself essential if we are to be in a position to safeguard the interests of our citizens who travel overseas. When it is abused, however, the civilised world collectively has to make plain its determination not to tolerate such abuse. The United Kingdom and Her Majesty's Government have been in the forefront of encouraging the acceptance of that standard, sadly, perhaps, as a result of our exposure to abuse of diplomatic immunity. We shall continue pressing the case.

As diplomatic immunity and privileges have been used traditionally to allow diplomats to report back to their Governments privately and thereby retain the good relations of which candid knowledge must be a part, have not diplomatic immunities and privileges been used increasingly in recent years for a far more sinister purpose, which is to undermine, subvert and even directly attack host countries? Therefore, has not the time come for us, in consultation with our friends and allies, to reconsider once again the scope of these immunities? It seems to me and to many others that the Syrian ambassador, whom we have just expelled, has as much in common with the traditional notion of diplomacy as, for example, the vicious armed robber who breaks into the back of a house has in common with a door-to-door salesman who knocks politely on the front door?

My hon. Friend, as always, has a gift for apt analogy and argument. It must be understood that when I stand at the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and speak in justification of diplomatic immunity, I do not make the point on behalf of myself, my Department or my office. I do so because of the necessity to have immunity that covers legitimate diplomatic activities around the world. Having said that, there is a growing concern about the scale, nature and extent of abuse of these immunities. That is something that has preoccupied the House many times and an issue that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has considered in depth over the past 12 months. The conclusion which the Select Committee arrived at was not that immunities should be stripped away, nor that we should seek to negotiate internationally to limit them. I think that it would be almost impossible to achieve international agreement on this issue. We should be profoundly vigilant in our surveillance and about the abuse of those immunities. We should encourage other nations to be similarly vigilant and intolerant of abuse. That is precisely what we have been doing. We shall be firm and vigilant in our actions in relation to abuse and we shall continue to promote a comparable response from other countries. There is no alternative way that is tolerable, not only for the sake of diplomats, but for citizens, to prevent it altogether.

In reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), my right hon. and learned Friend gave some advice to British citizens who are still resident in Syria. Is any advice being given to companies with substantial business interests in Syria? In particular, as we are not ceasing airline connections, is any advice being given to airline companies in relation to their employees?

I do not think that we have given any separate and specific advice at this stage because the decision has only just been made. We shall give consideration to all the possible implications that follow from this. We have given special advice to British citizens living in the Lebanon, reinforcing advice already given to people living there of the need in Lebanon in particular to observe a high level of caution and to consider carefully whether they have sufficient reason to remain there.

I now resume with the 10 questions that I was about to put to my hon. Friend the Minister. I shall read them quickly to get them on the record.

One: what guidance, advice or recommendations emanate from the DOE to shire counties about the preparation by them of structure plans or revised structure plans?

Two: has the DOE any particular strategic planning recommendations to make to individual counties? If so, what are they for Dorset?

Three: what is the statutory position of shire counties regarding the preparation of revised structure plans?

Four: what account does the DOE take in assessing the progress on an agreed structure plan of the effect on the plan of DOE inspectors' or ministerial decisions on target overruns for housing completions?

Five: What account does the DOE take in assessing the progress on an agreed structure plan of the effect of deliberate over-building by one authority within the county on that county's housebuilding targets vis-a-vis the current structure plan?

Six: what effect, if any, does the content of a county structure plan or revisions thereto have on specific decisions by DOE inspectors in the case of appeals to the DOE following planning refusals by district councils in the relevant county?

Seven: does the DOE plan any changes in ministerial circulars to local authorities on housing and planning matters such as to influence local authority planning decisions on housing?

Eight: does the DOE plan any changes in ministerial circulars to local authorities on housing and planning matters such as to influence inspectors' attitudes and recommendations on planning appeals?

Nine: what effect will the "Future of Development Plans" have on the preparation by shire counties of their strategic plans, if the proposals therein ultimately result in legislation?

Ten: what account does the DOE take of direct representations from Members of Parliament, the public and district councils concerning structure plans and revisions thereto when county councils not only produce the plans but submit to the Department their assessment of public reaction thereto?

I have already given my hon. Friend written notice of those questions so he will not have needed to write them down in shorthand.

I wish again to put on the record the answer given to me by the Secretary of State on 23 July when I asked him:

"Will he confirm that the initiation of structure plans and, indeed, the initiation of the revision of structure plans, is primarily the responsibility of the county council, and not his Department? Will my right hon. Friend further confirm that his Department responds after the county council has produced its proposals, and does not pressurise county councils before they produce their proposals? Finally, will he confirm that Dorset county council's revised structure plan for south-east Dorset is entirely its own responsibility?"

The reply was:

"I can confirm that all that my hon. Friend says is entirely correct."—[Official Report, 23 July 1986; Vol. 102, c. 337.]

I submit that there is no substance behind Dorset county council's claim that the proposals in this revised structure plan are sponsored by or are the result of pressure from Her Majesty's Government. Furthermore, there is no logic behind the county council's claim that massive developments at Three Legged Cross, the Grange estate and Verwood, as proposed in the structure plan revision, would prevent development elsewhere. The logic of that argument can be shown to be quite silly. The county council claims that if these three huge new schemes are approved, the rest of Dorset will be able to shelter behind the planning refusals that may emanate from all the district councils in the areas outwith the three areas where major developments are planned. Yet all the evidence shows that each planning appeal is considered on its individual merits by the inspector.

If the county council gets away with what it is trying to foist upon my constituency, the green light will have been given to huge, unwanted developments that go way beyond anything contained in the 1980 structure plan. Thereafter, the rest of the county would still be open, on every single planning appeal, to the individual decision of the inspector and his assessment of Government policy as contained in ministerial circulars. That is why I stress the point that unless there is a change of ministerial circular we shall have the worst of all worlds if this plan is allowed to proceed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) wishes to address the House and I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), has given considerable thought to the reply that he is to make to the debate. My ambition is to give courage and strength to Dorset county councillors to reject these monstrous and wholly unwelcome proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North has described them as a misguided and cowardly retreat from the 1980 structure plan and I concur wholeheartedly with him. Furthermore, the 1980 structure plan was drawn up by my hon. Friend the Minister's own Department.

The House is now considering the Housing and Planning Bill. Government policies for the inner cities under that Bill appear to be to seek to regenerate growth and investment in the inner cities. They seek to generate investment jointly between the public and private sectors. I applaud that aim wholeheartedly. That is why those parts of the Housing and Planning Bill that refer to development in the inner cities have received universal support in this House. However, the Government's planning policies are moving in precisely the opposite direction.

As for the planning policies that are being pursued by the Department, development resources are being concentrated in areas where there are easy pickings for developers. Instead of using tax incentives and the planning law to funnel development into the inner cities, we are giving the green light to developers to build in the lush suburban areas and in the more prosperous areas. Unless the Department changes its planning policy, we shall continue to channel investment into areas where, economically and socially, it is neither needed nor wanted. Thus, simultaneously, areas where development is needed will be deprived of investment for development projects. That is the broader point. I look forward very much to the answers that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will have to give on the points that I have raised in this debate.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having given me permission to join in this debate. I am also extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) for putting forward so eloquently and fully the case that concerns both his constituents and mine. He has already referred to some of the comments that I have made on the subject. I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said in the debate.

The level of development in south-east Dorset is of great concern to all our constituents. This matter concerns not just Dorset, a very beautiful part of our island, but the south of England generally. What my hon. Friend said about general planning policy is of great concern to many other constituencies, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister knows.

We had a structure plan in 1980 and a detailed consultation exercise arrived at the level of development to be contained in it. Inevitably, there was a compromise. I gave evidence but that did not provide the complete answer and was not reflected in the structure plan. However, there was a compromise and a plan of the level of development.

Now we have a draft review which shows how great a retreat is being proposed by the county council from the level of development in that structure plan. The document is a grim warning that we may expect 62,000 new dwellings in the area by 1996 instead of the 35,000 that were intended under the 1980 plan. Rather than strengthen a policy of containment for which there was widespread support by councillors and members of the public at every level in Dorset this document suggests an about-turn. It recommends an average building rate of about 2,350 dwellings a year instead of reducing that rate to 1,400 a year in line with the 1980 plan.

The recommendations are made for two reasons. The first is that somehow an increase in development in that part of the country will produce an increase in the number of jobs. If the review document is examined it will be seen that it contains the greatest amount of cold water for that proposal. There is no proven connection between a high level of development of residential houses—the kind of overdevelopment that concerns me—and the creation of jobs.

The second reason for the recommendations being made is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, that it is a matter of Government policy. That is why we are having this Adjournment debate today. We want to get it clear that the Government do not have a policy of overdevelopment, as I see it from the document, of south-east Dorset. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reassure us on that.

Indeed, the review document brings into question the whole purpose and status of structure plans and that is why my hon. Friend has asked his 10 important questions. We shall be listening carefully to the answers that we receive. What I conceive to be overdevelopment is not any development, sensible infilling, allowing businesses to develop sensibly or the prevention of businesses from setting up in the middle of towns and perhaps even villages, as suitable, to create jobs; it is the wholesale imposition of large new estates, often without the infrastructure being properly prepared, which changes the nature of the countryside in our county against the wishes, and, indeed, the consciousness, of the people. We do not know that these great changes are going on until it is too late.

I have asked what the Government's policy is, and that is what we want to hear today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen the speeches made by the previous Secretary of State for the Environment. Those speeches, certainly as I read them, would not favour the kind of overdevelopment with which we are now threatened.

The county council has put to me the contents of some of the circulars coming from the Department of the Environment. In particular, I draw the attention of the house to circular 15/84, entitled "Land for housing". The recommendations in that circular, which I have studied in detail, do not amount to Government approval for overdevelopment, as I have defined it. I do not have time to go through it in detail, but it is the contents of that circular that county councillors are telling me constitute Government approval for overdevelopment.

The circular covers the whole country. It applies to the nation, not just to rural areas such as mine or to suburban areas such as south-east Dorset. I ask the Minister seriously to consider amending the circular to make it clear how he differentiates between different types of land.

My local council complains that its planning decisions are overturned. Perhaps the Minister will produce figures showing that relatively few decisions are overturned. Figures sometimes mean very little because they can cover up the number of developments that take place. More important than the precise number of decisions overturned is the effect on local authority morale and the threat that they feel the planning department makes. If local authorities believe that their decisions will be overturned, that will affect the way in which they make decisions.

I do not have time to quote from all the papers in my possession, but they illustrate how district councils in my constituency, particularly Wimborne district council, feel fettered by the threat of the Department of the Environment overturning their decisions.

Land is our most precious asset. We need a more detailed policy on land use. I hope that in current and future planning policies the Minister will differentiate between areas. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), I hope that he will help to reverse the trend to the south which is draining resources from parts of the country that need them and which is damaging the environment in the south.

I know that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) will be grateful to him for introducing this important debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I congratulate them both on the detailed but measured way in which they presented their case.

Concern about the planning of such an attractive area is well appreciated. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch raised the matter on the Adjournment as recently as June last year.

My hon. Friend asked a number of questions and I shall endeavour to answer them in the time available. I shall write to him about those that I cannot cover. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are always ready to continue the dialogue on general policy in correspondence and in person.

First, I shall go over the background to the south-east Dorset structure plan. It was approved in February 1980. It proposed about 35,000 new dwellings over the 20 years from 1976 to 1996. To achieve that would entail a reduction in the annual house building rate from 3,100 in 1976 to less than half that towards the end of the plan period. It was expected that 10,500 houses would be built on small infill sites within the urban area and the balance on larger sites mainly on the edge of the conurbation. Industrial and warehousing land was proposed at several locations and in broad terms the plan established a green belt.

When approving the plan, the Secretary of State acknowledged its uncertainties and emphasised the importance of monitoring. Dorset county council has been deligent in this and has published annual reports. Its latest figures confirm that housing development has exceeded the rates that were assumed in the plan. By March 1985, 28,200 dwellings had been built. Development of large sites has been broadly as expected, but development of small sites within the urban area has taken place much more rapidly than was originally assumed.

This experience and the shortening horizon of the plan prompted the county council to proceed with its review.

The county council says that it framed its strategy within the constraints of national and local factors. It points out the difficulties of implementing a policy of restraint while contending with the inherent attractions of the area, high house prices and the effect on the local economy. The proposed alteration is said to have attempted to balance these issues and to have been determined in relation to the capacity of the area to accommodate growth. The draft proposals provide for 34,300 new dwellings from 1985 to 2001. That is an average of 2,140 house completions per annum. Of this total, infilling and consolidation of development is expected to provide for 26,800 dwellings.

The county council considered two general areas for longer-term development, of which one, the north-east sector, was expected to provide about 14,000 dwellings eventually, only about 7,500 of which are expected to be built by 2001, provided there are satisfactory arrangements for infrastructure. The procedures for the alteration of the structure plan are essentially the same as when the plan was first prepared. Dorset county council has consulted the public on its draft alterations. This is a statutory requirement and six weeks are allowed for representations. However, the council felt it prudent to go beyond the legal requirement and allowed over 13 weeks for comment. The council has now made it known that representations after that date will still be considered.

The county council will now have to consider the responses to its publicity. I trust it will take careful note of all the representations that it receives. When the council have completed this process, the alteration will be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his approval. At that stage another period of six weeks is allowed for the public to submit objections or representations direct to the Secretary of State for his consideration. These will be carefully examined and the Secretary of State may arrange for an examination in public to be held under an independent chairman. If, after considering the report of the panel and all the objections, the Secretary of State proposes to approve the alteration with modifications, there will be public advertisement and again six weeks will be allowed for objections. At all stages of the procedure there will be adequate opportunity for the general public to express their views.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) asked how the Department treats direct representations from hon. Members and from the public and district councils when structure plans are revised. The county planning authority is responsible for publicity and public consultation, but under the Act my right hon. Friend has to be satisfied by the steps taken by the authority to meet those requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch knows, objections and representations by the public can be made to the Secretary of State when the county council formally submits an alteration for approval. All representations received are given the most careful scrutiny before a final decision is made.

I will now deal with some of the other questions. My hon. Friends asked what guidance was given by my Department to county councils on the review and alteration of their structure plans. First I should explain that the legislation itself requires county planning authorities to keep their structure plans under review. This is not a procedure that has to be carried out at set intervals. I imagine it is self-evident why this should be so. We live in a rapidly changing world. It is important that planning policies are relevant and take account of the most recent information available. There is no statutory restriction on when county councils may propose alterations to their structure plans. They have been encouraged to do so when events have changed or when plans do not look sufficiently far ahead.

When altering their structure plans, county councils should have regard to Government policy. That is made public in circulars issued by my Department. In particular, we issued circular 22/84 in September 1984 which contains detailed advice in a memorandum on structure and local plans. I commend that memorandum to my hon. Friends for it explains a great deal more about the procedures than I can possibly cover this afternoon.

Our circulars on land for housing — No. 15/84, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North—and green belts—No. 14/84—are relevant. The Government wish to encourage home ownership and to bring that within the reach of as many people as possible. We also want structure plans to be helpful towards the creation of employment by not imposing unnecessary restrictions on businesses. The planning system should cater effectively for private housing and ensure an adequate supply of land. The Government also intend—I emphasise this — that well established conservation policies should be firmly maintained. In essence, our aim is to accommodate necessary development in ways that protect amenity and ensure economy and efficiency in the use of land.

It is recognised that the planning system has served those purposes well in the past, and in ways that meet both local interests and those of the community at large. That is the challenge that county councils face when they propose to alter their structure plans and which my right hon. Friend will be concerned to see fulfilled when he approves them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch asked further whether my Department had any particular strategic planning recommendations for Dorset. The strategy which the county council adopts in the structure plan is a matter for the county council itself. The circulars I mentioned provide guidance, as do nationally produced statistics and projections, but it is then for the county council to decide how best it should plan its area and to provide the reasons for its chosen course. Objections and representations can be made about these matters and my right hon. Friend will have to decide on them later when the alterations are submitted for his approval. It would not be right to prejudice such a decision at this stage.

My hon. Friend asked about the recent Green Paper on the future of development plans. As is known, the present development plan system of structure and local plans is under review and the Government have proposed the changes set out in the Green Paper. These changes are necessary because it takes too long to prepare plans, many plans are too detailed and the system requires too much involvement by central Government in approving structure plans. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that I do not have time today to talk in detail about the proposed changes, but what I will say, however, is that the proposals would require legislation and none is expected in the next Session of this Parliament. Because of that, I would like to emphasise that for the present the preparation of structure plan alterations, and their submission to the Secretary of State, will continue as before.

My hon. Friend said that Dorset county council felt obliged to propose a large increase of housing over the 1980 structure plan directly and solely as a result of Government policy. It is true that the county councils have to keep their structure plans up to date. That is a statutory requirement. But I say again that the timing and content of the proposed alteration is entirely a matter for the council. It decided that the 1980 plan should be revised because of the need to extend it beyond 1996 to ensure a continuing framework for local planning and investment; to cater for changes concerning the creation of employment and provision of services, and to reflect an increased level of housing demand

Dorset county council has said in its consultation document that the choice of housing strategies has been constrained by a number of local and national issues, including Government policies. This is right, and reflects the advice given in our circulars, in particular those that I have mentioned. The county council also points out that its strategies take account of the views of the local public, the nature of the areas and existing policies and commitments. The decision to propose an alteration to the structure plan appears to be based on a comprehensive cross-section of advice and opinion. I can understand from what my hon. Friend has said that he questions that, and naturally we shall look extremely closely at those points.

My hon. Friend asked what account is taken of the effects of inspectors' and ministerial decisions on the progress of a structure plan. There appears to be some misunderstanding. The housing provisions of structure plans are not targets but the basis on which the planning of land availability and infrastructure can be made.

I fear that I shall not be able to answer precisely all the questions, but I can refer to the important one about Hurn airport. The inspector has submitted his report to my right hon. Friend for consideration, and all the representations made in writing and at the inquiry will he taken into account. Those points in the questions put to me by my hon. Friend that we consider need to be dealt with in more detail will be answered on paper. I repeat that my right hon. Friend and I are always available to hear from my hon. Friend and concerned hon. Members representing the county.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Four o'clock.