I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. It is only two weeks since the headlines were full of news about firework-related tragedies. On 28 October, a 10-year-old boy, Dale Mitchell from Nottingham, died through the illegal misuse of fireworks. On 1 November, David Hattersley, a head teacher from High Wycombe, was fatally injured during his school's firework display. On 2 November, Stephen Timcke, a City trader from Kent, was killed in front of his two young sons, aged five and seven, at a private bonfire party.

The headlines may have gone, but the consequences of those tragedies live on for the families and friends of those who died, as they do for all those injured by fireworks. That is why the House is under an obligation not to wait for the next tragedy and the next headline, whether it comes next month or next year at bonfire night, but to take action now to improve firework safety.

I secured an Adjournment debate on the same subject in November last year, when I raised questions about the sale of fireworks to the under-16s and the importing of dangerous fireworks. The sale of fireworks to the under-16s is still an issue. In 1995, 825 of the 1,500 firework-related injuries affected the under-16s. We still need to take more effective action to ensure that children are not able to buy fireworks and that a responsible adult is in charge wherever fireworks are used. The Government's zeal for deregulation has not helped us to achieve that, but that is not the issue that I want to spend time on today.

I want to consider firework imports in depth. Last year, I told the House that shipments of Chinese fireworks containing illegal substances had been allowed on to the market in the United Kingdom. Only in October this year, more than a year after authorisation was first given for those fireworks, were the last container loads tracked down. They had been on the market in this country throughout that time.

The Government had unnecessarily scrapped import licences for fireworks in 1993. The Health and Safety Executive's actions in authorising firework imports at the time of last year's debate left a good deal to be desired. Since that debate, its performance in scrutinising import applications has improved considerably, but the procedures are not in place to check that the products for which importers apply and receive authorisation are the same as the products that come into the country and find their way on to the market, and to ensure that those products are properly labelled.

Example after example can be quoted. There was a raid only yesterday—as prosecution is pending, it would be inappropriate to say where it happened—involving a 40 ft container of fireworks that had found its way into a lock-up garage in this country. We must wait to see how that prosecution turns out, but we must ask why nobody knew that that container had come into the country and why it was checked on only once it had found its way to the lock-up garage. Why did we not know? Why did the authorities not know in advance?

Perhaps an even more tragic example is that of Stephen Timcke. He was killed by a mortar shell, which was probably not meant to be on general sale in this country. It was imported from China and all the instructions were in Chinese. He died at a private bonfire party, in front of his two sons. All sorts of questions are raised. Who sold Mr. Timcke the firework? How did the vendor get hold of it? How did it get into the country and—perhaps even more chillingߞhow many of those fireworks are still in circulation and in the shops to this day?

Investigations are continuing and it is right that they should, but it is on that matter that I seek my first assurance from the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford). Will he and his hon. Friend assure me that the Health and Safety Executive will not grant authorisation unless arrangements are in place to ensure that each consignment of imported fireworks is logged at the port of entry, transported directly from the port—sealed—to secure storage at a recognised site and routinely tested before it goes on the market? Unless that is done, authorisation is fine, but there is no way of checking whether what has been authorised is what finds its way into this country and on to the market. The results are tragic and only too plainly seen in the death of Stephen Timcke. It is within the Minister's power to do something about that and I ask for that assurance.

Secondly, on categorisation of the different sorts of fireworks, the Minister began a review of firework safety regulations in March and I welcome his initiative, which was useful. When he takes into account the responses to that review, I hope that he will consider removing bangers from general sale. I met him a couple of weeks ago to discuss that. With 316 injuries last year alone, more accidents involve bangers than any other type of firework. They are easy to abuse, have no visual appeal, are a nuisance to people and frighten animals. They should be taken off the market. I strongly urge the Minister to agree that course when he considers the results of the review.

Some measures cannot wait until the review is completed and the results known. Stephen Timcke was killed by a mortar shell, as was David Hattersley, the head teacher from High Wycombe. The signs are that Mr. Hattersley acquired the shell lawfully. It was probably a category 3 firework, for use in large outdoor spaces. Mortar shells are freely on sale. What are they? I can reassure you, Madam Speaker, that the one I have here is a dummy and there is no danger to the House. It is a dummy of a 4 in mortar shell. It looks like a lethal weapon and we know that, in the cases of Stephen Timcke and David Hattersley, that is precisely what it was.

Mr. Hattersley suffered the most appalling facial injuries when the mortar shell exploded in his face—injuries from which he died without regaining consciousness the following day. Such a firework has no place on general sale in this country. It has no place on sale now—we cannot wait until after the review, until next year, or next bonfire night. I do not want to see any more tragedies such as were suffered by Stephen Timcke or David Hattersley, and they were not the first, as someone in Yorkshire was killed by a mortar shell two years ago.

Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, the Secretary of State has the power to ban by order, for a maximum of 12 months, the supply of anything that is considered unsafe to the general public. He does not have to wait for consultation or for the review. I imagine that 12 months will be long enough for the Minister to complete his review and to consider all the other matters, and long enough for changes to be introduced—either by this Government or by the next Labour Government. Will the Minister assure me that he will not allow lethal items of equipment such as mortar shells to remain on general sale, so that we can be confident that there will be no more accidents, no more Stephen Timckes and no more David Hattersleys, while the review is taking place? The public demand action, and I hope that the Minister will assure me that he will take the action that it is in his power to take, to remove such shells from public sale.

Thirdly, we should consider training, in particular the training of those who use powerful category 3 fireworks, such as the one that I have here, which are on sale to the general public but which should not be, or category 4 fireworks—the category that I should like such fireworks to be put into. Those are fireworks that are not meant to be on general sale to the public, but which are meant for use in displays. According to British standards, category 4 fireworks are not meant to be on sale to the general public, but no clear regulations are in place to specify who is allowed to buy or use them. There are no real restrictions on their purchase or operation. As a result, someone without any formal training can buy and use category 4 fireworks, setting him or herself up to run a public display. Surely that has to end.

My third request to the Minister—again, it is entirely within his power to agree—is that he should establish straight away a national training scheme for those running firework displays and using category 4 fireworks. Will he ensure that no one can run such a display without appropriate and recognised training? For that measure to be effective, we need to control the places through which category 4 fireworks are distributed. Will the Minister ensure that they are on sale only from licensed premises, so that we can see where they come in, where they are stored, who is entitled to sell them, to whom they are sold and who is allowed to operate them?

The Minister might say that that is complicated and difficult to do, but it is not. A model for exactly the sort of scheme that I am describing exists in Canada. Support for such a mandatory scheme comes from a wide range of organisations: trading standards officers and departments have voiced their support, as has the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Consumers Association and the National Campaign for Firework Safety, to name but a few. Responsible members of the fireworks industry have also voiced their support for such a scheme, because they know that it is not in their interests for public safety to be put at risk and for people, who frankly do not have the skills, to buy and use powerful category 4 fireworks. That situation reflects badly on the industry, and responsible members of the industry want it to end.

The Fire Service College has said that it has the skills and is willing to run a training scheme. It only remains for the Minister to give the go-ahead. Will he introduce a requirement for such training and for the licensing of retailers of category 4 fireworks, so that we can be sure that items of equipment such as the mortar shell that I am holding are not used by unskilled or untrained people?

I met the Minister the week before bonfire night, to discuss the Department of Trade and Industry's firework safety publicity campaign, to raise again some of the matters that I raised in my Adjournment debate last November, and to consider the review that he is undertaking and some of the issues arising from it. He received me with the utmost courtesy, as he always does, and I believe that he has the best intentions on firework safety, but we need more than good intentions and reviews: we need action to back those up and prevent further tragedies.

First, will the Minister and the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, who is also involved through the Health and Safety Executive, tighten controls on the importation of dangerous fireworks? That can be done only by checking at the port of entry, transporting the fireworks directly to secure storage and routinely testing them before they reach the market.

Secondly, will the Minister put a temporary prohibition order on sale to the public of mortar shells and similar powerful fireworks that, by any standard, should be in category 4, while the review is undertaken, so that we can be sure that the public are safe in the meantime?

Thirdly, will the Minister establish a national training scheme for anyone who wants to run displays and operate category 4 fireworks, and ensure that those more powerful fireworks are available only through licensed premises? If he is prepared to do that, I am sure that he will have the support of all Opposition Members.

For goodness' sake, let us not wait until the next bonfire night, witness more tragedy and injuries, and ask ourselves why we did not act when we had the chance. Let the memory of David Hattersley and Stephen Timcke be our spur to taking the actions that are necessary to ensure that the public are able to enjoy fireworks in safety and that we avoid any more tragedies of the kind that we have witnessed this year.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing this debate. To my knowledge, this is the second time that he has initiated a debate on the subject. The previous one was on 1 November 1995, and perhaps it is appropriate that this one takes place after 5 November, because there may be a tendency for views to be heightened and emotional when constituents are expressing concern in the run-up to bonfire night and for the emotion to fade away in the aftermath. So we are more able to consider matters rationally and seriously in the cold light of late November.

The time is appropriate also because the Government's consultation paper is still on the stocks. The closing date for submissions was 16 October, but I hope that the Department of Trade and Industry will take into account the points made in this debate. I welcome the review.

Like the majority of people in Britain, I enjoy fireworks. I have taken part in displays in a family environment since my earliest years and I would not want to deny such pleasures to others. Fireworks are extremely popular in Saddleworth in my constituency, and the Round Table and other local groups take every opportunity to organise displays of a high standard. I hope that my constituents and I will continue to share that pleasure.

My first concern is about the period during which fireworks should be on general sale. The guidelines agreed some years ago say that fireworks should be on sale for only three weeks before 5 November and a few days after. My impression is that those guidelines are becoming loose and that fireworks are on sale earlier than they should be.

This year, fireworks day seemed to go on for a long time, perhaps because 5 November fell mid-week and people increasingly prefer to have family parties on weekends rather than on the due date, and because the weather on 5 November was not pleasant in many parts of the country. I received calls the following week saying, "When is this going to stop? I can't let the cat and dog out because every time it gets dark there are fireworks going off all over the place." The matter needs to be reviewed.

People increasingly use fireworks on occasions other than bonfire night—to celebrate anniversaries or birthdays, for example. We must consider what special provisions should be made to ensure that fireworks are available to those who want them for legitimate purposes, but not so freely available as to extend to the whole year the period during which annoyance is caused to ordinary individuals.

The hon. Member for Northfield referred briefly to bangers. Three weeks or so before 5 November this year, I received a call from the estate management board of Holts village in Oldham, expressing concern about the number of bangers being thrown around the streets and put through letter boxes by youths, causing anguish to elderly people and others. I had another call from someone who had seen youths throwing bangers out of the back window of a double-decker bus.

There exists in legislation a maximum penalty of £5,000 for throwing a firework in a street or public place, but I have never yet heard of its being implemented by a court. The small banger is increasingly being treated disdainfully and used by youths as if it were a home firework. Perhaps that is reflected in the fact that more than 50 per cent. of all accidents with fireworks involve children under the age of 16.

I raised the matter with the managing director of Standard Fireworks and Brocks International last year. In his reply, he said:

"I well understand the problems caused to the general public and in particular the elderly through the misuse of bangers and other noisy fireworks.'

In a revealing and honest statement, which is unlikely to boost his marketing effort, he said:

"The Standard Fireworks banger is the most ineffective banger on sale in the UK today. Our sales have continuously been falling, from a high of 7 million to 2.5 million last year."

I acknowledge the fact that Standard Fireworks has been closely involved with the Government in reviewing guidelines and codes of conduct, and I approve of the attitude that lies behind what the managing director said—his letter went on to express his concern about the importation of much more powerful bangers—but the simple, cheap single banger is increasingly being used as a weapon and as a means of disturbing and frightening people in many estates and communities throughout the country. It is perhaps time, as with ripraps, crackerjacks, squibs or whatever, to introduce a complete ban on the sale of bangers.

Most accidents involving fireworks affect young people aged under 16. How do they get hold of such fireworks? It is illegal for fireworks to be sold to people under 16. When the matter was raised in the 1 November debate last year, the hon. Member for Northfield—I remember that I was unable to make an intervention—mentioned that trading standards officers were concerned about how regulations had been changed, because that had made it more difficult for them to enforce the law. The Government said that the existing regulations and laws gave trading standards officers the authority to enforce the rules. However, in practice, trading standards officers still find it difficult. They admit that it is possible to carry out enforcement, but it is more cumbersome, bureaucratic and time consuming and they have other things to do with their limited resources than concentrate on that one problem.

In trying to reduce bureaucracy for small businesses by scrapping the regulations concerned, the Government threw out the baby with the bathwater. Governments are never willing to accept that mistakes have been made, but I hope that in this case they will recognise the due concerns of trading standards officers. I spoke to trading standards officers in Oldham and Rochdale only an hour ago and they said that, against their will, they had made no effort to prevent the sale of fireworks by shops to children under 16, but had referred the matter to the police. They did that because they believe that the regulations are too cumbersome and need revision. I ask the Minister to ensure that he takes the opportunity of the consultation to listen to their concerns and review the regulations. I hope that by this time next year, more simplicity will have been introduced into procedures.

The point of the hon. Member for Northfield that mortar shells are classified as class 3 fireworks was well made. Mortar bombs and the like have instructions that state that they should be used at least 25 m from the public and are clearly inappropriate for most domestic gardens. They should be reclassified as class 4 fireworks.

There is also the increasing use of fireworks to celebrate new year's eve. I go out of my house at midnight on that night and from all the hills around me I can hear fireworks going off and see lights in the sky. The crucial problem with the use of fireworks on that day, which makes it different from bonfire night, is that on 5 November, most fireworks are let off between 6 pm and 8 pm; those on new year's eve are let off at midnight. It is likely that people who let fireworks off on bonfire night will be sober, but on new year's eve, they are likely to be intoxicated. If I had a simple answer, I would give it, but I ask the Minister to take that point into consideration in the consultation paper. I hope that he finds a means of tackling the problem and reducing the likelihood of accidents.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on introducing the debate so meticulously. He has been through the detail, and I shall not bore the House by repeating his sensible suggestions. I shall merely reinforce his points and hope that the Minister comes back quickly and strongly on everything that he said.

I must declare an interest as the Member for Huddersfield. Not in my constituency, but nearby in Colne Valley is Standard Fireworks, the largest producer of fireworks left in Britain. It is an excellent company that employees several hundred people and is renowned in the House and outside for its interest in safety and its good-quality fireworks. I congratulate the company, the last of the big fireworks companies in Britain, on maintaining high standards of production and of regulation of its activities and on its tremendous work in putting its own money into safety and in trying to ensure that people can enjoy a traditional holiday. One does not need a day off to have a holiday. Bonfire night is a holiday tradition that goes back to 1605. I do not know when fireworks were first let off, but it was long ago. It is deep in our tradition.

I resent the killjoy tendency in Britain whereby when there is a crisis or accident, there is an emotional spasm that says that everything must stop. I share the deep feeling of sympathy of my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield for the people who died recently as a result of fireworks, and for their families. I feel strongly about the way in which their deaths were caused. However, we have to balance that with the fact that fireworks are a traditional way of celebrating 5 November, Guy Fawkes' day or plot night, as we call it in the north. I do not think that it should be stopped. Fireworks can be safe if they are good fireworks, properly regulated and let off sensibly.

There are, of course, dangers. If people who are not adult or experienced enough let off fireworks, there can be tragic consequences. But they can be overcome. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) mentioned the honesty of the chairman and managing director of Standard Fireworks about his bangers. He has been equally frank with me. It is a part of his market, but I am sure that he shares my view that if there were no banger market, Standard could cope with it. Most of us know that the real enjoyment of 5 November and of fireworks is the colour and beauty of a firework display. My view is heartfelt because I have an interest and because I know that there is a tradition that is precious to many millions of people. I want that to continue.

I am going to say some hard political words. The Conservative party is the great party of deregulation. Since I have been in the House, it has shouted it from the rooftops. The high priests of deregulation, whether Front Bench or Back Bench, cannot wait to tell us that the state should not get involved in anything. They want total deregulation. Let the buyer beware, let people buy anything they like and let off anything they like. Fireworks are a classic example of what happens when that ruthless attitude to deregulation comes home.

The Minister will not like me saying that two people died this firework weekend because of deregulation. They died partly because of the deregulatory attitude of the Government, who have weakened controls against the best advice of the industry in Britain and of senior staff at Standard Fireworks. They said that we should not deregulate and that if we did, we would get all sorts of dangerous rubbish from China and elsewhere and accidents would occur. That was self-interested, because if accidents happen, people say that fireworks should not be let off at all and that we should end fireworks. I have been involved in the matter for some years. I have heard the industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield say that deregulation will spoil it for everyone. Yes, it will; deregulation has spoilt the lives of families whose loved ones have either died or been dreadfully injured by fireworks that have come in from abroad.

The incident was not isolated. I went to my village and someone in a shop showed me a firework costing £60, which was about the size of a birthday cake. It was not for a special occasion or display, but for anyone to buy. Trading standards officers do not have the power, effectiveness or will that they used to have. A parallel can be drawn with the sale of alcohol: a survey of who could buy alcohol in my area was conducted in recent weeks. The police sent a nice letter to all off-licences asking them to stop selling alcohol to young people. The police said that it should be done the easy way, and that there was no need to be heavy—the young purchasers should be identified and the sales stopped. But the campaign did not seem to be effective.

The police sent 14-year-old boys into off-licences: 20 out of 31 served those boys with alcohol—in two cases, they were served by a 13-year-old and a 12-year-old. As I went round my area before 5 November, I found that precisely the same happens with fireworks: very young children get hold of them and the deregulatory climate seems to be responsible.

The situation is bad enough, with deregulation and the people who have been injured or killed as a result. But, worse, two years ago there was a death in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—he will speak in more detail about that. The coroner spoke directly to the Minister involved and said that such evil fireworks should not be brought in. For two years, the Government have done nothing about those fireworks, which have come into this country and killed people.

I have spoken strongly about the subject. I do not want to be a killjoy; I want our lovely festival to continue; I want proper curbs. I have no special mandate for bangers, which are misused, and I have no special case to make for the extension of the time for using fireworks. The traditional period in our country is quite short—about three weeks—and I see nothing wrong with that period being strictly enforced in terms of the sale of fireworks, apart from their use in displays.

Some of us who were holding meetings in the House of Commons on 5 November almost thought that we were under attack. I had booked a Room overlooking the river, and there was a fantastic firework display on the launch just outside the House of Lords. It was a magnificent, safe and enjoyable event, which showed how fireworks can be used.

If the Government continue their deregulatory, care-for-no-one attitude, more people will die. If the Minister does not take action before next year, other people will die. But by then there will be a Labour Government who will ensure that firework displays are safe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue.

I want to start my speech where my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) left off. We are not here as killjoys to try to stop people enjoying themselves or to try to stop various organisations and religious bodies celebrating holy days—that is nonsense. The Firework Safety Bill and the debate are about the effect that fireworks can have on ordinary citizens who have no argument with people enjoying themselves, but are merely asking for some consideration. Animal owners also need consideration, but I shall come to that subject later. This is a debate not about how to stop people enjoying themselves, but about how we can find a way of ensuring that people can still celebrate while protecting those who are greatly affected by fireworks.

No one doubts the fact that fireworks give pleasure. I thoroughly enjoy attending the displays at my local park. It is worth congratulating local authorities and other organisations that put on tremendous displays, in safety, and that often educate children on the dangers of fireworks, how to place them safely and how to stand away. People should be congratulated on holding firework displays and educating others.

Safety is a priority, particularly for organised bonfires. As my hon. Friends have already said, how can it be safe for someone to let off a £20 or £60 shell in their back garden if he is meant to stand 25 yd away from the firework? Many back gardens are not 25 yd long, so people would have to stay in the house—the firework would no doubt blow all the windows out. One firework, which must have misfired, came over my fence and exploded above the lawn. I was amazed that none of my windows were blown in. All the fire alarms, burglar alarms and car alarms went crazy. Who knows what would have happened if anyone had been within a couple of yards of that firework—admittedly, it misfired. Some fireworks have a shell casing, which is almost like shrapnel when they explode. We need to regulate such fireworks, some of which are powerful.

Most people enjoy the visual aspect of firework displays, which are fine if they are beautiful spectacles with a few crackles, but I see nothing visually beautiful about one big thud that frightens half the population to death and is then over. There is a difference between the two types of firework displays. I have doubts about how we can regulate the use of most fireworks. By banning bangers, we have gone a long way to answer most of the complaints raised in our surgeries.

I received a typical letter from an old lady in my constituency. She wrote:

"Dear Mr. Michie,

I sit in my home this evening, and feel as if I have been living in a war torn area for well over a month now".

She goes on to describe the loud explosions and the difficulties that she faces. She mentions the advice given by Rolf Harris on his programme when he told people to ensure that they kept their animals in on bonfire night as it was likely to be distressing for them. Keeping a dog or a cat inside for one or two nights is one thing, but how can someone keep a pet in for about two months, which seems to be the period in Sheffield?

At the end of her letter, the old lady makes a plea. She asks:

"Yes, people have rights and some things are difficult to enforce, but could you please help us, speak up for us, the fed up majority, and quieten the minority that disturb the peace over a sickeningly long period of time?"

The letter finishes, "Help". I know that, like that old lady, some live in blocks with other old people, and I have talked to them. They are terrified at the sheer noise, which affects them psychologically.

I do not know whether we can restrict the time for selling. As my constituent said, that may be difficult because we have to consider religious groups that celebrate at different times of the year. It may be difficult to restrict the time during which fireworks can be usedk—it might be a good idea if they are not used after midnightk—but it would not be too difficult to control the sale of fireworks. That would not stop people hoarding them and setting them off at the wrong time, but it would stop what is happening in a shop not far from where I live. It is open many hours a day, including Sundays, and sells nothing but fireworks for months on end. It encourages people to make impulse buys. If a child walks past the shop and realises that he has enough spending money to buy some fireworks, he will go in and purchase them. Restricting the times and dates on which fireworks can be sold may help to ease the problem.

As I said earlier, taking bangers out of the equation is certainly the most effective way of helping the majority of people. Old people and animals live in fear. Unfortunately, I no longer have a dogk—mine died of old age many years ago. It was a sheep dog of a nervous disposition, to say the least, and for bonfire night and perhaps the night after, I used to get a tranquilliser for him from the vet. It did not actually knock him out but, for some unknown reason, he used to walk about as though he had gone deaf, so it obviously worked. The problem is, however, that it is not possible to keep giving animals tranquillisers for two months or more, just because some great firework might go off. There are therefore limits to what animal lovers can do to protect their animals, just as there are limits to what old people can do to protect their nerves.

The onus remains on the House to find some way of restricting bangers or, hopefully, banning them altogether. We must take action on behalf of those who do not want to kill the joys and pleasures of others, but who want only a little peace and quiet. That way all of us, not just a minority, can have a happy life.

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns relating to the circumstances surrounding the death in November 1994 of my constituent, Mr. Roger Robinson. His case has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman).

In November 1994, Mr. Robinson organised a display for elderly people at a care home in my constituency. He was killed as the result of the explosion of an aerial shell, which was exactly of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield. The inquest report indicates that

"The firework involved was 4 inch in diameter and is launched out of a mortar tube."

The evidence given at the inquest stated that

"the shell had a weight of almost 15 ounces, was intended to reach a height of 800 feet before ejecting its pyrotechnic effects, and would have been travelling at a speed of 225 mph when it came out of the top of the tube"—

and hit my constituent in the face.

The Minister is aware that I have been in correspondence with him, his Department and his predecessor about the circumstances of Mr. Robinson's death. I was especially concerned to learn from the Minister's predecessor—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans)—who wrote to me on 11 August 1995, that import controls on fireworks exercised by the Health and Safety Executive had been abolished from 1 December 1993.

The Minister is well aware of the implications of that Government decision, which was presumably taken as part of the deregulation exercise mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. The Minister will also be aware that there have been extensive representations from trading standards officers in various parts of the country, not least in West Yorkshire. Here, I commend the West Yorkshire trading standards officers; we are fortunate in our area to have some of the most effective and articulate officers in the country. They wrote to the Government stating that those aerial shells were unsuitable for the public and should be banned from public sale.

The Minister will be aware that the inquest into the death of Mr. Robinson was resumed on 30 November 1995. The coroner for my area is my namesake, Mr. David Hinchliff. At the end of the inquest, he made a specific statement, which I shall quote briefly. He stated to the court that

"pursuant to Rule 43 of the Coroners Rules,"

he intended

"to draw the attention of this fatality to the appropriate authorities, which in this case will be the Department of Trade and Industry."

Mr. Hinchliff added that he was acting

"in the hope that a fatality or fatalities of this nature can in the future be avoided, that is the very least that I feel that I can do in this situation".

I have a copy of the detailed letter that he subsequently sent to the Minister on 3 January 1996. The letter makes his feelings clear. It states:

"My recommendation must therefore be that Aerial Shells of all sizes should not be available to the general public, and that they should be sold only to people who have undergone appropriate theoretical and practical training."

I have a copy of the Minister's acknowledgment of that letter.

I know the Minister reasonably well and have always found him to be a decent and honourable man who is competent in his work. He always receives me well when we meet. However, I have to ask what has been going on—Mr. Robinson's death occurred in 1994 and the circumstances have been reported to his Department on more than one occasion. Needless deaths have occurred that might have been avoided. I do not want to make a political point—the issue is too serious for that—but deregulation appears to have overtaken common sense and the sad consequences are there for all to see.

I want to repeat the point made by other hon. Members, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. I know of Standard Fireworks and I and my family have used its products over many years. It is a company of repute and I want to endorse the comments made by hon. Members to the effect that the industry wants not deregulation, but more regulation. Yesterday, I met Mr. John Woodhead of Standard Fireworks, who spoke in detail of his concerns about the implications for the industry of the sort of incident that I have described. Clearly, such incidents are not in the industry's interests and Mr. Woodhead wants more regulation, especially import controls—precisely the opposite of the Government's action in 1993. He wants there to be training along the lines described by several hon. Members this morning. Judging by our conversation, I am fairly certain that Mr. Woodhead would have no objection to bangers being banned altogether.

I have received representations from constituents similar to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) and the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies). People have had their lives made a misery in the period around bonfire night and they ask me why we have to have bangers. Would not having bangers really cause great difficulties? Would it really impact on the joy of bonfire night?

I am not a killjoy—in my childhood, bonfire night was one of the highlights of the year. In my area, we started preparing in August—chumping, we called it, which meant getting the wood in for the bonfire. It was a great event and I want that to continue. I do not see why we need to suffer the nuisance arising from bangers. I vividly remember the consequences for the guide dog belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). As the direct result of being frightened by a firework, the dog was run over and had to stop working for my hon. Friend, who had to get another guide dog.

Comparing notes with the hon. Gentleman on our respective childhoods, I always found the bonfire more fun than the fireworks. I should like to thank him for his kind personal remarks about me and engage him not on the subject of guide dogs but on an earlier point. He referred twice to the fact that the import licensing regime was overturned in 1993. For the record, I want to make it clear that that regime was, in fact, replaced in 1993. The Health and Safety Executive will say that the single authorisation scheme that was put in place of the import licensing regime in no way weakens safety controls. One regime was replaced by another, not simply removed.

All I would say to the Minister is that I examined the issue in some detail and discussed it with representatives of the industry, whose impression is that the import controls weakened the safety aspect in this country.

The Minister is wrong—import licences were removed. The Health and Safety Executive provides authorisation and classification on applications to bring fireworks into the country. There is no regular check at the port of entry and no way of telling whether the fireworks entering the country are the same as those for which authorisation was requested. There was no replacement—import controls have gone and they need to be brought back.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That reflects my understanding of the industry's impression of the current position.

I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend on initiating the debate. Without making party points, I hope that we can learn from the deaths that have occurred and that action will be taken. The action that we should take is clearly set out in the coroner's letter in respect of my constituent's unfortunate death.

I shall speak briefly because I missed the start of the debate. I apologise for that; I had to attend a meeting.

Today's debate is predominantly about import controls and about category 3 and category 4 fireworks, but I am worried about very small fireworks—those in category 2, possibly even category 1. I have been involved in previous firework campaigns, but I became involved in this year's campaign after being visited by a woman whose dog had been killed in a firework-related incident. I promised that I would support her in getting a petition together. Within days, a young man had died in my constituency because of a firework—apparently, not a big firework.

I urge the Minister to extend the scope of his review to smaller fireworks. Import controls would not have helped to save Dale Mitchell's life. I want something that would have done so—an increase in the age at which people can buy fireworks to 18. I want a licensing system. I want proper training in all categories of fireworks.

I shall present that petition to the Minister, probably at the end of this month—i hope before he announces the results of his review. He expressed his sympathy following Dale's death. I thank him for that, and hope that he will consider the petitioners' views.

This has been a debate of high calibre, probably because the only contributors have been Opposition Members of Parliament. The debate is the culmination of a campaign by Labour in Parliament, which has sought for five years to restore controls on dangerous fireworks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) has been at the forefront of that campaign, but others have supported him for many years—my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie). I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies).

It is important to examine the Government's record in action. Indeed, if it had only been in action, we might not be talking about the deaths today. From the questions that I tabled in 1989 to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) to my private Member's Bill to restrict the sale of dangerous fireworks in 1994, and in Labour's calls in November 1995 and June 1996 for the banning of aerial shell fireworks, we have been outspoken in the cause of firework safety. In contrast, today, not one Conservative Back Bencher has been present to listen to us or the Minister, let alone to speak.

It was a Labour Government who, in 1975, secured strict controls on the type and power of fireworks, limited who had access to them and imposed a code of practice to regulate firework safety. Labour slashed the power of bangers and ensured that unpredictable jumping fireworks were abolished; both had high accident rates. As a result, for more than a decade, injuries plummeted to an historic low. For years, far fewer people suffered firework injuries and no one lost their life.

All that was changed when the new Tory right took over and decided to deregulate fireworks legislation. It destroyed the essential protection enjoyed by the public. The Tory ideologues covered three areas of public safety—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Health, and health and safety. They are guilty of scrapping legislation that was the culmination of 100 years of firework safety controls.

In 1988, the Tory ideologues weakened the system of importation controls. Until that time, from 1875, the importation of fireworks was controlled by the Explosives Act 1875 Order in Council 10A. In 1988, Conservative Ministers repealed the tough mandatory checks on each type of imported firework by the Health and Safety Executive and replaced them with another system—self verification. Fortunately, importers still had to comply with strict safety rules.

In 1991, firework injuries had been cut to 723—too many, but far fewer than in countries with lax controls. The reduction in injuries did not last long. When at the DTI, the right hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) all ignored warnings from the industry and from safety experts.

In 1992, the chief inspector of explosives, Mr. G. Williamson, wrote to inform the DTI that some suppliers were selling category 4 fireworks to the general public. In a prophetic sentence, he warned:

"The chance of a major incident clearly increases"—

but the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), did nothing.

In 1991, the United Kingdom firework industry lobbied the DTI for mandatory legal sanctions on the sale of dangerous fireworks. On 21 August 1990, in a letter to the DTI, our leading company, Standard Brock, said:

"There is such a huge performance gap in the present Category 3 range as to confuse the public entirely and to put proper safety in jeopardy … I would move"

aerial shells

"into Category 4".

Still nothing was done.

The Minister will doubtless tell us that he has a consultation exercise in hand. Sadly, it will be the third consultation exercise that the Government have launched in the 1990s, as they have sought to push responsibility for firework safety on to Europe, the enforcement agencies, the fire service, the police and the trading standards service—everyone but themselves.

The Government conducted a consultation exercise in June 1993, and another in December 1994. They received a robust response from the Association of Chief Police Officers which, on 27 January 1995, wrote to the DTI, saying:

"Under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations it is necessary to prove only the offer to supply or the agreement to supply fireworks whereas the Explosive Act 1875 requires proof of the sale which can on occasion be more difficult to prove.

Both"

police

"forces feel that it is inappropriate to repeal this legislation and would seek to retain it".

In spite of that advice—that the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations were performing a valuable service protecting the public—Ministers went ahead and abolished them. The assurances that the Minister gave us earlier—that that made no difference and that safety was still in hand—are patently untrue.

In our previous debate on fireworks, also secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the time, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), when questioned about the impact of imported fireworks, said:

"We have looked at whether imported fireworks have any role to play in terms of the increase in figures. We have no evidence of that at all."—[Official Report, I November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 272.]

Is it not tragic that the evidence was to come exactly a year later because that Minister failed to take action?

In the mean time, on 3 January 1996, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, the coroner who looked into the death of his constituent Roger Robinson sent a damning letter to the Minister, communicating his findings. He said:

"From the evidence recorded at this Inquest it became apparent that legislative controls are required for the sale of Aerial Shells … The likelihood of an accident involving a shell resulting in fatal injuries is unusually high."

The Minister present in the Chamber today, who acknowledged the letter, did absolutely nothing about it. When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on 17 July this year on the Floor of the House of Commons to impose a ban on aerial shell sales to the public, he again declined to take any action. It was of course only a few months later that two people were killed by that very type of shell.

The warnings to the Government have been legion. In 1994, the chairman of the National Fire Safety Technical Committee stated:

"It would seem that if the current proposals go ahead, consumer safeguards will be lowered in an area where dangers are very well known and understood".

I asked for a meeting on 3 November 1994 with the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Deputy Prime Minister, to discuss the import and sale of category 4 fireworks following the removal of licences. The relevant Minister replied:

"We have been assured by the Health and Safety Executive that this should not have any real effect on the safety of imported fireworks … I do not think that there would be much to be gained from a meeting."

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities begged Ministers for a meeting with its officials in October 1995. It took six months for DTI officials to meet representatives of the association and key enforcement officers.

The sad fact is that neither we nor the general public have any grounds for believing a word that Ministers say on this subject. We know that they are lying through their teeth on tax; they are also lying through their teeth on the control of fireworks—the deaths and horrific injuries clearly show that.

The abolition of import controls has been a deregulation disaster. My colleagues have clearly spelled out what now needs to be done. First, we must ensure that those who sell fireworks over the counter are held responsible for their actions—if over-the-counter sales are to continue. There must be some doubt about that. If the injuries continue at the current horrific rate and the public have to put up with the tremendous strain of bangers and other fireworks being let off in unrecorded public incidents, the future of such sales must be in doubt.

Furthermore, we must ensure that those responsible for firework displays are properly trained and licensed, and that dangerous fireworks such as aerial shells are not available to members of the public but are restricted solely to those who run professional firework displays.

On 16 October last year, the DTI issued a press notice to the public. It read:

"Jonathan Evans warns: the best don't mess with fireworks".

The truth is that the best do not mess with firework regulations, which is precisely what the Government have done. The best do not sit on the Government Benches. The Opposition, on the other hand, intend to ensure that the British public get the best, safest firework legislation available anywhere.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing this debate on an important subject. We are all aware that today's debate takes place in the aftermath of tragic deaths from fireworks this year. I know that the whole House is of the same mind in expressing condolences to the family and friends of young Dale Mitchell, Mr. David Hattersley and Mr. Steve Timcke. That serves to underline the serious issues that the Government have to consider.

As has been pointed out, there have been three deaths from aerial shells since 1994. Investigations are still continuing into the deaths of Mr. David Hattersley and Mr. Steve Timcke, and details are still emerging. It appears, however, that a significant factor in the two deaths was human error. Hon. Members will also recall the death in similar circumstances of Mr. Roger Robinson of Wakefield in 1994. In that case, no fault was found with the firework which killed him. I recognise and accept that this raises serious questions about the availability to the public of such powerful devices.

Nine-year-old Dale Mitchell died as a result of a fire started by a firework being put through the letterbox of the family home. I understand that the incident is subject to court proceedings. I have asked my officials to liaise closely with the authorities investigating the very different circumstances of each case so that we can learn the lessons from them.

The hon. Member for Northfield will be well aware that many of the matters he raised are already being considered as part of the Department's review of fireworks, and that I am giving these issues the serious attention that they deserve. As far as I am concerned, one person injured on bonfire night is too many. The answers that I have already given the House should leave the hon. Gentleman in no doubt that we intend to do what is sensible and appropriate. My priority is to arrive at a balanced judgment of what measures would be appropriate.

I hope that the House will bear with me when I say that fireworks give rise to a wide range of worries. I refer to hooligan behaviour, the purchase and use of fireworks by children, anti-social use late at night or over an extended period—all these have been mentioned. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) mentioned the link with alcohol, and I agreed with him about that. Then there is the question of training for the organisers of displays; carelessness on the part of non-professional users; the availability of certain shells which may be dangerous in the hands of the inexperienced; and badly made fireworks or those containing illegal mixtures. I should point out that import controls are relevant only to the last of those issues. All the evidence shows that badly made fireworks are a far smaller issue than most of the others I have mentioned.

Against this background, it can be seen that there is no quick fix, but I will instigate a thoroughgoing root-and-branch review of the regulations—I give the House that commitment.

The Minister appears to be committing himself to a further review. Why, then, after he received the letter from David Hinchliff, the West Yorkshire coroner, dated January of this year and specifically calling on the Minister to re-classify all aerial shells as category 4 so that they cannot be sold. to the general public—because the deceased in question was an "adult mature sensible person" who died as a result of human error—did the Minister not accept that advice and act on it in January, before bonfire night, thereby perhaps avoiding the subsequent two fatalities?

The hon. Gentleman is aware of the letter that the coroner wrote to me and, I think, of my reply. The coroner's letter was a contributory factor in launching the review. The basis and framework of the review were laid down earlier this year, and it went public in July.

There are no quick fixes. Simply shuffling one kind of firework from category 3 into category 4 will not overcome all the problems that we face. I am not in the business of quick fixes; I want to be thorough. There have been changes in the market, with which I shall deal shortly.

At risk of saying it twice or three times, I do not intend to rush into knee-jerk measures that might be effective for a short period and attract congratulatory headlines, but encourage an uncontrolled black market in fireworks in the longer term, as has been the case in some countries that have strict legal controls.

I know that the Minister is short of time, so I will not detain him long. No one is asking for a quick fix, or saying that he should not carry out a review, but after three deaths in a three-year period, what more evidence does he need to ban aerial shells from public sale for a temporary period under the powers available to him, while a thorough review is carried out? Let us get them off the market and make sure that people are safe. The Minister can have his review and, if it is proved that such fireworks are safe, let him bring them back, but for goodness sake let us not have any more deaths in the meantime.

The hon. Gentleman returns to the point that he made when he opened the debate. I will reflect on it, but I shall not oblige him here and now in the Chamber. I want to press on, as I have only nine minutes left to reply on behalf of the Government to what I consider to be one of the most important Adjournment debates for a long time. I hope that the House will allow me the opportunity to reply.

Let me assure the House that the Government take the matter very seriously indeed, as I have made clear by undertaking the comprehensive review, which 1 will see through. My reasons for instigating it are well documented—and shared by a number of hon. Members. The review was initiated earlier this year, well before 5 November. The reasons behind it are manifold: growing concern about the great variety and power of fireworks available to the general public; the increasing number of fireworks sold and the way in which they are used; the changed structure of the market in fireworks; the nuisance that they can cause to people, especially the elderly and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) rightly said, to animals; and the elevated level of injuries over the past two years.

The consultation document issued by my Department was, I believe, the most detailed explanation of the controls on fireworks and the most comprehensive attempt to seek views on a range of important firework issues since the review undertaken in 1975, to which the hon. Member for Northfield referred. The 1975 review resulted in the endorsement of a set of voluntary controls instituted by the firework industry. I took the view, shared by others, including many in the firework industry, that the time was past when those measures could be considered sufficient to offer adequate safeguards to the public.

A number of issues were raised today. Much has been made of the removal of import controls. I shall deal with that once and for all, before turning to other matters. The change to the authorisation system was not rampant deregulation, as the Opposition claim, but a sensible bid to establish a more thorough and equitable system that applied to both domestic and imported explosives.

In 1993, the combined effect of changes to border controls arising from the completion of the single European market, and the need to implement the explosives for civil uses directive, necessitated some change in the existing system. That directive did not apply to fireworks. However, the Health and Safety Commission took the view that a uniform system covering all explosives, including fireworks, from all origins, both member states and third countries, would have safety benefits. The implementing regulations were therefore used as a legislative vehicle to strengthen and clarify existing authorisation procedures and remove import controls.

The current authorisation regime has certain advantages over import licensing controls. At the time of its removal in 1993, import licensing did not require checks on every consignment brought into the country or routine testing, as hon. Members seem to believe. From 1987, licences were issued for up to five years and spot checks were made, as they are now, under the authorisation system. An import licence was issued for any firework that fell into the appropriate United Nations classification, which was very broad. The new system uses specific names which provide more precise information to enforcement bodies.

The import licensing scheme required only that a firework complied with British standard BS 7114 before final distribution. Accordingly, fireworks could be imported in a state that did not comply. There was no distinction between fireworks intended for the public and those for professional use. The import licensing scheme did not specifically prohibit dangerous admixture, which authorisation does.

A major advantage of the authorisation system is that compliance can be checked at any time, rather than solely at the time of entry.

Is the Minister saying that the Government did not deregulate, and that if anyone is responsible, it is not the Government but the Health and Safety Executive? Is he saying that the flood of cheap and dangerous fireworks from China that are sold with no instructions in English are nothing to do with the Minister? If so, ministerial responsibility is dead and I, for one, mourn its passing.

That is a rather intemperate way of putting a question that is well worth answering. The issue of imported explosives is not, so to speak, black and white. The Chinese—I say this with the greatest caution—probably have more experience with fireworks than any other culture on the planet. The other factor that does not lend itself to a black and white interpretation is the fact that some of the biggest importers of firework material from China are domestic manufacturers. The issue is therefore more complicated than the hon. Gentleman's question suggests.

There are two other aspects to be taken into account in considering what the hon. Gentleman might choose to call deregulation. The import licensing regime was replaced in 1993, but the Health and Safety Executive—1 associate myself with this—says that the single authorisation scheme, which is much more flexible, and which replaced it, in no way weakens safety controls.

It has.

We differ about that.

Look at the figures.

With two minutes to go, I am not sure how useful it is for the hon. Gentleman to intervene on me from a sedentary position. I have not yet finished dealing with the question about deregulation, as the Opposition choose to call it. I mentioned import licensing and its replacement. The second aspect is the revocation of the 1986 firework safety regulations, which took place in 1995 and has not weakened the hand of trading standards officers. Local authorities can authorise trading standards officers by simple resolution, and mark their warrant accordingly in these particular areas of activity. In those circumstances, trading standards officers can prosecute retailers.

The present authorisation system applies to imported and home manufactured fireworks alike. Suppliers will be in breach of the law unless each and every item that they supply fully meets the published criteria set by the Health and Safety Executive's explosives inspectorate.

I am beaten by the clock, but I would like to offer to all hon. Members present a letter that will cover any unanswered questions.

On 22 November 1995, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) was fortunate—in the same way as I have been this morning—in obtaining an Adjournment debate on the subject of social services in Lancashire, which was responded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), who was then the Minister responsible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North drew attention to the catalogue of incompetence and mismanagement of social services by Labour-controlled Lancashire county council. My hon. Friend the Minister ensured that a report into the position in Lancashire, with particular regard to community care, was made by the social services inspectorate. That report contains some very serious criticisms. In particular, the summary of the report said:

"Management of the process gave cause for concern … Measures to contain spending and target resources have been unpopular and not always carried out smoothly or equitably across the county … The Council's home care policies give an initial preference to in-house services"

and so on.

Those criticisms were brushed aside by the Labour councillor who chairs the social services committee of Lancashire county council, who bears the staggeringly inappropriate name of Councillor Humble. The one thing that none of us on the Conservative Benches has ever seen from Labour councillors in Lancashire is humility. They are completely unapologetic about all the many sins of commission and omission for which they have been responsible.

Yesterday, as a further sign of how much is wrong with the Labour party in Lancashire, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) drew attention during Prime Minister's Question Time to the recent revelations in the past few days about systematic fraud and corruption in Labour-controlled Preston council. None of this comes as a surprise to any of us on the Conservative Benches, and all those matters are connected. There is a seamless web of connections between the main Labour-controlled borough councils in Lancashire and the Labour group on the county council.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the people mentioned in the auditor's report to which I referred yesterday are members not only of Preston borough council but of Lancashire county council?

As my right hon. Friend says, in some cases they are the same people; in others, for example, there will be a husband on the county council and a wife on one of the borough council Labour groups, or other forms of "partners" that the Labour party so often go in for, with one partner on the county council and another on the borough council. The connections are closest between county hall in Preston and the Labour Lancashire county councillors who run personal empires from there, and Labour councillors on Preston borough council. There is much that is rotten in the state of Lancashire, and all that is rotten is Labour.

I now come to the specific effects that this has on the people who are unlucky enough to have to rely on the appalling Labour-controlled county council for care when they need it. What are the details of the huge amounts that Lancashire county council has been provided with—out of taxpayers' money—by the Government to spend on social services? In 1990–91, Lancashire county council had £92 million. By 1993–94, this had risen to £147 million. In 1994–95, it was £169 million—up £22.6 million in one year—and by 1995–96, it was £185 million.

How has Labour-controlled Lancashire county council organised its affairs given those huge amounts? In 1993–94, the county council underspent by £6.3 million. The Conservative group on the county council wisely recommended that that be carried forward. Instead, Labour put it into its general balance for other use—or, more likely, misuse. In 1994–95, the county council found that it had miscalculated so badly that it faced a possible overspend of £14 million. Its response was to withdraw home help services.

My hon. Friend should be congratulated on mentioning that point. He will be aware that many of the elderly and others in my constituency have suffered from those cuts. He mentioned the cut in the social services budget of £6 million in 1993–94. Perhaps he will go on to deal with the figures, but I invite him to comment at this stage on the fact that it was also cut by £3 million in 1995–96. I understand that there is a large underspend this year. I find those cuts quite unacceptable and I should be grateful for his comments. Does he agree that the only explicable reason why the county has done this is to build up a war chest for next year's council elections?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One is bound to be suspicious, in the light of history, of precisely why those sudden cuts were made, and it is our constituents who are suffering. There is undoubtedly political gerrymandering going on with the budgets. I know that my right hon. Friend's constituents have suffered badly. Independent evidence shows that damage has been done in many parts of Lancashire—a point that I shall come to later.

We have covered all of this in the House before, but more scandals continue to crop up. There was the scandalous overspend by Lancashire county council on a new social services home in Bold street, Blackburn. It spent so much on that—about £240,000 to £260,000 for a small number of residents, at a cost of about £26,000 per resident, while there was a vast increase in the budget for social workers—that it became a byword for the incompetence of the social services committee, which refused to use the vastly cheaper but much better provisions in large private sector care homes in Lancashire. Many of the people who provide private care home facilities are members of the excellent Lancashire Care Homes Association, which has done its best to present their case for greater use of their facilities.

The scandal of the hugely expensive home in Bold street, Blackburn came to light because of the diligence of a Conservative councillor in Blackpool, John Woolley, who was presented at a different committee with a large—in his view excessive—claim by a Lancashire county council social worker for a big increase in travel allowances. Councillor Woolley rightly kept digging until he uncovered the whole story. So often, at Labour-controlled Lancashire county council, it is a case of jobs for the boys and jobs for the girls.

The debate grows mostly out of the latest scandal from which some of my constituents have suffered personally. Mr. and Mrs. Gardner of Knaresborough avenue, Blackpool have a son, David, now aged seven. David, sadly, suffers from cerebral palsy and needs a lot of extra care. The Gardners have had a lot of help from charities, especially Scope and the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. Unfortunately, they have been among the many families who have been badly let down by Lancashire county council social services. The biggest problem has been a lack of continuity of care for David. As the Gardners have said to me in their many visits to my surgeries over the past year or more as the case has developed, every time there is a change of social worker, the plans for what the social services department offers to provide seem to change.

The only part of Lancashire county council that seems to work properly and has helped the Gardners is the welfare rights service. I give credit, on behalf of the Gardners and other constituents, to the genuine help that Alun Pugh, Jim Dickson and their team have given, for which they were rightly recently awarded the Government's charter mark.

The Gardners, however, have not been so fortunate with the social services at Lancashire county council. Despite their general practitioner, Dr. Morrison, writing a strongly worded letter to social services at the end of 1995 urging continuity in the care facilities provided for David, the plans have continued to change. There were all sorts of problems with David's speech therapy service, but the most important feature of the case was the proposed changes to the service provided for David at his home.

Frustrated with this long saga, I decided to take up the matter with the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, which was involved in providing much of David's at-home care. The council wanted to withdraw that care and I thought it was important, not only for the Gardners but for so many of those whom we represent in Lancashire, to seek an independent, unimpeachable view from a charitable source about the case and about the general picture of Lancashire county council social services provision.

I was delighted to receive an extremely detailed letter on the subject, from Martin Perona-Wright, director of services in Lancashire for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. He said:

"All the staff, Manager. supervisors and care attendants who have been involved with the care of Mr. and Mrs. Gardner's son David, share the considerable concern about the future. Continuity of care and choice by the client appear to be of secondary importance to financial considerations. We operate in Lancashire against the competitive backcloth of a policy which refers every client in the first instance, to their own Home Care service".

That is the county council's service. Conservative Members constantly make that precise point and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North referred to it in his Adjournment debate in late 1995. The letter continues:

"The Local Authority service—which is not subject to the same rigorous annual Inspection, which the LCF Care at Home Services in Lancaster and Blackpool have recently undergone—can therefore cherry pick the services and clients to whom they wish to provide a service. Charities such as this suffer from lack of continuity—plenty of early morning, evening and weekend work"—

in parenthesis, I point out that those are the times when it does not suit social workers to work—

"but little cost effective continuous Monday to Friday care. Small wonder we are deemed to be expensive!"

On the specific case, Mr. Perona-Wright goes on to say, on behalf of the charity:

"If left to this organisation and it were the wish of the Gardners, we would be willing to continue David's care and support, despite the fact we provide a quality of input and care in excess of that purchased by the Local Authority. (What about the principle of direct payment and/or topping up for domiciliary home care services—has either of these practicalities been discussed with the Gardners? The answer is in the negative because neither feature has been adopted by Lancashire County Council Social Services Department!). We have only today"—

the letter is dated 22 October—

"been verbally"—

I stress, not even in writing—

"informed that our services are no longer required from the 2nd November and no reasons have been given for the change."

That major charity was given about 10 days' verbal notice that everything was about to change. Mr. Perona-Wright goes on:

"You might find the attached extracts from the booklet 'Community Care in Lancashire—Your Charter' useful. I have marked those statements which appear to be being breached in this case".

The social services department document, "Information about Community Care Services", contains all sorts of fine words. It states:

"If it is agreed that you will receive services to help you stay in your own home you can expect:

that the detail of the service and the arrangements for its provision will he discussed with you. Your preference is taken into account."

As Mr. Perona-Wright says, there was no question of preference in this case. The document goes on to say:

"that disruption in the established pattern of service will be kept to a minimum."

There is no question of social services sticking to that aim in this case. The document goes on:

"Community care aims to put service users and their carers first. In any dealings with community care services you can expect:

to have an opportunity to present your views in any assessment of your needs".

Does my hon. Friend agree that social services brochures and documents are unreliable? Does he recall the document that I produced in last year's social services debate which featured my constituent Geraldine Robinson on the cover? She suffers from cerebral palsy and was told that, as a result of Lancashire county council's mismanagement, her budget for domiciliary care would be cut from £700 to £300 per week and that her 24-hour care package would be reduced to only 34 hours of care per week. That is disgraceful.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a short speech. Interventions, by their nature, should be short.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the way in which he continues to pursue— as all Conservative Members seek to do—the manifold sins and wickednesses of Lancashire county council under Labour. It is extraordinary that both my constituent's case, which I am highlighting today, and the case raised by my hon. Friend involve cerebral palsy sufferers. The Labour group on Lancashire county council social services committee appears to have learned nothing from my hon. Friend's splendid debate, to which many hon. Members contributed, in November 1995.

Conservative Members of Parliament from Lancashire are conscious of the importance of this case in raising the profile of the debate. Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members who represent Lancashire constituencies each week come across instances of the council's churlishness, incompetence, downright rudeness and its failure to care about people who need attention? That is a most damning indictment of Lancashire county council.

I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. About half the cases presented at my surgery each week relate to complaints about Labour-controlled Lancashire county council social services. The real problem is the difference between the fine words in the pamphlets and the actions of the social workers on the ground—the two simply do not match. All the fine words in the world will achieve nothing if the actions do not deliver on the promises.

In Lancashire county council social services documents, one sees not only fine words but political propaganda. I have an official social services document that is supposed to be factual. The document about financial assessment entitled, "Guidelines for Completion of FIN 96", refers to cutting home help services almost overnight—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) mentioned earlier. In the third paragraph, it states:

"However, they"—

that is, the social services committee—

"were mindful of the Government under-funding of Community Care".

That assertion is not only inaccurate and disgraceful, but political propaganda presented in a supposedly official form about financial assessment. We must continue to highlight that sort of disgraceful behaviour.

I shall complete my quotations from the letter from Mr. Perona-Wright, the director of services in Lancashire for the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. He concludes:

"I hope these comments will help you pursue the Gardners' case. One would like to see"—

as we all would—

"the interests of individuals—particularly those with disabilities—and their families being of paramount focus. Regrettably in this instance David's best interests appear not to be being served by an unnecessary and enforced change of carer agencies—a change to which no-one, apart from Social Services personnel, appears to subscribe. Please do not hesitate to come back to me if you feel I can be of any further help."

I immediately faxed that letter to social services, which picked up one or two minor details in its reply but failed to address the substance of the points raised.

However, there was good news this week for the Gardners, who applied for a review of their son's case. My Conservative colleague, John Woolley, the county and Blackpool borough councillor, presented the Gardners' case at the hearing and he managed to win the review on their behalf on Monday. I pay tribute to his achievement. It was a case of the social services department maintaining its fixed opinion in opposition to the views of the charity that was involved in the child's care and against the interests of the family. The Gardners managed to retain that care only through the diligence of a Conservative councillor. That case is yet another object lesson in the practices of Lancashire county council.

The council's reaction to an independent charity is not confined to social services. In education, the county council has refused to accept the existence of dyslexia, and has ignored the specialist, charitable and professional advice of Conservative Members' constituents about children with dyslexia.

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point about dyslexia, which relates closely to the David Gardner case, because one of his problems was with speech therapy. Under Labour, Lancashire county council constantly lets down the people whom it represents.

I was extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister when, shortly after he took up his new post, he sent us a copy of a letter, which he had sent to the deputy clerk of Lancashire county council, headed:

"Implementation of Community Care in Lancashire".

I pay tribute to the Minister for stressing that it was essential for Ministers to know what action the authority was taking to address the issues covered in a previous letter that had been sent during the summer. The Minister wrote:

"Those were serious concerns requiring a constructive response. I look forward to receiving a full account of your action plan".

It is essential that we keep up the pressure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although Lancashire county council received the Minister's letter asking what it was going to do, there is little evidence that it is doing a great deal? Indeed, rather than doing anything, it is prevaricating and stretching matters out so that none of the recommendations is implemented.

My hon. Friend is right. The purpose of today's debate was to keep up the pressure and to draw attention—as my right hon. and hon. Friends have done—to the fact that Lancashire county council seems to take no notice of evidence from charities, of what people who need care say and of what Ministers or the social services inspectorate say. We have had repeated reports from the social services inspectorate and the district auditor containing savage criticisms of Labour-controlled Lancashire county council.

To emphasise the final lesson to be learnt, I shall use some of the words that were used by another party in the past. Under Labour, do not be old, do not be young and disabled, do not be any age and disabled and do not suffer from cerebral palsy, because all that the Labour party will do is publish fine words in expensive brochures, provide social workers with huge travel allowances and increase the budget for, and the number of, administrators at county hall. The one thing Labour will not do is provide people with care. The country should know that Labour in Lancashire shows what it would be like if the country were ever unwise enough to elect a Labour Government. Do not be old, disabled or young and in need of care, because Labour will provide only glossy brochures and highly paid social workers, but no proper care when it is needed.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and to paint a different picture from that painted by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). Whatever the hon. Gentleman's fate may be, he will not be a Member of Parliament representing a Lancashire constituency after the general election. He has chosen the chicken run and has fled Blackpool before he loses his seat at the next general election.

It is a tragedy that every time Conservative Members initiate a debate about Lancashire, all that they do is to attack, criticise and paint an untrue and misleading picture. They know that I am a strong supporter of unitary local government. I would like Lancashire county council ultimately to go, and social services to be provided at borough council level. Having said that, I fully support the work of Lancashire county council. It does an extremely good job, and social services is one of the important services that it provides.

It was regrettable that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and the right hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) chose to have a totally unjustified go at Preston borough council. Their allegations against Labour councils, including Burnley—their allegations went wider than Preston—were unjustified. I hope that they will repeat some of their remarks outside the House. Whatever the criticisms in the report that was published on Monday, the leader of Preston borough council, David Borrow, and his predecessor, Valerie Wise, are most anxious that any allegations against officers or members of the council are fully investigated, even if they concern activities which took place eight or nine years ago.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name and yesterday I asked the Prime Minister a question about Preston borough council. If the hon. Gentleman has seen the independent auditor's report, he will know that the criticism was directed specifically at Preston borough council—I made no allegations against Burnley or anywhere else. Labour councillors and some officers were accused of, among other things, corrupt and criminal practices. I do not care when that was: Labour was in control whenever that took place, and it has cost Preston taxpayers millions of pounds.

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. Conservative Members criticise Labour councils, but they do not make the same criticisms of Westminster council, which has been severely criticised for its actions. I do not condone any wrong actions by Preston borough council, but its present leader and his immediate predecessor have strongly condemned the actions that have been criticised. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South said that this case was typical of Labour authorities, and he made serious allegations. I accept that the right hon. Member for South Ribble yesterday and in his intervention today referred specifically to Preston, so my comment about Burnley did not apply to him.

I agree with the right hon. Member for South Ribble about the welfare rights services, which received a charter mark earlier this year. I pay tribute to Paul Burgess and his team throughout the county, and to Richard Roxburgh, an officer in Nelson, with whom I deal on many local issues. They provide an excellent service to the people of Lancashire.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South has rightly taken a strong interest in the Gardner case. The individuals involved had a right of appeal. In the latter part of his speech, the hon. Gentleman said that that had been dealt with earlier this week. They exercised their right of appeal, and on that appeal panel were two Conservative and one independent councillor. Under Lancashire county council's system, people are entitled to have their case reviewed by an appeal panel if they are not satisfied with the way in which it has been dealt with. The criticism of the council in that case is unjustified.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I want to be brief, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a short intervention.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned unitary authorities and Lancashire county council. Does he believe that elderly people, especially those in Burnley, would be better served if their social services were provided by his authority rather than by the county council?

I do not believe that. I think that services are better provided locally. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am strongly in favour of unitary local government, and that it is the Conservative Government who set up the local government review which made a mess of it. It proposed a hybrid solution—the worst possible solution for Lancashire—with Blackpool and Blackburn being taken out. That is a great tragedy. But let us not get side-tracked on to that debate: let us keep our minds on the important issue of social services. Social services and education are the two major services provided by the county council.

The hon. Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the social services inspectorate report which followed a previous debate. In a press release dated 20 June, Louise Ellman, leader of Lancashire county council, said:

"The Government commissioned this report after a so-called Parliamentary Debate in which no Labour MPs were allowed to speak. The report says that the justification or otherwise for the complaints concerning bias in residential care have not been substantiated."

As that press release suggests, the tone of the report was very different from that of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South.

In a later press release, Joan Humble, the chair of social services, said:

"The Social Services Committee maintains a continuing review of the arrangements for social care services in Lancashire taking account of recommendations made and the guidance provided by the Department of Health and the Audit Commission. This will continue and a clear focus will be kept on the needs of the most vulnerable people in Lancashire's community."

In her press release, which the hon. Gentleman read out, the Labour leader of Lancashire county council, Mrs. Louise Ellman, referred to a "so-called parliamentary debate". What sort of approach is that from the leader of a Labour authority who has been chosen as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Labour, and who aspires to come to the House? We would remember that when the lady became a Labour Member of Parliament, were she to be successful.

I think that the phrase "so-called debate" is justified when it refers to a debate in which no one is allowed to express a different point of view. The simple fact is that no one was able to express a contrary view in that debate—so it was not a real debate, allowing both sides of the case to be heard.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not.

The social services inspectorate undertook an analysis of in-house services, which was published in June. It examined allegations made about community care in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South painted a misleading picture: the report certainly does not constitute the damning condemnation that Conservative Members have tried to portray. It showed that levels of overall service remained comparable with, or higher than, those in similar local authorities; that there was rapid growth in purchasing from the independent sector, at a level exceeding the average for other similar local authorities; that there was rapid expansion in the purchase of domiciliary services from the independent sector, from zero in 1993 to £11 million in 1995; that, in home care services, the growth of the independent sector had exceeded that of the in-house service; that the market share of independent nursing and residential homes in Lancashire had been consistently higher than the average for shire counties and England overall between 1993 and 1995; that, subject to the availability of resources. there was a wide range of choice and flexibility for users; and that the level of resources committed to management and administration was unexceptional compared with that in other counties.

According to the analysis,

"the report fails to substantiate allegations made that there is any systematic bias towards the use of in-house residential services but instead shows that the Government Direction on choice between public and private sector residential care has been complied with".

That view of the report is very different from the view expressed by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South and other Conservative Members.

In-house services are clearly long established, and people still have confidence in them. I have visited a number of private homes: I undertook two tours during the summer recess. Some of them provided an equally good standard of care. I always say that the standard of a home cannot be judged by the carpets, curtains and wallpaper—not that those are unimportant, but I am sure that we all agree that the most important aspects of the care of elderly people are staffing and the attention given to those people. We must make the maximum use of the homes that we have; it would be absurd not to do so.

Let me say a little about charging policy. Lancashire county council has suffered severe financial restraint. Let us make no mistake: because of capping and other financial limitations, and the area cost adjustment—which has caused it major problems—the council has not sufficient money to provide the services that it would like to provide. Finance and Government are responsible for the problems, and the form to which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred was entirely justified in pointing that out.

The council was forced to make major cuts. One way of minimising those cuts was the introduction of a charging policy, which reduced the cuts by bringing in some money. The council tried to introduce the simplest and fairest possible system, and the level of charges is comparatively low.

If Lancashire county council felt that it must make cuts because of a lack of financial resources, why did it underspend its social services budget by £1.94 million in 1993–94? Can the hon. Gentleman also explain to me, and to the people of Lancashire, why it underspent the budget by £3.4 million in 1995–96?

There have been so many changes in financing that it is difficult to adjust to those changes quickly.

What!

The Minister ought to be very careful. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South referred to a letter that he had received from the Minister, but the Minister chose to send that letter only to Conservative Members representing Lancashire seats. Why did he not send it to all Members of Parliament? He accused Lancashire county council of being political. I consider it very political of the Minister to choose to write—

Answer the question.

Let us deal with my point first. I am making my speech; the Minister will make his in due course. Was it not political of the Minister to act as he did? He should have written to all of us, to let us all see exactly what he is saying to Lancashire county council.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) will be dealing with these matters, but, in fact, Lancashire county council has used the money that it did not spend, having carried it forward. It believes that it is on target to spend this year's budget; indeed, there is no doubt that that is so. But to criticise a marginal underspend—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] It is a very big budget, and the circumstances are extremely difficult when the position is changing all the time.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not give way to the Minister again.

rose—

Go on, then.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he is floundering, and I do not want to cause him undue embarrassment, but will he be kind enough to explain why there was an underspend in those two years if resources were so tight?

The underspend was 1.78 per cent. I accept that no one wants an underspend—

Why was there one, then?

There are many reasons. The social services position is changing all the time.

No.

What the Minister says is entirely unjustified. In the previous year, there was a £230,000 overspend. Is the Minister saying that that was wrong? Is he saying that the spending of every Government Department is exactly on target each year? We have been looking at the Chancellor's figures for this year. There has been great variation in the public sector borrowing requirement, for instance.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman was not even present at the beginning of the debate—he came in late—and other hon. Members want to speak.

The charges are low compared with those of many other local authorities, with 56 per cent. of service users paying only the minimum rate of £1.55 per week. If the county council had not introduced charges, it would have had to make more cuts. The Minister may feel that the council has sufficient overall resources. That is not true. It needs more financial resources and a greater continuity of budget.

Year after year, the Government change the rules. Year after year, they cut further and cap the county council. Now is the time for the council to ensure that people can receive the services that they want. It will be able to do so when we have a Labour Government who at last recognise the importance of social services and of local government.

It gives me great pleasure to reinforce the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) because, in the 17 years that I have represented Chorley, Lancashire county council's social services department has been very uncaring. It has not controlled its budgets. It has not been efficient. In correspondence, it produces all sorts of warm words, but my constituents have been disappointed by its performance, particularly in the past couple of years.

It is unacceptable for the social services department suddenly to impose a respite home on the high-class residential area of Long Copse in Astley village in my constituency. No notice was given. There will be tremendous extra usage of resources, extra traffic and unacceptable noise and disturbance to residents in an area that is unsuitable for such a home. At the same time, I told county council officials that a disused building would have been admirable for the purpose and was within a mile of the council's chosen site. There was a need to do something about the building and to provide—I do not want to stop respite care in the community—facilities where they are needed, not in a high-class residential area. That is typical of the bureaucratic and remote services operated by the county council.

Mention has been made of residential homes and of whether provision for people who need such a service should be made in-house by Lancashire county council or by the private sector. Much of the underspend this year and two years ago occurred because the council was reluctant to place spending in private sector hands.

In that connection, there is a dramatic increase in costs. In-house residential care costs an extra £93 per resident per week, more than in the private sector. That gives rise to a difference in cost of —10 million annually between the public and private sectors and it is one reason why we do not receive best value for money from the council. The standard home care service—domiciliary care—would cost £5 million more if provided in-house rather than by the private sector. That is about £15 million straight away. Compare that with the education spend and the policy statements issued by the Labour-controlled county council in the past few years, saying that there will be cuts in education spending and in the school budgets.

We have heard about the underspending. As in the past, the county council has raised a supplementary rate with no prior notice, which was damaging to individuals and businesses. As they did then, councillors have put the money from underspending into reserves so that, just before county council elections and the probable general election on 1 May, they can show what good, honest citizens they have been on behalf of county council residents and say, "We are going to reduce this and reduce that." I should like to think so. I think that the council will be pressing for that, but let us await events.

It is crazy that, as I said, the county council says, "We need cuts, cuts, cuts in education. We cannot give enough funds to schools," and then calls for an enormous rise of hundreds of millions in the education budget and of tens of millions for education spend in Lancashire.

Did not the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer make it clear, as my hon. Friends will recall, that, if there were to be a Labour Government, there would be no extra funds for local government? Why therefore are Labour Members saying that more money should be spent when, if they were to form a Government, they would not be making such provision? It therefore depends on Conservatives and a Conservative administration in the county—if that is what happens—being more efficient.

I agree entirely, and it is yet another example of Labour saying one thing and doing another, or intending to do another.

If there is not enough money in the county council, why underspend on social services? Why not divert funds to education? Why the enormous brouhaha and cry for an area cost adjustment investigation, and what has that shown? Lancashire is overfunded compared with, say, Cheshire. If there were a change because of the academic and independent research, Cheshire would gain, Lancashire would lose and, guess what, we would be subjected to less education and school spending. The county pressed for the investigation. Now that it has the independent results, it does not accept them or want any changes. It wants the whole thing scrubbed.

We shall see what happens. I hope and am optimistic that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will put education at the top of the spend, as we have in the past with social services and community care. After all, Lancashire started off with the largest community care budget in Britain, and that has been frittered away over the years by inefficiency.

A few months ago, Marylands residential care home on the A6 main road in Chorley was closed. Many of the home's clients had no prior warning. There had been an appeal and a tribunal finding. They rightly telephoned me that day to say, "Why is it that our parents"—or grandparents—"are having to be moved out with no notice?" I should like that to be investigated because it is unacceptable.

As we all know only too well, recently, the home help and care assistance service was massively adjusted by the county council, to the detriment of elderly citizens. I pay tribute to the self-supporting attitude of elderly residents in my Chorley constituency, who are typical of Lancashire and who look after themselves as far as possible, but they need help and assistance, yet that has suddenly been withdrawn.

On 29 August, I wrote to the director of social services to say:

"I understand that recently you have reversed many of the decisions regarding home helps and care assistance—and I greatly welcome this."

I thought that there had been a change of mind, that the county council had realised that it was overspending, had cut here and there and had uncaringly ditched the needs of the elderly. I thought that things were looking up, but no. I received a reply on 10 September from the director of social services, which said:

"I have not reversed any decisions and neither, to the best of my knowledge, have any other senior officers. Some individuals who had home care services withdrawn or reduced in the past have sought re-assessment of their care needs—as they have always been able to do—and in some cases the social care assessment has indicated a current need for services which have then been arranged. I am aware that this has been described in some quarters as a reversal of decisions but that is not an accurate description, and the number of cases quoted appears to be inaccurate."

I thought that my praise and thanks would be reciprocated and that I would receive a sensible reply. Surely to goodness, it should not be up to the media and Members of Parliament to bring about a change of mind by the county council, in the interests of our constituents. The unacceptable situation in which services were withdrawn should never have occurred.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties is that, although—as we all accept—there are some dedicated officers working for the county council, they are constantly constrained when trying to help, by the political direction that they receive from the Labour leadership of the county council social services department, and by the type of policies that led to the unacceptable political propaganda that I mentioned earlier? Even the most dedicated people, who are genuinely concerned about caring, simply are not allowed by their Labour political masters to deliver that care.

That is borne out by a reply that I received from the director of social services. I said to her, "If you have been underspending this year and for the past two years, you must have built up reserves." She was completely unaware of any reserves, although she is looking into the matter. It shows that the officials are working as best they can, but their political masters are saying, "Do something totally different from what you really want to do."

Another example of the social services department's inefficiency concerns my constituent, Valerie Smith. Unfortunately, about 10 years ago, she lost a child in a road accident, and because of shock and mental disorder, she was in the sad situation of having another child taken away from her. After all those years, the county council suddenly wrote to her to say, "Your child has been adopted." That caused her great mental anguish, because she thought that she had rights of access and that, having proved that she was improving, she could have the child back. She then received that letter and thought that she would not be able to get her child back. However, the council then wrote to say, "Sorry; we made a mistake when we said that your child had been adopted." That is typical of inefficiency in the county council social services.

Cerebral palsy has been mentioned in the debate. Alice Allen, of Chapel lane, Chorley, is six years old and severely disabled from cerebral palsy. The county council social services issued only one orange badge to her family, although her parents work 26 miles apart from each other. Their routine is that one of them will take Alice to the centre in the morning and the other will pick her up at night. Quite rightly, they raised the issue with county council social services, but the response was, "The situation is very difficult. The rules say this and the rules say that." Senior county council officials should use their discretion to be responsive to the wishes of constituents and to issue a second badge in such cases, so that proper care is seen to be meted out to my constituents.

The purpose of the debate is to show that the county council social services department has an uncaring attitude. That is not a sudden development—Labour has controlled the council for the past 14 years—but the situation has been getting worse. It has been a long time since there was Conservative control of the council, and a caring attitude by the council.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. He is providing us with a list of the problems that he and many other Conservative Members are experiencing. Does he agree that the response that we receive from the county council social services department is not always what we would wish it to be, and that a small improvement would make the management of our constituencies and action on behalf of our constituents that much easier?

I agree entirely. Perhaps it is time for the department to re-examine its arrangement of local offices and to ensure that care is available locally. Occasionally it is necessary to reorganise. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it would be better if we had more local offices, and more local officials controlling what is happening and responding to local requirements.

We do not like raising the issue of problems in social services, but we are pressed constantly by our constituents, in our surgeries and in letters, about them. That should not be the situation. The Government have allocated more than enough money for social and education services, and for all the county and borough council services. We expect high-quality and caring services—particularly social services—and we want to ensure the best value for money. We have not been achieving those goals. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate, which concerns not only people in Lancashire, but those across the north-west and in the rest of the United Kingdom, and, of course, most people in Bolton like to think that they are in Lancashire. I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see a delegation from the north-west, which included representatives from Bolton, on the first day of his appointment.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what mandate he thinks he has to speak in the debate? He does not represent a seat in the Lancashire county council area, and he betrayed the electors of Bolton—who voted for a Conservative Member of Parliament. Why does not he resign now, fight a by-election, get a proper mandate and then come back to speak?

I will not have any lectures from the hon. Gentleman about my interest in the subjects that we are debating today. Those subjects are of concern not only to people in Lancashire, but to those across the north-west and in the rest of the nation.

The hon. Gentleman is taking up our time.

The hon. Gentleman is not a Lancashire Member of Parliament.

Order. Each hon. Member is entitled to be heard with reasonable courtesy. I do not expect what almost amounts to barracking.

The Minister was good enough to see me on the first day of his appointment. I was grateful to him for doing that, because a delegation had travelled down from the north-west of England in the expectation of seeing his predecessor. I know that it was difficult for him, because he had had the brief for only a few hours, but the delegation was extremely grateful for the opportunity to see him. Various points were made at the meeting, and detailed letters were sent later, under my covering letter of 9 August 1996.

I shall not detain the House for too long with the points raised at the meeting. Representatives of Galebrook nursing home attended, representing the Bolton Association of Residential Care Homes, and raised several issues, including the difficulty of deciding whether people in need of care should be admitted to hospital if they had been admitted incorrectly.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance about the subject of the debate. The Order Paper clearly states that the debate is about social services in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is talking about a specific case outside Lancashire. Is that in order?

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said that the point that he was making was relevant to the debate. I must listen a little longer to confirm that.

If Conservative Members were better informed, they would know that people from Lancashire go to Bolton association care homes. Therefore, the issues that I am raising are of as much concern to people in Lancashire as they are to people elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Such interventions show only Conservative Members' total ignorance of how the care system works. The concerns expressed by the Bolton Association of Residential Care Homes reflect as much on national issues of care as on the concerns expressed earlier in the debate.

Mr. Frank Hessey, from the Lancashire Association of Care Homes, made some points at the meeting, which he set out in a letter of 30 July 1996. I sent a copy of the letter to the Minister. I was a little disappointed to find that it took more than three months to receive a reply to the points raised at the meeting. I had always thought that the Minister was one of the more effective members of the Government, but the delay has shown the difficulty that he has had in mastering his brief. I hope that there will not be such delays in answering correspondence in the future. I also hope that there will be no excessive delays in issuing a White Paper on personal social services. We have been promised that such a White Paper will be published soon, and the newspapers have trailed it as being due in February.

Among the points raised by people from the north-west at the meeting was the need for rights of choice, and information about choice, for people entering care homes. There have been fears that people are not given the proper information, which they should have. I hope that, in the forthcoming White Paper, the Minister will make it perfectly clear that people who are in the process of entering a care home should be given every piece of information necessary for them to arrive at the best decision. We should start by providing proper choice for people going into residential care rather than their being given misleading information.

One of the aspects that is relevant to the debate is the number of judicial cases that have been taken up. The delegation that saw the Minister included representatives of South Lakeland Care Homes Association, who, at the time, had a judicial review pending. I ask the Minister to address the need to reform the law in that respect. It surely cannot be right, when there is so much pressure on care needs, that money is being spent on lawyers' fees in order to argue about the law.

I had a meeting yesterday with representatives of the Carers National Association, who feel that the law is in a mess. In view of pressures on the provision of care, it would be only right and proper for the Government to ensure that the law is properly understood. There should be a complete reform of community care law, so that all those concerned clearly understand it.

The Department of Health issued a press release on Friday about rising needs for community care, not only in Lancashire but elsewhere. It said that there was an 8 per cent. rise in the need for services.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor ruled a moment ago on a similar point of order that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). This debate, about social services in Lancashire, is at the behest of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). The debate is being widened well in excess of the subject that he raised and, as a result, other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Lancashire have been prevented from speaking. Will you rule on whether the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) is exceeding the brief?

I have been in the Chair for precisely 60 seconds, and in that time the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has been entirely in order.

The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) referred to the pressure on budgets, and to the effect on education budgets as well as social services. The press release issued by the Minister's Department showed that there has been an increase in the provision for home help and home care services of 8 per cent. There have been similar increases in the provision for day care services and other personal social services. Such pressure for the provision of extra services occurs not only in Lancashire but throughout the country.

I hope that next week's Budget will take proper account of the rising need because. no doubt, there will be pressure on education budgets if there is not sufficient funding for personal social services. Local authorities will be faced with difficult decisions about how to balance those requirements if the Budget as a whole does not provide extra funding.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain in his own words why there has been an underspend on social services in the county of Lancashire this year, as there was two years ago?

I have no doubt that it would be a coincidence if any authority spent to the penny its exact provision. In avoiding overspending, there is always a possibility of an underspend. What is clear is that there is a great pressure on the budgets generally, and if there is insufficient funding for social services, there will be pressure to reduce spending on education—even if members of all parties agree that education should be a priority.

I hope that the Minister paid full attention to the joint local authorities' submission, which said that an extra £665 million—or 8 per cent. of the total budget—was needed to fund personal social services in the coming year. If that money is not made available, obviously there will be pressure to reduce spending in other budgets at local authority level, just as the hon. Member for Chorley described a moment ago.

The Minister's reply to my letter, following my parliamentary question asking when I would receive a reply, did not address all the points raised at the meeting to which I referred, or in the subsequent correspondence. I hope that he will be able to give full attention to the points that the delegation raised, especially those on cost shunting between health authorities and social services. The Bolton delegation felt that there should be an investigation—

This is an abuse.

The issues that concern people in Bolton concern people not only in the north-west but in the country as a whole. Many people from Lancashire are in homes in Bolton and, no doubt, people from Bolton go to homes in Lancashire. It is absurd to say that people should not be allowed to go to a home of their choice. Bolton was, of course, in Lancashire for more than 800 years, and 99 per cent. of people in Bolton feel that it should be back in Lancashire. I should have thought that Conservative Members would welcome the prospect of Bolton being returned to Lancashire, as it should have remained in the first place.

The points that have been raised in correspondence with the Minister need a much fuller reply than he was able to give me in his brief letter of 18 November. I hope that he will be able to make further points in the debate, and that the White Paper that is due in February will not be delayed and will address the points very fully.

Following the unnecessary and unwarranted speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I do not have time to elaborate on any of the points that I wanted to make in this debate, which has clearly been called for many reasons, including the usual one of trying to get at Joan Humble, who happens to be the candidate for Blackpool, North.

I want to talk about the issue of overspend. The management letter from the district auditors to county councillors in April said:

"prudence and accountability have been features of the financial arrangements in the County Council for many years. This tradition of excellence continues despite the challenge of present financial constraints."

It is true that, in 1993–94, 4.4 per cent. of the total net budget for social services in Lancashire was underspent and that in the following year, 0.13 per cent. of that budget was overspent. In 1995–96, 1.78 per cent. of that budget was again underspent. Although that is true, the reasons behind it are important.

The budget for Lancashire's social services in 1994–95 was drastically affected by the changes in the Government funding formula for community care, as no doubt the Minister will tell us. The estimated effect at the time was a reduction of £12.8 million for 1994–95. The county then expected a very significant overspend, and equally significant measures were taken by it to avoid that overspend and its knock-on consequences in subsequent years.

The effects of the process were painful and unpopular. It is true that there have been many complaints. Expenditure was squeezed in 1994–95 and 1995–96 and, at the same time, the effect in 1995–96 of the extended non-residential charging policy, which was brought in to counter the expected overspend, was being experienced. The result was a £3.4 million underspend on a net budget of £48.4 million, about which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) complained.

At present, the level of undercommitment is about £7 million, but the monthly increasing level of commitments for this financial year means that the treasurer expects that the spending target will be fulfilled by the end of the year. It is important to note in this debate that the underspend on independent sector purchases in 1993–94 was used to ease financial pressure on the same budget in 1994–95, and the same has been true of 1995–96, moving on to 1996–97.

Capping limits have necessitated budget reductions in social services of £19.4 million in the past five years. It is also important to note that Lancashire has exceeded the Government's figure of 85 per cent. of special transitional grant being spent in the independent sector in every year that that target has been in existence. The council also spends 8 per cent. more on social services than the figures calculated in its standard spending assessment.

I must sit down to allow time for the Front-Bench speeches. I suggest to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South that his next Adjournment debate should concentrate on analysing how the Government have managed to find the £4.4 billion that they did not know they had, and about which they were boasting in the press recently. Will he demand that they restore funding to the levels that existed before the cuts and extra charges imposed this year?

I welcome the opportunity for a debate on community care, and the comments of those hon. Members who have raised issues relating to the implementation of care in the community, but I do not welcome the personal attacks on Joan Humble. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) would be the first to complain if I criticised him in the Chamber without giving him an opportunity to respond. I hope that the Conservative election strategy will not involve using the Chamber to attack the Labour opponents of sitting Conservative Members.

I know that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South is off to the safer Surrey suburbs, leaving the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) to struggle to hold his seat against our excellent candidate, Joan Humble. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blackpool, South is aware that Surrey county council, where he is off to, wrote to all its private providers last year asking for free places because it had run out of money. I think that that happened at about the same time as he was castigating Lancashire county council for incompetent management of its budget. As he knows, several areas have community care problems.

My hon. Friends have dealt ably and thoughtfully with some of the specific criticisms on resourcing. As the Minister is aware, the problem for many authorities is dealing with issues of entitlement and choice for individuals within a limited budget, often with a fragmented system of health care in which resources are not being used strategically. The case that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South raised illustrates the challenges for local authorities in allocating resources for individual family needs, taking its budgetary considerations into account. The appeal process considers those issues.

A number of cases have been taken to judicial review. That is unsatisfactory for all involved because they all have to hold their breath. Perhaps the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 could have been more thoughtfully framed. The consequence is that local authorities are attempting to deliver community care in the absence of guidelines. That is convenient for the Government, because they can blame everybody else, but it leads to unfairness, inequity and a deep sense of frustration for parents whose expectations have been raised. I sympathise with Mr. and Mrs. Gardner.

Conservative Members keep coming back to the issue of in-house services versus the independent sector. The public sector, the independent sector and the voluntary sector all have contributions to make to care in the community. It is unfortunate when they are put at each other's throats. I blame the Government for part of that problem. They seem to prefer to act in an atmosphere of competition and confrontation rather than in co-operation£the only framework within which matters can be resolved.

Conservative Members have said several times that they think that money could be saved by putting all the services in Lancashire into the independent sector, which is cheaper. They repeated that point today, but they also said that the primary considerations should be quality and choice. They cannot have it both ways, although they often try to. Last year, when Lancashire county council closed some of its homes£presumably in response to the pleas of Conservative Members that services should be shifted to the private sector£there was an immediate outcry from those same hon. Members. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South featured in the headline:

"MP joins battle to save rest homes."

Calling for a delay to the closure of one home, the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), said:

"The most important reason for keeping the home open is the strong link it has with the local community."

The chairman of social services said, with great understatement:

"It is not easy to close down homes."

It is certainly not easy, particularly when Conservative Members on the one hand demand that the council does so and on the other hand criticise it locally when it tries to.

rose—

I shall not give way, because the right hon. Gentleman has taken up an inordinate amount of time in the debate. It is sad that our debate on community care is characterised by confrontation, conflict and confusion. That arises from the obsession of the Government and the Minister with what competition can deliver. We need to make changes that reward co-operation.

We support the objective of the 1990 Act: to give people genuine choice, particularly the choice to remain in their own homes. For that objective to become reality, there must be co-operation between the purchasing authorities and the range of providers. We believe that the private, voluntary and public sectors should be able to make their important contributions. To blame Lancashire county council is to try to avoid responsibility for the legislation.

A local council cannot deliver the objectives of the Act by itself and nor can private providers or the health authority. Those objectives can be achieved only through partnership, particularly with carers, on whom we depend. They are the ones delivering community care. There are some excellent examples of good practice, showing what can be achieved by local authorities in spite of the obstacles that are put in their way.

The Minister should congratulate Lancashire county council and give it credit for some of the excellent things that it has done: for negotiating care agreements with four health authorities; for establishing joint planning with 12 NHS trusts; for establishing an intensive home care scheme, which facilitates early discharge from hospital and helps people to stay at home; for the provision of respite and short-term care; for the development of care homes to provide day care and outreach services; for the development of day care among independent sector providers; and for the joint development of dispersed housing schemes in the community.

Such initiatives are important for improving services and should be followed up across the country. There should be clearer guidance from the Department of Health on the approach to community care. Community care plans should be properly monitored by the social services inspectorate and by the NHS management executive. There should be better dissemination of information on cost-effective practices that deliver services in the most helpful way for those receiving them.

The research on social care outcomes recently commissioned by the Minister should have started in 1993. The present system of funding is obviously based on best bidders rather than best bids. I understand why. Without research on what the best bids are, it is difficult to decide which of the schemes put forward is best.

The hon. Lady has listed several ways in which matters could be improved. Does she agree that inspections for homes in the public sector should be the same as for those in the private sector?

Yes. The hon. Gentleman should have been aware that that is part of our policy.

People are sick and tired of the present situation. They are sick and tired of the chaos and failure of the community care scheme. They know that things will get better only when there is a Government prepared to lead. No amount of debates will convince the people of Lancashire that the Government are acting responsibly on community care. There is failure in services to children and in services to families. Resources are being wasted because they are not being used in the best possible way. The elderly, the sick and children are suffering. That is a reflection of a Government who do not care. If they cared, they would have got their act together on community care a long time ago.

I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. I hope that he does not simply bash Lancashire county council over the head, but will respond to the wider community care issues that it is facing.

First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on securing this important debate. I am delighted also to see my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Sir M. Lennox-Boyd) present, as this is an important and sensitive subject.

The provision of community care is a vital function of local authorities. It offers help and an independent lifestyle, where possible, for the most frail and vulnerable members of society. Due to the vigilance and concerns of my hon. Friends in Lancashire, it seems that we now have to have an annual debate in the House on the failings of politically motivated county councillors in Lancashire and the provision of care in the county. It is a sad fact of life that old Labour is alive and well and running Lancashire county council—not new Labour for Lancashire, but neanderthal Labour.

At a time when all local authorities should be calmly and responsibly providing community care for the enhancement and improvement of the lives of those most in need, in Lancashire a highly politically motivated group of county councillors has hijacked all that is good about community care and turned it into a party-political football for the basest of motives. I remind those county councillors that the Government's policies for community care have helped many people in Lancashire—and throughout the country—to maintain an independent life and to receive better support in their own homes when faced with the problems brought about by disability or frailty in old age. Local authorities welcomed that policy and wanted the extra responsibility that it gave them. They must now accept responsibility for the decisions that they are making as they implement the policy. That includes Lancashire.

It might be helpful if I remind Labour county councillors in Lancashire of the words of Stanley Baldwin during the St. George's by-election in March 1931. He said:

"Power without responsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages."

It is time that councillors lived up to their responsibilities rather than parroted meaningless platitudes and slogans that do nothing to improve or enhance the quality or provision of community care. I shall explain some basic facts of life to them. The transfer of social security funding through the special transitional grant has resulted in substantial increases in the level of care to people in their own homes, in day services and in the use of care homes to provide the short breaks that are essential for many families. People entering residential or nursing care homes have benefited from the assessment process to identify their needs and match them to a care home of their choice.

The funding arrangements that we have put in place have also resulted in substantial growth of independent sector providers, real progress towards a mixed economy of care, and better value for taxpayers' money. Those are considerable achievements, both in Lancashire and elsewhere, but I have been concerned that the implementation of the Government's reforms has not been as smooth and effective in some areas as we would have wished.

Several of my hon. Friends have today raised matters of serious concern about what has been going on in Lancashire. They also did so last year in a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North. Those concerns were reiterated today by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South and for Wyre. They expressed concern about financial mismanagement and bureaucracy resulting in sudden cuts in services and other problems that Lancashire has not been able to deal with as it should.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I am sorry, but I do not have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the sad case of David Gardner. I am concerned about that case. I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Gardner's complaint about lack of continuity of care has been upheld, but that Lancashire county council has not yet said what it intends to do as a result. I hope that it will learn from the lessons, problems and stress that the Gardner family had to go through to get to this point. I shall ask my officials to obtain further information about the case and respond in writing to my hon. Friend once we know more from the social services inspectorate about what has been going on.

As a result of the problems highlighted in the debate last year, my predecessor was sufficiently concerned to ask the chief inspector of the SSI to provide a full report on Lancashire. That document confirmed that there was cause for concern about how Lancashire was implementing policy in several respects. Subsequently, the chairman of the social services committee, Mrs. Joan Humble, received our analysis of the problems and was asked to respond with an action plan. Our analysis raised serious issues, which required a considered and constructive response. Mrs. Humble's initial reply did not demonstrate such a response. After time for further and, thankfully, more mature reflection, however, a plan was duly received from Lancashire in September. I have asked the chief inspector of the SSI to monitor and report back to me on the implementation of that plan.

I am concerned to emphasise to Lancashire county council that decisions about the allocation of services should be taken and applied consistently, and with sensitivity to the needs and feelings of service users. The council has responded with assurances that disruptions in the continuity of care, which occurred in earlier years, have now been dealt with and that more effective monitoring arrangements are in place. I hope that that is indeed the case, and I shall be looking for evidence of that when Lancashire's action plan is reviewed.

I am also concerned that changes to the balance of services should avoid unnecessary disruption to service providers. The council has responded with an intention to publish its purchasing policies in a form that will be more readily accessible to service users and providers. Good communication among commissioners, providers and users of services is essential to effective management of local change, and it is particularly important that providers are clear about the intentions of the council in determining its requirements for the future and clarifying how it will use its growing resources to meet those ends and needs.

The funding of community care has featured heavily in this debate, particularly in the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Total personal social services funding by the Government is a massive £9 billion including the social security contribution. That is a phenomenal amount of money compared with what was being spent in 1990.

I have also heard a great deal of protest from the county council about its inability to manage community care without even more money. When I look at the figures, however, I see an interesting picture. Within the total amount that the Government consider the county council needs to spend this year to provide a reasonable level of service is an element of £156 million for community care, which includes £61 million for its new responsibilities and the community care reforms. That represents an increase in total resources for community care since 1990–91 of 104 per cent. in real terms—over and above the rate of inflation. That means that Lancashire has done even better than the national average, which was a doubling of resources in real terms during that period.

It is for each local authority to set its budget, but given the accusations made by Lancashire, I find it surprising that it underspent in two financial years. It was clear that the hon. Member for Burnley was unable to explain that and the so-called justification offered by the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) made me remain deeply sceptical of the line that he was trying to push.

Given the length of time that I have to reply, I shall not be able to cover all the points that I was prepared to cover. What I will say is that Lancashire is a concern. The SSI has looked into Lancashire. A plan has been drawn up, and it will be monitored with vigour because, as my hon. Friends have so rightly identified in the debate, it is crucial that people in Lancashire are given the best, most satisfactory and most effective care without the worries and disruption that, sadly, they have had to put up with all too often. It is crucial that Lancashire establishes a good rapport and working relationship with the private sector, which plays such an important role in providing help and care for those who need it.

My hon. Friends and others have raised interesting and useful points about how things are going in Lancashire. As I have said, I shall ask the SSI to monitor the situation there closely. In particular, I shall ask the chief inspector to seek further explanation from the council of its financial management and to consider whether further action by central Government is necessary. I do not take that decision lightly, but because of the excessively long-running problems that I have highlighted, it is the least that I can do to ensure that there is better provision of care.

Order. I want to place it on record, for the guidance of hon. Members, that these are Back-Bench debates and that both Front Benches should recognise that the wind-up should not be longer than 20 minutes.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have a short debate about an important subject. As an Opposition Member, I spend most of my time denouncing Government policy as rubbish, so it is a pleasant change to discuss proposals on rubbish. We can make jokes about it—we shall no doubt hear many puns and bons mots, because I know that the Minister has a reputation for a scintillating sense of humour—but it is a matter of some importance and concern.

The concern is not about the Government's stated strategy and objectives—since the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, everyone recognises that they have been on the right track in trying to give a lead in promoting recycling—but events, admittedly largely unforeseen ones, have combined to render less effective, to put it mildly, some of the efforts made in good faith by Scottish local authorities.

Unless we get a clearer idea of the Government's long-term strategy, some local authorities in Scotland might withdraw from recycling altogether, and that would be a shame. I want to persuade the Government to consider their long-term strategy, and I hope that that will reassure people that their efforts will not be in vain, but will be supported as much as possible by central Government.

The history of recycling in my local authority, which is now Scottish Borders council, is instructive, and other authorities in Scotland will have similar stories. In the old local authority set-up, which came into effect in 1975, the four district councils in the Borders—Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, Roxburgh and Berwickshire—undertook a series of independent and separate recycling projects according to their respective priorities and needs.

After the introduction of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Scottish Office's 1991 guidance on recycling, the councils were issued, as waste collection authorities, with a requirement to produce a recycling plan, which had the aim of recycling 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000, and everyone supported that as an objective; at the time, we were recycling only about 2 per cent. of household waste, and everyone recognised that we had to improve on that.

The former district councils, as waste collection authorities, did their best through 1991, 1993 and 1995 to co-ordinate among themselves within the resources available and to agree a strategy for the Borders. They secured useful assistance from the local enterprise company, which produced consultants' reports to inform the process, but they were constrained until 1995 by the fact that, for lack of resources, they could not integrate their services.

In the financial year 1995, the four authorities met again to consider the commissioning of a feasibility study into converting as a recycling centre a building that one of them had recently purchased. Each of the constituent authorities, and the local enterprise company, contributed towards another consultants' report. On 1 April 1996, under the reorganisation into unitary authorities, the four district councils were amalgamated with the former Borders regional council to form the Scottish Borders council.

In May 1996, the council took up the previous authorities' commitment to recycling, committing £200,000 from its capital budget and £100,000 from current revenue. Almost simultaneously with that ambitious and proper act, with which everyone was pleased—the sums added up, and the proposal made a lot of sense as an attempt to reach the target set by central Government—the paper merchants with whom the council dealt intimated that the price for mixed paper would drop from £35 to £3 a tonne.

In October 1995, the council had been receiving £82 a tonne for mixed paper; the wild fluctuations in market prices were certainly beyond the control of the local authorities. The council's financial estimates for the recycling centre project had been based on what was then considered the conservative figure of £30 a tonne. As if it was not bad enough having the bottom fall out of the market, the merchants then introduced a quota, and would purchase only 85 per cent. of the council's raw material. That immediately produced a glut of recovered material, and a huge backlog began to build up at depots in Galashiels and Hawick, which was another problem for the council.

In September 1996, the council reviewed its strategy, and committed additional resources in the form of extra manpower to separate cardboard from the mixed paper so that it could get a better price. That had a significant impact on the estimated total loss that the council faced, and still faces, of between £75,000 and £100,000 a year-a significant part of the council's cleansing services budget.

To make matters worse, in November 1996, the council was advised by the waste paper merchants that the price for card had reduced from £23 to £20 a tonne; worse still, the price for mixed paper had gone from £3 a tonne to nil: there was no value at all in the mixed paper that the council had collected for recycling.

It became clear at that stage that neighbouring authorities were experiencing similar problems. The local authorities all found that they had to pay the merchants to take the paper off their hands, because otherwise they would have had to use landfill sites to dispose of the paper, and pay £7 a tonne under the landfill tax. I know that Scottish Borders council and other local authorities will have written to the Scottish Office to highlight the problem and outline the difficulties that they may face in the future.

The councils are co-ordinating some activity through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. A catalogue of unexpected financial blows caused by the collapse of the market has hit Scottish Borders council. It is also worried that not only local authorities but all commerce and industry has been taking account of the introduction of the landfill tax.

I entirely support the principle of the landfill tax, and understand what the Government are seeking to do. It makes much sense in principle. However, the draft EC directive on packaging waste, which requires producers, packagers and retailers to examine their operations and recycle packaging material, is compounding the glut of material on the market and leading to even lower prices. That explains the low prices that are being received for recovered goods. The draft directive came on stream only on 1 October, and aims for about 50 per cent. recycled packaging. That will have a major impact and make matters worse.

In recent months, Scottish Borders council and its sister authorities have been examining all sorts of alternative markets for recovered materials and for ways out of the mess. Few options are available. Like my next-door neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), I have always encouraged the council to go down the route that it has taken. It has always, rightly, had a high profile on environmental issues. Bluntly, unless central Government can do something, it may have to reconsider its environmental policy, which would be a shame.

I conclude with a few suggestions, some of which will be harder than others for central Government to consider. First, we must consider diverting some of the £280,000 that will be payable by Scottish Borders council in a full financial year in landfill tax to help with recycling and the sale of products to the market. Secondly, the Scottish Office should consider introducing a grant system whereby local authorities that meet their Scottish Office targets will receive funding to improve continually on those targets.

Thirdly, the Scottish Office could step in to set an intervention price for recovered materials. I know that that would be difficult, but it is essential that someone should co-ordinate the financial planning and get some order into the process of estimating what this policy and associated actions will cost local authorities. Fourthly, the Scottish Office should consider top-slicing and ring-fencing part of the council's capital allocation for environmental projects. That would allow each local authority to set its own priorities and targets within an allocated budget.

Fifthly, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency must quickly produce a waste strategy. I realise that it has existed only since the beginning of April, but it has been charged with producing a waste strategy. That should include recycling and waste minimisation, with realistic targets for recovering materials for recycling.

Sixthly, any target set by the Scottish Office, or any of its agencies such as SEPA, should be accompanied by the appropriate finance to enable local authorities to meet them. Finally, the Government, in the longer term and in the broadest sense—it cannot be done by the Scottish Office alone—should think about setting minimum targets for the recycled content of goods for sale, which could create a sensible long-term market for recovered products for recycling.

My local authority's experience, which is not unique, shows that, unless a more stable market is established in the supply of recovered materials to recyclers in Scotland, the Government's environmental strategy, with which I agree, will fail to achieve its desired results. The whole policy may founder on the need to implement emergency solutions. That is what Scottish Borders council faces. It is having to take drastic action and do things that it does not think are in the long-term interests of Borders council tax payers, or of the environment. It pleads with central Government to recognise its position, set up a long-term strategy, and come to its aid.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on securing this important debate. I know that he does not regard the matter as a waste of time. That will be the full extent of my humour in this debate. I will not compete with the usual rubbish that comes from the hon. Gentleman. However, I appreciate the opportunity of dealing with the important subject of recycling targets for Scottish local authorities.

Recycling is part of the much wider issue of waste management generally. It might be helpful if I begin by setting out in broad terms the Government's policy on recycling and on waste management as a whole.

The Government recognise the importance of the waste management industry. Commercial, industrial and household waste account for around a quarter of the annual total of waste. We are especially aware of the scope to add value to much of the waste handled. The principal vehicles through which value can be added are re-use and recycling. We are therefore especially keen to encourage an approach to waste management that seeks opportunities to treat waste as a potentially valuable resource.

The Government subscribe to the idea of a broad waste management hierarchy. The options in such a hierarchy are reduction, re-use, recycling and recovery, and disposal. I wish to deal with the recycling and recovery option, which includes composting elements of the waste stream to make a usable product, and energy recovery from waste. In general, however, recycling is considered to be the recycling of specific materials. To be effective, it requires the active involvement of a wide range of parties, such as individual citizens, voluntary organisations, local authorities and industry.

The role of local authorities in the recycling process is the main focus of this debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that, in the 1990 White Paper on the environment, the Government set a target of recycling half of all household waste that can be recycled by 2000. It is estimated that that broadly equates to a target of 25 per cent. of all household waste.

In parallel, the Environmental Protection Act 1990 introduced a range of measures designed to create a more favourable climate for recycling. It introduced a scheme of recycling credits, and placed a requirement on all waste collection authorities to produce waste recycling plans. It also required waste disposal authorities to have regard to the desirability of including terms and conditions to maximise recycling in their waste disposal contracts.

The Government have also introduced the landfill tax—I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. It is the first stand-alone environmental tax to be introduced in the United Kingdom. It applies the "polluter pays" principle, and will promote a more sustainable approach to waste management. It will give waste producers a powerful incentive to cut the amount of waste that they send to landfill.

That has already led to the setting up of materials recovery facilities in Scotland where waste items that may be used in recycling are extracted from the waste recovered before it is sent to landfill. Another advantage is that we will be using income from the tax to reduce employers' national insurance contributions, thereby shifting taxation from jobs to pollution. I hope that that addresses one of the hon. Gentleman's points on using the funds received from the landfill tax. The Government's policy on recycling is influenced by activity in the European Commission. The Commission proposes legislation on other measures designed to achieve recycling and recovery; the directive on packaging is an example. The Commission also influences recycling through its network of priority waste stream groups. The UK Government participate in those groups and seek to ensure that their outputs are consistent with Government policy.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the recycling targets, particularly in the context of local authorities and household waste. The Government's approach is to set challenging, but realistic, targets. For household waste, we have set a target of recycling half the recyclable element of all waste by the year 2000. That target equates broadly to a target of 25 per cent. of all household waste. As a general target, it is not binding on individual authorities.

We recognise that recycling is achieved more readily in some areas than in others—for example, because of geographical factors and population density. While authorities should set themselves a target of recycling 25 per cent. of all household waste, in practice those unable to achieve that target will be bolstered by those that are highly successful and surpass it.

Concerns have been expressed on behalf of Borders regional council, not only by the hon. Gentleman today, but by the council, in correspondence with the Scottish Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, other councils share those concerns. The particular problem appears to have arisen from the slump in demand for waste paper and the effect that that has had on prices. Borders council has estimated that, as a result, its income level could drop by up to £100,000 in the current year. That is also likely to be combined with a need to dispose of the surplus material collected to landfill.

It has therefore been suggested that the Government should set an intervention price for recycled materials, to encourage and support local authorities in achieving recycling targets and to defray costs. While I can understand the nature of the problems faced, I do not think that the Government should intervene to stabilise prices.

Recycling on a national, European and global scale should be allowed to stabilise through self-regulation. Intervention in the past—through the German packaging ordinance—caused significant problems in the market, and resulted in a flood of material being collected well beyond the capacity of the existing recycling plant. That pushed down the prices paid for such material throughout Europe, and I do not believe that we should seek to establish an intervention price mechanism.

It has also been suggested that the Customs and Excise should consider a short-term exemption from landfill tax for paper wastes that are required to be landfilled as a result of the market's inability to accept the material from suppliers. There are already some exemptions from that tax, but they generally reflect the fact that the material involved is not suitable for recycling. Those exemptions include waste dredged from ports, and the burial of domestic pets at pet cemeteries. Paper products, however, are eminently recyclable, and it is not sensible or appropriate to offer the exemptions sought. Were waste paper material not specifically separated from the waste stream, it would naturally be disposed of through landfill.

It has also been suggested that an investigation should be undertaken into the existing market for recyclable paper waste to establish whether and when material will continue to be required from suppliers such as local authorities. The demand for waste paper is a derived demand, as it is largely dependent on the demand for the final product. It is not uncommon for supply to exceed demand, and for prices to decline.

It is not for the Government to undertake the sort of investigation suggested. The implementation of the European Community's packaging directive will lead to a recovery of the recycled paper and cardboard market. In Britain, its implementation, through the producer responsibility for packaging waste scheme, is likely to have the longer-term effect of forcing a growth in recovery. The continuing high price of virgin pulp should also facilitate the recovery of the recycled product.

A further reason for optimism is the likely future demand for recycled paper from the far east. There is also potential for growth in the United Kingdom paper manufacturing capacity if the products are competitive. All those factors lead me to the conclusion that markets for recycled waste paper will become viable.

The hon. Gentleman raised two points involving the treatment of expenditure on recycling in the context of the overall local government finance framework. First, he suggested that spending on environmental projects might be ring-fenced. Secondly, he asked whether extra grant could be made available to authorities for the collection of waste for recycling. Both those points boil down either to an increase in public expenditure or to a reduction in local authority discretion.

It would in principle be possible to separate recycling expenditure from all other local authority expenditure, and it would be possible to introduce a specific grant scheme for such expenditure. However, if one or both of those courses were adopted without affecting existing local authority expenditure provision, that would be a straightforward addition to public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well the overriding importance of keeping that expenditure under control.

Alternatively, the proposals could be implemented within existing expenditure provision. That would, however, reduce the expenditure provision and grant available for general distribution to authorities. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is opposed to the introduction of new specific grants, because the process fetters local authorities' discretion in using the provision available to them. The Government are concerned that specific grant schemes introduce administrative costs, not only for the Government, but for local authorities. Those schemes use up resources that are better spent on service provision.

Having listed general points of principle, I must also ask the hon. Gentleman what other candidates he has in mind. Local authorities provide many valuable services to the community and there are many other cases where an argument could be made for some special treatment. At the end of that road lies a highly controlled and expensive centrally directed grant and expenditure system, in which much of the discretion would lie with central Government rather than local authorities.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman believes that that should happen, which is why he makes his devolution proposals for a central tax-raising parliament in Edinburgh that would dominate local authorities and take away many of their decision-making powers.

Rubbish.

The hon. Gentleman shouts, "Rubbish," continuing in the same spirit as he began the debate. But he advocates such a proposal, which would waste valuable resources. It would set up an unnecessary extra layer of bureaucracy, which would not help to solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which is drawing up a waste management strategy for Scotland. He asked when that would be available, and was honest enough to recognise that it is a new organisation, with many tasks. Clearly, an important element of its strategy will be recycling. That strategy is currently being prepared, and I accept the hon. Gentleman's call for it to be drawn up as quickly as possible—it will clearly be important.

Recycling needs to be seen in its wider context. The choice of the most appropriate waste management option must depend, to some degree, on the local circumstances that determine both the environmental and economic advantages and disadvantages of each option. To be credible in that context, recycling must be seen to be sustainable in both environmental and economic terms. However, the Government firmly believe that recycling must play an increasingly prominent part in the United Kingdom's waste management strategy.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted the difficulties faced by Borders council. I know that the same problems are being faced by many other councils. He talked about the variation of price over the past years. Current prices for waste paper are very low.

They cannot go much lower.

The hon. Gentleman is right. He talked about the prices a year or so ago—about one year ago, the price was about £100 per tonne, and in the past four to five years there have been major fluctuations in price. I believe that the market will return and prices will increase. I urge the council not to make hasty decisions that might undo some of the significant good that it is clearly trying to do in its waste strategy. I trust that it will look at the medium to longer-term prospects in the marketplace and continue to develop its proposals, with a view to ensuring that it is in a good position to take advantage of higher market prices when they return.

I thank the hon. Gentleman again for raising this subject today. I know that it is an important issue, which is recognised by councils throughout Scotland. I see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is present, and I am sure that she, too, appreciates these problems. I believe that the Government's policy in respect of recycling and environmental control is absolutely right, and I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire recognised that in his speech today.

This debate has almost become an annual event, thanks to the kindness of a succession of Speakers and Deputy Speakers. Although I have struck out—as our transatlantic cousins would say—on two previous annual Adjournment debates in which I raised the subject of the brewing industry in general and my brewing constituency of Burton in particular, I hope to score a sensational home run this time.

Much has been happening recently in the field of brewing, especially in Burton on Trent, where we have the finest breweries, in which Bass, Carlsberg-Tetley and Marston's manufacture their products and maintain the great Burton brewing tradition. Brewery workers, shareholders and, above all, the public are delighted that we have all-day opening and now Sunday afternoon opening as a result of the Government's sensible stripping away of overregulation.

The industry—whether manufacturing, retail, leisure or management—will now have the opportunity of attracting a new generation of young workers because we have lowered the age limit for working in bars, under proper supervision and with the obligation of further training. We welcome the lifting of restrictions and the reduction in tax on amusement machine prizes in pubs, which has resulted in the amusement machine industry in Burton being able to save itself and start to flourish once again.

Children certificates, although a good idea, have sadly attracted a low take-up of about only 3 per cent. That is largely due to regional inconsistencies between licensing boards. Some boards impose conditions—such as requiring nappy-changing facilities or low bar stools to avoid accidents—that are prohibitive and increase costs and so are not worth implementing, which is a shame.

Little beyond consultation has taken place in respect of the extra hour's opening on Friday or Saturday evenings, which might do more to defuse potential trouble from gangs of youths in town centres. The Bill on the stocks to limit under-age drinking in public places will be widely welcomed. Perhaps what we really need is a new, all-embracing licensing statute—the last one is now 32 years old and my commentary on it, which was written for Current Law in 1964, is that much out of date.

I turn now to the issue of the tied house—the partnership between brewer and publican whereby the publican can enter the brewing industry with only limited resources but can still flourish, in return for a commitment to sell a particular brewer's beers. Of course, that partnership, which could be exploitative, has been modified over the years to ensure that it is not, by giving the publican the rights to buy beer brands from other brewers, to choose his own supplier of wines, spirits and soft drinks, and to be protected by landlord and tenant legislation.

Some argue that the tie could restrict competition and keep beer prices high, as indeed it might; but the better view is that the abolition of the tie would be more likely to lead to the closure of many regional and smaller brewers, the increased domination of the market by fewer national brewers, higher prices and lower employment. Happily, the Government have adopted that view and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary might want to reaffirm that today. Certainly, the industry welcomes the support from the Government in upholding the tie.

That support is especially welcome as the European Commission has shown an inclination to challenge the continuance of the exemption that we enjoy for the tie when it expires at the end of 1997. The Commission is challenging our arrangements for guest beers on the ground that our requirement that such beers should be cask conditioned discriminates against Euro-beers. That is, of course, complete nonsense because only 10 per cent. of British pubs have to have guest beers at all and we import properly £230 million-worth of Euro-beers a year, which is more than any other European country imports.

We have the most open beer market in Europe. If only it were possible to see British beers on sale in German pubs in the same way as German beers are sold in British pubs, we should all be thankful. The brewing industry welcomes the Government's robust defence in Europe of British brewing and British pubs. The British people have absolutely no wish to be pushed around by Brussels in the important matter of British beer.

The biggest problem affecting the industry today, as it has been whenever I have raised the issue over the past three or four years, is the level of beer duty. For that reason, I am delighted to see that my delightful hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be answering the debate. The root of the problem is that we pay 30.7p per pint in duty on our beer, whereas the French pay 4.4p per pint—we pay over seven times as much. To a lesser extent, that gap exists in relation to all other European countries. Our beer duty is much greater than that of most other countries in Europe.

I concentrate on our trade with France because, France being nearer to us than other European countries, that is where most of the imports to this country come from. As a result of the differential in excise duty, imports from France have risen over the past three years from 400,000 pints to 1.1 million pints a day. That represents 4.5 per cent. of the United Kingdom beer market and £700 million a year in beer sales in British pubs, which is more than the sales of any UK regional brewer.

As a result of the price differential, a third of French beer is carried across the channel in hired vans and much is sold illegally at car-boot sales on council housing estates or door to door. The van trade in smuggled beer costs every pub in the country over £3,000 a year in lost beer sales and the Exchequer loses £250 million which, of course, the taxpayer has to make up. The number of vans crossing the channel by ferry, never mind those coming under the channel—such crossings have, sadly, temporarily stopped, but we did not know how many vans were involved anyway—is more than 64,000 a year, which is 175 a day. Each van of smuggled beer contains 1,500 pints, which is more than the weekly trade of a small community pub.

Surveillance by the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association—which I still prefer to call "the brewers' society"—has identified vans from Dundee, Aberdeen, Truro, Bangor and Northern Ireland, so it is not only a London and south-east England trade.

Another aspect that should worry my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, as well as the Chancellor's Euro-partners, is the fact that in 1994, Customs and Excise recorded UK beer exports to France of 57 million pints, but French customs recorded only 26 million pints entering France from the UK. Thirty-one million pints appear to have got lost. How? The likely explanation is that those exports existed only on paper. Why? To allow UK beer duty to be reclaimed as pretend sales to France. Those pretend exports are diverted to the UK market, and sold at full retail price as though UK duty and VAT has been paid on them. In that way, fraudsters make about £30 million a year. If the duty differential did not exist, those fraudsters would have to seek another way to cheat the Revenue.

What is the practical effect of that tax differential? My answer is that, as about 60 per cent. of cross-channel beer purchases replace what would otherwise be sold in British pubs and off-licences, about 10,000 pubs are likely to close in the next five years, and as a result 90,000 jobs will be lost in the UK in pubs, breweries and suppliers.

The Government must want to do something about that. What should they do? The industry's answer is to reduce excise duty to a level that removes the incentive for cross-border shopping and bootlegging. The reduction could be phased over five years, to reduce the rate to about 6.5p per pint by the year 2000. That would be a really good way to celebrate the millennium.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor could start with a cut of 4p in next week's Budget, so this debate is timely. That is why I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Speaker's Office for allowing me to initiate it, so that I can affect the intentions of the Chancellor in the Budget in a few days' time.

The Treasury will argue, as it always does, that cutting beer duty would reduce tax revenues, which would mean that £2 billion had to be found elsewhere, or that the public sector borrowing requirement had to be raised at a time when it needed to be reduced to make way for tax cuts. But I wonder what assessment the Treasury has actually made of the benefits of reducing tax.

Would not such a reduction inevitably lead to lower retail prices, therefore to more beer sales, and therefore to more tax revenue to offset part of the loss? Would it not inevitably boost jobs in pubs, breweries and related industries and generate higher profits and tax returns? Would it not inevitably lower the retail prices index and therefore pay settlements? Would not those factors prolong the fall of inflation, which the Government have achieved to their great credit, increase competitiveness, another of their achievements, increase economic growth, yet another of their successes, and produce a higher tax yield?

If my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is unsure about that, I must report that Oxford Economic Forecasting, using the Treasury's economic model, can demonstrate that 6p off the duty on a pint of beer would have just those effects and would reduce inflation by 0.2 per cent. That organisation says that official estimates substantially overstate the true first-year cost of cutting beer duty, which would actually reduce the public sector borrowing requirement in its second year.

I have heard it said that such a reduction would only lead brewers to maintain the high beer price, but prices in UK pubs are already considerably cheaper than those in the bars of Europe. The wholesale price of beer in Britain has fallen by 10 per cent. in real terms in the past three years and 75 brewing and pub company members of the Brewers and Licensed Retailers Association have promised to pass on fully any reduction in beer duty in the coming Budget.

Our brewing industry is one of the oldest and best of British industries. Directly and indirectly, it employs 750,000 people, even now. Our pubs are the finest in the world, although their number is steadily decreasing. Beer is the most popular alcoholic drink in Britain today, and we consume a fifth of the European Union total, spending more than £13 billion a year and raising more than £4.5 billion for the Treasury—a substantial proportion of which is raised in Burton upon Trent. That is the equivalent of 3p off income tax.

Brewing is a national institution, and my constituency is at its heart. For, as the great poet A. E. Housman wrote:

• "Say for what were hop-yards meant,
• Or why was Burton built on Trent'?
• Oh many a peer of England brews
• Livelier liquor than the Muse,
• And malt does more than Milton can
• To justify God's ways to man."

We in Burton, we in the brewing industry in the country, ask for relief from unfair taxation. Is it really too much to ask?

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) on being granted this debate—his annual Adjournment debate on a subject dear to his heart and to the heart of many Members of Parliament and many people in the country.

I have a sad confession to make. I am a cider drinker, not a beer drinker. I hope that that at least puts me in the category of the alcohol consumer, even if I do not consume the product that is brewed in my hon. and learned Friend's constituency.

May I invite my hon. Friend to come to Burton-on-Trent soon and frequently, so that I may introduce her to the joys of Burton beer?

My hon. and learned Friend has already tried to introduce me to the charms of Burton beer, not altogether successfully, but I will visit his constituency with pleasure. I believe it is well known that, when one is at least a quarter of an hour out of Burton on the A38, it is possible to smell the hops through the car windows, and that smell is a very tempting prospect.

The Government acknowledge the importance of the brewing industry. The industry contributes significantly to Government revenues, is a wealth creator in the economy generally and plays a socially cohesive role in pubs throughout the country. It is a considerable employer, directly and indirectly. As my hon. and learned Friend's contribution developed, I understood why the debate was timely.

No right hon. or hon. Member would expect me to divulge the Chancellor's Budget intentions—there are a few more days to wait—but I can say that the worries that my hon. and learned Friend expressed about the impact on brewers of cross-border shopping and smuggling are a very significant factor, which the Chancellor will take into account in reaching his decisions. He has done so for the past few years, and I know that he will do so again.

May we be assured that the effects of the smuggling of tobacco will also be taken into account?

I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. My right hon. and learned Friend will take into account all matters relating to cross-border smuggling when he reaches his decisions.

My hon. and learned Friend clearly set out some of the general aspects relating to the brewing industry in his opening remarks. In so doing he recognised the many recent changes to that industry. Community pubs are popular, but there have unfortunately been closures in some areas—for a number of reasons. The off-licence trade has, over the years, taken business away from the pubs, and in the off-sales sector supermarkets have increased trade at the expense of off-licence shops. Social trends and changes in drinking patterns have also played their part.

Over the past 30 years or so the main drink of practically every country in Europe has declined as a proportion of the whole: beer is down in beer-drinking countries and wine is down in wine-drinking countries. The industry has responded to these changes in consumption. At retail level, it has reassessed the pub structure to help it compete more successfully. We now have a variety of types of pub catering for particular groups—targeting a high-spending young clientele with theme bars, Irish bars and so on. Then there are community or country pubs, which have generally been made more attractive to customers by renovation and improved facilities—including the idea of the family pub catering for children.

I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says about the concerns regarding regional inconsistencies as between children's licences; we shall take a careful look at that.

I think that the family pub is an excellent idea. It means that I can take my children into the pub with me and they do not have to go through what I went through. My father used to leave me in the car in the car park with a fizzy orange drink which I did not like and, occasionally, a packet of crisps, while he stayed in the pub for what seemed like hours. I am sure that it was not really that long, but certainly, being able to take one's children into pubs leads to a more family-like atmosphere and is a great benefit. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), the Government Whip, is nodding in agreement. He too has children who can benefit from these changes.

More people now drink at home because of drink-driving laws and because of home entertainments, but also because of significantly cheaper drinks being available in supermarkets. It is important to recognise and to cater for these long-term trends.

My hon. and learned Friend mentioned his concern about the guest beer provision. Even though I am not a beer drinker, I am well aware of the concerns that many have expressed on this matter. Indeed, the organisation CAMRA has brought it to many people's attention. The European Commission alleges that cask-conditioned beer is not produced in any significant quantity in other member states, so the provision infringes article 30 of the treaty of Rome by discriminating against beer producers in other member states. The Government dispute that view.

To resolve the issue, on 11 October officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met Commission officials responsible for the free movement of goods in the single market, and representatives of the CBMC—the European brewers federation. They met to clarify the facts behind the dispute. It has been agreed that the CBMC will provide information on the extent of cask-conditioned beer production in other member states. I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that the United Kingdom is committed to resolving the issue. We do not believe that the guest beer provision breaches article 30 of the treaty.

Cross-border shopping affects not just the brewers; all involved in the production, distribution and retailing of alcoholic drinks are affected. On the other hand, the single market has brought a great number of benefits to UK business generally, to the extent that I notice that some brewers are reporting healthy sales on the continent.

Tax-induced cross-border shopping has clearly had an effect on the brewing industry, but since 1993 UK beer production has continued to increase, and most major and regional brewers report increased profits.

The drinks industry is working closely with Customs and Excise. It has been doing so for some time, first to agree the amount of personal imports of alcoholic drinks, and secondly to look at cross-border issues. The calculation that has been agreed is that in 1994 between 3 and 5 per cent. of the UK market was affected by the importation of alcoholic drinks. There is also general agreement on the overall amount of legitimate importation and smuggling. Agreement is still to be reached on how much of what is purchased cheaply abroad is in substitution for what would be bought here, and how much is additional consumption.

I can assure the House that we are not complacent. It is, however, important to keep the cross-border issue in proportion. Customs' own estimates of revenue lost—in duty and VAT—for legitimate cross-border shopping last year put the figure at £210 million for all alcoholic drinks. The share attributable to beer was £40 million. That assumes that half the trade is additional; but even if none of it was additional, the figures would not square with some of the scenarios about which we have read.

Customs conducted its own survey earlier this year to arrive at an estimate of revenue evaded by smuggling. That estimate provides a similar figure of £210 million for all alcoholic drinks, but with a much larger share attributable to beer, at £110 million. The actual loss of revenue will be less, since some of the smuggling is likely to represent additional consumption. Taking legitimate cross-border shopping and smuggling together, this represents less than 5 per cent. of the UK's beer consumption. The total tax collected on beer was over £4.7 billion last year.

That is not to say that we are doing nothing about the problem, or that Customs is not paying attention to this vital area. The top priority is to catch the smugglers.

Customs and Excise forecasts that by the year 2000 illegally imported alcoholic drinks will have doubled in quantity—a frightening statistic that will mean hundreds of millions of pounds in lost revenue. With Customs and Excise already stretched to the limit, does the Minister agree that action is needed now?

I was just coming to that. What are we doing about the smuggling problem? Smuggling, dealing in smuggled goods and buying smuggled goods are all crimes. Customs has 300 staff employed on single market work, most of them directly involved in the anti-smuggling effort. Many, if not most, of them work at the ports, but some work inland providing intelligence. For instance, they are watching more closely the frequent crosser—but my hon. and learned Friend will excuse me if I do not go into the detail of what we are doing to stop smugglers. We do not want to give them notice of our intentions.

My hon. and learned Friend used the argument about harmonisation—that harmonising duties across the European Union would spell the end of smuggling as a problem. Some heavy costs are associated with that. A reduction of 10 per cent. in the duties on alcohol would result in a loss of £500 million to the Exchequer. To reduce our duties to French levels would cost roughly £3.5 billion. That is the sort of sum in question. We take every opportunity to press our case in the Commission. We want other countries to adopt a more practical attitude to alcohol duties.

It is true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that the Treasury model has been used by some observers, but that model does not cater for the narrow, specific area of one industry, such as the brewing industry. We are discussing with those involved the reasons why their estimates are incorrect.

I conclude by reiterating that we take the matter extremely seriously. All the issues raised by my hon. and learned Friend will inform the decisions of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor with regard to the Budget that he will present to the House next week.

I am sorry that I have had to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. I had hoped that tender documents for the hospital would already have been out, but they are not. I must therefore ask the Minister the reasons for the delay.

The debate on how best to provide good-quality medical and hospital treatment for Coleraine and the surrounding area has been going on for many years. I was told today that at least one person was brought over from England in 1952 to help to design the Coleraine hospital. For much of the time since then, there has been a deep division as to whether there should be one hospital or two—one at Coleraine and another at Ballymoney.

The matter was finally settled in favour of a single hospital at Coleraine, and the debate then began as to whether the existing site should be used, or whether it would be better to create the badly needed acute hospital in a brand new green-field location. The latter option was finally accepted, and a site was identified and purchased on the outskirts of Coleraine.

There is no question about the need for the provision of comprehensive hospital services in the Coleraine and North Antrim areas. In the catchment area, there is a population of about 110,000; that number doubles during the summer months, owing to the movement of many people to the north coast, which, as the House will know, is a major tourist attraction.

The present hospital is, to put it mildly, in a poor and deteriorating condition. For example, the out-patients department is still housed in wartime nissen huts. Such accommodation was never suitable for that purpose. The buildings, which were a second world war temporary construction, were originally designed to have a 10-year life. After the war, many such buildings were purchased by farmers and used to house farm animals, potatoes, turnips, chickens and everything else. All the animals, the farm produce have long since disappeared, but people are still using the huts. That is unacceptable.

The medical wards are prefabricated buildings, which are also long past their expected life span. In addition, many non-clinical services are long overdue for upgrading. The kitchens, the boiler plant and the mechanical and electrical services all need urgent work. When there is heavy rain, buckets are needed to catch the leaks. I understand that the mortuary is the most recent part of the hospital to come under assault.

Given the situation in the hospital, the board and the trust have been unwilling to spend money on major repairs in recent years, as they were aware that the new Causeway hospital was due to come into use—originally by 1999, but, according to a more recent estimate, by the end of 2000 at the latest.

The result is that, if the new hospital does not go ahead now, the necessary upgrading to meet the immediate requirements of the statutory authorities, which in the circumstances have been very fair to the hospital, are currently estimated to cost £5.3 million. To bring the facilities up to modern standards would cost £26 million, and we would still be left with an old hospital and worn-out buildings.

The site of the present hospital is a valuable one, right in the centre of Coleraine. No doubt it will bring a considerable sum to the coffers of the trust when it can be sold, as soon as the new hospital is built.

I am deeply concerned about the seemingly endless delays in starting building work, and my concern is shared by the entire community that is to be served by the new hospital.

The need for the hospital, its clinical profile and the estimated costs have been examined in detail no fewer than four times, and every time the need for the hospital was proven. The original option appraisal exercise took place in 1990. It was detailed and thorough, and concluded that the hospital must be built. There was a review in 1993 and early 1994 on new targets and throughput, and another review later in 1994 regarding a reduction of 4,000 sq m relating to capital charging. A further review was conducted later in 1994 and early 1995. To everyone's astonishment, a fourth review was called for during the current year, which ended with the same result. Such a detailed examination of a proposed new hospital is unprecedented.

It is clear from various letters that the questions raised by the Department were simply nit-picking, for the issues could and should all have been dealt with far more expeditiously. Two or three meetings at senior level with the board and the trust should have sorted out all the problems, without the endless inquiries that have been made.

The attitude of the Ministers involved in the saga has been plain. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who originally gave approval in 1992, was forthright. He stated on 28 January 1992 that he had identified the funds and set out the time scale—he said that it was the only realistic time scale—and he expected the new hospital to open in 1999. He said that he hoped that his announcement would facilitate the process—he was referring to a process of rationalisation between the existing hospitals—by reassuring those who may have harboured doubts about the depth of the Government's commitment to the construction of the new Causeway hospital.

Baroness Denton, who was formerly in charge of this aspect of Northern Ireland's government and provision, gave a verbal assurance to Mr. Bill Tweed, the chief executive of the Causeway trust, on 15 July 1994. Her predecessor, Lord Arran, gave the same assurance on 22 December 1993—a lovely Christmas box, which has not yet been delivered. The present Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who I am glad to see on the Front Bench, renewed the assurance twice, on 18 January 1995 and again to me personally on 22 March 1995.

To date, £7 million has been spent on site purchase, the new laboratory, professional fees and considerable siteworks. I have a colour photograph showing the entire area—wonderful roads and entrance, but unfortunately no hospital. The difficult rationalisation process, which the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes considered a vital prerequisite in 1992, has been put into effect, not without some difficulty and resistance. It was driven through by the board and the trust on the basis that the new hospital was coming. I am told that the result of the final examination requested by the Health and Social Services Executive has recently been delivered, and it shows that any redesign at this stage would be quite uneconomical.

The result of all this is that the trust is ready to go ahead once the Minister gives clearance for the project, and there is no reason why he should not do so, for, in the expenditure plans and priorities for Northern Ireland published in March this year, the sums required were set out on page 260, in table 9.29.

There is one error, in that the original year of completion was to be 1999, not 2000, as shown in the publication, and the sums already expended are slightly higher than those shown, but that is not unexpected. The provision for 1996–97 is just over £8 million, so in March this year the Government were still on course, and clearly expected the project to go to tender before the end of 1996. The documentation should have been finalised, and they should already be in the process of seeking tenders.

The estimates included sums for the redevelopment of the Royal Victoria and Altnagelvin hospitals. Altnagelvin was in the 1995 expenditure plans. The Royal Victoria was not, but the 1996 estimate shows that some £5 million will be spent in the relatively near future.

Given the history, it is perfectly clear why my constituents and I were sure that we could rely on the assurances that I have mentioned, plus private chats with Ministers down the years, all of which were given on behalf of the Government by so many Ministers on so many occasions. We were certain that the hospital would be built. But all the time, nagging concerns were expressed to me at various times by the professionals involved, by the medical establishment in the catchment area, by the local council and by members of the general public, who, naturally, were taking a keen interest in these matters.

I was concerned enough to write to the Minister on 20 September last. To be frank, his reply of 22 October thoroughly alarmed me, for there seemed a definite retreat from the assurances that were given. I did not like the resiling that I saw in the letter.

My alarm is rapidly turning to anger, for I am also aware that, despite the fact that approval for the Causeway hospital was given so long ago—at the beginning of 1992—the Royal Victoria, which received approval in May 1993 for its refurbishment, redevelopment or whatever, and Altnagelvin, which received approval for its major works in 1994. are at precisely the same stage as the Causeway hospital project. It is quite remarkable that they have managed to catch up, but it is not without significance that neither of those two projects ever had a comprehensive review at the beginning. They had in comparison a very casual examination of what was required and proposed. It is remarkable, and we need a fuller explanation.

The entire community wants to know why the Coleraine project has been subjected to these long delays, all of which lay within the Department. Much money has been spent. The site is ready. The design and commission teams are in place and are already paying for their rented accommodation. Frankly, they will run out of work if the project does not go ahead. They will soon have to be disbanded, and it will be difficult to get them back together again. The list of contractors has been selected.

The trust is ready to go, despite the obstacles put in its path. Many hoops were put up, and the trust and the board hopped neatly through them one after the other. The contractors met all the deadlines as soon as humanly possible, and much sooner than some persons would have liked. They are ready to roll.

The perception of the community that would be served by the hospital, particularly in Coleraine, is that the Causeway is the victim of a sustained campaign of discrimination. Only a clear commitment to go ahead now would remove that perception from the minds of my constituents.

This is a very serious matter for the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for myself. I remind the Minister that large sums were spent through the Province on a promise that the Waveney hospital in Ballymena would be the main acute hospital in the area. The tragedy is that, with the closing of the hospital in Ballycastle and the rundown of the hospital in Ballymena, there is currently no acute service hospital nearer than Antrim for my constituents. If the Causeway hospital does not go ahead, all the people, from as far north as Ballycastle, will have to travel to Antrim.

This is a very serious matter, and all of us are seriously concerned about it. We thought that we had it resolved by the promise of a new hospital in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but on the periphery of my own. It was called the Causeway because it was to serve both communities. As the hon. Gentleman said, Minister after Minister—the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), the Earl of Arran, Baroness Denton and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who will reply today—gave us assurances on two occasions.

There are serious questions that the Minister must answer today. First, why all the reviews? It seems strange that one review is carried out in September 1994 and another in October 1994. Why? No other new hospital in our country has had such treatment. The hon. Gentleman is right: people are saying that there is discrimination in this case. This has not happened in the other new hospitals built. An appraisal was carried out in 1995. In June 1996, there was yet another. Why all these appraisals, when it was decided that the hospital was needed and that it would be built?

Then, of course, we have the fact that the Causeway hospital development group met monthly for four years. It has had 49 meetings. Now there is a question mark over the whole affair. What about the promises made to the medical staff, and the rationalisation that was necessary for the configuration of the new hospital?

The hon. Gentleman speaks of rationalisation. Does he recall that, between 1982 and 1986, the Northern Ireland Assembly agreed that rationalisation should proceed? At that time, as Chairman of the Finance Committee, I asked whether slippage money could be used for rationalisation, and millions were returned to the Treasury.

I recall that very well, because it was a matter about which people were urgently concerned. Promises were made to staff, particularly consultant medical staff, on the radical changes that were to take place because of the new hospital. Will the Minister confirm that the Causeway hospital site cost £0.85 million, the Causeway laboratory £1.89 million, the advanced siteworks £1.18 million and the main project £2.4 million? What is the estimated cost of the total upgrading of the present facilities if the delay is lengthened? Has the commissioning team been stood down? Have officers' leases ended? If the design team is stood down, will its members seek compensation? What is the position on putting out tenders? When will tenders be issued?

I know that the Minister is concerned about the matter—he is not unsympathetic. However, we must answer to our constituents, and we need answers today at the Dispatch Box.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for the opportunity to outline the Government's record and position in relation to the Causeway hospital. I recognise that the matter is close to his heart. Similarly, I know that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is committed to the project. Perhaps more importantly, I am aware of the concerns of the local population from the range of correspondence which has come to me recently.

As the hon. Members helpfully explained, the campaign for a new hospital serving the Causeway area has been active for many years. In 1976, the Northern health and social services board set out its strategy for the development of acute hospital services. It was based on the provision of two modern hospitals to rationalise and concentrate services from a range of small dispersed units which were in poor condition and hopelessly ill equipped to meet the needs of modern clinical practice and standards of care.

A new area hospital at Antrim is to serve primarily the southern part of the board area, and the northern end of the board area is to be served by a new hospital in the Coleraine area, which would enable rationalisation of the Coleraine, Route, Robinson and Dalriada hospitals.

As hon. Members are aware, the first element of the strategy was finally achieved—after a slight delay—with the opening of the Antrim area hospital by the Secretary of State in 1993. The development of services in Causeway was planned to follow upon completion of the new Antrim hospital. From 1988 on, the Northern board appointed management consultants to look at the options. The then unit management and Coopers and Lybrand were involved, and, after considerable analysis, in December 1991 the Government approved and accepted the option to build a new hospital on a green-field site at Lodge road, Coleraine.

Shortly after that, in January 1992, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), announced the timetable for the project. It was envisaged that detailed planning and design would commence in 1994, with the major construction phase beginning in 1997 and the project to be completed by 2000. The speed with which the result of the option appraisal was translated into a programme of action with supporting funding reflected the Government's priority for, and commitment to, the project.

Over the past four years, the local population has seen that commitment demonstrated by physical investment. The proposed site was purchased at a cost of £0.85 million, and the first and essential stage of the development, the new area laboratory, was built on the site at a cost of £2.7 million. It became operational in 1994. Those investments, plus expenditure on landscaping and initial design fees, bring the total spend to date to £8.35 million. I hope that hon. Members will agree that that represents a considerable investment already in the light of pressures on public expenditure and the competing investment priorities.

At the same time, it is important to ensure that the original case for such major investment remains valid over the necessarily lengthy planning period. The acute sector has seen many changes in the past decade: productivity has increased significantly, and clinical practice has seen the expansion of day surgery. Hon. Members may recall that, in 1993, the Public Accounts Committee examined acute hospital provision in Northern Ireland. In the memorandum of reply to the Committee, my Department gave a commitment that all proposals for major investment would be kept under constant review and the underlying assumptions would be tested before any final decisions were taken.

As the Minister responsible for health and personal social services in Northern Ireland, I am keen to endorse that commitment to ensure that what is built at Causeway and elsewhere is demonstrably what is needed, and no more than that. Therefore, at my request, earlier this year the health and social services executive asked the Causeway trust to review the case supporting the investment. In the light of the new regional strategy that I issued in July, I was particularly anxious to ensure that investment in a new hospital in Coleraine was consistent with the vision for acute hospital services set out in that strategy. The trust was therefore asked to ensure that the investment was acceptable and affordable to the principal purchaser, the Northern board.

I am pleased to record that the trust tackled that exercise in a rigorous and comprehensive manner, submitting a detailed review carried out by Coopers and Lybrand. The Causeway trust board has acted with commendable professionalism, urgency and diligence, and I take this opportunity to thank the chairman, the chief executive and board members for their co-operation throughout.

As a result, the executive identified a number of issues as requiring clarification by the trust and the board. The trust again dealt with them expeditiously and, as a result, the executive wrote to the trust on 5 November to inform it that the case for the investment had been revalidated. The executive advised the trust that, because of the additional costs involved with a redesign, it would not be economic—I confirm the hon. Gentleman's earlier comments—to seek a reduction in the project design.

As hon. Members are probably aware, the Government have reaffirmed the need for the new Causeway hospital to provide a locus for the acute services to the local population in the next century. The matter now rests with me in terms of a decision on the next stage of the project. Hon. Members will be aware of the pressures on public expenditure in general. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will soon announce decisions on public expenditure in Northern Ireland following the Chancellor's Budget statement. Hon. Members will recognise the added pressures on public funds in Northern Ireland caused by the ending of the IRA ceasefire and the consequences of the summer's unrest.

The projected investment at Causeway—about £40 million—is significant. As Minister responsible for health and personal social services, I have a responsibility to ensure that such investment decisions are affordable and deserve the top priority with other pressures on my programme. I shall look at those issues once the Secretary of State has taken his decision, and I hope to make a statement before long.

To sum up, I believe that the Government have an impressive record of achievement already with the Causeway hospital project. The investment appraisal was approved quickly and a firm timetable was set out. Significant public funds have been made available and allowed preliminary investment on the site. We have ensured that the project remains tight, affordable and thus value for money for the taxpayer. The timetable set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes has largely been adhered to.

I recognise the local population's wish that we move on to the last major phase, but I ask hon. Members in the Chamber today for some forbearance over the present delay. I am likely to face difficult decisions over health spending next year, and decisions on Causeway must be part of that process, not taken outside it or ahead of it.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will meet Causeway trust members and converse with them?

I have already given that assurance to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for East Londonderry. I am more than happy to meet Causeway trust members. They have not asked for a meeting at this stage, but my door is always open to any trust board members who wish to talk to me.

In determining the way forward, I assure hon. Members that I hear and understand their concerns and those of their constituents. They can be sure that I shall give them due weight in the weeks ahead.