I am most grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter of very great importance to the town of Harrogate in my constituency and more especially to the people whose jobs depend on the Ministry of Defence establishment there. I am particularly grateful to see on the Treasury Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) because a number of employees who are employed at the Ministry of Defence establishment live outside the boundaries of my constituency. I am grateful to him for finding time to be here for part of this debate.

My hon. Friends the Members for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) have supported me in the efforts that I have been making to retain the Ministry of Defence establishment. They regret that they are unable to be here this morning, owing to their constituency commitments.

The establishment is commonly called the Ministry of Defence in St. George's road by local people in Harrogate. I recognise that its technical title is the Support Management Group, which is within the department of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation. It does not form part of the Procurement Executive, though part of its function is to undertake some procurement work.

All this sounds very confusing. It is even more confusing because it is bound up with the RAF Logistics organisation. None the less, the work at the Ministry of Defence establishment is important and recognised as crucial to the back-up for RAF aircraft. I appeal to the Minister to give departments and their tentacles rational and recognisable titles. More confusion arises from the appointment of two air commodores to operate command at the establishment.

Some time ago we were delighted when the then Secretary of State for Defence, George Younger, made time to visit the establishment. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) for the close interest that he took in the establishmnent when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement in the previous Parliament. The same can be said of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who, as Secretary of State, made it clear that he would look very closely at any proposals to move jobs from the north to the south. He emphasised to me that about 300 different moves are involved in the review process. I can understand the difficulties that my right hon. Friend the Minister experiences with so many hon. Members having different parts of the procurement division in their constituencies. Their natural inclination, like mine, is to ensure that their establishment stays where it is.

The review is entirely right and proper. Our defence commitments have been reduced by the changed circumstances of the world. There is no doubt that staff at the Ministry of Defence fully accept and understand that our forces must be scaled down to meet our reduced commitments. The reduction in defence expenditure is welcome as it will enable us to spend more on social priorities, but we must exercise prudent care in shaping our defence forces to ensure that we can respond to circumstances that we may not be able to foresee precisely. Circumstances change and we live in a world that is full of surprises and sometimes horrors.

Our role in NATO is enormously important. I have always fervently believed that NATO is the cornerstone of western defence and that it must remain so, particularly because of the link that it establishes with north America and Canada. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity on many occasions to restate the role of NATO and to emphasise the need to maintain our defences to ensure that we are not caught out.

Harrogate has enjoyed the presence of the Ministry of Defence for a long time. When the establishment came to Harrogate after the war, it quickly became part of the town. Employees soon were loyal to Harrogate and it is a posting which is favoured by mobile grades and by service men, who come and go. Some 1,250 civilians and 315 service men work at the establishment, which is the largest single employer in Harrogate. We have a number of employers involved in a diverse range of industries and commerce, but we are particularly proud of the long and important links that we have had with civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and other sections of government.

The Ministry of Defence's buildings are outdated. Temporary and shortlisted buildings have withstood more than their fair test of time. I am arguing not for retention of the present site or occupation of present buildings but for keeping jobs in Yorkshire and in the vicinity of Harrogate.

A review conducted by the previous Labour Government proposed moving the establishment to Glasgow. We resisted that move and, thankfully, it was scuttled when we took office in 1979. Instead, staff were moved from Glasgow to Harrogate. I am eternally grateful to the Ministers who took that decision as it reinforced Harrogate's position and gave staff a sense of security about their long-term future.

The present review once again threatens to move the establishment from Harrogate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will say something about the review and its progress. I know that much has been done and is being done to reach a decision. It was originally to be made in the spring, but there was a delay and it was announced that it would be made in the early summer. Summer seems to be early this year, but I must press my right hon. Friend to accept that the uncertainty for civilian employees in the non-mobile grades is causing much anxiety. I hope that he will say today at least that consultation with the employees' organisations and unions will start as soon as possible once options have been decided. Consultation is most important. We are talking about the livelihoods of employees and their families, the education of their children and the arrangements that they have to make for where they live.

The review involves departments in Gloucestershire, London, RAF Brampton, near Huntingdon, RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire and at High Wycombe. Conservative Members representing those areas are no doubt making pleas to retain the presence of the Ministry of Defence, in its various forms, in their areas. The locations that I have mentioned are all in the south, but the largest unit is the one in Harrogate. The cost of moving non-mobile grades must be taken into account and I hope that that will be underlined in the review.

We see ourselves in Harrogate as being very much in competition with RAF Wyton. Rumours fly around and people have the impression that there is a major competition between ourselves and RAF Wyton. I admire my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and if he wanted help I would give it to him unreservedly, but his majority is the largest in the country—36,230. I do not think that he needs the assistance of extra jobs for his constituency. We know, however, that he can stand on his own feet and on his own record.

My area has many military connections. HMS Forest Moor, a small and unknown branch of the Royal Navy, is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. It deals with communications in our area. The Army Apprentices college is on the boundary of my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon. We are both overjoyed that it will be retained as a military establishment and will take on board the Junior Leaders Regiment. That is good news; it keeps jobs in the area.

However, there are three services—the Navy, the Army and the RAF. The RAF presence in my constituency at the Ministry of Defence establishment completes the services representation. A variety of defence sites are therefore available. Even beyond the close boundaries of the Harrogate constituency there is RAF Linton-on-Ouse and the army bases at Catterick. I have no doubt that there is sufficient land, and there are buildings which could certainly be made available as a relocation point for the Ministry of Defence establishment. Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many sites have been considered in the review and where they are located in the Harrogate area?

The St. Georges road site is a valuable one and when the time comes to redevelop, I hope that priority will be given to commercial or office accommodation in order to retain jobs in the area. It is a prestigious point close to the centre of Harrogate and there are a number of uses to which the site could be put.

If one considers its national position, strategically Harrogate must offer the best solution as it is at the heart of the United Kingdom. It has excellent rail and road links, superb schools and an environment of unequalled quality. I do not doubt the enthusiasm of the people who are asked to move to Harrogate once they have seen and know the area.

Jobs are important to us. Jobs have recently been lost at National Power which last year announced that it would be making people redundant at its offices in Harrogate. Of course, that is to be regretted, but all thinking people understand that companies must make their own decisions. The record shows that in March 1990 there were 922 jobs at National Power in Harrogate. In March 1991 the number increased to 1,063 and at the end of March this year the number had fallen to 769. They are important jobs and I am delighted that National Power is retaining its offices in Harrogate even on a reduced basis.

ICI's research fibres division at Hornbeam park recently announced that it was closing down and that there would be 200 job losses as a result of the closure. ICI has had a long and historic connection with Harrogate. Over the years it expanded and then reduced its research fibres division. It has now made a rational decision and, as I said in relation to National Power, we of course regret the loss of jobs at that great company.

One good point is that many of the buildings vacated have been re-occupied by other smaller firms which have come to Harrogate and which provide jobs. Some of the offices have now become our college of art and technology.

Harrogate has an unemployment rate of 4·6 per cent. The figure is 8·4 per cent. in Leeds and 5·9 per cent. in York, so we are relatively lucky. We do not deny that, but we live in a competitive world and we must fight to get and to hold every job that we can. It is always our intention to encourage industry to expand and new companies to come to Harrogate and the surrounding areas, and that is one of Harrogate's great strengths.

Harrogate has been fortunate in that the Government whom I am proud to support have moved jobs from the London area to the north. Two departments of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are moving and the first—the central science laboratory—is due to relocate in 1996 to Sand Hutton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. Four hundred posts are due to be moved there and about 150 to 200 staff will have to be recruited locally, which is a plus. The move involves mainly scientists. Departments within the headquarters division of the Ministry dealing with pesticide safety, plant health, statistics, personnel, establishment work and finance will be located in York city centre in 1994. About 600 posts will be involved and 300 are expected to be recruited locally.

The Department of Health is also moving staff from the south to Leeds. The move will involve the national health service management executive, more or less in its entirety. Between 1,100 and 1,200 posts are to be relocated. Support services are not being relocated but are being put out to contract, which is a good thing because it is thought that between 100 and 200 support service jobs will be created in the area for local people.

The Department of Social Security is also moving with the Department of Health and, in this case, the whole of the Benefits Agency is coming to Leeds. Seven hundred and ninety one posts are being moved to Leeds, including a range of executive and clerical grades together with senior management posts. The figure does not include support services which will add another 40 local jobs and thus create new jobs for local people.

It has been the Government's policy—rightly so—to decant jobs from the south, or from London, to the north so that there is a better balance of civil service jobs in the north. We value that and it would be a great pity—indeed, a tragedy—if that policy were reversed and a decision made to relocate the Ministry of Defence establishment in another part of the country.

We have a long and historical connection with the Ministry of Defence. We pride ourselves on the fact that our workers at the Ministry of Defence are dedicated, hard working and efficient. They are deeply rooted in the area as they have been there for many years. Their families are there and the sons of some employees now also work in the establishment so there is a family continuity. Above all, the establishment is our largest and, therefore, our most important and valued employer.

I plead with the Minister to ensure that we keep the Ministry of Defence jobs in Yorkshire and that the RAF retains its presence in the Harrogate area. We in the north will be ever grateful to the Ministry and to my right hon. Friend for the close consideration that we know he will give to the points that I have raised. I hope that he will be able to say something about the progress of the review and how we are to regard the future, which is very important for us all.

It will not be an easy decision. It is very important that we have the fullest possible consultation and openness of government on the issue. If it is a straight battle, which it may or may not be, between Harrogate and RAF Wyton, I can say only that we will bend over backwards to show that we can provide the work force and, I am sure, a site and buildings which can be adapted. Our services are wholly available to the Minister in his quest for the right location. There can be no doubt about that.

I hope that the Minister will take my words on board and will be able to give us some advice today that will point the way to the decisions—painful though those decisions will have to be for many people in different parts of the country. I hope that we shall hear something about that now.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) on being successful in the ballot for subjects for debate today, and I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify for the House the nature and purpose of the studies that have been under way for some time into the future organisation of RAF Logistics. Because the Ministry of Defence and RAF staff at Harrogate play such an important part in the management of RAF Logistics, the studies clearly have to encompass the future of the site.

The Ministry of Defence at Harrogate employs some 300 service and 1,200 civilian staff and provides the single largest collocated element of the support management organisation. The task of this organisation is to provide the logistic support necessary to underwrite the RAF's operational capability and, as a result of rationalised arrangements, the operational capability of the Army Air Corps and Fleet Air Arm. Support is also provided to some overseas Governments who have purchased British defence equipment. The organisation provides aircraft fleet and inventory management, draws up maintenance and supply policy and manages the provision, procurement and management of spares, modifications, and the repair of equipments and components. It does not itself carry the functions of aircraft and component repair and overhaul, or spares manufacture. Its suppliers are the Maintenance Defence Support Agency—a part of RAF support command—the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation and, predominantly, private industry. There are, however, significant elements of the organisation not currently based in Harrogate. As my hon. Friend said, the reorganisation will affect people located in several different parts of the country—people based in London, at the RAF headquarters strike command High Wycombe and RAF support command at Brampton, and people who work with specialist staffs at RAF Swanton Morley in Norfolk, RAF Stanbridge in Bedfordshire, and at Glasgow and Liverpool. The task of the studies under way is to design and identify the most efficient and effective structure and location for the long-term future of the support management organisation, bringing it into balance with the reductions in the front line which have already been announced.

I remind the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), then Secretary of State for Defence, announced on 25 July 1990 the outline structure of British forces for the future. Further details were set out in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" published on 9 July 1991. For the RAF, the closures of the stations at Wildenrath and Gutersloh in Germany have been announced and, indeed, most of their squadrons have been disbanded or relocated already. Cessation of flying at RAF Wattisham has been announced and its Phantom squadrons will be disbanded later this year. Flying will also cease at RAF Honnington and RAF regiment units are to be relocated from West Raynham, Catterick and Hullavington as the number of RAF regiment squadrons reduces.

On the support side, the maintenance unit at Abingdon is to close later this year, the flying training school at Church Fenton is changing to a relief landing ground and flying training is to cease at RAF Brawdy. Further closures and rationalisations in ground training, maintenance, supply and movements will be announced and made in due course and there is a continuing programme of closure for RAF stations used by the United States Air Force in this country.

In those circumstances, it is necessary for us to review and streamline the logistics management organisation and associated MOD headquarters functions to meet the needs of the new front line and supporting units: it would be quite wrong of us not to do so. Indeed, if we did not, we could not undertake to provide the well-equipped and well-trained front line for 1990s and beyond which the Government have promised. The Government have therefore made it clear that they seek substantial savings in the support area, at least proportionate to the reductions in the front line. As part of that, we approved last year the recommendations of a study—known as the PROSPECT study—on the future size and structure of the Ministry of Defence and its relationships with the commands. The recommendations that are being implemented include headquarters manpower savings at all levels of at least 20 per cent. and significant relocation of posts out of London. The object of the changes is to reduce substantially the MOD's overheads and streamline its working practices, consistent with the reductions in our front-line strengths, the opportunities opened by the Department's new management strategy and the application of new information technology. At a time of such change in our armed forces following the momentous international developments of recent years, we owe it to them and to the public at large to produce a leaner and more responsive MOD.

Central to the study's recommendations was the principle that only small, core headquarters should be retained in London, with the remaining functions being redeployed. For the RAF, the report recommended in particular that the staffs of the Air Member for Supply and Organisation—within whose department are the majority of the staffs currently based at Harrogate—should move out of London and, together with associated elements of RAF support command, chiefly the Maintenance Defence Support Agency, form a logistics command located at the current RAF support command headquarters at Brampton, near Huntingdon. On formation of the new command, the separate appointments of AMSO and air officer commanding in chief support command would be abolished. As a consequence of these changes, it is clear that there will be significant relocation of staff to the Brampton area. The object of the studies now under way has been to establish the best long-term locations for the remainder of the staffs in other parts of the new logistics command, which are not already located in the Brampton area. As I have already said, they are predominantly in London, at Harrogate, High Wycombe, RAF Stanbridge and RAF Swanton Morley.

It is clear that, to meet the challenging targets for efficiency which we have set, we shall need to exploit to the maximum the opportunities for the collocation and integration of service and civilian staffs. This will enable us to reduce the management overhead and, with the use of modern management techniques and information technology, improve the quality of decision taking. The RAF is already embarked upon a major update of its logistics information systems—many of which date from the late 1960s and early 1970s—known as the logistics information technology strategy, or—to use one of the acronyms which the MOD loves—LITS. Also, following a fundamental review of the management of supply and engineering in the late 1980s, RAF support management now operates on the basis of multi-discipline groups, which combine engineering, supply, procurement and financial disciplines into project teams. These are already showing their worth, but full integration, which we must achieve to exploit fully the opportunities of new technology and new working practices, has been hampered by the current dispersed nature of the organisation. The PROSPECT study, which these reforms preceded, provides an opportunity, unlikely to recur, of overcoming this drawback and achieving substantial long-term benefits.

We recognise, however, that such collocation and integration will be disruptive and potentially costly in the short term. Consequently, all available options for the long-term location of all elements of the new logistics command are the subject of intensive and exhaustive study. Although it is clear that there are no options which do not involve relocation, we need to take into account the costs of reproviding office accommodation, domestic accommodation for service personnel who will remain an essential part of the command, relocation of civilian staff, the provision of information technology, the availability of suitably qualified staff, and their training, together with local housing and transport needs. We also need to investigate the opportunities for making the best use of the current defence estate and minimise expensive reprovision of new buildings. With an extensive drawdown in the defence estate under way, there has clearly been a wide range of potential solutions.

From an early stage, however, it has been evident to all concerned that the solutions fall into one of two broad categories: a northern solution, which my hon. Friend suggested, based on the current site at Harrogate, and an East Anglian solution, centred on the current headquarters site at Brampton. Each option will have its advocates and my hon. Friend has been most eloquent in putting forward the virtues of an outcome based at Harrogate.

The Harrogate solution would have the advantage of a large resident work force. However, it would require relocation northward of significant numbers of RAF and civilian specialist staff, and reprovision and expansion of the current buildings which, as my hon. Friend accepts, are almost 50 years old and coming to the end of their economic life. As part of this, we are also studying the possible use of spare capacity at RAF training stations in the area. A solution in the Brampton area would require more relocation, but over shorter distances for many of the specialists involved. Brampton is very close to the RAF station at Wyton, which has significant potential for reuse and is generally well maintained. I take my hon. Friend's point that it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Ambitious as I am, that has not been one of the factors that has made us consider Wyton as a serious candidate. I assure the House that every option is subject to the most stringent and rigorous operational and economic analysis.

We would, however, ignore qualitative factors at our peril, and I am fully aware of the Department's obligations to its work force. I should like to pay in particular a tribute to the loyalty, dedication and skill of the civilian staff who have always played a major role in the provision of RAF Logistics. They are well aware that major studies are under way into the future of RAF Logistics which will affect both their personal and professional lives.

I am determined that, while we must achieve the efficient provision of the very best logistic support for the RAF for the 1990s and beyond, in doing so we shall also seek to provide a promising and rewarding professional life for those who seek a career in the area. But there will undoubtedly be short-term disruption for some. While we can agree on the appropriateness and need for smaller armed forces, the streamlining of their support, and a smaller proportion of our national wealth being spent on defence, those aims will not be achieved without disruptions and possibly redundancy for some and temporary damage to local economies where establishments are closed.

Whatever the outcome of the recommendations, everything possible will be done to minimise the adverse effects on our employees. Staff in grades with a mobility obligation would, where appropriate, be transferred at public expense and transfers to other Government Departments or MOD establishments would be investigated fully, especially for staff in grades with no mobility obligation. The MOD would establish close contact with employers in areas affected, including other Government Departments which may have relocation plans of their own which offer opportunities for co-ordination. Any staff leaving prematurely under voluntary or compulsory redundancy terms would have available the services of the MOD counselling service and would be compensated under the terms of the appropriate pension scheme.

I am conscious that continued uncertainty for those potentially involved a source of anxiety—a point made strongly by my hon. Friend—and I hope soon to make public our proposals as a basis for consultation. We shall not make a final decision on the way ahead without taking into account all the relevant factors and without a proper period of consultation. In particular, I assure the House that the recommendations will be subject to the full consultative procedures agreed between the Department and the trades unions.

I am extremely pleased to be able to introduce this short debate on the impact of the general agreement on tariffs and trade on the British textile and clothing industries. Before I do so, I take this first opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. As a fellow Yorkshire Member, I hope that you have a long, successful and happy tenure in your office, which is very well deserved.

I also declare an interest as a sponsored Member of the Transport and General Workers Union. I take an especial pleasure in representing the TGWU textiles group which represents many thousands of men and women throughout the United Kingdom who depend for their livelihoods on the British textile and clothing industries.

When I applied for the debate, I did not imagine that it would be as timely as it has proved to be. Only yesterday, in the aftermath of the apparent agreement on agriculture by European Community Agriculture Ministers, a number of hon. Members of all parties pressed for a Government statement on the future of the GATT round. This debate allows the Minister to give the House, the industry and the general public some idea about the current position of the GATT round and about the prospects for a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations.

The negotiations are now 18 months behind schedule. The main obstacle and difficulty in the negotiations has been agreement on agriculture. Many in the textile and clothing industries are extremely concerned about the apparent priority given to agriculture compared with that given to the textile and clothing industries. In sheer economic terms, the textile and clothing industries are far more important. The output of the British textile and clothing industries is £15 billion compared with £13·4 billion for agriculture. In exports, the figures are £4·5 billion compared with £2·6 billion and in employment, the figures are 420,000 compared with 262,000.

In recent years, agriculture seems to have enjoyed by far the greater attention of all concerned. The December 1990 GATT conference in Brussels, which was designed to agree a conclusion, broke up without agreement, mainly because of differences on agriculture. After further negotiations in December 1991, the GATT director-general, Arthur Dunkel, presented a paper setting out suggested conclusions for the round and asking for rapid agreement. The EC refused to accept the paper because the section on agriculture was unacceptable to it and since then, negotiations on agriculture between the EC and the United States have continued without agreement. Other sections of the Dunkel paper, including those relevant to textiles, have been put on ice until the disagreements on agriculture are resolved. Once that happens, there are other loose ends to be tied up, notably services and tariff reduction negotations.

Throughout the period, the main concern seems to have been agriculture, at the expense of textiles and clothing and of other sectors of industry and services. The apparent importance given to agriculture highlights the worries that continue to exist in the British textile and clothing industries about how those industries are perceived by British Ministers and civil servants, by European Commissioners and EC bureaucrats and by competing textile and clothing industries around the world. There are lingering suspicions among those who work in the British industries that they do not count and that they are not really rated. They fear that they are seen by many Ministers and British civil servants as boring whingers. Whenever the subject of British textiles and clothing comes up, Ministers and officials tend to stare at the ceiling or at their imported silk socks. Sometimes, the industries are depicted as always moaning and their trade and profits are suspected of being a good deal better than they are prepared to let on; at others, they are depicted as old-fashioned and out-of-date industries desperately seeking total protection from the winds of free trade and free competition.

British Ministers must do their best permanently to sweep away those suspicions and the best way of doing that is by taking positive action to instil confidence in the minds of all those who work in the industries that the British Government are pledged to do all that they can to defend the industries' interests and to promote them overseas. Ministerial rhetoric has failed miserably to do that over the years.

It is vital that the Government show their support for the British textile and clothing industries, and action is necessary on a number of fronts. First, and most important, the British textile and clothing industries must be placed at the heart of the revival of British manufacturing. It is most important that the Government's trade, economic and fiscal policies all give positive support to British manufacturing in general and to the textile and clothing industries in particular.

The Minister will be aware of the grave misgivings felt not only in the textile and clothing industries but throughout British industry about the present and future role of his Department. Many of us believe that, unfortunately, as Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and the present Secretary of State for Social Security presided over the demise of their own Department. Until recently, that great Department gave the impression that it had shut up shop, that it took no interest in the future of British manufacturing industry and that it was entirely unwilling to intervene on behalf of British manufacturing or to promote and defend its interests.

All that has changed because of the great promise that the present Secretary of State carries with him. During his attempts to become leader of the Conservative party and subsequently, he has been seen as a disciple—indeed, an evangelist—of British manufacturing. I know that the House is deserted on this occasion, but our debates are read with considerable interest. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take this opportunity to share with us the Department's thinking—and, in particular, the thinking of the Secretary of State—about the reorganisation of the Department and to tell us what attitude the Department will adopt to British manufacturing in future. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, for example, that the conclusion is rapidly being reached that it is high time that the Department established a division with direct responsibility for the British textile and clothing industries on a day-to-day basis. That would enable Ministers and officials to build a continuing dialogue with all sections of the industries and to have access to knowledge and expertise in the industries, thus ensuring that their best interests are represented in all places and on all occasions and that a genuine effort is made to assist and to defend them.

Other measures need to be taken and I shall come to GATT in a moment. I take this opportunity to urge the Minister to consider what action his Department can take to promote exports. As I have already said, the British textile and clothing industries have a remarkable export record, but that record could be improved if the Department were prepared to enter real discussions to find ways of promoting and increasing British exports.

I have always wondered why our discussions on the textile and clothing industries are restricted to Adjournment debates and the odd question at Question Time. Hon. Members representing constituencies throughout the United Kingdom have no regular opportunity to question Ministers, to draw to their attention matters of concern and to urge that the Government act to promote this major British industry. I strongly urge that we should have at least an annual debate on the industries to give all hon. Members a proper opportunity to speak up on the industries' behalf, in exactly the same way as other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak on agriculture. There is a regular monthly Question Time on agriculture, and at least one debate a year, and I cannot understand why we still do not have such opportunities to speak about textiles and clothing.

We must look to the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that its arrangements for monitoring all agreements concerning textiles and clothing, including GATT, are effective and that surveillance is carried out thoroughly and as a matter of urgency.

What of matters affecting the GATT negotiations and discussions? I hope that, following yesterday's agreement, the Minister will be able to give us some clear information about the expected schedule for those negotiations. The Minister will know that there was considerable pleasure when it was agreed that the multi-fibre arrangement would not be phased out in less than 10 years. We must insist on that part of the agreement being maintained and the minimum phase-out period must be firmly linked to the strengthening of GATT rules and disciplines.

It would also help if the Minister could say that, even if good progress is now made in the negotiations, the GATT agreement is unlikely to be concluded and implemented until—most optimistically—the middle of next year and probably until the end of next year. The extension of the MFA—which we were very pleased to obtain—expires in December and it is most important that there should be a further extension, for at least another 12 months. The extension should apply for whatever period is necessary to coincide with the implementation of the full GATT negotiations and agreement.

We are also very anxious about several other issues. There must be a vigorous attack in the GATT market access negotiating group on high tariffs. We are concerned about high tariffs in developing countries and particularly in the United States where the tariff on wool cloth is still 36 per cent. There should be better export opportunities for the United Kingdom industry.

There must be strict enforcement of the current MFA arrangements. New quotas are needed in some cases to deal with damaging import surges and a major assault on fraudulent evasion of quotas, especially by China, should be carried out. We also urge the Minister and the Government to deal with current subsidy problems, notably in relation to the provision of subsidised raw materials to some of the United Kingdom's competitors. The level playing field that we are seeking remains as elusive as ever. We urge the Minister and the Government to do everything possible to ensure that competition is free and fair.

I said earlier that many people in the textile and clothing industries are thought to be boring whingers. If we are honest, it must be accepted that we have a great deal to be concerned about. There has been a massive reduction in employment in our industries. Half a million people have lost their jobs over the past 20 years. In all, 560,000 jobs have disappeared from every region in the United Kingdom. The most recent figures show that 7,000 jobs are being lost every quarter. We must heavily underline the importance of the textile and clothing industries to the regions.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, will be aware of the importance of the textile and clothing industries to Yorkshire and Humberside. However, it is worth stressing that importance. At the moment, 63,000 men and women depend on the industries in Yorkshire and Humberside. That represents 15 per cent. of those employed in the industries throughout the United Kingdom and that is equal to 16 per cent. of manufacturing employment in our region. A similar picture occurs in other regions.

I would like the Minister to tell us something about the current position of the RETEX scheme. As the House will be aware, that scheme is designed to assist textile and clothing firms that want to diversify because of the decline in the industry. I should like to know what the budget for RETEX is likely to be. The Commission was to announce that budget. I contacted the Department yesterday and said that I was today intending to ask for information about the scheme. I hope that the Minister can provide it.

In addition to the amount of money available, there is concern about the availability of RETEX funds. At the moment, it seems that funds will be available only to assisted areas. That would exclude certain areas, even within West Yorkshire, where the textile industry is an important employer and an important part of the local economy. I urge the Minister to consider the matter and to ensure that we consider distribution of RETEX funds to regions rather than areas, so that regions where textiles and clothing are important can benefit from the scheme.

I also informed the Minister that I intended to refer today to pentachlorophenal—PCP—which is a fungicide used on grey, unfinished cloth in Asia and the far east. It is used on cotton when growing and also to prevent mildew during transit. When treated cloth is subsequently bleached, dyed or printed in the United Kingdom, any PCP is removed during the finishing process and discharged into the finisher's waste water.

The finishing industry faces difficulties because the permitted levels of PCP in waste water are restricted to very low levels as a result of EC legislation. Yorkshire Water is examining PCP levels at the moment and some water companies have already advised customers that from 1 July discharges containing PCP will not be accepted.

I understand that there is no known practical way of removing PCP from waste water. The textile finishing industry is currently undertaking a £290,000 research project into the problem. However, because of a delay in obtaining funding from the Department of Trade and Industry, the project is not due to report until June of next year.

The finisher also does not own the grey cloth that he processes. It is owned by his customer. The pressures brought to bear by textile finishers on their customers have cut PCP pollution levels by an estimated 40 to 50 per cent. However, there are still insufficient quantities of grey cloth available that are not treated with PCP.

Customers in this country have up to two years' supply of grey cloth for finishing which has been treated with PCP. Textile companies may be forced to scrap those supplies which are worth millions of pounds, unless there is provision to extend the pollution deadline. I hope that the Minister will give us the Department's view about that problem, because it is clear that a sympathetic approach must be adopted. There is a degree of urgency because of the deadline.

I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to clarify the current position on the GATT negotiations and give us clear assurances that the textile and clothing industries will not be regarded as expendable or as industries whose interests can be traded off to reach an agreement under GATT. All the assurances that have been given about the Government's position on the negotiations should be maintained. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the best interests of the British textile and clothing industry will not be neglected or put on one side by the Government.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on his success in securing a debate on a subject which he follows closely and about which he has considerable knowledge. Whenever matters affecting the clothing and textiles industries are considered in the House, he is assiduous in his attendance and in making his full contribution. He has just done so once again and I hope that I will be able, in replying, to cover the main points which he made.

Contrary to what he said about himself, I would never regard the hon. Member for Bradford, West as a boring whinger; far from it. He speaks with great knowledge on textile matters. He raised some technical points. The first was RETEX, which comes under the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, who is responsible for regional policy. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention. We have not come to a definitive conclusion about RETEX. As the hon. Gentleman will know, many initiatives have been promoted by the European Commission. I believe that RETEX is the eighteenth. When I was responsible for regional policy, we were prepared to consider proposals made by Commissioner Millan in a constructive light. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be interested in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

The hon. Member for Bradford, West also raised the problem of pentachlorophenol. That is a matter principally for my colleagues at the Department of the Environment. I understand the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman as a local Member of Parliament about environmental matters and I have noted the force with which he expressed himself today. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters at the Department of the Environment contacts the hon. Gentleman.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the importance of the textile industry. As he well knows, the textiles and clothing industry is still the United Kingdom's largest employer, with about 390,000 people working in it. The Government attach considerable importance to its health and well-being. It remains a substantial wealth creator, despite the retrenchment in size in past decades. It still accounts for roughly 2 per cent. of total employment in the United Kingdom and almost 9 per cent. of manufacturing employment. It is the fifth largest manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom and one of our main exporters.

I took careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said about the House devoting more time to the textiles industry. I shall certainly be happy to pass his observations on to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Department of Trade and Industry attaches enormous importance to the textiles industry. A great deal of time is spent by my officials and those who advise me in ensuring that the Department is a worthy ambassador for one of our greatest and most important industries.

So, by any reckoning, the textiles and clothing industry is of enormous importance to the United Kingdom economy. It has achieved much and has shown very considerable resilience largely because of its skilled and adaptable work force and strengthened management. It has proved itself to be extremely competitive, especially at the quality end of the market. It should also be noted that the industry has made increasing use of new techniques and technologies which have resulted in significant productivity gains. Advances have also been made in design and there is an increasing trend towards specialisation, with companies identifying what they do best and adapting and developing for all they are worth.

All the factors that I have mentioned are important if we are to have a thriving and competitive industry able to respond rapidly to the changing demands of the market place. Output declined in 1989, 1990 and again in 1991 as consumer demand weakened. But this had been preceded by a buoyant period in the sector in the mid-1980s when exports grew strongly and profit growth was above the manufacturing sector average.

The industry's fortunes are closely linked with the consumer market, and measures to slow down demand in the economy have inevitably been reflected in its short-term performance. But the United Kingdom textiles sector has not been unique in experiencing stagnant output growth at the beginning of the 1990s. The picture is similar for most other EC producers.

In 1991 both exports and imports were close to the previous year's levels. Exports were up by 2 per cent. in value terms to £4·7 billion. Indeed, clothing exports have surprised industry observers by their continued strength —in 1991 they were up 13 per cent. over 1990. By contrast, exports of textiles have been a little sluggish—down by 4 per cent. in 1991. Imports of clothing and textiles fell I per cent. in 1991.

With improving economic prospects, the industry can now look forward to emerging from a difficult period and building on the strengths developed during the 1980s. Indeed, I was delighted to read in yesterday's Yorkshire Post the report of record textile and clothing exports in the first quarter of 1992. Exports exceeded £1·1 billion for the first time ever in this period. In that report Mr. Nightingale of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance said:

"UK firms are selling internationally on the basis of quality, design, service and value for money."

The hon. Gentleman said that his debate was timely and, of course, it is. The Times this morning repeats what we already know from the Yorkshire Post. It says that exports of British clothing and textiles in the first quarter of this year jumped 9 per cent. That shows that the hon. Gentleman's debate is timely. This is an appropriate moment to take up the hon. Gentleman's point about the attitude of the industry and our attitude to it. The industry has a positive attitude. The chairman of the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance wrote to the GATT round in February this year:

"So let us press for a determined drive to a successful conclusion which will leave our industry with hope for the future based on a lengthy and orderly phase-out of the present quota arrangements over a reasonable period, being accompanied by greater access to overseas markets and less cheating by our competitors."

So there we see a positive attitude on the part of the AKTA.

As the hon. Gentleman is such an expert on the textiles industry, it is not necessary for me to deal in any great detail with the multi-fibre arrangement, especially as time is short. I shall deal now with the current state of play in GATT. Before I discuss the specific impact of GATT on the textiles and clothing industries, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in an update on developments in the round.

Just before Christmas, the director-general of GATT, Mr. Dunkel, issued his comprehensive draft final act of the Uruguay round. This represented the fruits of five years of hard negotiations. It covered the largest range of issues ever addressed in a single set of trade negotiations. These include further reductions in tariffs and non-tariff barriers, the strengthening of GATT rules on matters such as subsidies and anti-dumping, and improvements to GATT's own procedures, particularly those relating to the settlement of trade disputes. It would bring trade in agricultural products and textiles fully within GATT disciplines. It would also, for the first time, extend GATT rules to trade-related intellectual property rights and trade in services.

This agreement would bring substantial benefits to United Kingdom industry and consumers. It would reduce barriers to our exports, of services as well as goods. It would help to create fairer conditions of competition in international trade. It would reduce the damaging uncertainty which comes about when countries take trade measures unilaterally and it would discourage any tendency towards closed bilateral or regional trade agreements. Perhaps most importantly, it would give a boost to economic growth and confidence just when it is most needed, as the western economies are emerging from recession. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him that, for all the challenges that the process poses for the textiles industry, the GATT round is welcome. I am sure that he echoes those words.

The hon. Gentleman will also agree that if the GATT round failed we should not merely lose the benefits of the agreement; trade problems and disputes which had been in abeyance during the round would emerge again. While the GATT system would not collapse overnight, confidence in it would be seriously weakened. There would be a loss of business confidence and an increased tendency to resort to protectionism. Countries would start to take the law into their own hands. The result could be the beggar-myneighbour policies that we saw in the 1930s which had such devastating consequences. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman supports our efforts to achieve agreement and at the same time to be aware of the particular problems faced by the textiles industry.

I am glad to say that all parties to the negotiations—and there are more than 100 of them—have been prepared to work on the basis of Mr. Dunkel's text. Nevertheless, as hon. Members will be aware, a number of problems remain to be resolved before final agreement can be reached. The principal one is agriculture. The hon. Gentleman has rightly made a great play of the subject of agriculture and I understand his point of view.

As is well known, the European Community has difficulties with certain of the proposals in the Dunkel paper. Discussions have continued to try to resolve those, mainly between the European Commission and the United States. An agreement between the EC and the United States is seen as essential to open the way to wider agreement.

I am glad to say that at their recent meeting President Bush and the President of the European Commission, Mr. Delors, reaffirmed their desire for an early settlement in the round. It is a mark of the importance of the round that President Bush, even with the impending election and his domestic concerns, continues to attach such a high priority to it. The British Government welcome that. At that meeting, certain new ideas were exchanged on agriculture, which both sides are now studying. Further meetings at senior level are expected shortly.

We very much hope that those new ideas will make possible an agreement on agriculture. That should be facilitated by the agreement on reform of the EC common agricultural policy, which was reached only yesterday and which the hon. Gentleman alluded to. In turn, that should open the way to resolving the remaining problems in other sectors, most importantly the liberalisation of trade in services and final agreement on the levels of tariff reductions on goods. If the key points can be agreed within the next weeks, it should be possible to conclude the final agreement, including the detailed legal texts, during the following few months.

The hon. Gentleman asked when we might reach a final agreement. I do not know any more than he does, but I hope that we are making good progress. The gap between the two sides is now very narrow and agreement is within reach. The United Kingdom believes very strongly that the overriding priority should be a good overall agreement. Given the potential benefits and the cost of failure, no issue should be allowed to stand in the way of that. Completing and, as necessary, expediting that work will of course be a high priority for our presidency of the European Community, starting in July.

That brings me, in the last nine minutes of my remarks, to the impact of the Uruguay round on the textiles and clothing industries, which is the issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman. International trade in textiles and clothing products is not subject to the rules and disciplines of GATT. Indeed, it is one of the few areas of international trade that are not covered by the GATT umbrella. However, a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round would include an agreement on textiles trade, which would be brought under the disciplines of GATT and would involve the progressive phase-out of the MFA.

The GATT director-general's draft final act includes a draft agreement on textiles. It will involve the integration of textile and clothing trade into GATT over a period of 10 years, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I can now go into more detail. On a periodic basis—at least once every two years—developed countries will be obliged to identify a range of textiles and clothing products, by customs tariff headings, which will be plucked out of the MFA and integrated into GATT. What that means basically is that those products will no longer be subject to quantitative restrictions. By progressively integrating more and more products into the GATT, the MFA will gradually be phased out. That process will be complemented by progressive annual increases in the size of quotas for those products to be integrated into GATT at a later stage.

I should underline—this will interest the hon. Gentleman—that the phase-out of the MFA will be a carefully managed and monitored affair. Aside from the fact that it will take up to 10 years to phase out all quotas, even when a product has been integrated into GATT, the agreement gives provision for safeguard action to be taken against imports that threaten injury to domestic production. I know that the hon. Gentleman will take careful note of that. It is important for those of us, myself included, who are anxious to ensure adequate protection. In other words, quotas can be reimposed on goods integrated into GATT if they are threatening to damage our home industry. The proposed agreement on trade in textiles and clothing also establishes a body and mechanism through which trade disputes between members can be discussed and resolved.

However, phasing out the MFA is only part of the story. Ever since the Uruguay round negotiations began, the United Kingdom Government and the European Community, as well as most other western industrialised countries, have been ready to negotiate the return of trade in textiles and clothing to GATT only in return for strengthened rules and disciplines affecting how all GATT contracting parties, including developing countries, behave in their trading policies. That is another key point which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will support, and it is the level playing field in trade that we all, especially the hon. Gentleman, wish to promote.

The United Kingdom textiles and clothing industries have strongly urged and supported the so-called linkage between MFA phase-out and strengthened rules and disciplines. So what do they—and we as a Government —make of the total GATT package now emerging?

There have been some real achievements. There are satisfactory proposals for enhancing GATT's dispute settlement mechanism and the requirements placed upon the most advanced developing countries to adhere more closely to their GATT obligations. There has been useful, if not perfect—I accept that it is not perfect—progress in three key areas of interest to the United Kingdom industry: subsidies, safeguards and anti-dumping.

We and the United Kingdom industry have long been concerned about the potentially trade-distorting effect of overseas Governments' subsidies, but the difficulty has been to get internationally agreed restraints over the most damaging of them. The Uruguay round is starting down that road. The draft agreement seeks to categorise subsidies according to their trade-distorting effect, eliminating direct export subsidies and others which clearly distort or impede trade, while permitting those domestic subsidies which demonstrably have no such effect. Any other subsidies would be actionable under the new subsidies code negotiated in GATT. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman on the subject of subsidies.

As the Chamber is rapidly filling up with farmers, I am grateful that I made my remarks on agriculture earlier. Before the Minister concludes, can he answer the one specific question that I asked: when will the Government announce whether the MFA is to be extended beyond December? That is very important for confidence within the British industry.

The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about confidence. The Government would not embark on any course of action that would lead to any lack of confidence. We are negotiating, and we are bound by our partners and colleagues in the European Community, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said. As we are in the middle of negotiations, I am not in a position to give an absolute answer to the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that the moment that we can make an announcement we shall do so. We are aware of the need to promote confidence in the industry and to assure it that we are dealing with an evolutionary process. The GATT round and the MFA process have been evolutionary and we have always tried to ensure adequate protection for industry and adequate warning of any changes. I think that the hon. Gentleman will realise from what I have said that there are grounds for considerable confidence. It appears that, thanks to the considerable success achieved by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who is now sitting beside me—which I am sure that the House welcomes, we now hope to proceed to a satisfactory conclusion of the GATT round.

The degree of discipline to be imposed is, to be frank, not as tight as we and the rest of the EC would have liked, but it reflects the outcome of multilateral negotiations, in which all sides have to compromise. But it is the Government's view that it represents a significant improvement on the current GATT subsidies code, where those countries are under no such obligations. By signing up to the new code, as drafted, they would be accepting a measure of their responsibilities which should go some way to meeting the oft-voiced concerns of the textiles and clothing industries.

In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Madam Speaker.

I apologise. I see that you have joined us in the Chair, Madam Speaker.

The MFA was only ever intended to be a temporary mechanism. It was meant to facilitate the managed restructuring of the textiles and clothing industries in developed countries by increasingly exposing them to competition from low-cost overseas suppliers; and that is largely what has happened. Professor Silberston's report for my Department in 1989 spells out the progress that has been made in modernising the British textile and clothing industries, with overseas competition being a key spur to improvements in domestic manufacture. I am sure that the House will recognise that the Government's policy has been a success. We have achieved a managed transition to a successful, modern, progressive industry. We will continue to negotiate with our partners to achieve even further progress.

It being Eleven o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER interrupted proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).

I should like to report to the House on the agreement reached yesterday on common agricultural policy reform. This was a major step forward for Europe, for Britain, for British consumers and taxpayers and for British farmers.

The heart of the reform is a reduction in cereals prices of nearly 30 per cent. which will benefit consumers of all products derived from cereals. These include bacon, pork and poultrymeat. Prices of beef will be reduced by 15 per cent. which will keep beef competitive with other meats. All this will be of major advantage to consumers. This change in prices, especially for cereals, should have a beneficial effect on the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. The link between GATT and CAP reform should not be exaggerated, but lowering support prices and lower overall support are what is needed to ensure greater competition in world trade. The European Community has done more than GATT would demand. It is now up to our partners in those negotiations to take the steps that they asked us to take but which so far they have not taken themselves.

The reformed CAP will not now be biased against British farmers in the way originally proposed by the Commission. Larger farms, much more common in the United Kingdom than elsewhere in Europe, would have been crippled by those original proposals. None of the original discriminatory proposals of the Commission has been carried through to the final agreement. This shows yet again that we can best succeed in Europe if we fight hard within the rules.

We argued that our farmers who set aside should receive the same compensation as others. That we achieved. We argued that we should move support from the storage of beef to those who look after animals, particularly in the most difficult areas. That we achieved. We argued that there should he no discrimination against our sheep producers. That we achieved. We argued that those who care for the hills and upland areas should be more directly supported. That we achieved. In all these areas, we have safeguarded the position of the British farmer as the producer of food and the carer of the countryside. In all these areas, we have fundamentally altered the Commission's proposals and confounded those who said that we should give in.

I am especially glad that the agreement makes significant steps towards bringing environmental issues into the heart of the CAP. That was one of Britain's interests. It was Britain which pressed for that and it is Britain which will ensure that we shall build on that during the United Kingdom presidency in the second half of this year.

Finally, the Commission officially confirmed that the costs of the reformed CAP could be met within the agricultural guideline as presently constituted. There is thus no need for the increase in the base that the Commission has been proposing in the context of the Community's future financing.

Yesterday the House gave a Second Reading to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill. This outcome also shows Britain at the heart of Europe. I commend the agreement to the House.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House and telling us of his approach to the discussions that have just been concluded. The fact that there were so few details in his statement emphasises the need for a full day's debate, with all the papers being available to Members. I hope that the Minister will press for that after the Whitsun recess.

I know that the Minister is in a state of euphoria and that the press have written this up as a great triumph. I put the euphoria down to a lack of sleep. When we analyse the Minister's proposals in the cold light of day, we find that this deal, too, is wanting.

We believe the reforms to be inadequate, but if they are sufficient to allow a breakthrough in the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, that is important. The reforms will not be seen in any way other than as transitional. They must be seen as the beginning of a long path to reform and not as an end of reform. This reform, like its predecessors, will be doomed to failure because it is built on the defective foundations of the current inefficient farm support system.

At present, the average household of four in the United Kingdom spends £17·50 a week on agricultural support. The reforms announced today increase the taxpayers' subsidy to farmers—an increase of £3 billion, or 12·5 per cent., for the next five years at least. That does not take into account the further £1 billion that is proposed in the Delors plan. Let us get this straight: these proposals increase the cost of agricultural support to the taxpayer. As Britain pays a disproportionate amount of European tax, sadly, the British taxpayer will pay more towards farm subsidies.

The Minister has said that the consumer will benefit. All our evidence shows that the consumer will not benefit. Already the bakers and big bread manufacturers are discounting the possibility of price reductions. They are saying that the reduction in cereal prices cannot be passed on to the consumer because they have already been squeezed too tightly. If the Minister disagrees, perhaps he can tell us by how much he predicts the price of a loaf of bread will fall.

I note that the National Farmers Union has welcomed the proposals. I wonder what is in this deal for the small farmer. I heard what the Minister said about the upland farmer, but there remains the suspicion that the Minister has sold out the small upland farmer in favour of the barley barons of East Anglia.

The core of the reform is compulsory set-aside. That will not work. All the evidence shows that as farmers set aside land they increase production elsewhere. Moreover, the environment will suffer. Perhaps the Minister can give us some advice on whether a farmer may set aside more than 15 per cent. of his land. May a farmer set aside his whole farm, as at present? We find it difficult to accept the notion of paying farmers to do nothing.

Furthermore, the abolition of the co-responsibility levy means that there is no disincentive for farmers not to maximise their production on land that is not set aside. Therefore, surpluses will continue.

The CAP is nonsense. This reform, like its predecessors, is unlikely to work. It must be the first step towards the abolition of the CAP as we know it. Then we can support it. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the reform comes at a high cost to the taxpayer. It will cost British taxpayers at least £3 billion more over the next five years.

I wonder how successful a report one would have to bring to the House before the hon. Gentleman would do one the courtesy of saying one had achieved anything for Britain. He ignored everything that we have achieved. It is amazing that a man who launched his election campaign in south Wales purposely to tell the people what he would do to protect farm incomes should complain about the protection that we are providing. It is clear to me why the people of Wales threw out the very candidates whom the hon. Gentleman sought to support by launching his campaign at that particular time.

The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions and I am glad he did, because, in doing so, he made it clear that he had little information on which to base them.

Small farmers will certainly benefit considerably, because, instead of spending the money on support through the storage of beef, for example, the money will go directly in premiums to the farmers. Those premiums will be capped to enable those who have had animals in the past to get support continuously. That support will now be greater, and small farmers, especially in the hillsides and difficult parts of the country, will benefit very much.

Of course it is true that the taxpayer will pay a greater proportion, because the consumer will pay a lesser proportion. The only way to avoid that is to denude the countryside of population and render our farmers unable to look after the land—if the hon. Gentleman wants that. He cannot have it both ways, although he has tried to. He tells farmers in farming areas that he will fight for them, but he tells people outside those areas that he will ensure that farmers have no money.

The hon. Gentleman has played this game too often. The truth is that the Opposition do not like agriculture; they do not want it to be supported; and when we come back with a deal for Britain which everyone else in the world acknowledges, the only man who cannot say a word of thanks on behalf of the people of Britain is the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark).

rose—

Order. I regret to have to remind the House that this is a statement and that I am looking for specific questions, not debates.

If this deal allows the GATT negotiations to proceed, it will be a very good one indeed and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has achieved. How does he estimate the net effect on the prices index of the possible reductions in prices? How much money will be saved on the social security bill? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the result may be increased production? And will he have a careful look at increasing environmentally sensitive areas?

How the figures turn out will depend on what happens over the next three years because that is when the reductions will take place. I hope for about a 2 per cent. reduction in prices below what they would otherwise have been—

That is the qualifying clause.

The hon. Gentleman may say that, but food prices have risen significantly less than the rest of the prices index because of the efficiency of our farmers. Some of those who attack farmers ought to remember that they do so with full stomachs because of what our farmers have done.

As for the environment, it is we who got the Commission to make a statement that it will examine and produce proposals on how to link the requirements on farmers, the subsidies that are paid to them, and their environmental needs. Because of our interest in the environment, we have insisted that farmers work to ensure that the environment is cared for and that we will be able to pay them to allow access to areas that were not previously open. That access was illegal under the old rules and it has been gained at our specific request. I am looking forward to using our presidency to take that work further.

Like all Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to be praised; but is he aware that it is difficult to judge this announcement because it is very thin?

Will he answer the fair question asked by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)? As production costs represent such a small proportion of shop prices, how can he say that this will be of major benefit to consumers? Secondly, will he say more about set-aside? Finally, did the right hon. Gentleman see the statement on television by the Father of the House the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who said that if someone came down from Mars and saw farmers being paid not to produce in America and Europe and people starving in eastern Europe and many other places, he would think we were all a bit daft?

A loaf of bread bought for 65p means that 8·5p goes to the farmer—so the 29 per cent. that people sometimes talk about does not work through. The figure will work through at about 2 per cent., although it is higher for animals, which are fed largely on grain. If grain is the major part of the basic cost of animal production, a more direct effect can be seen.

A more direct effect will also apply to the price of beef. Lowering prices by 15 per cent. will work through much more directly to shops.

I have always conservatively argued that the commentators have overdone their arguments. The price at the farm gate is only a relatively small proportion of the price at the other end.

The details of set-aside under these arrangements have still to be fixed. We have always maintained that it would be better to continue alternatives. There is now a clear acceptance that we may have non-rotational set-aside—I would much prefer that. We will base it on scientific research on the connection between the cuts in productivity under the two systems. We will then produce proposals.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that production will be cut significantly.

My right hon. Friend and the Minister of State have again proved themselves doughty fighters for Britain and Britain's farmers. Does my right hon. Friend expect that with reduced surpluses we may be able to phase out intervention buying, particularly of meat products? It seems uniquely silly to buy a first-class article, to store it at colossal expense and then to dump it on the market as a third class article. If we manage to reduce surpluses, will he think along those lines?

My hon. Friend is right to say that that is a wrong system, which is why we have changed it fundamentally. The beef proposals are now entirely different from those that MacSharry advanced in the first place. They are almost identical with those that we wanted.

The fact that we allowed the process to work in this way shows that Britain can succeed in the European Community once people recognise that we are determined to work with it. Everyone else in Europe knew that we were committed to making Europe work and they supported what we were trying to do. As a result, we got a good deal.

Does the Minister acknowledge that the drop in cereal prices will have a knock-on effect on other producer areas, and will affect white meat production and help the production of chicken and poultry? That in turn will affect red meat, particularly lamb, which is produced exclusively on grass in the high areas of my constituency and others. Has he thought about how he will help my farmers, who will be squeezed by price changes in other areas?

These proposals safeguard support for the producers of lamb and beef in these difficult areas. That is what we have fought for. The removal of discrimination against them is the most important part of this package. All our calculations show that those who produce in our most difficult areas will benefit most from these decisions. I shall be distributing the figures today as soon as we have them in detailed tabular form and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see from them that what I am saying is clearly true.

The whole House should be grateful for the work that my right hon. Friend and his team have carried out. It is a triumph for common sense and sense of purpose. In my worst nightmares I cannot imagine what would have happened had the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) been in my right hon. Friend's place conducting the negotiations.

There is to be a cut in milk quotas. In Dorset and Somerset we have excellent cheese makers who well know that their market is expanding. What certainty is there that other countries will act to cut their quotas? Will there be tougher policing and will it be effective in the countries that we know are cheating all the way down the line?

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there will be no cut in milk quotas—another of our achievements. [Interruption.] There are so many good things in the package that it is impossible to mention them all; and Madam Speaker specifically asked that the statement should be as short as possible.

And that the answers might be as short as possible.

Multiple choice questions make for longer answers, Madam Speaker.

My hon. Friend spoke of policing. I was prepared to support the special arrangements for Spain because that country is committed to reducing its production very significantly. I and my colleagues opposed any extra milk for Italy, which refused to cut its overproduction, which has not carried out the quota system and which had the effrontery to suggest that its long period of breaking the rules should be legitimised. Until Italy is prepared to come within the system, and prove that it has done so, I am not prepared to help it.

Does the Minister realise that he has won wide respect for his continued opposition to the original MacSharry proposals, which were greeted with dismay by the rural communities? I thank him in particular for taking up the issue of the headage on the ewe premium and the suckler cow premium, which are vital to the rural economy. When will he publish all the details of the package, and will it include an analysis of the costs and benefits to all concerned?

I shall produce that information as rapidly as possible. We are working on it now. I thank the hon. Lady for her kind comments. She will be particularly pleased about the effect on the suckler cow herds, which are important for Scotland. I was conscious that we had to win that battle. She will remember that the discrimination against Scotland was particularly strong. My discussions with, and pressure from, the territorial Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland helped a great deal. She will also be pleased to know that, at the same time, we passed the new regulations affecting raspberry growers.

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on a really magnificent accomplishment and successful result. Will he comment on the elimination of discrimination against arable farmers, who are particularly important to the lifeblood of west Suffolk?

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for those comments. We both know how important it was for arable farmers not to have discrimination which would have meant them setting aside 15 per cent. of their arable acreage and receiving no compensation. That was an outrageous proposal. They will now receive full compensation for every acre they set aside.

In view of the many claims that have been made over the past 30 years of great progress in reforming the CAP, the House would be well advised to wait until it has the fine print of the agreement. From the point of view of the international community—remembering that the overproduction of cereals in western Europe has been claimed to have led to uncompetitive dumping under the heading of export restitution and the wrecking of markets for other cereal producers—can the right hon. Gentleman say that the Community has now agreed to phase out export subsidies from its cereal trade?

The GATT talks will deal with the issue of export restitutions. We are already committed to significant reductions in export restitutions, and the reduction in grain production that will follow the severe set-aside proposals will help that. If Britain were not a full and active member of the EC, these significant reforms would not have come about. Because we are a member and believe in the EC, we are able to make that difference.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the significant proposals, which will be warmly welcomed by the milk producers of Somerset and by cheese producers. How does he think the proposals will help Britain's farmers in their desire to compete on equal terms with their counterparts in the EC?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we must compete throughout the whole of what is now our home market. The fact that we do not have the special dairy cow subsidy, which would have discriminated against us, the fact that there is not a cut in milk quota for a country which is not self-sufficient in milk production and the fact that our milk farmers will now have the benefit of reform of the Milk Marketing Board—all of which would have been denied them had Labour won power at the last election—mean that we shall be able to compete more effectively in the European market.

Do not the proposals depend on the projected price of grain and on Mr. MacSharry's assumption that, by spending more public money in the short term, we shall have to spend less public money and give less support in the longer term? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that that mathematical assumption may not work out, because if it costs a bit more to produce rather less than he hopes, the mathematical gearing will be lower? What about the world price of grain'? What assumption has he made about that on which to base his projections? Agricultural support should be based on the needs of farmers and their families and on good husbandry rather than on projections of what may happen to markets in the future.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. We have said that this represents a 29 per cent. reduction in the price. It could, in certain circumstances, be significantly more, because the changes open the markets to the effects of world prices much more effectively, which is why we sought it.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait until he has seen all the details. We did not agree all of this until the middle of last evening, which is why he does not have the full details in the tabular form in which I shall produce them, and I shall do so as openly as possible. I hope that he will then clearly see that this is a significant change and that, above all, it is a change to achieve what he wants. It significantly moves the way in which we support agriculture, from the consumer price—thereby achieving an increase at the production end—towards direct payment to farmers so that they may continue to produce food and look after the land.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the removal of the discriminatory proposals from the original package. That will be widely welcomed in the farming community. Will he comment on farm incomes? Is he aware that farmers in my constituency and elsewhere tell me that, in real terms, farm incomes are at their lowest for 50 years? Can he confirm what Mr. MacSharry is believed to have said yesterday in a statement—that farmers will be fully compensated for the price reductions arranged in yesterday's deal?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The difficulty with general statements is that they are about average farm prices and incomes, whereas I am concerned with individual farm incomes. I believe that as a result of this change there will have to be some significant changes in the way in which farmers deal with the market, because they will be closer to it. I am convinced that the result will be to give farmers a greater degree of security, that, in particular, farmers in the most difficult areas will benefit, and that they will get the kind of stability that they have most sought. But the truth remains that, in the end, the more we open agriculture to the market, the more important it is for farmers to take advantage of the market. I believe that our farmers can do it, so that Mr. MacSharry's comments apply particularly to the United Kingdom.

The Minister has referred repeatedly in general terms to the good deal that has been obtained for the people operating in the most difficult areas. Will he focus on certain aspects? For example, many hill farmers and crofters are operating at the very margins of agriculture. They want to know whether it will be possible for them to continue to earn a living and whether, in particular, it will be worth their while to continue managing sheep. Will the Minister break away from the generality of the matter and give a few specifics which might offer encouragement so that those to whom I have referred may share some of his enthusiasm?

The hon. Gentleman will find that next year's suckler cow premium will be very significantly increased. He will find that the premiums that are paid directly to farmers—in replacement, therefore, of the old system of intervention, which was a daily business rather than a safety net—will increase direct payments to farmers very significantly indeed. I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with figures that he can then apply much more effectively to individual farmers. I come back to my belief that one of the troubles in these discussions is that people trumpet generalities of figures when the individual farmer wants to see how they will affect him. That is why we are producing these figures in a form that the hon. Gentleman will be able to apply individually.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what seems to be a significant contribution to the GATT round, upon which our prosperity and future rest. Can he say what the cost of it will be to the Community budget?

The total costs will be within the guidelines, as negotiated. That means that there will be no need for the £1·5 billion addition for which Mr. Delors asked. It was wrong of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), to suggest that that is brought into the matter. It will not be needed. Although the GATT round is very important, so is Europe; so is our success in Europe; so is our success in making Europe the foundation of our ability to complete in the world. Just as important as the contribution made to the GATT round is the fact that this agreement again means that Britain, at the heart and centre of Europe, can make a huge difference—not only for ourselves and for the whole of Europe but for the way in which Europe deals with the rest of the world. If we want to change the terms of trade, we can do it just as importantly within Europe, the largest trading business in the world, as we do within GATT.

Will the price of lamb produced in upland areas rise, stay the same or fall over the next five years?

If I were able to answer that question, I should know a great deal more about markets than anybody has managed to know so far and I should be very rich indeed, so long as I resigned my job; I should be unable to carry out that arrangement if I were still Minister of Agriculture. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that, when we are trying to move further towards the market, no answer to that question would be either truthful or sensible.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that there are questions to the Minister on 4 June which are relevant to this subject.

Because of the statement, the next two debates will be for only half an hour each so that we may return to our timing arrangements.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you have difficult decisions to make when important statements are made, but, in fairness, I should make it clear that my party now represents the vast majority of farmers in Wales and I would have welcomed an opportunity to make a contribution on a very important statement.

I had seen the hon. Gentleman. I know that he has been in the House throughout the statement. I regret not having been able to call him, but he is right. I have judgments to make on these matters.

The House will be aware that pressure has been applied for some time about taking action on the late payment of bills which, regrettably, has become a feature of our commercial life in recent times. I accept at once that the Government have plans to encourage the prompt payment of bills, in particular by Government Departments. They are to be congratulated on that initiative. I do not think, however, that the proposals that require large companies to state in their annual report and accounts how quickly they pay their bills or the proposal that prime contractors or Government Departments must include a clause in their sub-contracts committing themselves to pay subcontractors promptly within 30 days go far enough.

Let us suppose that a prime Government contractor pays its suppliers within 30 days for Government business. What is to prevent that same firm, to compensate for that, delaying the payments to other suppliers for non-Government business? Why should it be only firms tied to Government contracts who pay their suppliers on time? The principle of taking action on late payment has been accepted by the Government for all their own contracts and I think that the commercial world would like to see similar action taken on late payment of bills for other contracts. The Government cannot seriously imagine that the prompt payment of Government contracts will in itself be sufficient to change what is now regular commercial practice—the withholding of payment long after the due date. Hon. Members are aware, from their many constituency and surgery cases, of the way in which large companies deliberately manage their affairs and cash flow in order to retain their money for as long as they can and to leave payment as late as they possibly can.

In the case of large Government contracts, subcontractors may have to declare that they will pay their bills within 30 days, but what is to happen, I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who I am so glad to see is to answer the debate, to the sub-contractors of the sub-contractors? They will know that the original sub-contractors for Government business will be tied to 30 days. Armed with that information they will then be able to borrow from their banks and delay payment themselves, which is a very convenient way of making money. That cannot be intended. It is a very bankable proposition. The bank knows that payment will be made by the main sub-contractor within 30 days, because that is a condition of getting Government business. Therefore I have no doubt that the sub-contractors to the Government sub-contractors will make full use of that bankable proposition. Unless my hon. Friend can advise me otherwise, there is no reason why all the stages downwards, through the sub-contractors for major Government business, should not also be tied to the 30-day rule. When he replies to the debate, I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to give me the benefit of the expert advice that is available to him.

I am not the first hon. Member to raise the question of late payments in the House. Most recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) introduced a 10-minute Bill, just before the election. Before that, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) introduced a Bill making late payment a statutory offence, but his Bill, alas, was talked out.

I ask my hon. Friend to understand and sympathise with the position of small businesses today. I am sure that all hon. Members have had representations made to them by small businesses. During the boom, many of them borrowed on the security of their homes. I suppose that one could argue that they were ill-advised to do so and that they should have known better. But what business man would turn away business on the ground that he did not like the general outlook for business? What support does he have now from the banks? That is a new factor. One reason for raising this subject today is the extraordinary pressure that has been exerted on small businesses by the banks. As my hon. Friend knows, the banks are in a very severe mess, first because of their large loans to Latin American countries and secondly because of the huge loans to the property sector, lent on property values that have turned out to be grossly exaggerated. Now that they have lost all that money, or cannot claim it back for many years, they are turning to small businesses to get what they can out of them. They are calling in loans and applying pressure upon small businesses. That is a serious matter for all small firms and it is not surprising that they are in such difficulty. When one adds the unscrupulous practices of some companies deliberately delaying payment for goods and services as a matter of commercial practice the situation is very serious indeed. All the large companies are well regulated. Their payment systems are heavily computerised and notices of regret are sent out to small companies saying that an administrative hitch has occurred and payment cannot be made. That is a regular commercial practice and it is a disgrace. We know that it is going on and it is time that the Government took action to stop it.

Last February, the Right to Interest Group produced a table backed by the Forum for Private Business, Inter Justitia and Dun and Bradstreet. It showed that it takes 81 days from the date of invoice for the average business debt to be paid in England and Wales. That is 51 days after the average 30-day terms of payment and gives England and Wales the worst record in western Europe. The group complained that it would not be acceptable for German purchasers, who pay their business debts 18 days after settlement date, to wait 30 days longer for settlement of their English accounts.

I hope that I do not offend my hon. Friend's sensibilities, because I have never thought of him as a Euro-fanatic and I hope that he will forgive my saying that this is one matter where the Community is right and we are wrong. Interest rates are lower than a year ago, but they are high in real terms and will remain so for some time. Enormous sums are owed to banks, which have been instructed to press small business hard for payment. Many businesses are deliberately delaying payment as a matter of commercial practice. The Government seem to think that the problem can be met by them paying their bills on time, which they should anyway, and requiring sub-contractors to do so as well.

That response is quite inadequate. Nothing less than a change in the law will do. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that the Law Commission studied this matter in 1978, before the problems were anything like as acute as they are today, and drew up a draft Bill as an appendix to the report. Lord Stanley of Alderley moved an amendment to the Administration of Justice Act 1982 designed to ensure that the Law Commission's recommendations were implemented in full. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Hailsham—it is easy to see where his sympathies lay—opposed the amendment on the ground that it was controversial. Some bodies, such as the CBI, opposed the proposals, but the CBI would naturally do so. The Government have no duty to the CBI, which represents large and medium-sized firms which it suits to delay payment. That is how they make a lot of money. The Government have an absolute duty to ensure that the wilful delay in paying bills is ended. That will be achieved only by legislation. All other Community countries, except for Greece, Portugal and Ireland have such legislation. I understand that similar conditions apply in many American states.

What is wanted is the attachment of interest on late payment. Nobody in the House today would dream of paying their Inland Revenue bills late because of the consequences of doing so—interest is applied at once. Interest is applied at once if payment is late on our Barclaycard or Access bills. It is a simple matter to put right.

Late payment is a serious problem and small businesses, which face severe difficulty, need to be helped. I fear that the Government have not acted with sufficient force to correct this injustice, which will not go away. The Government must be seen to act, just as Governments throughout the Community and other parts of the world have already acted to ensure that the prompt payment of bills is an accepted standard. This abuse must be put right and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he always does—to excel himself when he has the opportunity and to make a firm statement about the Government's intentions.

With the leave of the House, may I welcome you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your new post? I am very pleased to see you in the Chair.

I am not sure that I can excel myself, but I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) said about the importance of the problem. No one denies that late payment is a problem for business, especially small businesses. Outstanding debt has a severe effect on their cash flows and threatens their survival.

The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham for initiating this debate. He rightly mentioned the difficulties that have been faced by small businesses in the recent recession and, to use his own words, I can understand and sympathise with the conditions under which they are labouring. I was going to deal with my hon. Friend's calls for legislation at the end of my speech, but as this is a timed debate I shall deal with them straight away and then return to what the Government are doing in seeking to set an example.

Many surveys confirm that businesses are worried about current payment practices. According to a study carried out for the European Commission in 1989 by Price Waterhouse, payment terms are regarded as a problem for businesses in all member states except Denmark and Germany. In the United Kingdom, a survey by the Confederation of British Industry at the end of 1990 revealed that late payment was seen as a serious problem by most small firms. One in five small firms even thought its survival to be threatened by late payment. The CBI noted a marked deterioration in comparison with the previous survey four years earlier, in which only one small firm in 10 felt at risk. Delays of between 15 and 45 days beyond the terms agreed in the contract were common. One in five firms was accustomed to waiting more than 75 days to receive payment. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the severe problems that business is facing.

There have been calls from some quarters for the introduction of legislation, which my hon. Friend repeated, to tackle late payment through a statutory right to interest on overdue debts. We are keeping the issue under constant review, although it must be said—this is the difficulty under which we labour—that to date most organisations representing small firms remain sceptical that legislation will improve the late payment problem. The federation of small businesses, the CBI smaller firms council and the Institute of Credit Management have remained firmly opposed to legislation. Indeed, some argue that it could damage the small firm sector. They fear that legislation might encourage large firms with buying power to impose longer payment terms and that it would be used only against small firms.

I know a bit about the subject, because I well remember our hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire, (Mr. Mates) introducing the Interest on Debts Bill in 1990. I took part in the debate when we devoted an entire morning in the House to the problem. We faced a problem then similar to that which we face now. There was a complete division of opinion among organisations representing small firms on the best way forward. Some point out that suppliers that are owed money would still have to take the customer through the court system, which they are reluctant to do for fear of losing future orders. Suppliers can stipulate credit periods and interest penalties as part of their contract terms under existing laws, although I accept that a small company looking for business is unlikely to want to impose difficult terms on an important customer.

We remain strongly committed to ensuring that the Government lead by example on prompt payment. Baroness Denton, the new Minister for Small Firms, is prepared to follow up personally any cases of alleged late payment to small firms by Government Departments. In addition, she is considering what other measures may be necessary to encourage prompt payment by other public sector organisations.

Let me say a little about what the Government feel that they can do. I am sorry that I cannot offer any obvious solutions to my hon. Friend other than to say that we recognise that there is a severe problem. There is also a division of opinion among those representing small businesses and we must keep that under constant review. For those reasons, the previous Minister for Small Firms asked all major Government purchasing Departments and their executive agencies to undertake surveys of their payment record during the financial year 1991–92. Departments were asked to provide information on the percentage of invoices paid within the agreed terms or, when none had been agreed, within 30 days. They were also asked to ensure that they had in place systems that enabled them to continue to monitor their payment performance.

The results of the survey will be published shortly. The early indications are encouraging and suggest that the majority of Departments will report that they paid 80 per cent. or more of their sampled invoices on time. If so, that result will be in line with that of a survey undertaken by Graham Bannock and Partners in September 1991 into the attitudes among small firms of selling to Government. Seventy five per cent. of the small firms surveyed said that they had not experienced any delays in payment from Government Departments.

It is interesting to compare that result with experiences in the private sector in Germany where payment practices are generally considered to be exemplary. In 1991, agreed terms were observed by 73 per cent. of German firms. Therefore, the United Kingdom Government record would appear to compare very favourably with that of the Germans.

Government Departments and their executive agencies are well aware of the need for prompt payment to suppliers and contractors. Treasury guidelines to Departments state:

"The timing of payment should normally he stipulated in Government contracts. Where there is no contractual provision or other understanding, departments should pay within 30 days or on receipt of goods or services or the presentation of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment, whichever is the later".

Measures to strengthen the guidelines further were announced in the 1992 Budget. To help encourage prompt payment of bills by Government contractors to their sub-contractors, all Government contracts are to contain a clause requiring the supplier or contractor to pay its sub-contractors promptly. In the absence of normal practice to the contrary for that type of contract or other special circumstances, the commitment should be to pay the sub-contractor within 30 days of receipt of a valid invoice or similar demand for payment as defined by the contract.

I made a careful note of what my hon. Friend said about sub-contractors and sub-contractors of subcontractors. It is very difficult for the Government to go right back down the supply chain because, after all, we are talking about freedom of contracts for contractors. Sub-contractors can and should have payment terms in their contracts and enforce them in their credit management and, if necessary, in the courts. That is the most that I can say about the problem, which I recognise. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it and, perhaps now that he has done so on the Floor of the House, we shall be able to consider it again.

Departments are also introducing their own initiatives to ensure prompt payment. The Department of Transport and its agencies, for example, have set up a number of telephone hotlines to help suppliers and their contractors with payment issues. Although that is very encouraging, it is not perfect. I recognise that and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to it. I am aware that there are a number of problems, especially in the construction industry but time does not allow me to deal with that.

Where late payment to small firms occurs, the fault is by no means always with the Government Department. Many delays are the result of inaccurate or poor invoicing by small suppliers. One component of Government measures to encourage prompt payment has been to provide guidance to small firms on how to invoice properly and introduce effective credit management systems.

The Government also have a responsibility to ensure that good services that they purchase are to an acceptable standard and that proper use is made of public funds. Payment delays will inevitably and quite correctly result where there are disputes over quality.

I shall now mention action to improve payment practices in the private sector, an issue which I know especially concerns my hon. Friend, although I am sure that he does not think it wrong for the Government to do what they are doing in trying to set a good example. Of course we want prompt payment to become normal practice, not only in the public but in the private sector. The Government have introduced a number of measures to encourage that.

In October 1991, we published "Making the cash flow", a guide to prompt payment for suppliers and customers, large and small. More than 75,000 copies have since been distributed to firms of all sizes and their advisers, and the guide has been very well received. It is aimed not only at customers to persuade them of the benefits of paying suppliers promptly but at suppliers to encourage better credit management. A recent survey for Barclays bank revealed that 46 per cent. of small companies surveyed were doing nothing to address their outstanding debts. In addition to changes to Government contracting guidelines, the 1992 Budget also included announcements of other measures to tackle late payment.

New company reporting regulations for large companies are to be introduced, which will require disclosure of payment performance. Suppliers would then be able to avoid more easily doing business with those firms where payment is or could be a problem. In addition, potential customers will be aware of which businesses are not treating their suppliers professionally and which, therefore, might also treat customers badly.

There will be improvements to small claims court procedures, making it easier for those chasing debts through the courts. A range of court reforms have already been introduced which are beginning to benefit those chasing bad debts. Summons requests can now be processed within 24 to 48 hours through the summons production centre established in January 1990. Plaintiffs can issue most summonses in the courts of their choice, irrespective of where the defendant lives or carries on business. Certain functions such as applications to vary orders and for attachment of earnings orders have been devolved to court staff to fix rates of payment.

Procedures for dealing with business debtors have been standardised. Guidelines for court staff explain that if a business cannot pay its debtors, it should normally be wound up or made bankrupt unless a voluntary agreement, which is acceptable to the plaintiff, can be reached. As a general rule, judgments and orders should therefore ensure that business debtors are paid within three months. I am sure that my hon. Friend will regard that as a step forward.

Development funding is being made available to trade associations in sectors where late payment is a significant problem to support new prompt payment initiatives. These could include telephone helplines, counselling services, seminars on effective credit management and the development of common, sector-wide contract arrangements. We also welcome initiatives by others to encourage prompt payment. I was pleased to hear, for example, that nearly 400 companies have already publicly signed up to the CBI prompt payment code.

My hon. Friend mentioned European initiatives. The European Commission is about to publish proposals for EC-wide action on late payment. These are likely to address payment by the public sector and cross-border trading. We shall be consulting widely on the proposals and my officials will be keeping in close touch with their Commission colleagues to keep them abreast of the reactions to the proposals of small firms and their representative bodies.

Unfortunately from my hon. Friend's point of view, I cannot promise instant legislation because there appears to a difference of opinion in the business sector, but I hope that he will think that the Government are setting a good example and ensuring prompt payment of their contractors and, where possible, of their sub-contractors. we are also ensuring that we are not only setting an example by encouraging business to establish codes of practice to deal with this serious problem. The House will welcome what my hon. Friend has said and I hope that he is satisfied with what I have said in reply.

I am sure that it goes without saying that the importance of the chemical and allied sector in my constituency cannot be emphasised sufficiently, but it is an industry which, by its very nature, creates a fair amount of waste, some of which is dangerous.

Only last week, Sir David Attenborough spoke in glowing terms of the changing attitudes of the industry in the past 40 years. He was speaking at the Chemical Industries Association Ltd's awards ceremony for young achievers. I am pleased to say that Michelle Aspinall who is a constituent of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) and works in a factory in my constituency, was the recipient of an award. The hon. Member for Chester and I both praised her for her achievement.

In his address Sir David stressed that one of the great changes that had taken place in the industry was the growing enthusiasm of young people in the industry for environmental issues. There is insufficient information in this country about many areas of environmental concern, but there have been a fair number of interesting epidemiological studies on environmental issues involving the handling of substances that we all now know to be dangerous. However, there is little real evidence on the issue that I am raising today.

Naturally, the fact that the evidence is not available causes fears in my constituency. There is a certain amount of anecdotal evidence about leukaemia clusters and the like—and it stems from the fact that in the United Kingdom there are no reliable statistics on waste produced or disposed of in the United Kingdom. That judgment comes from volume II of the second report of the Select Committee on the Environment 1988–89—"Toxic Waste". I believe that the situation has changed very little since then.

I want to raise the issue of organo-halogens, especially polychlorinated biphenyls. The Minister will know that those substances are known to be carcinogenic, which gives rise to serious concern in this country and throughout the world. Such compounds are extremely toxic and persistent and they are biocumulative—that is, they stay with us throughout the food chain. It is important that positive action be taken to control the handling of such materials, especially their disposal. It is vital that they be disposed of in circumstances that are scientifically proven to be safe and which are acceptable to society as a whole.

For some time, throughout the United Kingdom, there have been rumours and counter-rumours about the disposal of PCBs from Western Australia. It always seems odd to me that the people of an enormous land area such as Western Australia are concerned about PCBs being incinerated in their communities, yet in this country, which covers a much smaller geographical area, PCBs are often incinerated—both in my constituency of Ellesmere Port and Neston and elsewhere. There have been debates in the House in the past about a similar facility in Pontypool.

The concern about the waste from Western Australia was brought to my attention by a Labour party member from one of the Knowsley constituencies who visited Australia in December 1990 and brought back a press cutting from the Perth Sunday Times, under the headline:

"UK ideal for WA waste".

I hope that the whole House would denounce that statement. The United Kingdom is not ideal for anybody's waste.

That press cutting contained some authoritative statements by senior officers of the Western Australian Administration, to the effect that large volumes of intractable waste needs to be disposed of, and that Cleanaway—an Australian public company with a United Kingdom operation—had a high-temperature incincerator at Ellesmere Port, near Liverpool. On receipt of the cutting I had a series of exchanges with the directors of Cleanaway, the company involved. As the House knows, 50 per cent. of that company is owned by GKN and the other 50 per cent. by Brambles, the parent company of Cleanaway Australia. Brambles Australia sent a facsimile to Cleanaway, which was subsequently passed on to me by the technical director. In effect, it says that the cutting came from a minor newspaper and was not quite correct. It said:

"This article was one of many hundreds that came out in the press following the announcement in November of the government's decision not to proceed with a high-temperature incinerator at Corowa … In summary, the article appeared in what appears to be a small regional newspaper following the decision on the Corowa site."

That statement gave a certain amount of comfort to people in my constituency and it was followed by a letter from the company, again making it clear that the Perth Sunday Times article was not known to the technical director. The letter said that the importation of PCBs into the United Kingdom was

"purely a matter of conjecture on the part of the journalist who wrote the article."

At about the same time, the shipping company Carpenteria International stated its intention to ship to the United Kingdom material for destruction at the ReChem plant at Pontypool, and also at Fawley.

I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), who regrets that he cannot be here for this debate on a subject dear to his heart. Unfortunately, he has had to attend a funeral today—I am sure that the House would wish to send our sympathy to him. He has told me that the situation in Pontypool causes concern equal to that expressed by people in my constituency. My hon. Friend and I are both determined to continue to campaign on the subject until positive results are forthcoming.

Despite the assurances that have been received, it is clear that plans are afoot to import into the United Kingdom toxic materials for incineration. During the general election campaign I was asked by the local media to comment on the latest news about shipments authorised by the Western Australia Government to leave Fremantle en route to the United Kingdom. I was pleased to be able to respond by giving an unequivocal assurance on behalf of my party, following discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Minister for environmental protection. She said in a press statement that Labour's manifesto promised that trade in toxic waste would be banned. That was not a spur-of-the-moment decision; it was firmly contained in our manifesto.

The current position is explained in a letter from Cleanaway which—coincidentally I am sure—I received this morning. A copy letter to local councillors was enclosed, setting out the details about Australian imports. It is clear that the imports will not necessarily be in large tonnages, but in dribs and drabs. The company clearly intends to import material half way round the world for incineration in the United Kingdom, close to a residential area. From my comments about Carpentaria's involvement in shipments to ReChem, it is clear that similar projects are under way which will affect the Pontypool area.

The position is changing rapidly throughout the world. In the United States, the Senate is now dealing in committee with the Hazardous and Additional Waste Imports Act 1991. In recent years, 89 less-industrialised nations have banned waste imports and many have called on the United States to stop exporting waste. The European Parliament has approved a ban on waste exports to developing countries and the EC has already banned all waste exports to former colonies in Africa, in the Caribbean and in the Pacific area.

There have been many scandals over the years concerning the trade in waste. In the run-up to the Rio summit, let us now take a positive step and protect our people by boldly saying to the world that this trade must stop. I call on the Government, in the interests of the health of my constituents and in the interests of their peace of mind, to block any proposals now, or in the future, to import any toxic material into the United Kingdom for incineration or for any other method of disposal.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) has raised issues of understandable concern to his constituents and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

I fully understand and share public concern about the general question of imports of waste for disposal. There is no question whatever of the United Kingdom being a "dustbin" for the world's waste; there never has been and there never will be.

Waste comes here because we are equipped to deal with it efficiently, effectively and in an environmentally sound way. Some other countries, on the other hand, have been slower than us to develop their own facilities.

Notwithstanding our own abilities, we firmly believe that the international movement of waste for disposal should be minimised. In particular, we believe that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in the final disposal of waste and dispose of their own waste arisings. That position is reflected in international legislation, including an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development decision-recommendation of 1988 and the United Nations Basel convention on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste and its disposal.

The disposal of waste throughout the world raises questions that can be dealt with effectively only by international action—by world action. The United Kingdom is opposed in principle to the continuing import of hazardous wastes from developed countries. In principle, imports of such waste should continue only in respect of developing countries—countries which may, for the foreseeable future, be unable to deal with such waste in a manner that is not detrimental either to the planet or to themselves. We must keep matters in their proper perspective. Only about 5 per cent. of hazardous waste dealt with in Great Britain comes from abroad.

The Basel convention, which came into force on 5 May, is a significant global advance in waste management and we fully support it. The United Kingdom signed the convention in 1989 and has pushed for the earliest possible implementation of its provisions within the European Community so that we can ratify it as quickly as possible.

Basel has introduced a global system of controls on the international movement of hazardous waste. Parties to the convention must ensure the availability of adequate disposal facilities within their borders as far as possible and minimise transfrontier movements, ensure that importing countries are informed and give their consent before any shipments, minimise their production of hazardous wastes and provide for the environmentally sound management of wastes for which the parties are to agree guidelines.

At present the controls we have in the United Kingdom over the international movement of waste are those in the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which derive from European Community directives. They cover only hazardous waste and they prevent shipments only where these would lead to a breach of environmental or related controls—for example, if waste were going to a facility not authorised to handle that type of waste. Basel is a development of and a move forward on those principles.

To implement the convention and to deal with other concerns about waste movements of all kinds, the EC has proposed a new regulation which will apply to all shipments into and out of the Community, with the exception of some non-hazardous wastes moving for recovery. We hope that the latest draft of the regulation will be agreed by the Council of Ministers very soon, even possibly next week, following several years of difficult and complex negotiations. We can then proceed as quickly as we can to ratify the Basel convention, in company with the rest of the European Community.

The feature of the current draft of most relevance today is that it will severely curtail the import of waste for disposal from outside the Community and EFTA, from countries such as Australia. Such shipments would be allowed only under a bilateral agreement with the country of export. Those agreements would be possible only where the exporting country does not have, and cannot acquire, the necessary suitable disposal facilities of its own. The aim is to restrict imports of waste to those from developing countries, and not from developed countries.

I understand that the Australian Government have granted an export licence to one or more companies in Australia for hazardous waste, including PCBs, from Western Australia. A contract with an authorised disposal facility is a prerequisite to that licence and Cleanaway has such a contract with one Australian company. But those companies would then compete for a contract to carry out the export. Precisely where the waste went for disposal would depend on which company won. This might be the United Kingdom which has three possible facilities equipped to receive PCB waste, including the high-temperature incinerator at Ellesmere Port, but it could be elsewhere, including France.

The United Kingdom has outstanding transfrontier shipment notification documents submitted from Australia under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1988. However, there are no indications about whether they will be used to cover any of this particular consignment of PCB wastes, or where it might actually be sent—if it is sent at all. The Australian Government have ratified the Basel convention and will know that the convention requires parties not to send waste to non-parties, which currently include the United Kingdom. We are looking to the European Community regulation to encourage developed countries, especially those outside the Community and EFTA, to become self-sufficient in waste disposal, in line with our policy in this matter.

The United Kingdom is virtually self-sufficient in disposing of its waste. Records for hazardous waste exports show only 500 tonnes exported for disposal in 1990–91 and that traffic is to cease, thanks to the co-operation of the United Kingdom company involved. The majority of wastes that we dispose of in Britain are produced here. As I have said, only about 5 per cent. come from elsewhere. Our procedure for disposal licensing and pre-notification of the movement of special waste were forerunners in European legislation and in 1988 we were one of the earliest nations to implement transfrontier notification procedures for hazardous wastes under an EC directive.

Incineration is an important waste disposal option. High-temperature incineration employing state-of-the-art combustion and emission control systems provides an essential long-term secure disposal option for a broad spectrum of organic wastes, including PCBs. Of course, it is quite rightly a sensitive issue, but the public may be reassured that the tight environmental regulations that are applied to incineration—and, indeed, to all waste disposal methods—ensure that there are no dangers from the incineration process. Modern high-temperature incinerators are safe and do not produce highly toxic emissions as some have claimed.

Although alternative options are increasingly being investigated, and some are being developed commercially, they provide at present only a partial alternative to high-temperature incineration for a limited range of specific wastes.

I was concerned about the Minister's comments regarding the safety of modern incinerators. Can he tell the House the evidence on the basis of which that statement was made? The waste coming out of incinerator chimneys is a matter of great concern to my constituents, as is the chemical make-up and disposal of the ash.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in his constituency and elsewhere, incinerators are monitored, scrutinised, regulated and reviewed toughly and tightly by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. If the hon. Gentleman has concerns about the effectiveness of the regulatory controls, he may wish to discuss them in detail with HMIP. I am sure that the inspectorate will be only too happy to go through with him the controls, standards and tests that it uses to ensure the highest environmental standards for incinerators in Britain and to ensure that they cause no danger to the hon. Gentleman's constituents or to the environment as a whole.

The alternative of storing waste that would otherwise be disposed of by such means presents its own problems of safe containment, to say nothing of the difficulties of choosing and agreeing a suitable location for storage. Even in the wide ranges of Australia, those issues do not go away. So the environmental impacts of using incineration need to be compared with the environmental consequences of using alternative disposal methods, such as landfill. Modern incineration can offer a good disposal route for these wastes in which the various release routes by which pollutants can reach the environment are tightly controlled.

As I said, the Ellesmere Port incinerator is registered by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. Before a certificate of registration is granted Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution must be satisfied that the operator is using the best practicable means of preventing harmful emissions and rendering harmless any that cannot be prevented. Later this year, the plant will be subject to the new controls included in part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under those provisions Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will apply integrated pollution control, which addresses releases to all three media. This entails looking at the best practicable environmental option for dealing with potential pollution from the process and requires the application of the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost—BATNEEC—to prevent or minimise the emission of prescribed substances and to render harmless other emissions.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but the plant at Ellesmere Port has already demonstrated its ability to meet the new standards. It is fitted with comprehensive monitoring equipment for the measurement of releases and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regularly conducts independent confirmatory exercises. We should not underestimate the effectiveness of our monitoring and controlling procedures or the standards of our waste disposal industry.

In addition, the European Commission has recently sent to the Council of Ministers for consideration a draft directive on hazadous waste incineration, which will introduce strict combustion conditions and emission limits across the Community. We welcome the move towards common tight standards in the interests of protecting public health and the environment and we shall be looking closely at the details.

PCBs are chlorinated organic compounds, which, because of their stability and good die-electric qualities, have been widely used around the world in electrical equipment such as transformers and capacitors. They have subsequently been found to accumulate in the tissue of plants and animals and are probably carcinogens. Countries around the world are phasing out existing uses, and the United Kingdom is committed to doing so by 1995, and by 1999 at the latest.

Disposal is by means of high-temperature incineration under careful conditions. Such incinerators are relatively few and far between, even in the developed world at present. The risks from PCB wastes should be properly understood. They are not instantly poisonous or highly flammable. The risks lie in their persistence and accumulation in the environment and also in the possibility of dioxin emissions if PCBs are incinerated under less rigorous standards than those used by our own waste management industry and its regulators.

In conclusion, the United Kingdom has extensive controls to protect the environment. We would rather not import waste from other developed countries outside the Community and EFTA, such as Australia. The Government are looking to the new EC waste movements regulations to limit such movements. Existing controls do not allow local authorities or the Government to prevent such imports if all the controls on movement and disposal are being complied with. But the Basel convention prevents Australia from sending its waste here at present, while the United Kingdom has not yet ratified the convention. That should encourage the Australian companies involved to look for other solutions.

Britain has played a leading role in persuading the international community that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in waste disposal. We are strong advocates of the importance of self-sufficiency and are determined that there should be effective global controls on hazardous waste movements.

I was privileged to have an Adjournment debate about UNESCO on 25 July last year in the previous Parliament. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to play this Adjournment debate in a slightly different way. If the House wishes to know my views in greater detail, I happily refer hon. Members to the appropriate columns of Hansard for 25 July 1991. I hope that this debate will be allowed to show the considerable support in all parts of the House for Britain's early return to that important international organisation.

The background is familiar to us all. In 1985, Britain decided to withdraw from UNESCO. I felt at the time, and have felt since, that that was a fundamental error. I am proud of the part that the United Kingdom played in helping to set up that organisation. I told the House last July that Britain had a

"dominant influence in establishing UNESCO at a preparatory conference held at the Institute of Civil Engineers in London…Its secretariat was initially based in London. Its first director general was British and its constitution was deposited in London. Its accounts were audited by the United Kingdom Comptroller and Auditor General."—[Official Report, 25 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1299.]

I have no doubt that Britain was treated favourably as a founder member of that organisation.

We came out against the advice of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who was a member of that Select Committee, will catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We came out against the wishes of the officers of the Conservative foreign affairs committee and against the advice of those who took part in the debate with the exception of one hon. Member.

I hate the word "universality": it is crude and cumbersome. However, it puts over an important concept. United Nations organisations are not for picking and choosing to suit the needs of any particular country at any particular time. There is no menu from which one picks one's choice courses.

I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the Chamber on a Friday. My first basic point for him is that it is very much in the United Kingdom's interests speedily to return to UNESCO because all hon. Members present support Britain having a seat on the United Nations Security Council. We have played our part in that Council in recent years with great proficiency. In particular, I recall the special UN Security Council meeting that we initiated to discuss UN affairs. However, many countries feel that the time has come for Britain to give up its seat on the Security Council. Japan, Germany and the European Community are mentioned instead. Those countries and their diplomats argue that Britain has started to opt out of UN organisations, in particular UNESCO.

If we are successfully to defend our position on the Security Council, it would be prudent to return to UNESCO without delay. If we consult the education, scientific and cultural establishment in this country, it is clear that there is massive support for our rejoining UNESCO. Indeed, it is difficult to find a major organisation in that category that believes that we are wise to be playing it as we are.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State and I have used one argument in the context of the European Community: it is no use standing on the sidelines and shouting. We may not like everything that goes on in the Community, but we must get off the sidelines and on to the pitch and play our part. It is bizarre that in the context of UNESCO, we argue that we can better influence events by shouting to our supporters who have remained on the pitch. When we came out of UNESCO, the Commonwealth high commissioners made representations to the British Government. They said that they were being let down, as did our European Community partners. We have allowed the French, who are no slouches in this regard, to gain influence in UNESCO and to help spread the influence of the French language. Many Commonwealth countries, particularly in Africa, wonder what we are doing.

That is all I wish to say in introducing the debate. I believe that there is ovewhelming support in the House for recognising that a mistake has been made and for returning to UNESCO. That would benefit the United Kingdom and that important international organisation.

I support what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said and congratulated him on the succinct way in which he moved the debate and his courageous and principled persistence over the years in raising this topic.

Perhaps we both have a nonconformist background, but I, too, have three points to make. The first is simply that the Opposition accepted the view in 1984 and 1985 that much was wrong with UNESCO, but, in our judgment, it was wholly wrong to leave. The proper course would have been to remain inside the organisation and fight our corner with other like-minded countries.

We agreed with several of the Government's criticisms of UNESCO's policy and organisation. They criticised the degree of bureaucracy for its own sake, the amount of croneyism associated with the name of the then director-general, the policies in vogue at the time, the new international order in terms of the press, and the emphasis on group rather than human rights. Yes, we shared those criticisms, but we thought then, and are even more convinced now, that it was a false judgment of the Government to withdraw.

Effectively there was a collision of two cultures. The House may recall that the time of our withdrawal in 1985 was one of the high watermarks of Thatcherism in foreign affairs. We had already suffered many damaging blows to Britain's overseas image—the overseas students, the British Council, the reductions in the World Service and or increasing isolation on South Africa. The macho image and macho isolationism which the then Government—or perhaps I should say No. 10—sought to portray was exemplified by the decision to withdraw from UNESCO. The other side of the cultural collision was the strident and negative third-worldism of the time. So the decision to withdraw was the collision of those two cultures.

My second propostion is that one of those cultures has changed. There has been a sea change in the third world. In the past few years a new realism has crept over countries that were perhaps the most strident and which the Government criticised at the time of our withdrawal from UNESCO. A new director-general who is favoured by the Government is now in place at UNESCO. Every one of the criticisms that the Government made in 1985 to justify Britain's withdrawal from UNESCO has been largely met. I might add that we are the only European Community country to have withdrawn from the organisation.

Massive progress has been made, yet the Government are impaled on the wrong decision made in 1985 and are unwilling to withdraw. One could make points about the overhang of Thatcherism and question whether there is such a thing as Majorism, but, given the new position of the Government on foreign affairs in general, I am confident that if a United Nations organisation indulged today in some of the activities which the Government and the Opposition found unwelcome, the Government would not withdraw from it.

Therefore, why do not the Government look at the realities of today, recognise the substantial progress that has been made and return into the world and this valuable United Nations organisation? Is it simply a budgetary matter—the £9 million or so that the United Kingdom would have to contribute to the budget of UNESCO?

My third and final point follows that made so well by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath. The continued delay in our rejoining UNESCO is contrary to fundamental British foreign policy interests. It isolates us, gives the wrong signal about our international policy at a key time and harms our international understanding.

There is no need to remind the House of the fundamental changes which have taken place in the past few years. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, the United Nations was set up in 1945 and in its organisation—for example, permanent membership of the Security Council—it reflected the power realities at the time. In this new world, with the changed power position of the United Kingdom, it is no wonder that many countries question our permanent membership of the Security Council, when we have so much to contribute.

Labour would not have withdrawn from UNESCO and, had we won the general election, a Labour Government would have rejoined it immediately. We are confident that our international standing is weakened by continued Government failure to recognise that new reality.

One American best-seller was entitled, "How to make friends and influence people." By their failure to adjust to the realities and to rejoin UNESCO, the Government are influencing people and many countries in the United Nations, but they are not making friends. That is bad for this country and the Opposition strongly urge the Government speedily to rejoin that worthy international organisation.

I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) in this Adjournment debate. I think that I have taken part in every debate in the House on this issue.

One gets the feeling that we have been pushing the rock up the hill since 1985. I hope that we have got to the top of the hill and that we shall see the rock rolling down the other side. It will enable my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, in whom I have the greatest confidence, to make an objective assessment of our real interests.

UNESCO was started when we had a sense of international vision in Britain. We looked wide and understood what was necessary within the United Nations. That is why we are proud that, as my hon. Friend suggested, we were the founding fathers of UNESCO. I also acknowledge that the United Nations got into considerable difficulties, as we all recollect, because of the false division in the world between east and west.

We are back in a time of international vision. For the first time the UN is seen as the instrument of international policy—whether in conflict resolution or in connection with the Rio conference on the environment and development. Whatever field we choose, there is great hope and understanding that the UN will be an important player as we approach the end of this decade and the beginning of the next millennium.

Those of us who care about poverty and the situation in many third world countries recognise that UNESCO has a unique role to play—for example, in its ability to sustain and support education by modern technology and in the wider development of the UN and in bringing together the United Nations family.

It is one of my great worries that, although many people see a future for the UN and are pleased to give it responsibilities in what was Yugoslavia, in Angola and in Cambodia—I have been very much involved in those countries and am delighted that the UN is playing a role —they are, as yet, unwilling to give it the resources. We must look hard at giving the UN responsibilities and at how to ensure that resources are available to carry out the work.

On resources, I understand the problem with the budget of the Foreign Office and that the £9 million or £10 million that we need to find has already been distributed in other ways. Perhaps I am the only Member who has said in the House that the Foreign Office budget should be increased rather than decreased. It is derisory to spend £247 billion on public expenditure but to have less than £4 billion to spend on the foreign service—on overseas development, the British Council and all those instruments of internationalism for which this country is famous.

I recognise that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has to deal with that sum of money, I would be one of the first, as would everyone else speaking in the debate, to suggest that the money should come from an increase in the Foreign Office budget rather than from the reallocation of scarce resources.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend realises that the time has now come to rejoin UNESCO. The Americans have crawled all over the budget and found that UNESCO has reformed and changed its operations dramatically. Only last night it formed a committee of 12 wise men to oversee the control of its finances and to ensure financial probity. That is what we have pressed for. This debate should be the last one in which we ask the Government carefully to reconsider the matter. The time has come to rejoin UNESCO, certainly within this parliamentary term.

When Britain left UNESCO, my colleagues opposed the decision, both outside and inside the House. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) for putting the issue back on the agenda so early in this Parliament. I am not here simply in a personal capacity. My right hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), the leader and foreign affairs spokesman of my party, have asked me to say that we are keen that the Government should respond positively to the calls from both sides of the House.

I have two simple points to make. First, it is timely to rejoin UNESCO now, in the light of the changed perception and agenda of the United Nations and our closer integration in Europe. It would be illogical to move closer to our partners in Europe and at the same time to remain separate from one of the United Nations bridge-building mechanisms. Secondly, although we opposed the decision to leave UNESCO, we understood why the Government withdrew—the internal management and personalities. Those matters have been directly and comprehensively addressed and will continue to be.

Therefore, I hope that the Government will recognise that the reasons for their attitude at the time no longer apply. We should rejoin UNESCO with enthusiasm before the end of this calendar year.

This is my first opportunity to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment. I hope that your ties become the traditional style of the Chairman of Ways and Means.

This has been a model Adjournment debate. The issue is an important one and is self-contained. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) introduced it in a speech of admirable lucidity and conciseness, and several hon. Members have participated with speeches showing the same characteristics.

My hon. Friend pointed out that he raised the matter last July. Consequently, many of the arguments material to the debate have already been rehearsed in detail, so it is not necessary for me to go through them today. That being so, I should like to speak in general terms.

As the House will know, we left UNESCO in 1986 for the reasons that were rather well described by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I know that he thinks that we made a mistake in leaving, but he fairly described the kind of considerations that caused us to make that decision. Essentially, the organisation was being increasingly politicised and the spending and policy priorities were unsustainable. As all who spoke in the debate emphasised, substantial improvements and changes have been made to UNESCO and its organisation. I shall touch briefly on a few.

First, we welcome the decision that states, not individuals, should sit on the executive board. That will give a much greater sense of direction and coherence to the management and running of the organisation's affairs. Secondly, I welcome the decision to appoint an expert group on financial and administrative matters which will certainly assist the executive board in the conduct of UNESCO. We look forward to the time when the group starts to operate.

I also welcome the fact that there has been a full review of the office of public information, carried out, I am glad to say, by a British firm of consultants. It was funded by the ODA and it has produced far-reaching proposals which include reducing the number of staff employed in the office and developing a proper strategy. I am glad, too, that the director-general has expressed his willingness to implement the reforms advocated.

Another encouraging development is the fact that UNESCO has agreed to co-operate with the survey of the United States General Accounting Office, acting on behalf of the Congress. We have not seen the report yet; I believe that it will be produced in June and I look forward to studying its contents. All these are encouraging developments.

The organisation is unfortunately on course for a large cash deficit by the end of this year which looks as if it will amount to about $80 million. That must be dealt with, no doubt by reducing staff numbers and prioritising spending. How UNESCO responds to this problem will clearly be relevant to the decision that we must take.

I have mentioned the reforms. Now I want to tell hon. Members where we stand on the matter. I accept that there have been genuine improvements in the way in which UNESCO runs its affairs. We therefore approach this question with a genuinely open mind, recognising that many of the problems that we identified in 1986 have been dealt with. But that fact alone is not conclusive.

I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester): the money comes out of the aid budget. We reckon that the assessment on and paid by the United Kingdom will be of the order of £9 million, so we must ask ourselves how the payment of £9 million to UNESCO ranks against the other spending commitments, multilateral and bilateral, undertaken through the aid budget. My hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would support any attempt to secure extra funds to cover the amount—jolly nice of him—but, influential as his support is, I could not guarantee that he or I would be successful in the attempt.

We are in the business of trying to determine where £9 million is best spent. Incidentally, the indirect costs of membership should also be considered. For instance, I have to decide how best to deploy personnel in the Foreign Office. We are busily trying to open up embassies in eastern Europe, and quite right too. Are the resource implications of UNESCO such as to balance favourably against expanding personnel and establishments elsewhere?

This is not code for saying that we will not join; I am saying that we have a genuine assessment of priorities to make. There has been great improvement and many of the difficulties we identified have been addressed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe said, we must make an assessment of our points of interest and see where the benefits and priorities lie. We must measure spending through UNESCO as against spending under other parts of our aid budget. We shall reach a conclusion in an open-minded way, taking into account the powerful arguments that have been advanced today, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath.

I am grateful for this opportunity to raise in the House the subject of the impact of mineral extraction and the tipping of waste on the environment of south Essex. I shall speak of the wider county, but obviously I have an unashamed and vested interest in the borough of Thurrock, which I represent.

I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary in his place, for he has an association with Thurrock. He was the Conservative candidate there in 1979, after which he was dispatched to, or departed the area for, other places. I welcome the fact that he is to reply to the debate, because he will recall some of the environment and geography to which I shall refer. I extend to him a sincere invitation to join me and the borough council in looking at some of those areas at a mutually convenient date.

I raise the issue because the present situation is grossly unfair to the people of Thurrock and the surrounding areas in south Essex. The area has suffered considerably from the rapacious appetite of the sand and gravel industry and from its twin industry, the disposers of waste. It is appropriate, therefore, that I should refer to some of the problems that are faced by people in the area and I shall deal with some remedies that could be prompted or initiated by government.

The first issue is the disappointment I feel when I hear my constituents blame the borough council. They do not realise that it is not the borough council's fault or responsibility. The stewardship, or control and governing, of mineral extraction and the management of waste disposal are for the county council and I am anxious to have that on the record. Indeed, the borough council has done everything possible to frustrate these continuing twin industrial problems.

The county planning authority and other county councils—I am not criticising exclusively Essex county council—are too compliant and submissive in giving way to the demands of the two industries to which I am referring. There is always a presumption that they must find from within their areas new pits from which to extract sand and gravel and into which waste can be filled. I do not accept the old maxim of TINA—there is no alternative —for there are alternatives if there is the political will to find them. Much more gravel extraction could be gained from the sea. There is the technology and knowledge to do more recycling of minerals. We require legislation and leadership from the Government.

Similarly, in the whole area of the disposal of waste, much more could be done quickly. Unhappily, only 2 or 3 per cent. of waste is currently recycled. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, now translated to Hong Kong, told a Conservative party conference a few years ago that it was his hope and intention to increase the recycling of domestic waste. He believed that 25 per cent. could be recycled by the year 2000.

I welcomed his initiative at the time, but there is no sign that we are anywhere near on target towards achieving that objective. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary may be an innocent in the matter, having recently taken on his responsibilites, but I hope that, as a result of today's debate, he will look into the issue to see whether the Government can pick up on the commitment given by Chris Patten a few years ago.

The Minister ought also to be on guard regarding the vested interests in the gravel and aggregates industry which seek to dissuade those in the business of road construction and road reconstruction from recycling waste or minerals.

As for environmental impact assessments, I welcome the European Community directive that major planning applications that have a direct impact on the environment should be subject to an environmental impact assessment. Both gravel extraction and tipping have an effect on the environment. Unfortunately, the rules do not cover some mineral extraction and tipping because it is deemed to be "too small." I hope that the Government will require all gravel extraction and the tipping of waste to be brought within the environmental impact assessment requirement.

When the Minister returns to his Department, I hope that he will examine how environmental impact assessment reports are dealt with in this country. I do not believe that we comply with either the spirit or the letter of the European directive. The European directive envisaged that EIAs would be commissioned by the local authority or the waste management authority. At present, only the applicant for planning permission can commission and pay for the environmental impact assessment. With the best will in the world, the fact is that he who pays the piper must, at least to some extent, call the tune. It is a matter of public confidence.

In the case of the applications to which I intend to refer, the EIAs were paid for by the developers. That is wrong. It is inconsistent with the European directive. I hope that the Minister will consider introducing a regulation whereby only the county council or the local planning authority can commission the EIA; even though the cost will be passed on to the applicant.

My borough has contributed greatly, for many years, to the provision of sand and gravel and to the disposal of London's waste and that of other parts of the south-east of England. Fourteen per cent. of its land surface has been given over to excavation or tipping; 5 per cent. has been taken over by the sand and gravel industry. Currently, there are 25 domestic refuse sites and six for the disposal of toxic waste. We also have five out of the eight wharves and railheads along the riverside where aggregates can be brought into the county of Essex. Another proposal, which I welcome, is that there should be a new wharf at the port of Tilbury. The road pattern there will minimise the impact of additional lorry movements in the area. One of the spin-offs of sand and gravel extraction and the disposal of waste is that lorries have to go along roads that are inappropriate for heavy lorries.

Mineral extraction has caused a dramatic change to the landscape of Thurrock. There are deep chalk workings in the west of the county, in Aveley, and alien raised mounds in the east. In the west, in Aveley, close to Havering, there is a methane problem at the Aveley 1 tip and at Aveley Court. Reinstatement of sites where there are methane problems is always enormously difficult.

My constituents and I are not NIMBYs—not in my back yard. Unhappily, so much of what I have described is already there. Some of it has been there for decades. My constituents hope that I shall be able to persuade the Minister to listen to what they say, which is, "Thus far, and no further. Enough is enough." This part of Essex has more than made its contribution to these two industries. We hope that when planning applications come before the Minister, or his successors, they will consider whether this part of Essex has been treated fairly. Recently, there have been a number of new threats to our environment, which is why I said that the line should now be drawn. Corys Environmental, substantial operators of landfill sites at east Tilbury marshes, wishes to operate electricity generation at Belvedere on the south side of the Thames at Bexley and has applied for planning permission to extend the life of its landfill site at east Tilbury marshes until 2017; raising the contouring of marshland to 35 m above the ordnance datum line. It would need that to dispose of the residues of 400,000 tonnes of ash that would be generated per annum by its new electricity station at Belvedere, if it is approved. I hope that that will be taken into account if and when that application comes before the Minister. It is absurd that we should be considering building mounds and altering the contours of attractive marshland on the banks of a river that the Almighty gave us, quite apart from the impact that it will have on wildlife and the ecological balance.

There is another matter that I hope the Minister will take on board. The President of the Board of Trade is the principal architect of the notion of regenerating the east Thames corridor. We have yet to see what is meant by that, but Corys Environmental has exploited that proposal in its planning application for east Tilbury. It has said that such regeneration will require a massive increase in the amount of aggregates available in the area and that regeneration and expansion in east London will require additional capacity for tipping waste. To some extent I suppose that that is true, but I hope that, in considering the future of the east Thames corridor, the Government will take account of the detrimental effects of the demand for additional waste facilities and of making holes in attractive green belt land.

The second danger facing my constituents is the updating of the county council's mineral plan. If it is approved, there will be extended extraction at Waltons lane, in east Tilbury marshes and elsewhere in Tilbury, Chadwell at Kemps farm—South Ockendon, and Ayletts. This morning, I spoke to the headmaster of East Tilbury junior school, Mr. Beynon, who told me that he and the head of the infant school had noticed that 16 per cent. of pupils suffer from asthma and chest-related complaints. In their experience, that was extraordinarily high. I ask the Minister to consider whether he can prompt some health investigation into whether dust, which comes from the Ayletts working and which is inert, is a source of aggravation to the health of children and adults in and around east Tilbury.

I am concerned that updating the mineral plan will dramatically alter the open areas of green belt in and around east Tilbury and Chadwell and will mean a great loss to a borough that is not wealthy and to which the industrial revolution and the 20th century have not been particularly kind. Green belt land in Thurrock is precious. It must be zealously guarded by the local authorities and the Secretary of State. In my small way, I hope to play a part by pressing the Minister to safeguard the green belt in the borough of Thurrock.

I shall provide some examples of the problems of the gravel extraction industry and the filling of holes with waste. What I have to say relates not only to Thurrock but to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is a presumption by the industries—and to some extent by county councils —that if there is a hole, waste should be put in it. That is a great pity. Of course, there are great profits to be made from the disposal of waste. If holes have to be made in the ground for the extraction of minerals that cannot be obtained elsewhere, we should take a long hard look to see whether recreational use could be made of the pits or holes. We should also ensure that they remain environmentally attractive and that public access is not diminished because of dangers, whether through the existence of the pits lying dormant or what is put in them.

That brings me to an issue on which I hope that the Minister can comment today. Unhappily, we do not know what is put into many of the holes created by mineral extraction in Thurrock or elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The Select Committee on the Environment drew attention to that a little while ago. Its report stated that the Committee was

"appalled at the poor standards and patchy coverage"

of the official statistics on United Kingdom landfill sites. It urged the Department of the Environment to develop a national landfill data base and to examine the feasibility of forecasting future landfill supply and demand in order to provide a firmer basis for a co-ordinated strategic policy on waste.

That is sound advice, for two reasons. First, we should ensure that holes in the ground that have been created by mineral extraction are not automatically filled with waste and that there is a correlation between extraction and landfill. Secondly, we must ensure that sites on which waste is dumped are filled.

In a nutshell, there is a great deal of competition and there are more holes in the ground than are necessary for landfill in Thurrock and elsewhere. Firms go bust and often there are insufficient records about what goes into the holes. They are not fully sealed or capped and sometimes they are eventually reopened. That can cause enormous problems and health hazards for local residents —vermin, escaping methane and appalling smells.

Incidentally, as I have invited the Under-Secretary to come to Thurrock, I hope that he will do so on an afternoon like yesterday when there was a huge stench in and around east Tilbury. My telephone was buzzing about it. The stench is an acute problem on hot days. It is caused by the rotting minerals, dust and rubbish which have been put into pits in that area of Essex. It is unacceptable and unfair to the residents and also prejudices the value of their property.

The county council has produced a mineral plan to which I referred, but it is flawed in one important respect. There is a north-south divide in Essex. I have read the small print of the county's mineral plan and I hope that when it arrives on the Secretary of State's desk, he will pay attention to page 16 of the updated plan. He will see that the north part of Essex had more extensive research undertaken into what minerals were available for extraction and what the impact on the environment would be than was the case in south Essex. That is honkers and unfair. I shall raise the issue with the county council, but I suspect that if there is a disparity of treatment within one county about the ground rules for examining whether minerals can and should be extracted, there must be a disparity between counties.

The criteria applied when determining whether minerals should be extracted in Surrey might not be the same as those applied in Essex or Buckinghamshire. That is unfair. We seek leadership and guidance from the Department of the Environment to ensure parity of treatment and parity of consideration as to where it is least environmentally damaging for the gravel extraction industry digs its holes to extract minerals.

I shall cover the other matters that I wish to raise in a few moments, to allow the Under-Secretary to reply. Most of what I have said relates to the eastern side of my constituency—east Tilbury and, especially, Linford. There are also grounds for concern about an area near the boundary with the London borough of Havering where, in Romford road, Aveley, it is intended to open a new tip for dumping rubbish on a 31 hectare site, where waste disposal will take place for nine and a half years.

I do not believe that my constituents fully appreciate what that means. Unfortunately, that often happens. people do not understand until it is too late what the impact of a planning permission being granted for such a site would be on their lives. If, through this debate, I can indirectly alert my constituents to the threat, and persuade them to mount serious objections to the proposal, I shall not have introduced the debate in vain.

The local council is resisting the plan and so is the local county councillor Reg Lee. I pay tribute to him, and to county councillor Gerard Rice, too. Those two, together with councillor Barry Palmer, the sole representative of east Tilbury, have stood like Horatius and his colleagues on the bridge, resisting the rapacious appetites of the sand and gravel industry and of those who wish to tip waste in my part of Essex.

The Secretary of State should consider taking legislative powers to ensure that the environmental impact assessment reports are consistent with the European directive. County councils should be required to have joint plans, matching mineral extraction to plans for waste disposal. In fairness, district councils, too, should be more involved in planning decisions on the extraction of minerals and the dumping of waste.

Finally, the Government should consider whether there should be a form of bonding for people who wish to open and exploit tips, to ensure that when, or if, the companies go bust, the sites can be properly capped, landscaped and made safe. We should ensure that knowledge of what has been put into the tips is retained.

I am grateful for the House's time. This is an issue which is important both to my constituents and, I suspect, those of other hon. Members. We are charged with defending our constituents' little bit of green England and I do not think that it has caused any harm for the House to pause and listen to the problems of the people of Thurrock, faced with the attack from the twin industries of gravel extraction and waste disposal. I hope that my comments will also have been of some use to hon. Members who face similar problems elsewhere in south-east England.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on obtaining this debate so soon in the new Parliament. As he said, I know his constituency well as I contested it in 1979, and I retain a real affection for Thurrock and the surrounding areas.

The hon. Gentleman has spoken eloquently about the concerns of his constituency and about the impact that gravel extraction and waste disposal can have on the environment. I recognise the concern about the review of the Essex minerals subject plan. The Government are committed to a development plan-led planning system for minerals and waste disposal. Arrangements introduced in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 made important changes to bring that into effect. There is now a duty on planning authorities to produce up-to-date mineral and waste plans. I understand that Essex county council is currently reviewing its minerals subject plan and its waste plan.

It is, therefore, important that there should be a full public debate to inform the preparation of the plans. I know that the review of the minerals subject plan has generated concern about the possibility that several sites in the vicinity of east Tilbury may be included in a future plan. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment further on that. However, I am advised that the review is at an early stage and that the county council has not taken any decision at present. The hon. Gentleman and others concerned will wish to discuss their concerns further with the county council. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned some specific planning applications which cause him concern. I am sure that he also appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment on any planning applications that may yet come before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

The Government appreciate that the extraction of aggregates and the disposal of waste are matters of rising public concern and it may be helpful if I explain how the Government are addressing the issue. That may enable the hon. Gentleman to put the problems of his constituency in the wider context.

Present policy for the extraction of aggregates—by which we mean sand, gravel and crushed rock such as limestone and granite—is set out in minerals planning guidance note 6, of which I am sending the hon. Gentleman a copy. It was published in 1989 and we are now reviewing it. The first step in the review was the preparation of long-term forecasts of aggregates demand. Demand for aggregates is generated by a proper and natural desire for improvements in our standard of living. That means improvements to our transport infrastructure, especially roads and railways, and improvements in hospitals, housing and water quality. However, we recognise that the environmental consequences of meeting the demand for aggregates must be very carefully examined and balanced.

The forecasts, which were commissioned from independent consultants, were published last May. They showed that with steady growth in the economy, the demand in England and Wales could increase to between 421 million tonnes and 490 million tonnes a year over the next 20 years. That represents an increase in demand below the level of growth experienced in the past 40 years. When we published the forecasts, we stressed that they do not represent Government plans and they are not targets for production which the minerals industry must meet. They are forecasts. It is important, therefore, that they should be considered as defining a problem rather than as providing a solution.

We have asked the aggregates industry and local authorities, plus a wide range of other interests, to consider the medium and long-term implications of the forecasts. We are seeking advice on how demand in each region might be met and the extent to which one part of the country can contribute to the requirements of other parts. The hon. Gentleman recognises that minerals can be worked only where they arise and that means that some parts of the country have to contribute to areas where there is a deficiency. We have also asked for views about the environmental consequences of increases in the extraction of land-won minerals.

We are firmly committed to the principle of sustainable development. That means that we need to look at how finite resources can be used in the most efficient way. We made it clear in the environment White Paper that we want to see an increase in the use of waste and recycled materials in line with the principles of sustainable development. Such waste materials include secondary aggregates, such as china clay sand, colliery minestone, slate wastes and construction and demolition wastes. We also wish to see greater exploitation of materials such as power station ash, and steel and blast furnace slag. At present, the use of secondary materials represents less than 10 per cent. of the current production of aggregates. We are determined that that figure should increase—and increase substantially.

It is, of course, important that there should be careful use of resources and that there should not be overspecification for aggregates in construction use, because that can limit the amount of recyclable material that can be used. Research is going on into the specifications on aggregates in construction to see whether action is necessary to prevent unnecessary or excessive use of valuable natural resources. The report will be produced shortly and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will look carefully at any proposals that will facilitate a more efficient use of aggregates.

We have taken initiatives and commissioned research to examine other possible sources of aggregate supply. In one project, we are looking at the potential for large-scale coastal quarries or superquarries such as that at Glensanda in Scotland to supply aggregates to the south-east of England. The research is examining potential areas of supply, including Scotland, Ireland, Norway and Spain. The consultants are also researching the environmental and economic consequences of supplying materials in that manner. We hope to publish the report in September.

We recognise that it is essential to continue to raise environmental standards in the minerals industry. That is why, last year, we commissioned Groundwork Associates to explore the scope for new initiatives to improve the environmental performance of the minerals industry and its report was published last year. I also warmly welcome the environmental codes of practice published recently by the two principal trade associations, the Sand and Gravel Association and British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries which represent an important step forward and show that the aggregates industry has resolved to take firm action to improve its performance in environmental standards.

The initiatives that I have outlined show beyond doubt that the Government understand public concern about minerals extraction. We are determined that the minerals industry should operate in an environmentally responsible manner and I am confident that the adoption of high standards is in the interests of the operators.

Mineral extraction often provides an opportunity for waste disposal. The deposit of waste can be used in the restoration of a site to turn what might otherwise be a visual scar into an area that may be used for recreation, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is one reason why landfill is likely to remain the predominant method of waste disposal for many years to come and, in our view, it remains a perfectly acceptable option given the right local circumstances and high environmental standards.

Modern landfill techniques are highly sophisticated. Provided that best practice guidance is followed and the legislative controls are adhered to, they should represent no threat to human health or the environment.

In determining whether a site is suitable for landfilling waste, investigation must be undertaken of the geology and hydrogeology of the land and careful assessment made of the types of waste that may safely be disposed of there. The character of the locality and the likely impact of the landfill on the quality of the local environment all need to be taken into account.

The current planning legislation, including the general development orders and the environmental impact assessment regulations, provide ample opportunity for the development and control aspects of a landfill site to be taken into consideration and for all interested parties to give their opinion on proposed disposal sites.

I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about environmental impact assessments. All our EIA regulations fully comply with European legislation. Once planning permission has been granted for a landfill site, the operator must apply for a disposal licence under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 before operations can commence. The licensing procedure provides the opportunity for more detailed technical assessment by waste disposal experts, in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, to determine whether, or under what conditions, the proposed operations will be safe in the locality chosen.

Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which we have recently started to implement, will replace the 1974 legislation and introduce even more stringent controls over waste management practice. The licensing controls that will be available to waste regulation authorities under the Act will not end when the operator has finished work on the site, but will continue to bite after the site has ceased to receive waste. Once the site has stopped accepting waste, operators will be required not only to restore and landscape it but to continue to monitor and carry out any necessary works that may arise until the waste regulation authorities are satisfied that there is no possibility of future pollution arising. That may be as long as 30 years after waste has ceased to be deposited. Only then will the operator be permitted to surrender his licence.

Let me come back to waste in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that I have helped to clarify how national policy guidance is being developed to reflect increasing public concerns about environmental matters. The increased emphasis on a plan-led planning system provides the right opportunity for those wider policy issues to be fully addressed in the local context. The review of the mineral subject plan in which the county council is at present engaged will provide an open—it must be open —and informed forum for debate about matters of concern to local residents before any decisions need to be taken. I hope that today's debate will form part of that informed public debate. I hope also that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured that the positive action that we have taken in recognition of public concern about the impact of mineral and waste sites will ensure that the highest environmental standards can be achieved in his constituency.

I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House today. I was fortunate to be elected unopposed as joint chairman of the all-party motor industry group. In that context, I will be as impartial in my committee as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues in the Chair are in the House, to ensure that the all-party nature of my committee continues to be so successful.

I spent 20 years in the car and car components industry before coming to the House. I worked in a tyre factory on the edge of my constituency. I continue my interest in tyres and advise the National Tyre Distributors Association.

I am grateful at being successful in the ballot for this debate. The car and car components industry is very important and it is poised to face challenges. It is successful, but it is almost at the crossroads of a new future in which more companies will merge and there will be further inward industrial development from overseas and particularly from Japan.

So far, we have not seen a huge change, for example, in joint ventures in component industries, but no doubt the completion of the single market will add an edge to such ventures. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry for giving up his valuable day to comment on this important subject.

I believe that we have gained through improvements to productivity in components and particularly in car manufacturing. Leading car manufacturing companies have told me that we are now very close to best European practice. By 1996, we shall probably have exceeded that and factories, such as Ford factories, will be at least at best European productivity standards. That is vital.

Our economy has become attractive to investors. People in firms that want to build cars or car components, after scratching their heads and checking their computers, consider our control of inflation, our increase in productivity and our huge changes to industrial relations. My main reason for becoming a Member of this place in 1979 was my involvement in manufacturing industry and the car industry and my frustration with trade union practices.

I was fortunate to be Parliamentary Private Secretary to Mr. Norman Tebbit, the former right hon. Member for Chingford, in the critical five years during the early 1980s when we gave trade union members the rights that they had longed for in respect of democracy through secret ballots.

Overseas investors believe that those changes are important. They regard our achievement after the general election of a stable Government as a unique and important part of their decisions. They will not have to face changes imposed by a Government of a different political view and ideology. They will have my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, his excellent colleagues and his excellent Back Benchers to show them the way to stability. I apologise to the House for being so self-congratulatory, but such points are important when one talks to people who are looking for investment. It might seem silly—almost like a farce—but such factors are important when people look at a country with stability, low wage costs, high productivity and the keenest knowledge, expertise, training and skills in producing cars and car components. In my view, the United Kingdom is now the best placed country in Europe to manufacture cars and car components.

Therefore, we must be vigilant and careful about how every aspect of Government and European Commission policy affects our business in the car and car component industry. That is why I am most worried about the recent publicity given to car prices and the subsequent report of the European Commission.

It was most important that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission should examine car retailing carefully. It came up with several recommendations including that car dealerships should become multi-franchised. In my old industry that was common practice. One sold different makes of tyres and other components and there was never a problem. However, I can see that in the car retail industry multi-franchised dealer outlets would pose difficulties in terms of stocking components and replacements and giving service for different makes of vehicle. So that discussion will have to continue.

In addition, after detailed consultation the MMC carefully examined retail prices of cars in the United Kingdom. It concluded that there was no substantial difference between retail pricing in the United Kingdom and that in other countries. As my right hon. Friend the Minister knows, that conclusion was made after a detailed consultation involving just about everyone involved.

Subsequently Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan has apparently produced a report. I say apparently because it is one of those reports which are difficult to get hold of. It was first covered in The Sunday Times. At least one major motor manufacturer has said that at the time the only information that it had about the report was from the media. Surely that is not the right way to introduce a report which affects a huge industry directly employing more than 750,000 people. Customers who had read the reports in the media had doubts about whether to go ahead and buy motor cars. They thought that if they waited, and if Mr. Bangemann agreed and Sir Leon Brittan was right, they might obtain lower prices. Indeed, that is a major factor.

The Commission report has resulted in a slowdown in sales at dealers. Dealers contact manufacturers in puzzlement and ask what they should do if people come in and say, "We have read in the papers that the Commission will reduce prices." As a constituency Member of Parliament, one is always pleased to see prices reduced for one's constituents and consumers in general, but with a constituency in the heart of England where car and car component manufacturers surround me, it is also vital that I consider the jobs, stability and future of the industry.

Therefore, I find it extraordinary that the report from the European Commission appears to have been drawn up without consultation, without direct communication with the major car manufacturers or the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. It appears to have used a different way of calculating the index of price comparison from that used by the MMC. The MMC sensibly used all the factors involved, such as the specification of the car, extras and how much they are worth, and what discount is given.

We are used to discounts in the United Kingdom. We might not bargain as people do in southern parts of Europe. When we buy a pullover, perhaps at a superb shop not too far from Victoria street, Marks and Spencer or C and A, we would not dream of bargaining. But the moment that one goes to a car dealer one is ready to bargain for one's new car, because one knows that that is how it is done. People bargain for a new tyre or a new exhaust system, so discounts must be taken into consideration. The EMU, curency differentials and other factors must be used to calculate a true comparison between the price of cars is one wants it to be effective. The MMC did that, but the European Commission apparently did not. It used a snapshot approach which, in one case, covered five different factors but certainly did not allow for any adjustment for the equivalency of currencies. It is outrageous that such a report should have apparently been so secretive, that it should have been leaked to the media and that it did not use the right methodology to ensure that it gave an equivalent comparison.

I was told by Vauxhall, which has carried out an assessment of its dealers, that its prices are comparable with similar European markets. If we examine the 1989 example of a car which was supposed to be 41 per cent. more expensive here, taking into account all the factors that I outlined, we find that it would have been cheaper to buy a Ford Sierra, on an equivalent basis, in the United Kingdom than in France or Germany. Why does the European Commission report apparently say that we are overpricing our cars? According to the press, Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan has even said that he will consider using European law to implement the report.

To come to what is probably the most important part of my speech—I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and our right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will think carefully and review their attitude to this matter. The MMC was right and the industry has moved to adopt many of its conclusions, which differ from those of the European Commission. Even within the Commission—again according to the media—Commissioners Martin Bangemann and Sir Leon Brittan were at odds on the matter.

Despite all those problems, there have been successes, but they should not be jeopardised during the next few years by giving up an agreement on cars imported from Japan, due to the tenderness of our industry's enormous recovery in productivity. The voluntary agreement between the SMMT and Japan Association of Automobile Manufacturers, JAMA, has been highly successful and has kept the number of cars directly imported from Japan to a reasonable level. We have been extremely successful in encouraging inward investment and "transplants"—a strange term—from Japan. I wish that we had been even more successful. That has created 60 or 70 per cent. of local content and an awful lot of jobs for the car components industry, which is important. That is why the encouragement of joint ventures is vital for the car component industry in the future.

It seems that the Government—judging from some of their comments—are not prepared to agree to the new European Commission proposal on the restriction of imports from Japan. While I am normally a free marketeer, I think that we need a transition period without a free market with Japan, which has an unfair base of operations due to the level of the yen and Japan's direct and indirect import controls. Let hon. Members try selling a Rover, Land-Rover, Jaguar or Peugeot to the Japanese. They would find that it is difficult. Yet the reverse is not true. Therefore, it is not a non-free-market solution to say that it should be knock for knock. Until Japan opens its markets, we should carefully control ours in exactly the same way. As it increases our opportunity to export cars there, we should allow more imports. The SMMT-JAMA voluntary agreement ends at the end of this year and some form of control is important, so I urge the Government to agree to the European Commission's proposals.

I shall give a few brief snap shots to illustrate the situation. Despite the recession, there have been successes. There are a number of car manufacturers, such as Land-Rover, in my constituency and others whose employees live there. Land-Rover has done well, particularly with the Discovery. Rover has done well on exports. I congratulate Peugeot on doing particularly well at Ryton. Many of my constituents work there: it is just up the road from Meriden. To achieve the Queen's award for exports is super. Profits may have been reduced, but they remain substantial and effective. Vauxhall, too, has done extremely well with the Cavalier and other models. Despite the restrictive home market, it has done well in fleet sales and exports. Ford, too, has done extremely well during the recession, again mainly in exports.

When I was first elected to the House in 1979, British car and car component exports were dismal, productivity was awful, and delivery and supply incredibly bad. Now, our car and car component manufacturers are succeeding and surviving because of their exports, the quality of their cars and the low cost of their cars due to productivity. Britain is, indeed, a good place to make cars and car components.

I suggest that the Government look again at the crippling effects of the national insurance contribution and of tax on company cars. There is an £18,000 limit on company cars. We are talking not about benefits in kind for rich company directors but about tools of the trade, Sierras, Cavaliers and Montegos, that are used by salesmen to sell British products. Will my hon. Friend the Minister please suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he reconsider that limit? Will he further suggest that the Government increase the differential between leaded and unleaded fuels? That would be useful in helping to reduce pollution. In addition, if we reduce further the special car tax, could we not pay for that through an increased differential, making polluting leaded fuels more expensive to pay for a further reduction in special car tax, and so encourage more car sales?

We have one of the lowest levels in Europe for the purchase of diesel cars. Ecologically speaking, diesel is certainly a useful fuel in terms of reduced consumption and improved efficiency. Will my hon. Friend please encourage its use?

I know that time is running out. I shall finish with a plea that may seem unusual but is not when one thinks about it. My hon. Friend may recall that I have chaired the Trademark Committee for several years. Car and car component companies have strongly branded products. There is a mark name and brand name for each vehicle. Industry in general is anxious that we make early progress on introducing our trademark Bill which will harmonise our system with the Community directive. My hon. Friend may not be able to reply to this slightly oblique point, but it is important to car manufacturers and others. France, Germany, Spain, Italy and most other European countries have harmonised ahead of the deadline in 1992. May we please consider the Bill which has been debated in the other place? I saw some hope in the remarks of Lord Wakeham that we might consider it this Session. If we do not introduce the Bill by the end of this Session, there will be problems in registering trademarks and this may jeopardise the extremely important Madrid protocol.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on his election as joint chair of the all-party motor industry group and I thank him for his co-operation in cutting down his speech to allow me to speak today.

The motor industry, its manufacturers and associated components suppliers have suffered badly as a result of the recession. The hon. Gentleman and I both come from the midlands, which have suffered particularly badly.

Today I want to discuss not the effects of the recession, but the longer-term problems that the industry faces. One major manufacturer, General Motors, has estimated that by 1995 there could be up to 19 per cent. overcapacity in Europe. That could mean the closure of between nine and 13 car plants across Europe. The industry faces major challenges in respect of the environment in the coming years and it will have to meet those challenges.

The hon. Member for Meriden mentioned Japanese transplants. Of course, at one level inward investment is to be welcomed, but it is important to emphasise that Japanese interest in Britain is based not on an overwhelming desire to bolster the British economy but on a desire to capture increased markets. The experience of the USA shows that unless this investment is handled properly it can have problematic results. In the USA, where Japanese investment has massively increased, for every job created in the car industry about four were lost. Britain is different—we have a much stronger components supply base and we are better placed to cope with these problems, but unless the Government take their responsibilities seriously at local, national and European levels, we are in for problems.

Some useful local initiatives have already begun. I commend to the Minister the activities of groups such as the Motor Industry Local Authority Network which, interestingly, goes under the name of MILAN. It is doing useful and valuable research into the kinds of policies needed at local authority level across Europe to cope with some of these problems. Useful work is also being done at the European Parliament by MEP Carole Tongue and there is a working party looking into the challenges facing the European motory industry.

The need for a national strategy is also vital, to take action to underpin the sort of training, research and investment initiatives that are already being attempted by local authorities and others. Such initiatives need to be delivered locally but must be backed up nationally. It is also important that Britain plays its full part in developing a European strategy for the motor industry—protecting it where development is needed against problems that may be created by too rapid involvement in Japanese transplants. To cope with the long-term structural problems, it is vital that we play our full part in the economic, environmental and social affairs of Europe. That is why it is much to be regretted that such aspects were omitted from the Maastricht treaty and that the British Government sought opt-outs from them.

In the interests of the motor industry, which is so vital to my constituents, I ask the Minister to take these initiatives. We are all pleased about the improvement in industrial relations in the motor industry, but the people who work and lead their lives in it and produce the goods on which the success of the British motor industry is based must be given a full say in its future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) on giving the House this opportunity to debate this most important industry. I join others who have congratulated him on becoming joint chairman of the all-party motor committee. I know that he will bring a great deal of knowledge to that position. I am also delighted to have the chance to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on being in the Chair. I hope that our partnership in the Chamber will prove as effective as it has been on behalf of the House on the tennis court.

I appreciate that conditions have been very difficult in the domestic market over the past year, but I am greatly encouraged by the way in which our car manufacturers have coped. Like my hon. Friend, I congratulate them on their export achievements. The motor industry is well aware of the importance of exports. The additional sales enable development expenditure to be spread over longer runs. Exporting helps to keep one in touch with developments in other countries and to measure one's products against the best in the world. As we saw last year, exports provide a counter to fluctuations in home demand. I am confident that the industry will seek to build on the export achievements it has already made.

As my hon. Friend said, we saw last year further progress in making improvements in quality and productivity. Such developments have been marked in the industry in recent years. I am encouraged to note that domestic demand is now picking up. At 138,106 units, new car sales in April were 9 per cent. up on a year ago. It was the first month-on-month increase since October 1989 and has helped to stabilise the previously falling levels of domestic car production.

For the motor industry, as for every industry, the business environment in which it operates is of vital importance. My hon. Friend referred to some of the changes that the Government have made. They have succeeded in providing an environment in which business can—and is encouraged to—succeed. We have reduced regulation, removed administrative burdens and brought inflation down. We must, of course, do more and ensure that our inflation level is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the European Community.

Decisions about major investment projects are particularly important in the motor industry. They are likely to take several years to complete and are among the most difficult and complex faced by any business. Such decisions have in the past been even more difficult because of the impossibility of predicting with confidence the inflation rate or the interest rate during and after the investment work.

Other actions that the Government have taken to help the motor industry and other industries have included reducing the burden of taxation not only for companies, but for individuals. The motor industry, like all industries, derives much strength from the component suppliers, to which my hon. Friend referred. Many of those are small businesses and my hon. Friend will be aware of the steps that we have taken to encourage small businesses.

The motor industry, like the rest of British industry, will also benefit from the initiatives that the Government have launched to encourage innovation and to strengthen the links between the academic and business worlds, particularly in research and development. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting the value to the industry of the Government's step-by-step reform of industrial relations and trade union law. We should not underestimate the importance of the legislation to the revival of the British motor industry, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) recognises that.

Changes in working practices have been a vital part of the increases in productivity. Clearly, they could not have come about under the old arrangements. Such improvements represent the way forward if British manufacturers are to be as good as any in the world in productivity terms.

A further benefit is coming to the industry with the completion of the single European market. I welcome the adoption of the EC whole vehicle type approval system for new cars from the beginning of next year. We shall have to get used to referring to the ECWVTA. It will be of help to the industry.

I noted carefully the points made by my hon. Friend about the special car tax. He knows that such matters are for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will not expect me to respond to him. I assure him that the points he made will be drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I also noted his comments about diesel as a fuel.

My hon. Friend then dealt with the important question of trade marks. I regret that it has not been possible to find time for a trademarks Bill in the present Session. I appreciate that it is wanted by business in relation to meeting our EC obligations. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there was much competition for time from other measures.

I apologise if I am not able to deal with all the points that hon. Members have raised, having been left somewhat short of time in which to reply. I am not complaining because it was important for the House to hear what they said.

I noted what my hon. Friend said about the European Commission's study of car prices and have seen the letter from our former colleague, Sir Hal Miller. The President of the Board of Trade will be replying to that letter shortly. I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment on Sir Hal's remarks about the way in which the Commission undertook its work. However, international comparison of car prices is a particularly complex exercise. So is comparison between separate studies undertaken by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the one side and the European Commission on the other. Careful examination of the methodologies and findings of the two studies reveals far more similarities than differences. The main differences were in the presentation of the results and this reflected differences between the objectives of the studies.

I look forward to strengthening my contacts with the motor industry. I have already visited Land-Rover at Solihull. I look forward to visiting Longbridge at an early date. The British car industry has responded positively and effectively to a period of difficult home market conditions. That response demonstrates clearly that we can be confident that the industry has an excellent future.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to combine my first speech in the House with this Adjournment debate. As it is my first opportunity, may I add to those of my hon. Friends my congratulations to you on the achievement of your current position.

If the Minister will allow, I shall attend briefly to the conventions of a maiden speech before moving on to raise the concerns expressed by many of my constituents during the election campaign, both by members of staff who work at what is now Broadgreen NHS hospital trust and by residents who are worried about the future of what they describe as their local hospital.

The constituency of Broadgreen, on the eastern approaches to the city of Liverpool, encompasses the communities of Childwall and Wavertree to the south and Broadgreen, Knotty Ash, Old Swan, and Kensington to the north and west, at the end of the M62 motorway. For too many years, as a result of the application of unrestrained market forces, the M62 has been the only avenue for advancement open to many young people in Liverpool: southwards to London and to Europe.

People have wondered about the robust nature of Liverpool politics, but I would respectfully suggest that a local journalist and friend of mine, Ian Williams, got it right when he said, "If you give a city third world economics, why should you be surprised if you get third world politics?" Faced with dramatic demographic change, the people of Liverpool have struggled to find a way forward. The political divisions thrown up there should provide no comfort to the Conservative party. They are a symptom of the continuing decline of the local economy and the hardship that that has created for the people.

Liverpool people have shown great courage and dignity in the teeth of their troubles, turning aside attacks upon them with wit and gritty determination. My predecessor, Mr. Terry Fields, was an example of that determination when he demonstrated that he had the courage of his convictions. An unholy alliance of Conservative stubbornness over the poll tax and the Trotskyist need for a martyr meant that he was indeed convicted for his convictions. A sincere man, he took the rap for the real villains on both sides of that unhappy affair. I wish Mr. Fields a prosperous career outside this House. I am confident that he would not have accepted the governorship of Hong Kong, even if it had been offered to him!

May I take this opportunity to say how proud I am to be the first woman Member of Parliament for Liverpool since Bessie Braddock, who represented the Exchange division for so many years and who was first elected in the heady days of 1945. How I wish that I had been sent here for the first time in similar circumstances—with my party forming the Government and looking forward to a new future for Liverpool. However, that was, not to be. The result of the election places constraints upon us and has lowered our expectations.

Liverpool has, however, undergone a sea change. I am now one of many who are prepared to examine the political realities facing us and to work in partnership with whoever has the best interests of Liverpool at heart. That is what the people of Broadgreen expect, but they also expect the Government to listen and to take account of their very genuine concerns, particularly in this case—the future of their hospital.

Broadgreen hospital trust sees itself as a community hospital. It offers a comprehensive range of high quality services to the people of Broadgreen, Old Swan, West Derby, Huyton and the city's eastern surround.

In November 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) raised the issue of Broadgreen hospital in a similar debate. The area health authority had commissioned a report from six eminent local clinicians called the "Pan-Liverpool Review". It examined the future of medicine in the city and many of its recommendations have been implemented successfully. However, one of its proposals was that the accident and emergency service in the city should be rationalised—to use the terminology of the marketplace, which we now have to recognise as the new ethos for what has become the health industry.

Broadgreen district general hospital, as it then was, had to face the proposed closure of its casualty department. That decision remains the stated policy objective of Liverpool health authority and was confirmed as recently as two weeks ago at a meeting of the health authority and the community health council. My purpose in raising the issue is to ask the Minister to review that decision and to take account of the following changed circumstances: first, although the population of the city may still be declining, the catchment area for Broadgreen hospital has a stable population and will show growth over the next few years as the new housing estates being built around the district become occupied.

The hospital's orthopaedic department serves the city's highest concentration of frail elderly people. The accident and emergency department acts as the gateway to this and other specialties that are provided on site.

Secondly, the hospital's medical board and the new directors of the trust oppose the closure. In October 1989, the medical board published its opposition in a letter signed by all the senior medical staff, in which they said that they were concerned that the hospital would be unable to sustain a thriving acute medical and surgical service if the accident and emergency department were to close. Members of the medical board have made it clear to me that that still remains their view and the uncertainty surrounding the proposal is causing serious problems for the trust. The creation of the trust is a reason for not closing the casualty department, but I shall deal with that later.

Thirdly, the community health council has consistently opposed the closure. In 1989, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Derby, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), stated that if the community health council were consistently to oppose the closure the proposal would come to Ministers for final consideration after a period of public consultation. Two years later, that public consultation has not taken place. The department is, however, scheduled to close in 1993. I urge the Minister to allow further representations to be made before action to close the department is taken. Obviously, we all wish to see it remain open.

The Secretary of State for Health has talked of allowing a period of stability to enable the traumatic changes that the Government have made to the health service to bed in. Labour Members have opposed the changes every step of the way, and rightly so, but I agree that time must be allowed for staff to adjust to their brave new world and to show whether the Government's predictions of improved patient care can be achieved.

For Broadgreen hospital, the need for a time of consolidation and stability is great. Its staff are worn out and tired of the constant reorganisation, and the uncertainty is undermining morale. The trust has made it clear that it wishes to retain and develop its casualty department. It pioneered in Liverpool the introduction of a clinical nurse practitioner to reduce waiting times. That has been successful and it deserves support and encouragement. I hope that the Government will issue a permanent reprieve.

I always intended to make my maiden speech on this topic. However, as there has been no opportunity to raise it in a debate on health, I was pleased to be given the opportunity to raise it now and to hear what the Minister has to say. The changes caused by the establishment of an NHS trust and changes in the way in which the hospital is managed are very important factors which should be borne in mind before any final decision is taken about the future of the accident and emergency department. Public consultation is a necessary part of that process and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) in a debate on the future of the hospital and to congratulate her on her success in the ballot for the Adjournment and—I had not expected this—on making her maiden speech. If she carries on in the same vein—suggesting that some of us might have been surprised by the robustness of Liverpool politics—she will win plaudits for understatement which will carry her through. I especially enjoyed learning that her predecessor would not have accepted the governorship of Hong Kong—she might care to sponsor a local competition for what governorship he would have accepted.

Walton!

Indeed. Broadgreen hospital has been an NHS trust hospital since 1 April 1991. The hospital has 540 beds providing a wide range of general medical services, acute care for the elderly and an adult mental illness unit. The trust is successfully meeting the health needs of the local community and progressively developing the services that it offers. Tremendous strides have been made in reducing waiting lists, with no patients waiting more than 12 months since April 1992. The number of people treated increased by 4 per cent. during the 12 months to April 1992.

A number of impressive service developments have also been made. Over the past few years £19 million of capital investment has been made at the Broadgreen site to build a new medical and geriatric block, a new purpose-built psychiatric unit and new facilities for the cardiothoracic centre. Two new consultants have recently been appointed —one to orthopaedics in September 1991 and the second to general surgery in January 1992. Other new initiatives include the establishment of a courtesy car service for transporting patients back to their homes and the appointment of a patient relations advisor who provides an extremely useful link between patients and hospital management.

As the hon. Member will know, there are a great many achievements of which the health services throughout the Mersey region can be proud. The region has the country's best record on waiting lists. No patient has waited more than two years for in-patient or day case treatment since March 1990. In-patient and day case treatments are up 5·4 per cent. on last year. In the same period, coronary artery by-pass grafts increased by 21 per cent. and hip replacements by 14·2 per cent. Mersey initiatives on drugs and AIDS, of which the hon. Lady will be well aware, continue to attract international attention. The region has eight first wave trusts, eight second wave trusts and all the remaining units are in the third wave. The trusts are treating more patients and reducing waiting lists. I took careful note of what the hon. Lady said about the need for a period of stability and I am sure that the point is well taken.

As I indicated earlier, I am aware that there is some local concern about the future of the hospital, specifically the provision of accident and emergency services. Let me give my comments some historical perspective.

In June 1989, Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of Mersey regional health authority and Professor Graeme Davies, vice-chancellor of the university of Liverpool, invited six clinicians to advise on "The Future of Medicine in the City of Liverpool". This became widely known as the pan-Liverpool review. The review centred on the 15 hospitals managed by the Liverpool and South Sefton health authorities. Some of those hospitals had already expressed an interest in becoming self-governing, which meant that the deliberations had to be pursued urgently and the report presented at the earliest opportunity. The inquiry team's report was in fact produced in September 1989 and made a number of wide-ranging recommendations on the direction that service developments should be taking over the next decade.

One area on which the group commented in detail was accident and emergency services. Communities rely extensively on their local hospital to deal with sudden illness and injury, to the extent that an accident and emergency department is often regarded as essential. That can be the source of 90 per cent. of in-patient treatment —and, because of the open-ended commitment, the justification for an array of departments on varying levels of standby. Such departments are staff intensive, which means that the replication of such provision drains resources.

At the moment, accident and emergency services for Broadgreen residents are provided by three hospitals in Liverpool and one hospital in the neighbouring St. Helens and Knowsley district. All four hospitals are situated within four miles of Broadgreen. The pan-Liverpool review concluded that with Liverpool seeking to attract staff from a falling population—for example, there was a 10 per cent. fall between 1981 and 1990—and striving to retain its share of resources, which would decrease because of moves towards resident-based funding, it would not be possible to maintain three A and E departments in Liverpool.

The review considered that the A and E department at Broadgreen hospital should close, not only because it is the smallest of the three Liverpool A and E departments, but because of its location between the A and E departments at the Royal Liverpool hospital—now a trust—Fazakerley hospital—which now forms part of the Aintree hospitals trust—and Whiston hospital—managed by the adjacent St. Helens trust.

The current position is that Liverpool district health authority is proposing to follow up the pan-Liverpool review by undertaking a study of A and E services in the city. I understand that a paper will be put forward at the forthcoming meeting of the district health authority and I imagine that the hon. Lady has heard that the matter is to be discussed. The purpose of the study is to advise the authority on the optimum future provision of A and E services in Liverpool and the implications for neighbouring communities. The study will be undertaken in the light of the recommendations of the review group into the future of medicine in the city of Liverpool—the pan-Liverpool review—of the development of a new A and E department at Fazakerley hospital and of the upgrading of the existing A and E department at Whiston hospital.

Let me make one point clear: the recommendations in the pan-Liverpool review had their genesis prior to the implementation of the NHS reforms and their emphasis was on the role of the purchaser in assessing health care need and increasing patient choice. It is clearly appropriate that the Liverpool health authority should revisit those earlier conclusions. The authority needs to consult other purchasers in Liverpool to ensure that there is co-ordinated provision of A and E facilities in the city and that the views of GPs and residents are taken into account. Those discussions must be reflected in any proposals. It is fundamental that the health authority as purchaser of services must develop a clear focus on the health needs of its population.

I understand that the study will rigorously appraise different options. In view of my earlier comments, I add specifically that there will be a systematic attempt to identify local needs and wishes, that the active involvement of GPs will be sought in all the deliberations and that the provider trusts concerned will be fully involved at all stages, as will those of their staff most closely concerned.

Although the earlier review may have suggested the closure of the Broadgreen accident and emergency department, the proposed analysis by Liverpool district health authority may lead to wholly different propositions. However, this is not the occasion for us to debate what may or may not be the outcome.

The hon. Lady spoke about consultation. Let us be absolutely clear that the proposed study will take into account the views of general practitioners and local people before it enters the period of formal consultation towards the end of the year.

The community health councils have an important role. Community health councils were created by Parliament as part of the accountability mechanism of the national health service and we have stressed their role in the development of local health services within the framework of the NHS reforms. We have emphasised their role in the development of the purchasing function. Clearly, the local CHC will be closely involved in the development of Liverpool's services. If the CHC wishes to object formally to the health authority's proposal to change services, the district health authority will refer the matter to the regional health authority and thereafter, if the RHA supports the district's proposals, the CHC's objection will be referred to Ministers. If that happens, I will consider representations from interested parties. I understand that it is hoped that the outcome of the consultations will be known in time for the first elements to be incorporated in 1993–94 contracts.

I hope that I have given the hon. Lady an idea of the position of the Department of Health on the matter. Her comments about a great deal of change having taken place in local health services are well taken. I can understand that staff and others involved feel that a period of consolidation is needed. I welcomed the hon. Lady's olive branch when she said that the reforms require a period in which to take effect and to achieve their full benefits.

I emphasise that there is no case at present for Ministers to intervene as the hon. Lady requested. The health authority is proceeding in an appropriate manner. I hope that the hon. Lady will draw some measure of reassurance from what I have said in today's debate.

rose—

Does the hon. Lady have the Minister's leave to intervene?

indicated assent.

I want to take up an earlier point about staffing problems and about the health authority's fears that it may not be able to recruit sufficient staff to sustain three accident and emergency departments within the city. I was astonished to hear that that was one of the main factors to which the Minister referred. Surely provision for patients and patient care should be the primary concerns. There are certainly enough unemployed nurses and medical staff in the city of Liverpool to provide the staff necessary for the accident and emergency department at Broadgreen hospital.

The Minister referred to public consultation. I am assured that the community health council has been involved all the way through in discussions with the health authority and with the trust. At no stage has it been invited to make a formal comment on the proposal to close the accident and emergency unit. I should have assumed that that would come as part of the formal public consultation process. The community health council will make a formal comment in due course.

The hon. Lady is right to raise the question of staff. It was said earlier that there could be a problem with staff recruitment. There are two points in having a review. First, in the atmosphere of the reforms, we have an entirely different basis on which to work. A reformed base review may come to a completely different analysis of the situation. Secondly, as the hon. Lady said, there may be entirely new points to raise; she mentioned some of them in her speech. All those factors must be taken into account in informal or formal consultations. I hope that the hon. Lady will play a role in that process; I am sure that she will. She will have an opportunity, both in the House and locally, to make all those points and to provide any additional ammunition that she feels is appropriate at the time.

The hon. Lady mentioned the community health council. The mechanism according to which the CHC operates in connection with any proposed closure is well laid down. There can be informal consultations and deliberations by the CHC at this stage, but only if and when a formal closure proposal is put can the CHC lodge a formal objection under its statutory role. No doubt it will do that if the situation arises.

Let me make it clear, however, that no such move would be made—especially given the strength of local feeling to which the hon. Lady referred—unless there is a cast-iron case for making it in clinical and staff terms. The distance between one A and E department and another and the effect that an A and E closure would have on the other operations of the hospital would also be taken fully into account. I hope that the hon. Lady will draw a measure of reassurance from my remarks and I congratulate her once again on securing the debate.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

There can be no one in the House, or in the country, who does not know of the case of my small constituent, Laura Davies. Her story and that of her family's struggle with bureaucracy is harrowing and raises important and fundamental questions of principle which I believe have not been properly addressed by the Department of Health or by the Secretary of State. I seek clarification on those points.

As the Minister is aware, Laura is four years old. She was born with a perished bowel and her childhood so far has been marked by pain and discomfort and the restrictions resulting from the need to be fed intravenously.

Throughout her short life Laura has had the tremendous support of a loving family and many friends. She has also received excellent treatment at the Royal Manchester children's hospital in Pendelbury in my constituency. I pay tribute to the care and dedication of the staff at the hospital and, in particular, to Laura's consultant, Mr. Adrian Bianchi. That medical care was available through the national health service and it was the best care so far that money could buy for a child in Laura's position, but of course free to her under the NHS.

Last October, Laura became so ill that she had to be ventilated on a machine for two months. She recovered, but soon fell ill again. As a result, she now has severe liver damage. It was agreed that Laura was in urgent need of a life-saving operation to rebuild her bowel and to replace her liver. [Interruption.] I wish that the Minister would listen. Many people are interested in this case and the Minister should concentrate on what I have to say.

What happened next was a nightmare that no parent should ever have to live through, with delay following confusion. It is the experience of that family—an experience that I have reason to believe is shared or could be shared by other families—which I want to bring to the attention of the House. I hope that the Minister will be able to give straight answers to my questions and clarify the position so that others who find themselves in a similar situation will not have to suffer the private and now very public agonies of the Davies family.

Mr. and Mrs. Davies were told that the sophisticated operation that Laura needed was not available in this country. They then discovered, almost by chance it seems, that surgeons at the university of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania had experience in that area and might be prepared to undertake the operation on Laura. However, there was of course a price tag—£350,000. The desperate race was on to raise the money because we were told that it was not available under the NHS.

What was the Department of Health's response to that appeal for funds? It would appear that there is no financial provision within current Health Department statutes to fund operations outside this country or the European Community. Is it true, as I understand it to be, that if the Department feels that there is a strong case to be made, it can apply to the Treasury for special additional funding? I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that is the case and, if so, explain why the decision to apply for special funding was not made in this specific instance.

Salford health authority decided that it had to respond to the Davies appeal for financial help. There was no money in its regional reserve, but officers decided that they would pledge about £7,000, the equivalent of 1 per cent. of their total budget for medical treatment within the EEC. In addition, they agreed to help set up a special bank account on behalf of the charitable appeal.

The response of my constituents in Eccles was incredible. I am sure that many of my colleagues will also have direct experience of similar fund-raising activities. From school children to firemen, from pensioners to bank clerks, it seems that every section of the Eccles community was rallying around to fill the gap left by the health service.

The Manchester Evening News devoted page after page to the campaign and the struggle of Mr. and Mrs. Davies was subsequently highlighted on national television and money came in from all parts of the country. A petition was circulated and presented to me regarding the situation of funding by the NHS. To date, £200,000 has been raised —a magnificent achievement marred only by a cruel hoaxer who contacted fundraisers last week to offer £250,000 towards the operation. Imagine the hopes raised by such an apparently generous offer, only to be dashed when it came out that it was a hoax. Whoever that person is, I want that person to know that he is despised by the entire country.

This week we received the wonderful news that King Fahd of Saudi Arabia had guaranteed to fund the balance of the money needed to send Laura to Pittsburgh. I take this opportunity formally to thank King Fahd on behalf of the Davies family and all my constituents and their supporters for that magnificent gesture.

However, while all that activity was going on Laura's health was rapidly deteriorating. Fund raising, particularly of the magnitude in this case, takes time, although we have done remarkably well. I am afraid that time is something which little Laura does not have on her side. She is now very ill and it is unlikely that she will be able to cope with the stress of a transatlantic flight.

What were the Government doing while the fund raising was going on? I wrote to the Secretary of State twice, on 22 April and again on 6 May. I received a formal reply yesterday after protesting that I had not received a reply. In the meantime, I accompanied Mr. Davies last week to a meeting initiated by him with the Chief Medical Officer at Richmond house. I am trying to be fair. I do not want to make political capital out of the case. Prior to writing to me the Secretary of State said that she was willing to see Mr. Davies and me later if we felt that it would be useful for us all to meet. But my contact during those three weeks with the Department to find out its position on funding was disappointing to say the least.

When we met the Chief Medical Officer last week he revealed at this late stage that a leading British surgeon Professor Sir Roy Calne at Addenbrookes hospital in Cambridge was prepared to give the Davies a second opinion. Laura has now been seen by Sir Roy and her parents will decide on Monday whether they will give their permission for him to carry out pioneering surgery on their daughter—I understand that he is willing to do so.

We are now waiting for Laura's parents to make that difficult decision. Do they go to Pittsburgh or have the operation done in Britain? Of course, we have to wait for a liver to be available for the transplant.

The case raises some important points of principle and the need for clarification of NHS funding practice in similar cases—where an operation cannot be performed here but expertise exists abroad. I have no wish to raise false hopes anywhere, but if patients and their families are forced to go private, as it were, in such circumstances does not the NHS have a responsibility to make available information, first, about experts within the United Kingdom and, secondly, about surgeons and teams elsewhere?

The offer by Sir Roy Calne at Addenbrookes carne late in the day, after discussions had taken place and everyone had been informed that no way could the operation be performed in Britain. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House about the procedure for keeping up-to-date information about pioneers in surgery both within the United Kingdom and throughout the rest of the world. I do not doubt for one moment that the original information that the operation could not be performed here was accurate to the best of anyone's knowledge. I find it difficult, as we all do, to understand how it was that last week, several weeks after the Davies had been told that the child's only chance was to go to Pittsburgh, Sir Roy was contacted and the Department of Health said on the very day that we met it last week that Sir Roy was prepared to see Laura that day in Cambridge to assess her, do some tests and make his decision.

The need to update information and know what pioneering surgery is available is crucial. I should also like guidance, as we all would, on who pays for such costly operations if the patient is treated under the national health service but has to go to a different health authority region from his or her own. In many cases we are talking about highly specialised operations. Costs are enormous and the patient has no choice.

In Laura's case, if her parents decide to take up the Addenbrookes offer, what proportion of the cost will be borne by Salford health authority, what proportion by Cambridge health authority and what will come from other NHS funds?

Occasionally in the past, patients in dependent territories, in need of life-saving operations that are unavailable in their countries, have been treated at our expense elsewhere. Is that still the case? If so, there is something of a precedent in this case.

I should also like guidance on the financial provisions available in cases such as Laura's, where it is thought that post-operative treatment must be carried out in another country, outside the European Community. Will the NHS contribute to the costs incurred?

As we can all now understand, Laura's case raises important questions, which have wider implications. I know that the thoughts of all in the House and beyond go to Laura and her parents at this difficult time. Wherever it is decided that Laura should have the operation, either in this country on the NHS—in which case, there are questions about finance as I mentioned—or in Pittsburgh, we are thinking of her and we understand the agonies of her family in having to make this difficult decision at a crucial time for Laura.

I hope that by opening up the debate we may prevent others from experiencing the emotional and physical suffering endured by the Davies family and their friends, and we may get some clarification of the financial responsibilities of the Department and the health authority.

I heard today that if Laura has the operation in this country some of the experts from Pittsburgh are prepared to assist in the operation. Obviously, we are enormously grateful that that is so, but we would like to know who will pay. Will it come from the money that has been raised? Will the NHS cover it? Or are they giving their expertise free? Those are important questions for Laura and for other people.

As knowledge of medical science and surgery progresses in some countries more quickly than in others, similar problems will arise. They have arisen in the past. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will be able to take up the matters of principle that I have raised and answer my questions on financing, so that we have a clearer picture of where we stand when dealing with similar cases.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said last week on the Floor of the House, this is not the place to discuss individual cases because of the intrusion in the personal difficulties of the families. None the less, since the case has been the subject of detailed media coverage I am grateful to be able to explain the position over the predicament in which Laura Davis and her parents find themselves.

I refute any suggestion that the reasons why Laura is not being sent to America as an NHS patient stem from a lack of resources available to the NHS.

Laura was born with a rare disorder which means that part of her alimentary tract is missing. She has had a number of major operations in this country on the NHS since birth and has had to be fed intravenously for 12 hours per day. In the past six months severe liver problems have set in. The paediatric surgeon in charge of Laura's case in Manchester considered the possibility that a double transplant operation of liver and small bowel would benefit her.

The double transplant operation is experimental and is not yet routinely available in the United Kingdom, although consideration has been given to setting up such a transplant programme in this country. That there is not such a programme reflects the experimental nature of the procedure. Liver and small bowel transplants have been performed with a degree of success at two centres in North America, notably at the university of Pittsburg. I understand that the university unit there has undertaken 19 such operations during the past two years. Ten of those operations have been on children, though it is too early to judge the level of long-term benefit.

This is not the place to debate matters that are proper for the family and clinicians responsible. However, I must make it clear that these circumstances, in conjunction with the current state of medical development of this particular form of transplant, cannot, I regret, allow the assumption that a certain cure is readily available in Pittsburg. The evidence is that this treatment is not by any means yet widely acceptable to the medical profession internationally. It is an experimental procedure which is being evaluated by a research project. It is not generally available even to Americans who might benefit. It is extremely important to realise, too, that, even at its most successful, there is as yet no evidence that it will permit what would be generally recognised as a normal life. Very long periods—up to a year—are required in hospital, with lengthy periods on a ventilator or in intensive care. Because of the extensive aftercare and various information from the United States, it appears likely that media reports of the costs involved are a significant underestimate.

It is not for the Department or this House to take decisions of a clinical nature. The Department of Health is of course responsible for ensuring the appropriate development of services, which health authorities are then responsible for providing. The NHS provides a comprehensive service which includes all established and accepted treatments. In the field of transplantation the NHS has an excellent record.

I should like to outline more specifically the actions of the Department with regard to liver and small bowel transplantation. Officials have kept the developments under constant review. The matter was discussed in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's advisory group on supra-regional services last year. There has been close liaison between clinicians in this field and doctors in the Department of Health. In addition, the Chief Medical Officer is convening a small group of experts to consider future developments.

To return to Laura's case, I must re-emphasise that treatment decisions are a matter for clinical judgment. Laura's parents and supporters, through the hon. Lady, have asked that public money be used to pay, either in whole or in part, for treatment in the USA. As this raises the whole principle of sending NHS patients abroad for treatment it may be helpful if I spell out what the law is on the referral of patients overseas and answer one of the hon. Lady's questions.

The basic position is that there is no general power in NHS legislation to use public funds for treatment overseas. Apart from a European exception, not relevant to this case, the relevant United Kingdom legislation, section 5(2) of the National Health Service Act 1977, clearly restricts the expenditure of public funds to treatment available in this country. Neither I nor the hon. Lady wants to make political capital from this, but I must mention that that legislation was introduced under the Labour Government. That underlines the consensus that has traditionally been in place over this issue of purchasing treatment overseas. Governments of both parties, rightly, have taken the view that what is best for the British people, and, indeed, what the British people want, is for health services to be developed and made available within this country. We should not as a matter of public policy rely on sending patients abroad at great expense, with the associated risk to the patient through lengthy journeys and separation from support from friends and family.

On very rare occasions—twice in the past three years —the Department of Health has sought authority to spend relatively small amounts on an extra-statutory basis to purchase treatments overseas outside the EC, usually in the USA. Such authority would normally be given only when the treatment in question involved a life-threatening condition, was not available in the United Kingdom, produced a strong probability of survival and was well-established rather than experimental. Not all of these conditions apply to liver and small bowel transplants.

As the hon. Lady knows, in concluding that it would not be appropriate to refer Laura to the United States of America, Ministers asked the Chief Medical Officer to advise on what treatment options are available in this country. It became clear that the necessary expertise was available here, and why Laura was not referred at any time by her consultant to Sir Roy Calne is a matter which should be considered further. She was assessed by Sir Roy, who is an eminent surgeon of world standing in transplantion. He has now confirmed that he is willing to carry out the necessary operation, if that is the wish of Laura's parents. Moreover, the surgeon in charge of the unit at Pittsburgh, Dr. Thomas Starzl, has made it clear publicly that he believes that the operation should be done here, rather than in the United States. He has pointed out that if Laura went to Pittsburgh, she would be competing with a number of other children waiting for suitable organs—quite apart from travel considerations.

Dr. Starzl went on to say:

"the procedures we are talking about have their origins in Cambridge with Sir Roy Calne. They represent a kind of transatlantic and bilateral cooperative venture that has gone on for many years between that group and ours. What we have done belongs really to them just as much as it belongs to us."

In addition, I am very pleased to be able to confirm that should Laura's parents decide to accept Sir Roy Calne's offer to operate, Dr. Tzakis, a senior member of Dr. Starzl's team, has agreed to come here to assist in Laura's treatment—whether the operation or post-operative treatment. The hon. Lady asked who would pay for such a visit. If Dr. Tzakis wishes to charge the NHS, that will be taken care of by public funds.

In conclusion, I should like to acknowledge the efforts made in Laura's case by Sir Roy Calne in Cambridge, Dr. Starzl and his team in Pittsburgh and the Government's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Kenneth Calman. But, most of all, I am sure that I speak for the whole House in sending best wishes to Laura and her family at this difficult and distressing time.

I understand that arrangements have been made for Laura to return home and she may be leaving Addenbrooke's shortly, during which time I hope that her parents will come to a decision. I very much hope that a solution will be found to this distressing situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Three o'clock, pursuant to the Resolution [19 May].