I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise in the House and to draw to the attention of the Minister some of the implications of the Government's health proposals for the county of Northumberland and in particular for my constituency. Many arguments are raging about the proposals, and there is a great deal of concern among doctors, nurses, the various health professionals, community health councils and, above all, patients. Some of the arguments are at a high political level, questioning the Government's commitment to the National Health Service. Today I want to focus on the applicability of the proposals to a county with Northumberland's problems and on some of the aspects of the proposals which I believe will cause severe difficulty there.

In doing that, I am bound to refer to the report of the Select Committee on Social Services which was published yesterday. The report's concluding paragraph states:

"If the Government's proposed timetable for introducing the vastly greater changes to the health service proposed in the White Paper is adhered to, we have serious fears that the stability of services and continuity of patients care may suffer during the years of transition to a new, untested system. As we said in our Report last year: 'the strengths of the NHS should not be cast aside in a short-term effort to remedy some of its weaknesses'.

That remains our considered view."

That is certainly the view of many health professionals in Northumberland. It precisely echoes their concern that there is a case for reform and change, but many of the proposed changes are untried, untested, and uncosted, and, if implemented wholesale, they could prove quite disastrous, especially if they are implemented hastily. Many people would share the view expressed by the Select Committee.

Far more decisive and strong views have been expressed in other ways. A ballot was conducted by consultants and junior hospital doctors in the Newcastle hospitals, which are the main hospitals used by patients from the Northumberland area. More than 400 hospital doctors voted on the proposition:

"We believe that the White Paper is flawed in its fundamental principles. It puts financial considerations before patient care and will eventually destroy the NHS. We oppose the White Paper."

Three hundred and fifty-five of the hospital doctors in those Newcastle hospitals voted for the proposition, 31 voted against and 29 abstained.

On another proposition—

"The creation of self governing hospitals will lead to a fragmented Health Service, create a two tier system of health care and destroy the comprehensive nature of the NHS"—

361 of the hospital doctors voted in favour, 28 voted against, and 26 abstained. Those are very strong views from those who are most directly concerned at the hospital end of patient care in my area. The Minister must consider those views seriously.

The community health councils expressed themselves very strongly in carefully argued representations from the local community health council in my area and from the community health councils' national organisation. They concluded in their report:

"Although there are a number of proposals which will undoubtedly he beneficial to the users of the NHS, the main themes of the White Paper do nothing to strengthen the position of patients or to improve patient choice. Indeed, the overall effect of the White Paper will be to promote cost containment at the expense of a high quality service that is responsive to the needs of those who use the service. … Despite the rhetoric of the White Paper, the NHS of the 1990s will be dominated by managers, cash limits and marketing. There can be no guarantee that the interests of patients really will come first and, indeed, their interests are likely to be ignored totally unless the user's voice is heard clearly at every level of the NHS."

The Select Committee on Social Services stated that the Government would be wise to take account of their critics. Instead, the Government's initial reaction was to insult their critics by suggesting that family doctors were reaching for their wallets, motivated only by personal interest when they had deep and genuine fears about the effect of the proposals on their patients.

Family doctors know infinitely more about the reality of caring for the sick than do the handful of advisers and officials who concocted the White Paper in the seclusion of Whitehall. That view is shared by the public. The general public have a great deal more confidence in their doctors than they have in Ministers or Members of Parliament. The Government must show more respect for those whose practical knowledge of the working of the Health Service is so much greater than that of the people who are advising them.

In talking about Northumberland, I shall take family practitioners as my starting point. Northumberland has an outstandingly good family practitioner service and very good family doctors. There are reasons for that. It is an attractive area in which to live and work. Furthermore, in recent years general practice has become attractive and popular among the postgraduates of the medical schools—if anything, slightly to the detriment of hospital consultancy, partly because of the difficulties of developing a career as a hospital doctor and the initial hardships that are involved. We all remember the recent row about the long hours worked by junior hospital doctors.

Another major attraction is the element of self-management and personal responsibility that is involved in general practice. Whatever the reasons may be, it is fairly obvious that, particularly in areas such as the one I represent, we have benefited from the tendency of some of the best graduates to go into general practice where they try to raise the standards of general practice as high as possible. These young doctors are firmly committed to providing the best possible standard of service. They are well aware of the deficiencies in the general practice service, some of the worst of which are to be found in the inner-city areas. They are in no way blind to the possibility of reform, change and new ideas, but their worry is that the Government have got it wrong in a number of key respects which will adversely affect the work that they are trying to do to raise the standard of general practice.

One of the most powerful attractions of an area such as Northumberland is the prospect of working in GP-run hospitals. In the hospitals at Berwick, Alnwick and Rothbury the medical services are provided by and are under the leadership of local general practitioners. That is a positive recruiting attraction. Many medical graduates want a combination of direct patient services and family care and the ability to exercise their skills within a hospital. Keeping that balance and enabling that pattern to continue, thus ensuring that hospitals continue to exist in that form, is crucial to the continued success of general practice in areas such as mine. They have had enormous backing from the local community. We are fighting a permanent battle to keep our hospital services.

There was a vivid example of that recently when the health authority decided to withdraw the maternity services provided by the Hillcrest maternity unit in Alnwick. It told my constitiuents that in future they would have to go to Ashington for maternity services. The community rose in revolt—but positive and constructive revolt. They devised alternative plans that would save the Health Service money in running costs, and they went on to raise the difference in capital cost that was necessary to create a new maternity unit. Over £100,000 was raised in a very short time. Money is still coming in from voluntary efforts by the local community. They have saved the district health authority a lot of money and have ensured the continuance of GP-run maternity services in Alnwick. That shows how much the doctors have the backing of the local community.

We are also having constant battles to retain the surgery facilities that are provided at our hospitals in Alnwick and Berwick. Surgery is carried out there by visiting consultants. The district health authority has hinted several times that it does not want this arrangement to continue; it wants to concentrate its facilities at the new district general hospital in Ashington. However, it is a team effort. The GP services, the hospital, and surgery at the hospital come together to provide a good standard of health care for a scattered area that does not fit the pattern for which the district general hospital model was devised.

General practitioners in my area feel strongly that the Government have got their proposals wrong in a number of key respects. They felt that way about the contracts; they still feel that way about many aspects of it. On the face-to-face time aspect for the contract, for example, the Government still seem to be ignoring the hospital work side of it. The contract arrangements do not seem to take account of the fact that our general practitioners spend many hours in the casualty service of the local hospital and on the geriatric ward of the local hospital. They serve hospital patients in many other ways. Unless that is properly calculated, it makes nonsense of the face-to-face time provisions in the contract.

Similarly, the minor surgery payment arrangements in the contract seem to expect doctors to carry out in their consulting rooms minor surgery that they now carry out in a hospital, which is a far better place to do it and a far more satisfactory arrangement.

I am glad that the rural practice aspect of the contract is to receive further consideration. If there is to be proper provision for scattered rural areas, that is essential. In an area such as mine, going out to visit a patient can involve a 50-minute or one-hour journey in each direction. I am talking not about practices that have extended far beyond their natural boundaries but about practices whose natural radius extends over 10 or 15 miles into extremely hilly country.

Perhaps the most infuriating feature of the Government's contract for general practitioners is the ever-increasing emphasis on list sizes—on relating capitation allowances and list sizes in such a way that the pressure is on to increase the number of patients on a doctor's list. It is impossible to increase the number of patients on a doctor's list in a rural area without amalgamating practices and putting them on to a scale that is quite inappropriate to the provision of an effective service in a large scattered area.

There are many other disadvantages of the list size and capitation arrangements. There is likely to be an adverse effect on the employment of part-time women doctors. That is a particularly valuable feature of general practice. It is much appreciated by women who like to be attended by a woman doctor, and it is very helpful in the development of family planning services, well woman clinics and other activities in which the help of a woman doctor is particularly important.

The Government have caused a great deal of anxiety among doctors in my constituency about many aspects of the contract, but that is as nothing compared with the anxiety that has been created by some of the proposals in the White Paper. The one which has caused the greatest anxiety is that the family doctor's ability to refer a patient to the hospital that he or she considers to be most appropriate to the needs of that patient will disappear.

To give the Minister the background to how the Health Service operates in my area, Northumberland is a large county with many scattered communities. Many referrals are to hospitals in Newcastle or Edinburgh. Many of my constituents and those of other hon. Members are much closer geographically to the Newcastle or Edinburgh hospitals than they are to the district general hospital that the district health authority is developing in Ashington. The new district general hospital there will be of great benefit to patients in the south-east of Northumberland, but it is a very mixed blessing for patients in Berwick and Haltwhistle and even in some of the western areas in my constituency. For geographical and very strong medical reasons, doctors have for a long time referred their patients to hospitals in Newcastle and Edinburgh. There are many services that the district has not previously sought to provide, such as paediatrics. We look to Newcastle hospitals to provide such services.

The Government's proposals would take away the ability of doctors to refer their patients where they choose, on medical or geographical grounds, unless they are budget-holding practices. Only six practices in the whole of Northumberland would qualify as budget-holding practices. Some of them may choose not to do so. They may find the arrangements unattractive because they may not think that it will be in the interests of their patients. However, the Government's working paper 2 states:

"G.P.s should be encouraged to refer patients within the terms of the contract and to those hospitals or departments which, in the District's view offer the best value for money care … but an open-ended commitment on the part of the D.H.A.s to meet all non-contractual referrals would be incompatible with both the disciplines which the new system is intended to inject and with control of budgets."

One of the doctors in my constituency, Dr. Colin Brown, comments in a letter to the press that

"The White Paper thus restricts rather than enhances patient's choice."

I can see what will happen. The district health authority, having committed its resources so heavily to building the Ashington district general hospital, will tell doctors, "That is where you will have to send your patients." That will be the emphasis of its policy. Removal of the right of referral will destroy my constituents' ability to get medical care where it can best be provided and where it is most geographically convenient. There will be outrage in Northumberland if the Government proceed along those lines.

The proposal for self-governing hospitals could work severely to the detriment of the Ashington district general hospital. If some of the Newcastle hospitals turn themselves into self-governing hospitals, in spite of the opposition of their medical staff, GPs in my constituency will be unable to refer their patients there unless they are in budget-holding practices. The self-governing hospital might attract the best staff with higher rates of pay and by somehow improving conditions and concentrating on facilities that attract money rather than those which are most needed. That would prevent the Ashington district general hospital from getting off the ground and attracting the staff it needs to achieve the quality which the district health authority wants it to achieve.

The third proposal which is much resented by GPs is that concerning the prescribing of drugs. We have supported the Government in their attempt to move steadily towards more generic prescribing, but the proposed budget system has created suspicion among doctors. They believe that the system will create many suspicions among patients that it could be a serious handicap. Doctors think that patients will lose confidence in them if they believe that, because of the indicative drug budget and other cost-related features of the system, doctors are giving not the best advice that they can give but the advice which the budget requires them to give. Irrespective of whether that fear is justified, if it becomes reality it will harm the doctors' relationship with patients on which general practice is based.

There is enormous worry about the cost of the Government's proposals. The Minister was unable to provide the Social Services Select Committee with any estimate of the costs which will arise from these proposals. Many of the proposals are very costly in terms of administration and accounting. All this charging for patient services from one authority to another, one hospital to another and general practice to district health authority will involve a mammoth amount of accounting, detailed record keeping, detailed submission of accounts and checking from one body to another. It will cost a great deal of money. There has been no commitment of resources to ensure that those costs are not met at the expense of patient care.

There is no resource allocation working party formula to help historically underprovided regions such as the north of England. Abandonment of the principle that areas which have historically been underprovided with medical services is a serious disadvantage to the regions such as the north of England, and it will make it impossible to deal with the long-standing and deep-seated problems that have shown up in all of the major reports, such as the Black report, on the health problems of the region.

The cost problems are made worse by the fact that we have a high proportion of elderly patients in my constituency. I am sure that the air makes people live longer, or perhaps the attractions of the place draw more retired people to come to live among us. There is no doubt, however, that the proportion of elderly people in the area is very high. That has serious implications for GPs' drug budgets and for other medical budgets, such as community care. The Government have made no commitment about the costs of community care.

I said earlier that the standard of general practice in Northumberland is outstandingly high. We confront severe difficulties, however, with community care because the people involved simply do not have the resources necessary to provide anything like the service which is now accepted in many urban areas. Community care in rural areas is more costly because of the distances involved and the small number of people involved in each facility. That is especially true for specialised facilities for the mentally handicapped, the long-term mentally ill and people with infirmities or diseases which can be dealt with in the community but only by the provision of specialised facilities. Such facilities are costly, but we have no commitment to meet them. To many people, this is a more urgent health priority than many other things which the Government discuss in the White Paper.

There is an unrealistic expectation that vast savings can be made as a result of the Government's proposals and that patient care will not be damaged in the process. I listened to an exchange in which the Minister of State suggested to a Back Bench colleague that enormous savings have been achieved in a hospital in the north-west. I happen to know it well because two of my close relations died while in care there. Both were cared for by skilled nursing staff to the best of their ability. I know from personal experience, therefore, that what the Minister regarded as a great benefit—the fact that the hospital is getting more patients through more rapidly—put enormous strain on the hospital and the staff who work in it. The statistics on patient throughput which the Minister found so attractive hid real hardship and desperately difficult conditions on the wards. The idea that huge savings are there to be made by speeding up the process and making it all more efficient is quite worrying.

Efficiency improvements can always be made, but I question the idea that there is a huge pool of resources that can be extracted from the Health Service to pay for proposals such as these by pushing patients through more quickly and reducing the level of care. Services such as general practice and community care will be cash limited, as the Government make clear in the White Paper, but tax relief for private health insurance is not. However many people decide to take it up, that much money will be spent. It is not limited to £40 million. It can go up to any level. There seems to be a big difference between the Government's attitude to the provision of money for private medicine and their attitude to the essential needs of the Health Service.

The Government's concept in the White Paper is to introduce

"a chain of management command running from Districts through regions to the Chief Executive and from there to the Secretary of State".

That is a worrying feature of the proposals. The ambition of a centrally controlled National Health Service is particularly worrying to an area such as Northumberland. Some 300 miles from London, one does not have much confidence in the ability of those who sit in the Department's headquarters to make sensible decisions about an area which is so different from anything they are used to.

We fear that so centralised a management system will have no regard for local differences and needs. Local community representation is being squeezed out at every level. Elected councillors are to be removed from health authorities. It makes no sense to have a centralised system when the needs of various areas are so different. I hope that I have convinced the Minister that there are significant differences in the way in which any system can be operated which argue against such centralisation.

There is another theme which has run through many of the most cautious and responsible criticisms of the Government's proposals. It is that they do not contain any element of pilot study or experimentation. That criticism has been made by doctors in my constituency, by community health councils and by the Social Services Select Committee. So many of the proposals are so untried that they deserve to be tested systematically. They should be tried out in a certain area perhaps with some guarantee that, if they go wrong, quick action will be taken to ensure that patients do not suffer. Instead, the whole thing is being thrust on the Health Service without any experimentation or pilot study.

I fear that the Government have got themselves into a corner with their NHS proposals and that they have become frightened of losing face. They have jumped to the conclusion that every critic is motivated by personal interest and remuneration or by such fundamental political hostility that they would never believe that the Government had any good intentions. I ask the Government to put those paranoid thoughts from their mind and start to take seriously the well-directed criticism from people with enormous practical and professional experience in the Health Service, which is echoed by many patients with recent experience of the NHS. I hope that they will look again at the damaging features of the proposals.

I have sought to illustrate, in the case of Northumberland, that in some respects the Government's objectives are negated by the White Paper rather than carried forward by it. Patient choice will not exist if the doctor's right to refer patients to the most appropriate hospital is taken away. The price of not listening to advice such as this will be high for patients in areas such as Northumberland.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on selecting this subject. It is an important one, and he has described fully and carefully his interpretation of the effects of the White Paper upon his county and constituency. In September I hope to visit the ambulance station in Berwick and the infirmaries in Berwick and Alnwick. I will write to the hon. Gentleman before a date is set. It is the most beautiful part of the country, with the exception of my constituency, and I am looking forward to my visit.

This has been a wide-ranging debate and, although the hon. Gentleman has geared his remarks to the effects of the White Paper, as he sees them, upon his constituency, it is with some anticipation that the House awaits his further remarks and those of his colleagues in the SLD. We await with great interest their positive and constructive proposals for reform of the NHS. There has been a deafening silence in the past few months. Only recently the Labour party has set forth its proposals, many of which march in step with the Government's, particularly in terms of the quality of service.

I am at one with the hon. Gentleman and the representatives of the medical professions in his constituency in saying that we are looking for reform in the NHS. It is a great British institution but it should not be immune from change. After 40 years, it is appropriate to review its functioning. That does not mean that it should not receive further resources, it has, is, and will continue to receive an increase in Government resources. At the same time, it is appropriate to consider change. We approach change on the basis of improving the quality of care—we are at one on that—rewarding general practitioners for the effort they put into their practices in looking after their patients and improving the quality of care and providing patients with more information so that they can make a more informed choice about who should look after them.

The hon. Gentleman began by quoting the report of the Select Committee on Social Services. I think that the House will share the disappointment felt by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and myself at the fact that the Committee clearly wrote its report before listening to my right hon. and learned Friend's evidence. That is rather strange. The report complains that, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, the reforms are uncosted, untried and untested and that the proposals are being rushed through—a short-term dash for change. I reject that charge entirely.

Self-governing hospitals and group practice budgets are experiments. There will be many examples in some parts of the country and none in others. The medical professions will watch carefully the success of the introduction of greater delegation of authority and decision-making in hospitals and primary care and will consider any problems or drawbacks that may arise. Therefore, that is a staged implementation of the White Paper, which will be monitored carefully.

We have a two-year period for discussing, debating and consulting on our reforms before most of them are introduced in April 1991. The hon. Gentleman suggested that reforming the funding of the system, which is the kernel of the reforms, should be piloted. That cannot be done. A system of funding cannot be changed for just one part of the country or one hospital. One either changes the system or not. It is possible to introduce delegation of authority on a more experimental basis and that is what we propose to do.

The hon. Gentleman cited the Newcastle doctors and I understand that about half of them voted on a motion. I have not seen the precise text of that motion. As I understand it, those who support it are alleging that financial considerations are being put before patient care. That is wrong. Financial considerations should march alongside considerations of patient care—it was ever thus. The late Richard Crossman, as Secretary of State for Social Services, pointed out that demand for health care is unlimited. It is important that hospital doctors and general practitioners share the responsibility of managing the resources, which are not infinite, with the administrators. Therefore, financial considerations are always present in examination of patient care, but they do not come before patient care.

The reforms that we are introducing into the management of hospitals—the resources management initiative which I support and which has received widespread support in the hospital service—are based upon the assumption that doctors, nurses and administrators share responsibility for the management of resources.

The hon. Gentleman's main point referred to the right of general practitioners to refer patients. He was right to say that in theory, general practitioners can refer patients anywhere within the NHS. That is an unlimited, theoretical right. The problem is that with our present system of funding, that right is more theoretical than practical in certain parts of the country. That is because a doctor wishing to refer a patient from the home counties to a London teaching hospital may be told that it cannot take his patient because its budget is limited and it will run out of funds. We shall change the basis of funding. If a general practitioner who holds his own budget or a general practitioner operating within the contract system laid down by the district health authority—I shall come to that because it is the kernel of the hon. Gentleman's concern—wants a patient to go to a particular hospital, money will follow the patient and the receiving hospital will be able to expand its activities.

The hon. Gentleman's fear was that the district health authority would force a large proportion of his constituents to go to Ashington for acute care and away from Newcastle and Edinburgh. There is no prospect of any change in the status of Alnwick or Berwick infirmaries. Their work is respected and I am talking about acute care. I note that the new hospital at Ashington is expensive, costing about £30 million. We are replacing an unlimited, theoretical right of referral with a system in which money will back up the referral patterns of general practitioners.

The district health authority will have the responsibility for placing contracts for the care of those in its district with its district general hospital and with other hospitals outside the district. I expect contracts with hospitals outside districts to reflect the sensible referral patterns that currently exist. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I expect district health authorities to work closely with family practitioner committees, group practices and doctors in establishing such contracts, which are simple and clearly written to facilitate that flow.

Doctors may wish to refer some patients who are outside the contract system to distant hospitals, perhaps because a doctor was at medical college with a consultant or because the patient is suffering from a unique disease that has to be treated, for example, in a London hospital. We are asking health authorities to set up contingency funds to pay for specific contract referrals. It would be madness if the Government were to distort the sensible clinical referral pattern of doctors, thereby jeopardising the clinical care of patients and profoundly disturbing the medical profession. Under our facilitating measure, we are trying to solve the problem of doctors who say "I want my patient to be cared for in a hospital 20 or 30 miles outside the district. The receiving hospital cannot finance treatment because it is on a limited budget." The proposed system will be much more flexible, and in certain cases—it may not apply in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—patients will receive care quicker.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed fairly referred to the problems affecting rural GPs. He expressed his support for our decision, which has been agreed by the general medical service committee, to refer the issue of rural practice payments and the income of GPs in rural areas for further consideration. We have agreed to remove the remuneration scheme for rural practitioners from the present negotiations, and it will be considered by the central advisory committee on rural practice payments. Pending the committee's decision, the retention of the rural practice payments scheme will be welcomed by rural practitioners.

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to self-governing hospitals and speculated that there may be one in Newcastle. He is concerned that the self-governing hospital in Newcastle might bid away staff from Ashington and the infirmaries in Alnwick and Berwick to the detriment of local patient care. However, a self-governing hospital begins the year with no money. It is not funded directly by the district health authority. It must win contracts through private sector referrals and patient referrals, not only from its proximate health authority but from distant ones. It will not have the unlimited ability to bid up pay rates and poach staff from surrounding hospitals. It will be subject, as are all hospitals currently, to financial stringency, with the discipline of budgets and ensuring that its books balance.

The hon. Gentleman referred to indicative drug prescribing and expressed his fear that doctors will not give the best advice because they will be constantly thinking about money. He implied, although he did not say so, that some patients will not be given the drugs that they need. I refute the allegation that has been made by some people, but not by the hon. Gentleman, that patients will be denied the drugs that they need. General practitioners are not being cash-limited individually or collectively. Drug budgets are indicative and are designed to put downward pressure on drug budgets, not cut them. If GPs' drug prescription budgets are in excess of their indicative or target budget for the year, we are asking them to explain why to their family practitioner committee. There may be good reasons for their having exceeded their budget, such as an epidemic, because the original budget was incorrectly calculated or because the cost of drugs has risen. For whatever reason, they are being asked to talk sensibly and maturely to their family practitioner committee, and I believe that many GPs welcome that.

The proposals in the White Paper are regarded by hon. Members and many in the medical profession as being designd to improve the quality of patient care, to improve choice and flexibility and I commend them to the House.

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss a most important subject. In the 10 years that I have been an hon. Member tyres have never been the subject of a separate debate. They have been discussed at Question Time and mention has been made of them in motoring and car industry debates. In view of a decision taken by the tyre industry, I thought that it was important to raise the subject for the benefit of hon. Members.

I have a passionate interest in tyres, having spent 20 years working for Dunlop as a tyre designer and latterly as a senior manager. My career was dedicated to tyres until I became a Member of Parliament, and I have many friends in the industry. I have some experience of the industry and my campaign for better tyre depth legislation dates back to my youth. I began to try to persuade Ministers and others about the issue in 1961.

I still advise the National Tyre Distributors Association, as I have done for many years. I am glad to say that, through its initiative, with the able co-operation of other organisations such as the British Rubber Manufacturers Association and the Retread Manufacturers Association, a new Tyre Industry Council has been formed. That is an important step, as many other industries are advised and represented and, therefore, have an interface with Parliament. It is a collective body, with coherent views being expressed throughout the industry. The formation of the council is a major step forward, enabling the industry to present its policies coherently and enabling hon. Members to deal with one organisation if they have queries about employment standards, training methods, technical standards and design.

The council, which will have an experienced chairman, will enable the industry to take a number of important initiatives. It will enable it to answer hon. Members' and their noble Lordships' queries and will promote the industry. I regret to say that it has not been as glamorous as some other industries. Most people regard tyres like exhausts—they hope that they will never wear out, but when they do it is a bitter blow. People do not fondle tyres or gleefully chuckle about them, unless they are fortunate enough to have steel-braced, low-profile tyres on their Ferraris or four-wheel drive Audis.

Tyres are the most vital part of a car's relationship with road safety, which is why I asked for the debate to be entitled "Road Safety and Tyres". If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I were both wearing size nine shoes, between our four feet we would have exactly the same contact with a road as the tyres of a car have. That is a quite shattering fact, given the heavy weight of a car and that it must move extremely rapidly in all weather conditions, often cornering sharply and frequently braking sharply. That size nine shoe contact means that tyres must be of extremely high quality, and their design is extremely important.

The European directive on tyre tread depths is important. I strongly urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider supporting the directive on 6 June at the Luxembourg meeting of the working group of Ministers. I understand that it is third on the agenda after seat belts and blood alchohol levels. The Minister for Roads and Traffic has said that there is proof that accidents are caused by the present tyre tread depth law. That law is inadequate. It provides for 1 mm of tyre tread across the surface of a tyre, provided it is visible. One shoulder can be worn down to almost nothing, but it is legal if the groove is still visible.

The House is not as packed with colleagues wishing to hear my speech as I would have hoped. My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for York (Mr. Gregory) are anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall have no objection if they manage to do so. They are both experts and I shall be interested to hear the initiatives that they propose. If more hon. Members had been present, I would have adopted a novel approach and asked how many had checked their tyres. I might even have embarrassed them further by asking whether they knew the make or size of their tyres and when they last checked their tyre pressures. [Interruption.] At least one hon. Friend agrees that those might be interesting questions to put.

A Gallup poll shows that 19 per cent. of motorists never check their tyres. One group which is a member of the National Distributors Association and runs 100 depots has said that two thirds of the tyres that it changes are dangerous. The NTDA's members are the specialists to which one goes to get one's tyres changed. Dangerous tyres endanger the lives of the motorist, his wife and family and other road users. Their use reduces the pool of tyres available for retreading. It has been calculated that adoption of the European directive, providing for a tyre tread depth of 1·6 mm across the tyre, would make 1·5 million more tyres available for retreading. Surely, that is a major consideration.

My hon. Friend the Minister may argue that the deeper tread will cost the motorist more because a deeper tread means that the motorist gets less mileage out of a tyre and has to change it more frequently. The estimates vary, but Ministers have said that it will cost about £50 million or £60 million per annum. I suggest that my hon. Friend considers this issue carefully. On a net-net basis and taking account of the fact that steel-based tyres of current design last longer, over a two-year period the motorist will gain a benefit. He will benefit also on the replacement market, which is one of the most competitive markets in the car industry. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has seen full-page advertisements in his local newspaper by local tyre dealers, vying with each other to offer discounts. To say that changing the law will greatly increase the cost to the motorist is not a strong argument, because he is benefiting already from the longer life of the tyre.

It is almost like young voters who did not experience the winter of discontent and therefore wonder whether they should vote Conversative, which I recommend that they do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Good. They have never had the experience of a Labour Government and do not understand the bitter horror of such a prospect. Similarly, some motorists never change their tyres because their company car is changed every two or three years or they change their own car frequently. Tyres are lasting for 20,000, 30,000 or even 40,000 miles whereas in the old days of cross-ply tyres a motorist was lucky to get 7,000 or 8,000 miles. The combination of tyre technology and the competitive market gives the motorist a considerable benefit.

I do not want to take up the entire time allotted to the debate, because, if they are fortunate and you are feeling kind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, colleagues of quality can make their contributions. The most telling argument in favour of a tread depth of 1 mm or 1·6 mm across the tyre is that the motorist will benefit in cost terms. It will not cost him more. Having spent nearly 30 years in the industry, not only in motor racing but in designing truck and car tyres, I believe that it is sensible to have a tyre that gives better grip. It is difficult to argue that there is no evidence that this would be safer. A tyre depth of 1·6 mm would give a better grip.

My hon. Friend the Minister may quote a report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory, but his letter to me contains the key phrase,

"Under normal conditions of wetness on roads".

That means that a puddle on a corner is not normal; but this is Britain and rain does not, I hate to say, always obey ministerial diktat. If tests showed that there was little difference between the effects of the present tyre tread depth and the effects of the proposed 1·6 mm depth, I believe that it was because the water conditions were marginal. If my hon. Friend can guarantee that the roads in my constituency of Meriden, especially the M6 and M42, will always be adequately drained, I should be pleased to arrange a parliamentary question to enable him to give that answer. If he cannot give that guarantee, I ask him to reconsider tread depths.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to encourage research and more positive attitudes by his Department and others and encourage the use of run-flat tyres. When I was at Dunlop, I was involved in the Denovo project, which was a failure, not because of technology, but, I suspect, because of lack of any motivation by car manufacturers to accept safety innovations, just as they have ignored safer windscreens and other items which are undoubtedly more expensive. The technology exists to produce a tyre that can he deflated without causing a problem and that can continue to run for a limited period. I gather that Conti has produced a similar product with a different design, yet it is foundering, just as Dunlop did with Denovo, because of lack of encouragement.

I know of the keen mind and impressive intellect of my hon. Friend the Minister and I urge him to speak to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has an equally impressive intellect, and ask him, in view of the billions of pounds that we shall spend on motorways, to provide adequate road surfaces, especially where there are likely to be rain and braking problems. Shell has Shell-grip, Dunlop has Delu-grip and there are a number of other processes which have been demonstrated to have a number of advantages in their interface with tyres. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think of his size 9 or 10 shoes on 6 June and consider that when a tyre meets the road that is all it has to stand on and a 1·6 mm tread depth would squeeze out more water and be much safer.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on securing the debate and thank him for allowing me to participate. For a long time I have had an interest in road matters and I am vice-chairman of the Conservative parliamentary transport committee. I am happy to declare an interest as consultant to the tyre committee of the British Rubber Manufacturers Association which represents all six tyre manufacturers in the United Kingdom—Avon, Goodyear, Michelin, Pirelli, SP Tyres—formerly Dunlop to which my hon. Friend referred—and Uniroyal-Englebert. They are important employers who take their responsibilities seriously.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, the United Kingdom does not have tyre regulations that ensure high safety standards. In other transport matters, the Government have rightly given priority to safety. Unfortunately, the one aspect that has been passed by is vehicle tyres.

The present regulations were introduced in 1983, but are very similar to those introduced in 1968. In the intervening years motoring conditions have changed noticeably. I cannot believe that the tyre tread depth regulations suitable for 1968 are appropriate for present-day conditions.

There are clearly difficulties with the present legislation. The law falls into disrepute if it is not comprehended and cannot easily be enforced. Tyre law is such a case study. It may not be long before law colleges use tyre safety as an example of bad legislation. In a statement to the Select Committee on Transport in 1984, the Association of Chief Police Officers said:

"The present law is difficult to understand and enforce. The requirements should be for a minimum 1 mm tread depth across the whole width of the tyre."

Are we being good Europeans on tyre safety? No other European state except Spain has such low standards as the United Kingdom. In all other member states the requirement is 1 mm tread depth across the whole tread width, apart from Luxembourg where 1·6 mm is mandatory. The 1·6 mm depth is also the minimum requirement in many other non-EC states.

The British motorist, who this bank holiday weekend ventures abroad with car tyres that are worn but legal in the United Kingdom, could be breaking the law elsewhere in the Community. With the advent of the single internal market in 1992, the idea of differing tread depths in differing member states will be as inappropriate as different regulations in two English counties.

If the Department is to get the legal and safety message across, we need a straightforward regulation which is easily enforceable. The present requirement of 1 mm across three quarters of the tread width and visible tread on the remaining quarter does not lend itself readily to an eye-catching safety poster. Perhaps that is why the Department has not produced one.

Wherever possible, the Government should base legislation on good research. I investigated whether there had been such research and I am happy to assure my hon. Friend the Minister that he can base changes in legislation, that I hope he will announce, on good solid research. The Tyre Industry Council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden welcomed so heartily and which I applaud, has undertaken research which shows that well over 60 per cent. of all tyres changed were worn below the current legal minimum in the United Kingdom. That means that a high proportion of motorists are putting others on the road at risk.

The Transport and Road Research Laboratory has done some limited work on tread depth. However, its research is seriously flawed. One example sounds like an April Fool story. One of its conclusions was that a completely bald tyre is safer in wet conditions than a tyre with tread. That is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland approach unworthy of the Government and it is profoundly worrying that Ministers could be influenced in any way by such nonsense.

Reference has already been made to the Department's comment about tread depth on normally well-drained roads. We cannot legislate for perfect laboratory conditions with some boffin's careful wording about normally well-drained roads. It would be embarrassing to ask the Minister which kilometres of road he was talking about. It is a statistical freak and unworthy of the Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden did not refer to the cost. In the most unlikely event that my hon. Friend the Minister were to try to find a reason for not amending the regulations, he would ask about the cost. Economists have estimated that it would cost £3·68 per car per year—around the price of two gallons of petrol. Are we saying that lives continue to be put at risk on British roads because of that small sum of money? I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Minister would defend that. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel and that is 6 June.

The House is making history because we are debating, and, I hope, bringing guidance to our ministerial team before an EC decision is made on 6 June. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not go into battle on that occasion, but will say that the Department has seen the light, has realised the folly of some of its boffins and considers that it makes economic sense to improve road safety and that Britain, like Luxembourg, will take the lead, impose a real tread depth and put road safety first. We shall then be in a proud and better position in Europe and in Britain.

I heartily support my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden in his campaign and I hope that today's debate will give succour to the ministerial team in early June.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and congratulate him on his good fortune in securing the debate. My hon. Friend is held in very high esteem in the tyre business. I attended a dinner last night at the Institute of the Motor Industry and people were waxing eloquent about his prowess as a tyre designer and engineer when he had a real job before he became a Member of Parliament.

I endorse what my hon. Friend said. I, too, have experience of wheels, as for seven years I ran a business manufacturing wheels for cars. Of course, wheels are no good unless they have tyres wrapped round them, so obviously I was closely connected with the tyre industry. In another modest capacity I advise the Retread Manufacturers Association by virtue of my long connection with the wheel and tyre business.

My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) has already touched on the significance of today's debate in that we are debating a measure which will be discussed fully by the European Commission on 6 June. Perhaps that is a precedent. I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that if he brings the measure back to the House, at least he will not risk my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) walking out because we did not have the chance to debate the matter beforehand and express our views.

It is time that this country took an initiative in the development of European law. This is one small but very important subject in which we can do so. If we take a positive role we can play a major part in producing an overall European scheme which is acceptable to us, instead of having to adapt our ideas to those of somebody else.

There is no doubt that the present law is widely flouted, as my hon. Friends have already pointed out. Figures showing that more than 60 per cent. of the tyres taken off cars are below the present United Kingdom minimum tread depth endorse that fact. One problem of existing law is how to interpret whether a tyre is running below the minimum requirement. A visual check is all that most of us make. Another Gallup poll shows that 19 per cent. of us do not even do that. Therefore, checks on tyres are entirely dependent on routine vehicle servicing or MOT tests when vehicles are given an annual check-up.

The MOT test is a strange aspect of our lives. When a vehicle is tested, provided its tyres are at the minimum legal level, it will pass. However, that vehicle could be driven for another 50 miles and then be flouting the law. That could occur within a couple of days or even on the same day as the test, which contains no element of potentiality. If it did, the examiner looking at the vehicle would decide not only whether it passed when it came in for the test, but whether it would run within the legal definition of the regulations on construction and use for a period after the test. The MOT test should be amended to ensure that when vehicles are tested, their tyres are not merely on the minimum level but a good deal above that, so that they can be used for a period after the test and still remain legal.

Our motorway systems are developing, vehicle speeds are increasing, and there has been mention recently about extending the width of motorways to four lanes. Private motorways and toll roads may not have speed restrictions. As those developments take place, higher standards of vehicle safety are prerequisites to enable those higher speeds to be achieved. Therefore, tyres, being the only source of contact between the vehicle and the ground, assume an ever more important role.

One fact of commercial and marketing life in the car industry is that it produces vehicles of higher and higher performance ability. Cars are now turbo charged and fuel injected, and ordinary saloon cars can easily obtain speeds of well over 100 or 120 mph; in some cases they are capable of travelling at 135 mph. Those are souped up, ordinary bread and butter saloon cars that are re-engineered to take into account the higher speeds: the suspension ratings, braking system and tyres are altered.

The tyres needed for such vehicles are high cost and of a high standard. My fear, and it is a growing fear within the business, is that when cars have cascaded down to the second and third user, the performance envelope will still be present but the owner will find it increasingly difficult to afford the cost of replacement, high-performance tyres and will be tempted to use his car, which has high performance potential, with tyres that have been reduced to the legal minimum and below.

It is difficult to correlate accident statistics with tyre depth, but to assume that bald tyres never have an impact on accident statistics would be to deny the facts. Tyres must be a contributory factor. They are the vehicle's only retardation source to slow it and stop it before an impact. If 16 vehicles were in a nose-to-tail accident in wet weather conditions on a motorway it would be difficult to say that any of them had failed to stop because of inadequate tyre depth. However, there are grounds for substantial doubt, and tyre depth has a role to play. Adopting more sensible and enforceable legislation providing for tyre depth of at least 1·6 mm across the width of the tyre, would play a major part in improving safety standards on roads.

My colleagues have touched on another problem that concerns the tyre industry—the enormous and growing problem of tyre waste. People tend not to appreciate the industrial waste problems that are caused by tyre disposal. Despite much thought about shredding tyres, recycling them using power stations to burn them as a source of energy or dumping them at sea to make new forms of barrier reefs, as is frequently done in Australia and other parts of the world to help with sea, ecological and environmental life, the prime problem remains that we are covering our island, waste pits and dumps with growing mountains of tyre carcases.

The problem is that industry cannot recycle tyres by retreading them because they fall below the legal minimum and their structure has been damaged. By introducing higher standards we can help with the recycling problem and save ourselves money and energy. Some people have said that we could save about 26 million gallons of oil if we were able to reclaim more of the tyres that are now scrapped because they have fallen below the present, difficult to define, legal tread depth.

Therefore, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will take account of the points raised this morning. It is an important issue and the legislation needs to be looked at because of the growing changes in the way cars are used, the speed at which they are used and the way in which people flout the law. The evidence is there. Should we continue to ignore it?

I begin with the pleasurable task of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on securing the debate. As I stand here in place of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I feel inadequate to the task in everything except my shoe size. As I have listened to the expertise of my hon. Friends I was worried, not that I would fail a test of the depth of my tread, but that I might fail a test of the minimum depth of my knowledge on the subject. Certainly, I do not have a lifetime in the tyre industry as has my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, to whom I am grateful for having introduced the subject.

My central point in responding to my hon. Friends is that this country has an outstanding road safety record which exists because the Government have always concentrated on acting on matters deemed of the greatest priority in road safety. They have always been concerned to act in a way that will produce demonstrably better road safety in the future. They have never allowed themselves to be carried away with enthusiasm for causes until sure that they would lead to improvements in standards.

I have just returned from an international conference in Edinburgh, at which our own safety record compared extremely favourably with those of the other countries represented. Attention was drawn to the fact that the United Kingdom has an extremely good record. However, there is scope for improvement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport set the target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000, from 300,000 per year to 200,000 per year. We set a short-term objective of reducing road deaths to fewer than 5,000 per year. The final figures for 1988 show that, with deaths at 5,050, which is 2 per cent. down on 1987 and the lowest for 25 years, we are well on target.

Our strategy for achieving those targets is to concentrate on action which has a proven ability to reduce casualties and which represents maximum value for money. Our priorities are to reduce casualties among vulnerable road users, notably pedestrians—where our performance is merely average—cyclists, children and motor cyclists. In order to achieve that we are working closely with local authorities on ways to increase levels of low-cost road engineering schemes to prevent accidents.

The European Commission's proposal is that tyres on all vehicles throughout the Community should have at least 1·6 mm of tread across the whole width. As my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden said, this compares with the United Kingdom's present requirements of 1 mm of tread across three quarters of the tyre and visible tread on the shoulder areas of the tyre. Tyres when new typically have about 8 mm of tread. We need to look at the Commission's proposal, which is not linked to our common objective of achieving a single European market, in terms both of the benefits to road safety and the costs to members of the public, including to businesses.

On the benefits side, the Commission claims that its proposal will bring road safety advantages and prevent accidents, but it has produced no evidence at all to support this contention. Very few road accidents are due to tyres being worn to between 1 mm and 2 mm tread depth. Tread depth variations in this range only make a significant difference to braking at speeds of over 50 mph on smooth roads in extremely wet conditions. Only a minority of accidents occur in those conditions. Most accidents occur on urban roads where speeds are lower.

Trunk road and motorway construction standards now specify rougher surfaces which give better adhesion, a point which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden specifically raised. All main traffic routes in the United Kingdom are now surfaced in that way and we believe that this will be the case in most Community countries. Research by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory on a variety of road surface types has shown that Delagrip material, dense bitumen macadam and open-textured macadam showed lower resistance to skidding than pervious macadam and well-chipped, rolled asphalt.

Therefore, in our view, the Commission's proposals would save very few accidents. Although it is not a fact that Ministers can prevent it raining in this country, it is a fact that extremely wet conditions are statistically not very common in the United Kingdom. Most other member states also appear to have recognised that the Commission's proposals would not save many accidents. It is notable that of all the 12 member states in the Community only one has a minimum tread depth as high as 1·6 mm. That country is Luxembourg. Most member states require only 1 mm, although I admit that many require it across the whole width of the tyre.

I now turn to the costs. The current limit of 1 mm means that there is about 7 mm of usable tread on tyres —the difference between the 8 mm supplied with tyres are new and the 1 mm minimum tread. So moving the the limit from 1 mm to 1·6 mm means that on average tyres would have about a 10 per cent. shorter life before they have to be replaced. That 10 per cent. increase would cost over £50 million per year in the United Kingdom. I know that my hon. Friends had foreseen my argument on that matter. Over the Community as a whole, the corresponding figure would be in the range of £300 million to £350 million. When listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, I was not sure that that argument was weakened by the fact that new tyres are of a higher quality and last longer. A further element of cost comes from the Commission's proposal requiring the 1·6 mm depth to apply across the whole width of the tyre rather than as in the United Kingdom, only over three quarters of the width. We estimate that that would cost about another £20 million per year.

Of course, the tyre industry would think that that money was well spent, but other industries might not be so sure about it. We think that there is a better means of ensuring safer tyres than raising the minimum tread depth, and that is better compliance by motorists with the present limits. At last, I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friends who said that the compliance rate was currently unsatisfactory. They pointed out that research by the tyre industry has suggested that a high percentage of tyres are below the existing legal limit. Our own research shows that over 1·75 million vehicles per year currently fail the MOT test because of tyre defects, and that most of those involve illegal tread.

What, then, would be the effect of raising the limit to 1·6 mm? We can assume that a still higher proportion of vehicles than at present would fail the test; but we are not sure that it would do anything to improve the safety of tyres which already fail the MOT test. Our main message for motorists must be that they should observe the existing limits, which they do not sufficiently at present. In other words, our priority should be to make sure that we improve the success rate in jumping over the present hurdle before we start raising the bar.

The MOT test takes place only once a year. My hon. Friends were right that it does not ensure good condition for the rest of the year. We announced earlier this year our intention to empower the police and the Department's vehicle examiners to prohibit the movement of cars and motor cycles which are in a dangerous condition. Safe vehicle condition is extremely important. The various inspection procedures in the United Kingdom, including the MOT test, play a part in keeping down the number of accidents. The MOT testing scheme stands up well to international comparison. We have regularly moved ahead of the European Community requirements in this area.

The annual MOT test has proved to be a good way of policing the quality of tyres. The large number of vehicles that failed the MOT test in 1986 because of defective tyres provided proof of its effectiveness. But more than that, an experienced mechanic examining the vehicle will quickly detect not only the places where the tread is worn to below the legal limit, but other defects such as cuts and bulges. In no other European Community country are vehicle tyres examined as frequently as they are in the United Kingdom. That is doubtless one of the reasons why accident surveys have shown so few cases in which defective tyres have been a contributory cause of an accident.

Last year agreement was reached in the Community on mandatory testing of light goods vehicles. Member states that are setting up a testing scheme for the first time have until 1995 to implement the directive. In Britain on the other hand, we have tested light goods vehicles for many years already.

In short, we have no evidence of clear safety benefits from the Commission's proposal on tyre tread—

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend at this stage, when we have only a couple of minutes left. I was hoping that my hon. Friend's latest point would be on the MOT and the way in which it operates and that he would say something about better enforcement. I had thought that my hon. Friend was about to announce a major Government publicity campaign to inform motorists. In the past, our hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has encouraged tyre distributors, the British Rubber Manufacturers Association and others to improve their information services. I must inform my hon. Friend that the formation of the Tyre Industry Council has included a full public information service on industry matters and especially on matters relating to tyre safety.

I remember a written answer of some years ago that stated that the Department's expenditure on tyre safety publicity was vestigial at £8,000. If my hon. Friend cannot give me a promise now—I realise that he may not be able to do so—will he consider discussing with his colleagues in the Department of Transport a major and co-operative campaign so that people will know about this issue and so that two thirds of cars are not found to have dangerous tyres at their MOT tests?

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will be interested and pleased to hear about the proposals for publicity that have been put forward by the Tyre Industry Council. At the moment, my hon. Friend's priorities relate to child restraints, to publicity aimed at child pedestrians and at improving conspicuousness, and to continuing the campaign against drinking and driving. Doubtless he will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has just said and will wish to take that into account.

We want to listen carefully to the debate in the Council of Ministers on 5 or 6 June. However, at the moment we do not see that clear evidence has been produced by the Commission to support its view that we should have a new standard of tyre depths across the Community of 1·6 mm.

rose—

No, I want to conclude.

My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden raised the question of run-flat tyres. We are aware of the various run-flat tyre innovations, and we note, as he did, that the vehicle industry has not taken up the idea to any great extent. We have altered the construction and use regulations to encourage the use of Dunlop Denovo run-flats. We would do the same again if necessary, subject to being satisfied on the safety of the particular tyre that was being proposed.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to a matter that pertains directly to the rights of hon. Members on which you might be able to assist us.

On Wednesday—after my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) had asked under Standing Order No. 20 for a debate upon Anglo-Soviet relations following the decision of the Government to expel a number of Soviet diplomats and journalists—in the presence of the leader of the House, I asked, because of hon. Members' concern about that matter, whether it would be possible for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement before the House adjourned. There has, of course, been no such statement, but last night the first item on the BBC 9 o'clock news was a story apparently detailing the reasons why the Soviet diplomats and journalists had been expelled. Those reasons included alleged contact between the Soviet embassy and Libyan and Iranian terrorists, and what was referred to as blackmail of Labour Members of Parliament.

I submit that the rights of the House are affected in two ways. First, Mr. Speaker noted the fact that the Leader of the House was present when we requested a statement on the matter. It is completely unacceptable that the Government should fail to make a statement to the House, and further that sources authoritative enough for the BBC to feel justified in using them as its first lead story on its main news bulletin have attempted to clarify and amplify what the Foreign Secretary did not inform the House about on Monday and what he has refused to inform the House about since. Therefore, I believe that it is a serious affront to the House that Ministers have failed to give information that has been requested, and yet the broadcasting media, by some source or another, have been given amplifying information which has been directly denied to the House and about which hon. Members could ask questions of the Foreign Secretary.

Secondly, if there were to be any validity in allegations that hon. Friends of mine have been subject to blackmail, it would have been proper, through long-standing practice, for the Government to notify my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and/or myself, and no such notification has been given either to my right hon. Friend or to myself, or for some information to be made available. I have contacted the Foreign Secretary's office this morning, and it is completely unable to clarify the situation. What we have, therefore, is briefing from sources—authoritative enough to have satisfied the BBC that the matter should be its main story on its main news bulletin—making implications about hon. Members which, if they are to be validated in any way, should be made to the House, or, at any rate, through the proper channels, to the Leader of the Opposition.

The House has been affronted in two ways. First, information has been given to the BBC which has been denied to the House, although it has asked for it; secondly, that information purports to make statements which involve the standing of hon. Members. Clearly that is a serious affront to the House.

It is necessary for the Foreign Secretary to come to the House this morning, as the House will adjourn this afternoon for more than a week, because otherwise the conclusion we will have to draw is that a week after those expulsions—with no information having been given to the House other than the Foreign Secretary's reply to my private notice question last Monday—an attempt is being made covertly to justify action which the Foreign Secretary, for reasons which I thought proper at the time, was unwilling to justify overtly. That is clearly unacceptable.

The House is being affronted in those two ways when at the same time it is clear that what has taken place is a blatant attempt—successful, too—at news management by authoritative Government sources, so that various implications can be trailed across the BBC to prevent yesterday's main news story—the disastrous trade figures—having its proper prominence. That is an example of news management which is an affront to the House of Commons. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to obtain a statement for us.

I remind the House that we are encroaching on valuable private Members' time. I have received no request for a statement to be made, and, of course, the right hon. Gentleman knows that I do not have the authority to require a Minister to make a statement. Doubtless what the right hon. Gentleman has said will be made known to the appropriate Ministers. The right hon. Gentleman, equally, would not expect me to accept any responsibility for statements made either in the media or by the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman is alleging, as he appears to be, that there has been a contempt of the House, he knows that he must follow the appropriate procedure, which is to write to Mr. Speaker conveying the details of the allegations.

I hope that we can now get on.

I do not want to take up the time of the House, but hon. Members simply do not appear to care about the way in which the House has been treated. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the way in which you have responded. I was not for one moment implying that you carry responsibility for these matters other than the fact that you have the proper duty of protecting the rights of the House. I say to you, however, in the presence of the Government Deputy Chief Whip, that the Opposition believe that this matter should be the subject of a statement. Either the Government have information, in which case they had better provide it, or they have no information and this is a piece of blatant and contemptible news management.

I am pleased that we are able to have a short debate on the position of Kurdish refugees, 1,000 of whom have arrived in this country since the beginning of May. They are asylum seekers who are at present being looked after by voluntary organisations, families and friends in the boroughs of Hackney, Islington and Haringey. I believe that it is high time that the House had the opportunity to debate and discuss the situation facing Kurdish people as a whole, as well as the specific demands that we wish to make concerning the asylum seekers, who have arrived in this country.

Kurdistan is, perhaps, the greatest unrecognised nation in the world, comprising 20 million people—4 million of whom live in Iraq, 5 million in Iran, 1 million in Syria, small numbers in the Soviet Union and the Lebanon and about half of them in total live in Turkey. It was only recognised as a nation briefly after the treaty of Sevres in the early part of the 1920s, and was carved up in the treaty of Lausanne. Ever since then the aspirations of the Kurdish people for their own homeland, and, indeed, within Turkey the ability to speak and write in their own language and promote their own culture has been a dominant feature of Kurdish politics.

A series of uprisings took place in 1922, 1925, 1928, with the longest one being from 1932–1938 at Dersin. After each of those uprisings internal banishments, deportations and imprisonment have followed. Similar stories are told of what happened in Iraq, following the uprising at Borzhani in 1961 to 1974, following which 600,000 Kurdish people fled to Iran. In Iran there was the great uprising of 1945–46, when the Kurdish Republic was declared. It was supressed at Mahbat and the leaders of it were executed.

We are talking about people who have come from Turkey. The problem that the Kurdish people face in Turkey is that which any other minority faces in Turkey, except that they are a large minority. The Kurdish language is banned and the Kurdish culture is suppressed. The continual repression of Kurdish people has been a feature of Turkey ever since the formation of modern Turkey in 1922. The aspirations of the Kurdish people live long within the minds of the community. That feature has never been recognised or understood by Western European or other countries in their dealings with Turkey. I hope that this short debate will give at least an opportnity to recognise those parts of history.

More recently, in 1977, there were elections in Turkey. At that time, the people who held public office were Kurdish speakers, and they promoted the Kurdish culture. At the time, the mayor of Diyabikir, Mehdi Zana, openly defied the Turkish national laws that promoted the oneness of the Turkish nation, language and culture. In 1978, there was a massacre at Kahramanmaras, which is normally pronounced Maras, in which 117 people were officially killed, although it is believed that many more were killed at the time. In the late 1970s, 19 cities were put under martial law. that was succeeded by the military coup in 1980, when all Kurdish groups were broken up, leaders were imprisoned and many people executed. Indeed, Mehdi Zana, the former mayor of Diyabikir, was imprisoned for 25 years as a result. Many of the Kurdish leaders were then put in Diyabikir prison. In the early 1980s, some hon. Members raised the matter many times. A Member of the European Parliament, Richard Balfe, visited Diyabikir prison. There was a long hunger strike there in 1984 to draw attention to the plight of the Kurdish people. Four people ignited themselves with petrol and other materials to draw attention to the plight of the Kurdish people.

We are dealing with a history of systematic torture and abuse of the Kurdish people. That is the background to the current problem that the Kurdish people face and their perfectly legitimate and understandable plea for help in the present situation.

After the military coup in 1980, 250,000 people were imprisoned by the Turkish authorities at least half of whom were Kurdish. Strong repression was meted out against anyone who sought to speak the Kurdish language or promote the Kurdish culture. I have a cassette tape by a famous Kurdish musician called Sivan. Merely for listening to that tape in their homes or playing it on their car radios people would be arrested and possibly imprisoned for promoting something other than the Turkish culture. It is important to understand that background.

Many of the Kurdish people who managed to leave Turkey applied for asylum in Europe or the middle east. They applied for asylum or fled because of the history of repression and because of the number of their friends or comrades who were imprisoned. They legitimately sought political asylum. In every country throughout Europe and the middle east, one finds large numbers of Kurdish people, either seeking political asylum, having achieved it or, in some cases, having exceptional leave to remain. In many cities one finds groups of Kurdish people, all of whom have suffered that kind of repression, not only in Turkey but in other countries. Today I am dealing with Turkey. On several occasions over the past few years it has been my privilege to attend the annual festival of nawroz of the Kurdish community in London. Again one sees the spirit of hope and of wanting to be able to express themselves in their own way.

Of the 1,000 people who have arrived in this country since 2 May, most, if not all, have come from the Maras area. They have come partly from fear of continuing repression and fear of local Fascist groups. In 1980, the leader of the local Fascists—it is the only way to describe him—Okkes Kengar, was imprisoned. He has now been elected to local office in the town of Maras on a fundamentalist platform that is opposed to and repressive of Kurdish people. It is called the party of prosperity. At the time of his election and since then, a large number of Kurdish people have suffered the most appalling torture and treatment. One third of those who have been interviewed by organisations that have been receiving Kurdish asylum seekers here—be they the Kurdistan Workers Association, Rights and Justice, or any of the other groups that have been helping with interviewing to prepare their case before it goes to the Home Office for application—have evidence of the application of torture. Bearing in mind that there are many interviews still to be done, 40 of those who have been interviewed have had their cases referred to the medical foundation for the care of torture victims.

Maras is a mixed area. Only a small number of Turkish people, as opposed to Kurdish people, have come here with the group of 1,000. Indeed, some have gone back. The interesting feature of many of their cases is that they had jobs, farming and so on, in the area. It appears that they are definitely fleeing from repression more than anything else. There is evidence also that those who have returned have been stopped at Izmir airport and have been extremely badly treated there, having voluntarily left this country, because they were deemed to have brought Turkey into disrepute. It is important that the British Government recognise that fact. When people voluntarily return to Turkey, the British Government should satisfy themselves that they are going back in safety. I am extremely worried about some of the reports that I have received.

There is also the problem of internal relocation of Kurdish people in western Turkey, which has been going on in the Maras area. Unilever has invested a great deal of money in the region. A tea plantation scheme has involved the relocation of Kurdish people away from there.

We are beginning to see a pattern of economic and physical repression and the torture of political activists by the Turkish Government. The problems have not arisen only in Turkey. Clearly, the treatment of Kurdish people in Iraq is indescribably awful. Chemical weaponry has been used against them on numerous occasions. Attacks have taken place against Kurdish people, and there is the horror of Halabja, which ranks alongside what happened in Vietnam or the bombing in Guernica, which is one of the horrors of this century. Some of those people have fled to Turkey. That is no reflection of the humanitarian instincts of the Turkish Government, but it is a reflection on the horror of Kurdish people living in Iraq. Perhaps the British Government should reconsider their relationship with the Government of Iraq, their trade with Iraq, and their support for the Baghdad arms fair which is to be held later this year.

Under the 1951 Geneva convention on the treatment of asylum seekers and refugees, the British Government clearly have obligations to receive applications and to deal with people in a humanitarian way. I have met many of those people, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and others, and we well understand what has gone on. The 1,000 people who have arrived here have largely been supported by voluntary organisations. The Kurdistan Workers Association has the largest number under its care at the moment. Tribute should be paid to it and to Ihscen Qadir, its co-ordinator, and the other local organisations and voluntary groups in Hackney and Islington who have done a great deal to raise money and support for those people. The response of all the Churches—Catholic, Methodist, Baptist and Anglican—has been amazing. Cardinal Hume himself visited some of the people yesterday in Loyola Hall in Haringey. The local authorities have been helping as best they can. Representatives of the Department of Social Security, with whom I had a meeting last week, have been helpful by opening a special office to ensure that those people are paid whatever benefits they are entitled to receive.

Obviously local costs are incurred, and today I want the Government to say that they are prepared to do what they can to help the Kurdish people and that they are prepared to provide resources to the local authorities and to the voluntary organisations to assist them in the necessary humanitarian work of supporting those people. They should also be prepared to act politically and put all possible pressure on the Turkish Government concerning the treatment of Kurdish people within Turkey. That is the nub of the problem.

I understand that yesterday, some people were taken into detention—for all I know they still are. I find that awful and totally inappropriate. Those people who have fled from Turkey have fled from a horror, they have sought safety and have not fled to be put in prison again. I hope that the Minister will recognise that the voluntary organisations are more than willing to look after those people. They have mounted herculean efforts to provide the necessary support.

Earlier this week my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and I met the Minister. We insisted that the British Government should be prepared to make resources available. I can only contrast their current contribution with the vast sums of money spent by the British Government on receiving General Evren last year and on promoting the interests of the Evren regime of Turkey. I understand that the Turkish Government have now retained the services of Saatchi and Saatchi to befuddle the British people as to the human rights record of the Turkish Government. I hope that the British Government will react accordingly to the demands that we have made.

I shall quote some individual cases of how people have been treated. This information has been given to me this morning by Mary Dines who is the organiser of Rights and Justice, a well-respected humanitarian organisation. Mary's own record of working for humanitarian causes and refugees for many years is well recognised and she is rightly well respected for it. Example one is a man who was held by the police on three occasions in 1987 and 1988; during which he was immersed in cold water for a whole day, suspended by his hands for a whole day and severely beaten. He was not a member of an illegal organisation.

Example two is a political activist:

"Owing to persecution during martial law (1980 to 1985) he was forced to leave his village and go to Istanbul. He was arrested four times in Istanbul and detained for nine months for distributing leaflets. During detention he was tortured by falaka (trussed up like a chicken and beaten on the soles of his feet). He was given electricial shocks to his testicles, tongue and teeth, covered for long periods of time by cold water, hit with sacks of sand (which are supposed to leave no marks), hung upside down and hit with truncheons. He was last arrested in 1988. He has a damaged kidney."

The case of example three is as follows:

"Arrested in 1981 for taking a wounded man to hospital in his taxi. Had seven stitches in his head after assault and still suffers from blurred vision and headaches. Arrested in 1988 with his seven months' pregnant wife. They were held in the army camp for four months. The baby was born in detention. After he left Turkey his wife was rearrested and is now in prison with the baby."

Another example relates to a man who was a member of the Social Democratic party and also a member of an illegal Kurdish organisation. His story is as follows:

"Arrested in 1981—imprisoned for one month. Arrested in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. During detention he was forced to run kms over rough ground in bare feet, beaten with a bag of concrete, hot eggs were put in his armpits, he was beaten with sticks and batons and hit in the eyes. Since 1987 he has been in constant pain. His father was killed by the army in 1975. His mother was also beaten up and is still suffering from injuries to her head. One cousin has been imprisoned. One cousin is missing. Other family members have been imprisoned."

We are dealing with the systematic torture of Kurdish people by the Turkish Government. I understand that attempts are now being made to stop people leaving Turkey to seek political asylum elsewhere because it is believed that that damages the image of modern Turkey. Nothing damages the image of modern Turkey more than the factual, accurate accounts I have given, of the way in which people are treated by the Turkish army. We now look to the British Government to fulfil their obligations under the United Nations charter of 1951 to provide urgent humanitarian aid. That aid is necessary because the voluntary organisations are relying totally on voluntary donations and a little bit of assistance from local authorities.

It is the responsibility of the British Government to provide the financial assistance and they should not throw the job on to the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. Willing as they are to help, those organisations and authorities have enormous problems of their own. The Kurdish people should be properly treated and the Government should give assistance to the suitable local organisations.

We are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for bringing this subject to the attention of the House today, as well as for the moving and sensitive manner in which he presented his case.

I was talking to another hon. Member yesterday about this issue and he said that he believed that the Kurdish people were the victims of some of the worst atrocities perpetrated in the modern world. That hon. Member was not a Labour Member, but a Conservative who just happens to be a senior member of the Government.

I cannot help contrasting the way in which some spokesmen have talked about this issue to the media, including reports on television yesterday, with the visit of the Roman Catholic archbishop, Basil Hume, to the east and north of London yesterday. He brought with him not only sympathy, but money and moral support. I hope that his visit to our local region will help to persuade the Government to take some action.

If we consider the action of the various Government Departments it would be fair to say that the Department of Social Services has acted promptly and efficiently and it has been extremely helpful. My hon. Friends and I were grateful that the Minister of State, Home Office discussed this matter with us earlier this week. We had a civilised discussion, although there were some obvious differences between us. At that meeting, the Minister said—I hope that he will reaffirm that statement today—that he would consider giving money to help the British Refugee Council to set up a hostel at Tower house in Tower Hamlets. He also said that he would consider giving extra money to some of the voluntary agencies.

Yesterday I spoke to most of the voluntary agencies and they have simply run out of money—there is no more cash in the till. On the debit side, I am bound to say to the Minister that the idea of putting the Kurdish people in prisons in the south-west of England is deeply disturbing. On the credit side, some prison officers came up from the west country yesterday to talk to representatives of the Kurdistan Workers Association to see how they might best help if the threat to detain Kurdish people in prison was carried out. Underneath the cynicism and some of the meanness on the part of the Home Office there is a deep undercurrent of sympathy for the Kurdish workers.

The Department of the Environment is also concerned and it is likely to become deeply involved over possible rate support grant and the need to help local authorities regarding the temporary and the possible permanent rehousing of those people.

What has disturbed me about the public statements that have come from the Home Office is that various officials have said—I have no doubt with the concurrence of the Minister—that they believe that many of the Kurdish people who come here do so for simply economic reasons rather than through fear of persecution. That the Home Office should make such unattributable briefings is disturbing. That Department must consider in a judicious and judicial manner all the cases that come before it. It is extremely difficult to believe that it can do so fairly when spokesmen publicly say that they believe most of the people concerned are not valid refugees. The Home Office, in order not to make itself look silly, has therefore had to reject a lot of the cases for asylum and send people back. In other words, the public pronouncements by Home Office officials are liable to produce self-fulfilling prophecies.

I hope that the Home Office will get on with the business of dealing with each case in a humane and sympathetic manner. Its officials should stop making adverse public statements, which do not suggest to the public that they are dealing with the matter in a proper, judicial fashion. I hope that the Minister will relent a bit today and open his heart to the Kurdish people. I hope that he will offer some constructive suggestions to the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the recent increase in the number of Turkish people, mainly of Kurdish origin, coming to this country, who have claimed asylum on arrival here. I am also grateful for the opportunity to talk, as the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) have asked me to, about the Government's response to that problem.

This debate was immediately preceded by a shameless piece of news manipulation by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) who came to the Chamber and made a fuss about what the BBC had said in relation to Labour Members—

Order. I must remind the House that when I dealt with that point of order, other hon. Members were trying to catch my eye to pursue the matter. Out of regard to private Members' time, I disregarded them and did not allow them to speak. It would be quite wrong for the Minister now to try to do what I did not allow earlier.

I understand your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, the hon. Member for Islington, North spoke movingly as a result of his experience—as he lists Turkey in the reference books as one of his special subjects of interest—for 10 minutes or so about the problems of Kurds in Turkey moving between Iraq and Turkey. The shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Gorton, having come to the Chamber to make his little fuss about the BBC and Labour Members, might have had the courtesy to remain in the Chamber to listen to the points which the hon. Member for Islington, North was making. That would have been the appropriate thing for the right hon. Member for Gorton to do rather than to engage in a little bit of shabby publicity-seeking, which is what we have come to expect from him.

I want to consider the serious subject of this Adjournment debate and I will begin by explaining the general context of the Government's policy towards people who claim asylum. As the hon. Member for Islington, North reminds us, the United Kingdom was one of the earliest signatories to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. We take our responsibilities very seriously, despite what is sometimes said by organisations such as Amnesty International.

No one who does my job can fail to he affected daily by the plight of people who are fleeing from persecution in their own country. Each day, about half a dozen people arrive at our airports seeking political asylum. Another dozen or so apply from within the country. They are all dealt with without fuss. In every case, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch said, a carefully organised series of actions takes place. An application for asylum, I fully realise, as do Home Office officials, is important, sensitive and under our law must be properly and exhaustively considered.

No one is refused asylum in the United Kingdom until full inquiries have been made, interviews conducted and the opportunity given for further information or representations to be submitted. In the great majority of ordinary cases, the claimant is allowed to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as the hon. Members for Islington, North and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will be aware, as they both have a great deal of knowledge on this subject, the fundamental obligation that we accepted under the United Nations convention is that no one claiming asylum should be returned to a country where they have a well-founded fear of persecution. The practical effect of that is that unless the person has arrived from a third country which is safe for him to return to, he must be admitted to the United Kingdom either on a temporary basis, or held in detention while his claim is considered.

If the interests of people genuinely fleeing from persecution are to be safeguarded, it is vital that the system designed to protect them should not be exploited by people whose main motivation is economic migration.

I want now to consider the particular circumstances of the recent influx of Turkish asylum claimants. Over the past two years we have come to expect an average of one or two asylum claims each day from Turkish nationals. Some have been given refugee status and many others have been allowed to remain, exceptionally. Earlier this month, young Turkish men began to arrive at the rate of about 50 a day claiming asylum here. In one instance they almost filled an entire charter flight of over 100 passengers. On another weekend, more than 300 arrived on a variety of flights. In every case where asylum was claimed, they have been admitted while we examined their claims. We are now looking at more than 1,000 Turkish cases who have arrived in the past four weeks.

Some pattern is beginning to emerge which begins to explain this surge. It is clear that for a substantial number their real objective is to find work in the United Kingdom. Some have said so explicitly. There is evidence that middle-men selling air tickets have been exploiting the economic situation in Turkey, with stories of job opportunities in London, and briefing on how to claim asylum.

How do we know that? More than 80 people who initially claimed asylum have already gone back to Turkey of their own accord, realising that jobs and housing are not going to be so easy to obtain as they were led to believe. Many of them were, quite simply, led up the garden path in their own towns and villages. That is not the action of people who fear imminent persecution. We are seeing a gross and transparent abuse of the asylum procedures as a means of obtaining jobs, housing and perhaps social security benefits in the United Kingdom.

The tragedy is that we know that among the spurious claims there will certainly be some which are genuine. The hon. Member for Islington, North gave details of one case which sounded particularly horrific. We are well aware that the human rights standards in Turkey still fall somewhat short of those that we consider to be acceptable. I must look to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to respond on another occasion to the details referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, North.

We have already given exceptional leave to some Turks from the recent arrivals on those grounds. However, it takes time and detailed inquiry to assess each asylum application. It will now take us some months to sort out the genuine from the abusive claims which continue to come at the rate of 50 a day.

It cannot be in the interests of the genuine refugee that he has to remain in a state of uncertainty for some months. That is now inevitable, given the numbers involved. Hon. Members and the courts would justifiably criticise us if we were to cut short the process of considering claims. In those circumstances, I wish from time to time that Opposition Members would support us in criticising those who so clearly take advantage of the difficulties.

An immigration officer may either detain an asylum applicant while his claim is considered or grant him temporary admission. A very small percentage are detained. The vast majority of applicants for asylum are granted temporary admission pending a decision. They frequently have relatives or friends in this country who are willing to look after them but a large number of the recent arrivals from Turkey are young single men who know no one in this country. Various welfare organisations, including the British Refugee Council, have helped to find them temporary accommodation which understandably is frequently with members of their own community. There is a large resident Turkish community in north London, and many of those granted temporary admission are now in that area. A number of Turkish organisations have offered to look after them.

Those people have come here without any notice or invitation. In many cases they do not appear to be political refugees by any stretch of the definition. They are in an entirely different situation from the Ugandan Asians or the Vietnamese boat people where reception centres were set up in this country in advance. The Turks are here on a temporary basis until such time as decisions are reached on their applications. The Government have no special responsibility for those people who are not refugees coming here as part of a Government programme. However, we recognise that there is a human problem to be addressed.

Community organisations have helped and continue to provide, emergency shelter and food. I whole-heartedly thank them and commend them for their efforts. I have undertaken to consider reimbursing specific costs which they have had to incur.

I confirm that I have also said that we are willing to consider financial help towards the establishment of a short-term hostel in Tower Hamlets. My officials are in urgent discussions with the director of the British Refugee Council with a view to having this available for new arrivals at the earliest possible opportunity. More widely, my officials in the Home Office's voluntary services unit have been in touch with their usual contacts, and others, across Government Departments to let them know of the problems that these people may face while their claims are considered.

When I met a delegation from the Association of London Authorities and Hackney a few days ago, to which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred, I agreed that my officials should set up a meeting between the ALA, Hackney and Government Departments to explore in more detail than was possible at that meeting—I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch that it was a courteous meeting, even if we did not agree on every objective—the problems that Hackney and other inner London boroughs are having to address as a result of the arrivals. I understand that that meeting has now been fixed for 5 June.

Meanwhile, we shall continue as quickly as we can to consider the individual claims and to reach decisions accordingly. This will be done on a case-by-case basis, as I have already said, against the criteria of the convention. There will certainly be some applicants where there are good and valid compassionate reasons for allowing them to remain here and they will be allowed entry on an exceptional basis. Where there are no compassionate features and where the applicant does not qualify for entry as a refugee or under any part of the immigration laws, refusal of entry and removal must follow. I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Islington, North had to say about the general situation of the Kurds in the middle east. However, we do not accept that all Turkish nationals of Kurdish origin, regardless of individual circumstances, qualify to remain here as refugees under the convention.

We have so far reached decisions on 26 applicants who arrived here at the beginning of the month. Ten have been given leave to enter. Sixteen have had their applications refused and, after their solicitors' representations had been considered, were returned to Turkey.

Additional immigration officials have been brought in to deal with a sudden increase. I can assure hon. Members that every effort is being made to resolve these applications as quickly and as fairly as possible. This process will be hampered, though, if applicants on temporary admission do not co-operate or attend for interviews at the times requested. The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred to the remarks made by His Eminence Cardinal Hume yesterday and his visit to the area. Of course I understand that it is desirable to provide accommodation for all asylum seekers in the community rather than in prisons. The cardinal called for Government funding. Our resources are very limited.

We are considering giving help to increase the amount of accommodation within the community, but I warned the hon. Members for Hackney, South and Shoreditch and for Islington, North when they came to see me on Tuesday or Wednesday that I thought that it would be necessary in appropriate cases, where we were concerned about applicants on temporary asylum, to place them temporarily in prison. About 20 applicants are now detained in prison. A further 80 places have been made available in prison accommodation. That will be for those whom we think are unlikely to co-operate with interviewing officers. It will help in the speedy consideration of those cases. That can only be to the benefit of the genuine applicant.

In the past, as the hon. Member for Islington, North certainly knows, Opposition Members have repeatedly extolled the benefits of an appeals procedure for port asylum applicants within the United Kingdom, but I wonder whether they have really thought through the implications. We already normally refer all applicants, on a non-mandatory basis, to the United Kingdom immigration advisory service when we refuse their applications. I personally look at any refusal whenever there is a difference of view between UKIAS and Home Office officials. A formal appeals system would be hamstrung by delays, as is the appeals system which already exists for ordinary immigration cases.

The longer the delay, the more attractive it must become for some applicants to exploit it. The experience of our European partners who have full appeal systems is precisely that. In France, asylum applications are running at the rate of over 30,000 a year and in Germany at over 100,000. In both countries, the delays in hearing appeals are in the order of years. Meanwhile, the applicant is free to stay in the country, to work, to marry and to raise a family. Removal soon becomes impossible because of the ties that have been established. None of this would be of any benefit to the genuine refugee fleeing persecution. It could only be an invitation to exploit the system.

Members on both sides of the House are united in agreeing on the need for measures to protect the genuine refugee. I am deeply disheartened that, where we have circumstances that are clearly being exploited to the disadvantage of the genuine refugee, Opposition Members never join me in condemining the abuse. In the long run, their failure to do so, and the encouragement that that gives to people who abuse the system, can only threaten the proper working of the very machinery that has been so important a part of the protection of refugees since 1951.

It gives me great pleasure to have this opportunity to raise the subject of Cyprus.

Cyprus is a small island, some 3,000 miles away with a population of about 650,000. The United Kingdom has very strong historical, strategic and emotional ties with the island. They stretch back to 1878 when Cyprus was annexed from the Ottoman empire and continued until 1960. During that period the island was a colony of Britain. We still maintain sovereign base areas on the island, in which 10,000 service men live. Moreover, Cyprus is an extremely important strategic base in military and geopolitical terms in the eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, its stability is extremely important. Britain also has significant economic ties with the island and is its largest trading partner. At present, 200,000 Greek and Turkish Cypriots live in the United Kingdom.

Most important, however, is the United Kingdom's legal role as a party to the treaty of guarantee that set up the present Republic of Cyprus in 1960. The treaty obliged the United Kingdom to protect the constitutional and territorial integrity of the island. Incidentally, it is a constitution about which, with a somewhat curious use of the double negative, the former Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Baroness Young, said that the British Government have

"not accepted that the Constitution is not still in force".

It is generally accepted that the British Government failed to carry out their role under the treaty. In 1974, it led to the partition of the island, to the effective occupation of just over one third of it by the Turkish Government and to its division ever since.

Today, 200,000 refugees from both sides are denied access to their homelands. Moreover, 2,000 people are missing and still unaccounted for, despite the efforts of the United Nations. A kind of Mediterranean iron curtain has been drawn through the island. Most important of all, when he last visited the United Kingdom, President Vassiliou said that Cyprus—a Commonwealth country and an associate member of the EEC—will, at the end of this year, following the Vietnamese withdrawal from Cambodia, the South African withdrawal from Namibia and the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, be the only country in the world that is occupied without its consent by troops of a foreign power. As The Independent recently said:

"The spirit of détente and co-operation which has run across other parts of the globe has yet sadly to reach Cyprus."

That is not through want of trying. In the past 14 years, through the United Nations and through bilateral negotiations, culminating in the present negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities, under the auspices of the United Nations, that began last September, efforts have been made to reunify the island. However, it is still occupied and divided, and in terms of the stability of the region and natural justice, that is dangerous.

The Foreign Affairs Select Committee studied relations with Cyprus in May 1987. It reported:

"The permanent partition of Cyprus would be an injustice to those who have been forcibly removed from their traditional homes and possessions, a tragic concession to racial and religous bigotry, and a continuing irritant to the political stability of the region."

If that stability is to be regained, if unity is to return to the island and if injustice is to be removed, the United Kingdom must take a proactive role in diplomatic terms to bring it about. There is a danger in relying, as we do now, on a bilateral approach by the Turkish and Greek communities, as the Turkish side seems to have a continuing investment in the status quo. There is a danger that such an approach may be unsuccessful.

I shall not repeat the historical arguments or apportion blame. Ever since 1891, when there were 346 mixed villages, to 1960, when there were only 114, the two communities have taken paths of separate development, although it must be said that, at least until independence in 1960, they lived together in reasonable toleration of each other.

It is understandable that Greek Cypriots are fearful of a Turkish takeover—they are only 40 miles away from Turkey. It is also understandable that they are emotional, and feel strongly, about the fact that many of them have lost everything—property, fathers and sons and other family—during the Turkish occupation. They resent the continued and unlawful military occupation of the island and what they regard as the raiding of many Cypriot treasures in the north of the island with the acquiesence, or even knowledge, of the Turkish authorities there.

We can also understand the Turkish Cypriots' perspective. They are outnumbered six to one. There is no doubt that they were subjected to significant atrocities by the Greek community between 1963 and 1974. Perhaps the worst were the activities of General Grivas in 1967. They are rightly suspicious of enosis, or union with Greece. In 1966, Archbishop Makarios talked about the 1960 agreements being abrogated and buried. No doubt that is a significant reason why, from 1963, the Turkish Cypriots effectively withdrew into their own enclaves. They regarded their security as paramount.

Objective analysis, no matter how genuine may be the attempt to be even handed, will not remedy injustice or provide sufficient impetus for reunification of the island, which time is gradually pushing apart. Certain facts are patent in this respect. It is not just the Greek Cypriot community, but the international community and the United Nations Security Council, who regard the Turkish occupation of the north of the island as illegal. Resolutions 541 and 550 of 1983 state that. Moreover, it could be argued that article 3 of the 1949 Geneva convention, which states:

"An occupying power shall not deposit or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"

is being contravened, as Turkey is introducing a significant number of mainland settlers to the island.

Although, over the years, the Greeks have abandoned enosis in their proposals and have talked of multilateral guarantees for a sovereign independent state of Cyprus, the most recent Turkish constitution, which was adopted in 1983, talks of the Turkish Cypriot people as

"an inseparable part of the great Turkish nation".

Assembly members in the north of Cyprus have to take an oath of allegiance to the "principles of Ataturk".

Although Turkey justified the invasion in tern's of protecting the 1960 constitution and its position as a guarantee power and has used that to argue for the legitimacy of northern Cyprus ever since, the treaty argued against any partition of the island. In 1987, the Select Committee said:

"While the first Turkish invasion of Cyprus in July 1974 could have been regarded as a legitimate and successful exercise of her Guarantor rights in order to prevent Enosis, the subsequent Turkish occupation of the whole of the area north of Nicosia has been, and must be, seen as an illegitimate … attempt to impose partition. In July 1974 Turkey appeared to be acting in support of the 1960 settlement; in August 1974 Turkey was undoubtedly using force to prevent its restoration."

Turkey has allowed 60,000 settlers from Anatolia to populate the north of the island. Mr. Denktash, the Turkish leader, through his New Birth party, relies on their support to remain in power. When we take into account the fact that 30,000 native Turkish Cypriots have left Turkey during the past five years, we realise that Turkification has effectively taken place in the north of the island.

I rely on personal observation and on the words of the leader of the Republican Turkish party in north Cyprus, Mr. Ozker Ozgur. He addressed the congress on the Nicosia branch of his party on 14 April and said:

"In accordance with this strategy,"

—of the National Unity party and Mr. Denktash—

"the Turkish Cypriot Community is being dissolved and North Cyprus gradually turned into a province of Turkey … The workers and peasants brought from Turkey are being exploited as a means towards permanent partition. They are being used to turn North Cyprus into a province of Turkey. They have been brought here in order to destroy the Turkish Cypriot identity."

He said that he estimates that, in five to 10 years' time, if such deliberate policies continue, the result will be the effective annexation of the north of Cyprus.

It is, therefore, not surprising that questions have been asked about the sincerity of Mr. Denktash and his allies in Turkey in their recent negotiating stance. Mr. Ozal's position, and especially that of his Motherland party, was substantially weakened as a result of the Turkish local government elections in March. That fact is highlighted by the negotiating positions taken by the Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides during the United Nations talks. On the three freedoms—of movement, settlement and property—the Greeks have admitted that, although they regard them as of cardinal importance, they are not perfectly attainable and that there will be a transitional period during which they can take place. Yet the Turkish side has merely said that it is prepared to look at the problem and consider it in 18 years' time, and even then only on a limited basis. That will effectively mean that the partition of the island will have become virtually permanent after 32 years.

On territorial guarantees, the Greeks have specifically excluded Turkey and Greece and have called for the supervision of any future agreement by the Security Council or, at least, by an international force. The Turkish side has merely stuck to its major and first principle that there must be a physical presence of Turkish troops in the island.

On the security of the community, the Greek side has called for what has been generally regarded as the most effective way of ensuring that troubles do not re-emerge—the general demilitarisation of the island and the stationing there of an independent international police force to ensure that a bizonal policy is effective. The Turks have said that Turkish troops must remain, despite the fact that it has been calculated that it would take only one hour for troops to reach the island from the Turkish mainland in an emergency.

Equally important are the attitudes of the Turkish and Greek sides to confidence-building measures which are regarded as crucial to maintain contact between the two communities and create the undercurrent of trust which must underpin any effective reunification of the island. For instance, Friends of Cyprus has recently attempted to bring together Greek and Turkish Cypriots in a number of conferences for women, environmentalists, journalists and so on. Although there has been the will to co-operate among the leaders of the Turkish and Greek communities in, for instance, Nicosia, there have been continual attempts by the Turkish Cypriots to ensure that their representatives do not attend.

That does not mean that I believe that good will does not exist: it does. Most ordinary Turkish and Greek Cypriots and the civil authorities in Nicosia wish to co-operate and have been successful in doing so in several ways such as electricity, planning and a joint sewerage system in Nicosia. However, it would be wrong to ignore the differences, since they explain the painfully slow process of the negotiations which will reach the end of their present phase in June.

It would be wrong not to wish them well—I do. But if bilateral negotiations fail, I urge on the United Kingdom a proactive role which will see that the reunification of Cyprus can be effectively dealt with in a multilateral context. I urge on the United Kingdom a number of steps which would help bring about reunification. It should organise with the EEC a joint statement which will say to Turkey, whose troops are occupying Cyprus, that until it substantially reduces its forces or comes up with a timetable for their withdrawal, there is no possibility of a positive and successful result to the negotiations on its application for EEC membership. At present, that application and the fact that it may not be further processed relies purely upon a Greek veto. Given the international and legal circumstances, the EEC should take that proactive stance.

To be even-handed, Britain should insist that the south ends its campaign to isolate the north economically and by its trade embargo. That would give the north more confidence that trade relations can take place.

A financial package led by the United Kingdom should be put in place to allow the redevelopment of the north following reunification and to pay for the enormous resettlement claims that will no doubt be put forward once reunification occurs.

The United Nations force should be taking a more proactive role, instead of supervising division, in encouraging unity between the two communities. It has an important role in confidence building, arranging conferences, supervising exchanges of people between the north and south and applying pressure on the Turkish and Greek communities to allow those exchanges to take place successfully.

In 1979 it was agreed between the two communities that Varosha, the industrial area near Famagusta should be opened up for the benefit of the entire island. That has not taken place yet and it should happen speedily.

The United Kingdom should use its membership of the Security Council to propose ideas to allow for an effective guarantee of demilitarisation of the island and a federal police force once the island is reunified. That would give confidence to the two communities that once an agreement had been reached, it would be made effective and their security would be protected.

Those are initiatives which the British Government are uniquely qualified to take. They have good relations with Greece and Turkey, they are members of the Security Council and the EEC and they have guarantee status on Cyprus. More than that, the Government have an historical and moral responsibility to ensure that peace and unity return to Cyprus. That task is not easy but the rewards are great. I urge the Government to act with their customary imagination and sense of purpose.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) for providing this opportunity to have a short debate about relations with Cyprus. I congratulate him on a thoroughly comprehensive and scholarly speech in which his expertise and commitment shone through. I know that he has developed that expertise through visits to the island and through his membership of Friends of Cyprus, to which he referred. As my hon. Friend said, Friends of Cyprus does extremely valuable work in the cause of fostering contact between the two communities. I applaud its efforts and my hon. Friend's efforts in support of it. I wish Friends of Cyprus continuing success.

This is a good time to have this debate. It is some time since the House last debated Cyprus. We had an Adjournment debate in October 1987 when we heard the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). A little later, in December 1987, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Sir W. Shelton) initiated a longer debate on Cyprus, which allowed a number of hon. Members to speak. But there has been a long gap since then, and much has happened in that period.

As my hon. Friend said, there has been an improvement in the international climate in a number of regional disputes and problems. There has been a solution to a number of thorny issues. Sadly, as my hon. Friend said, we cannot say that the problem of Cyprus has been solved.

At the risk of being proved wrong by events, I think it is fair to say that the prospects of a solution are better than they were 18 months ago. I shall explain the reason for that qualified optimism in a moment when I deal with the present state of play in the international talks and how that fits into the context of Britain's relations with Cyprus.

I shall first run through some of the other aspects of those relations. I am glad to say that they are generally excellent. That is something to be proud of, and hon. Members from both sides of the House are to be congratulated on playing their part in bringing that about. Nearly 30 years after Cyprus was brought to independence, memories of the difficult last years of the colonial period are dimmer. But the links forged by earlier generations have proved remarkably durable. Admittedly, relations with Cyprus since then have, at times, been conducted in extremely difficult circumstances.

I shall not go into the old arguments about what Britain might have done, but shall show briefly that although our relations have been through the fire they have emerged tempered and are in excellent condition.

Bilateral trade is reasonably healthy. Latest figures show an increase in our exports to the island from £141 million in 1987 to £160 million in 1988. Imports from Cyprus reached £122 million last year, so the balance of visible trade is in our favour. However, that is redressed by the income that Cyprus derives from British tourism. Our statistics rightly do not separate trade with the south of the island from that with the north. The healthy overall picture is reflected in the Cypriot Government's statistics and in those produced by the Turkish-Cypriot authorities. They clearly show that Britain is the largest overseas market for both communities. Indeed, we take far more of the north's exports than does Turkey, demonstrating Britain's position in the island which was one of the underlying themes of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest.

Our bilateral aid through the European Community to Cyprus takes the form of technical and educational co-operation and training. As the Government have made clear many times, notably when replying to the previous report on Cyprus of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, we believe that our aid should benefit both communities. Some hon. Members would like us to give all our aid money to the north, where the gross domestic product is much lower, or split it 50–50 between the two sides. We believe that the first course would not be right—the provision of training, scholarships for study in Britain and so on should be for the benefit of both communities—and that the second would be impracticable because the size of the two communities is not equal.

I am sure that the majority of hon. Members agree that we must proceed according to the needs of the moment and whatever viable projects may be available. It is no use to say that we should give X thousand pounds a year to provide scholarships for Turkish Cypriots if there are insufficient qualified candidates to use the money. We therefore proceed pragmatically and apply funds to meet the needs.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development recently gave the House up-to-date information, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), on commitments of public funds that the Government have made to the two communities over the past 12 months. They show what we are doing and what we are trying to do. It would not be right in this short debate to go into detail, but the Cyprus fee support scheme is winding down at the same time as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme is winding up. We expect Turkish Cypriots to benefit more from our educational provision in the future. I repeat that how much they benefit will depend on how many suitably qualified candidates are identified.

We contribute our fair share to the provision of EEC aid to Cyprus. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development told the House, the Community allocated £29 million under the second five-year financial protocol for Cyprus, which expired last December. A further financial protocol was agreed earlier this year, under which £41 million will be provided over the next five years. The Community tries to support projects of benefit to the whole population of the island. In particular, it has met the cost of water, sewerage and electricity works. I am afraid that I cannot break down how the sums benefit Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as the information is not available.

Links between friendly countries depend in large measure on people and the cross-fertilisation of cultures and interests that they make possible. Our links with Cyprus are very healthy. About 200,000 Cypriots from both communities live in our midst. Many of them hold British citizenship, and I am proud to have a considerable number, especially Greek Cypriots, living in my constituency. They play a full and active part in the political life of this country.

More than 300,000 Britons visit Cyprus every year, going to both northern and southern Cyprus. They make a large contribution to the economies of both communities. There are about 3,000 British residents on the island, which shows the long-lasting ties of affection that still exist, divided between south and north.

At the pinnacle of importance are contacts between the two Governments of Britain and Cyprus and the Turkish-Cypriot community in the north. I am happy to say that contacts between the two Governments could hardly be closer. The best illustration of that is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has met President Vassiliou no fewer than four times in his relatively brief term of office, which is remarkable. We have welcomed here two of President Vassiliou's Ministers. I met and gave a dinner for its Interior Minister, Mr. Venyamin last year. The traffic in high and low ranking officials in both directions is considerable. The strength and diversity of links are, I am sure, all that hon. Members could wish for.

We have good contacts with the Turkish-Cypriot leadership in the north; some would say that we have too few and others that we have too many. As usual, the Government are criticised by both sides. It is a difficult balance to achieve, but I believe that we have done so.

I say to those who believe that we should cut off or reduce links with Turkish Cypriots that it would serve no one's interest, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest was not arguing for that. He argued that we should use all our contacts to work for the unity of the island. The Government have made clear their attitude in reply to the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

To those who believe that we should be according the same treatment to Mr. Denktash, who is the Turkish-Cypriot leader, as we give to President Vassiliou, I say that we recognise only one state in Cyprus, whose Government is now headed by Mr. Vassiliou. Mr. Denktash made it difficult for us to give him the access that he used to have to Ministers when the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was declared in November 1983. We can have no truck with separatism and must guard against any action that might be construed by one side or the other as conferring recognition on an illegal entity. I do not say that we rule out for ever and a day a meeting between Mr. Denktash and a British Minister. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary were satisfied that such a meeting would materially assist the achievement of a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement in Cyprus, I am sure that he would consider sanctioning one. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that in those circumstances that would be the right course to take. However, the conditions that will make such a meeting possible are not yet available.

Mr. Denktash's lack of access to the higher levels of the Government does not mean that his voice and that of his community are not heard—they are. Turkish-Cypriot views are fully taken into account. Our high commissioner in Nicosia sees Mr. Denktash frequently. Mr. Denktash has also been received three times in the past 18 months by a deputy under-secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The most important aspect of my hon. Friend's speech was the state of the current inter-communal talks about a settlement of the Cyprus problem. When my predecessor replied to the debate in December 1987, he said that it was time for both sides to try to reacquire the habit of continuous and constructive co-operation—that marked the earlier stages of the inter-communal talks, which have been going on for a decade and more—and that we believe that the newly announced appointment of Mr. Camilion as the United Nations Secretary-General's special representative in Cyprus was a challenge to which both sides had to respond.

We congratulate the United Nations Secretary-General on having grasped the opportunity provided by the election less than three months later of Mr. Vassiliou as President of the Republic of Cyprus to relaunch the inter-communal talks. That took some doing, given the mutual mistrust that has built up between the two sides over the years, but the secretary-general managed to do so. With the active support of the British Government and others, he persuaded the two Cypriot leaders to meet him in Geneva last August, when they accepted his proposal that, without preconditions, they should attempt to negotiate a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem by 1 June 1989. President Vassiliou and Mr. Denktash have subsequently held an unprecedented number of one-to-one meetings, largely in the presence only of Mr. Camilion, to whom I pay tribute. They have had two further meetings with the secretary-general in an effort to cut the knot that has tied up the negotiating process for so long.

The going has been predictably tough. There are too many people with influence on both sides who insist on maximalist solutions, believing that they are 100 per cent. right and the other side is 100 per cent. wrong. That is not the way to conduct any negotiation, because it nips the flower of success in the bud before it has a chance to bloom. We believe that both Cypriot leaders have been negotiating with a degree of flexibility. We call on them to show yet more flexibility and imagination, more of the spirit of compromise, to crown the secretary-general's efforts with success, reunite the Republic of Cyprus and remove a cause of instability in the eastern Mediterranean.

We genuinely believe that a settlement is a possibility. True, Mr. Vassiliou and Mr. Dentkash may not yet have been able to achieve the understanding of each other's positions and the necessary compromises on the main issues that would allow the secretary-general's original 1 June 1989 target to be met. We believe that there has been genuine progress after so much effort, and we call upon both leaders to redouble their efforts and continue the talks after their next meeting with the secretary-general, which we understand is likely to be in late June. We believe that both sides are ready to continue talking, because they recognise that there is a great prize to be won by both their communities. We hope very much that they will be able to agree on a draft outline settlement before their next meeting with Mr. Perez de Cuellar, which is the task they are engaged on in the present phase of the talks.

We are often urged to do more to assist the efforts to reach a settlement. Understandably, my hon. Friend urged us not to hold back. We believe that we are doing as much as is practicable, but we are always open to suggestions on how we should do more. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to reveal the nature and detail of the diplomatic contacts with the parties directly concerned and all those others who have an interest in the Cyprus problem. I assure the House that they are continuous and extensive. Our policy and actions are based on one essential principle: that the secretary-general's mission of good offices, which he pursues by mandate from the Security council, represents the best prospect for achieving a settlement. Everything that we do is done with his support and in a way that does not cut across his and Mr. Camilion's efforts.

Beyond that, the biggest single demonstration of our active involvement remains our participation in the United Nations force in Cyprus. Our contingent, all of whose costs we absorb, is the largest in the force. The Unficyp has played and continues to play, a vital role in providing a background of stability against which Mr. Perez de Cuellar can pursue his initiative. I pay tribute to the work of the often very young British soldiers in that force. The British contingent and our other contributions to Unficyp, on which we shall spend about £23 million this financial year, are a living rebuttal of the charge that we are losing interest or are not doing enough.

We see no advantage in an independent British initiative on Cyprus, which some urge us from time to time to take. This would do no more than cut across the secretary-general's efforts and would be counter productive. I am sure that the policy of giving full backing to the Security Council-endorsed policy is right. It offers the only prospect of putting our influence with all concerned to its best use.

I do not think that my hon. Friend was urging us to cut across the initiative if it still had momentum. He was asking what would happen if it failed. If the talks break down, we shall be in a different ball game. My hon. Friend would not expect me to lay out in detail the strategy that we would follow. Although we hope that this contingency will not arise—I have argued that there is still a momentum and we hope that the next crucial stage builds on it—our historical role would not be abandoned. We would have to think carefully about our next steps and how best to use our considerable influence and concerns. We would try to do that in close consultation with the secretary-general, to whose tact and patience I pay tribute. We would seek to be guided by him and the experience that he has gained. We would analyse the position. I assure my hon. Friend that we would not at that point lose interest in Cyprus nor would it fall on our list of priorities. It is a difficult but solvable problem.

I take up my hon. Friend's point about Turkish settlers in the north. As many hon. Members are aware, this is a complicated issue. We receive much correspondence about it. There is no agreement on the numbers involved—perhaps one would not expect there to be—or on who is a settler and who is not. Greek Cypriot sources quote the figure, which my hon. Friend used, of 65,000. Turkish Cypriot sources go as low as 15,000. Our guesstimate is somewhere in between, at about 35,000. Turkish Cypriots claim that the figure includes large numbers of people who have been granted what they call "Turkish Cypriot citizenship", and the children that they have borne since settling on the island.

It is not for me to say who is right and who is wrong in this numbers game. This is an issue of vital concern to both sides which must be resolved before a settlement is reached. There is no way, in our view, that an accommodation can be reached, except in the context of the overall negotiations. Many other issues are of equal concern to one side or the other—for example, for the Turkish Cypriots, the need to find ways to overcome practical difficulties in the way of implementation of the freedom of movement, settlement and property rights is equally important and pressing.

Hon. Members will agree that we must look forward to the day when harmony prevails again in Cyprus and the tragic division of the republic ends. When that day comes, we shall continue to have the closest possible relations with the island, to our mutual benefit. If that happy outcome is achieved, not a little thanks will be due to the many people in this country who have not lost interest in the future of Cyprus since independence. This is reflected partly by the large Cypriot community in Britain, but in addition there is a long-standing feeling of affection for, and solidarity with, the people of Cyprus. Important strategic and other interests are at stake. Cyprus is an island that perhaps many of us first viewed through the writings of Lawrence Durrell, who painted an affectionate picture of how the underlying bonds between Cypriots and Britain survived even the dark days of war between some groups and the British colonial power. Those bonds will not be broken. The British Government will continue to attach great importance to their Cypriot policy and, in doing so, will have the support of the expertise available on the Back Benches, not least that of my hon. Friend.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the issue of the right of people to access to their medical records. The debate has been occasioned by the recent publication by the Department of Health "Communicating Information to Patients and their Access to their own Manual Health Records". The House will agree that it is an important subject, developments are moving quite fast and therefore it is important to spend some time rehearsing some of the arguments in public to inform and promote the process of consultation now in hand.

Two years ago I sought to create a statutory right of access to medical records when I introduced my private Member's Bill, the Access to Personal Files Bill. That Bill is now an Act, sadly in a greatly reduced form. It provides a right of access to housing and social work records, but medical records are excluded as a result of Government objection to creating a statutory right of access to medical records. At the time, the Government supported the principle of access and would seek to encourage it on a non-statutory basis through discussions with the medical profession, and the draft code of practice on access to records, which the Department published earlier this month, and which is now undergoing consultation, is the result of such discussions.

I welcome the draft code of practice. It is certainly a step in the right direction. However, my welcome is seriously qualified. A voluntary code of practice is a very poor alternative to legislation because it cannot be enforced. It allows doctors who do not like the idea of patients seeing what is said about them—and there are many—to opt out altogether. I fear that that is precisely what will happen on the implementation of the draft code of voluntary practice.

Let me explain why I seek a statutory right of access. I wholeheartedly agree with the preamble to the code which states that, normally, the best way of informing patients about their conditions and treatment is by full discussion. That must be right, sensible and proper. I am sure that, if it is handled well, proper discussion will satisfy most patients most of the time.

Those of us who advocate patient access as a matter of right do not regard it in any way as a substitute for a patient asking his GP questions in the normal way. But I believe that a statutory right of access would supplement that process, and perhaps compensate for some of the potential shortcomings. A statutory right of access would exist for a patient who wanted to be 100 per cent. in the picture, who wanted to know all the details and to understand them, rather than to rely unquestioningly on medical advice. A statutory right would exist when a doctor could not meet a patient's expectations because he might be too busy to spend enough time with a patient, or, alternatively, when a doctor was being over-protective and wrongly shielding a patient who wanted to know the full recorded facts.

I fully accept that some people do not want to know the truth, but in my experience others who do have no access to it at present. A statutory right of access would be available to patients who suspect—sometimes wrongly—that the truth is being withheld and who would be satisfied only by access to the written record. A statutory right of access would exist for people who felt that their conditions were not being taken seriously enough and who wanted to check that their full medical history was being recorded and contained no mistakes. Finally, a statutory right of access would help patients who believed that their treatment had gone wrong in some way and wanted to know what had happened.

For all those reasons, it is important that we allow a statutory right of access to medical records.

As I said earlier, I am pleased that the Government endorse the principle of patient access, but, given that they accept the principle, I find it difficult to understand why they object to a statutory codified form of legislation. I am amazed that we should still be so tentative about legislation. People now have a legal right to see their social work and housing records. We have been promised regulations on access to education records later this year, so why are medical records so different?

There are significant though inconsistent rights to medical records already. As I am sure the Minister knows, if medical records are held on computer, patients have access to them under the Data Protection Act 1984. An increasing number of general practitioners are computerising their surgery records, and those who belong to a practice which has a computer can check the records for accuracy, see the details of any test results and talk to their doctors from a more informed position. All those benefits are denied to those whose records are held on paper in manilla folders. In addition, since this January, patients have had the right, enforceable under law, to see reports which their general practitioner sends to an employer or an insurance company. That right is available to patients under the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988, which I introduced through the private Members' procedure last year. Therefore, precedents already exist for a statutory code of access.

Lest the House is worried about the unfettered nature of the proposal and the problems that may flow from legislation rather than a voluntary code, let me say that the legislation will not mean that access is absolute and completely unrestricted. The order introduced under the Data Protection Act 1984 contains entirely reasonable and proper exemptions and exceptions. For example, a doctor can withhold information which might cause serious harm to the patient. It is right and proper that a doctor should have such a legal let-out. Information about other family members or individuals can also, quite properly, be withheld. Information which identifies someone who has spoken to the doctor in confidence about the patient can also be withheld. A sophisticated framework of exemptions and exceptions already exists.

Legalising access will not mean that important concerns will be overlooked. It will make it clear that doctors cannot refuse access simply because they do not like the idea. The law does not, and should not, give way merely because doctors are accustomed to a paternalistic style of medicine and are not prepared fully to share information. If patients think that that is happening, they may go to court to enforce their rights. That approach was adopted under the Data Protection Act and the Access to Medical Reports Act, and I cannot understand why the Government are backing off here and implicitly endorsing an approach that will allow doctors who do not like the idea to ignore patients' requests for access to their medical records.

I agree that the system will work better if it is embraced by the profession in a positive spirit. The signs are not good that the code of practice will be so embraced. As the Minister knows, and as I said earlier, an agreed code was promised in April 1987 and has taken more than two years merely to see the light of day in draft form. Even now it apparently has only the profession's provisional support. I fear that rather than encouraging compliance in a positive spirit, a voluntary approach will lead to large scale opting out.

I have some specific comments to make on the draft code and should be obliged if the Minister would clarify those points which are still vague. First, as it stands, the draft code proposes to allow access only prospectively to what is recorded after it comes into force. I understand that there are good reasons for that.

The code contains a serious restriction. It seems that, under the draft code, patients will be unable to see everything recorded after the starting date, but will be limited to information about individual consultations or specific episodes of treatment. Someone who suspects that a mistake has been made in the records will be unable to go through them all to find it. Someone with a chronic illness or personal disability will be unable to review what has been written during a certain period, but will be allowed only small peeks at specific parts of their own medical records. Certainly no such restriction exists under the Data Protection Act, and there is no reason why it should possibly be justified here. I would be interested to hear the Minister's justification of it.

Secondly, in the draft code, health professionals are given much wider discretion to withhold information which they believe might harm the patient. As I said earlier, some exemptions and exceptions must be available to the health professionals so that they can protect patients when necessary.

Under both the Data Protection Act and the Access to Medical Records Act, the doctor must believe that there is a risk of serious harm to the patient's health before information can be withheld. The code of practice uses a different formulation. It says that information can be withheld where access would be likely to cause serious risk of harm. That is a simple but important difference. It means that if there is a real risk of minor harm, for example, of upsetting the patient, information can be withheld.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain why the formulation used in previous legislation has been changed in that way because one argument of which the Department convinced me was that there is merit in having consistency throughout both the data protection legislation and the other Acts dealing with access to various personal files.

Thirdly, I notice that the code proposes that access will be permitted to allow patients

"to better inform themselves about their health but for no other purpose".

What does that exclusion mean? Suppose someone is applying for a disability benefit and wants to support his or her case by citing extracts from the medical record. Will that be permitted under the code? Suppose a patient wanted to document a complaint to the Health Service ombudsman, to a family practitioner committee or to the General Medical Council about the way in which he has been dealt with. Are they to be denied access under the specific part of the code that I mentioned earlier? Is the object of the exclusion clause to restrict the access of people who believe that they may have been the victims of a medical accident? If so, again I wonder why. The Minister would help and inform the process of consultation if he could say a word about the background thinking on the exclusion clause.

The Government may think that I am being slightly churlish about this because, of course, a voluntary code is a step in the right direction. It gives the right signals—and I support that—but it does not give very much more than a signal to the medical profession. I know that the Government want to see progress, and I very much appreciated the help that I received from the Department and from the Minister's predecessor in putting the Access to Medical Records Act on the statute book. I understand that that was not an easy thing for the Government to do. However, if the Government accept that the principle of access is correct, the logical conclusion is to make access a right that cannot be avoided without good reason. That would require legislation as a basic framework for enshrining the rights. I believe that those rights will come sooner or later, and I believe that the time to introduce them is now because otherwise these voluntary regulations will merely create a medical backwater that will allow doctors who do not like the idea to resist disclosures in future.

As far as I am concerned, the regulations are now on probation. If the profession does not respond positively, I warn it fairly and squarely that it will face a continuing clamour for statutory action to be taken as a matter of urgency to provide patients with the legal rights to which they are entitled, but which they are currently being denied.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on his success in the ballot and pay tribute to his intitiative in the past in this area and to his sustained interest in this subject, which we all respect.

Although I am a relative newcomer as a Health Minister, I have focused my mind on this subject recently thanks to the hon. Gentleman drawing my attention to it in a meeting that I had with him and other colleagues. It is an important subject and I assure him that I take it seriously, following through the commitments and promises made by my predecessor and other Government colleagues.

Although there has been no automatic right of access to manually stored medical records, the Department has always recognised that it is good practice for health professionals to be as open and informative with their patients as possible.

I fully accept that what we are talking about in this debate are manually stored records and not those on computers, which are already subject to the Data Protection Act 1984, and, indeed, medical reports which are subject to the legislation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I would draw a distinction, as I am sure he would, between medical reports and medical records, by the very nature of the way in which they are prepared. Medical reports are specifically written for external consumption and are entirely different from the kind of medical records about which we are talking, which are very often hand-written and not put on computers. One of the regrets is that in the area of primary care we have not made perhaps the advance that we should have made in providing computer assistance to general practitioners—both the hardware and the software—to store data about patients.

I can confirm that the Department of Health will be taking an initiative in this area to accelerate the wider use of personal computers by general practitioners. Only about 50 per cent. of doctors have access to computers, which I believe can play a valuable role not in storing the complete medical records of patients, but in storing key data—for example, for call and recall systems for screening, for providing a profile that might be useful in setting indicative budgets, and for managing their practices.

While supporting a policy of openness, the Government have not inclined towards the need to legislate to provide access to medical records. Apart from the need to protect those patients who might be susceptible to harm from the information itself, the procedures to provide a statutory right of access, combined with appropriate safeguards to ensure that information about third parties is fully protected, would be complex.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was a little illogical. He welcomed the new draft code of practice, which we are putting out to consultation and which we hope will be adopted and operational from the end of the year, but he also argued that it would not work and that we should move to a statutory system. I believe, because we need the co-operation of doctors, that it would be better to move to a system of voluntary practice and to see how that works. I accept that there may be problems and that the House will return to the problem of individual cases of access. The Government do not rule out legislation for all time. However, we are firmly saying that we want the co-operation of the medical profession and that the best way to proceed at present is by way of a voluntary code.

In recognising those impediments to statutory provision for patients' access to medical records, the Government also acknowledge the view of those representing the interests of patients, including many Members of this House and in another place, that the current arrangements fall short of public aspirations and even greater openness must be achieved, on a voluntary basis if possible. As I have said, many representations have been made that, if that does not work, it must be achieved ultimately by statute. However, we should first try the voluntary code.

Hon. Members may remember that during the passage of the Access to Personal Files Act in 1987, there was not insignificant pressure to include medical records within the provisions of the Act. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), then Minister of State for the Home Department, was able to give a clear undertaking that Health Ministers would enter a dialogue with the profession. At the Committee stage of the Access to Personal Files Bill, he stated:

"If more openness is what hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want, they should know that they are pushing at an open door. The Government and the profession are in favour. Therefore, I am willing to give an undertaking today on behalf of my colleagues with responsibilities for health that they will enter into talks … at an early stage with a view to achieving substantive and timely progress in opening up medical records further on a non-statutory basis."—[0fficial Report, Standing Committee C, 1 April 1987; c. 60.]

I believe that the Department has honoured that undertaking, and has sought the agreement of the medical profession to a statement and code of practice concerning access by patients to their medical records. In the course of discussion, representatives of the profession recognised the need to encourage the profession in good communication with patients. Nevertheless, they conveyed serious reservations about a code giving patients the right to see their records and the dangers if patients were to rely on their own interpretation of doctors' notes rather than on the professional advice of their medical practitioners.

These anxieties were discussed with the profession's representatives in March 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry, then Minister of State for Health, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. My hon. Friends noted the points made by the profession and advised that its proposals for giving more information without conceding access to the records would be unlikely to satisfy public expectations or parliamentary demands. The Department of Health then accepted the profession's suggestion that discussions should continue further.

I can assure the House that, in continuing the discussions, we were and are mindful that positive progress must be made. For that reason, in my contribution to the debate on the Access to Personal Files (Social Services) Regulations 1989 on 7 February this year, I advised the House that discussions on a voluntary code of practice on access to medical records were proceeding and that, although agreement had not yet then been reached, substantive progress had been made.

As the hon. Gentleman knows—he intervened in that debate—I gave an assurance that, if progress could not be made in negotiations at the official level, I would personally intervene. That intervention was not necessary, because, I am glad to say, with the willing co-operation of the medical profession, we produced a draft code, and it has been placed in the Library of the House.

I announced also the Department's proposals to consult over a three-month period with interested parties. It is important that, having accepted the principle of access to patients' manual records, such access should not be confined solely to medical records compiled by doctors, but should encompass records compiled by other health professionals about their patients. We are talking about more than general practitioners. The code of practice will therefore refer to manual health records, and consultation will be extended to representative bodies of health professionals other than doctors. The hon. Gentleman has probably seen in the annex to the draft code a list of the health professionals as defined. It includes registered medical practitioners, registered dentists, registered opticians, registered pharmaceutical chemists, registered nurses, midwives, health visitors and so on. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would welcome that.

The draft code of practice is a commendable compromise between what I believe most hon. Members would like to be achieved in removing obstacles to patients having access to information recorded about them and the legitimate concerns by some of the medical profession's representatives for the implications of such a code for patient care.

I will now deal with the hon. Gentleman's four specific questions about the code of practice. It is a relatively brief document, which is out for consultation at the moment. The principle behind it is that it is the health professional's duty to inform patients about their condition.

Of course.

The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course." That will happen in most cases. It is a sensible way in which to proceed. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the minority of cases in which that does not happen.

The code provides also that health professionals may judge that, normally, the most helpful way of informing patients about their condition and treatment and meeting their expectations is by full discussion. Health professionals may consider it necessary to show patients the information that is recorded about them. The hon. Gentleman and I would hope that that will happen in appropriate circumstances. However, the code states that those who remain dissatisfied must be allowed to see information recorded about them.

The hon. Gentleman's first question was about why that is prospective and not retrospective. General practitioners' manual records will be voluminous, extensive, make references to third parties, and may make unflattering remarks about a patients' lifestyle and whether advice has been taken. It is fair and sensible to operate the code of practice prospectively from the date on which it comes into force, which I hope to be by the end of the year. Then, the medical profession, whose co-operation we need on this subject, will be on proper notice that the information that they record at each consultation, after each diagnosis and after each hospital visit will be open to inspection. I believe that that is the fair, practical and proper way to proceed.

If the patient asks for access to his records his request must he in writing. The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire asked why there was not wider right of access not just to episodes in the patient's clinical history, but to information relating to a number of years. He wanted to know why a patient could not go to his doctor and say, "I want to see my medical records for the years when I lived in place X, spanning years Y and those covering a specific series of ailments from which I suffered". We require the co-operation of the medical profession and, therefore, we must put ourselves in the position of the GP. He is a busy man and under the new GP contract—

He will be even busier.

No, he will not be even busier. That will not be the result of the new contract that we have negotiated or the changes that will be introduced in two years' time as a result of the White Paper.

We appreciate that doctors seek to do their best for their patients in terms of health promotion and care. They are, and always have been, busy people. Therefore, I believe that it is reasonable and sensible that patients' requests for access to their records should be specific and should be in writing. Doctors, their secretaries and the practice managers do not have the time to search through a whole range of material to provide a precis or a photocopy of it. Initially requests should be episodic and specific—they should relate to a particular ailment at a particular time.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that computer records are specific and they are normally presented in a clear chronological, sometimes abbreviated, format. It is much easier to gain access to computer data than manual records which might not be organised in a coherent or even a legible manner.

A health professional responding to a request for access may, at his or her discretion, let patients see what was recorded about them prior to the code of conduct coming into operation. That is permissive.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that access may be modified by witholding such part or parts of information as would, in the judgment of the health professional responding to a request, be likely to cause serious risk of harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or another person. The hon. Gentleman asked why we specify "risk of harm" as opposed to simply "harm". I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. When I read the draft code of practice I did not appreciate the difference between its language and precise legislative language. During the consultation procedure I shall inquire as to whether any significance is implied by the langage used. I am not aware of any significant difference, but the hon. Gentleman's remarks are on the record and they will serve as part of the process of consultation.

Access should also be modified by withholding such part or parts of the information as would identify another individual, other than a health professional acting in that capacity. I did not catch all the hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I assume that the hon. Gentleman was concerned about that modification. The exclusion clause is designed to protect another individual, a third party, other than a health professional, to whom reference might be made. It might be a member of the family, an employee or an employer. It is sensible that a patient demanding in writing access to information about a particular episode in his care, should not have the right to obtain information written by his or her doctor about another individual. That is sensible, equitable and fair.

Initial reaction to the draft code indicated a broad level of contentment with the proposals from some non-medical and patient interest groups. However, some have also registered reservations, like those which have been raised today. We intend the consultation exercise to be meaningful and my officials will consider most carefully any comments that are received. The medical profession will be advised directly about the outcome of the consultation exercise which I hope will be completed shortly and enable the code to be introduced before the end of this calendar year.

The Eastbourne Water Company is one of the 29 statutory companies which provide fresh water to almost a quarter of the people in England and Wales. One hundred and thirty years ago, when Eastbourne Water was incorporated by Act of Parliament, it had 5,000 customers. Today, the company serves nearly 220,000 domestic customers as well as industry for the whole of my constituency and for parts of the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). They have authorised me to say that I speak for them as for myself this afternoon.

In January this year, the Eastbourne Water Company increased its charges by 19·5 per cent. In February it was taken over by a French company called SAUR. In April, now French-owned, it put up its charges by a further 15·8 per cent. amounting to an increase over 15 months of 38·4 per cent. Quite rightly, those increases have caused dismay to my hon. Friends, to me and to our constituents. That was the second highest increase in the kingdom. Only the West Kent company, with a 42 per cent. increase, has a more shameful record. West Kent, like Eastbourne, has recently been acquired by SAUR.

In his statement of 27 February 1989 published in the annual report of the Eastbourne Water Company, the then chairman said:

"At least half of the January increase of 19·5 per cent. could be attributed to the Government's policy of privatisation."

On 3 May, my three hon. Friends and I had a meeting with some of the directors of the company. The meeting took place in a Committee Room. It would have been a fascinating experience for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, had you been able to join us. We listened with disbelief as the managing director of the company told us in the presence of one of the newly appointed French directors that no other member of the board agreed with the chairman's statement or with the chairman's refusal to accept the invitation from my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning to meet him in London. It was clear to me and my hon. Friends that the board, in their failure to stand up to the chairman, was composed of mice rather than men.

It was clear that the prospective privatisation of the water industry, bearing in mind in particular that the Eastbourne Water Company was already in the private sector, could have had nothing to do with the increase in the charges announced with effect from 1 January. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister wrote to me on 15 March stating:

"The increase he is proposing"—

the increase of 19·5 per cent. —

"cannot be justified by privatisation or anything to do with it."

I am pleased to say that the new chairman, in a letter to the Minister dated 15 May, a copy of which he was kind enough to send to me, has offered to meet my hon. and learned Friend. I welcome that warmly. What I do not welcome is the decision of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs not to refer these price increases to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I wrote to my noble Friend Lord Young on 6 April. On 19 April he replied:

"You requested that the matter of the water charges increases should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Your request has received the most serious consideration but we do not propose to make such a reference. I understand the concern of your constituents, faced with a price rise of this order."

My noble Friend continued:

"The new pricing regime for the water industry introduced in the Water Bill does provide for the regulation of price increases. While these prohibitions will not have any retrospective effect, I understand that appropriate adjustments will be made to the price ceiling set initially by the Secretary of State where the price for this year cannot be justified."

I pause there to ask the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) whether he can reassure my three hon. Friends, me and our constituents that if, when my right hon. Friend reviews the charges that the Eastbourne Water Company will seek to levy with effect from 1 April 1990, he considers that the charges for this year are unreasonable he will require the Eastbourne Water Company to abate the charges for the next financial year. That is what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. I want to receive an identical assurance from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East who is to reply to the debate.

Another aspect of my concern is the decision of my right hon. Friend, announced on 11 January, that there could be a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission only if the assets of a privately owned water company exceeded £30 million. I have before me the Official Report for 11 January. In answer to a question from me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said that

"at present three water companies are controlled by non-British companies."—[Official Report, 11 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 847.]

Since 11 January the position has changed dramatically. There are now 12, or perhaps even more water companies that are controlled by non-British companies. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us how many are controlled by those companies. In answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 10 April my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning told the House that 12 of the statutory companies—that is getting on for half—were owned at that date by the French.

My right hon. Friend should reduce the figure of £30 million to £20 million. The asset value of the Eastbourne Water Company is approximately £20 million. It should have been possible for my right hon. Friend to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed takeover of that company by the French company SAUR, which now owns four of our statutory water companies—Eastbourne, Mid Southern, Mid Sussex and West Kent; West Kent being the company which had the largest increase in the whole of the United Kingdom, and Eastbourne being the company which had the second largest increase in the whole of the United Kingdom.

One aspect of the takeover has caused me concern. I have sent the Minister a copy of page 36 of the offer document that was sent out before acquisition of the Eastbourne Water Company by SAUR. There we read:

"Eastbourne Water employees' share club was established in 1987 to facilitate the acquisition of ordinary stock by Eastbourne's employees."

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am strongly in favour of extending the opportunities for home ownership. I believe deeply in the concept of worker shareholders. I approve of the policy whereby those who are employed by the Eastbourne Water Company or by other companies within and without my constituency, have an opportunity to become shareholders. I have always believed that, and I believe it strongly today.

What worries me is that, at the time of the takeover, there was an acquisition not by those whom one might think were employees but by the then managing director who is presently the chairman, of the company. I wrote on 17 May to the chairman, Mr. Hoskins, and this is the question I put to him:

"Am I correct in concluding from page 36 of the recommended offer that in March and April last year you bought for £8,000 ordinary stock from the Eastbourne Water employees' share club and that subsequently you sold that ordinary stock for £240,000?"

I sent copies of the letter to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning and to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with both of whom I have been in correspondence about the Eastbourne Water Company for many months.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has already referred to me and our hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), and we wholeheartedly support his vigorous representations on behalf of Eastbourne Water's customers.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reprehensible that, at the meeting on 3 May here in the Palace of Westminster, the managing director of Eastbourne Water told us that he was unable to contain this year's price increases, that he had been unable to persuade the late chairman to meet our hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning that he had been unable to prevent the late chairman from writing a chairman's statement for the annual report which was highly critical of Government policy and that he was unable to declare to us that he had bought and sold shares within a very short period of time? What are his customers to make of that? They have been saddled with a price increase of 38·4 per cent. I believe that they will discover that the new chairman, until recently the managing director, has dealt quickly in and out of the shares at a very considerable profit. Presumably he has no faith in the new controlling shareholders because he decided not to stay for the ride with his equity investment. What are customers to make of that?

The questions posed by my hon. Friend will be asked by some of the customers of Eastbourne Water Company.

My concern is that it was from a club, whose purpose was to offer opportunities for employees to become shareholders, that in March and April last year the then managing director bought the shares—£8,000 worth nominal of ordinary stock for which he paid £8,000—which he sold for £240,000 well under a year later.

Should there have been an opportunity for other employees to acquire shares? That is a matter about which I have already written to my hon. Friend the Minister. I have already read out to the House part of my letter dated 17 May and I want to read the reply dated 23 May, from the present chairman. It says:

"The figures in the offer document you quoted and your conclusions therefrom are correct."

I asked for a copy of the trust deed which set up the club, but no copy has been forthcoming. The chairman wrote to me saying:

"The share club was set up at short notice."

We are told in the offer document that it was set up in 1987. He went on to say that it was set up

"along the lines of an existing club in another water company. I am informed that the declaration of trust was still at the stage of a draft prepared by counsel for the trustees at the time the bid was made."

If the club was set up in 1987 and the bid was made in 1989, it took a long time to draft the document.

The letter went on:

"The next meeting of the trustees is expected to be an annual general meeting at which it is most likely a resolution will be proposed to wind up the club."

I have asked for a copy of the rules of the club and when I receive them, I shall send them to my hon. Friend the Minister.

When I arrived at the Department of the Environment in June 1985 I did not realise that, in addition to being the Minister responsible for housing, I would also be responsible for water. Since that time—I spent nearly two and a half years in my hon. Friend the Minister's office—I have retained a deep and concerned interest in the well-being of the water industry. Over the 15 years in which I have had the privilege to represent Eastbourne I have had a happy relationship with Eastbourne Water Company. It is a matter of deep regret that since January this year the trust that I used to have in the company has been eroded.

It is with some trepidation that I rise to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) for today he is sporting his MCC tie. He has bowled a consistently difficult and tight line to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry as well as my Department. I congratulate him and the England team on their winning streak. I shall try to keep the Government's wicket standing to the best of my ability.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has dwelt in some detail on the increase in the charges imposed this year by Eastbourne Water Company and the circumstances of the takeover of that company. I shall discuss the increase in charges imposed this year by water companies in general and Eastbourne in particular. My hon. Friend asked whether the two price increases by the company earlier this year—20 per cent. from 1 January 1989 and a further 15·8 per cent. from 1 April—should have been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Two forms of reference can be made in such cases: first, a reference under section 11 of the Competition Act 1980 but that covers efficiency, not prices; and, secondly a reference under section 51 of the Fair Trading Act 1973, which normally takes much time. Any recommendation would not have been retrospective and could not have been implemented before the operation of price control under the Water Bill. We did not rule out the possibility of reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but we believed that it was in everyone's interests for the issue to be sorted out as quickly as possible, and we sought to do so by voluntary means.

I should explain why Eastbourne Water Company was granted powers in December 1988 to fix a rate poundage for a three-month period, with the effect that consumers had two charge increases within a short time. As one of the 29 private water companies, Eastbourne is subject to statutory controls on many of its financial limits, which include controls on the amount of capital that it may hold, its rates of dividend and interest and the amount that it can put in reserves. They constitute an indirect control on charge increases because income that is surplus to the authorised limits must be used to reduce charges. At present, there is no direct control on the level of charges. The restrictions meant that Eastbourne could not move to a charging year beginning on 1 April without first obtaining the consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

There were sound reasons in favour of such a move, including the desirability of bringing the company's charging year into line with the majority of companies under the new regime of direct controls on charges. The Secretary of State gave his consent last December for the company to levy a three-month rate for this purpose. It raised a three-month rate from January 1989 and a 12-month rate from April. Due to the nature of the current controls, the maximum amount that the company could raise for the 15-month period from January 1989 to March 1990 was fixed. The company was unable, therefore, to raise additional money from customers by setting two rates for the period.

On 5 February, the Water Companies Association announced in a press release that its members were likely to raise their charges by 30 per cent. or more. In some quarters, increases as high as 50 per cent. or more were anticipated. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning wrote on 7 February to each water company chairman, inviting those proposing increases of more than 10 per cent. to see him and to make the relevant financal information available to his consultants, Deloitte Haskins and Sells. Most of the chairmen responded to that invitation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has made clear, Eastbourne's chairman's response was different from that of the other chairmen.

My hon. and learned Friend was able to report the results of the discussions that he held to the House on 14 March in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel). At that time, the average increase in all water company charges was estimated to be about 22 per cent. A later estimate of 23 per cent., based on more complete information, was given in a letter to my hon. Friend. I should emphasise that both figures related to the generality of water company charges, not those faced by domestic consumers paying on a rateable value basis—commonly called the water rate. The latter figures are being collated and will be reported to the House in due course.

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning has, on several occasions, made clear his anxiety about the scale of increases. He was able to report to the House on 14 March that, as a result of his discussions with chairmen, the average increase in charges had been reduced by 5 per cent., which is equivalent to £16 million in water charges. His consultants' investigations were carried out with the full and voluntary co-operation of each company. Not all the companies accepted the report that the consultants made to the Department of the Environment. Water companies are independent statutory companies and, provided the charges that they propose are within their vires, the final decision lies with the board of each company. My hon. and learned Friend is unable to agree or disagree with companies' charges under the present legislation.

The Water Bill provides for a price control to be set, in the first instance by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and subsequently by the Director General of Water Services. In setting that control, account must be taken of the spending needs of each appointed undertaker, whether they are statutory water companies or successor companies to the water authorities, which we intend to privatise later this year. Those spending needs over the next 10 years or so are the subject of a far more detailed scrutiny than the exercise earlier this year, to which I have referred.

Each undertaker is required to submit detailed financial projections, supported by engineering studies, to show what is needed to enable undertakers to meet the standards of service that the law requires and the companies expect. I said, "what is needed"—the price control will take account only of what an efficient company needs to spend and will incorporate targets for efficiency savings which will take account of differences in achievements.

With regard to Eastbourne's charges, the company co-operated in the review of this year's increases and in providing information on its future spending needs to enable the price control to be set. However, the late chairman of that company fiercely maintained his independence under the existing statutes and declined all offers to meet my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Water and Planning to discuss the increases. I regret that, but I must remind the House that he was perfectly within his rights so to do.

As to the consultants' report, the company has informed its consumers that Deloitte, Haskins and Sells has agreed that the operating costs in its budgets were reasonable. Without going into the detail of that report, which must remain confidential to the company and the Government, I can say only that the company's statement is correct. That does not mean that every aspect of this year's increase by Eastbourne, or by any other company, was fully justified. I can reassure the House, as my hon. and learned Friend has already done, that before the price control is set, a much more searching financial and engineering scrutiny will be carried out. That work began several months ago and has yet to be completed, whereas the investigation into this year's increases was undertaken in days. Every undertaker will be examined with equal vigour, irrespective of the size of this year's increases.

To respond specifically to the first of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, if, when setting K with effect from 1 April 1990 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State considers charges for this year to be unreasonably high—for example, for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend—charges could be abated. That is certainly a possibility and an important consideration for my right hon. Friend. To be precise, Eastbourne's charges in 1990 will not necessarily be lower if its current charges are too high, but the K charges ceiling would be lower in that circumstance.

The possibility of insider dealing in relation to the securities of the Eastbourne water company was brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend some time ago. The information then available was not considered to be sufficient on which to base a decision whether to investigate under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986. Accordingly, as is the practice in such circumstances, officials asked the stock exchange to make some preliminary inquiries. I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) that such matters are treated seriously, but I cannot undertake to reveal whether any further investigation is being or is to be made. That is because, in the interests of efficiency and justice, our policy is that investigations of possible insider dealing should normally be kept confidential. However, I believe, on hearing my hon. Friends' contributions, that it is important that their contributions to the debate on this specific point are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I will ensure that that is done.

On the merger policy and Eastbourne, it is often remarked, and is certainly not disputed by the Government, that the supply of water and sewerage services is a local monopoly and that the incentives of product competition, which usually work to improve efficiency and standards of service to the customer, cannot apply to privatised water companies.

Under our proposals in the Water Bill it will be for the Director-General of Water Services to monitor and protect the standard of services to customers and to ensure that essential infrastructure is maintained, and, bearing in mind the relative performance of companies in the industry to make periodic reviews of the K settings. If the director-general is to have a proper spread of comparative competition, there clearly needs to be an adequate number of independently owned and managed companies in the industry. Our special mergers policy is designed to safeguard that comparative competition. The £30 million asset test applies in existing merger legislation and, applied to the water industry, I am confident that it will ensure that there is an adequate number of companies for comparison. There is no merit in protecting every single company so that the entire structure is preserved like a prehistoric mammoth trapped in ice. That would simply remove the incentive to better management performance that private sector disciplines, including the possibility of takeover, will bring.

I hope that in a very brief response I have managed to cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friends. I am most grateful to them for bringing these issues to the attention of the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, who is just approaching the Dispatch Box, is making quite a name for herself. I have just returned from having another look at the Roman baths at Huggin hill about which she was able to make a halfway decent announcement. The Roman baths are to be preserved, but unfortunately we will not have access to them. She has also done some good work in regard to the Rose theatre. While she is catching her breath, I should tell her that I have a few other campaigns that she might care to join me in pursuing—the preservation of county hall, the restoration of city-wide local government in London—if she sticks with me I shall make her famous.

Today, the Minister has the chance to cover herself in more glory by taking the political initiative to help to save the African elephant by imposing an immediate ban on all raw and worked ivory being imported into the United Kingdom. The plight of the African elephant is one of impending catastrophe. I have been campaigning on the matter for the past five years, and during that time perhaps as many as 500,000 elephants have been slaughtered in Africa.

I am grateful for the recent upsurge of public and political concern, and I should like to place on record the thanks of the entire House to the television companies, newspapers and organisations which have helped to generate the great tide of feeling which is sweeping across Europe in defence of those beautiful and gentle creatures, the elephants. The Worldwide Fund for Nature recently announced that it received about 20,000 letters and calls in one week in support of a ban and in protest against the slaughter of elephants.

The centre of the problem is the massacre of those beautiful creatures for their ivory. The truly criminal element is the illegal slaughter, but the legal culling is little better. In 1970 it was estimated that there were about 2·3 million elephants in Africa. In 1979 the number had dropped to about 1·3 million—the figures are very approximate. Today it is estimated that about 750,000 elephants remain in Africa, but a reply I received recently from the Minister for Overseas Development suggested that some estimates are as low as between 300,000 and 400,000. No one knows the exact number, but it is certain that the elephant is under threat. At the present rate of slaughter, which is running at an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 a year, by the year 2000 the African elephant will be all but extinct.

The methods used by poachers to obtain ivory turns even the strongest stomach. They use machine guns, rockets, mortars and poison to kill the animals and then they use chainsaws to cut off their heads. Sometimes elephants are mortally wounded but not yet dead. When I was in Washington recently, the international organisation Monitor told me about an incident that took place 11 years ago which is typical of what happened in the past. Thousands of elephants died in just one area of Zaire in 1978 after being poisoned. The mass killing took place in a vast forest west of Kisengani, in north-east Zaire. While the death toll was staggering for the elephants, it was virtually complete for all other animals over hundreds of square miles. The mass poisoning occurred in April and May of 1978.

According to a source in Kisengani, corrupt Government officials diverted 20 metric tons of pesticide that was to have been used for spraying the coffee plantations in the province. The highly toxic poison was delivered to gangs of poachers who went into the thick forests where large numbers of elephants still roamed. The pesticide was poured into the waterholes in the marshy areas where the elephants come to drink. Within days thousands of elephants were poisoned. It took up to a week for them to die. The sickened beasts staggered through the forest in agony. The poachers eager to get the ivory first frequently hastened death by running up to the weakened elephants from the rear and disembowelling them with machetes.

Witnesses say that hundreds of tusks poured into the town of Ngazi, which is at the end of the road from Kisengani. Each week during the poisoning massacre this was happening. Many of the tusks were just eight inches long, indicating that baby elephants died in large numbers. Nobody knows how many elephants died in those two months because many, if not most, probably died deep in the forest and were never found. That still goes on, but there are fewer elephants to persecute in such a way.

There are corrupt Governments and officials in Africa who have made millions out of the illegal ivory trade. African wars are in part, still being financed by the trade in elephant ivory, rhinoceros horns and other endangered species. Terrorist organisations, such as UNITA in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique, are openly slaughtering elephants and processing the ivory through South Africa, Swaziland and other African countries. Dr. Jonas Savimbi, the leader of UNITA presented to President P. W. Botha an exact replica of an AK47 assault rifle, intricately carved in ivory—how obscene, but how typical since so many elephants had been killed by UNITA terrorists using AK47 rifles.

I welcome the Government's announcement of their intention to go for a ban on new ivory, first at the EC Environment Ministers meeting on 8 June in Luxembourg, and in October at the meeting of the convention on international trade in endangered species CITES, the so-called regulatory body on trade in ivory. However, that may be too little too late.

The laxity in applying existing CITES regulations to new ivory makes such a ban, if we are able to achieve it, close to unenforceable. Even if we achieve an agreement at CITES in October, the ban will not come into force until mid-January 1990. Dealers will stockpile, and at the present rate of slaughter another 40,000 to 50,000 elephants will die and there will be an enormous upsurge in poaching. We need a ban on all ivory, and we need it now.

The Government are wonderfully placed to give a lead to the world because Britain is crucial to the ivory trade. First, we are a major staging post in world ivory trade, including that which is traded illegally. The Department of the Environment, in consultation with CITES, has given retrospective clearance to ivory arriving in this country without valid documentation. There are cargoes at Heathrow and Gatwick airports which I claim on good authority began as illegal ivory. I am not satisfied that the Minister is being given the best and most impartial advice by CITES or her own departmental officials. I shall return to that theme on another occasion.

The Minister says that her Department checks on all ivory, but much of the so-called legal ivory starts off as illegal ivory. It is laundered through corrupt African Governments and officials. The way in which statistics on ivory are kept in this country is wholly unsatisfactory. I have just received a reply from the Department of Trade and Industry. I asked how much raw ivory, by weight and value, had gone through this country since 1979. The DTI's answer was:

"In 1988, imports of raw ivory were recorded as 12·1 metric tonnes. Information prior to 1988 is not available."

However, when I asked the DTI what was happening in Hong Kong, it was able to give me a run of figures back to 1984. How come I can get figures about what goes on in Hong Kong, but not about the trade in ivory in this country? Something must be done about that.

The figures which have emerged from Hong Kong show that Hong Kong has been importing raw ivory from a range of countries. I shall not give them all, but I notice that Somalia and the Ivory Coast are included. Yet in the reply to another question I also noticed that Somalia and the Ivory Coast appear among the 19 African countries where the EEC considers that the elephant population is incapable of sustaining commercial exploitation. How come? If we are told by the EEC that those countries do not have elephant populations sufficient to sustain trade in ivory, how come Hong Kong, for which we are responsible, is still accepting ivory into its shores?

The position of Hong Kong is absolutely crucial in all this because Hong Kong deals in more ivory than probably any other country, with perhaps between 50 and 75 per cent. of world trade. Indeed, 95 per cent. of the ivory entering Hong Kong is raw and comes from Japan, China, Taiwan and India among other places. If the ivory is carved, it goes to Japan, the United States of America and the EEC countries. Therefore, Hong Kong, with which we have close links, is very much at the centre. Belgian and French dealers are active in Hong Kong and a lot of ivory now comes from Francophone Africa, which is emerging as a major supplier. We in this country and therefore in this House have jurisdiction over Hong Kong until 1997. We must close down the ivory trade in Hong Kong.

One of the great obstacles that the Minister will face in attempting to secure an appendix I listing of the African elephant by CITES in October will be if any of the major trading countries enters a reservation. I want an assurance from the Minister that the United Kingdom will not on behalf of Hong Kong, enter a reservation. If we can get Hong Kong into line, we might just get the Japanese to follow suit. On this occasion, words fail me when I try to describe the Japanese role not only in the ivory trade but also in relation to whales. That country is venal. The British public should boycott Japanese goods until the Japanese stop decimating the world's animal resources in their typically wasteful and selfish manner.

I repeat my demands about the African elephants on behalf of all hon. Members and a growing tide of public opinion in this country and around the world. First, we should have a total and immediate ban on all trade in raw and worked ivory in the United Kingdom as a prelude to a worldwide ban. Secondly, there should be a similar and immediate ban in Hong Kong.

Thirdly, there must be an investigation into the money received by CITES from ivory dealers and an investigation into the activities of CITES and into the Minister's own Department, the Department of the Environment, in inviting retrospective clearance to cargoes of illegal ivory in the United Kingdom. If the international regulatory body CITES, is receiving money from ivory dealers, the impartiality and objectivity of that body must obviously be questioned. I want the Minister to look into that carefully.

Fourthly, we need a programme of assistance to those African countries such as Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Mozambique which are desperately trying, against overwhelming odds in certain cases because of the activities of poachers, to protect their remaining elephant herds.

Obviously it is not the Minister's responsibility. She is responsible for the Department of the Environment, but she can talk to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office, and especially in the Ministry of Overseas Development, to ensure that those countries that request our assistance are given it. They need helicopters and Land-Rovers. I do not see why they cannot have British troops if they so request them. I should be quite happy to see the Special Air Service become involved in tracking down poachers. That would be a useful line of activity for it to engage in. It would certainly gain the support of the Opposition.

We in this country have done too little for too long to protect African elephants, but we cannot do too much now if we are to save the elephants from extinction. I do not normally make claims such as this because Members of Parliament who say, "I speak on behalf of the people of this country" are usually pompous fools, but on this occasion I cannot have that accusation levelled against me because the people of this country would welcome a dramatic political initiative from Her Majesty's Government. Opposition Members would certainly welcome it, and I am sure that Conservative Members would do so, too. The African elephant desperately needs it. It would be a crime against the world if the African elephant was slaughtered out of existence. I urge the Minister and the Government to act now.

I am sorry that I missed part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). As usual, he was a little ahead of me. I want to endorse and fully support everything that he has said. It is awful that we, as a wealthy country in the west, along with others, have for too long allowed the importation of ivory when we know full well that it has come from smugglers and the illegal killing of elephants. The importation of ivory through Hong Kong is also a serious problem.

I hope that when the Minister replies she will be very robust in defence of the world's wildlife and will give us a commitment that the Government will do all that they can—including providing the money, and the resources, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West, to those countries which are striving to uphold the elephant population and to preserve that wildlife. I hope that the Minister will show the people in this country that there is something quite awful about the fact that, despite the alleged progress in the world. every day a species dies out—every day a plant species is eradicated for ever. Yet we call a growth in civilisation the promotion of higher living standards. We need to understand that we cannot continue destroying one species after another at the present rate and expect to carry on living ourselves.

I believe that the understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and others have shown for the African elephant is an example of the growing understanding that we must work with the world's natural systems and ecosystems rather than destroying and working against them, as the evil poachers and illegal dealers in the ivory trade are doing. What my hon. Friend has said has the overwhelming support of the people of this country and, indeed, of people from all over the world. For many the plight of the African elephant has become a symbol of the plight of the world's wildlife in the same way as the panda was the symbol of the World Wildlife Fund when it was established 30 years ago.

Frankly, we are all agreed that the plight of the African elephant is extremely serious and that it is a creature that we all hold most dear. I was trying to identify what it is about the elephant that is so loveable, so endearing and makes us all respond so warmly and strongly to the present situation. I was reading the other day that it is

"their grandeur, their gentleness, their intelligence, even their humour."

It was said that there is a strange affinity between the life cycle of the elephant

"their family affection and loyalties, their mutual aid, even the respect they show to their dead closely resemble the better aspects of human behaviour."

It appears to lack the more unacceptable aspects of human behaviour, but shares many of the more acceptable ones.

I especially endorse the remarks about the Worldwide Fund for Nature. It is a privilege to have the headquarters of that organisation in my constituency. I have worked closely with it on a number of subjects. I especially pay tribute to its work in protecting the African elephant. It has worked over the years with the European Community and, indeed, in partnership with the Overseas Development Administration, on a number of practical subjects, which, as the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) rightly said, is part of the secret of protecting the species. I want especially to pay tribute to David Shepherd, the wildlife artist and author, who has worked on behalf of the African elephant. He has specialist knowledge and he has made an evocative and powerful case on its behalf.

In recent weeks and months the hon. Member for Newham, North-West has raised a number of topics on which I hope I have been able to offer some encouragement and assistance on behalf of the Government. There is no doubt that in the area of animal welfare and the protection of wildlife the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing reputation of identifying areas that need particular attention.

We are all united in our concern about the plight of the African elephant. We are fully committed to the protection of all endangered species and have demonstrated that commitment through our active participation in the implementation of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES.

We were one of the original signatories to the convention in 1973. It entered into force in July 1975 and since that time the United Kingdom has played its part in strengthening CITES controls, bringing more species under its protection and encouraging other countries to accede to it.

For example, at the 6th conference of the parties to CITES in 1987, the United Kingdom was successful in securing the conference's agreement to the inclusion, under CITES, of 20 species of bustards, nine species of butterfly, and the medicinal leech. I am pleased to say that another species of butterfly was transferred from appendix II to appendix I. Over 400 species of flora and fauna are listed in appendix I alone, including the Indian elephant, several species of dolphin, the rhinoceros, the alligator, and orchid.

We have fulfilled our role by attendance at the biennial conference of the parties, the meetings of the standing committee and the important African elephant working group, which was set up to consider ways in which to improve the protection of this species. The next meeting of the group will take place in Botswana in July.

Within the European Community we attend the regular EC CITES committee meetings, and we played a key part in initiating a review of the implementation of the EC regulations, which apply CITES throughout the Community. In the light of that review, the regulations will be revised to clarify and tighten existing controls.

We work in close co-operation, of course, with our scientific advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council and the royal botanic gardens at Kew. Both organisations have justly deserved reputations in the conservation world, and we frequently call on their expertise. We have regular meetings with them, usually prior to EC meetings. Our scientific advisers attend the EC CITES scientific working group, which advises the EC CITES committee on the scientific aspects of its work.

The Government have become increasingly concerned about the reported decline in the number of African elephants, and it is important to view it within the working of CITES. As the hon. Gentleman said, figures are notoriously difficult to rely on, but it seems that there are fewer than 700,000 African elephants remaining, and many estimates are between 300,000 and 400,000. We have been actively involved in promoting the survival of the African elephant, through strengthening controls on imports and exports of ivory and through aid to those African producer countries seeking to protect their elephant populations. The African elephant has been listed on appendix II of the convention since 1977. Under the terms of the convention, trade in ivory may take place only if certain strict criteria are met.

rose—

I will not give way. I have little time left. The hon. Gentleman has already spoken, and I should like to deal properly with the subject.

In 1985, CITES parties recognised the increasing threat to the African elephant, and the United Kingdom was instrumental in introducing stricter controls on trade in ivory. They included the quota system and the establishment of the Ivory Trade Monitoring Unit, which is based in Lausanne at the CITES secretariat and to which the United Kingdom annually contributes £5,000. Under the system, most producer countries set quotas agreed by CITES for the export of raw ivory. The ivory is appropriately marked, and exports beyond the quota or of unmarked raw ivory have to be checked with the secretariat in Lausanne to ensure that the export is within the agreed quota and that the documentation is in order.

We in Europe, however, considered that that was not enough. The EC CITES regulations set a higher standard of protection than that of the convention for many species, including the African elephant. For example, the convention requires import permits only in the case of appendix I species; under the EC regulations, import documents are required for all species covered by the CITES appendices. The EC regulations also prohibit several commercial activities, such as sale, in respect of the most endangered species. For the African elephant and certain other species, import permits may be issued only when the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species or on the population of the species in the country of origin.

In May 1988, the Community agreed to ban the commercial import of ivory from 18 African countries, and it has recently increased it to 19. We have also supported an additional tightening of controls with the Community.

Despite those extra controls, we are conscious of concern about their effectiveness. We are, for example, aware of concern—also expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West—about the control of the ivory trade in Hong Kong. In most matters the Hong Kong Government exercise a high degree of autonomy. That includes trade in endangered species, and they apply CITES controls through their own specific legislation. In view of the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, we are understandably keen to encourage this autonomy. We have been in touch with the Hong Kong authorities about the Government's decision to support a ban on trade in new ivory and the reasons for it. The Hong Kong Government have informed us that they are considering their own position on the issue.

Hong Kong has strictly adhered to all of the conservation and enforcement measures called for by CITES and recently has strengthened its controls on the import of worked ivory. The only ivory which may legally be imported into Hong Kong at present is that which comes from a CITES-approved source and is subject to the issue of a licence.

If it is a matter of entering a reservation to CITES at the meeting in October, can Hong Kong enter a reservation on its own or are we the signatories on behalf of Hong Kong to CITES? Therefore, should any such reservation be entered through us?

I understand that we are the parties to CITES. We have had discussions with Hong Kong and I can tell the hon. Gentleman of many of the steps taken by the Government to tighten their control over the ivory trade. I understand that in Hong Kong all applications are handled with extreme care to ensure that only legal ivory is exported or imported. On arrival, shipments are physically checked by staff of the Agriculture and Fisheries Department to ensure that they are accompanied by the necessary CITES documents. The ivory itself is inspected to ensure that it matches with the numbers, weight and markings. In any case of doubt, the consignment is detained pending investigation or clarification with the CITES secretariat.

We have also made representations to the Government of the United Arab Emirates, to encourage them to tighten controls on the ivory trade which passes through their country.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West has criticised the licensing system in the United Kingdom, particularly in respect of two recent cases concerning ivory. It is not possible to go into the full detail of the cases because such matters are dealt with confidentially, but I assure the House that we strictly implement all CITES controls and those of EC regulation 3626/82. We do not allow the import or export of raw ivory which has not first been approved by the CITES secretariat. The Department of the Environment, acting as the managing authority under CITES, takes these obligations extremely seriously and exercises them rigorously. It applies great care to each case.

When the consignment to which the hon. Gentleman referred arrived in this country, we were concerned because the documentation and the markings on the tusks did not accord with the requirement of the ivory trade control unit. We consulted the unit which in turn consulted the management authority of Zaire. We were advised that the ivory was legal and we were given revised tusk numbers. An official of the Zairean embassy re-marked the tusks, observed, I hasten to add, by representatives of the Customs and Excise and of the Department of the Environment. The official working on behalf of the Department of the Environment behaved with absolute propriety and with great care throughout the proceedings.

What about the Zairean Government?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to comment about the behaviour of any other parties to this matter, it is for him to make representations to them.

The Department of the Environment is thoroughly committed to the workings of the arrangements and to the preservation of wild life in general.

The hon. Gentleman stated that the secretariat receives funding from ivory traders. That is in line with the wishes of the conference of the parties. At the sixth conference a resolution was passed urging trader groups, among others, to contribute to the secretariat.

The legitimate traders have been as keen as we are to see the illegal trade stamped out. They have made a valuable contribution to the secretariat's work. Through those contributions, the secretariat has been able to function more effectively. We have no evidence of corruption. Indeed, I am sure that the international community as a whole would join our rebuttal of any suggestion of corruption within the secretariat. It performs a difficult and arduous task and it relies a great deal on the professional dedication of its staff.

The secretariat has already done much to assist the plight of endangered species and without it their plight would be much worse than it is today. I can assure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that we will be urging the European Community to take action together to ban the import of raw ivory prior to the decisions of the CITES meeting. Furthermore, when we go to CITES, we will make representations to the effect that, rather than wait the normal 90 days for the resolution to take effect, we should act immediately to preserve and protect the African elephant.

I hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will be encouraged in the belief that the Government, through their commitment to help the African elephant, are prepared with our partners to take all further steps that are necessary to ensure that this noblest of animals continues to play a part in our world heritage for future generations.

There is nothing quite so stimulating as addressing a full House. Obviously this is such an occasion this afternoon. I am proud to represent Basildon, which I believe is the finest town in the country. I am proud of our many achievements, but I am certainly not proud about what I have next to tell the House—indeed, I am absolutely disgusted about it. Socialist-controlled Basildon district council has just imposed on its ratepayers the largest rate increase in the country of 57·2 per cent. People are rightly outraged about that and those who have been party to such irresponsibility should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

I want to take this opportunity to put the record straight about who is to blame for this absolutely shocking state of affairs, as many lies have been spread throughout the constituency on this subject. The rate increase has nothing to do with the provision of essential services; it has much more to do with the enhancement of leisure facilities. Socialists under their different labels are entirely to blame for the massive rate increase through their irresponsible fiscal mismanagement which I will describe.

Constituents have asked me why Basildon's rates were not capped this year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, when she replies, will confirm that, through creative accountancy and by drawing upon its reserves, the council failed to meet the Department's criteria.

In previous years Basildon's rates were capped. There was obvious disappointment that they were not included in the capping procedure this year. I made my maiden speech on the Rates Bill and I expressed my wish then that the present system of rates should be replaced by the community charge. I am delighted that the present unfair rates system will be replaced by the community charge next year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear that, where taxpayers' money is spent, the local council should be called to account for its fiscal management.

At the moment, all sorts of leaflets and news items are being spread locally conveying to ratepayers what the level of community charge will be. Somehow the myth is being spread that the level of community charge is entirely the Government's responsibility,. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity today to put that right.

I also believe that no one in future should be able to pass the buck and blame others for the level of community charge. I strongly believe that the community charge is good news for Basildon. It is certainly good news for the country at large. It will spread the burden of the cost of local services much more widely. Only a minority of people bear the cost of those services at the moment.

During the last year, Basildon council has been described as a hung council. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has some experience of that. Throughout the past year the casting vote has been held by the chairman of the council, but in reality what happened has been farcical. A Liberal councillor suddenly announced that in future he would sit as an independent. In practice, this so-called independent councillor voted with the Labour members of the district council on every conceivable occasion. The Labour district council did not have the guts to take responsibility for its actions, so—surprise, surprise—after the local elections in May this so-called independent announced that he was going to join the Labour party. However, I have just been advised that not all the Labour councillors are aware of the fact that he has been allowed to join the Labour party. The suggestion, therefore, must be: watch this space.

The council's behaviour has been quite extraordinary. Despite all that has happened, at its first meeting the council went on a massive spending spree. I voted to increase members' allowances, something which the Conservative group on the council has long opposed. The meeting was not held in the council chamber, which was available. Instead, it was held in the Olivier room of the new Towngate theatre, thus involving even more expense.

There is no doubt in my mind that the cost of building and maintaining the new Towngate theatre is a significant reason for Basildon district council having imposed the largest rates increase in the country—57·2 per cent. The old Towngate theatre was razed to the ground. In its place we have the most expensive municipal theatre in the country. It cost £8·5 million. Of course, we did not have the money to build the theatre. As we could not afford to build it, the money had to be borrowed. A private company has been set up to manage the theatre. Its board consists of councillors and other interested parties.

The stark reality of the enterprise is that even if every seat were occupied on every day of the year, we would still lose money. As that reality dawns on our community, many questions are rightly being asked. Who is responsible for having embarked on such a financially stupid scheme in the first place? Who was responsible for designing the theatre? Who approved the final plans? Who gave the advice which, presumably, councillors saw fit to take at the inception of the scheme? Who has been responsible for managing the theatre's affairs from the day that it opened? The Towngate theatre has so far received about £1·5 million in support for the current year, £900,000 of which relates to repayment of the debt charge.

The Labour group did not incorporate a council chamber in the new town hall. It believes that a council chamber is dead space for most of the time, so in future full council meetings are to be held in the theatre's Mirren studio. I believe that all hon. Members will be shocked to hear that in future council meetings in Basildon will be held in the theatre. I believe that that is a gross insult to the democratic process which we all support, and that Basildon will become a municipal laughing stock.

Local people will never forget the brutal way in which the old Towngate theatre was razed to the ground. It was part of the Basildon culture. The local community was attached to the old building. I do not think that the staff's feelings were considered. Many local residents find it patronising and insulting that it is suggested that, with the advent of the new theatre, culture and sophistication have been brought to Basildon. We find that deeply offensive. I can think of nothing that is less in keeping with this new development than the awful banner which has been displayed across the £8·5 million building and the dirty old caravan which looks as though it has been abandoned outside the main entrance.

All manner of questions should be asked. Those who have been responsible for what has happened should be brought to account. Nobody should be allowed to walk away from the issue until a full, proper and independent inquiry has been held. I am advised that the losses on revenue last year were £650,000 and that a debt payment of £1,147,000 had to be serviced, courtesy of the burdened ratepayers of Basildon.

I am not attacking the concept of a theatre in Basildon. We have always enjoyed very successful theatre. I applaud the arts and enjoy the entertainment that is provided by local groups, but as a Basildon ratepayer I am outraged by what I believe has happened regarding the financial viability of the new Towngate theatre, bearing in mind the huge rate increase that we have suffered.

It is now rightly being asked what proper services the Labour party will sacrifice to satisfy its ego and to continue its support of the theatre. My hon. Friend the Minister, who has responsibility for new towns, has had to grapple with several difficult issues involving Basildon during the past year. Perhaps the most appalling example of Socialist hypocrisy are the lies that have been spread, and which have frightened new town commission tenants about the security of their tenure. The lies are endless, but despite repeated assurances to the contrary from my hon. Friend the Minister, the elderly, who are among the most vulnerable in our community, have been frightened, and local Socialists have continued to stick to the line that new town commission tenants will lose their security of tenure.

The episode is all the more disgraceful when one considers that the Labour party was offered new town commission properties when there was a Labour Government. Unlike the council in Harlow, it refused. I believe that, as a result of that decision, Basildon has lost a considerable amount of income which we could have used to great effect.

In spite of the local financial crisis, the Socialist council intended to spend £35,000 of ratepayers' money on a so-called tenants' ballot. It has just had the nerve to send out, at the expense of ratepayers, letters congratulating tenants on something that the Labour party was responsible for starting. The letters were sent out in envelopes depicting a champagne bottle. That is a disgrace and the people responsible for the outrage should be called to account.

The so-called tenants action group is described as non-political but local people know that the organisers are Labour party activists. I am advised that in the recent local elections the disgraceful Militant organisation was active in some parts of the constituency. I thought that Militant was proscribed by the Labour party. How is it that a candidate is allowed to stand under the Labour party banner when we know that he is supported by Militant? The tenants action group leaflet was distributed locally by the Labour party and at the bottom the leaflet says that it has been donated at the expense of Morning Star publications.

The role of local government officers has also been questioned by some people. Local government officers have always enjoyed a proud history of political neutrality and I have always thought that they approached their duties in a thoroughly responsible and professional manner. Therefore, we have a fine tradition that should be encouraged and which, we hope, will flourish. However, the relationship between local government officers and elected representatives should be clear. It is for the latter to tell the former what to do, obviously after taking advice. It should not be the other way round. Elected representatives should be seen to run things and officers should never be put in a compromising position by making political statements that cannot be backed up through the ballot box.

The Socialist authority, in its never-ending desire to spend money, continues to interfere in areas for which it has no statutory responsibility. It has recently set up a Health Service monitoring and liaison panel, an anti-poll tax committee and a transport committee, and it has now had the cheek to set up a committee to monitor the activities of the Commission for the New Towns.

We know that all those committees are a cloak behind which to knock the Government. That is what it is all about and it is all at the expense of Basildon's hard-pressed ratepayers. The style of Socialists in Basildon has always been to take the credit for things for which they have no responsibility and to avoid criticism for those things for which they should rightly be taken to task. That is highlighted by the fact that they have no concept of what voluntary work is all about. They simply sit there handing out money regardless, and they believe that people should be paid for everything they do.

Council proceedings have become so farcical that, to avoid political change, area management such as has been suffered in Walsall and Tower Hamlets has now been adopted at a huge cost to Basildon's ratepayers. Control of spending has been given to area management committees which Socialists hope will remain in the control of Socialist activists.

Basildon's direct labour organisation has just lost £634,000. I know that the Department of the Environment is looking at what action to take over that financial failure. Grandiose schemes, which did not materialise, were heralded by the council.

I hope that a sensible conclusion is reached about the completion of the roofing of our town centre. It is essential that both sides hold constructive talks and that commitments given to established traders are honoured.

We are currently celebrating 40 glorious years since the birth of Basildon as a new town. It is a wonderful place in which to live because of the strength of the local community. I certainly do not wish it to be broken by the financial mismanagement that we are suffering at the hands of the Socialists.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) on securing this Adjournment debate to highlight the recent high rate increase in Basildon and the predicament in which the community finds itself. It is fortunate to have as its Member of Parliament such a champion of its interests.

I congratulate and strongly support my hon. Friend on his persistent efforts over the past few years to bring to light the irresponsible and extravagant expenditure of Basildon district council, which until last year was Labour-controlled but only recently has become hung—an apt description of the difficulties in which it finds itself, which it is foisting on local residents. Efficient management, good common sense and more accountability are needed on Basildon district council.

My hon. Friend told us that Basildon increased its local rate by over 57 per cent. for 1989–90 to finance a huge increase in spending of 87 per cent. My hon. Friend mentioned its spending on leisure activities. It seems to me that its leisure activity is spending other people's money. That increase is the largest rate increase of any shire district and well above the average increase of 12 per cent. for shire districts. The local rate for Basildon—78·1 p—is the third highest in England. Only Harlow and Wear Valley, which are Labour-controlled districts, have higher rates. In contrast, hon. Members will be interested, but scarcely surprised, to learn that the average increases in local rates between 1988–89 and 1989–90 is almost 14 per cent. among Labour shire authorities compared with only 9 per cent. among Conservative authorities.

Those figures highlight the extreme profligacy of Basildon district council with its ratepayers' money. To understand how the huge rate increase occurred, I shall give the House the basic facts behind it and show that it has nothing to do with the Government but was the result of decisions taken by the council purely and simply to make ratepayers pay for its numerous and extravagant schemes.

Basildon district council has a long history of excessive spending. Throughout the 1980s, total expenditure was well above the amounts assessed for grant-related expenditure. Average spending over GRE since 1983–84 has been a staggering 80 per cent., and in two of the past three years expenditure has been over double the assessed GRE level. That is clearly excessive by any standards and is a heavy burden for the ratepayers of Basildon to carry.

The district's needs are assessed in the same way as those of every other shire district. The assessment measures what an authority needs to spend to provide a standard level of service at a common rate poundage, taking account of the characteristics of the area. It is an objective method based on indicators of need. Of course, there can be, and often are, argument and discussion about precise detail. Hon. Members will be aware that officials are reviewing, with the associations, the methodology for a set of simplified needs assessments to be used under the new revenue support grant system.

Basildon's excessive spending led the Secretary of State to rate-cap it each year between 1985–86 and 1988–89. By 1988–89 we had reined rates back to a level below that in 1985–86. But in 1989–90 it was not possible for us under the Rates Act 1984 to cap Basildon. I understand the frustration of many local residents. Section 2(2)(a) of the Rates Act exempts an authority from designation for rate limitation in any financial year if its total budgeted expenditure for that financial year does not exceed a threshold which is statutorily updated each year. This is because authorities with low expenditure in absolute terms have only a relatively small impact on the level of rates which ratepayers actually pay. The Rate Limitation (Designation of Authorities) (Exemption) Order 1988 set the threshold for designation in 1988–89 for capping in 1989–90 at £13·1 million. Basildon's budgeted total expenditure figure of £13 million is just below the threshold for capping.

Although Basildon will receive no block grant in 1989–90 because of its excessive expenditure relative to GRE levels, I should point out that the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement would have allowed Basildon to reduce its local rate by 3 per cent. without the use of balances, had it held its spending roughly constant in real terms. However, even a decrease of 3 per cent. would still have left Basildon ratepayers facing one of the highest rate poundages, but it would have been a welcome step in the right direction. Clearly, there was no need for such a substantial rate rise.

I greatly regret the misinformation and scaremongering on the community charge. Labour local authorities that are spending highly know only too well that the writing is on the wall. With the introduction of the community charge, the community will be well and truly in charge. High-spending, profligate authorities will be exposed for what they are to the local charge payers. The system will be fairer. It will restore local accountability and local residents will know what they should do in the local elections.

I am sure that my hon. Friend hopes that the residents of Basildon will take the good advice of the citizens of the county of Essex and ensure that they elect Conservative representatives, who will conduct themselves efficiently and effectively, have a responsible attitude towards local charge payers' money and provide the best value for money together with high-quality services. We have estimated that, had the community charge been in operation in 1988–89, the charge in Basildon would have been about £267, £65 more than the community charge for spending at need. I stress that those figures are merely illustrative. The level of community charge depends upon the spending policies of the local authorities. Basildon's charge payers will be free to vote for the policies that they want and the party that puts them forward.

My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the ratepayers are now paying the price for excessive capital commitments during the 1980s, using deferred purchase arrangements. We all know much about all those policies seeking to take the waiting out of wanting—live now, pay later. The chickens are coming home to roost.

In recent years, Basildon has entered into substantial deferred purchase arrangements for capital programmes, totalling at least £44 million. These include the Towngate theatre, referred to by my hon. Friend, the Basildon centre and the Markham Chase centre. I share his concern that even if every seat of the theatre were filled for every day of the year it would still make a loss, as he said earlier this week. The district auditor outlined the financial impact of these schemes on the ratepayers of Basildon in his report of July 1987. He estimated that the payments falling due in 1989–90 from deferred purchase schemes would be equivalent to adding 19p to the rate in 1989–90—a rate which I have already said was very high compared with other shire districts. We estimate that these payments could account for around two thirds of the recent rate increase in Basildon.

Basildon district council has obviously entered into huge financial commitment and, now that the payments have to be made, the reality of the arrangements is hitting home. The Government have given public warnings many times about the inevitable financial consequences of authorities buying today and paying tomorrow. We have made it clear that local authorities must provide for the debts that they have chosen to incur.

In 1987 Parliament passed legislation designed to remove the advantage within the capital control arrangements for local authorities to enter into deferred purchase agreements. It seems unlikely that authorities would now imprudently use such arrangements. Under the new capital finance arrangements for local authorities which we propose to bring into force from 1 April 1990 deferred purchase arrangements will be treated as a credit arrangement similar to borrowing.

I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to comment on the situation in Basildon. I note that the slogan on the headed notepaper used by the council is, "Caring and winning through". I hope that the Council will take it to heart and provide the ratepayers and future community chargepayers with more responsible financial management. I have no doubt that the new community charge system will bring about greater accountability—

I last raised this issue in the House on 30 November 1988, as reported at columns 849–56 of Hansard. As the time for the debate is limited, I shall not repeat the full background to the anxieties that caused me to seek a further debate on this important issue. As I wish to raise a considerable number of issues and some of them are complex, I shall understand if my hon. Friend the Minister is unable to respond to them in full today and chooses to write to me. I hope that he will reflect on what I have to say and will not shut the door on my suggestions but will give them some consideration and time.

The House will recall that there was a change of flight path at RAF Upper Heyford resulting in a substantial increase in aircraft noise suffered by local people. The chief environmental health officer of Cherwell district council reported the matter last October, stating:

"The nature and magnitude of the noise really has to be experienced for its effects upon people trying to lead a normal life to be truly appreciated…As a direct result of the changed aircraft departure routes on 1 June 1988 the rural communities…have suffered severe adverse effects by the introduction of aircraft noise levels far in excess of those which previously prevailed. The changed flight paths have not reduced the high noise levels already experienced by other villages…but has in some cases increased the level being experienced…Cherwell District Council…some years ago advised that new building should not be permitted in areas subject to noise levels in excess of 75 dBA…and this view has been upheld by Inspectors at Planning Inquiries. It is therefore obvious that noise in excess of that level should not be brought to existing settlements."

As a consequence of the change in flight paths, substantial increases in noise were brought to existing settlements and that led to the debate last November. During that debate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, then the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, undertook that there would be a full study of the costs and implications of realigning the runway. That study was completed earlier this year and my hon. Friend the Minister told a meeting of representatives of local communities that the cost of realigning the runway would be at least £300 million. That meant that it would be impossible. Undoubtedly that was a deeply disappointing result for the many people who had hoped that it might be possible to find a technical solution to enable noise levels to return to something similar to what they were prior to 1 June last year.

Following my hon. Friend's announcement, there are a number of continuing worries. First, there is still concern at the original decision to change the flight paths. There is a suspicion that the change was carried out not for reasons of safety but for convenience, or in anticipation of new planes, further planes or new weapons systems being introduced at Upper Heyford. Part of that suspicion arises because of conflicting accounts about who requested the change in flight paths.

In a letter to me last July, my hon. Friend the present Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health said:

"F111s…no longer have enough extra thrust to perform manoevres with acceptable reserves for safety sufficient to meet the stringent safety margins required by the United States air force."

Yet, last October, Colonel Nameth of the United States Air Force department in Washington wrote to a local resident saying

"the Ministry of Defence proposed a change in the take off pattern"

and that

"the Ministry of Defence has recently adjusted the flight paths for RAF Upper Heyford."

Clearly, the Government's prime responsibility towards the communities around the base must be to ensure that flying activities are carried out as safely as possible. If the old flight paths have become unsafe, clearly the United States Air Force and the Ministry of Defence were under a duty of care not to allow planes to continue to fly on them.

Given that a sizeable number of local people remain unconvinced about the merits of the original decision, I hope that some effort will be made in the near future by the Royal Air Force commander at Upper Heyford, Squadron Leader Rice, and by the United States Air Force commander, Colonel Downer, to provide an opportunity for briefing local people about why the changes were made. Perhaps they could give local people a chance to meet and question some of the pilots involved. It must be in the best interests of both the United States Air Force and the Ministry of Defence for local people to be confident that the original changes in flight paths were taken with their best interests at heart and for no other reason.

There is also concern to ensure that planes adhere to the correct existing flight paths and that, within the present parameters, everything possible is done to reduce noise disturbance. I had a constructive and positive meeting with Colonel Downer and Squadron Leader Rice last week. I am grateful to both of them for their positive approach to these difficulties. I was glad to hear that they have set up a noise abatement group of senior officers at the base to give consideration to any ideas which might reduce noise levels. That demonstrates that people working at the base are conscious of the increasing impact that their activities have on local communities and are starting to think about noise and how it might be reduced.

I was also glad to hear that the amount of afternoon and early evening flying is to be substantially reduced. One of the most irksome matters for local people has been the considerable amount of later afternoon and early evening flying around the base, particularly in the summer months when planes return from missions and carry out practice circuits and bumps around the base. I was told that those activities have now been scrubbed, and when planes return to the base they will simply land.

There has also been concern about whether the planes adhere sufficiently strictly to the present designated flight patterns west of the base. I have been told that, whenever flying activity takes place there, a pilot will be sent to Steeple Aston to stand on the designated flight path between Steeple and Middle Aston to monitor the planes flying overhead.

It is also proposed to erect a large white banner on the correct flight path between Steeple and Middle Aston to act as a further visual aid to pilots. While to the outsider that may seem somewhat quaint, any measure which can help to reduce the noise impact on people living nearby is obviously to be welcomed and is worth trying.

It will be in everyone's interest if Squadron Leader Rice can have regular meetings with representatives of local communities to take forward any sensible suggestions to help ameliorate noise levels and also, if possible, to establish much quicker and more effective lines of communication and information to local vilages about what is happening, about to happen and has happened, at the base.

The recent F111 incidents were an example of when, for most people, the only immediate information available was received in dribs and drabs on the radio and in the press. By definition, much of it was hearsay and second hand and led to speculation and rumour.

It must be possible to establish an effective network to disseminate information regularly and, when necessary, speedily through local communities from the base. I am sure that local people would willingly co-operate with such a move if it meant that they could be given more speedily the information that they as local people need about these matters.

I hope that progress with Squadron Leader Rice and Colonel Downer has been positive, but there are one or two areas in which progress has not been as positive. The first relates to compensation for Ardley. Ardley is a comparatively small village to the east of the base and has been perhaps one of the worst affected villages. It has a sizeable number of houses within the 83 dbn contour. The Ministry of Defence has offered to purchase those houses at market values. I understand that once purchased they will be relet to American service personnel.

Many people in Ardley feel that it is unfair and unjust that, whereas a house on one side of the road may fall within the 83 dbn contour and thus be available for purchase, a house which is literally on the other side of the side of the road and which happens to be outside the 83 dbn contour, but by definition must be within a very high noise contour, is not eligible for purchase. It would be fairer and more just if every householder in the immediate parish of Ardley could have the opportunity of his or her property being sold to the Ministry of Defence at market value because otherwise my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will encounter some hard cases and people who feel, rightly, that they have not been treated fairly or justly.

The people of Ardley have not brought this upon themselves. The village has existed for a long time. The noise levels are not of the people's making, but inevitably if, as I suspect will happen, a sizeable number of people sell their houses because of the intolerable noise levels, the nature and character of the village will change considerably. The village shop, garage and church are all within the 83 dbn contour. It will be much more sensible if all home owners in the village were given the opportunity of selling their property. It could then be rightly and fairly said that anyone who purchased that property thereafter and moved to the village did so with full knowledge and understanding of the nuisance involved.

My hon. Friend will doubtless say that that would create a precedent. In effect, the decision by the Ministry of Defence to offer compensation along the lines that are similar to those in the Land Compensation Act 1973 is itself a precedent in many ways. If the Ministry of Defence feels unable to offer to purchase the homes itself, I understand that the United States Air Force is short of accommodation. The housing estate that it has been using in Bicester is shortly no longer to be available to it. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider having discussions with the United States Air Force to see whether it would be prepared to purchase those houses from its budget.

Many people whose homes fall within the 83 dbn contour have lived in Ardley for many years and have children attending the local schools. They are finding the present noise levels intolerable and wish to move, but they regard the period of one year in which they have to make the decision to move as a tight time frame. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider extending that period. Indeed, there are precedents for that, such as what happened in Yeovilton. Such an extension would ensure that people did not feel that their only option was to be rushed out of their homes.

Everyone in Ardley has been put in an intolerable position. It is difficult for those of us not in that position to conceive of it. People in Ardley, both individually and as a community are having to contend with a whole host of difficulties about their future. I hope that my hon. Friend will give consideration—I am sure that he will—to whether the Ministry of Defence could extend the compensation provisions so that everyone in Ardley could be included.

There is then the question of compensation for what in the law of nuisance is described as the loss of quiet enjoyment of one's property. For those who live, for example, in rented accommodation—council tenants and others—the compensation arrangements recently announced by my hon. Friend will be of no real benefit. I should have thought that it would be sensible for those living within the 75 plus dbn contour to be offered a straightforward one-off lump sum payment as compensation for what, in effect, is the loss of the quiet enjoyment of their properties. In due time, of course, if those houses are sold or people move, the people coming new into the area will know the position, but the people who are living there at present have no means of knowing that what had hitherto been tolerable levels of noise would become intolerable. In those circumstances, it would be considered much more fair and just if those people were to receive a single lump sum compensation payment for what has materially and seriously affected the quality of life that they are able to enjoy.

There are continuing concerns about Dr. Radcliffe's school, which is a Church of England school at Steeple Aston. It has a roll of approximately 150 pupils aged 5 to 11 years. It is now almost immediately under the new flight path to the west. My hon. Friend has visited the school and knows its exact location.

I have seen a letter of 24 May, written by Mr. Topps of the Ministry of Defence Land Agents to Mrs. Simmons, who is chairman of the school's governors. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen that letter, so, as time is short, I do not intend to go through it in great detail. I do not believe that Mr. Topps's letter is a fair summary of the history of the matter. When it became apparent that the noise levels over Steeple Aston were becoming intolerable, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) fairly came to Steeple Aston. He visited Dr. Radcliffe's school and sought Treasury permission to offer payment for that school to have proper noise insulation. That, obviously, was a sensible and straightforward approach to the matter, and the approach that anyone would have hoped would be taken. The school governors and the parents understood that, and supported the fact that there should be a full technical survey to see whether it would be possible to insulate the school.

In due course that survey was completed and there was a meeting at Dr. Radcliffe's school, which a large number of people attended, because there was much interest in the school. As it is a Church of England school, there were representatives from the diocesan education authority. there were also representatives from Oxfordshire county council, as the local education authority, the trustees of the Dr. Radcliffe trust, governors and others who were concerned, including representatives of the Ministry of Defence and the PSA and the technical advisers who had carried out the technical survey.

It was only at that time that the local education authority and others had the opportunity to consider the implications of the technical survey. I am bound to say that the general consensus was that the proposals were costly and that there was no guarantee that such expense, once incurred, would materially improve the school's environment. What is more, it became apparent in the intervening period that both teachers and parents had become increasingly apprehensive about the number of planes that were flying immediately above the school, and, therefore, that was another factor that had to be taken into consideration.

Following that meeting, the school governors unanimously resolved that, rather than spending large sums of public money on seeking an expensive system of noise insulation, which would probably not solve the problem, they would much prefer that the school be moved. That approach is now supported by Oxfordshire county council as the local education authority. From Mr. Topps's letter. I understand that the Ministry is not prepared to support such an approach.

I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect upon the matter. By definition, any change to the school will need the endorsement of the local education authority and, doubtless, of the Department of Education and Science. I hope also that my hon. Friend will consider the Dr. Radcliffe school and the other issues, and ensure that his officials consult officials in the Department of Education and Science on the best way forward. I understand my hon. Friend's concern that the technical survey has already incurred a sum of money, but there will be greater concern if thousands of pounds are spent on insulating the school only for a modest improvement. Parents and staff would still be worried about children being taught in that environment.

To a greater or lesser degree, everyone in north Oxfordshire supports the fundamental principle that my hon. Friend and I support, that the first duty of the realm is the defence of the realm. Over the years, there has been full appreciation of the contribution that RAF Upper Heyford has played and continues to play in the nation's defence. As I have made clear on previous occasions, that public good must be balanced against the numerous collective private interests of the thousands of people who live around the base. One of the Government's functions is to seek to reconcile the public good and private interests as best as possible.

The change in the flight path has led to a substantial increase in aircraft noise. What was once tolerable has now become intolerable for many people. There is said to be no relief from the noise. Frustration has increased because of recent incidents. For instance, on 9 May, shortly after take-off, an F111 developed engine problems and jettisoned fuel, which then ignited, causing the plane to have the appearance of a fireball when it landed. On 19 May, part of a wing flap fell off an F111 during a flight close to Banbury.

Such frustrations and concerns are causing increasingly large numbers of people in north Oxfordshire to question the reason for having a major military airfield in one of the fastest growing areas in the United Kingdom. Over the past year, local people have been patient. I trust that my hon. Friend will today be able to meet some of their specific and immediate concerns, and ensure that everyone considers that he is being treated fairly and justly and that every step is being taken to ensure that they can lead their lives with as little inconvenience from the base as is humanly possible in the circumstances.

I appreciate that I have taken more time than is customary in an Adjournment debate, and I apologise for that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that several matters of concern should have been outlined. In many instances, I have been able to outline them only briefly and in headline form. If my hon. Friend feels that I have not accorded him sufficient time to respond fully to my constituents' concerns, I hope that he will take time to reflect and to write to me in due course or that we will have further meetings. I thank my hon. Friend and his officials for their courtesy in recent weeks and months. My hon. Friend found this problem on his desk when he moved to his present position. I hope that he will continue to make efforts to find solutions to these difficult problems.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) is to be congratulated on again raising this issue on the Adjournment. I know that many people in his constituency are concerned about the problem of military aircraft noise at RAF Upper Heyford. I hope this debate will give me the opportunity to clarify some of the issues involved and answer some of the points raised by my hon. Friend, who made his case with characteristic clarity and who continues his staunch defence of his constituents' interests.

I do not intend to go over the history of this issue in detail, not least because my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), did so in debate on 30 November and because I am left with only seven minutes for my response today and time will undoubtedly run out on me. However, as the principal events have been brought into question, I believe that it would be useful if I were to set out those events that led up to the change in take-off patterns and those which have taken place since.

Early last year the Ministry of Defence received a submission from the headquarters of the United States Third Air Force at RAF Mildenhall on behalf of RAF Upper Heyford. This submission set out the reasons why they, as operators of the F111, believed that the take-off patterns then being used by aircraft of the 20th tactical fighter wing based at RAF Upper Heyford no longer met the necessarily high safety standards of the United States Air Force, and why they therefore believed their use should be discontinued. I will come onto the reasons for this in more detail later in my speech. The submission requested the approval of the Ministry of Defence to this proposal. After very careful consideration in the Ministry of Defence, including advice from Royal Air Force experts and further consultation with the United States Air Force, my predecessor gave his approval to the proposed changes —to be made with effect from 1 June 1988.

The new take-off path to the west was subsequently modified in mid August to relieve some of the impact on Steeple Aston. However, local people, particularly in Steeple and Middle Aston and Ardley, still felt the noise levels to which they were being subjected were too high. Their campaign therefore continued and my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury suggested during the debate on 30 November that the Ministry examine the possibility of realigning the runway at RAF Upper Heyford to determine whether this offered a solution to the problem. In responding to that debate, my predecessor agreed to undertake a full study of the costs and implications of such a project and to examine whether there were any other technical means by which the situation might be improved.

A thorough and careful study was carried out by my officials with the help of the Property Services Agency and the United States Air Force. The conclusion it reached was that, although it might be technically feasible to realign the runway at RAF Upper Heyford, it was not in fact practical because it would redistribute the noise to other villages, have significant operational penalties for the 20th tactical fighter wing and involve enormous costs—a minimum of £150 million for the project itself, plus other costs of a similar order to base the aircraft elsewhere during the work. The study was not able to identify any other technical means by which a solution to the problem might be found.

As my hon. Friend has said, I visited RAF Upper Heyford on 19 April, when he was present, to announce the results of the study. I made it clear at that meeting that we and our American colleagues very much regret the noise and disturbance to which the residents of the local community around the base are subject. I can assure the House that the decision to introduce new departure routes at the base was made only after very careful consideration of the position and with the interests of safety in mind. However, there appears to be some confusion still about the reason for the change and it might be helpful if I explain the background.

The old take-off routes required the aircraft to make a sharp banked turn to the right immediately after take-off, followed by one to the left. Sharply banking an aircraft requires the pilot to produce enough lift by pulling back on the stick both to overcome gravity and make the turn. Producing more lift also increases the drag on the aircraft so the pilot normally adds power to maintain air speed. However, immediately after lift off, the pilot has already applied maximum power, so his only remaining alternative is to sacrifice climb performance. This S-bend manoeuvre therefore reduced the safety margin of the take-off, because it meant that if the pilot did encounter a problem on take-off he was climbing less steeply and therefore the time available to cope with any emergency was reduced. While this reduction in the take-off pattern was small when the old take-off procedure was first introduced, subsequent changes led to a further deterioration in the safety margins of this manoeuvre to a point where they became unacceptable.

Changing operational requirements had led to an increase in the weight of the F111 aircraft based at RAF Upper Heyford so that, for example, an aircraft on a typical operational sortie is about 6 per cent. heavier now than it would have been 10 years ago. This is partly due to a change to safer, though heavier, fuel and partly due to changing operational requirements which have increased the payload that the aircraft is required to carry. Because some of this weight increase is due to the carriage of additional external stores there has also been an associated increase in the drag factor. It was those factors which led to the reduction in safety margins to the point where the only prudent course was for the United States Air Force to request a reversion to a conventional straight out pattern and for the Ministry of Defence to agree to that request. The straight out pattern, as modified last August, restores the safety margins for the foreseeable future. I should perhaps stress, in view of some suggestions which have been made, that the decision was taken purely in the light of current circumstances with the sole aim of maintaining the safety of flying operations from the base.

That brings me to the second issue that I hope to clarify and that concerns the future of the base. There has been a great deal of speculation in the press in recent weeks about what may or may not happen at the base in the future, but the truth is quite straightforward. We are currently considering with our NATO partners what adjustments need to be made to our forces in Europe in the wake of the intermediate nuclear forces—INF—treaty. However, no decisions have yet been taken and the Government have not agreed to any changes to the role or aircraft of the 20th tactical fighter wing at RAF Upper Heyford; nor have we agreed to any expansion or additions to the facilities there to support new or additional aircraft. Any works under way at the base relate to the aircraft currently stationed there—

The motion having been made at half-past Two o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday 6 June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 22 May.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.