(by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on how he intends to use the Government's special share in Britoil to preserve the independence of the company.

The powers of the special share are set out in article 71 of Britoil's articles of association.

On 18 December the Treasury put out a press statement, stating that in present circumstances the Government intend to use their special share in Britoil to prevent any bidder from gaining control of the Britoil board.

The statement went on to explain that, if and when a formal offer is made for, or control obtained of, more than 50 per cent. of Britoil's shares, paragraph 71C of the articles of association will come into effect. This allows the special shareholder to outvote all other shareholders at a general meeting on any resolution. It also allows the special shareholder to require an extraordinary general meeting. This was reaffirmed on 23 December, in the light of the statement that day by the Panel on Takeovers and Mergers about the proposed BP offer for Britoil.

No such offer has yet been made. But, whatever the circumstances, I can assure the House that the powers of the special share will be used for so long as it is in the national interest to do so.

I cannot add anything more at this stage.

The Chancellor will be aware of the widespread concern, particularly among the management and employees of Britoil, that it is well known that British Petroleum wishes to take over the company. The Chancellor's statement that he would use the golden share did not seem to act as "a formidable deterrent", as the right hon. Gentleman predicted the golden share would on a previous occasion in the House. BP seems determined to proceed with its bid.

Would it not make matters much clearer if the Chancellor were to make it clear that the purpose of the golden share is, as he has told the House on a number of occasions, to deter a bid for Britoil, rather than to in some way modify the consequences of the takeover, as BP seems to imagine it might be? I invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear that Britoil will be maintained as an independent company, with its corporate headquarters in Glasgow, and that the fundamental basis of the golden share will be maintained, whatever bids are forthcoming in the next few days.

I have nothing to add to what I have said. This is a highly market-sensitive matter and it would not be proper for me to say anything further. I add that I do not think that this line of questioning—although I do not dispute the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right to ask the questions if he wishes to do so—is helpful to Britoil.

The location of the headquarters of Britoil is, of course, a matter for the Britoil board, as it has always been.

Following what my right hon. Friend said about the headquarters in Glasgow and the facilities in Aberdeen, is it not in the national interest that they should remain where they are?

I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I repeat what I said a moment or two ago, that the location of the headquarters of the company is a matter for the board, as it has always been. The special share ensures the independence of the board.

The Chancellor's statement is welcome as far as it goes, but it does riot go very far, because it contains certain qualifications. Will he give an assurance that neither now, in this "market-sensitive period", as he calls it, nor later will he tell British Petroleum that if it gains control of the company's shares he will somehow allow his present powers to lapse, perhaps after a period? We want an absolute assurance that that will not happen and that Britoil will be maintained as an independent company.

As I have already said, whether to use the share is a matter about which the Government will have to make up their mind in the light of the circumstances at the time and in the overriding light of the national interest. I have said that in the present circumstances we will use it.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rightly or wrongly, has been saddled with this very controversial, but highly undemocratic, power, would it be sensitive to the national interest far him to seek the views of those bidding for Britoil as to whether they intend to support regional development and maintain the centre of the company in Glasgow?

Any company interested in acquiring Britoil is perfectly free to reveal its intentions on any matter.

Will the Chancellor give a clear and unequivocal pledge to use the golden share to protect the independence of Britoil, so that that is clear in Hansard? May I encourage him to fulfil that pledge and assure us that if there is a change in that commitment there will be a full debate and vote in the House on a matter of such great importance to the Scottish economy?

I cannot give any assurance about a debate—that is not a matter for me—but when I was Secretary of State for Energy in 1982 and this special share was set up, I gave a pledge that if and when the share were to be redeemed, the House would be informed first.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that raising this matter by means of a private notice question is of no help whatever to Britoil and is likely to be of advantage, only to, and in the interests of, a predator?

That may be the case.

This is the first time that I have witnessed the legendary arrogance and complacency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The hon. Gentleman should be here more often—[Interruption.]

Order.

It is not a pretty sight. The Chancellor's answer to an earlier question about the siting of Britoil's headquarters was staggering in its indifference. In my constituency, where the headquarters are situated, there are 800 people—Government Members may laugh like buffoons—

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not use language like that.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker. These 800 people are very worried and frightened about their future, yet all the Chancellor can say is that it is somehow a matter for the market place or the company to decide. Can the Chancellor find it within himself to assure my constituents and the people of Glasgow that he wants the headquarters of Britoil to remain there, and that he wants Britoil to remain an independent company?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman on one of his infrequent visits to the House. Had he listened, he would have heard me say that the location of the company's headquarters is a matter for the board, as it always has been. When Britoil was formed from the old British National Oil Corporation, the board decided to locate its headquarters in Glasgow and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, it built a spanking new building to house those headquarters. That is where they remain to this day.

The board has unusual powers. That is why the power of the special share to control the board is especially interesting. Article 92 of the Britoil articles of association states:

"The business of the company shall be managed by the directors to the exclusion of the company in general meeting."

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is already large and welcome foreign investment in North sea oil, but that it would cause concern if companies such as Britoil and British Petroleum were to fall under foreign control, with the result that almost all the strategic qualities of North sea oil would be controlled by foreign interests? Does he agree that any such foreign bid for Britoil or BP would be stoutly resisted, under the provisions of the Industry Act 1975, in the best interests of this country?

As I made clear in 1982 when I was Secretary of State for Energy, the purpose of the special share in Britoil is to ensure that control over the company does not fall into unacceptable hands. As for BP, my hon. Friend will be aware of the assurances that we have received from the Kuwaitis.

Given the Chancellor's welcome confirmation of the Treasury's position on this issue, will he confirm that he does not agree with the criticism that has been made against Britoil—unfairly, in many people's eyes—that it is using tactics to try to increase the share offer from about 450p to 600p? Is that not an unfair allegation against the company?

It would be wrong for me to venture into those waters, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the golden share in Enterprise Oil has a life of five years? Why should Britoil be treated differently from Enterprise Oil? As my right hon. Friend is a believer in free markets, will he tell us how the golden share will encourage Britoil to become more efficient? It is to be protected by a share structure as antiquated as that of the Savoy.

It is not all that antiquated. It was introduced only in 1982. However, I feel much older now than I did then—perhaps I am. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that some golden shares are time-limited, whereas others are not. I read in the newspapers today that the Britoil board envisages the day when the golden share in Britoil will no longer exist.

Is not the need to act reinforced by the news that the Kuwaitis are buying BP shares and now have 18 per cent. of them? Is it not true that the Kuwaitis have refused to give an undertaking that they will not purchase 29·9 per cent. of the company? Is there not a danger that the Arabs might pick up a large section of North sea oil on the cheap?

There is nothing to stop someone buying shares cheaply after a fall on the stock market. The hon. Gentleman must be aware of the assurances given by the Kuwaitis that they are not seeking control over the company or the management. It would be inconsistent with those assurances if they acquired a shareholding of 29·9 per cent.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify what he means by his frequent references to the "national interest"? Does he mean Scotland's national interest, or is he concentrating on Britain's national interest? If it is the latter, what difference can it make whether the oilfields are owned by British Petroleum or by Britoil?

I am the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and a member of the Government of the United Kingdom, and it is therefore the national interest of the United Kingdom about which I am speaking. However, obviously that does not mean that I would be indifferent to the views of Scottish Members.

May we take it from the Chancellor's reply that, as the inventor of the golden share, he intends to use it to keep Britoil as an independent company? Given the sensitivity of the market, should he not, in all fairness, convey that to the chairman of BP, Sir Peter Walters, as soon as possible, with the backing of all the legal opinion that he can muster?

Britoil has, of course, been independent since it was floated more than five years ago. Article 71C explicitly envisages the possibility of a bidder acquiring more than 50 per cent. of the shares and states in those circumstances what the powers of the special share are. I have nothing to add to that.

rose—

Order. I regret that I have not been able to call all those hon. Members wishing to speak. This is an extension of Question Time. We have another private notice question.

(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British policy on the Arab-Israel question in the light of recent developments on the West Bank and Gaza.

The current unrest underlines the urgent need for progress towards a settlement. We shall continue to work for an international conference as the framework for negotiations between the parties directly concerned.

Is the Minister aware that when I left Israel this morning the grim news was of still more disturbances, killings of Palestinians by Israeli forces and the clubbing of women demonstrators in east Jerusalem? Does he agree with me that, after 20 years of deprivation of civil rights under military rule, the patience of the Palestinians in the occupied territories has finally snapped and that, while the Israeli preoccupation with national security is understandable and accepted, no military response will put an end to the Palestinians' grievances, and neither will the deportation of individual Palestinians?

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the past few days, King Hussein of Jordan, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of Jordan, the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister of Israel and Palestinian activists in the West Bank and Gaza, while offering differing interpretations and suggesting their own possible solutions, told me that disturbances will continue until there is a negotiated settlement stemming from an international conference convened under the auspices of the United Nations with the twin objectives of security for Israel and self-determination for the Palestinians? That point of view has been echoed to me by individual demonstrators — both women and youth — to whom I have talked.

Is the Minister aware that the main obstacles to the convening of an international conference are the obduracy and inflexibility of the Prime Minister of Israel, who is at odds with his own Foreign Minister on this issue, and that the continuing inertia of the United States Administration is contributing to the problem instead of helping to find a solution? Will the Government now consider whether an initiative from Britain can seek to end the stalemate so that, as so many have told me is their wish, in Jordan, Palestine and Israel, Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians, can try to live together in peace instead of being locked in conflict?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks and commend him on his visit, which was enormously helpful. It is clear that what he has said about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza—both today and in his article in The Observer—is entirely correct. A deep and desperate problem now faces the Government of Israel in finding the way forward. It is crucial that there should be widespread recognition throughout Israel —regardless of party—that the present situation cannot continue and that security cannot be maintained at the point of a gun. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said last October, the effect of that is to brutalise those involved, which, in the long run, simply builds up more problems.

We believe, as the right hon. Gentleman has asserted, that there is an opportunity for an international conference, under the auspices of the five permanent members of the Security Council, within which sensible discussions can take place between all the parties as to ways in which, in response to a genuine willingness to end the occupation and allow the self-determination of the Palestinian people, the state of Israel can have that most precious thing, as we would see it—recognition by its neighbours of its right to exist behind secure boundaries.

We can none of us choose our neighbours, whether in our private lives or as nations, but it is absolutely and fundamentally clear that long-term security cannot be maintained at the point of a gun and that, having regard to the nature of the leadership of most of the neighbouring countries, there is now an opportunity for a long-term solution to be found. In the first instance, however, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that will require some movement from certain factions within the Israeli Government.

I make two further points to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I am glad that he found his discussions with Jordan so fruitful, as indeed do the Government. It is clear that on the Arab side, as on the Israeli side, there is a legacy to live down. It is also clear that all who wish to play a part in the process must legitimise themselves. At this time, there is a particular responsibility on the PLO to accept the two relevant Security Council resolutions, Nos. 242 and 338, and to renounce violence to give effect to its pledge and commitment that it is the representative of the Palestinian people, and it, will not be brought into the framework unless it is prepared to do that.

As for the British position, we shall continue to do all that we can to use our historic patterns of friendship with all parties in the region to try to advocate that cause. I am genuinely delighted, as I am sure the whole House is, that whatever issues may divide the House on party lines this is not one of them.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that then he went to Gaza he undertook a difficult task and did it well?

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend.

Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, for me to congratulate my right hon. and admirable Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on the courage and vision of his statement today and to couple that with congratulations to the Minister of State on his courage and vision m what he said and how he conducted himself while he was in the middle east?

Is it not time that the international community, and particularly the EEC, started to exert economic pressure on the Fascist Government of Israel to make them restrain their policies and in particular the activities of some of the assorted thugs from Poland and America who have been misbehaving within the Israeli army?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of commendation, but I cannot agree with his prescription. It is clearly the duty of the entire international community, whether through the European Community or through the United Nations, to make our views on the situation known, because the occupied territories are exactly that: they are not part of Israel, but, as the international community says, are administered in accordance with international law. Every effort must be made through every convenient forum to make all parties appreciate the need at this time to lay aside some of the burdens of the past and to try to work for a better future. We have already explored ways in which both sides could do that.

Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that the many hon. Members who, like himself, have seen what is happening in Gaza, unlike the writers of the more spectacular editorials of the past few days, totally endorse his remarks? Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, where an even-handed approach between tyranny — I think that that was my hon. and learned Friend's word—and the oppressed secures no result, the time has come to speak more in favour of the oppressed than of the oppressor? Will he tell the Israeli Government that if they go ahead with their totally illegal proposal to deport Palestinians from their homeland, the British Government, with others in the European Community, will see to it that the economic advantages to trade that Israel enjoys with the European Community will cease?

My hon. Friend is unquestionably right to condemn the deportations. They are illegal under international law, and, what is more, they are counterproductive in their practical effect. They will only create martyrs and make a difficult situation even worse. I hope that the Government of Israel will pay heed to what the United Nations has asked and suspend the policy of deportations.

On my hon. Friend's comments about the West Bank and Gaza, it is impossible to understand the full dimensions of that situation without going there. Going to the West Bank and especially to Gaza is a deep shock. It is clear that the people there wish to have some hope for the future. However, such hope for the future will come only if two things take place : first, recognition by the Government of Israel that the status quo is not an option — it is unacceptable and cannot continue — and, secondly, that those who purport — some from a considerable distance from the West Bank and Gaza—to be the spokesmen of the people there should, by renouncing violence and accepting Israel's right to exist, bring themselves into a position such that they can play a proper and positive part in the framework of discussions that we are trying to establish.

I know that my hon Friend has ploughed a lonely and brave furrow in some of the discussions that he has had with groups in the region. I hope that he will impress upon them that statesmanship is looked for from both sides, not just from one.

rose—

Order. May I make a plea for brief questions and answers, because time is moving on?

I should like to express my own sorrow at the loss of life and the casualties in recent events and my hope that the parties will live together in peace. However, regretfully, I should also say that I trust that in retrospect the Minister will recognise that his tactics and lack of tact, his language and behaviour, were unworthy and unhelpful to peace —[Interruption.] They assisted only the extremists on both sides and did not assist Britain's prospects of playing a useful role, as we would wish, in bringing the two sides together.

I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with sincerity. However, he has had his response from the House and does not need a further response from me.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, at the very moment when he was in Gaza, the President of the state of Israel was telling international parliamentarians that relations between this country and Israel had never been so close during the 40 years since independence as now, under the present Prime Minister? Is it not obvious that the Israelis will not want 650,000 disaffected Arabs in their territories? The trouble is that no other Arab country wants Gaza or to take responsibility for its people.

Is it not a fact that the state of Israel is desperately anxious for a peaceful settlement but that no Arab leader, of any responsibility, dares to come forward to discuss peace, boundaries and the future of Gaza with the Israelis?

I appreciate that my hon. and learned Friend speaks with great sincerity and awareness of the situation. However, I must point out that if the Israeli Government were full-heartedly to accept an international conference, they would not find their Arab neighbours unwilling to participate. I made it clear earlier—I am happy to reiterate it for my hon. Friend's benefit—that if progress is to be made, it will require efforts on both sides. I have sought to set out—I shall not repeat it—a few of our ideas about what is required.

However, my hon. and learned Friend should be disabused of one idea. He seems to suggest that Israel is willing to give up Gaza—[Interruption.] I must remind my hon. and learned Friend that one section of the Israeli Government may be willing to give up Gaza, but the Prime Minister, Mr. Shamir, travelled to Gaza last year and took the opportunity of his brief visit to say that Gaza is part of Israel and is not negotiable

Does the Minister accept that, although his reaction in Gaza was understandable and, in many circumstances, to be welcomed, there is, as I found this new year on my first visit to Israel and the West Bank, a growing desire for peace now among the Jewish community? A prime responsibility of the Government is to encourage the enlightened members of the majority community in Israel to put pressure on their politicians and leaders so that they may achieve peace. That view is growing and is widespread among the military and others, who are willing to recognise the independence of Palestine so long as they have security for Israel.

What the hon. Gentleman says is right. We must remember that Israel is the middle east's one democracy and that this is essentially a battle for the hearts and minds of the Israeli voters. I hope that the process of re-evaluation which many people in this country have had to go through when watching their television screens during the past five or six weeks will also be happening in Israel.

It is important that the peace process, through the framework of the international conference, which seems to command wide support on both sides of the House, should be seen as an opportunity, not a threat, for Israeli's security needs to be recognised. For example, there is no reason why Israel's giving up of the occupied territories would mean that hostile armour would have to be replaced in the occupied territories or why a demilitarised solution should not be found. Clearly, there can be a way forward only if people are prepared to enter the process in the first place. Until then, I fear that we can see only all the problems of an area in limbo, which is what we see in the occupied territories at present.

Since the people in Israeli-occupied Egypt and Jordan have been denied for two decades any form of democratic institution, such as we enjoy, does my hon. and learned Friend agree that unless those visiting those territories, as he did, speak out, as he did, there will be no voices to be heard speaking out clearly and sincerely as the alternative to violence? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that speaking out openly is the only alternative to violence? I hope that all hon. Members back that alternative.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend as his warm private letter was the first I read when I returned from Israel. I am grateful to him for his message. One of the false hares that is around is the idea that somehow one makes matters better by not speaking out about them. I believe that it assists the process of drift and postpones the evil time when a decision must be taken if people, particularly friends, are not prepared to speak out and to say with candour what it is after all our duty as friends to say. I hope that this will be seen positively, as the whole international community sees it, not as a threat to Israel, because that is certainly not how it is interpreted.

rose—

Order. I must draw the attention of the House to the futher statement and important business before us. I shall allow two more questions.

In relation to the international conference, could the Minister tell us whether the Government, or any members of the Government, have been in touch with the United States since his visit?

There is regular contact with the United States, and obviously it is crucial that all five permanent members of the Security Council should play their part. I have no doubt that the United States would be fully prepared to do that. Naturally, in a complicated situation there will always be discussions and inevitable differences of view on precisely the right framework. It remains our view, and we give it to all parties, whether permanent members of the Security Council or countries in the region, that the international conference is the only truly viable option at present. We shall continue to advocate that, and with all the more enthusiasm because it appears to be the view expressed by the House this afternoon and on other occasions.

While no one can be happy with living conditions in the Gaza strip, does my hon. and learned Friend accept that, in contrast to the Egyptians, over the past 20 years the Israelis have tried to rehouse thousands of people there? Is there not a large measure of hypocrisy, particularly in the United Nations which, on the one hand, condemns what is going on in the Gaza Strip, yet condemns Israel for trying to rehouse refugees?

I understand why my hon. Friend speaks as he does, but the amount of effort that has been spent in the occupied territories on improving the quality of life of the people has been extremely limited and falls far short of what is needed. Indeed, I am sad to say that far too much attention has been paid to investing in illegal settlements in the occupied territories which only make a difficult situation worse. I do not know whether my lion. Friend has had the advantage of visiting the occupied territories, but I invite him to do so and to see for himself the miserable conditions which, once seen, scar the memory.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the fire resistance of domestic upholstered furniture.

It is estimated that 90 per cent. of furniture on sale to the public is filled with polyurethane foam. The increasing use of this relatively cheap material since the 1950s has brought comfortable, upholstered furniture within the reach of many people who could not previously afford it.

There has been concern for some 20 years about its fire sa1fety. In '1980 the Government introduced the Upholstered Furniture (Safety) Regulations, which require all domestic upholstered furniture to resist ignition by a smouldering cigarette. Since well over half of all furniture fires are started by cigarettes, this measure addressed the principal problem. This was then, and remains, the strictest fire safety regime in the world. Ireland is the only other European country with any legal controls over the fire safety of furniture.

However, concern has remained. The present regulations certainly improved ignition resistance—that is, that furniture became more difficult to set on fire—but the nature of the foam in widespread use is that once lit it burns with immense ferocity and speed, generating exceptional heat and emitting toxic fumes. Notwithstanding its fire performance, its comfort and low cost have made foam-filled furniture extremely popular with customers. Therefore, Governments over many years have consistently been reluctant to prohibit its use in the absence of reasonably priced, safer alternatives. Recent developments have altered this.

In July 1987 I issued for consultation a set of documents describing measures to improve significantly our already high level of protection. We received many responses, most of which expressed support for the principle of basing the regulations on a code of practice. Different views were expressed about the content of the code of practice and about how quickly new regulations could or should be introduced. I am grateful to all those who responded.

Public attention has been focused on this issue by the spate of tragic deaths in house fires over the holiday period, and I know that the whole House will join me in expressing sympathy for the bereaved families. Some of the fires involved foam-filled furniture. It has not been possible to ascertain whether such furniture pre-dated the implementation of the present regulations in 1982, but in view of the widespread concern, I thought it right to inform the House at the earliest opportunity of the Government's intentions.

It is my intention that the regulations will make it illegal to use standard quality foam under any grade of cover from the end of February 1989. There has been some debate about the fire-resistance qualities of high-resilience foam. I am satisfied that it provides better protection than standard foam, in that it is less easily ignited, but once lit it burns in much the same way as standard foam. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the advantages that high resilience foam carries over standard foam are enough to justify its continued use. Accordingly, the regulations will outlaw its use from the same date. Combustion-modified high-resilience foam will therefore be the only permitted foam from that time. This material has recently been developed and was commercially launched only last year. It ignites more slowly and gives off fewer fumes than the foams in common use. Therefore, it is recognised by experts as providing greatly superior fire resistance.

As far as covering materials are concerned, I have concluded that we should eventually require them all to meet the match ignition test. This will be a requirement from the end of February 1990.

These regulations will be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which prescribes penalties of fines of up to £2,000 and imprisonment of up to six months, or both, for each offence. Local authority trading standards officers are responsible for enforcement and have been fully consulted. The classification of components and code of practice basis of the new regulations will make them substantially easier than the present law to enforce effectively. The code of practice will also have advantages of flexibility. If and when new materials or combinations of materials are developed, the code will enable consumer choice to be widened, while maintaining safety standards.

I understand that representatives of chief fire officers have suggested a ban on standard and high-resilience polyurethane foam from 1 January 1989, which is two months earlier than the date that I have announced. I do not believe that that earlier date is feasible. The effect of introducing a legal requirement earlier than industry can meet would be to interrupt the supply of furniture to the public and to put at risk the 35,000 or more jobs in the manufacture of components and in the manufacture and distribution of finished furniture, but because of legitimate public concern on this issue businesses will have to adapt much more quickly than they consider acceptable. I plan to issue the regulations in draft at the end of next month. By the end of February next year it will be illegal to sell furniture filled with standard or high-resilience foam, and by a year later, the end of February 1990, all covering materials for upholstered furniture will have to meet the match test.

These new regulations will ensure that upholstered furniture sold in future will be substantially safer than at present. However, this can be achieved only at a cost, which must eventually be paid by the customer. Estimates of the additional cost vary, but I am confident that the keen competition that exists in the furniture trade will keep them to a minimum.

There will remain for some years in many homes furniture bought before even the present regulations came into force in 1982, and no new regulations can remedy that. Nor will furniture meeting these new higher standards be entirely safe. It remains essential, therefore, for every householder to exercise the utmost vigilance to prevent fires from starting in the first place, and if a fire does start, the safety of the occupiers will be enhanced if a smoke detector is installed. These are now relatively inexpensive, retailing at some £10 to £15, and I strongly advise their installation.

I join the Minister in expressing deep sympathy to the relatives of those who died so tragically in the spate of fires over Christmas and the new year.

I welcome, with significant qualifications, today's statement, which surely marks as profound and justified a climbdown as has ever been made in consumer safety. I pay tribute to the campaign that has been vigorously waged by many people, including chief fire officers, who had the courage to speak out when they might have remained silent.

Am I right in saying that the effect of today's statement is that all standard polyurethane foam is to go within a period of 14 months, contrary to the Minister's original proposals, which allowed it to be used for three years, that high-resilience foam is to go altogether, contrary to the previous proposals, which allowed it to be used indefinitely, and that ignitable covers are to go altogether after two years, contrary to the proposals that allowed them to be used indefinitely? Am I right in saying that the effect of these changes will be that after two years there should be only safe foam filling within fire-resistant covers and that any combinations of covers and filling should pass the full British Standards Institution 5852 test? Chief fire officers and others wanted more immediate action, and the only reason for delaying action was the difficulty experienced by the industry in gearing itself up to meet the changes.

The Minister's proposals were published on 1 July last year. Will he confirm that as long ago as 1 September 1987 the Greater Manchester fire service told him that the proposals were inherently defective because high-resilience foam had been tested and found wanting, that that view was unanimously agreed by the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Associations and that months ago, the British Standards Institution said that it was refusing a classification for those proposals?

Will the Minister also confirm that on 30 September the Crown Suppliers, the Government's own furniture suppliers, condemned the proposals in forthright terms and said that they represented simply what the furniture industry wanted, and that that was confirmed by the Home Office and the Fire Research Station? Is it not correct that the Minister's Department has known for months that those proposals were inherently defective? Only in the last two weeks, following a public outcry, has any effective action been contemplated. Will the Minister confirm that that is correct?

Will the Minister comment on what I was told today? I shall accept his assurance if he says that what I was told is incorrect. The proposals are the product of a Government working party set up by his Department. Will the Minister comment on the following information, which I was given today: that the working party included only one fire officer from anywhere in the country, that there was no representative from the Crown Suppliers, the Government's own experts, and that more than 20 representatives from the furniture trade attended the meetings of that working party? Will the Minister also comment on a specific point that was put to me today, that the minutes and reports of those meetings were drawn up by the furniture industry?

The general lesson that can be drawn from that sorry episode, no matter what welcome we give to today's proposals, is that in future, when the Department is faced with a conflict between the safety and security of millions of consumers and the commercial motives of a particular industry, it should put the public interest before vested interests, no matter how well connected.

The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) could afford to be a little more generous. He referred to the proposals as a clirnbdown. That is arrant nonsense. This is the first British Government to take any action on polyurethane foam furniture. The Government of his party did nothing for five years, well after the problem was recognised, and well after public concern was expressed. When the deputy leader of the Labour party was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, he presided over a period of glorious inaction. This Government are the first to introduce measures that are the toughest in the world.

My proposals today go substantially further than that. Last July, proposals were issued for consultation. The hon. Gentleman has gone through some of the responses to the consultations. The purpose of consultation proposals is to hear what people have to say about them. It should not surprise anyone that we have listened to what has been said. Since before mid-October people have been making comments which have been very helpful. As a result, and as I have announced today, we have issued substantially extended proposals which I hope will be widely welcomed.

Combustion-modified foam has been available commercially for only a few months. It was commercially launched only last year. There is no possibility of its being made available in commercial quantities for some months to come. The date, that I have announced is the earliest possible. There is much work to be done by the industry to ensure that safer covering materials with fire-retardant properties will be available in the necessary quantities. The tests to be applied to those materials are the British Standards Institution tests. I hope that the BSI will work on the development of a range of fire development tests that will extend the sophistication with which those tests can be applied and extend the classification. I hope, also, that the BSI will devote attention to achieving that result as quickly as possible.

The proposals mark a radical step forward. The hon. Gentleman referred to the working party, which included representatives from the industry, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, a very distinguished fire officer. It produced proposals for consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will join in welcoming what represents a substantial step forward for public safety. I stress that the proposals will not make every home safe, because homes will continue to contain furniture that was bought even before the present tough regulations came into force. There is nothing that any Government can do to remedy that. I hope that, although the proposals are tough and provide the best protection in the world by a long way, people will not be lulled into a false sense of security. The need for vigilance in every home remains as strong as ever, and I hope that people will pay heed to that.

rose—

Order. I make a further plea for brief questions. We have a heavy day in front of us.

My hon. Friend may be surprised to know that the furniture industry will welcome his statement. This morning I was at a meeting of the furniture industry, which thought that the date might be earlier than my hon. Friend has proposed. One reason for the delay in implementing the proposals is that the foam has not been available. Even now there have been no commercial trials of the new foam, nor are the manufacturers able to say with satisfaction that they will be able to produce furniture under the new regime within the time scale. They want to do so, but they are subject to the actions of the furniture manufacturers.

As the regulations will deal with coverings, will they apply to curtains, drapes, loose covers and other items within the home that use similar materials? If that is the case, it will represent a fundamental change and go far beyond what is presently expected.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I am delighted to hear that the furniture industry feels that it can meet the timetable. If I could be persuaded that a swifter timetable could be met, I would be delighted lo alter the time scale accordingly and bring forward the date on which the regulations come into force. I am open to persuasion on that matter. The regulations will not apply to drapes, curtains and other materials. They will relate solely to upholstered furniture.

On behalf of my party, may I also express condolences to the families who have suffered so grievously? In particular, as Welsh affairs spokesman for my party, I express sympathy for the great tragedy that occurred at Merthyr Tydfil. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will call the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), and I should like to be associated with his remarks. As recommended by the fire officers, we desire that no further standard foam should be used from 1 January 1989. The welcome flexibility shown by the Minister should be implemented if the furniture industry is prepared to bring forward the date of enforcement.

The Minister should consider an educational programme for householders on fire prevention. He should publish a code that householders can put in their homes so that youngsters can learn the fire code early in their lives.

I believe that there is a conflict of interest between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office over the responsibility for fire prevention. I believe that the Home Office should take over that responsibility, so that a more objective set of rules can be placed before the nation.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the bereaved families. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who made similar remarks, and I am sure that the whole House shares those sentiments.

There are real problems about introducing the regulations earlier than is proposed, because there is a long lead time. The regulations will come into force and operate at the point of sale—the point at which furniture will be available in the shops for sale to the public. Obviously, manufacturers need time to adapt. The safer, combustion-modified, foam is not available in commercial quantities at the moment. Manufacturers of this foam need to gear themselves up to produce it in adequate quantities. An enormous number of suites of upholstered furniture are produced every week and the demand will be substantial. I do not believe that it would be practical to introduce the regulations earlier, but I am open to persuasion. If the industry can persuade me that it is feasible, I shall be only too glad to do so.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his remarks. I do not believe that he needs any lessons from anybody in the House, because he has listened and reacted in a way that some of us wish some of his predecessors had done.

When my hon. Friend has had time to reflect on the comments made in the House today, will he give attention to two other areas? The first is imported furniture, which I hope will be dealt with in the regulations. Secondly, will he consider providing that, when furniture is sent back for re-covering, new quality foam must be used, and the old foam must not be re-covered?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous comments. The regulations will certainly impinge on imported furniture. In fact, they will make it easier for trading standards officers to enforce the law in respect of imported furniture. Indeed, the Consumer Protection Act 1987 gives customs officers the power, at the point of entry into the country, to seize goods that do not meet adequate tests.

The regulations will certainly impinge on the recovering of furniture. I am not sure of the position regarding the use of foams, but I shall look into that and let my hon. Friend know as soon as I can.

As one who attended the funerals last Friday of Mr. Watkins and four young children who died on 1 January, I basically welcome the Minister's proposals. Given that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) has said that the furniture industry could beat the Minister's proposed deadline, would it be possible to meet the chief fire officers' deadline of 1 January 1989?

Did I hear the Minister aright, that anyone who breaks the regulations will be fined only £2,000? Is this not the time to impose much heavier penalties on those who break the new regulations?

On the hon. Gentleman's first point, if it is possible to beat the deadline and for the fire officers' suggestion of 1 January 1988 to be met, I shall be delighted to adapt the regulations accordingly. However, I should need persuading that such a change would not put at risk the jobs of the 35,000 people employed in the industry.

The level of fines was set by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and I should stress that there is the alternative of six months' imprisonment. Indeed, that imprisonment can be imposed in addition to the fine. Fines can be imposed of up to £2,000 for each offence. Therefore, if furniture is found that does not meet the new standard and trading standards officers prosecute in respect of more than one article of furniture, those fines can be cumulative and add up to a substantial penalty in total.

I welcome my hon. Friend's proposals, which will undoubtedly save lives. Does he agree that it is not always easy to strike a balance between the ideals of an accident-free world and the limitations of current practice? If there is doubt, my hon. Friend is right to put the safety of citizens before the otherwise beneficial interests of a deregulated industry.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has made a good point and I agree with him. I must stress once again that, whatever the Government do by legislation and regulation, we cannot make the world a safe place. To a large extent, the safety of individuals depends upon the behaviour of individuals. I hope that the tough measures will not induce any sense of false security. Individuals' safety will largely continue to rest in their own hands.

The Minister's announcement represents perhaps the biggest change in policy in the eight years of this Government. On 6 October 1987, the Minister wrote to me saying that it would be wholly impracticable and undesirable if he took steps to ban the use of standard polyurethane foam, and he went on to give the reasons why. That letter was sent to me before the end of the consultation period. Unknown to me, that letter was also sent when the Minister had received from the Crown Suppliers a detailed analysis that showed that what he had said in his letter was completely at odds with the evidence provided to him. At the same time—

Question, please.

May I just finish this point, Mr. Speaker? At the same time, the industry was trying to scupper the arrangements.

Will the Minister arrange an urgent meeting between the fire officers and the foam manufacturers to introduce a time scale that will enable the regulations to come into force by 1 January next year? The foam manufacturers have said that they could have the foam in the shops by 6 September — that was announced this morning on Thames Television.

In a debate in the summer of last year I asked the Minister seven questions in relation to the promotion of fire detectors and other measures. I ask the Minister to reconsider those matters and to introduce proposals to further the issue of fire detectors and to consider other related fire safety aspects in the home. Without those arrangements, the toll of death will continue.

The hon. Gentleman has made a number of points. He spoke about the timing of the regulations. Some parts of the industry have suggested that the time scale could be shortened, but other parts have suggested that it is already far too short. One must try to get the balance right, because there is no benefit to the public in taking steps that require and involve the chain of supply of furniture breaking down. That would have an undesirable effect on jobs.

With regard to changes of policy, we issued consultative proposals, and we listened to what was said in response to that consultation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. I know that he has expressed views about several of these matters over some months. He referred to smoke detectors. They are now relatively cheap, and I hope that people will use them. However, none of those measures on its own adds up to complete safety. Even in total they do not add up to complete safety. That will continue to depend very much on the behaviour and vigilance of individuals.

As lethal polyurethane foam has been banned from prisons, Government buildings and, indeed, airlines, I congratulate my hon. Friend on extending the ban to domestic furniture, following my Adjournment debate on that specific subject on 1 July. Britain cannot accept a death toll that results in some 300 people a year dying from domestic fires. Sections of the United Kingdom furniture industry have been dilatory and have dragged their feet on this issue. I understand that already some 10 children have lost their lives from causes related to toxic fumes since 1 January. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to praise the manufacturers who, against the trend, have produced alternative safe upholstery, and the retailers who have offered it to the public?

Will my hon. Friend review the penalties if they prove to be inadequate? He referred to the Consumer Protection Act. Reputable dealers will, of course, comply. Trading standards officers need a greater fist in this matter than the inadequacy of the present £2,000 plus the six months. If my hon. Friend gave the matter maximum publicity, I am sure that the announcement that he has made, which has been so welcome to both sides of the House, would carry weight.

I pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned responsibly and constructively on the issue for some years.

My hon. Friend referred to a ban on standard foam in Government buildings. That is not quite correct. Safer foams have been in use in contract furnishings generally for some time. I understand that the Crown Suppliers use standard grade polyurethane foam in some furniture, but in combination with materials that meet a higher standard.

I pay tribute to the firms that offer safer furniture to the public. I welcome the steps that have been taken by the industry to develop safer materials, but it is one thing to offer safer materials and furniture to the public and another to require the public to buy it. The unhappy experience has been that the availability of safer furniture and the labelling system introduced under the present regulations have not led to a significant uptake of safer furniture by the public. I hear what my hon. Friend says about penalties. If it seems that the penalties that the Act offers at the moment are not adequate to ensure compliance with the regulations, we shall look at that again, and we are prepared to be flexible if necessary.

Wall the Minister confirm that under section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act there is the prospect of claims being made against manufacturers because of the new provisions on product liability? If trading standards officers are to enforce the new regulations, will the Minister tell the House how many extra officers will have to be appointed, and how much money will be available to the county councils to implement that requirement? The new goods will cost more money. Will it be possible for the social fund to be enlarged to enable those who are dependent on benefits to afford the new furniture, or will the regulations mean that there will be no prospect of people on low incomes being able to afford this furniture?

In connection—

Briefly.

This is the next question, Mr. Speaker—

Order. This is not a debate. Will the hon. Lady ask her question briefly, please?

Will the Minister make arrangements for smoke detectors to be made available to those who cannot afford the high cost of the new furniture? Finally, will regulations be made to cover secondhand furniture and the sale of secondhand furniture?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The product liability provisions will apply to furniture. This will add a considerable extra sanction to the criminal penalties that the regulations will invoke. Trading standards departments have a responsibility to enforce the present regulations, and they will have to enforce the new regulations, but they will be easier to enforce effectively than are the present regulations. It is a matter for local authorities to decide how they apportion money for their various responsibilities.

The hon. Lady referred to the extra cost of furniture. She is right. The regulations will involve an increase in the price of furniture, and there is nothing that one can do about that, although I have expressed the hope that competition will keep the extra cost to a minimum. The hon. Lady will have to raise her question about the extra burden on the social fund with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Smoke detectors are readily available and are now relatively inexpensive, costing no more than £10 or £15 each. I think that that puts them within the budget of most households.

The regulations will not apply to secondhand furniture. It would be virtually impossible to enforce a regime in that way. Sadly, it will not be possible to impose the regulations on secondhand furniture. That reinforces my point that the public must remain vigilant about that furniture, exercise great caution in buying cheap secondhand furniture, and inform themselves of its fire properties.

rose—

Order. In view of the pressure on business, I shall allow questions to continue until 4.45 pm; then we must move on.

My hon. Friend will know of my interest in the matter and my support for strengthening these regulations since the tragic death of nine people in a fire in my constituency on Christmas day 1984. In passing, it is right to pay special tribute to a man whom I met on that morning at that gutted house, Mr. Bob Graham, the assistant chief fire officer of Greater Manchester fire brigade, whose work on this issue has been significant in pressing forward with changes in the legislation. That work deserves special tribute.

I ask my hon. Friend to take most seriously the matter of smoke detectors and to consider the request made by chief officers. In particular, will my hon. Friend consider a scheme whereby the introduction of those detectors might be related to the sale of properties after an introductory date? It would be a simple way of ensuring the enforcement of the introduction of detectors. I am sure that it would be welcomed by many people, who see smoke detectors as the next stage in fire safety, without necessarily making people feel that they are safe in their house without making proper precautions against fires starting in the first place.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the interest that he has taken in this exceedingly difficult issue over some years. I share his view about the work of Mr. Graham, the distinguished fire officer who has contributed greatly to the debate on the issue.

I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion on smoke detectors, but I have reservations about compulsion—requiring smoke detectors to be incorporated in homes from now on. As with any such measure, there is a serious danger that the installation of such devices could induce a sense of security which is unjustified and lead people to believe that if they have a smoke detector they do not need to worry about fire safety. None of those measures can replace the vigilance that every householder and house occupier should exercise.

I welcome the Minister's statement as a move in the right direction to save lives. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will join me in conveying sympathy and condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who lost his mother in a similar fire last week. Her funeral is tomorrow.

I have in my constituency of Middleton the headquarters of an international rubber company, British Vita, which today announced that it has a new fire resistant foam, which it will now put on the market. Will the Minister contact the firm to evaluate the claims that it has made, in the hope that that can save lives?

First, of course I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing our deepest sympathy to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) for the loss that he suffered over the holiday period. All our sympathies were engaged by that tragedy.

On the other matter, I am delighted to hear what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said. The impact of the announcement that I have made will be such that many parts of the industry will constructively and innovatively examine ways of increasing fire safety, and that is very much to be welcomed. I shall certainly ensure that the company that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is contacted so that we can see what it is producing.

My hon. Friend has rightly acknowledged that many homes will continue to contain this dangerous foam furniture. I am sure that he will be just as keen to acknowledge the debt of gratitude that the whole country owes the retained fire services. Is my hon. Friend aware that the minimum training period for retained firemen, on whom rural communities such as the Isle of Wight depend so heavily, has remained unchanged for more than 30 years, at two hours a week?

My hon. Friend takes me somewhat outside the range of my responsibilities. However, I have heard his points, and no doubt the appropriate Minister will read them.

May I add my condolences to the many families that have been bereaved by domestic fires during the Christmas period? I hope that, in other instances, we shall not have quite so many sacrificial victims before action is taken.

I welcome the Minister's statement and would like to hear his comments on two aspects which I am not sure were covered by his proposed regulations. The first concerns the testing of foam in combination with fabric, simulated leather or whatever other materials are used in the construction of a piece of furniture. Such a regulation has been called for by the British Standards Institution, because a combination of ingredients can be far more flammable than any single ingredient. Will furniture be subjected to the test of a naked flame, and not only to that of the equivalent of a smouldering cigarette, which, I understand, has been the practice to date?

I shall take the hon. Lady's last point first. Yes, furniture will in future be subjected to a much stricter test than that of the smouldering cigarette. From 1990 all covering materials will be required to meet the match test, and all foams of a combustion-modified nature, which will be the only ones permissible from February next year, will have to meet the British standards test.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for joining the rest of the House in expressing condolences, but I think that her remarks about the time that it has taken for the regulations to be introduced are a little unfair. The problem has been known for many years. This Government were the first to take any action, and for five years during the last Labour Government, when the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the junior Minister in that Department was the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), nothing was done.

How does my hon. Friend intend to apply these important new standards after 1992, when the internal market of the European Community is completed, bearing in mind that seven, if not eight, of the current member states have standards that are less tight than our existing ones? Is it the view of the Government, and has my hon. Friend secured the view of the Commission, that after 1992 it will still be possible for a member state to restrict imports from other member states on the basis of national safety rules and regulations?

My hon. Friend has raised a serious and important point. Before the regulations are brought into force, they must be approved by the European Commission, and it is possible for other member states to raise objections to them if they believe they will restrict the free trade in goods within the internal market. Our level of protection will be, as my hon. Friend said, substantially ahead of any in the rest of the Community. My hon. Friend has mentioned a problem that exists, and we shall have to meet it.

What are the implications of the statement that the Minister has made for the labelling of furniture? As he will be aware, labelling is at present wholly unsatisfactory. It cannot be applied by shop assistants. They do not like it, and do not understand the red and green labelling for furniture that does, and does not, pass the match test. The labels are frequently torn off by people inspecting the furniture, and when putting them back the staff invariably put the green label —for passing the match test—only on leather furniture, and will not put it on any fabric furniture. To be on the safe side, they even put it on fabrics that pass the match test. Because of the uncertainty, they do not replace the label, when it is torn off, on any fabrics.

Will no labelling be required because all furniture will be safe in 14 months' time—or 12 months' time, if the Minister is persuaded by the comments made by some Members representing the views of the furniture manufacturing industry? Will he institute a good educational programme for shop assistants, so that they understand the real implications of the labels now in use and of those that will be used after the regulations come in?

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the present labelling requirements have not been the success that it was hoped they would be. That was partly because the industry did not, perhaps, take the labelling initiative as seriously as it might have done, and partly because the public did not inform themselves about the labelling. Under the new regulations, because all furniture will have to meet high standards, labelling will become of less importance. However, we shall have to examine the issue to see how the new set of proposals impinges upon labelling requirements.

The Minister will be aware that Mr. Elton, the chief fire officer of Tyre and Wear, and his colleagues, have advised that fire and smoke detector alarms should be fitted. Many of the people who die in our fires each year are elderly—the group least able to afford the alarms. Will the Minister make the money available to local authorities or voluntary organisations to enable them to fit free smoke detector alarms in the homes of all elderly pensioners who are unable to equip themselves with the apparatus?

It is broadly up to local authorities—within statutory limits — to decide how to spend the resources at their disposal. Smoke detectors, as I have said several times today, are now relatively inexpensive, and I do not believe that a price range of £10 to £15 puts them beyond the means of many households. The potential benefits in terms of fire safety make them a worthwhile investment.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the work of the D-Notice committee".

I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite, urgent and important. You will have heard this afternoon, during questions to the Attorney-General, that there is considerable misunderstanding on both sides of the House—not only on the Opposition Benches, but on those of the Government — about the role of the D-Notice committee. You will have heard the gasps when the Attorney-General said that there was nothing wrong with the D-Notice committee. You will have heard the question from the hon. Member for Thanet South, (Mr. Aitken), which revealed that this is not just a single party matter.

The truth is that in recent months the D-Notice committee has been bypassed.

I must keep off the Government's reasons for having injunctions in the Scottish courts, but it will be well known that there is now a series of court activities in relation to STV, the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman. The urgent question is whether those injunctions are legal at all. According to Professor Robert Black, a professor of Scots law, the party must be named in an interdict.

The moves against the newspapers are unprecedented—

Order. In making his submission, the hon. Gentleman must not refer to matters currently before the courts.

We are in a difficult position. I recognise the difficulties involved in what is a very grey area. It is an urgent matter, but I shall leave it because in applications of this kind one must be succinct.

There can hardly be anything more important than allegations about the destabilisation of a democratically elected Government in Britain. The allegations follow the allegations by Colin Wallace and, rightly or wrongly, the allegations by a man who is very different from Mr. Peter Wright, namely, Mr. Anthony Cavendish, a thoroughly responsible source, and refer to smears on my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister, on Ted Short and, indeed, on the leader of the Conservative party at the time, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

Surely nothing could be more important than to have a public inquiry into the events at the time when the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) was in office. Contrary to what has been said repeatedly on Scottish television, endorsed by the former Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan—