Second Reading, what day?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should have thought that a Bill involving pensions would be presented before most hon. Members had left for their constituencies. Much opinion has been voiced, especially by Opposition Members, since last night when we knew that the Bill would be presented. Having been subject to some pressure by Opposition Members, one might have thought that the Leader of the House would have considered presenting the Bill either earlier or after the end of the recess. Presenting it before the start of the recess, knowing that most hon. Members are away—

Order. This is purely a formal presentation. It happens regularly. We have yet to have the Second Reading, when the hon. Gentleman can object and put his points of view.

I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. However, surely hon. Members, with a Bill which affects them, should be consulted about when the Bill would be presented. I am given to understand that what we would refer to as our shop steward for pensions and other issues that concern hon. Members has had consultations with the Leader of the House. Unfortunately, he cannot be here this morning, but if he had been, he would have made these objections himself. The Leader of the House should have given some consideration to this matter and should not have presented the Bill until after the recess.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter, which is why I have kept in touch with the representatives of the major parties, including the trustees who are closely interested in it. Everyone has been anxious that the matter should come forward as soon as possible so that it could be debated and brought to a conclusion in the overspill. It is for that reason alone that we thought it right to secure the publication of the Bill today so that hon. Members might have the benefit of studying the matter throughout the recess. If I had postponed the Bill's introduction until the overspill, I might legitimately have been exposed to some criticism.

Perhaps I may have a word with the hon. Gentleman afterwards. As I have said, I have kept in touch with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who presides over the trustees, and others, and it is in accordance with the general wish that the Bill has been published today, so that it may be considered during the overspill.

I beg leave to present a petition signed by some 2,160 of my constituents in Batley and Spen, opposing the local government Boundary Commission proposals to move the boundary between Kirklees and Bradford to the line of the M62 motorway.

The main effect of the proposals would be to move the communities of Birkenshaw, East Brierley, Oakenshaw, Hartshead and Scholes from the Kirklees metropolitan district council to Bradford city council. That is not acceptable to the residents of the villages, or to others in my constituency who would be affected by the changes. The Boundary Commission for England cannot ignore historical and family ties when boundaries are drawn on maps. Local preference and tradition must be taken into consideration.

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will request the Secretary of State for the Environment to reject the Boundary Commission proposals.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

I want to focus attention on a need that exists throughout the country, although I shall demonstrate it in the light of Welsh experience and a recent sad episode of which many hon. Members are aware. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is here, as it involved his constituent.

I want to emphasise the need to ensure that 15 and 16-year-olds who are certified as unruly by a magistrates court should not go to prison. I shall argue the case and demonstrate that there is virtual unanimity in support of that argument. No one suggests that young people should not be punished. Much of the argument involves the type of secure accommodation that should be available for young people.

I shall quote from the House of Commons Expenditure Committee which puts the case more clearly and effectively than I could:

"We condemn in the strongest possible terms the use of certificates of unruliness as a means of achieving secure accommodation. We recommend that the practice of remanding young persons to adult prisons should cease forthwith; alternative arrangements must be made."

It is clear and unequivocal and most of us would probably agree with it, but that report was published in 1975 and we are still waiting for action on it. We are still consulting on the problem in England and Wales 15 years on. The recent sad case illustrates the cost that is being incurred.

In the past 20 years, six 15 and 16-year-olds have died in prisons to which they should not have been sent. In the past couple of weeks, there was the youngest ever suicide in a prison in the United Kingdom. A 15-year-old, Philip Knight, committed suicide in Swansea prison. He should not have been there in the first place. He was sent there only because nowhere else could be found for him. There was no adequately secure place available at the time. There is a major gap in provision throughout the country; in Wales it is a complete gap. We have just three small units, two of which have two cells each and the third has three cells. The Government have dismissed those units as unacceptable and suitable only for confining youngsters for a maximum of seven days.

The young lad who committed suicide had been in Swansea prison for three weeks. On the day he committed suicide, he had gone to court for sentencing. He and the prison authorities expected that that was the last he would see of the inside of Swansea prison. It was expected that he would be sent to suitable secure accommodation for young people aged 15 or 16. However, he was sent back to prison because no suitable accommodation could be found.

The hon. Member for Pembroke has asked whether he could have a few minutes of this Adjournment debate. I am willing to agree with that if he should catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the case involves his constituent. We all recognise that questions need to be asked. It is not for us to take over the coroner's role, but we should put down some markers.

The governor of the prison and his staff, the prison officers, were every bit as angry as the hon. Member for Pembroke and I that the young lad was sent to Swansea prison. In a broadcast that the prison governor and I did together and in other interviews, the prison governor has made it clear that prisons are not intended for young people of that age. In the past nine months there have already been two suicides at Swansea prison involving young offenders aged between 17 and 21, so it was the third suicide in that time, but the only one involving a youngster in that age group.

It is even sadder that the lad was still in prison although apparently he had made an attempt earlier to commit suicide. It seems that he had cut his wrists about a week before he eventually hanged himself. One is bound to ask with what he cut his wrists when he was supposed to be in a secure prison. What did he use, and why was it available? He then went to the prison hospital where there was an overnight guard because, as is normal in prisons, there was no overnight medical attendant. It has been suggested that the guard did not even have a key. I understand that, according to normal prison procedures, under special watch B, which involves a prisoner being watched every 15 minutes, a sealed package containing the key is available for whoever is on duty overnight, but it has been suggested that no key was available, yet the youngster had already made one attempt on his life and might have needed instant attention.

In view of the immaturity of the boy, why was he not placed under special watch A, which involves constant supervision? Not only had the youngster attempted suicide in prison, but, according to reports, he was suspected of trying to commit suicide before he was even sent to prison. It has been suggested to me by people with great experience in the prison service that, although special watch A—the constant watch facility—is available in theory, it is virtually never used simply because it costs so much, the lack of resources and staffing levels. Yet constant supervision is essentially what a 15-year-old should have had after a suicide attempt when clearly he was in a severe emotional condition, having returned from court that day after sentencing and having expected not to be sent back to the prison.

I emphasise that the criticisms that I am making and the questions that I am asking relate to the system. I am not in any way pointing fingers at individuals. I received a sad letter from someone who retired from the prison service some time ago in which he said that even now, many years later, he still worries about suicides of adult prisoners within the prison and wonders whether more could have been done to save their lives. In this case we are entitled to ask why the system was not operating more efficiently. The individuals involved were operating the system as they were required to do, but it was not enough.

The tragic death of a youngster took place 15 years after the House of Commons Select Committee on Expenditure made its conclusive recommendation that youngsters under the unruliness certificate—that put Philip Knight into Swansea prison—should not be placed in prisons in future. An even sadder twist to the tale is that on 17 January 1989 the clerk to the magistrates in Haverfordwest, the area from which the young boy came, wrote to Dyfed county council and copied the letter to the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office. He did that because he knows that the scale of provision required would be too large for a county such as Dyfed to undertake. In that letter he said:

"It is highly desirable that secure accommodation be available so as to prevent the offender running away and sometimes even adding a further list of offences to those which he or she already faces."

Referring to young offenders, the letter goes on:

"They are sometimes being committed to custodial sentences or remanded to remand centres or prisons in circumstances where perhaps a custodial sentence or remand would otherwise not have been ordered if secure residential council accommodation had been available."

Therefore, that letter anticipated events and 18 months earlier the clerk to the magistrates in this lad's area had drawn the attention of the county, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor to the gap in provision.

The Lord Chancellor's Department forwarded the correspondence to the Welsh Office which replied to the letter. The reply is dated 20 February 1989 and is from a Mr. B. J. Collins. It reads:

"Your letter of 18 January addressed to the Lord Chancellor's Department and concerning secure accommodation in Dyfed has been passed to the Welsh Office for attention. Accordingly, we are currently undertaking a study of the scale and nature of secure accommodation in Wales."

That was more than a year and a half ago.

Yesterday I saw the Secretary of State for Wales and asked him about the result of that study. I had a telephone call from him just before I came into the Chamber. He told me that the study, which started 18 months ago, has now been completed, and a consultative document is with the directors of social services. Therefore, 15 years after the original Committee recommendation and 18 months after the attention of the Welsh Office, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor had been drawn to the gap in provision, we have a consultative document. The result of that consultation is not expected before April 1991. One can hardly accuse anybody of undue haste in the way in which they are trying to deal with the problem. There is an appalling lack of urgency and almost a lack of awareness.

I had an incredible answer a week ago from the Welsh Office. On 19 July I was told by a Welsh Office Minister:

"We have not received any representations which call for the provision of a secure unit for young offenders."— [Official Report, 19 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 662.]

That is despite having received the correspondence forwarded from the Lord Chancellor's Department and having allegedly set up a study 18 months ago.

That is what the hon. Member for Pembroke and I face in dealing with the problem in Wales. However, it is not just a Welsh problem, and that is why a Department of Health Minister has been courteous enough to attend the debate instead of his Welsh counterpart. The problem in Wales is reflected throughout the country.

In October 1989 the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), produced a discussion document. I am not criticising her because it was recognised long before her ministerial appointment that she had a keen interest in social need. She pursued that interest when she was appointed a Minister. The document was for England and Wales and was entitled "Secure Accommodation in Community Homes". The Government's policy is stated. They say:

"The Government accept that the use of secure accommodation remains necessary for a relatively small proportion of young people because they are a major risk to themselves or other people. The policy view of the Department is that the secure placement must be a last resort, never because no other placement is available at the relevant time."

Yet Philip Knight was in Swansea prison because no other place was available at the relevant time.

The Government are trying to shuffle a responsibility that should be theirs on to the councils. There remains a legitimate Government interest in the extent of the national stock of secure accommodation in its scale and location. I do not think that any of us would dissent from that proposition. However, it runs contrary to some of the points that arise later in the document.

The Government are clear about the type of provision they recommend. They rule out the type of accommodation already available in Wales. They said:

"If greater impact is to be made in reducing the number of juveniles remanded to custody, secure facilities need to be made accessible for those parts of the country which are presently under resourced. Such new units should provide a minimum of eight places or multiples of eight and up to a maximum of 24 places."

The Government point to the inadequate nature of the small existing secure units which provide between two and six placces. There are many of those in England, but in Wales we have only units within the unacceptable category.

The document goes on to say that, because of the limitations of size, they provide a poor quality of life, inhibit the staff in providing the quality of care that they strive to attain and are totally unsuited to the task of holding young people for more than a limited period. That unsuitability is recognised by the seven-day rule that applies to holding people.

The accommodation that is condemned in the document is the only type of accommodation available in Wales. In fact, for other accommodation we have to go foraging in England, but England has its own problems of trying to find suitable accommodation for its young people. The Government say, "Because these units of eight are too big for one county council social services department's requirements, we need a multi-council approach." In the document, there is a long screed giving the reasons for a regional basis, a regional bed bank and regional databases. It says:

"The Department's Regional Social Services Inspectorate should play an active enabling role in bringing together local authorities within regions to develop coherent local strategy."

That is all very well, but the Government abandoned the regional approach in 1982.

We in Wales have to send our youngsters to England. Mid-Glamorgan sent four to England last year and still cannot place two youngsters. Clwyd uses Hindley, Gwent sometimes has to place young people as far away as county Durham, and of course there are Cardiff and Swansea prisons.

The point that emerges from the document is the uneven spread throughout England and Wales of units with a minimum of eight places, which the Government say we need. The Government will provide only capital grant aid, not running cost aid, and they are even withdrawing some of the capital aid for converting existing units. Far from being more helpful, they are being less helpful.

The problem is exacerbated—I do not say this in a party-political sense because it is a financial reality—by the financial constraints of the poll tax. Authorities facing capping are reluctant to take on the capital and running-cost commitment of units whose occupancy rate is less than 80 per cent., yet the Government say, "We will not meet the running costs of these units because it is the responsibility of local authorities."

It is worth bearing in mind that it costs the Home Office about £1,000 a week to keep a youngster in prison. It agrees with councils that they should not be in prison but says, "We want you to bear the cost of providing accommodation." Where is the legitimate Government interest in the national stock of accommodation and its location and in meeting the running costs of these units?

The Government emphasise in the document the need for central initiatives, central co-ordination and central planning provision, and although they can provide all those functions they are dodging their responsibility. The National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, the Howard League for Penal Reform, prison governors, councils, social services departments and even common sense are against youngsters of this age group being kept in prison, yet 15 years after a categoric recommendation of a Select Committee we are still consulting and talking, and no one is doing anything.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Minister for allowing me two or three minutes to raise the important case of Philip Knight, who hanged himself in Swansea prison on Friday 13 July.

Philip, who was 15, had been sentenced by the magistrates court and had arrived at prison earlier that day. He was seen alive at 9.30 pm but when he was seen again at 10 pm he was found hanging in his cell. Unfortunately, attempts to revive him failed and he was adjudged dead on arrival at Singleton hospital.

The bald facts of the tragic case of Philip Knight raise considerable worries about how young juvenile offenders are treated by the prison system and how potential suicide cases such as Philip Knight are supervised. As the right hon. Member for Swansea, West said, he had previously attempted to commit suicide by trying to slash his wrist. The first question that we must ask, although I recognise the difficulties for the prison service, is how young people and other prison inmates are assessed as a suicide risk and supervised when they arrive in prison.

The treatment of suicide-risk cases is set out in Home Office circular instruction 29/1989, which states that special procedures must be followed for a potential suicide or a high-risk suicide case. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this can be 30 minutes observation, 15 minutes observation or, in high-risk cases, continuous supervision.

The question that I want to ask on behalf of my late constituent's parents is, why was there not continuous supervision of Philip Knight as he had already attempted to commit suicide?

Circular instruction 20/1989 provides suitable instructions that should be followed by the prison service. It is of particular concern, first, that a youngster of this age should be in an adult prison and, secondly, that, given his history, he was not under supervision. I hope that the Home Office, in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Welsh Office, which is responsible for such matters in Wales, will seriously consider this case and any lessons that can be learned in the light of the coroner's inquest and what additional co-ordination is necessary to ensure that tragic cases do not occur in the future.

The issue raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) and discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is of considerable importance for the treatment of young people charged with offences. The Government do not dispute the seriousness of the issues that they have raised.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West began by quoting the report of a Select Committe in 1975, which emphasised the unsatisfactory nature of the certificate of unruliness procedure. The Select Committee recognised that juveniles on remand should not be committed to prison. That is not in dispute; indeed, the Government are as committed as the Select Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to the phasing out of the remand of juveniles to prison department establishments as soon as resources permit. That statement of policy was made not in 1975, when the Government were not in a position to make a statement on policy, but in a report to Parliament on social services for children in England and Wales between 1979 and 1981. As a statement of policy, there is no division between the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend and the Government. We are committed to the elimination of this admittedly unsatisfactory procedure.

Wherever possible, local authorities strive to provide accommodation within the child care system for alleged juvenile offenders on remand. In the present circumstances, however, that is not always practicable and, regrettably, some young people are remanded to a prison department establishment while awaiting trial or sentence. We acknowledge that this is the least desirable of all the options, and none of us would wish it to be used, except where no other option is viable.

Strict criteria govern the use of penal establishments for such people. Over the years, this route has been progressively closed to all remanded girls under 17 and boys under 15. Only juvenile males aged 15 and 16 can now be placed in penal establishments on remand. This is a significant advance on the position when the Select Committee reported in 1975. They must either have committed alleged offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years or more in the case of an adult or have been charged with a crime of violence or have a previous conviction for such a crime. I emphasise that the Government remain committed to the complete abolition of penal remand for juveniles as soon as resources permit.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke referred to the case of Philip Knight and cited it as an example of the continued operation of this admittedly unsatisfactory procedure. Clearly I cannot disagree in general terms with the proposition that Philip Knight should not, in an ideal world, have found himself admitted to the prison. The specific questions which have been asked about his case are the subject of an inquiry by Dyfed social services department, which will make a report to the social services inspectorate in Wales. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West recognises that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss any of the specific circumstances surrounding that tragic case.

In response to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke, I should like to comment on the general development of policy in penal establishments in England and Wales for the reduction of the risk of inmates committing suicide. The prison service is constantly looking to improve its suicide prevention strategy. Present initiatives include a planned trial for the use of closed circuit television, the continuation of the family ties programme, a proposed experiment at Winchester prison in the use of card phones by remand prisoners and a pilot scheme to reduce routine censorship in category B establishments. The risk of suicide is acknowledged to be and clearly is a problem in penal establishments. Serious work is being done to eliminate the risk of people committing suicide, particularly juveniles, whom we acknowledge should not be there in the first place.

The core of the charge made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West is perhaps summed up in his phrase that progress towards the achievement of the ideal objective defined by the Select Committee in 1975 has not been going forward with "undue haste". The right. hon. Gentleman quoted the discussion documents issued by the Welsh Office and by my Department as evidence that we were more interested in talking about the problem than in resolving it. I do not accept that charge. To some extent, the right hon. Gentleman misses the point of the discussion documents.

He went on to say that the core of the problem is that the Government are not providing sufficient resources for the development of a network of secure units. The Government do not believe that the solution lies necessarily in the creation of more and more secure units. The discussion documents were directed to the questions of establishing the scale of need of secure units, how we can use the units that exist more effectively, and how we can eliminate the unnecessary remand of juveniles to them.

I understand that. The hon. Gentleman stated the Government's policy in 1980–81, when they recognised that they wanted to end the imprisonment of these youngsters. Why did it take until October 1989 even to produce a consultative document?

As the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health cannot be responsible for everything that was said and done in the intervening period. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman might welcome the fact that some serious work is being done and the commitment to address the problem to ensure that there are sufficient secure units across the country and that they are used effectively.

I should like to refer to the provisions in chapter 8 of the recent Home Office White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public" relating to young offenders. This noted the encouraging development in some parts of the country of bail support schemes offering close supervision of, and constructive work with, young people on remand on bail and expressed the Government's view that such schemes offer a valuable means of avoiding the undesirable effects of remanding a young person away from home.

The White Paper acknowledged also that the arrangements for remanding juveniles charged with criminal offences are unsatisfactory in certain respects. While falling short of proposing complete abolition of penal remand for juveniles, it suggested that the unruliness certification procedure would be replaced by a more stringent test for a remand in custody, which would be more closely related to the need to protect the public from the risk of serious harm or from repeated alleged offending.

I hope that I have been able to show the right hon. Member for Swansea, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke that there is no division of principle on these difficult issues, and that the Government are addressing them as substantial issues. Their importance is highlighted by the tragic events which have been brought to the attention of the House.

I should be remiss if I did not offer the congratulations of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) on his recent promotion. I understand that he is about to make his maiden speech in his new post. I hope that, in answering my points, he will bear it in mind that he has the good wishes of all hon. Members for a successful and long term in his important position. My hon. Friend is in a responsible position, because 500,000 jobs in the apparel industry are under threat because of the threatened abandonment by the Government of the multi-fibre arrangement.

In the past, my hon. Friend the Minister, with whom I have had several dealings, has always proved receptive to common sense. I hope that he can reassure me. As recently as 12 January this year, we had a full Friday's debate on the multi-fibre arrangement. It will be no surprise to him, therefore, that a number of hon. Members were disappointed with what we thought was the very ineffective view taken by the Government. Time has passed rapidly. On Tuesday this week, the final round of negotiations began in Geneva, and we are still not satisfied that the Government's voice, which is part of the voice of the 12 EEC nations, has been heard. We are still not convinced that the Government are aware of the critical importance, if there is to be an apparel manufacturing industry in Britain, of not throwing out the window what we have in the MFA.

Hon. Members are not prepared to accept a whitewash. Experts among Opposition and Conservative Members are not prepared to accept something that is not as stringent as the MFA. Half a million United Kingdom jobs are involved, including 2,800 in my constituency, which is a trivial number compared with the numbers in other constituencies. The future of the 500,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, and a total of 5 million jobs in Europe, will be decided by the EC's posture in this round of negotiations, which is to terminate in December.

I remind the House that, at the moment, the inustry is protected by MFA 3. From what I have heard in the House and in answers to questions, the Government unfortunately appear to be committed to the dismantling of the MFA, despite warnings from all sides. It is said—I hope that the Minister will by now be able to tell me that I am wrong—that the Government are leading that school of thought in the EC negotiating team that not only calls for the scrapping of the MFA but would allow that to be done without ensuring suitable safeguards in GATT following the ending of the arrangement.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell me that I am wrong? I know of no hon. Member on either side of the House who has not heard from his constituents that the multi-fibre arrangement or something equally strong is absolutely essential to the continuance of full employment and to Britain's massive industry. If the MFA has to go, it must be replaced with GATT regulations that are just as strong. For far too long, the industry has suffered from distorted conditions of international trade. We have been made to appear the bad man of Europe. We have suffered from illegal subsidies, dumping, the closure of potential markets and the theft of intellectual achievements.

As a major exporting industry, with overseas sales worth £4 billion in 1989, we favour freedom of trade, provided that that freedom is mutual and not one sided. Unless the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations results in real success in demolishing such trade distorting practices, there can be no question of the multi-fibre arrangement being phased out or even weakened.

If the negotiations are, indeed, finally successful, the Government and the European Community as a whole are committed to accepting an eventual phase-out of the multi-fibre arrangement. What worries me is that the Government appear to be giving support for an unrealistically short transition period. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.?] My hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) are also worried. A substantial weakening of the multi-fibre arrangement is to take place almost immediately. That appears to be acceptable to the Government but I can assure the Minister that it is totally unacceptable to hon. Members.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining this debate. Does he agree that even if proper safeguards are obtained and incorporated within the GATT rules, it would be wholly unacceptable to all of us if the MFA were phased out in less than seven years? Does he agree that that is the absolute minimum?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has long been a great supporter of textiles and who has done much for his constituents in this respect. Of course, seven years is the minimum. The hon. Gentleman touches on another of my fears. I have it on good authority —I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does, too—that the Government are pressing for a short transitional period from a strong MFA to something unknown, devised under GATT. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.

Another of my worries is that the United States Congress is ready to pass into law a Bill to control textile and clothing imports, including those from the United Kingdom and the EC. If the Geneva negotiations are unsatisfactory, the Bill will undoubtedly be introduced in the United States, as it was passed by a large majority in the Senate on Tuesday last week.

I wish to deal with another important matter—what is known as linkage. As I said, the industry is concerned that in the Uruguay round too much concern is being shown for wider interests such as agriculture and services and too little regard is paid to jobs in Britain, especially in the apparel industry. We are facing the prospect of a commitment to phase out the MFA without achieving statisfactory improvements in GATT rules and disciplines in line with the Punta del Este declaration, which launched the round in 1986. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have stressed linkage as a crucial element more congently and ably than I can. But I should warn my hon. Friend the Minister that our bottom line is that, in the absence of effective linkage being achieved, there cannot and must not be any commitment to weaken, let alone phase out, the MFA.

With the MFA abolished and without effective safeguards plus an effective anti-dumping code plus an effective clamp on trade-distorting Government subsidies, a further major cut in the current employment level of 480,000 in the United Kingdom textiles, knitting and clothing industries would be inevitable. My hon. Friend the Minister—a new, fresh face in a new and important job —may think that I am exaggerating. I should tell him that since 1979 the employment in the industry has declined to from 780,000 to 480,000, and that has been with the protection of the multi-fibre arrangement and with modernisation which has been carried out by many employers and a co-operative work force throughout the country. In the knitting sector, with which we in Leicester are familiar, 46,000 jobs have been lost since 1979, including an estimated 14,000 over the past 18 months. The main centre of the east midlands has been really hard hit, but Scotland and other centres have not escaped the alarming surge of imports between 1986 and 1989—some 60 per cent.—to the value of £1,400 million.

The loss of jobs has to be stemmed. The industry demands a stronger MFA or equivalent safeguards, and many hon. Members are becoming most disturbed. Let me give an up-to-date illustration which, quite by chance, I found in a highly regarded local paper, the Leicester Mercury. Similar illustrations could be found in Yorkshire and Scotland and wherever the apparel industry is predominant in Britain. Thanks to the MFA, two knitwear firms were saved by the breakthrough of imposing restrictions on Indonesian sweater imports. The article says:

"After several months of sustained campaigning by the East Midlands-based Knitting Industries' Federation, the UK government has slapped a quota on imports of sweaters from this developing South East Asian country … The quota of 3,208,000 pieces will cover the 10 months from March 1 to December 31, this year. It compares with Indonesian sweater imports of 3·4 million pieces in 1989 and one million pieces in the three months to March 1990, at an average price of £2·46 per garment. These imported sweaters are 100 per cent. acrylic and are aimed at the lower end of the clothing market. The quota has been introduced under category five—the jumpers and sweaters section of the Multi Fibre Arrangement."

That is the sort of protection that we must have if the British apparel industry is to survive.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) on gaining yet another debate on the MFA in this Session. As he said, we had one in January and we welcome today's debate.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on his promotion and welcome him to his new post. I say in all seriousness that I hope that he will be a friend to the textile industry. We need good Ministers and good friends, particularly in this important year. The Uruguay round of GATT will come to an end in September this year and, as we have heard, important negotiations are taking place in Geneva this week which, because of their complexity, will probably last until the end of the year.

As chairman of the all-party textile group, I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that the industry is committed to competition. It has continued to invest, even during the difficult times of high interest rates. It now runs the most up-to-date modern technology of computer dyeing together with traditional wool scouring—the two ends of the factory process—and it has continued, as an act of faith in the future and as an act of faith and commitment to the industry.

Strong representations are needed in Geneva during the international trade negotiations because they are crucial to the future of the British textile, knitting and apparel industries. We are a major exporting industry of quality goods. We have lost the cheaper end of the market, as everybody recognises. We now have high quality, high added value goods, and that is the market in which we wish to continue.

Our overseas sales in 1989 amounted to £4 billion—an awful lot of exports. They help our trade deficit and we would not want to lose any more. The industry is not looking for protectionism; it is looking for fair trade opportunities. We would all be happy if we had a level playing field, but we do not, as my hon. Friend will no doubt quickly learn. The industry would favour the liberalisation of trade provided that it was mutual, and not one-sided, as it seems to be at the moment. We are making all the running and other countries are not treating us fairly.

Unless the GATT negotiations result in real and demonstrable success in demolishing the trade-distorting practices, there can be no question of the MFA being phased out or even weakened. That is due to take place in 1991, but we must be sure that some other mechanism is in place before then. Those Governments calling for the removal of the MFA must decide whether they are willing to bring their trading policies into line with normal conditions of competition. So far, there is no sign that they are.

Whatever happens at the end of the negotiations, I stress that we need a long transitional period for the phasing out of the MFA—at least seven years, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said. Many of us will be looking for up to 10 years as a realistic time for any new GATT rules to be absorbed by other countries. Our industry is happy to come into line with whatever is decided, but it must be assured that other countries will be the same. A shorter phasing-out period is not acceptable to the industry. Again, I stress that it is looking not for protectionism but for fair trade.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough said, this week, by a majority of 36, the United States Congress passed a Bill to control textile and clothing imports, including those from the United Kingdom and the EC. Yorkshire's high quality worsted cloth has a good market in the United States and if that cloth cannot go there, our industry will be affected. The United States has said that if the Geneva negotiations are unsatisfactory it will proceed with that Bill. We have been told that it could be vetoed by President Bush, but that is a risk which we are not willing to take at this stage.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Minister has had only 72 hours in his new job. I hope that we are not blinding him with too much science today about the textile, knitting and apparel industries. I am sure that he will learn quickly. But will he assure the House and the industry, which I know is listening intently to what we and, in particular, the Minister have to say, that the Government and the EC will take the strongest possible stance in the interests of our industry and of fairness and discipline in our international trade?

Can we have the assurance that my hon. Friend the Minister will fight as hard as possible for fair and free trading opportunities—the level playing field about which everybody talks but which, as yet, we do not seem able to find? The British seem to play cricket very much by the rules, but our competitors have not even learnt the rudimentary rules of rugby. Please can we have an assurance that he will fight hard to ensure that our industry has that level playing field so that it can compete on fair grounds to expand exports and so maintain a healthy industry at home? I am sure that my hon. Friend will realise that without a healthy manufacturing base, a trading nation such as ours cannot sustain an export trade. We must have trade at home and abroad to have a good manufacturing base.

I shall listen carefully to my hon. Friend's reply. I assure him that before long we shall be knocking on his door to ask him to meet representatives of the industry and, as his predecessor did, to visit some of our factories in Yorkshire to see what is being done.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on his promotion. I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate. I do so aware of the fact that, between June 1988 and the end of 1989, 760 workers were made redundant in the Hinckley district of the National union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers and there have been other redundancies in Leicester and elsewhere.

I want to address some specific problems. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) referred to the transition period for the MFA and suggested seven years. That is inadequate. Most developing countries are asking for the phasing out to be spread over six to nine years and the United States is suggesting 10 years. Against that background, six to eight years, about which my hon. Friend's predecessors were talking, is far too short. A minimum period of 10 years is essential, with, as was stated earlier, clearly defined stages, the first of which would involve the minimum of concessions. My hon. Friend must also take into consideration the problems posed by eastern Europe, with the possibility of a flood of hosiery, knitwear and textiles coming from an entirely different source.

Specific problems relate to the industry and the MFA. The first is the basket extractor. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough referred to Indonesian jerseys and an article on the subject in the Leicester Mercury. The Minister may be aware that it takes six months to get the basket extractor to work after the trigger level has been reached. There must be an improvement in the mechanism for setting new quotas when new products are developed. At present, for example, somebody can establish a T-shirt company in Bangladesh and flood the market, but it will take six to nine months to establish a quota. That state of affairs is not good enough.

Why is China not being treated as a dominant supplier? It is the largest manufacturer of clothing in the world and potentially the largest exporter. It should be treated as the largest, along with Hong Kong, South Korea and Macao. What will happen when Hong Kong is subsumed into China? It is important that the new Minister deals with those important problems.

As part of our policy, the United Kingdom must maintain a production chain and, to do that, we must keep control of all parts of the chain—yarn, plain fabric, dyed fabric and garments. There is no point in having quotas only on parts, so we must look at the transitional arrangements for all component parts of the chain.

The Minister should also address the whole area of the clause on social development in the GATT. The clause says that the benefits of trade in textiles should in part go to those who produce the garments, yet pitifully poor wages are paid in many parts of the world. For example, in Indonesia there is an hourly rate of 25 United States cents, in Thailand it is 75 cents, whereas in Britain the rate is £8. Indeed, my hon. Friend could make his name as a Minister if he dealt with that issue, because his predecessors did not do so.

We must not overlook the whole issue of confidence. I was at Leicester polytechnic recently where I discussed the new CIMTEX—computer integrated manufacturing of textiles—project for which the Government have made £4·5 million available over three years for the development of automated garment assembly. It is a wonderful project. At Hinckley college in my constituency we are training operatives of the future, but 15 and 16–year-olds will not become sewing machinists, mechanics, overlockers and knitting mechanics unless they have confidence in the industry.

I call on the Minister to throw us a lifeline. He must address the problems of the industry with great urgency and seek a seven-year—or, as we would hope, a 10–year —minimum transitional period.

Last week I was present at the completion of a new factory in my constituency. Courtaulds has invested £4 million in the new factory at Silsden, so demonstrating its confidence in the future of the textile industry, in the skills that exist among our operatives and in our ability to produce the best designs and the best quality garments which can sell anywhere in the world so long as they are able to compete fairly with those of other countries.

I place great emphasis not so much on the length of time during which the MFA is to be phased out but the linkage to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) referred. So long as other countries allow access of our goods to their markets and they withdraw the subsidies in which all too many of them indulge to prop up their industries, we—I am sure that I speak for the whole of the British industry—are prepared to see free trade and the withdrawal of protection proceed apace.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) that the social clause is essential because any freedom of trade must be based on equality, and clearly there is not equality in health and safety standards, trade union rights and levels of payment, which are equally important?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but we are in a poor position to impose on other countries the standards that we in Britain consider to be important.

I attach great importance to the withdrawal of subsidies and to a strengthening of the GATT rules. The dismantling of the MFA must go hand in hand with a strengthening of the GATT rules in accordance with the principles of the Punta del Este declaration. Provided those developments take place, I am confident that we can have a strong textile industry.

It is essential that Britain should not waver in its contribution to the negotiations, for many countries will hold out to the last if they see Britain and Europe unwilling to uphold the principles of competition, for which the British Government stand. Fair competition should be our standard, but it must apply to all countries. Unless they are willing to conform, we cannot be the odd man out.

I wish at the outset to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough (Sir J. Farr), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) for their kind remarks and welcome to me as I take up my new responsibilities. I hope that I shall live up to their expectations.

I am glad to have this opportunity, in my first speech as Minister for Trade, to reply on the important subject of the multi-fibre arrangement, an issue which we have debated many times in the House over the years. I appreciate that it is a matter of great concern to my hon. Friends, in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, who has been vigilant on behalf of his constituents' interests in the matter for many years.

I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, whom I knew well and worked happily with for two years at the Ministry of Defence, when we were, or could have been said to be, collectively the largest customers of British industry. My noble Friend attached great importance to his discussions with hon. Members of this House about matters such as the MFA and the visits that he was able to make to textile and clothing companies in different regions of the United Kingdom.

I say immediately in response to what my hon. Friends have said that I have every intention of continuing that close interest. I have already heard of the industry's splendid export record, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen referred. In the first quarter of this year, it showed a 14 per cent. increase in volume terms over the first quarter of 1989, a very satisfactory performance, and one hopes that it will go on to do even better.

I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that after less than 72 hours in the job, I have not been able to familiarise myself with all the intricacies of the MFA or with all the aspects of the textile and clothing industry.

At this stage of the negotiations, there is little I can add to the statements that have been made on the subject to the House. I appreciate that nearly two thirds of the work force of about 73,000 in the United Kingdom knitting and hosiery industry is employed in the east midlands, where I understand one in nine jobs in manufacturing industry depend on that sector.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. Although he has not been able to familiarise himself with the MFA, he brings to his new position all the experience he had in his former post and will therefore realise the importance of worldwide agreements, not simply on textiles. He will be able in his present post to draw the attention of Europe and the rest of the world to Britain's claim that financial services, chemical services and so on should be treated equally throughout the world. There would be no point in our throwing away our textile industry and getting nothing in return. In other words, it is not a single factor in this weave.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and what he says is perhaps the primary purpose of the GATT round—to end up with a balance of changes that are fair to all parties. I hope that my experience in my previous job at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other experience, not only in Government but before I became a Member of Parliament, will be helpful in the negotiations. After this relatively short time, I feel that I still have a lot to find out about the textile industry. I hope to have an opportunity to learn more about the industry, and see it at first hand.

When my hon. Friend visits the industry, will he pay particular attention to two points that have become clear to me in the work in which I have been involved as a consultant in the textile industry —that industry's commitment to modern management techniques and its readiness, as has been mentioned, to undertake large capital investment? I believe that the calls that have been made today for a level playing field are vital to the industry because, without it, some countries would find it better to sell up and get out of the industry than to continue, yet the commitment of those in the industry to that industry, both traditionally and in modern times, is extremely impressive.

My hon. Friend identifies a factor which is vital not just to the textile industry but to any industry, whether or not the playing field on which it operates is level—good quality of management.

There have been problems with the textile industry during the past two years. Clearly, a number of factors contribute to that, not least fashion and weather conditions. I understand the worries of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and assure him that we have very much in mind the prospects of different sectors of the textile and clothing industry.

rose—

If the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not give way, because I have already done so and this is a short debate. I am in danger of running out of time before I have been able to answer the points already made.

I was glad to hear of the scheme referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth under which the Department of Trade and Industry is providing £2·8 million over three years for a major project based in Leicester, designed to improve automated assembly techniques in the garments sector, and in which 22 firms are collaborating with leading academic institutions. As the project was launched only in January, it is too early for results, but I have no doubt that collaborative research and such development projects have a valuable role to play in improving competitiveness.

I was also glad to hear about new developments such as that referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks said, capital investment is vital to the prosperity of the textile industry, as to other industries.

As hon. Members know, the future of the multi-fibre arrangement is being considered in the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations, which is due to end this December. This week, the trade negotiations committee is meeting in Geneva to consider reports from the chairmen of the 15 separate Uruguay round negotiating groups concerned with different, but interconnected, trade issues. The committee's objective is to identify areas of agreement, where possible, as well as the further work that is needed if the Uruguay round is to come to a successful conclusion. The importance the European Community and other major industrial countries attach to a successful result was emphasised again at the Houston summit.

Ministers have explained to the House that the European Community remains committed, in the Uruguay round, to negotiating the phasing out of the multi-fibre arrangement, but over a transitional period and on the basis of strengthened GATT rules and disciplines. The European Commission, which negotiates on behalf of the Community in the Uruguay round, has put forward, in the negotiating group on textiles and clothing, proposals that specifically link the liberalisation of current restrictions to commitments on rules and disciplines, and provide for both to be monitored.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough rightly identified the importance of tackling trade distorting factors. At the same time, the Community is continuing to press hard in the appropriate negotiating groups for a general reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and more effective rules governing safeguard action against import surges, anti-dumping measures, the use of subsidies and the protection of intellectual property.

Those are important objectives for the Community and I know that they are of particular interest to the textile and clothing industry. I will continue to keep my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough and other hon. Members, in touch with developments as these important negotiations move into their final months, and I shall look forward to visiting textile and clothing companies. My office has already been in touch with the Apparel, Knitting and Textiles Alliance to arrange an early meeting.

I am aware that there is concern in the textile and clothing industry that little has yet been achieved in the negotiations, particularly in relation to market access—which several of my hon. Friends mentioned as being of such importance—and the strengthened rules and disciplines necessary for that, which I have mentioned.

The Uruguay round is an ambitious and complicated negotiation. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen was clearly well aware of the complexities and difficulties of those negotiations, which involve more than 100 parties with very different interests. Many of the issues are interconnected, and textiles is by no means the only problem sector. The difficult negotiations on agriculture are seen as crucial by many participants. There is absolutely no question of our ending up with what was referred to as a one-sided agreement. It is absolutely essential that the agreement should be fair to all parties and should make progress on the general objectives, with which all those who subscribe to GATT agree.

It is encouraging that a basis for continuing negotiations on agriculture has now been agreed, but much detailed work is still necessary, as, indeed, it is in other groups, including the textiles and clothing group. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that participants can be reluctant at present to give up long-established positions. For most developing countries, greater market access for agricultural and textile and clothing exports is of overriding concern. I doubt whether the most sensitive issues can be resolved until we are much closer to the final ministerial meeting in December. In the meantime, it is extremely important that the Community should argue strongly the case for its own proposals and be ready to clarify its position where there are misunderstandings. We must convince developing countries of our commitment to integrate the textile and clothing sector into GATT if they, in their turn, are to negotiate seriously in other spheres of interest to industrialised countries, including access for our textile exports.

In the end, the European Community, like all other parties, will have to look at the results of the Uruguay round across the board, and consider where its overall interests lie. We must look particularly critically at restrictions that raise prices or reduce competition. Imports from countries that can produce at lower cost help to hold down prices for ordinary families in this country. Textiles and clothing are important for every man, woman and child in the United Kingdom—retail sales in the sector amount to £l7 billion, and the price paid for those items is particularly important to lower-income families with children.

It is important to remember that the industry itself is also a consumer. Spinners buy in raw fibre and knitting and weaving companies "consume" the yarn. Dyers, finishers and printers prepare the fabric, which clothing manufacturers use. It is in the interests of both domestic and commercial consumers alike to have access to the widest choice of products at the best possible value. In that sense, imports are not bad news. They broaden the choice of product at different stages of production and allow companies to extend or complete their range. Equally important, the spur of competition, which my hon. Friends said that they welcome, helps our industry to maintain high standards, innovate and develop new products, and contributes to the fight against inflation. Open markets provide a key element in the Government's economic strategy.

For all those reasons, the Government believe that it is in our overall economic interests to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement. We cannot in any case shelter our industry from competition: two thirds of our textile imports by value and a significant proportion of our clothing imports are from other member states of the Community. The recognition that protection cannot be maintained for ever will stimulate the innovation and investment that we have identified in this short debate as being so important. Companies need to demonstrate what they can offer in terms of quality, design, productivity and quick response to offset lower wage rates in developing countries.

Much has already been achieved in the industry, and recent export figures show some of the benefit, but that does not mean that adjustment is necessarily easy. We want an outcome to the negotiations on the MFA that takes proper account of the interests of the United Kingdom, as well as the interests of consumers, retailers and importers.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you would inform the House whether you have had a request from the Government for them to make a statement on an important matter that should have urgent consideration —namely, the unscheduled, uncontrolled and hitherto undisclosed release into the atmosphere of substantial quantities of irradiated material from the nuclear establishment at Harwell on 15 July last year, and its potential impact on the people in the surrounding community?

That issue specifically relates to 2,000 curies of tritium gas, which were released when several thousand redundant telephone dials were mechanically shredded and their irradiated contents vented to the four winds, in an uncontrolled and unauthorised manner and without warning to the community. This is the latest example of surreptitious atmospheric littering, and it repeats the worst standards that we criticised in the Soviet nuclear industry at the time of Chernobyl—

Order. The points that the hon. Gentleman is making are not for the Chair, but my answer to his direct question about whether Mr. Speaker has received a request from a Minister to make a statement is, "No, he has not."

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am truly grateful for your guidance, but could you give me some further guidance, and tell me how —when regulations have been flouted in such a cavalier fashion—an hon. Member, on the last day of a parliamentary Session, can draw attention to this dilatory and negligent behaviour—

Order. I dealt with that point in my earlier remarks: this is not a matter with which the Chair can deal.

Further to that point of order, Madam. Is there a Standing Order equivalent to the one relating to Question Time, which would allow a Member to say—in view of the unsatisfactory statement about textiles in the last Adjournment debate—"I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible."?

That is a tactic that I first used in my first year in the House.

Perhaps I can begin my remarks by picking up the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who has referred to a serious environmental hazard. The management would no doubt say that it could not happen, because of the fail-safe systems involved. As with many sophisticated technical systems, however—whatever the experts may say—such fail-safe systems do fail, as we know to our cost.

I apologise to the Minister for Roads and Traffic for dragging him here this morning, as I know that he had alternative plans. I should also apologise to his son, as he is the one who will lose as a result of the Minister's presence here this morning. Perhaps the Minister will appreciate, however, that I am raising the matter of the incinerator in Trafford Park because my own son and three daughters live in the area in which it will operate. As both a parent and a constituency Member, I am concerned about the impact of that incinerator on the health of my children and those who live in the area.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) is here and is to speak later, because I wish to establish from the outset that this is not a partisan party-political issue but one that unites the entire community in our area. As the House would expect, I am authorised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) to register their opposition: the four constituencies most closely involved are—through their Members—united in their opposition to the development of the incinerator.

As the Minister will know, the plan is to build the incinerator at Trafford Park. Its function will be—at least in part—to destroy chemicals such as PCBs which are brought into this country from overseas. While the European Community Council of Ministers and the Minister of State, Department of the Environment were involved in the decision to ban imports from the Community—I congratulate the Minister on that—I feel that there should also be a ban on imports from the rest of the world. Nearly half of what is taken to the incinerator in Pontypool, south Wales is imported: we are bringing in other people's dirty washing.

I do not want to be accused of the NIMBY syndrome—"not in my back yard"—but I feel that we should recognise that, although the disposal of PCBs and other chemicals must be dealt with, we have no obligation to take on the world's problems. We should think seriously about what policies we adopt towards the importation of waste. Even in their unincinerated form, PCBs are dangerous chemicals, and, in the Stretford and Davyhulme constituencies in Manchester the lorries that carry PCBs are themselves dangerous, which in itself worries my constituents.

The reasons for our concern about incinerators are obvious. They have a bad record in general, and there is also specific concern about the company involved. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs examined the ReChem incinerator in south Wales; a different company is involved in Manchester, but there are parallels. Torfaen borough council was so concerned about the incinerator that it submitted samples from the surrounding area for independent analysis.

The Select Committee reported that high levels of PCBs has been found in duck eggs near the plant and in grass samples—levels 50 to 100 times the background level of PCBs. That is from a plant that ReChem insists is technologically optimal; experts would say that the technology is of a kind that they would be prepared to reproduce elsewhere. However, the PCB levels are unacceptable to both the council and to the Select Committee. The Select Committee's report stated:

"we recommend that major incinerators are not in future located near residential areas."

The Minister knows Manchester and will be aware that Trafford Park is surrounded by housing that is in my constituency and those of other hon. Members. The site is yards across the canal from a major housing estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles. The location is certainly residential and the incinerator would fall foul of the recommendation of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.

The Select Committee report has a considerable bearing on the proposal. I am greatly disturbed at the role played by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which is the direct responsibility of the Department of the Environment. The inspectorate is the licensing authority and must license the incinerator and any other equipment that is required. To date, it has been incompetent. It placed a small advertisement in the Manchester Evening News inviting comments on the proposals. As far as I am aware, it was seen by hardly anybody. It was drawn to my attention by Trafford Park development corporation which told me that it had received a letter from the inspectorate saying that HMIP had no plans to block the proposal, subject to planning approval by the corporation.

The concern about the proposal was such that the development corporation, as the planning authority, arranged public consultation meetings. That was done at no small cost. However, the inspectorate placed just a tiny advertisement and says that there is no problem about the proposals. That shows contempt for people in the area.

The Select Committee report stated that the inspectorate is greatly understaffed. The Minister may want to comment on that. ReChem was asked:

"Would you acknowledge that the lack of inspectors working for Her Majesty's Inspector of Pollution is one of the reasons why there is something of a lack of confidence in the operation of your factory?"

Mr. Lee, the managing director of ReChem, replied:

"Yes. We would welcome as many inspections as possible. As far as we are concerned, the more inspections the better."

The report says that the inspectorate found it difficult to fill vacancies and had problems about retaining staff. In October 1989 it was 45 staff short of a complement of 240. The report states:

"HMIP therefore finds it difficult to respond quickly or effectively when incidents take place."

At public meetings held recently in Manchester, the representatives of Leigh Environmental were asked how they would respond if there were unacceptably high levels of emissions of dioxins or other chemicals from the plant. They said that nothing could be done for days. Worse still, the inspectorate does not test for such chemicals but simply accepts the results provided by the company. It is unacceptable for it to be left to the company to provide evidence about whether it is causing pollution.

I have little confidence in the work of the inspectorate. It is charged by Parliament to safeguard the public interest but the public have little confidence in the way in which it has operated so far or in the way in which it will operate in future.

Leigh Environmental says that the plant will be operated to high standards and it talks about an efficiency level of 99·999 per cent. That seems satisfactory, but even at such high efficiency levels, evidence from around the world suggests that there is still significant pollution involving chemicals such as dioxins. Dioxins are among the most deadly chemicals known to humanity. They cause cancer and produce defects in unborn children. The consequences of dioxins in the atmosphere are devastating. Even at optimum efficiency such chemicals are still produced.

If an incinerator is operated at less than maximum efficiency, the production of unacceptable byproducts increases not just a little, but astronomically. An inefficient plant is an incredibly dangerous source of pollution. Leigh Environmental has a disastrous record. I shall quote from the company's log book which records happenings at its Yorkshire site. I have picked a few examples at random. The log book is filled in by the company's operatives and they recorded on 19 January 1989:

"HMIP round, big problem smoke."

The company is anxious to make sure that the inspectorate does not catch it in default of its obligations. The log book is riddled with references to HMIP, and I am surprised that the inspectorate has done nothing to control the unacceptable operation of the plant.

On 13 March 1989, the log book recorded:

"Can you make sure you do not make any smoke in the morning as you will be watched by HMIP."

Presumably smoke is all right in the afternoon or on the previous or following days, but there must be no smoke when the inspectorate is about.

An entry on 26 April refers to the incinerator and says:

"Do you really think the plant with a BS25 jet in the aux should run without telling anyone."

I am not sure what that means. Another entry states:

"we have run at low temperature most of today".

An incinerator running at low temperature is incredibly dangerous because such low temperatures produce the dioxins that not only pollute the atmosphere but can kill people. A company that operates its incinerator in a grossly incompetent and inefficient manner is unfit to operate one in a residential area.

On 11 July 1989 the log book states:

"There is a site visit tomorrow, so can you have a tidy up in front of tank farm, please"

Once again that shows care and consideration when there is to be a visit by the inspectorate, but little control when the inspectorate is not about.

On 23 August, the log book records a visit from HMIP and states:

"HMIP unhappy housekeeping around plant, open top drums without lids, also sodium analysis."

Again the inspectorate caught the company carrying out unacceptable practices and did not take proper action. The log book lists numerous times when the plant was inadequately maintained.

On 6 April this year, one of the operatives wrote in the log book:

"It seems that nowadays safety of equipment and personnel come secondary to production."

A company which, according to its own operatives, puts the safety of its equipment and personnel secondary to production is unfit to operate a plant in a residential area.

For all the reasons that I have outlined, we are greatly disturbed about the proposals to develop the plant. I am alarmed on behalf of my family and my constituents. The proposal will put a time bomb in our midst. It threatens the environment, the quality of life and, possibly, the lives of my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

I supported the creation of the Trafford Park development corporation. One of the problems is that it was given extraordinary planning powers and, in effect, took the place of the local authority. When the corporation was given those powers, it was assumed that it would have responsibility for planning on matters that affected only Trafford Park and would not have a wider impact. It was considered that the park was an industrial area and that it was quite reasonable to give the corporation such planning powers. I have doubts about whether that was true, but for the most part the development corporation has dealt with planning applications in a way that has caused no criticism. In this case, the development corporation is not the appropriate planning authority, because the issue has wide implications for the area. The proposal is of major concern within the development area itself. Kellogg, an international manufacturer of foodstuffs, has expressed concern and doubts about the impact of the plant, and no doubt the corporation will take its views on board.

If the corporation refuses the application, as I hope it will, the company will appeal. The application will then go before the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Minister may say that ties his hands, as to the extent of the response that he can make. While I appreciate that, it is most unsatisfactory that we should be forced to fight with one hand or perhaps both hands tied behind our back. If an appeal is made, there will be a local planning inquiry, but if the corporation grants the application there will be no parallel right of appeal by the community.

I should like the Minister to say this morning that he will call in the application with a view to refusing it so that the threat to lives in my community will be scotched at this early stage. If he cannot do that, I should like him to say that the issue is of such importance that the corporation is not competent to determine the matter and that the Secretary of State will call in the application in such a way that will guarantee a local planning inquiry, at which local objectors as well as the company can make their case to the inspector, so that the matter can be properly considered.

The hon. Member for Davyhulme will demand for his constituents, as I demand for mine, that they are given maximum protection, and that includes a right to ensure that their concerns can be voiced at the highest possible level.

I am alarmed at the prospect of the incinerator, as are thousands upon thousands of people, including my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East, my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles, and the hon. Member for Davyhulme. Collectively, we want the plant stopped, and we look to the Minister to protect the quality of our constituents' environment. The best way to do that is to ensure that it is not allowed to be built.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on his success in securing a debate on an issue that is important to his constituents and to mine, and I thank him for his courtesy in volunteering to allow me to share some of the precious time available to him.

I re-emphasise the deep concern and disquiet that is felt by the residents of my constituency at the prospect of two incinerators in Trafford Park that will be used to burning of toxic and other chemical and clinical waste. However, public concern extends far wider than my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Stretford, to Eccles and Salford, immediately across the Manchester ship canal, and to the entire Greater Manchester area. The issue should not be viewed by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the Government as one that affects only one or two constituencies.

Trafford Park was the first and greatest of the purpose-built industrial estates, and it remains to this day the largest industrial complex in the United Kingdom. I have been closely involved with Trafford Park for 20 years. In 1970, together with Norman Quick, who this year is high sheriff of Greater Manchester, founded the Trafford Park industrial council with the aim of ensuring the continual development and prosperity of Trafford Park as a major industrial and commercial centre, and of improving its environment.

The past 20 years have seen a vast transformation in Trafford Park's environment, especially in respect of air pollution. In 1970, Greater Manchester's death rate from bronchitis was the highest in the country bar none. A high proportion of the deaths were due to emissions from Trafford Park, but also because almost every home had a coal-burning fire. The last two decades have seen that situation change out of all recognition. It would be tragic if today, in the 1990s, we were to put at risk much of the good work that has been done over the past 20 years. No matter how efficiently the plant may operate, and no matter how free of breakdowns it might be, the level of emissions will still be considerable.

At a public meeting at Lancashire county cricket ground two or three weeks ago, the promoters of the scheme, Leigh Environmental, admitted that PCBs and dioxins would remain undestroyed. Not surprisingly, the company claimed that the level would be very low, but that factor cannot be ignored. The plant would put out a large volume of various dioxides—particularly sulphur dioxide, which is believed to be a direct cause of bronchial problems, asthma, and various other ailments.

Although the Government have a responsibility to secure the safe disposal of chemical wastes, I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford that the heartland of a conurbation of 3 million people is not the proper place for that to be done. One acknowledges the difficulties that confront the Government. There is opposition, rightly, to the dumping of toxic chemicals at sea, and it is no longer acceptable to use landfill sites to bury such waste, because it can then find its way into the water table and may subsequently contaminate water supplies. That opposition led the Government to consider incineration as the way ahead.

In view of the Government's concern about global warming, I wonder whether this is the best or the only way ahead. Above all, I query whether the middle of a residential area comprising 3 million people is the appropriate place for it. The incinerator is to be sited in Trafford Park, upwind of the conurbation of Greater Manchester, with prevailing westerly and north-westerly winds, and will have a devastating effect throughout the the area downwind of the plant, which includes the centre of Manchester and surrounding dormitory suburbs.

Local residents are not the only people to be concerned. Industry and commerce in Trafford Park feel that their interests will be blighted, none more so than food manufacturers.

One must ask, when Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, seemingly with great and indecent haste, rubber-stamped this proposal, subject to planning permission by the development corporation, did it consider the implications for food processors in Trafford Park? Kellogg is in Trafford Park, producing cornflakes for the entire nation, and other major food processors are there. Is that a suitable place for a toxic waste incinerator, alongside major food-processing companies? My constituents certainly have the gravest doubt about it.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister inquire of the director of HMIP what consultations he has had with the chief medical officer of this country and the medical establishment about the suitability and desirability of placing incinerators in the middle of residential areas?

I agree with the hon. Member for Stretford, and I hope that Trafford borough council, which is considering the matter, will recommend that the proposal be rejected. I also hope that Trafford Park development corporation, which is the planning authority—like the hon. Gentleman, I have reservations about whether that should be the case in a matter which affects the environment and people's health—will refuse the planning permission applied for.

I hope that the Secretary of State will call in the plans because they are unacceptable as they stand. It is not merely a question of saying that we do not want this in our backyard: no one wants it in their backyard. It is not acceptable to spew toxic wastes out of chimney stacks within a few hundred yards of people's homes, schools and playgrounds.

A few years ago there was a malfunction at one of the sulphuric acid plants in Trafford Park. A big joke was made of the incident because young ladies working in office blocks on the other side of the ship canal in Salford found that their tights were disintegrating. This is a serious matter, not a laughing matter. One must wonder what effect such malfunctions and the continuing emission of wastes into the atmosphere will have.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give my constituents some reassurance on this matter.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on raising a matter which is of great concern to him. In his own inimitable way, my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has spoken about the concerns of his constituents. The hon. Member for Stretford also referred to the anxiety of the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). They will all know that I have come to this job afresh, and while I am familar with Trafford Park as an industrial site of great significance, and with both of the Old Traffords in the area, I am not as familar with the detail of this case as I shall inevitably become. I have considerable sympathy with the points that hon. Members have raised and understand their concern.

There has been a great deal of publicity in recent times related to problems associated with the movement and disposal of various kinds of waste and that has coincided with the growing and welcome public awareness and concern over the protection of our environment. It is not surprising that in this climate of opinion proposals for large new waste incinerators tend to generate genuine apprehensions, expressed across the House this morning, among people living and working in nearby areas who fear that the quality of the air they breathe may suffer as a result.

One can readily understand the feelings of the people of Salford and Trafford who, having seen, as my hon. Friend eloquently described, all that has been done since the 1950s to clean their air of smoke and pollutants, feel that they may now he facing a new, and perhaps more harmful, if less visible, threat. It is natural that they should feel that way, and that they should seek to have that threat removed from their locality. But, as hon. Members know, a statutory framework of control exists and is being operated to protect their interests.

The operation of clinical and chemical waste incinerators of the kind being proposed by Leigh Environmental at Trafford Park is a scheduled process under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, and the Health and Safety (Emissions into the Atmosphere) (Amendment) Regulations 1989. The incinerators, therefore, will be required to be registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution before they are permitted to operate. They will also be required to use the best practicable means to prevent the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances and for rendering harmless any which may be emitted. This requirement will apply to discharges occurring from anywhere on the premises as well as from the chimneys. It relates to the manner in which the plant is operated as well as to the provision of systems and equipment.

Special wastes regulations will apply to materials arriving at the site as well as to solid wastes leaving it, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will be consulted by the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority about the terms of the licence for the disposal of these wastes.

There is therefore in being a comprehensive system under which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—the national regulatory body—will apply detailed control over operations at the incinerators, should they be built. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is of course closely aware of what is proposed and I understand has raised no objection to the planning application.

The controls apply to the operation of the plant but its development is also subject to the normal processes of planning control. To a large extent, that is the substance of this debate. Planning controls are concerned with regulating the development and use of land in the public interest, an expression which, on the face of it, is extremely wide. In general, however, it is unnecessary and unreasonable to seek through planning control to duplicate controls that operate under separate and more specific legislation. Nevertheless, there may be occasions when the use of planning controls is justified. Local authorities were advised in the Department's circular 11 of 1981, on clean air, that

"Planning permission should be refused only where the authority is satisfied that the development in question would result in a significant deterioration of local air quality even after the use of specific process to control pollution".

It is open to planning authorities to refuse permission for a particular development when that development will be registered by HMIP, provided that they are satisfied, having regard to all the material considerations, that the effect on the atmosphere is unacceptable, or that it is otherwise contrary to the public interest to allow the development to proceed.

These, then, are the control procedures operating in respect of the Trafford park incinerator proposals. The question arises whether the planning issues raised by them are such that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should intervene and call in the planning application for his own determination. This would have the advantage, for the objectors, that if my right hon. Friend did call in the applications, he would almost certainly arrange a public inquiry into them.

The vast majority of cases which are called in have already been referred to the Department as substantial departutes from the operative development plan for the area. In the case of the incinerator proposals, I understand that Trafford park development corporation has not treated it as a departure from the plan. That is not to say that the application could not be called in, but in this situation very strong grounds for doing so would be needed.

Hon. Members are concerned that the local planning authority in this instance is an urban development corporation and not a local authority and, moreover, that the effects of the incinerators, should there be any, are more likely to be felt by people outside the corporation's area than those within it. Hon. Members have made the point that it is on the edge of the site.

It is true that the corporation has a duty to secure the regeneration of Trafford Park and therefore seek to promote investment and development there, but the corporation is also a local planning authority with the same responsibilities for controlling development as other planning authorities. It has the same duties with regard to giving publicity to applications and for consulting other authorities, and, like other planning authorities, takes into account representations made to it.

I have no doubt that Trafford Park development corporation takes these duties seriously and will take careful and full account of the understandable fears of its neighbours, and of evidence about the possible consequences of operating the incinerators. Indeed, it seems to me that a corporation in whose interest it is to promote a good image of its area, is most unlikely to give less weight to questions of the sort than other authorities.

I therefore do not consider that the fact that these applications are being considered by a development corporation, or the fact that much of the concern that it is causing arises in neighbouring areas, are in themselves issues of a nature which would justify intervention by my right hon. Friend. I see no reason to suppose that the corporation will not consider all the representations and objections made most eloquently and forcefully by the hon. Member for Stretchford and by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, and that it will not make a decision based on all the material considerations.

In coming to a decision, the corporation will have the benefit of the environmental statement prepared for the applicants and submitted with the planning application. In accordance with the relevant regulations, the statement has been placed on deposit with the application and has been available for public inspection since 5 April. There has, therefore, been time for other authorities and bodies to study it and to prepare cases against it. I am sure that the development corporation will consider any such cases most carefully.

On the evidence so far before the Department—I repeat those words for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stretford and my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme—on the evidence so far before the Department, I am not persuaded that a sufficient case has been made for taking the exceptional step of calling in the planning application. I understand people's fears about the proposal, but I do not think that fears alone, unsubstantiated by evidence, are sufficient to justify calling in the application. I can assure hon. Members, however, that all that has been said today, and any new evidence and representations that may emerge, will be carefully considered and appropriate action taken by me and my right hon. Friend if it is necessary to do so.

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

• Appropriation Act 1990
• Finance Act 1990
• Government Trading Act 1990
• Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990
• Representation of the People Act 1990
• Marriage (Registration of Buildings) Act 1990
• British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990
• Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990
• Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990
• River Tees Barrage and Crossing Act 1990
• Hasmonean High School Act 1990
• Associated British Ports Act 1990
• Medway Tunnel Act 1990
• Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Act 1990
• City of London (Various Powers) Act 1990
• British Railways Act 1990
• Penzance South Pier Extension Act 1990
• Great Yarmouth Port Authority Act 1990
• Care of Cathedrals Measure 1990

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of the pollution at the Camelford water treatment works, which occurred on 6 July 1988. The matter has been given undue prominence again during the past few days and I believe that it should be debated in the House and that, on this occasion, we should try to get the facts straight.

I intend to rehearse a few of the details surrounding the incident and its immediate aftermath; to deal with certain points that arose from the Lawrence report, which was produced as a result of studying what had happened; to deal with elements of the Clayton report, which was an independent medical inquiry, to deal with certain specific issues, such as whether there has been a cover-up, whether there should be a public inquiry, the contribution of the press and the media and then to consider certain recommendations of the Clayton report.

Camelford and its immediate surrounding area is one of the most attractive parts of the west country. Hon. Members who represent the west country speak highly of our constituency environment. We are proud of it. The area around Camelford, stretching out from Port Issac, Tintagel and Boscastle is one of the prettiest areas in my constituency. In 1988, its faith in the standard of its water supply was shattered as a result of an event on 6 July. It was only during the next few days that some elements of the scale of the incident became known when people had the most extraordinary reactions when using the water in tea and coffee or for washing. Many dead fish were seen in local streams and rivers. However, at the same time, people were being assured by representatives of the water authority—this was before privatisation—that the water was perfectly safe to use and to drink. When I was in the constituency, I heard such reassurances being given on the local radio.

It has since become clear that in the middle of the following week the board of the water authority knew exactly what had happened and decided, in the interests of public confidence and not causing undue alarm, not to tell the public what had happened.

In the first week following the incident, suspicion and alarm grew. The press discovered that the incident had been caused by a lorry tipping 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank at the treatment works, thereby polluting drinking water which was entering the main system on the Lowermoor network. The Lawrence inquiry, which was set up by the water authority, reported at the beginning of August, setting out the full details of exactly what happened and why.

An appalling chapter of incidents had led to the pollution of the water supply. The inquiry reported the most desperately awful accounting between various members of the water authority dealing with the incident. It revealed gross lapses of security; the delivery lorry driver had a key to the treatment works and that key fitted every padlock on the premises; there were no signs to the various tanks so it is little wonder that the new driver visiting the site for the first time had little or no idea where to tip the chemical.

I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) in his place. During the months following the incident he has shared my concern. He will recall that I was particularly outspoken at the time about the attitudes and actions of the water authority and the board. I made certain demands of the Secretary of State which were not heeded at the time.

However, exactly what happened has been made quite clear. A lorry tipped 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the wrong tank, thus polluting the water supply. The water authority reacted to the inquiry's report by accepting responsibility for the incident, apologising for it, and subsequently meeting certain clear-cut claims for loss.

From August to December 1988, suspicion grew that the public were not being told the truth. One of the reasons why I was so outspoken at the time of the publication of the Lawrence report was that, because the public had not been told immediately about what had happened, subsequently they found any pronouncement about it hard to believe.

In so far as my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) have any influence on any public institutions in future, I urge them to make absolutely certain that when those institutions commit an error they are directed to publish the facts immediately, because if they do not there are the most profound effects on the local population.

Between August and December 1988 various comments were made—many without foundation. We were informed that the sludge in the bottom of the tank into which the aluminium sulphate had been poured meant that the aluminium sulphate would have entered the water supply far more quickly than had previously been thought, and that information caused alarm. It is also clear that a number of people were still complaining about feeling unwell.

I went to see the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who is now the Minister of State, Department of Transport, just before Christmas 1988. I was accompanied by Walter Roberts from Camelford whom I thank for all his efforts. We impressed upon the Minister that he should set up an independent medical inquiry, which was subsequently established under the chairmanship of Professor Barbara Clayton. It was appointed on 11 January 1989 and began its research into the problems.

Before the setting up of the inquiry, it was established that, with one exception, there was considerable scepticism among all the local general practitioners that there had been any unusual referrals of patients to them as a result of the incident. They could not detect any particular abnormalities in the referrals. Nevertheless, the panel, which included some extremely eminent people, considered the incident in great detail. Subsequently it reported that the Camelford incident had resulted in no long-term health effects. It judged that the worst possible level of aluminium contained in the water supply that could have been consumed by any of my constituents could not have led to permanent health damage.

Hon. Members who are interested in these matters will know that Professor Edwardson of Newcastle general hospital was a member of the committee. He is a renowned expert in the subject and was impressive in giving evidence at the publication of the findings. He told those present that he and a laboratory assistant had drunk a sample of the worst possible level of aluminium that could have been consumed and had suffered no ill effects. He also said that considerable work on aluminium intake had been done at Newcastle general hospital and elsewhere. Work had been carried out on renal patients who, by the nature of their problem, consume over much longer periods far higher levels of aluminium than were ever experienced in the Camelford area. Such work has shown that it takes a long time of sustained high-level intake before any material effect is registered.

After the report was published and as a result of the incidents I have described, there were people only too ready to dispute its findings, question its efficacy and challenge the reputation of those on the panel. I must tell the House and my hon. Friend the Minister that I did not join in any of that. I was happy with the way in which the report had dealt with the matter. I was further reassured because Professor Edwardson said that if I ever needed any further information from him, I could obtain it.

It has been suggested in various correspondence and by certain people affected by the incident or those seeking to help them that there has been a cover-up. As the local Member of Parliament I have sought to apply such judgment and experience as I have—at times, in scientific matters, it seems to have been far too little—to discover whether that is the case. I have come across no evidence of a cover-up, though I remind the House of the unfortunate decision made at the start when the water authority decided not to inform the public until the publication of the Lawrence report.

Ministers have always been extremely helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering, the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the new Minister have all been open and helpful. This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as Under-Secretary of State for Health. The health authority has done all it can to help, but it is not for the health authority to prove that certain problems relate to the Camelford incident. It is charged with the duty of looking after public health. As I have said, I have found no evidence of a cover-up and that should be placed on the record.

People have asked—and are asking again as a result of the publicity this week—for some form of judicial review or public inquiry. I hope that whenever that is put to my hon. Friend the Minister he will see to it that his officials remind him, by inserting the word "resist" on his brief, that that would not be a good idea. An enormous amount of time and effort would be taken up by a public inquiry which would tell us nothing that we do not already know. We know exactly what happened and who was responsible, because they have accepted responsibility and even paid damages. We are left with a medical problem, which we must consider.

I am a great believer in freedom of speech and certainly of the press and I have always expressed doubt when pressures have been exerted in this place to curtail it. However, I have been astonished by some of the reports in the national press and other media. They seem to accept only the evidence and opinons of certain people to prove a certain point and content themselves solely with trying to promote that point without scientific evidence to back it. Often, they do not give people who hold an opposite view the chance to contribute to articles or to give their view of statements that are made.

There has been a litany of such cases, and I shall refer to the Clayton report, the independent inquiry into the health aspects of this incident, which says in its conclusions and recommendations:

"Serious anxiety about the possibilities of long-term effects has been widespread in the community. Much of the continuing anxiety is attributable to reports in newspapers, radio and television which have given prominence to alarming statements by some scientists concerning the long-term effects for which there is no adequate scientific foundation."

I can only urge those who are rightly interested in the subject to ensure that they take proper account of that and seek to advance our understanding of the medical implications of the incident rather than merely channel it in ways that appeal to some political, environmental and other interests, because that is not in the best interests of my constituents, who are trying to discover why some of them are undoubtedly ill and have been proved to be ill.

I suspect that were you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ask hon. Members about what they had read in the press or seen on the media in the past few days, their clear impression would be that brain damage has been caused as a result of this incident. The first sentence of a press release of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority, which was issued with a recently published paper that caused the media activity in the past few days, says:

"Despite tests, no scientific proof has been produced that contaminated water two years ago affected the memory or caused major life changes for the people in the Camelford area who drank it."

The collection of papers on the Lowermoor incident which were published with the press release show nothing that links cases of illness to the incident. We must be careful about what we say.

The conclusions and recommendations of the Clayton report state:

"10. An appropriate expert organisation should be designated to provide the directors of public health with authoritative medical and toxicological advice without delay in the event of an incident. A national panel should be established comprised of independent scientists whose expertise is most likely to be relevant and who would be willing to assist the designated organisation at short notice.

11. In the event that members of the public have been exposed to chemically contaminated waste as a result of an incident, the designated organisation should advise the directors of public health of clinical tests relevant to assessment of exposure and to the diagnosis and treatment of patients."

I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that his predecessor accepted the report's findings and I should be interested to hear what steps have been taken to establish a panel. One of the complaints made by local doctors, the health authority and certain integrated parties is that they have not been able to find out from the acknowledged experts what they should do. I would not want to put any colleague through what faced north Cornwall or through the difficulty that we faced in not being able to direct people to expert information. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take whatever steps remain to be taken to ensure that a panel is established quickly and that every director of public health is informed of its existence and how to get information about it quickly. That important adjunct to their service should be available.

The final recommendation in the Clayton report states:

"In the event that expert advice indicates a serious possibility of long-term harm, clinical surveillance and epidemiological following should be implemented."

Knowing my hon. Friend the Minister, I am certain that, unless I admit that there is a contradiction in my contribution, he will remind me of one. I have said that I have not found any evidence that has suggested to me, as a Member of Parliament who is deeply interested in this matter, any connection between the illness of certain people which has been reported and the incident on 6 July. If I find that there is such evidence, I shall do whatever I can to ensure that it is used in the right way. I have established with Professor Edwardson of the Clayton panel that the latest series of papers issued change his opinion not one jot. He remains absolutely convinced that there is no evidence of a connection.

In connection with that final recommendation of the Clayton report, I must say this. As I have admitted, in a number of cases the press and media have been gravely irresponsible in their coverage of this matter. There have been some excellent and balanced reports, but there have been reports—no doubt there will be more—that have been grossly unbalanced and have pushed a particular line. No doubt, for their own reasons, some outside this place will want to do the same. The cumulative effect on my constituents' anxiety is profound.

I concede that this is true throughout the country but people in Camelford are ill and the doctors cannot say why. Moreover, the reports that have been made and even the papers that have been issued contain comments to the effect that the authors can see no causal link but that they cannot rule out the possibility of a connection. It is to the great credit of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority that it is continuing to look at the evidence that is coming to it and to press for further research. For example, a report on pregnancy tests in the area is almost completed.

I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to accept that, although there is no such evidence, recommendation 11 should be activated for the benefit of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority and that the health authority should be encouraged—in so far as it needs any encouragement—to set up a panel of acknowledged experts on the various elements of the matter to whom it can refer and whom it can ask to research the matter. I say that simply because I do not have the conviction that this is the last time that the matter will blow up in the press and media. I think that it will happen again and again because there are too many grey areas with which it is impossible to deal. Every time that happens, it will cause anxiety and problems.

I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that he intends not to institute a public inquiry, because that would be irrelevant and would divert too much attention away from the medical research that needs to be done. I hope that, at every possible opportunity, he will encourage the publication of the correct story and the known evidence, to reassure my constituents of the truth on every possible occasion. I hope that he will ensure that the panel to deal with incidents across the country is established quickly and made known to health authorities throughout England and Wales. I hope that he will assist the health authority in any way possible to set up its own panel to advise it.

Perhaps at the same time my hon. Friend could make it clear that, like me, he has no evidence to suggest that the water supply is now in any way unsafe and that we are talking about a historical incident. Perhaps he will make it clear that it is perfectly safe for people to live in Camelford, to consume the water and to go on holiday there and have a jolly good time. Finally, will he confirm that if, at some stage, someone finds proof and wishes to sue those responsible, either the new privatised company or the existing residuary water authority will deal with the matter?

rose—

I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again. That is so.

I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to speak twice. The constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) have considerable reason to be grateful to him for the effective way in which he has sought to represent their concerns and to address the real issues that arose from the incident which occurred more than two years ago.

My hon. Friend has given the background facts of the incident, so I shall not weary the House by repeating them. He has also demonstrated once again that he is the full master of the facts surrounding the incident and that he is well capable of drawing out the key issues of concern to his constituents—the public concerns arising from the incident have been real and have to be addressed—and of ensuring that substantial facts are addressed and that facts are distinguished from unfounded allegations, and, perhaps even worse, the allegations of those who have a malicious intent in using public concerns for their own short-term gains.

The real issues that arise from the Camelford incident can broadly be divided into two headings. First, there are the operational issues of a water undertaking and, secondly, there are the public health issues and the concern about whether the Camelford incident resulted in identifiable health risks for those who drank the admittedly polluted water.

As my hon. Friend said, the operational aspects were the nexus of the issues addressed by the Lawrence report, published in August 1988, which provided a clear analysis of the undoubted shortcomings that led to the incident. There were clear shortcomings of management which the report identified. The South West water authority took steps to rectify those.

My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment asked all water undertakings to review their management and operating procedures, their on-site security, their procedures for receiving chemicals, their monitoring of the quality of treated water and their emergency plans. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), now the Secretary of State for Employment but then the Minister responsible for water, reported to the House in April 1989 that a number of improved operational procedures had been adopted in the water industry following that review.

Therefore, the water industry can legitimately claim that it took effective action to learn the lessons of the incident and then took steps to ensure that those lessons were disseminated and that action was taken to try to minimise the risk of such an incident recurring.

Those were the management issues addressed by the Lawrence report. There was also the question of the handling of public information at the time of the incident, and I am sure that my hon. Friend was right to emphasise the necessity for any undertaker finding itself in that position to publish the facts immediately.

Any attempt by an undertaker, whether it is in the public or private sectors is irrelevant, to conceal facts operates against its own interests and, more importantly, against the public interest. To draw on an unrelated experience of mine as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Energy at the time of the Chernobyl disaster, that was precisely the case that my right hon. Friend sought to press on the Russian Government. Where there is a public health concern, it is in everyone's interests, including the undertaking's, that the facts are published immediately. That did not happen in this case and it is a cause of legitimate criticism which is accepted by the South West water authority.

It is important for us to control such criticism because, although it is true that the authority did not act as it should have acted at the time of the incident, that shortcoming was addressed within two months of the incident, and that addressing of the issue is now more than two years ago. So although there was a legitimate cause of concern at the time, it is no longer a ground for criticising the way in which any of those active or involved have operated since the publication of the Lawrence report and since the issues have been in the public arena.

However, as my hon. Friend correctly said, although the operational facts were published and were in the public domain relatively quickly—not quickly enough, but relatively quickly—after the incident, public concern continued to develop, and that led my predecessor to set up the medical inquiry under Professor Dame Barbara Clayton. That was established on 11 January 1989. That inquiry was set up to address the second nexus of issues, the public health questions, and to see whether those who drank the polluted water suffered a direct health consequence as a result of drinking it.

The committee that was set up by my predecessor had eminent membership, people who used their scientific experience to assess a specific scientific question. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is as important in assessing scientific cause and effect to insist on rigorous science as it is to insist on the availability of public information.

I believe that my predecessor, by setting up that committee and by staffing it with experts in the field, and then by insisting that Government comment on the subject, took account of the rigorous science that was produced by that committee, proceeded in the right way.

Public information must be available, but if we are talking about scientific cause and effect—about an assessment of whether the health of individuals was damaged by a particular incident—that is not a question on which a politician is qualified to comment. It is a question of medical fact. I am not a doctor, nor was my predecessor and, with respect to my hon. Friend, nor is he. We have no choice as politicians but to rely, in relation to technical and scientific questions, on the technical and scientific advice that we receive from the eminent bodies that we set up precisely for the purpose of giving us that advice.

My hon. Friend asked a series of questions. He asked whether there had been a cover-up, and I agree with the way in which he addressed that issue. As I said, everyone acknowledges that inadequate information was available in the first few weeks. I do not believe that is any longer the case. From the time of the publication of the Lawrence report, the commitment has been clear, both on operational and health questions, and that has been to ensure that the information available is made public. That has been a shared commitment by the Government, the health authority and the water authority, and any suggestion of a cover-up seems entirely misplaced.

My hon. Friend asked whether there should be a public inquiry. It is always too easy when faced with public concern to say that the only way to handle it is to set up another public inquiry. In this case, inquiries have sat and the facts—with a few exceptions to which I shall come—have been established. If the call is to set up a public inquiry, the first question to be addressed to those who espouse that call is: what will the public inquiry inquire into? I do not believe that any case can be made out for conducting a public inquiry into the operational issues arising from the incident, because there is no sphere of ignorance into which a public inquiry can inquire. The facts are known; they are in the public domain. There is no legitimate case for a public inquiry on those issues.

As to whether there is a case for a public inquiry into the medical issues, it seems at the very least highly arguable whether a public inquiry is a legitimate instrument for inquiring into medical matters. In any case, the bulk of the medical questions have already been addressed, although there are some follow-on questions arising as a result of the papers of the February seminar, which were published this week, and about which I shall say more later. There does not seem to be a case for a public inquiry into either operational or medical issues. If my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North wishes me to give an assurance that I shall not, on the facts currently available to me, establish an inquiry, I am happy to do so.

I have already referred to the document published this week, and it is important to be clear about that document. It is a publication containing papers that were presented to a seminar earlier this year to consider specific health trends following the Camelford incident. None of the papers in that document seeks to establish, or does establish, a casual link between the conditions described in the papers and the Camelford incident, but the papers pose questions that merit further examination.

The authors of many of the papers presented to the conference, while not claiming that their studies demonstrate a causal link between exposure to aluminium in water and the long-term medical conditions described in their papers, believe that some issues require further attention, particularly the serum aluminium results, which are thought interesting because they fit in with current understanding of how the body metabolises aluminium.

No clear explanation has been given and the matter could easily be worth further investigation. The issue needs confirmation and further study, as is usual with any new scientific data, especially where they conflict with established findings. The authors do not confirm that ill-health experienced by people in Camelford is due to aluminium in water or raised levels of aluminium in water, but it seems that those issues require further attention and the health authority has already said that it will set in motion the machinery for further examination of those issues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North talked about the recommendations of the Clayton report. He rightly said that my predecessor has already committed the Government to accept that report's recommendations in full. He specifically drew my attention to recommendations 10 and 11, and asked what progress had been made on the setting up of those committees. My Department is currently completing consideration of the means to establish the organisation to provide authoritative medical and toxicological advice should any incident occur. We shall shortly be announcing the appointment of the national panel that was called for in those two recommendations. I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend that those two recommendations, and the other recommendations of the Clayton report, will be not only accepted, but acted on by the Government.

My hon. Friend talked about recommendation 13 and asked for some more follow-up work to be done to allay the fears that still exist. The papers that were published following the seminar in February raise specific medical questions on which further medical advice is necessary, and that medical advice will be sought. Such a specific scientific question that must be addressed on a rigorous scientific basis, and not by the bandying of political and public concerns through the media. Such questions will be addressed in the laboratory and not in the television studio.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North on the way in which he has represented his contituents' concerns, and I share his commitment to ensure that it is essential that all those involved are open with information concerning public health. There is no public interest to be served by concealment. I share also—

Order.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in an Adjournment debate on the important subject of the tyre dump fire at Heyope, Knucklas, near Knighton in my constituency. I have tried on two previous occasions to secure such a debate. People often say, "Three times for a Welshman"; on this third occasion, I have been lucky enough to bring the matter to the attention of the House. I am especially glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is present to deal with my constituents' anxieties.

The fire was described on the front page of one of the tabloids as a "burning inferno" on the first day of the year, I suspect that the papers were short of news, but it made a dramatic headline none the less. However, it has become a forgotten fire. My objective is to give a balanced view and to come up with serious suggestions about how it can be tackled, while stressing the legitimate fears of my constituents for their community and for the precious environment in this lovely part of my native Wales.

Late in the day on Saturday 28 October 1989—ironically, one of the wettest days of the year—a fire was started at a tyre dump in Heyope. We believe that it was arson, but the police authority has yet to track down the perpetrators. That irresponsible act set light to some of the 10 million scrap tyres on the old dump, which lay in a dingle through which flowed Ffrwdwen brook. For those who are not familiar with the dingle, it is a deep wooded valley on the borders of Wales.

Twenty years previously, the dump had been started by the predecessors of the Motorway Remoulds company of Knighton, in an age when the environment was not considered in the same light as today. The tyres became a serious pollution hazard as soon as they caught light. Before, when they were inert, they were not believed to be a pollution hazard. The resulting pollutants from the burning tyres ran into the brook, and the fire and fumes polluted the air. It took the Powys fire brigade nearly 10 days to get the fire under control, and it had to seek help from the Shropshire brigade to tackle the blaze. The fire services deserve our grateful thanks for controlling the fire.

The Motorway Remoulds company is a valuable local employer. employing some 110 people in Knighton. It could be said that the company is also performing a useful service in recycling tyres by retreading them. The only problem is that as a by-product there are many waste tyres, which are dumped at Heyope in the landfill site. The old site—which is still burning some nine months after the fire started—was licensed by the local authority, the then Radnorshire county council. A new site nearby was licensed about three years ago by Radnorshire district council. That is more strictly controlled under the council's interpretation of waste management paper No. 26. Tipping takes place in compartments and the tyres are shredded.

The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs commented on tyre dumps and on the Heyope site in its recent report on toxic waste disposal in Wales. I was a member of the Committee and its main recommendation was that the waste management guidelines for disposing of tyres should become a condition of any site license. It also recommended research into recycling programmes for worn tyres. The Select Committee's recommendations are extremely sound.

During the Select Committee's study two factors emerged about the interpretation of waste management paper No. 26. They came to light in a letter from the Clerk of the Committee to the technical director of environmental services of Radnor district council, Mr. Lance Cartwright, who replied to inquiries about the Committee's interest in the fire. The Radnorshire environmental health officer said:

"The telephone call with which the principal EHO Cartwright received.

I would confirm that the above facility was licensed in accordance with our understanding of waste management paper 26."

He quotes the relevant sections of the document and says that the site is mono-disposal whereas paragraphs in the waste management paper No. 26 refer to the disposal of tyres on a co-disposal site. He goes on:

"In the light of recent events I would suggest that waste management paper 26 could be revised so as to more fully cover the situation of either mono or co-disposal sites."

Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution commented on that in a letter to the Committee on 9 March:

"Though the section on the disposal of tyres in waste management paper 26 is contained in the chapter on co-disposal, I think the opening sentence is very clear in advising against the large scale disposal of tyres, be this at mono or co-disposal sites. The fact that mono-disposal is not mentioned specifically should be read as this form of disposal being not recommended. However, I do accept that this advice against the large scale mono-disposal of tyres is not as clear as it should be. When we revise waste management paper 26 we shall take the opportunity to make clear our strong advice against the disposal of shredded tyres in other than minor quantities."

That shows that there is some confusion about waste management paper No. 26. The local authority has interpreted it in one way and Her Majesty's nspectorate of pollution has interpreted it in another. The matter must be clarified.

The pollution caused by the fire gave rise to great worry in the area. The bodies dealing with the effects of the pollution are the National Rivers Authority, Radnor district council and Motorway Remoulds Ltd. At one stage Harwell was called in. In addition, Powys fire service has played an invaluable role. The pollution has affected water courses, especially the Ffrwdwen brook, and air pollution has also been experienced. Local people are understandably worried and have formed an effective tyre fire association. They fear that the fire may flare up and that the area may have to be evacuated. There was a small outbreak on 23 June but fortunately it was extinguished.

I congratulate the NRA on its effective monitoring of pollution and its preventive action. The NRA told me that from 12.15 pm on 29 October the local pollution control officer was at the scene. The brook flows into the River Teme, and approximately 50 miles downstream, water is extracted for drinking purposes. I am informed that up to 4 million consumers in the west midlands depend on that supply. The NRA ensured that pollution did not enter the river Teme after the initial outbreak, although traces of phenol were found as far downstream as Tenbury in the first two days.

Biological deterioration has been noticed in the Ffrwdwen brook up to one mile downstream from the fire site. Peak phenol pollution reached a brief high after the intitial fire of 2,000 mg per litre, but that fell rapidly to low levels. The brook breached EC drinking water standards three times in respect of phenol concentration in the initial stages. Other chemicals present were cyanide and polyaromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, which are carcinogenic. At no time was the brook or the river Teme above European drinking water standards in this respect and the NRA is continuing to monitor the situation.

Radnorshire district council engaged Harwell to investigate air pollution, and a brief report was produced at a cost of £500. However, monitoring of air pollution has been inadequate, and it has not produced detailed information comparable to that available from the NRA in respect of water pollution.

Air pollution is of major concern to residents, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure them. They would like the site to be regularly monitored for air pollution, although I suspect that insufficient resources are available to do that adequately. No problem may be evident on a superficial examination, but the local population needs more convincing reassurances.

A small authority such as Radnorshire needs assistance because it cannot respond alone. I ask the Minister to note the recommendations of the Welsh Select Committee regarding waste disposal authorities and the need to provide resources on a larger scale, and on a regional scale in Wales. The pollution inspectorate is inadequately resourced in Wales. That was highlighted in the Welsh Select Committee's report. The Principality has only two HMIP officials and its office is moving to Bristol.

indicated dissent.

The Minister indicates otherwise, so perhaps he will put the record straight when he replies.

Motorway Remoulds deserves some sympathy. The company is trying hard to overcome its problems, but a long-term solution must be found. The priority must be to put out the fire quickly. The company is digging out some of the tyres and damping down those that are exposed and are still burning. That is a long job, and it presents hazards in terms of run-off into the local stream. It is also vital to maintain employment at the Knighton factory, which provides jobs for 110 people.

The long-term future of the dump must be examined with the ultimate objective of phasing it out. Recycling should be at the top of the agenda, and the production of rubber crumbs, and of rubber for playgrounds and for other purposes, should be investigated. The feasibility of tyre burning in power production should also be examined, although a plant would cost £38 million. However, that option would dispose of 12 million tyres annually, which is roughly half the number dumped in Britain each year. The contents of tyres are complex. Rubber now constitutes only a minor part of a tyre. Carbon black and metals of various kinds are also used.

I ask for more resources from the Welsh Office and from the tyre industry to put out the fire, even if it costs as much as £100,000 to do so.

I hope that the Minister will address the problem of resources for a small authority such as Radnor. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must be beefed up, with a full-time director and office in Wales at least six staff. Radnorshire district council needs more resources. I believe that the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs need to be taken on board.

I am sure that the Minister will have studied the Department of Trade and Industry report on recycling and disposal of tyres. About 23 million tyres are dumped annually in the United Kingdom and we need a regulatory framework such as exists in other countries. For example, in West Germany there is a payment of DM 100 per tonne for dumping tyres.

The report says that historically landfill is cheap but is not now appropriate, that the United Kingdom is backward with proposals for recycling and that we need recycling legislation.

The local community is worried about a number of matters: it wants regular air tests, monitoring for health risks to children, who should be kept away from the stream, evacuation procedures, the continuation of water monitoring and monitoring of potential health risks.

The Heyope fire must be put out now. We need to maintain jobs. We need the resources to tackle environmental pollution, and to clear it up. We need weekly information to be provided to the local community so that residents know what progress is being made on the site. We also need to review landfill procedures under waste management paper No. 26 and we need to legislate.

Will the Minister promise future legislation, based on the DTI report, so that all tyres are recycled or burned, and will he now initiate a five-year programme to bring that about?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) on bringing this subject to the attention of the House, even at this late stage. Otherwise, I might have been tempted to remain in his constituency after my visit to the Royal Welsh show yesterday. I am rather surprised that, as a farmer, he has not been there this week. It certainly brings great credit to agriculture and, with the present fine weather, offers a marvellous scene for young and old and for those people who want to learn about the industry.

The Heyope fire is a matter of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and he will, I am sure, be interested to know that when the deputy chief environmental health officer of Radnorshire district council visited the site on Monday of this week, there was no sign of smoke there at all. However, the work dealing with this fire is clearly still continuing, and we hope that the contractors will be able to extinguish the remains of it before very long—that is, this summer.

The site is a waste disposal site, operated under licence from Radnorshire district council. The council, as waste disposal authority for its area, is responsible for licensing all private sector waste disposal sites, passing resolutions for any sites operated by the council, and carrying out all site inspection and enforcement duties required under part 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

Similarly, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the duty of the National Rivers Authority to protect surface and ground waters against pollution and to ensure that flora and fauna are protected.

The council granted a waste disposal licence to Motorway Remoulds Ltd, in 1982. The licence was granted for the disposal of scrap tyres at a site specified as Batches Dingle, Heyope, Knighton and it stipulated that the disposal of tyres at this site should be limited to 5 tonnes per day.

As waste disposal is a locally determined matter, the regulation of this service is the responsibility of the district council, and under the provisions of the Act it is the council's responsibility to take the steps needed for the purpose of ensuring that the activities to which the licence relates do not cause pollution of water, or damage to public health, or become seriously detrimental to the amenities of the locality affected by the activities.

Thirteen conditions were attached to the licence for controlling the landfill operation. Notable among these conditions were the requirements to restrict disposal activities to the disposal of tyres; that the site should be securely fenced; that the watercourse flowing through the site should be culverted and that fire fighting equipment should be provided on site to meet the requirements of the chief fire officer. A further licence condition states that the whole site shall be covered with soil to a depth of at least 9 in and the soil maintained at this depth to allow consolidation to take place.

In 1987, in agreement with the company, the council revised the conditions of the site licence to include a condition requiring the operator to tip the tyres within contained areas. The purpose of this condition was to contain the possibility of a fire outbreak to the "contained" area, but insufficient detail is contained within the licence to prescribe the nature and extent of the containment. A further condition sets out the requirement that the site access road shall be kept in a good state of repair, sufficient for the access of any fire-fighting equipment that may be called.

Following the fire, Radnorshire district council proposed further amendments to provide greater clarity about the provision of fire-proof barriers. I understand that a meeting to consider that in detail is to be held between representatives of the council, the fire authority and the National Rivers Authority on 1 August, which is next week.

The operator of the site, Motorway Remoulds Ltd., collects worn tyres from a nationwide network and transports them regularly to its factory at Knighton for reprocessing. I understand that the company's selection and test procedures reject on average about 2,000 tyres per week which are sent for disposal to the Heyope waste disposal site.

The outbreak of fire occurred ironically on 29 October last year—one of the rainest nights of last autumn, and as the hon. Gentleman said, it has been suggested that it was started deliberately, but it is impossible to tell.

The district council visits the site on a regular basis to advise where necessary both on environmental health grounds and waste disposal activities. Similarly, the National Rivers Authority is visiting the site fortnightly to ensure that risk of pollution to the stream passing through the site is minimised.

To reinforce pollution prevention activities filter units have been installed in the bed of the stream within the confines of the site to prevent oily waste from the landfill area discharging into the stream. This oily waste is collected in 45–gallon steel drums and transported off site by contractors for disposal at a suitably licensed site. Polluted water produced during fire-fighting activities is being stored and recycled on site in a closed loop system, so no polluted water is entering the stream.

Inspectors from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution are liaising with the regulatory authorities, providing advice, where considered necessary. I assure the hon. Gentleman that HMIP covers all forms of pollution and has a staff of seven in its Cardiff office. That office will remain—it is not going over the channel. As I have said, the inspectors liaise regularly with the local authority.

The most recent visit by a member of the inspectorate took place on 16 July. As there had been a partial collapse of the sealed surface area of the site on 23 June, which had resulted in dark smoke being emitted. That had been quickly brought under control by the site contractors present on site. The fire service had attended on that occasion, but fortunately, before the fire service arrived, the fire had already been dealt with by resealing the collapsed areas with inert material stored on site. No other fire outbreak has occurred at the site since that date.

The company has engaged consultants to advise it on the most appropriate measures, and work is currently being undertaken to excavate the burning tyres, to douse them thoroughly with water, and to spread them over the stabilised area of the site to cool off. The cool material is, I understand, then reintroduced into the lower tipped area where the fire has been extinguished, and the mass of waste consolidated and resealed. I understand that the contractors are gradually working their way up the valley, excavating partially pyrolised waste, cooling it with water and repositioning it in a non-active area of the site. I understand that large clouds of steam are emitted when new areas are opened up and watered, but no polluted water is leaving the site—all water seeping from the base is filtered and recirculated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents will feel reassured by that.

I appreciate what the Minister is saying about water pollution, but my constituents also need reassurance about air pollution. Does the Minister have any plans to do anything about that?

As I mentioned, HMIP covers various forms of pollution. The first responsibility falls on the local council, and environmental health officers are qualified to reach a preliminary conclusion on that. If the environmental health officer or the HMIP inspector who calls regularly feels that it should be examined in greater depth, I am sure that it would be, but official bodies are already in place to take care of that issue and they are better qualified than the hon. Gentleman or me to do so.

Two tracked excavators are deployed to excavate the area. The excavation and reconsolidation of the tipped material will continue until all hot zones have been treated, and I understand that most of the work may be completed towards the end of this or next month.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the possibility of water pollution, and the fact that there is a public water supply intake some 50 miles downstream of the site. There has been some pollution of streams in the immediate vicinity of the fire, as I explained in a written parliamentary reply to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 5 March. The advice I have now is that there has been no significant pollution to date and that no polluted water is leaving the site.

The National Rivers Authority is maintaining bunds across the river where it emerges from the culvert to the tip. It is monitoring the water quality regularly and will continue to do so until such time as this particular problem has been sorted out.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned several other matters. I should draw attention to the fact that the Government have a wide variety of proposals for recycling tyres and for updating waste management paper No. 26, which was referred to in the report of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. The Committee took the trouble to mention the reference in that waste management paper to recommended practices for the disposal of tyres. The hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the British tyre industry is also taking the matter seriously.

On the Select Committee's first recommendation, we propose to enhance the status of waste management papers so that the authorities will be obliged to take regard of their recommendations instead of merely taking note of them in carrying out their duties of licensing and enforcement.

We recognise the size of the problem created by the large numbers of tyres being disposed of annually, and have for some years been encouraging the development of effective solutions. In November 1989, the Department of Trade and Industry commissioned a major study by KPMG Peat Marwick McLintock aimed at finding economically efficient, environmentally sound and commercially viable methods for the recycling and disposal of used tyres.

As indicated in the Government's reply to the report of the Committee, the report of the study has been presented to the Department of Trade and Industry, and it is intended to discuss it in a working group representative of the interests concerned, including consumer and environmental bodies. I understand that preliminary meetings have been held already between officials and representatives of the tyre industry, motor traders and tyre retreaders.

On atmospheric pollution, the Clean Air Act 1968 states:

"dark smoke shall not be emitted from any industrial or trade premises and if, on any day, dark smoke is so emitted the occupiers of the premises and person who causes or permits the emission shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine."

That legislation has been recently strengthened by the Control of Smoke Pollution Act 1989 which enables local authorities to prosecute for illegal night-time burning—where the colour of the smoke cannot be asertained—and to take action against anyone, not just the occupier of the land, who causes or permits dark smoke to be emitted. However, the statute makes allowances for inadvertencies and we feel that that might form sufficient defence in this particular case.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the need for more recycling in general. He should remember that last year the Government established an advisory group on recycling to help identify ways sharply to improve the United Kingdom's recycling performance. The group comprises representatives of industry, trade and commerce, district and county councils and voluntary and environmental organisations as well as central Government. The group has been focusing on domestic waste and looking at the recovery and recycling of a wide range of products and materials such as glass, paper, metals, plastics, tyres, textiles and comestibles. Its recommendations will be taken into account in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper on the environment. If the hon. Gentleman waits for that White Paper and considers what is in the Environmental Protection Bill, he will find that most cases and most of the concerns which he rightly expressed today will be taken care of in those Government publications.

This is a matter which concerns us all. The hon. Gentleman is right not merely to defend his constituents but to take an interest in something that concerns Britain and in which the European Community is taking an interest. He will be aware of the frightful fire in Canada. I am glad that his case is not as serious as that. Things are in hand and his constituents can be reassured.

I am grateful for the opportunity of raising the case of the firm of H. Harris Ltd. of St. Ives. It is a sad story. The firm has been in existence since 1800 and has always been under the same ownership. Let me make it clear that the owners are not related to me.

The firm moved from the east end of London to St. Ives during the war after its premises had been bombed. Since that time, until just over a year ago, it carried on a highly successful and respected business. It might seem rather odd that at one stage the only two firms of ivory cutters in the United Kingdom were in St. Ives. The second firm was a breakaway company from H. Harris. It existed for some years but subsequently closed and its business interests were taken over by the parent company. H. Harris was on the point of expanding until just over a year ago when the basis of its business was virtually destroyed overnight.

We all know of the grave and proper concern there has been in recent times—it has been taken up by national newspapers and television—over the fate of the African elephant. We have all seen dramatic pictures on television of poachers at work carrying out their heinous, illegal trade in ivory. I am not denying that it is a big problem.

As a result of the publicity, Her Majesty's Government decided suddenly and without real warning to take unilateral, interim measures pending international action, hopefully to deal with the problem. I have considerable doubt about the ban that was imposed.

I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) taking his seat, as he has played an honourable role in trying to obtain a ban and international action. As I said, I am not criticising the eagerness of the Government or environmental agencies in taking action against the serious problem of poaching.

My view, for what it is worth, is that the ban will probably succeed in driving the illegal trade underground and making it more difficult to control, while forcing out of business firms such as that in my constituency which have acted scrupulously over the years and dealt only in legal ivory. The ban fails to take account of the difference that exists in Africa over stocks of elephants. Attention has been focused properly on the Kenyan problem, but further south in Botswana there has been for many years a regulated trade in ivory and the stocks of elephants are increasing dramatically. Therefore, there has to be culling of the stocks and that has given rise to a legitimate and legal trade in ivory.

That trade has been controlled for many years through the convention on trade in endangered species. The firm in my constituency has always complied to the letter with all the requirements of CITES. It imports only legal ivory and, every time it does so, it has to undertake an elaborate certification procedure to show where the ivory came from. Exports of its finished products had to be certified.

The firm's trade is in cutting keyboards for high-quality pianos and organs. It is an old-established firm which has always been in the Harris family. Its present owners, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen, are my constituents. Mrs. Lloyd-Owen's maiden name was Harris, and her father was made a member of the British empire in recognition of his services and of those of his firm to exports over many years.

In May last year, largely as a result of pressure from the hon. Member Newham, North-West, the then Leader of the House hinted that the Government might take interim action to deal with poaching. That surprised my constituents, because until then they had always been consulted by the Department of the Environment on various matters connected with the ivory trade—and so they should have been, because theirs was the only firm in the country involved in that aspect of the trade. They immediately contacted me and I tried to obtain further information.

Subsequently, an announcement was made by my noble Friend Lord Caithness, the then Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside, following a visit that he paid to Kenya, that the Government felt that there should be a ban on trade in ivory and that they would take unilateral action to impose it in the United Kingdom in advance of a meeting of European Ministers on the subject and a later meeting of CITES. It was expected that CITES would move the African elephant from the appendix 2 procedure, which allowed limited trade, to appendix 1, which in effect stopped the trade in ivory of African elephants.

That came as a bombshell to that small firm in St. Ives. Its business was almost destroyed overnight and it had to lay off its sole employee, Mr. Curnow. It had been the ambition of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen to hand their flourishing business to their daughter to maintain the family link. Their business stopped, and it is now a company in name only.

I do not criticise the Government for imposing a ban on raw ivory, although I have the reservations that I expressed. But any Government who take such drastic action without notice or consultation have a moral duty to compensate those whom they put out of business. I can understand why Governments and international bodies take drastic action in the name of conservation, but they should take account of highly respectable and law-abiding firms such as H. Harris and should compensate them if they are put out of business overnight.

I have had long correspondence and meetings with Ministers on the subject. I pay tribute to them because they have been very courteous and have responded to my letters. I had informal consultations with Lord Caithness on the eve of the important meeting of European Ministers that imposed the European ban. The fact remains that the firm has virtually disappeared.

The Government's attitude is summed up in a letter that I received in June from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, who said that he could

"find no grounds for departing from our normal practice of not paying compensation when restrictions on trade are introduced for the purpose of conserving endangered species."

Why? I understand that the Government are anxious not to create a precedent. In this environmentally conscious age, Governments usually react quickly under pressure from parliamentary colleagues and the media. Suddenly, a head of steam builds up and Ministers think that they should take sudden action for perhaps political or public relations reasons. That is their right. I referred this case to the ombudsman, who confirmed that right and said that he was sorry that he could not take up the matter. However, I believe that the Government have a moral duty in these circumstances.

There is a parallel case that affects my constituency. Some bulb growers suddenly found themselves faced with a ban on the use of aldrin. I do not dispute the reason for that ban, but, again, no compensation was given. The Government should rethink their policy about implementing such overnight bans. They should consider whether compensation should be given.

I make no apology for making a special plea for H. Harris, partly because of its long, distinguished history and partly because it is the innocent victim of conservation politics and policies, both national and international. If the Government alter their stance and give compensation to that firm, I do not believe that a queue of other firms will knock at their door, because only this firm has been affected drastically.

My purpose is to make a last plea to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and, through him, to the Government to think again about this case. There have been many consequences for Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen. They have been left with £30,000–worth of ivory. They have a building in St. Ives which is now empty. They are a few years off retirement and would normally have hoped to carry on for some years. The ban has had a considerable effect on the family. I am sad that this is the end of a firm which has operated for 190 years, and I hope that the House and the Government are sad as well. Rather than just sharing my sadness, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond not just with sympathy but practically to the case of Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd-Owen, and that means compensation.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on securing this debate. It is characteristic of him that he should use it to put forward the worries of his constituents. I know from reading correspondence from him that he has set out the case vigorously to my hon. Friend the Member for the Environment and Countryside.

My hon. Friend has made clear the effect on H. Harris Ltd. of the imposition of the ivory ban. I have considerable sympathy with those firms or individuals who are affected by any trading bans that arise from international obligations. They are a reminder that environmental protection and nature conservation have consequences for trade and industry. They should be taken into account, and in this case were. I reassure my hon. Friend that we would not have contemplated such a ban unless we were convinced that it was necessary for conservation reasons.

The House will recall that the Government were among the first to recognise the seriousness of the threat to the African elephant posed by poaching and by pressure from human populations. We have been in the forefront of moves to ensure the survival of the African elephant and, I hope, its ultimate recovery. The main instrument through which these efforts are focused is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora, for which, mercifully, there is an acronym—CITES. We were one of the first countries to sign the convention and since its inception we have played a major part in strengthening and improving it.

My hon. Friend will have followed, through his other parliamentary duties, the gradual strengthening of the conservation of the African elephant—in particular, its move from appendix 3 of the convention up to appendix 1. The African elephant was first listed on appendix 3 of the convention in 1976 so that trade could be monitored. In 1977, it was moved to appendix 2 and commercial trade could then be permitted only if it did not pose a threat to the survival of the species. Sadly, despite a tightening of controls in 1985, the number of elephants continued to decline, chiefly because of the activities of ruthless, determined and well-organised poachers. The elephants' number fell as low as 600,000. That may sound a lot of elephants but Africa is a very large continent and the number of elephants had greatly exceeded that in previous times.

On 29 May 1989, Lord Caithness announced the Government's intention to support proposals to list the species on appendix 1 of the convention, thus effectively banning commercial trade in ivory. At the same time, there was the agreement in principle to a ban on imports of ivory into the European Community under the stricter controls already in force within the Community.

On 9 June—while the arrangements for the ban were being made—the Government introduced a unilateral ban on imports of ivory into the United Kingdom, as provided for by the existing European regulations. That was followed by a European regulation imposing a Communitywide ban which came into force on 17 August last year.

As the House will know, the whole question of the conservation of the African elephant and the proposed appendix 1 listing was fully discussed at the seventh meeting of the conference of the parties to CITES held in Lausanne in October last year. It was a long and difficult negotiation but the conference decided to list the African elephant on appendix 1 of the convention and to ban trade until the conference of the parties decided that trade in particular elephant populations can be resumed without threatening the survival of the species.

Another very difficult and sensitive issue considered at the conference was a proposal to allow trade to continue in stocks of ivory accumulated before the decision to transfer the species to appendix 1. That was of considerable interest to the United Kingdom as it affected Hong Kong.

As my hon. Friend knows, Hong Kong has been a major traditional ivory trading centre for many years and it was estimated that 3,000 local people depended on the ivory trade for their livelihoods. The Hong Kong authorities had reaffirmed their commitment to complying with the ban, but they were understandably concerned about the need to allow some time for their ivory traders to dispose of their stocks. For this reason, the authorities approached the British Government and asked to register a temporary reservation against the appendix 1 listing on their behalf.

The Government considered that request carefully and supported it. The effect of the temporary six-month reservation that resulted was that during the period that it remained in force, Hong Kong could export its existing ivory stocks to CITES parties which had entered appropriate reservations, or to non-CITES states. The reservation was the best way of meeting the Government's responsibilities to a dependent territory without compromising our support for measures to conserve the African elephant.

Does my hon. Friend agree that an arrangement similar to that made for the 3,000 people in Hong Kong should have been made for the three people in St. Ives who were involved in the trade? At least that would have given them a period in which to adjust. One of the great problems that they have faced has been the lack of information, from, I am sorry to say, the Department of the Environment on where they stood.

I recognise that British ivory traders may feel that they have been treated unfairly in comparison with those in Hong Kong. I am not unsympathetic to the problems that the ban has caused, but I must make it clear that our unilateral ban on ivory imports was introduced under existing European controls, which require us to refuse imports when we consider that they would have a harmful effect on the conservation of the species.

We were concerned that, unless such urgent action was taken, poachers and others involved in the illicit trade would intensify their activities in the months before international action could be agreed at the CITES conference. A dispensation for United Kingdom traders on the lines of the Hong Kong reservation would not have been possible under the European controls.

I fully understand why my hon. Friend's constituents would have welcomed prior notice of our intention to act in that way, but it would not have been fair to alert a single trader without issuing a general warning and that would have been an open invitation to poachers to step up their activities in the intervening weeks or months. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why it is not our policy to advertise our intention to introduce restrictions of that kind, as that could undermine the effectiveness of stricter controls.

The Government are conscious of the effect that their interim measures have had on the businesses in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, I repeat that controls on the African elephant have been increasing steadily since 1976. Our unilateral ban on ivory imports was introduced under existing controls which had been in force since 1984, and there have been many previous instances in which import restrictions for other species—for example, cockatoos and grey parrots—have been introduced under the EC CITES regulations.

It has not been our practice to pay compensation when restrictions on trade are introduced for the purpose of conserving endangered species, so although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's constituents, I regret that I can find no grounds for making an exception in this case. As I have already said, his case is illustrative of the costs involved in conservation efforts.

However, I hope that I can offer some consolation to my hon. Friend and his constituents. As he may know, the European Commission has said that the movement and sale within the Community of ivory legally acquired before 18 January 1990, when the international ban on ivory came into force, may be allowed. I am pleased to say that my Department has recently given formal consent to the sale of various pieces of ivory in the possession of my hon. Friend's constituents and they will therefore now be allowed to dispose of those stocks within the EC.

I understand that only four licences have been given. I gather that there are technical problems which mean that the whole stock is not covered by those four licences. I do not expect an answer now, but will my hon. Friend consider that so that sufficient licences can be given to enable the firm to dispose legally of its stock, although one has to accept that, as the bottom has fallen out of the market, it probably will not get anything like its value?

I undertake to do that. I was not suggesting that the whole stock—my hon. Friend referred to £30,000 in his introductory remarks—was to be disposed of under existing or new licensing arrangements. If, in the future, some additional licences can be granted, I shall ensure that that is processed as fast as possible.

I appreciate the points that my hon. Friend made. I am sorry to disappoint him in some respects, but I can at least assure him that disposal in the European Community, in so far as it is agreed internationally, may bring some relief to the business concerned.

My hon. Friend and his constituents will be pleased to hear that there are indications that the ban on the trade in ivory is proving effective in the war against ivory poachers. It may not bring much comfort to the business concerned, but I hope that, should the situation in Africa continue to improve, it may be possible in the not-too-distant future to allow the ivory ban to be lifted in some respects. If that happens and it can be done while preserving the population of African elephants, it may prove possible for the business in question to be rescued and possibly to grow in future.

I am delighted to have a second opportunity this week to draw the attention of the House to problems associated with the Lomé protocol after 1992. I shall discuss some of the details of what I think the effect could be on the British fruit trade in general and on the banana trade in particular. I shall then make some suggestions—I hope that the Government still have an open mind on the subject—about what we should be doing now to ensure that we not only protect our trade and industries but protect the interests of countries with which we trade and have traded for a long time.

In the Lomé protocol, which regulates the trade between the European Community and Afro-Caribbean and Pacific countries, there are a number of mechanisms under the banana protocol that ensures that preferential trading relationships exist with our historic trading partners. About 50 per cent. of all the bananas that come into European Community countries come from dollar fruit countries primarily in southern and central America. About 30 per cent. is home produced in southern European countries and about 20 per cent. comes from ACP countries.

Nearly all the bananas that come to the United Kingdom come from Jamaica and the Windward Islands through two major companies, Geest, which trades from my constituency at the port of Barry, and Fyffe. We in Britain, being the second largest consumers of bananas in the EC, consume 300,000 tonnes of bananas a year. Everybody will be delighted to hear that. It works out at about one banana per person per week. I hope that that rate of consumption continues and that we will continue to eat Caribbean bananas, because we shall thereby support not only British industry but our former colonies in the area.

I am delighted to say that the Prime Minister gave a categorical commitment in Jamaica in 1987 to do everything possible to protect our trading relationship. She said:

"We shall continue to fight hard in the European Community to … make sure that Jamaica and other Caribbean countries go on enjoying the preferential arrangements for … bananas under the Lomé Convention."

Lomé IV protects the ACP countries and states that no country should be worse off under any arrangement reached in the EC than they are at present.

I was delighted when, on Monday, the Lord President of the Council gave a commitment and stressed the importance of protecting those markets. He said:

"The Community is fully aware of its commitments to the traditional suppliers under the Lomé convention. We consider strongly that these should be taken fully into account, together with other factors, in drawing up future arrangements for banana imports after 1992."—[Official Report, 23 July 1990; Vol. 177, c. 105.]

That was a fairly strong commitment. But the problem is that the Government produced a discussion document this March that was circulated to other member states in the EC, ACP countries and interested parties and which will, if it is deployed, have the opposite effect.

While we welcome the suggestion in the discussion paper of continuing quotas after 1992 for banana imports from our traditional trading partners—for us, Jamaica and the Windward Islands, and for France and the southern European countries, west Africa, Somalia, the Canaries; by and large, former colonies—the problem is that under the price mechanism proposed in the discussion document, it will have precisely the opposite effect. The British Government are saying that they will give equal access to Caribbean countries to the existing dollar fruit share of the market—the 50 per cent. to which I referred—which goes largely to northern European countries and Germany. We must consider the implications of that and we should bear in mind the fact that the Germans are far and away the single largest consumers of bananas.

If those Caribbean countries are forced to compete on an equal basis, there is no question but that dollar bananas from central and southern America will swamp not only other European markets, but Britain. The reasons for that are fairly well established. The banana plantations in central and southern America are vast and situated on plains. They are run by large, multinational corporations and survive on extremely cheap, exploited labour. The House will be horrified to hear that in the last wage negotiations in Colombia between the plantation labourers and owners, no fewer than 200 plantation labourers were murdered during the process of negotiating their wages. That sort of incident, as well as other disturbing events, happens in that part of the world, compared to the Caribbean, where a collection of small producers produce bananas in difficult circumstances—the plantations tend to be on hillsides.

The banana is an attractive crop. It is the mainstay crop for most of the Windward Islands and represents 70 per cent. of St. Lucia's entire exports. It is a useful crop because, if it is destroyed by the weather, particularly the hurricanes that are experienced in that part of the world, it can be replanted and grown within nine months—a relatively short period.

The process for negotiating prices and payment with the Geest company in the Windward Islands—St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica and Grenada—is democratic. The growers from those islands meet Geest to discuss the rates and reach a settlement on payment in that district. The opposite applies to central and southern America. It is clear that the Caribbean will find it difficult to compete equally with Colombia and other countries. We should take steps either to continue to protect those markets or —and this is possibly the best course—to ensure a lengthy transitional period to allow those countries to adapt to other products, and to allow industries in this country to diversify production; as I have explained, I have a clear constituency interest. If we do not do that, the consequences may be devastating.

I am delighted by the effort being made by the British retailer Marks and Spencer. It has an experimental station in the Windward Islands to examine the development of tropical fruit, which has become a much more popular food lately. I know of an example dear to your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker: the kiwi fruit, which a few years ago was hardly available in this country, is now a regular part of our diet and can be bought from most supermarket shelves.

If we were swamped with dollar fruit, the consequences would be devastating. In the port of Barry in my constituency, which imports over 70 per cent. of all the bananas that come into this country from the Caribbean, the undermining or even loss of that trade would result in huge job losses. That would be a tragedy for the local work force and the local economy and would affect the long-standing relationship between Geest and Barry. I know from the comments made by the Lord President of the Council on Monday that that relationship is also dear to his heart. He spoke of his recollections of seeing the banana boats sailing out of the port of Barry when he was a child. I am sure that the Government do not want such a tragedy to happen, and will be prepared to do something to prevent it from happening.

We should praise the dock workers in the port of Barry, who have had a tremendous relationship with the Geest company for many years, and also have a tremendous industrial relations record. They are some of the most skilled dock workers in the country. Since the abolition of the dock labour scheme earlier this year, they have formed a successful co-operative—Barry Stevedores Ltd.—which is now handling the banana cargoes. The Geest company has a contract with Associated British Ports, which lasts until 1994. Then it must renegotiate the leases and the contracts to bring the bananas in, which of course involves the stevedores.

The danger is that, in the run-up to the renegotiation of that contract, the Government are not able to guarantee the market in the Caribbean. We could lose Geest once again. We lost it for a short time a few years ago, when it was attracted by better port facilities and better deals across the channel in Avon. However, I am delighted to say that did not last long, and it was soon back in Barry, because it knew that it was on to a good thing relying on our dock workers and the Barry community.

There could also be an effect in other constituencies from which the two major companies—Geest and Fyffe—operate, which could substantially diminish their operations and have consequences for jobs and the local economics. However, that is nothing compared with the effect that it would have on the Caribbean. Those countries are almost totally dependent on the one product—bananas. That is partly because of the devastating effect on their sugar industry some years ago, which also arose from our trading relationship with the rest of the European Community. In some cases that forced them to rely on bananas. If they lost that their economies could be devastated.

The Geest company provides vital communication and social links with the islands and those links would be lost if the company were forced to look elsewhere in central southern America for its products. My local Vale of Glamorgan borough council elected to sell to St. Lucia at a nominal price two second-hand dust carts. That may not mean much to hon. Members, but to the people of St. Lucia the dust carts were vital in keeping their island clean. The skilled dock workers in Barry packed the trucks into the hold of a ship that normally carried bananas. A range of items are shipped in that way at low cost to support those island communities. That facility could be lost.

It is in our own interests to support the industry, but we also have a moral obligation to our former colonies from whom we have done so well over the years. It would be a tragedy if the people in those former colonies were allowed to suffer. The end of the trade would also have an impact on the British shipbuilding industry, because some companies may be reluctant to order new ships if they are uncertain about the situation in 1993. That could affect other parts of the country. The drastic cut in British shipping over the past 10 years has worried all hon. Members.

If we remove the sole source of income of these islands, there is a danger of illicit drugs being produced. Such drugs could be grown in that part of the world and their production might attract the relatively poor banana growers. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) is worried about any substantial increase in banana boats coming to Britain from Colombia, a country which is notorious for drugs and drug barons. My hon. Friend tells me that some Colombian banana boats docking at his port have carried substantial quantities of cocaine. In some cases the cocaine was more valuable than the banana cargoes. The drugs can be seized and taken away, but the ships cannot be impounded because the Government could be held liable for the value of the cargo. That is a separate issue, but I am sure that it worries hon. Members.

What are our responsibilities and what should we do? We have produced a discussion paper and, in line with the traditional British character, we have said that we should play by the rules and head towards an open market. As long as it serves the interests of the consumers and meets our international obligations, we all agree in principle with the open market. The Government's proposals are ideal for the Germans. They are the biggest consumers of bananas and their primary source is dollar fruit. They would be happy to see the ACP share of the market collapse. France and other southern European countries are already taking steps to protect their interests.

It is incumbent upon the Government to be in the game of protecting our great British companies and our existing trade. I do not suggest that that can be done indefinitely, but transitional arrangements should be made. The countries affected and our industries should have an opportunity to diversify into other products and activities. We must ensure that in the short term we do not suffer again because we are not prepared to take the action that the Germans and French are prepared to pursue in Europe, to ensure that their industries, employers, historic trading links and commitments are protected. I ask for no more, and for no less, for the British.

I congratulate the hon. Member for the Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) on managing to debate the banana situation for the second time in a week, which must be a record. That shows how concerned the hon. Gentleman is about the trade in the West Indies and about his own port and workers.

Nineteen ninety-two and the single market process will bring widespread benefits, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair not to point that out. Not only the Community stands to gain from an open market. The door of opportunity will open further for our trading partners. That includes our partners in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries of the Lomé convention. Freer and increased trade will mean more prosperity and more freedom. The removal of internal barriers and greater economic dynamism within the Community will provide greater access for developing country exporters—not less.

Nineteen ninety-two does not mean that Europe has in any way turned its back on the developing countries, but the very opposite. We stand by our commitment to the developing world. It will march side by side with changes in the Community and with the events in eastern and central Europe, which will also provide new markets for the specific Caribbean products in question. Nineteen ninety-two represents an opportunity, not a threat.

There is no fortress Europe, and there will not be one. Such a thing would be in no one's interest. We are committed to making 1992 a force for liberalisation. The strength of our commitment to our Lomé partners is reflected in the fourth Lomé convention, which we expect to come into force early next year, and in whose final negotiations I played a large part. The new European development fund is nearly 50 per cent. larger than its predecessor, and the United Kingdom's contribution to it, at about £1·3 billion, is our largest ever single aid commitment.

The new convention provides further improvements to what were already liberal trade and access provisions in respect of both the industrial and agricultural products of the ACP countries. For example, further concessions have been made on the few agricultural products that are still subject to some form of restriction, by a combination of reducing or dismantling tariffs while increasing or abolishing quotas. Improvements have also been made in the important area of rules of origin.

All that means that the Lomé convention is already providing for 1992 in a number of respects, allowing our Lomé partners to take advantage of faster economic growth and the increased demand anticipated within the Community as a consequence of the single market. It will be far easier for importers to meet the single standard, with one almost certainly in place in one or more member states, than to address to a whole range of diverse requirements, which was the situation until we really made progress with the single market. So that in turn will mean economies of scale for producers, whether of industrial or of agricultural products.

I shall mention some of the single market initiatives before I come to bananas, about which the hon. Gentleman is so rightly concerned. To ensure that the developing world benefits fully from single market initiatives, Britain will continue to press our Community partners for greater openness in trading. In particular we are encouraging a constructive Community contribution to ensure the success of the GATT Uruguay round, which will be of great benefit to the developing countries.

Obviously, the move towards the single market will bring changes, but, where these are in sensitive areas, they must be carefully managed. We realise—and have always realised—that this is particularly true of bananas.

I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to the House in a little more detail than the Lord President did on Monday this week what we are doing to protect our traditional Caribbean suppliers of bananas. The latest Lomé convention again contains a protocol on bananas which enshrines the EC's commitment to traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific suppliers of bananas. We fought hard and successfully to renew the protection which that protocol provided to our traditional suppliers. Annexed to the convention we now have a joint declaration between Community and the ACP states which recognises the fact that the Community will try to establish common rules for bananas post–1992 but in full consultation with the ACP—which is the matter about which the hon. Gentleman is so concerned.

The United Kingdom remains committed to fighting to maintain effective preferential access arrangements for Caribbean bananas to the Community market, which are consistent with our Lomé obligations. As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, the Prime Minister has made this undertaking many times. As recently as the end of April this year, my right hon. Friend wrote to the Prime Ministers of our Caribbean banana growers:

"We defended your interests resolutely in the Lomé renegotiations and shall continue to fight hard to make sure that you go on enjoying the preferential arrangements for bananas under the Lomé Convention."

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's particular interest and concern in this issue but it arises from the fact that all our Windward's bananas come into the United Kingdom through the port of Barry in his constituency.

At present, the United Kingdom market is kept separate from the remainder of the European Community. ACP and EC bananas have free access to the United Kingdom. Other bananas, such as those from Latin America, are subject to import licensing.

A single market in bananas, which the ACP has accepted in principle in the Lomé convention, is necessary essentially because such internal Community barriers have to be removed from 1993 onwards. The current national arrangements will therefore no longer be enforceable. We have to devise common arrangements for bananas, and we have to strike a balance between a number of priorities in doing so. They are commitments to Community and ACP producers—the preferential suppliers; consumer interests; trade and competition policy: objectives in the GATT round; and, budgetary restraint.

The difficulties of reconciling the various objectives cannot be underestimated. After all, the Commission has been trying for about three years to come up with a proposal to bridge that gap, and has not yet done so. That was why we felt it worth while to get the debate going. So we circulated a discussion document, but it was only a contribution to the debate in the Community, because it is for the Commission to table a proposal.

As the hon. Gentleman well understands, it will take us some time to resolve this issue. The United Kingdom idea for a dollar quota would meet conflicting objectives better than any other suggestion so far, and would protect our traditional suppliers, whom we are pledged to protect. I do not think that we shall have the problems about which the hon. Gentleman has been worrying, although I respect his right to refer to those concerns in the House, as he has done twice this week. We shall provide for possible aid over a transitional period. That may be the way to proceed, but it has not yet been decided and all suggestions are therefore welcome.

At this point, perhaps I could reassure the hon. Gentleman about the position on tariffs. The current arrangements for EC trade in bananas include a GATT-bound 20 per cent. tariff on imports from what is known as the dollar area—central and south America—but not on imports from Lomé countries, which come in tariff-free. The way in which other countries will view the mechanisms that might be erected to ensure protection is not yet clear. However, we envisage that a tariff advantage will be maintained. We are not likely to be facing the prospect of a uniform tariff on ACP and dollar bananas.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the United Kingdom is not alone in the Community in having its own traditional suppliers to protect. It is true that other countries will seek to protect their traditional suppliers. Cameroon and the Ivory Coast supply France, while Spain imports from the Canary islands and Madeira supplies Portugal. All those sources of bananas face considerably higher production costs than the producers of dollar fruit.

In contrast, the Commission has to cater also for the needs of Germany and the Netherlands, the first of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Their customers are used to paying lower retail prices than those in countries with protected, higher-priced markets. The common arrangements for post-1992 trade in bananas will have to offer something to everyone if they are to command the support of a majority of member states.

We await the Commission's proposals, which should be tabled in the autumn. We shall then consider the proposals against the need to balance out the different and important objectives.

Our objective is to safeguard continuing preferential access for the Windwards and Jamaican suppliers after 1992. We want to build a framework within which they can assure the long-term futures of their banana industry. We remain in close touch with the Caribbean Governments and representatives of producers and importers about ways of achieving this.

Undoubtedly, the single market will bring with it many challenges, but it also provides tremendous opportunities. I have talked with some of the Caribbean producers and their leaders about the way in which they may benefit from the single market and enjoy the benefits of the wider market with easier access and a lack of barriers. I believe that, if they continue to work at the problems that they currently face in terms of quality and productivity, great gains can he made.

Although the Government will continue to support the Caribbean producers in the way that I have described, their success post-1992 in trade in bananas depends in no small measure on the producers' own efforts to overcome the severe quality problems at certain times of the year, which can make their bananas difficult to market. We understand that, and are seeking to help.

However, it is right that they should be encouraged —I have been encouraging them in my meetings with them —to diversify and to rely on products other than bananas. The Government have a long-standing programme to assist diversification into other edible crops in the Caribbean. We would hate to see any country start to produce coca or any other drug substance. That is not what we are in business for—we are in business to ensure that such countries have viable produce to sell on the open market as well as to offer access to our markets.

The hon. Gentleman might like to know that over the past 15 years or so we have committed over £4 million of our bilateral aid to assist in diversification with around £2 million committed to current projects. That is a measure of how seriously the need we are addressing the issue of diversification from bananas in the region.

In conclusion, it is too early to predict in detail the precise benefits that 1992 will bring individual countries. Although two thirds of the single market measures have now been agreed by the Council, many decisions have yet to be taken. Many measures will not come into force before the end of 1992. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to encourage progress towards completion of a market and we shall maintain our vigilance to ensure that it remains open and liberal and has the right solutions for the banana producers. It is an opportunity, not a threat. I urge our Lomé partners to rise to the challenge because those who grasp the opportunity will reap the rewards.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in one of the last debates in the parliamentary Session. I am equally grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development for being here with so few of us to see the sun set on the Session.

Perhaps it is fitting that one of the last debates should be about the momentous events that have unfolded in eastern Europe. I wish to speak on the methods by which we can assist enterprises in the emerging democracies in eastern Europe and to suggest how some initiatives, particularly on the know-how funds, can be geared to management training, especially that which is concerned with the values of free enterprise. Those values are not easy to define, but a definition is possible.

My personal interest in eastern Europe was aroused some three years ago when a book that I had co-authored was published in Hungary. It was essentially about management in western economies. It seemed to me that if a book written by a Conservative Member of Parliament—and a fairly dry one at that—was being used to train managers in a communist country, something fairly fundamental was happening.

I do not know whether anyone could have predicted the pace of change since then in eastern Europe, but by the late 1980s it was becoming apparent that the Soviet bloc could never really compete with the west. At last, fundamental Marxism was being seen as illogical when viewed against the facts of human behaviour and organisational success. Change was becoming irreversible and was spilling over from one country to another. People were no longer willing to accept the low standards of living that they had had to endure; they were no longer willing for their economies to be geared to meeting the needs of the Soviet Union. The rosy dream of state socialism had turned into a real-life disaster.

Thankfully, pragmatism is now replacing ideology. The transition to free-market economies will be painful in eastern Europe, but there is no alternative. The sooner that people in eastern Europe accept that pain, the sooner they will be able to reap the benefits. The degree of pain will differ from country to country.

Hungary is now trying to model its economy on western lines. It has a per capita income of only 55 per cent. of the EC average; it has an immense foreign debt. But it is well on the way to democracy. It is well placed to achieve commercial success.

Czechoslovakia has an average per capita income of 70 per cent. of the EC average. The recent elections there assure moves towards a free market. Czechoslovakia was once one of the world's leading industrial countries, and one of the world's richest countries with a long entrepreneurial tradition. It now has few products that can compete in world markets. It was the first country to manufacture motor cars, but now its industry is a shadow of its former self. In true socialist tradition, industry in that country has been bled to provide short-term production at the expense of long-term investment. But Czechoslovakia is also reasonably well placed to achieve success.

Perhaps the best chance of success is held by East Germany because of its links with the Federal Republic. It already has a per capita income of 75 per cent. of the EC average. It has the advantages of a pool of well-trained workers and massive investment from West Germany.

By contrast, Romania has a per capita income of only 35 per cent. of the EC average. It was once one of the richest agricultural countries in the world, but it is now dependent on food aid from the west. However, the problems there were not so much the problems of Communism but the problems of a feudal tyranny where truth simply did not exist and where the economy was based on lies and pretences. It now has a massive foreign debt, and the task that lies ahead is daunting.

Bulgaria has an income of 45 per cent. of the EEC average. Foreign trade there is still dominated by the Soviet Union, but it is taking tentative steps towards a free market economy.

Poland has an income of 40 per cent. of the EEC average. There, as we all know, the Communist party has been disbanded. There are bold moves towards a free market. Unprofitable enterprises are being closed, job security is being abandoned, monopolies are being abolished and privatisation is being vigorously pursued. Shock therapy in Poland is being applied to the results of state socialism. It is perhaps the bravest of all east European countries.

By contrast, Yugoslavia has an income of 45 per cent. of the EC average. It has traditionally had a much more liberal political regime. Over the years it has tried to pursue a halfway house. It has had free competition based on joint ownership of the means of production. However, it has been no more successful than its neighbours. Socialism in yet another form has failed and great changes are needed.

It is probably within the Soviet Union that the greatest problem lies. President Gorbachev knows that, in reality, there is no alternative but to introduce a free-market economy. His problem is in persuading the Soviet people of the short-term sacrifices that will be necessary. He was rightly credited with creating many of the opportunities for change in eastern Europe, but they came from a realisation on his part that the Soviet Union had no alternative but to withdraw from eastern Europe. He has a massive job to do. He said that even after many years of tried reforms Soviet workers continue to pretend to work and the state continues to pretend to pay them.

We hear a great deal about the level of financial support that will be needed from the west for eastern European countries. It is clear that private sector investment, particularly in newly emerging private companies, will be essential. However, money alone is not the answer, and nor is the straightforward transfer of technology. As Abraham Lincoln said, one cannot help people permanently by doing for them those things which they ought best to do for themselves. We in the west have to help them to facilitate change.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is well known for his views on eastern Europe. He has listed some of the things that he believes that east European countries have to do. He said that they must be serious about private property, reform the food supply system, achieve stable banking and monetary control, and institute massive privatisation. I agree with all those things. However, none of them will be possible without the right management skills.

The privatisation process in those countries is a colossal task compared with the privatisation programme carried out by this Government over the past decade. It needs a new breed of manager. Managers must understand free-market systems. It needs individuals and organisations which are free to take their own financial decisions; and, above all, it needs entrepreneurial attitudes and activity. The transition from command economies to demand economies will not be possible without the right attitudes, and that must mean management training on a gigantic scale.

I want to suggest seven preconditions for management training to be successful. First, it must be easily understood. Most managers in eastern Europe lack the depth of education and training that most western managers have. Secondly, it has to be non-bureaucratic. Managers in the eastern bloc have had bureaucracy and they want no more of it. Thirdly, it must be practical. It must be in a form that can be readily applied in organisations in eastern Europe.

Fourthly, it must be experiential. There is not the time or resources available to train managers in a formal sense. The training has to be largely on the job. In any event, experiential learning is much more cost-effective and achieves a much better transfer between learning and organisational change than formal education and training. Fifthly, it must impact on as many levels of organisations as possible. Seeding will be vital at all levels of organisations.

Sixthly, it must be geared to market economics. History shows that free-market systems usually bring freedom and prosperity while planned economies generally fail. Finally, it must be based on entrepreneurial values. Eastern Europe needs managers who are risk taking, pioneering and have the capacity to seize opportunities. The fundamental task is to develop managers who hold values consistent with the free market and who have the competence to steer organisations through the turbulent waters that lie ahead.

The values of capitalism are different from the values of communism and socialism. What are the values of capitalism, and what values will managers in the east need if they are to be successful? I believe that four major and fundamental tasks lie ahead of them. First, they must re-establish the proper role of management, and in doing so they must address three issues. They must address the issue of power, because in demand economies only managers can manage. The state must let go of the management process and managers must take charge of the destiny of their organisations They must address the issue of elitism.

In successful economies, management's role must be seen as vital. Organisations in the east need to understand the importance of getting the most able people into management and of continuously developing their competence. As they rid themselves of political elites, it may be hard for them to understand that, in some senses, they must create managerial elites. They must address the issue of awards. Organisations succeed because they identify what constitutes success and rewards it. Successful managers must earn more than unsuccessful managers. There is an old saying that organisations that pay peanuts get monkeys, and there is no room for monkeys in management.

The second major consideration of organisations in the east is taking charge of the task. In any organisation, results count, and in eastern Europe the system has often overshadowed the task. Bureaucracy and false assumptions have generally inhibited accomplishment. They must address issues such as effectiveness. Market-led organisations must set their own objectives and focus on the right issues. They must also address the issue of efficiency. It is not enough to focus effort on the right things; resources must be used efficiently.

Eastern European organisations have been characterised by an inefficient use of resources and they must address the issue of accountability. The principle of the profit and loss account gives commercial organisations their ultimate measure of success. Everything costs money and someone somewhere must pay. As Milton Friedman says, there is

"no such thing as a free lunch."

The third major task that organisations in the east must undertake is to establish effective relationships within their organisations. Organisations are essentially about people, and without commitment no task gets done. They must address the issue of concern. Management, by its actions, greatly affects people's lives inside and outside the workplace. Experienced managers in the east need to use power with compassion and to build trust and commitment. They must address the issue of synergy, because well organised and motivated groups can achieve much more than the sum of the individuals who comprise them. Successful organisations must derive the benefits of team work, and they must address the issue of justice. Every community must have a framework of laws that regulate conduct, and successful organisations must develop such a system. That will not be easy in countries that do not yet have justice at national level.

The fourth major task they must address is external relationships, by which I mean relationships with the free market. Organisations in eastern Europe, which have lived in command rather than demand economies, have not yet faced up to the real world. They must address the issue of threat because in every commercial organisation talented people are planning how to expand their business at the expense of the competition. They must address the issue of competitiveness because that is the only sure-fire recipe for survival. In the world of free markets, the fittest survive and the weakest go to the wall. They must address the issue of opportunity, because, despite the most brilliant planning, it is inevitable that the unexpected threat and the unexpected opportunity will occur. As most Ministers and Governments will be able to testify, no one can afford to ignore the unexpected. Successful organisations are committed opportunists.

That is the agenda for management in eastern Europe—four principal tasks and 12 key issues. Let me suggest 12 golden rules that need to be applied in management in eastern Europe if management is to be successful. Managers must manage. The cream in organisations must be at the top. Rewards must relate to performance. Objectives must be clear. Enterprises must be efficient. Financial reality must be established. Enterprises must care. All must play as a team. Justice must prevail. Enterprises must defend themselves. They must strive to be the best. They must be committed opportunists.

These are essentially the values of the free market. In my view, the emergence of re-emergence of those beliefs will determine the economic success of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, but we in Britain can and should play a part. Much has already been done, and I commend the Government for what they have done, but if we focus on financial help, there is a danger that those systems that need to go will be shored up by it. We need to gear our help much more towards management training that is concerned with the values and beliefs which I outlined.

As we all know, Britain has a long entrepreneurial tradition. In the past decade, we have gone through some of the change processes that eastern Europe will have to go through. We in this country have re-established the dominant role of the free market and have cut bureaucracy and carried forward our privatisation programmes. Our industry is much leaner and fitter. Our managers have regained the right to manage. Our products are now competing again in world markets.

But the task in eastern Europe is massive compared with the task that the Government faced in 1979. The opposition that people in those countries will face will be a good deal stiffer than the opposition that the Government have faced since 1979. I want the Government to give them all the help that they can, but it must be of the right kind. The emergence or re-emergence of free market values is the key to success. It is the process of re-establishing the values of the free market that we in this country should, above all, encourage.

rose—

Does the right hon. Lady have the leave of the House to speak again? That being so, she may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) has secured this debate, and I congratulate him particularly on the seven preconditions for the establishment of economic success which he posed.

Much of central and eastern Europe is now settling down to parliamentary democracy after the elections, but those newly installed democratic Governments have to tackle the most daunting economic problems in the world, or they will face further drift, decline and, at worst, even explosions of disappointed expectations. Their success will depend principally on their efforts, but it is very much in our interests that they should succeed, thus consolidating democracy, building up prosperity, expanding the potential for trade and ultimately enhancing our security. Conversely, a failure of economic reform in eastern Europe could lead to political and possibly military instability. We and other western Governments are therefore absolutely determined to do what we can to encourage reform and to strengthen democracy.

What, then, is the role of western Governments? Private sector companies from the west can provide much-needed investment, management and know-how and multilateral bodies can provide the necessary capital flows. The role of western Governments is to provide short-term assistance and technical co-operation and to help the new Governments to set up their own systems and institutions. We are concerned with not only economic but constitutional and civil institutions to ensure good government. But all of those need good management. That is why my hon. Friend's stress on management is so important.

We are concerned to provide a liberal trade regime, which will help eastern European countries to integrate into the world economy. That will help them to reduce their crippling dependence on the old communist barter trade system.

It is an essential part of our approach that there should be the most effective possible international co-ordination of the various national efforts to help central and eastern Europe. We have therefore played a full part in the work of the G24—that is to say, the group of 24 OECD donor countries under the chairmanship of the European Commission which is now responsible for co-ordinating national assistance programmes for Poland, Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

We should not do this in an indiscriminate way, regardless of how committed the Governments of eastern Europe are to real political and economic reform. Differentiation—that is, matching the help that we give to the reality of reform in the country concerned—is a key element of our policy in the region. Following the disgraceful events in Bucharest on 13 and 14 June, we vigorously supported the decisions not to proceed with the EC's proposed trade and co-operation agreement with Romania and not to invite Romania to the meeting of the G24 Foreign Ministers on 4 July. I believe that to be absolutely right. But if we see evidence of moves towards genuine democracy and reform, including full rights for opposition parties and movements, we shall, of course, be prepared to reconsider.

What can we do to help? My hon. Friend recommends much stronger management training. But let us look at what we are doing already. Our multilateral assistance focuses on four institutions. First, the European Community has taken various far-reaching decisions, but, most crucially, it intends to give reforming central and eastern European countries improved access to the Community market. That must be the single most important means of integrating the countries into the liberal western trading system and thereby underpinning their economic and political reforms. The EC will soon begin talks on more advanced association agreements with the most reformed eastern European countries—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.

Secondly, the European Training Foundation and the TEMPUS scheme will forge closer links between universities in Poland and Hungary on the one hand and those in Community countries on the other.

The third institution is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, which we discussed on Tuesday. The new bank will play a vital role in developing the private sector in eastern Europe. We are delighted with the decision to site the EBRD in London. We shall ratify the agreement shortly, and I hope that the bank will soon be ready to start effective operation—always insisting that the projects in which it becomes involved are, indeed, well managed.

Finally, we have the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. All the eastern European countries are either members of both bodies or are working towards membership. The IBRD will be the biggest single source of capital assistance for central and eastern Europe.

Our bilateral assistance programme, on which my hon. Friend focused, is aimed at helping the countries to build up their democratic institutions and giving them technical assistance and training, especially in areas such as financial services but also in law, in which Britain has something special to offer. All those things are necessary, in addition to the matters of which my hon. Friend spoke.

Our main effort is channelled through the know-how fund. The know-how strategy has been to make sure that the fund provides British advice, skills and training. We concentrate on the sectors in which we have particular expertise and take account of the specific Governments' expressed priorities. The strategy is also aimed to push investment by United Kingdom companies which, with their experience, can work alongside people from central and eastern European countries, for so long denied not only democracy but a market-led economy. Our companies can teach them and help them to find ways of realising how to be successful.

The know-how fund has some priorities which will please my hon. Friend—the banking and financial services; the generation of new jobs for those who lose their jobs as the industrial restructuring gathers pace; advice on setting up small businesses and entrepreneurial activity; help for the energy sector, particularly in Poland and Czechoslovakia; establishing permanent links between Britain and central and eastern European institutions, particularly in management education and training. That is going on apace, but we cannot stop there. We have to do other things as well.

We shall be giving considerable help to combat the serious environmental problems faced by central and eastern Europe. For example, British electric utilities are co-operating with Poland and Czechoslovakia on ways of conserving energy and reducing the environmental damage caused by burning brown coal. I am sure that there will be many other such instances where the management and technology developed in the west is shared with those countries as they emerge into a new situation.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Soviet Union, and I want to make special mention of that country before I conclude. It is not the Government's intention to shore up any country in eastern Europe by giving it money. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described it exactly when he said that one does not give money to a man who has a pocket which is not sewn up, but rather a needle and thread and show him how to sew it up first and think about investing the money afterwards.

It is important that we see real economic reform coming first in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, but particularly in the Soviet Union where the need is so desperate, before we become involved in any question of investing money. We shall be extremely careful how we proceed. We are considering know-how funds for the Soviet Union in future, but at present we want to see economic reform. Then we can add to that.

In the English language we have an unrivalled means of extending British teaching and influence in eastern Europe. Our aim in each country is to replace Russian by English as the natural second language. We shall take full advantage of every opportunity to widen our cultural contact with eastern Europe. We plan to spend almost three times more this year than we did last year on awards for students for eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

We have also enabled the British Council to spend an extra £2·25 million in central and eastern Europe. It will now be able to pursue its plans to set up cultural centres outside embassy premises. We are negotiating cultural agreements, which are just as important as the training and the financial know-how on which the development of the industries and the market economy in those countries will fall.

The British Council is developing a major initiative for a network of teachers in eastern European countries who have had British training and use British methods which they can pass on to others. The scope for expansion of British cultural activity and teaching is enormous. Given the resources, I am sure that the British Council will rise to meet the challenge.

Our bilateral help to central and eastern Europe is separate from and additional to our overseas aid budget for the developing countries, which is growing in real terms. No existing aid recipient will be penalised by the new activities that we are undertaking in eastern Europe. It is critical to underpin what they are seeking to do for themselves.

My hon. Friend spoke clearly from his wide experience in developing management education skills. Wherever there are opportunties to share our skills, business should seek to take them because that is a sound investment for business, not just for Government. We have said throughout that we want to stimulate the private sector in every way. That is why we are firm supporters of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. We want to stimulate the private sector, not just with investment but with know-how. That is why we have called our funds the know-how funds and why our response to events in eastern and central Europe was the first in the field. Our aid to eastern Europe this year alone could exceed £250 million, including debt rescheduling.

We have played an energetic and generous role in multilateral activities. We shall do that also in our bilateral activities. I assure my hon. Friend that management training and sound management methodology will be to the fore among all we do with the know-how funds.

I begin by expressing my genuine delight to see the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new job at the Foreign Office. Not only does he have an exquisite taste in art, but he is a true internationalist. Should I, in unaccustomed fashion, make any criticisms of the Government during my speech, I wish to make it clear that I absolve the hon. Gentleman from all blame, for he is a good man.

Adolph Hitler looked for scapegoats and found the Jews. Enoch Powell looked for scapegoats and found the blacks. Our Prime Minister and her advisers looked for scapegoats and found the Germans. Thus does the carousel of history go round in a frightening circle.

History will record that 1990 was the year when "the German question" returned to Britain and when a Cabinet Minister and Prime Minister, in dealing with it, were found to be cruelly lacking in judgment and statesmanship. The former Cabinet Minister and Prime Minister for the time being demonstrated that the British establishment at the highest levels could be spiteful and vindictive and capable of pursuing a vendetta against an ally not for decades but for generations.

The Prime Minister and former Cabinet Minister showed that they were prepared to let their own sclerotic psychological hang-ups damage Britain's national interest and the future of European co-operation, and no amount of smiling through clenched teeth by European diplomats and Foreign Ministers, anxious to put on a brave face on the crisis in Anglo-German relations, can hide that.

Even so, I congratulate Chancellor Kohl and Germany's deputy Foreign Minister, Frau Irmgurd Adam-Schwaetzer, on the cool and sensitive way in which they handled the matter. Their behaviour was a credit to the new democratic Europe in which Germany plays a leading role. To be fair, our Foreign Secretary did not do badly, either, in trying to minimise the damage caused by the Prime Minister.

Civilised leaders around the globe, from President Bush down, have looked on open-mouthed as Britain has made itself look ridiculous. At home, the only people to benefit from the debacle are the anti-European rumps in both major political parties. Temporarily they have been provided with oxygen. Fortunately, in the parliamentary Labour party we have managed to marginalise our Dad's Army anti-European rump by demonstrating that there is more sound and fury than argument and substance in what they say.

But what of the Government and the Prime Minister? She seems intent on building up the strength of her Dad's Army anti-European rump. One of the tragedies of modern politics is that she would like to be the leader of the Bruges group of Tory dinosaurs. As such, she is clearly out of tune and out of place in the modern world. While she obviously thinks that she comes to these matters with the unconscious realisation of effortless British superiority, we all know that in fact she is the mad Queen.

What exactly is it that Britain wants Germany and the Germans to do to become equal partners in a modern, free Europe? Are we driven by the politics of envy, angry that the Germans should be able to handle the democratic process better than the British? Surely we do not want the Germans to copy us by debauching their currency and achieving British levels of inflation. Do we really want to see the streets of Cologne and Frankfurt strewn with rubbish, like Westminster and Tower Hamlets? Do we want the people of Dresden to be as uncultured and uncivilised as the people of Worthing? Do we really expect schoolchildren in Hamburg to be taught mathematics as badly as children are in Barnet? Surely we cannot expect German citizens to reduce their standard of living to ours.

I believe that Anglo-German relations should be based on five principles. First, Britain should wholeheartedly support German economic and monetary union. Secondly, we should applaud German unification and think about it in positive terms as a stabilising force in a new enlarged, democratic Europe, east and west. Thirdly, we should back Chancellor Kohl in his plan to help buy time for perestroika by providing aid and credit to Russia. Fourthly, we should commit ourselves at the intergovernmental conference in November to joining Germany and Europe in the drive for European monetary union and the creation of a single European currency. That means that we should give up our own batty proposals for a hard ecu. Fifthly, we should work together with Germany and our European partners on a policy of collective security. I hope that, by the time the 21st century arrives, the Warsaw pact and NATO will have disappeared and have been replaced by a pan-European defence and security system.

As regards German economic and monetary union—yes, it is going too fast; yes, it has caught up with West German domestic politics; and yes, there will be a short-term price to pay in higher unemployment in East Germany. But it will succeed and so will German unification. My own view is that GEMU will succeed with only a small rise in inflation in Germany and with little adverse effect on interest rates in the rest of Europe. I am reinforced in that view by having the agreement of the formidable Frau Schneider-Lenne of the Deutschebank. Ironically, the Prime Minister was in favour of German reunification right up the point when it became a practical proposition—when, sick with fear, she backed off as her anti-German phobia came to the surface.

Hovering over Britain's relations with Germany are Germany's relations with Russia, where the psychological traumas run even deeper. Chancellor Kohl wants to help President Gorbachev to buy time with aid and credit for perestroika. The Leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) discussed a Marshall plan with President Bush recently to help Russia. The EC, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank have been asked to help at two recent summits—one in Dublin, one in Houston. It is the British Government who have been dragging their feet. We should now recognise the need to help both Russia and Germany in this sphere. It is surely in our own self-interest and in the interest of peace in Europe to do so.

As regards European monetary union, I have no doubt that the next Labour Government will find it easier than the present Government to move forward with Germany and France and our other European partners. Labour's Back Benchers reaffirmed this week their wholehearted support for European monetary union in a report from the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service. Our Front Bench spokesmen and women are moving carefully and intelligently in the right direction. In my view, nothing would do more to repair the damage in British-German relations than a commitment by our Government to support European monetary union at the intergovernmental conference in November. EMU makes much more sense than simply joining the exchange rate mechanism.

The Government should drop their half-baked, hard ecu policy, which has been described by the president of the Bundesbank, Karl Otto Pohl, as too complicated and likely to create uncertainty. As Pohl has said:

"When the problem that bedevils the Economic Community is the existence of 12 currencies, a British proposal for the creation of a 13th currency is unhelpful".

Mr. Pohl also said:

"The Europe central bankers considered and rejected a proposal similar to that of the hard ECU some time ago."

He added that perhaps a country like Britain, with 9·8 per cent. inflation can learn a lot from a country like Germany, with 2·3 per cent. inflation.

Yesterday, as I listened to the Chancellor unfold his hard ecu plan in the Grand Committee Room to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service of which I am a member, I realised that it was literally touched with lunacy and would create chaos in the money markets of Europe if it were put into effect. The Germans, the French, the Italians and others would have to be barmy to adopt the hard ecu proposal.

My personal life seems to have been bound up, at critical moments, with the life of Germany. As I told the House a few weeks ago, my father died in 1939, when I was two years old and the German battleship Scharnhorst sank HMS Rawalpindi. My mother was six months pregnant with my sister then, so times were difficult; but neither my sister nor I was brought up to dislike Germany, let alone to hold grudges down the decades.

When I left school I lived in Germany for two years, and I have fond memories of both the country and the people. When the Treasury Select Committee recently visited Frankfurt and East Berlin, it was impossible not to be caught up in the excitement, the apprehension and—yes, perhaps the hysteria of German economic and monetary union and German reunification. Next week, a friend is coming from Berlin to stay with me for a while. I ask the Minister: what message do I give her? Is she coming to a friendly country with a friendly Government—a trustworthy ally—or is she making a visit to perfidious Albion?

Let me conclude—thus giving the Minister five minutes more than he expected—by asking the Government and the Prime Minister, in whom so much animosity has been stirred up, to heed the words of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

"from envy, hatred, and malice, and from all uncharitableness, Good Lord, deliver us."

I ask that in the name of Britain, in the name of Germany and in the name of Europe.

The House will be aware that I have led a rather sheltered life for the past eight and a half years, and, if there is nothing else for which I can thank the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), I can at least say that his remarks, which are always on the one hand characteristically urbane and on the other characteristically thuggish, have today brought me back rather abruptly to the seamier side of political life. I am also grateful for the personal comments with which he began his speech—although I must add that he had better not go on like that, or my stay at the Foreign Office is likely to be brief as that of Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker.

As the whole House knows, the hon. Gentleman is far too intelligent to believe a great deal of what he said at the beginning of his speech—and, for that matter, a great deal of what he said at the end. Accordingly, I propose to do him the courtesy of addressing the subject that he tabled on the Order Paper: the current state of Anglo-German relations.

The relationship between British and the Federal Republic of Germany is of the utmost importance to Her Majesty's Government. It has helped to ensure security and stability in Europe for 40 years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, addressing the Königswinter conference in Cambridge on 29 March this year, described the close Anglo-German partnership at the heart of NATO and Europe as essential to the success of both; she recalled the considerable part that Britain had played over the past 40 years in creating the conditions in which German unity could be achieved in freedom—for example, in Berlin and through the British forces in Germany. But, as she said on that occasion, our relations with our German friends have not been a one-way process. The federal republic has been the staunchest of allies in NATO, and we shall always be grateful for the strong support that we have received from successive German Governments for our membership of the European Economic Community. The Anglo-German summit on 30 March was also highly successful, and our relations with the federal republic have continued to be close and warm. This is the culmination of work that has taken place over many years.

Neither country will forget the tragedy of the two wars that have devastated our continent during this century, but, through the common desire of our two countries to make a new start and to create a new stable and democratic Germany, we have built a strong friendship.

The federal republic is a democratic state of over 40 years' standing. This will not change after unification. We are proud of the part that Britain has played in helping to build a prosperous and democratic German state. We have constantly advocated the right of self-determination by the German people. We have long believed that a united Germany was of profound importance to Europe as a whole. Anthony Eden spelled this out even more specifically in 1955 in Geneva when he said:

"as long as Germany is divided, Europe will be divided. Until the unity of Germany is restored there can be neither confidence nor security in this continent."

indicated assent.

I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman assents to that proposition.

In common with other western countries, we have worked to create the conditions in which German unity could be achieved in freedom.

The strength of Anglo-German co-operation is well shown in the current discussions on unification. We have been working energetically within the two plus four framework to achieve an early resolution of the external aspects of unity—the termination of four—power rights and responsibilities and an overall settlement; Berlin; borders; and discussion of certain politico-military issues. Good progress has been made in all these areas.

On borders—in particular the issue of the Polish-German border—the foundations for a satisfactory outcome have been laid. Both German states have said that they will respect the existing Oder-Neisse border, and it has been agreed that there should be a legally binding treaty between Poland and a united Germany that confirms that border.

On politico-military issues, there have been differences of opinion between the west and the Soviet Union on Germany's membership of NATO. We, in common with our NATO allies, argued for a united Germany belonging to NATO. Germany had the right under the Helsinki Final Act to decide whether to belong to an alliance, and has chosen to remain a member of NATO.

The breakthrough registered between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev at Stavropol on 16 July was a remarkable achievement for both men and for good sense. President Gorbachev has accepted the prospect of a united Germany in NATO. That is a great personal success for Chancellor Helmut Kohl. The outcome can be attributed in part to NATO's lead in adjusting to the changing face of Europe, as the NATO summit conference in London on 5 and 6 July and the London declaration showed.

It shows also that in President Gorbachev we are dealing with a very different kind of leader of the Soviet Union than those we have known hitherto. The changes made possible through his vision and courage have enabled the alliance to extend the hand of friendship to eastern Europe in the way in which the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch referred. The London declaration helped to persuade the Russians that a united Germany in NATO poses no threat.

As for the EC aspects of unification, Britain supports the German Democratic Republic's fullest integration in the shortest time. It will not be a simple matter to agree on which derogations from EC law will be needed for the ex-GDR after unification or on how long they should last. There is much detailed work to be done within a short time, but we believe that the integration of the GDR will bring real advantages to the EC as a whole.

In all these areas, we are working closely with the Germans towards the fulfilment of a common goal—the establishment of a sovereign, democratic and united Germany. We are confident that we shall soon see a single unified Germany taking its place in the family of nations.

We work closely with the FRG on European Community issues. We have fought hard and successfully together to keep the Community open to its world trading partners in avoiding a fortress Europe, and have co-operated on many specific pieces of single market legislation—for example, last year's important second banking directive. The records of the United Kingdom and Germany on implementing EC legislation are at the top of the Community league table.

There is much else in our continuing relationship. Bilateral trade between our two countries has long been of great importance to us both. Germany is Britain's main European trading partner. The opening up of East Germany provides an opportunity not only for all Germany but for British business. We hope that British business men will seize those opportunities and take maximum advantage of them.

Trade flows are not the only form of interdependence. Overseas investment flows between our two economies have drawn them even closer together. According to the federal Ministry of Finance, German companies had more than £3 billion of direct investment assets in the United Kingdom at year-end 1987, and direct investment assets by United Kingdom firms in Germany were more than £4 billion.

A vast range of non-governmental contact between our two countries enhance the fabric of Anglo-German relations. I mention trade, but there are in addition family ties and friendship, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, tourism, art and culture. I am particularly pleased to inform the House that my own constituency of Watford formed a twinning link with the German town of Mainz as long ago as 1956.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch made derogatory remarks about the inhabitants of Worthing, but I assure him that neither they nor the residents of Watford consider themselves uncultured or uncivilised. I recognise that it is part of the arrogance of socialist intellectuals such as the hon. Gentleman that he will look over his shoulder at my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). In any event, over the past 35 years, my constituents have travelled to and from Mainz, building up their networks of friendship and understanding with the people of that town—which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, happens to be in the Rhineland Pfalz, that is, in the constituency od which Chancellor—

My hon. Friend will be strengthened in his argument to know that Cleethorpes is twinned with the town of Köonigswinter, and that only six weeks ago, Glandford, which I am also privileged to represent, was twinned with Landkreiss Gifhorn. That emphasises my hon. Friend's contention.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Königswinter symbolises the efforts made not just at constituency-to-constituency and town-to-town level, but at governmental level—and even at the level of intellectuals, such as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch—through the Königswinter conference. My constituency is a precursor in establishing such links, which have helped to build up the friendship and trust that now exist between our two countries.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has met his German colleague Herr Genscher no fewer than 27 times since the beginning of this year, and Herr Genscher will be his guest at Chevening this weekend. My hon. Friend the Prime Minister will receive Herr Genscher on 30 July, and she hopes to see Chancellor Kohl again in the near future.

I hope that my remarks have shown the hon. Gentleman and the House the variety and importance of British-German relations, and the significance that the Government attach to them. Our friendship is durable and our partnership with the German republic is broad and deep. Britain and the federal republic are important to each other in four significant areas of policy. With the approach of unification, there is potential for an even closer co-operation, and the Government certainly look to the future with confidence and enthusiasm.

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, as I said in my opening remarks, has two modes: at times, he poses as a revolutionary thug, and at others he is a thoughtful, but sometimes rather excitable, contributor to our debates. I prefer the latter mode. Today we have had a flavour of both. The House had the opportunity to see him in the more thoughtful mode on 15 June, when he initiated an interesting debate on the European Community, in which he announced his Pauline conversion to the European cause. This came as something of a shock to his hon. Friends who normally accompany him on the Bench below the Gangway—the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who, alas, are not in their places today.

Conservative Members would simply say, "Welcome to the club," to the hon. Gentleman. Although we note that, with a characteristic excess of zeal, which would have made Talleyrand turn in his grave, he has gone over the top because—if I understand him correctly, and I read his speech on 15 June with care—he wants a single currency tomorrow.

1997, actually.

The hon. Gentleman believes that Mr. Delors is the greatest living European—greater even than the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition. I suspect, having become a convert to the European cause, the hon. Gentleman regards the Leader of the Opposition and his other comrades on the Opposition Front Bench as belonging to that Dad's Army which he referred to, and from which he is such a recent, but distinguished deserter.

When the hon. Gentleman opened the debate on economic and political developments in the Community, he again made a reference to his father, which both touched the House and did credit to him. I suspect that those who suffered during the last war or who, like the hon. Gentleman's father, gave their lives in that war, would welcome the new Europe to which Anglo-German friendship and co-operation have made and continue to make such a notable contribution.

I am exceedingly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having brought me back from the quiet, rather spiritual world to the hurly-burly of the House. We are delighted that, after a lifetime of campaigning with the Labour party against British membership of the European Economic Community, he has come to us—and he is very welcome.

We do not agree with him about a single currency. The British Government are advancing their own proposals for the hard ecu, but, without being patronising, I think that the hon. Gentleman will be listened to with greater respect if he manages to eliminate the element of thuggery from his interventions in European debates. I was especially sorry that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to begin his speech by speaking as he did about my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) whose contribution to public life, to the House and to the European cause is both distinguished and long-standing in a way in which, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman's is not.

It is said that the finest wines are always left until the end. Approaching the end of the Session, we have been privileged to listen to the vintage port contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones). It was wonderful to see the ease with which my hon. Friend made his "maiden" speech for the first time in eight years, and how he has translated himself with such dignity and simplicity from the centre of the spider's web to the centre stage. As he is a member of the distinguished Watford football club, perhaps I can say that he has moved from goalkeeper to centre forward.

As one of the few hon. Members who can genuinely say, "Ich bin ein Hamburger"—that is a reference not to McDonald's, but to my childhood which was spent in Hamburg—I took great interest in what my hon. Friend has just said, as, I am sure, did the whole House. Just as he has been watching us over the past eight years, so we shall now have great pleasure in watching him and making sure that he does not swallow too fully some of the Foreign Office briefs. On this, his first outing, he has clearly shown the characteristic independence of spirit that we have come to associate with him.

To enable my hon. Friends to depart on holiday, I now turn to my Adjournment debate. It is a privilege to have the opportunity of being the tail-end Charlie of the parliamentary Session and to initiate our final debate before the summer recess. However, I fear that it is a corresponding duty for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, upon whose shoulders the response falls. I apologise if I have detained him from travelling to his delightful constituency of Banbury, where I was at school I am delighted to see him on the Front Bench and hope that he will take some of my points on board.

I begin by setting the debate in context. I represent the constituency of Cannock and Burntwood, which measures approximately 10 miles by five. In 1945 there were no fewer than 22 coal mines in my constituency, whereas today there is not one. There are two deep mines just outside, at Littleton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), and at Lea Hall, in the Mid-Staffordshire constituency. There has been some opencast work in my constituency and British Coal has submitted an application for a further substantial opencast site.

Although there is no mining activity in my constituency at the moment, there is nevertheless a strong mining culture. Many of my constituents have either worked in the coal industry or have come from families which, for generations, have contributed to the winning of coal, which is often a difficult and dangerous task. As I have said, there is therefore a strong mining culture in the area. I have repeated that because it is important for what I shall say later.

I have sought to detain the House on this matter because British Coal owns a substantial amount of land in the area and, in 1984, sought planning permission for a substantial private residential development, which would ultimately lead to the construction of about 2,400 houses. The site is to the east of Cannock—my hon. Friend has a map so that he might better identify the area—and to the west of Heath Hayes. It is a substantial development. In recognition of the size of the development, the local authority entered into what is known as a section 52 agreement on 17 January 1985.

One of the essential features of that section 52 agreement is the safeguarding of a site called the school site. It imposed a restrictive covenant on the site prohibiting non-school development and gave Staffordshire county council an option to purchase the site after 700 houses had been built. After 1,500 houses have been built, the developers may require the county council to choose between purchasing the site and cancelling the option and restrictive covenant. That agreement applied when British Coal sought planning permission for the development that is now taking place.

There are two schools in the area—the Fiveways school and Gorsemoor primary school. I shall concentrate on the Gorsemoor primary school, which is more important to my argument. It has 508 pupils and accommodation for about 390 places, plus temporary accommodation for another 180 pupils. The school is grossly overcrowded. There are two large classes of 35 children each. The headmaster and the teachers would prefer to divide the pupils in those classes into three classes of a more manageable size. There are two Portakabins, with no running water and no computer facilities, and pupils have to brave the elements and sometimes walk through rain and snow to reach the main school buildings. My constituents find that unacceptable. They are up in arms because the school is overcrowded.

Many of the people buying houses on the new estate on Hawks Green have young families. The houses arc not cheap—about £90,000 to £100,000 for a three or four-bedroomed house. People have moved there from other parts of Staffordshire and from other parts of the country to that very fine estate. Many of them have moved there taking into account the fact that when they go around the estate they can see a large site behind the supermarket which they have been told by their legal advisers has been earmarked for a school.

When parents move house, they consider what school facilities will be available for their children.

What has happened since that section 52 agreement in 1985? There have been no negotiations whatsoever with British Coal. Although 700 houses have been built and the county council has informed British Coal that it wishes to negotiate about using that site for a school, British Coal has not negotiated in earnest.

No real progress has been made because British Coal has claimed a value for the site based on commercial or residential alternatives. On that basis, British Coal is claiming that the land is worth about £1·5 million. Clearly the county council cannot pay £1·5 million for the site. British Coal entered into an agreement which is headed quite simply, "The School Site"—it could not be less equivocal than that—and it is quite clear that that site has been earmarked and reserved for a school.

It is scandalous that British Coal is arguing that the valuation of the site should be based on its residential land value. Clearly, if it was unable to sell the site for the development of houses, it would be worth only a matter of thousands of pounds. We are talking about £10,000 at most for the value of open space land or £1·5 million which, it is correct to say, would probably be the valuation if it were to be developed for housing.

The point is that it was never intended that the site should be developed for housing. It should be developed in that way only if the county council decided not to exercise its option which was built into the agreement by which planning permission was given to develop the site for a school.

It is outrageous that British Coal is dragging its feet in this way. Clearly Staffordshire county council is not in a position to pay £1·5 million, and the district auditor would think that it was off its rocker if it did so.

When my constituents raised this issue with me, I sought some satisfaction from the county council. It told me that the negotiations had run into the sand. I wrote to the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam, and received a reply from the deputy chairman, Robert Kendall. The letter said:

"As you know, the difficult financial position facing the Industry at the moment means that it is necessary for us to achieve the best possible proceeds from the sale of our assets. The financial reconstruction to which you refer"—

I referred to the £6·5 billion that the Government have contributed to British Coal for its capital reconstruction—

"does not lessen this responsibility—indeed, it makes it all the more incumbent on British Coal to behave in a responsible, commercial fashion and justify, through our results, the faith the Government is showing in the coal industry through this important and welcome step … we appreciate the need for appropriate services to be provided, including the need for education facilities to be made available for the new residents moving into the development. However, this does not lessen our need to ensure that a realistic price is agreed for the land in question."

I understand that British Coal has an obligation to ensure proper stewardship of the public funds paid to it —it is taxpayers' money. However, since the coal industry has been under the auspices of the Government, it has improved its profitability and productivity and my constituents, no less than others around the country, have made their contribution to its improved success.

I find the attitude of British Coal's deputy chairman contemptible. I do not say that lightly. Only an industry that is completely unaccountable and had no shareholders could behave in that way. However, nominally, Mr. Speaker, you and I are shareholders, as is my hon. Friend the Minister and everyone else in the country. The truth of nationalisation is that nobody owns the industry and those who run it are, effectively, a law unto themselves. In my view, no private sector business could conduct its affairs in the way that British Coal does. My constituents on the Hawks Green estate at Heath Hayes feel aggrieved about the way in which they have been treated.

I recognise that my hon. Friend the Minister can do nothing about this for the time being because, under the nationalisation legislation, the coal industry is solely responsible for determining the national interest. I know that he will tell me that he does not have day-to-day responsibility for British Coal. By raising this matter today, I am seeking to impress upon the management of British Coal that it cannot go on behaving as if it is a law unto itself. It has responsibilities, and it is time that it faced up to them. I do not believe that a private sector company would ride roughshod over people in the way that British Coal has. It would consider it extremely disadvantageous to its commercial and trading prospects so to upset a large section of the community in which it worked and would ensure that it avoided the situation in which British Coal has got itself.

Despite the undertaking given by the deputy chairman of British Coal that he would ask his officials to enter into negotiations with Staffordshire county council in good faith, I am sorry to say that those negotiations again appear to have run into the sand.

I mentioned the context in which I wished to set my remarks—the strong association of my constituency with the coal mining industry, the lives of my constituents and their forebears that have been lost in the winning of coal and the strong coal culture that remains. I find it astonishing that British Coal, whose heavy lorries trundle through my constituency to the aggravation of many of my constituents, whose work undermines the houses in which my constituents live—then it quibbles about compensation for coal mining subsidence—which wanted to mine about 1,300 acres of open field to win coal by opencast methods and which rely on the good will and work of my constituents to win its coal can so slap them in the face over a matter as important to them as the education of their children.

Even if my hon. Friend the Minister is unable to say that he can resolve the problem to my satisfaction, I hope that he will be in no doubt, and that he will convey the feeling to British Coal, that my constituents are fed up to the back teeth with its cavalier treatment and want the industry and its senior management to respond to their concerns.

It will be no good saying that Staffordshire county council is making contingency plans to expand the Fiveways school. That is plan B; plan A was stymied by British Coal. The county council had to do something in the meantime, so it proposed to expand the Fiveways school. That alternative is not acceptable to my constituents, because that school is further away and it involves primary school age children crossing a fairly busy road. They bought their houses in the firm expectation that a site marked "The School Site" in the agreement with the county council would indeed become the school site. They had not reckoned on the prevarication and duplicity of British Coal.

It will not be a sufficient get-out for British Coal to say that the county council has made alternative plans. The county council has indicated to me its desire is to build a school on that site and that it will be needed. About 800 or more houses have been built on the estate, and the total number planned is 2,400. It will be an enormous estate. The downturn in the property market elsewhere is not affecting sales and the likelihood is that there will be increasing pressure on scholl places.

That site is therefore needed, and I hope that by raising the matter this afternoon on the final day of the Session before my hon. Friend the Minister departs to take a well-earned holiday—indeed, after all your endeavours in the Chamber, before you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take a well-earned break—and before British Coal's directors gather their buckets and spades to go to the seaside, they will note that some of us are extremely angry with British Coal's performance.

When I tried to telephone the deputy chairman at 5.50 pm last night, neither he nor the chairman was available and I was able to obtain only the press department. By contrast, I was able to telephone the Department of Energy at seven o'clock, and the Minister's team were on hand and able to assist a Member of Parliament. I was most impressed by that, and my hon. Friend could give a clear lesson to British Coal on how to manage its affairs.

The final lesson that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take on board is that there is only one answer for British Coal: the sooner it gets into the private sector and is exposed to all the rigours of free enterprise and the need to satisfy customers and live at peace with its neighbours, the better the country will be served and the more likely we are to win coal competitively.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) on his success in the ballot today. This subject is of understandable concern to him and to his constituents, and he put his case with characteristic clarity and in his own way.

I should like at the outset to make a couple of general points. First, my Department does not have a role in matters of this type. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government take the view that it is not their function to tell industry how to run its business. Even with the remaining nationalised industries, we believe that, wherever possible, they should be allowed to get on with their business, make their own decisions and stand by the consequences. In the case of British Coal, decisions on the disposal of property are quite rightly one of the matters that we leave to the judgment of British Coal's management. Only the management understand British Coal's operational needs and consequently how best to make use of the property that it owns.

The second general point which I should like to make, and which I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, is that the Goverment must expect the corporation as a general rule to maximise the proceeds from the sale of its assets. A private sector company is obliged to get the best deal on behalf of its shareholders. British Coal, whose shareholders are effectively the taxpaying public, cannot behave any less responsibly in these matters, as my hon. Friend fairly acknowledged.

My hon. Friend was right to point out that British Coal is a large organisation and, moreover, an organisation which has just recently undergone a substantial restructuring of its finances with the passage of the Coal Industry Act 1990. However, British Coal is expected to record a substantial loss in the last financial year. It was operating in a difficult and increasingly competitive market; it had its third mild winter in succession; and it has been undergoing an extensive programme of restructuring over the past five years. Restructuring is essential for the long-term well-being of the corporation, but it does have considerable short-term costs.

It is also important to be clear that the new Coal Industry Act does not simply represent a largesse of cash on the part of Government and taxpayers which will allow the corporation to spend freely. The purpose of the Act was to eliminate the bulk of the corporation's accumulated deficit, hence reducing the burden of interest payments it previously had to carry. It was not our intention to insulate the corporation from the realities of the marketplace, hence encouraging it to act in an uncommercial or uneconomic way. Our intention was rather to give British Coal the chance to compete and succeed in a difficult market, as I believe it will. It is up to British Coal to honour the trust that the Government have put in it.

I hope that my hon. Friend does not assume from the stress I have laid on these general principles that I do not appreciate his concern on this matter. As he acknowledged, I will not be able to resolve the question here today, nor would my hon. Friend expect me to do so. However, I do believe that the parties involved should be able to reach a solution in time.

I understand that the point at issue is that British Coal sold the land in question to a developer at the rate for agricultural land and subject to an agreement under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 reserving the land for educational purposes. British Coal would at a later stage receive from the developer the difference between what it had already received and the price that the developer received from the local education authority. The dispute is about whether the section 52 agreement has reduced the value of the land, and hence the amount of the payment still due to British Coal, and, if so, whether the developer and British Coal are entitled to compensation.

A very similar case is currently before the Lands Tribunal. The outcome of that case will clarify the current legal position, and permit negotiations between Staffordshire county council, the developer and British Coal to take place on a much firmer basis than before.

My hon. Friend has referred to the outstanding Lands Tribunal case. Is he aware that in that case the council—Nottinghamshire county council, I belive—has been in litigation since 1984? Frankly, my constituents are not prepared to wait yet another six years while British Coal drags its feet and tries to misrepresent what was a clear agreement, to try to screw more money out of the county council.

I understand that both parties—Staffordshire county council and British Coal—accept the need to await the outcome of the other case and are content to let matters rest in the meantime. Knowing of this debate today, I asked officials in my Department to investigate and, as far as I am aware, neither side is accusing the other of delay or procrastination.

Against that background, I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the most sensible course—which appears to be the course being adopted and advocated by the parties concerned—is to await the outcome of the case before the Lands Tribunal. However, as I have said, I appreciate the strength of my hon. Friend's feeling on this matter and his understandable desire that it should be resolved speedily and equitably. I will therefore ensure that the points that he has raised in his speech are brought without delay to the attention of the chairman of British Coal and I will ask the chairman to ensure that when the Lands Tribunal has reached its decision on the other case the matter is resolved as quickly as possible.

On a lighter note, may I say that I am aware that mine will be the last speech from the Dispatch Box before the House rises for the summer recess. For Government Departments and Ministers, it will be business as usual, but to those who have some spare time during the recess, may I recommend the third edition of British Coal's "A Guide to Steam Trains in the British Isles", compiled for the Association of Railway Preservation Societies with sponsorship from British Coal. In it, one will find the details of more than

"120 Steam Railways, Steam Centres and Museums where you can see on operating days steam locomotives of all sizes from the narrow guage to main line express types. In addition for the first time this year there are details of regular steam trains operating over the main lines of British Rail."

From Bangor to the Bluebell line, there are some excellent excursions to be had, and I hope that those of my hon. Friends—and perhaps you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—who may have some free time will be able to take advantage of an enjoyable day out looking at some of Britain's great industrial heritage.

May I add to what the Minister has just said by wishing all hon. Members and all those who serve us a happy and enjoyable recess? I hope that every one of them gets a holiday, including Ministers.