Commons Sitting of 6 July 1992

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY Appeals

    Appeals
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his Department proposes to take new initiatives to speed up the appeals procedure arrangements involving his Department.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Burt): I understand from the chief executive of the Benefits Agency that several initiatives are under consideration or being piloted in conjunction with the Independent Tribunal Service to speed up the appeals procedure. In addition, the chief executive has set clear targets for the clearance of both locally and centrally prepared appeals.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that many people are suffering hardship as a result of waiting for appeals to be settled and that there is still too long a delay in dealing with appeals? Matters have not improved, so will he ensure that there is an improvement and that the same applies to independent appeals, because the situation is far from satisfactory?
    Mr. Burt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and his remarks are well directed. I am disappointed with the present state of appeal delays, but the initiatives being brought in by the Benefits Agency are likely to have a considerable effect: the simplified appeals submission, pre-listing and the abbreviated notice of award so that successful applicants receive any benefit awarded much sooner are all designed to have an effect. In addition, Benefits Agency targets will be made public. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to monitor an improvement in appeals over the coming months and years.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my hon. Friend agree that more appeals on disability benefits should be held locally and that, if they were, that would improve clearance times out of all recognition?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The move to locally held appeals is already going ahead and should also have some effect on waiting times.
    Mr. Gerrard: Is the Minister aware that, because of delays in processing disability living allowances, as of two weeks ago not a single disability living allowance appeal had been heard? Does he really think that that is satisfactory?
    Mr. Burt: The comments that I have made about improvements in appeals will also apply to disability appeals in future. The House will have an opportunity to say more about disability living appeals later this afternoon.

    Attendance and Disablement Allowances
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to speed up the decision-making process in respect of attendance and disablement allowances.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): New arrangements were introduced in April to speed up decision making in attendance allowance and disability living allowance, principally

    3
    through self-assessment and enhanced computer process-ing. The changes were widely welcomed by outside organisations with which there was close consultation. We knew that introducing those changes would require a major effort, but an early surge in claims has led to backlogs. I regard that situation as unacceptable and firm action is being taken to accelerate the handling of cases.
    Mr. Skinner: Why do not the Government admit that these delays are deliberate—that they are all about saving the Government money? The same applies to under-staffing. Is the Minister aware that nearly every Labour Member has had complaints about lost papers? Is it not remarkable that the papers are somehow found when Members of Parliament get involved? It is time that the Government stopped this squalid manoeuvre and stopped penalising people who need the money. It is a different story when they come to collect income tax and the poll tax —they find the right computers then.
    Mr. Scott: I am afraid that I have become immune to the ill-directed tirades of the hon. Gentleman over the years. He is manifestly wrong on several counts. First, there is no question of the Government saving money as a result of this; nor does any claimant lose money. If a payment is delayed, it will soon be backdated to the date of the claim. Far from saving money, this benefit has been introduced at a cost of about £250 million to give extra help to disabled people. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite scandalous.
    Dr. Spink: Does my right hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the Government's spending on the disabled and long-term sick has increased by 173 per cent? Is that not evidence of the Government's commitment to help those people and is that not more than the Government of which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was a member ever did?
    Mr. Scott: Yes, indeed, and it is better than anything done by anyone who supports the Labour party. Those people know as well as I do that this Government's record in providing benefits for the long-term sick and disabled far outmatches anything achieved under previous Labour Governments.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that I spent the entire morning ringing the telephone number that he gives the public—not to Members of Parliament—to try to get through to query three separate cases that arose in my constituency at the weekend? If he believes that that is anything to be proud of, I am astonished and ashamed for him.
    Mr. Scott: I wish to make a couple of points to the hon. Lady whom I respect greatly, as she is aware. First, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency is writing today to every hon. Member, setting out the steps that are being taken to reduce the delays. Enhanced use of telephone lines is being introduced so that agencies and the public can get a better service. Mr. Bichard's letter today to all hon. Members will include information about an extra 10 lines that will be specially dedicated so that Members of Parliament —
    Mrs. Dunwoody: What about the public?
    Mr. Scott: If the hon. Lady will listen, she will understand. Those numbers will be given today so that hon. Members can get special service for any particularly difficult cases.
    Mr. Thurnham: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see the excellent letter from Mr. Sam Gallop, the chairman of Opportunities for People with Disabilities, in which he praises the operation of the benefits inquiry line and states that he has always been treated with courtesy, friendliness, patience and effective concern? Will my right hon. Friend pass on the thanks of Mr. Gallop to the Benefits Agency?
    Mr. Scott: Mr. Gallop was kind enough to copy his letter to me when he wrote expressing his satisfaction. That raises a slight doubt in my mind about the motivation of some of the approaches by the Opposition.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister stop being so complacent? Is he satisfied with the report by the National Audit Office a month ago which found that some of our 250,000 war pensioners have to wait two years for their claims to be processed, including a one-year wait for medical checks? Is he satisfied at the fact that the Department of Social Security now takes 50 per cent. longer to process claims than it took seven years ago and that the average wait is now eight to nine months? Is that the same Tory conquest of bureaucracy which means that, after 10 years of Toryism, each case moves at least 30 times between desks and spends four days in each in-tray? Would not the Secretary of State better spend his time not cutting benefits for young people but in cutting delays for pensioners?
    Mr. Scott: Obviously, a considered response to the National Audit Office report will be made in due course. That is the procedure in those cases. My hon. and noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is taking urgent steps to deal with war pension delays, which also were caused by a tremendous surge in claims. With regard to DLA, the subject of the question, we are now employing more than 400 extra staff to deal with the surge. Extensive overtime is being worked during the week and at weekends and 115 extra adjudication officers are being trained. We are also redeploying staff from other parts of the Benefits Agency to speed up claims to the maximum extent.

    Cold Weather Payments
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether Her Majesty's Government propose to review the system for cold weather payments.
    Mr. Burt: Following a review, substantial improvements were made to the cold weather payments scheme last winter, and these resulted in almost 4 million payments being made, at a cost of almost £24 million. The scheme is kept constantly under review and we are currently evaluating those changes.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that the scheme is targeted towards the most vulnerable in society, including pensioners and those with children under five. I am therefore very grateful to him for agreeing to keep the matter under review. Now, during the

    5
    hot weather, is the time to ensure that the scheme is in the right order and sensibly composed. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's commitment to that.
    Mr. Burt: I thank my hon. Friend. I am aware of his long-standing interest in the scheme. We made a number of reforms to it last year. We believe that we have ex tended and modified the scheme so that it works much better than it used to—certainly better than it did before 1979—and the improvements will be kept constantly under review.
    Mr. Wicks: Is the Minister aware that, next winter, between 20,000 and 40,000 more people will die than in the summer months? Is he aware that that means that we stand at the top of the European cold winter deaths league? Does he therefore agree that there are no grounds for complacency and that now is the time to think through the matter with other Departments so that we can stop the annual cull of our eldest and best each and every winter?
    Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman's point might have been put just as effectively without some of his emotive language. Sadly, there are many causes of death throughout the winter, and they are totally unconnected with cold weather. Obviously, that matter is a constant problem. The system is examined extensively to make sure that it works properly. No claim is necessary; the procedure is automatically triggered. We have also removed the capital requirement, which has made another 400,000 people eligible for help under the scheme. Those are the extensions and modifications that we have made. There is no complacency. The scheme is more extensive than it was before. Every time that I hear the Opposition whinge about it, I know that that is a collective gasp of guilt about a scheme that they had neither the wit to devise nor the money to sustain.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: As so many people are eligible for cold weather payments and as last year's changes brought more into the scheme, does that not show the Government's commitment to ensuring that benefits are targeted towards the sick, the elderly and the disabled, so that those in need get the money that they require?
    Mr. Burt: Targeting is important in such a scheme, but it is also essential to keep it under review as much as possible to make sure that money goes where it is needed. The Government are committed to doing that.

    Youth Benefits
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to improve benefits for 16 and 17-year-olds.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The Government believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should be encouraged to continue in education, obtain a job or undertake training rather than enter the benefits culture straight from school, although support is available for those who are unable to work or obtain a training place and those who are at risk of hardship.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Secretary of State also immune to the universal view of all independent bodies which report that the present exclusion of 16 and 17-year-olds from income support is cruel and unnecessary? Has he seen the evidence that was given to his own Social Security Committee which says that the problems of adolescents, the most vulnerable
    6
    group of young people, are being added to by the system? How much longer will he persist with a system that is cynical, mean and cruel?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman spoils his case by gross overstatement. He should know that young people aged 16 or 17 are not excluded. Help is available if they are at risk of severe hardship. More than 85 per cent. of those who apply receive that help, and 90 per cent. receive a decision within 24 hours of making a request.
    Mr. Rowe: My right hon. Friend will be aware that too many people are becoming dependent much too young and that that is widely recognised by social workers and others. However, there are also a small number of 16 and 17-year-olds for whom it is proving difficult to deliver the workplace guarantee. Will my right hon. Friend take special measures to ensure that they do not lose out?
    Mr. Lilley: I recognise the importance of my hon. Friend's point, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, who is taking every possible measure to ensure that we fulfil the guarantee of a youth training place for young people of that age. The number of people waiting for such places is declining month by month, I am happy to say.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the careers service knows of 50,000 young people who are registered for youth training but without a place who are denied income support, of whom, contrary to what he said, fewer than one third receive special hardship allowance, leaving more than 30,000 destitute, without money at all to survive on? Is it true, as has been reported, that the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that, for young people who go on youth training scheme courses, the £35 a week training allowance should be scrapped and replaced by the equivalent of child benefit of £9·65 a week for their parents?
    Is not this vendetta against young people a huge disincentive to go on training courses? Is it not an insult to them, when the country desperately needs much better-trained young adults?
    Mr. Lilley: Financial help should be available for everyone who does not have support from his or her family. As I said, 80 per cent. of those who apply for the severe hardship allowance receive it. The hon. Gentleman is talking about people who live at home, who, of course, have the support of their parents. Only if their parents are not able to help is additional support given.
    I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman automatically looks to the benefits system in these circumstances. In 1978, the Labour Government supported only 7,000 training places. There are 300,000 such places under the Conservative Government. As for stories in the press about the public expenditure round, the hon. Gentleman may be sure that I and my Department do not talk to the press about the matter. We shall talk to the Chief Secretary when the moment arrives. The hon. Gentleman may be sure that there will be stories almost every Sunday between now and the autumn. He will believe them, even though the vast majority will turn out to be fallacious.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds either go on to training or into work and that there is a severe hardship

    7
    allowance for people who are unable to go to work or receive training? Such people receive income support and the Government will continue to provide support for people who are unable to obtain training or work.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. One of the Government's successes is the increase in the number of young people either staying on at school for extra education beyond the age at which schooling is compulsory or going on training courses. Only 40 per cent. did so under the Labour Government. The figure is now nearer 70 per cent. That is a vast improvement.

    Pensions
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the pension for (a) a couple and (b) an individual in 1979; and what is this figure uprated in line with (i) inflation and (ii) with earnings.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Anne Widdecombe): The current rate of retirement pension, uprated in line with prices since 1979, is £54·15 for a single person and £86·70 for a couple. If uprated in line with earnings, the pension would now be about 29 per cent. higher. This would have cost the national insurance fund more than £40 billion since 1979, implying an extra £10·50 per week on the national insurance contributions paid currently by a man on average earnings and by his employer.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does not the Minister's reply reveal that many old-age pensioners are at a disadvantage compared with other income groups? In view of her answer that pensioners are at a 29 per cent. disadvantage compared with the position under the Labour Government, is it not time that the Minister decided that pensioners were entitled to some further consideration? When does the Minister intend to do something about the pensioners, instead of using rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, given how much they spend on unemployment benefit?
    Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman is not receptive to rhetoric about what it would cost the Government, perhaps he is receptive to rhetoric about what we have done for the pensioners. Perhaps he is receptive to the fact that pensioners' incomes have increased by 34 per cent. since the Conservatives came to power whereas they rose by only 3 per cent. under the Labour Government. Perhaps he will reflect on the large increase in home ownership and consumer-durable ownership among pensioners and the fact that incomes from savings have doubled. That is what we have done for pensioners and it is worth more than the Labour party's rhetoric. That rhetoric lost it the last election and will continue to lose it elections so long as Labour Members make wild promises.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1989 income-related benefits for pensioners have increased by £700 million? Does she agree that that shows the Government's commitment to increasing benefits for those who are most in need?
    Miss Widdecombe: It is an essential part of the Government's policy to target benefits, as far as possible, on those most in need, and that is why there have been
    8
    substantial increases for those in residential and nursing homes and for those pensioners on income support. We shall continue to direct extra resources towards those in need while maintaining the value of the basic state pension.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister accept that although the Opposition are greatly concerned about the erosion of the pension, we are concerned also about the abolition of the pension for women aged 63 or less? We are reading press reports that say that the Government are considering increasing the retirement age for women to 65. Is that what the Government propose, or are they preparing the ground in order to back down so that the pension age for women goes up only to 63? Of the 3,000 representations that the Minister and her colleagues received on this matter, how many asked for an increase in the retirement age for women?
    Miss Widdecombe: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he believes not only his own propaganda but everything that he reads in the press. As he well knows, the Government have not reached any conclusion on how to equalise state pensions, beyond our firm commitment to do so. We issued a discussion document and, as he will be aware, the period for discussion has only just ended. That set out four main options and went well beyond the narrow range that the hon. Gentleman identified. In due course, we shall come to a decision and we shall announce it, in the proper way, to the House. Until then, it would be improper for anyone to speculate, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman stops alarming prospective pensioners by speculating without reason.

    Benefits (Itinerant People)
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are made for itinerant people to claim social security benefits.
    Mr. Lilley: Itinerant people who claim social security benefits are entitled to benefits under the same conditions as other people. Those who claim benefits for unemployment are required to be available for work with an employer and to seek such work actively.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he explain how it is that people who call themselves travellers, gipsies and didicois, or who are just a thundering nuisance, seem able to move around the country getting benefits wherever they stop, whereas my constituents are, quite rightly, required to report regularly to a social security office or to a Jobcentre, where they have to show that they are actively applying for jobs so that they can receive benefits? Furthermore, if they take just a few days holiday with their families, they lose benefit.
    Mr. Lilley: As I said to my hon. Friend, itinerants have to fulfil the same conditions as other people. If my hon. Friend or any hon. Member has evidence that they are not doing so, that would be a matter to follow up in the normal way.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Would the Minister care to visit Centrepoint and talk to 16 and 17-year-olds who have travelled to London from towns and cities to the north and find themselves without a job and a home? They have to wait

    9
    a long time before receiving any help or cash income from the Government and in the meantime they live in cardboard boxes.
    Mr. Lilley: Last week, I visited one of the benefit offices dealing with itinerant people and they recognised the improvements in the conditions that we have created for them.

    Disabled People
    Mrs. Gillan: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the impact of recent technological developments on disabled people.
    Mr. Scott: Recent. current and future technological developments are making and will continue to make an increasing impact on lives of disabled people in this country. They will enable many disabled people to live independently, to have opportunities for education, employment and leisure. They will also play an important part in the detection, prevention and amelioration of disabling conditions.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to welcome typetalk, the joint venture between British Telecom and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf that enables deaf people to talk to each other and to hearing people on the telephone? Will he confirm that the Department provides funds to the institute and supports projects such as typetalk?
    Mr. Scott: I can confirm that, and it has been my privilege to have been involved with typetalk since its inception and to be present at the launch of the scheme just before the general election. It is beginning to do a marvellous job on behalf of deaf and hard-of-hearing people, not least by enabling them to have access to employment.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is the Minister aware that disabled people in my constituency are complaining about the technological developments in the Benefits Agency that have altered the administration of their benefits'? As a result many of them cannot afford to renew the MOT on their car, on which they depend for mobility. They face delays of six months and more in the administration of their benefits because of the new technological developments in the Benefits Agency.
    Mr. Scott: That has nothing whatever to do with the introduction of new technology for the administration of benefits. The Benefits Agency is coping with twice as many claims for attendance allowance and disability living allowance as in the same period last year, and it is doing so successfully. If the hon. Lady knows of any particular cases where she believes that access to the motability scheme is affected by these delays, I hope that she will contact me immediately about them.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition of the important opportunities that new technological developments open up for disabled people, what plans does he have—in consultation with his colleagues at the Departments of Employment and for Education—to improve the availability of expert advice and counselling for individual disabled people, so that a judgment can be made about what technology would be of most help to them personally, and the availability of expert
    10
    purchasing to ensure that the money goes further and more disabled people can enjoy the benefits of new technology?
    Mr. Scott: As my hon. Friend will know, a number of Government Departments and other agencies fund new technology to help disabled people. I should like to see more co-ordination and a more seamless-garment approach to the advice available to them and to its accessibility. The Department of Employment already spends about £300 million a year on enabling disabled people to obtain employment or on maintaining them in employment. That is immensely important. Certainly, the national disability information project, which is a pilot scheme now and is likely to go national in the not-too-distant future, will greatly enhance the power of disabled people to make choices about the use of technology for their own needs.

    Courage Brewery Pension Fund
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the Courage Brewery's pension funds; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lilley: I have had no representations regarding the Courage Brewery's pension funds.
    Mrs. Mahon: Well, I have—from many of my constituents who were worried when they read about the Harlin write-down. Is it not true that the regulatory system relies entirely on the honesty of the trustees and that if they prove not to be honest, the whole system collapses? When will the Secretary of State introduce regulations that give guarantees and security to pensioners? Is it not time that the Government took responsibility for some of the farces in the past?
    Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Lady is questioning the honesty of any of the trustees, I hope that she will do so publicly. I do not know of any reason to do so. The Transport and General Workers Union has made a complaint and it is being investigated by the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation, whose responsibility that is. It will recommend whatever action it deems appropriate. I understand that the pension fund is in a healthy state and recently enhanced the benefits that if offers to its pensioners. Elected representatives from the membership sit on the committee of management, which has day-to-day control of the fund's administration. An investment sub-committee had been set up to scrutinise investment policies and an independent trustee to head that sub-committee has been appointed. Obviously, if the hon. Lady has any evidence that she want to submit to the regulatory authorities, she should do so.
    Mr. Lidington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that considerable reassurances could be given both to Courage Brewery pensioners and to members of other occupational pension schemes, not least the many hundreds of Maxwell pensioners in my constituency, if the Securities and Investments Board were now to publish its report on the Maxwell scandal or, at the very least, those aspects of it which could be made public without prejudicing criminal proceedings? In that way, hon. Members on both sides of the House can know what went wrong with the regulatory

    11
    arrangements, and we and our constituents can have an informed debate about what needs to be done to put things right.
    Mr. Lilley: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The Securities and Investments Board has said that it wishes to publish as much as possible, subject only to the legal advice that it receives on the risks of prejudicing a fair trial. Obviously, the Government concur with that.

    Share Fishermen
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals the Contributions Agency has to safeguard the special position of share fishermen paying their special contribution when unemployed under days at sea limitations.
    Miss Widdecombe: We have no plans to change the special arrangements which have been made for share fishermen.
    Mr. Mitchell: That answer is appalling. Does the Minister not accept that, as the Government are about to impose a limit on the number of days that fishing vessels can put to sea, fishermen who pay the special share fishermen's stamp will be unable to collect the benefit to which they are entitled and unable to exist unless some special exemption is made for them in the new situation? They will be vulnerable and trapped between a Government decision that they cannot carry on with the job and another Government decision that they cannot collect benefit because of the weekly earnings rule.
    Miss Widdecombe: The payment of a special contribution has been introduced specifically to protect share fishermen, to make sure that they become eligible for unemployment benefit. Qualifying for two weeks or more for unemployment benefit will cover the additional costs, since the vessels of the majority of share fishermen are laid up for more than two weeks. Our arrangements are fair and equitable.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on targeting help towards particularly needy pensioner groups.
    Mr. Lilley: Since 1988 we have increased annual benefits for pensioners on income support by some £700 million over and above inflation—not least for the pensioners of Basildon.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many senior citizens in Basildon have benefited from the extra Government help, which is over and above the normal upratings? Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping vulnerable pensioners and that the inflationary policies of Opposition socialist parties would crucify senior citizens?
    Mr. Lilley: As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under this Government pensioners' income has risen by about 34 per cent. in real terms. That is five times as fast as the meagre increase that they enjoyed under a Labour Government when incomes from savings were cut because of inflation. They remember that.
    Mr. McAllion: One needy group of pensioners are those with disabilities. While the Benefits Agency customer charter trumpets claimants' rights to a more accessible service, pensioners who apply for disability living allowance have first to fill in a form with two sections and 12 different parts, totalling 34 pages. How can that credibly be described as a more accessible service? Is not the real purpose of these bureaucratic black holes to ensure that the minimum number of claimants can find their way through them so that the Government can save on their social security budget?
    Mr. Lilley: That is certainly not the intention, and that is clear from our record which shows a substantial increase in the number of disabled people to whom we have given help. Our introduction of the system of self-assessment rather a requirement for a medical certificate shows that we were anxious to extend benefits to all disabled people in need. It is also clear that a significant proportion of the £700 million increased entitlement for elderly people to which I referred is going to the disabled. There was an increase in April and there will be a further increase in October. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not have the grace to recognise and welcome that.
    Mr. David Shaw: What is my right hon. Friend's Department doing to debunk the Labour myth that pensions were tied to earnings throughout the five years from 1974 to 1979? Does my right hon. Friend recall, and will he ensure that it is publicised, that at one stage the Labour Secretary of State changed the date on which pensions were calculated from a November base to an April base, some seven months —
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the Minister's responsibility on this question. The Minister will please answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Lilley: My Department would like to perpetuate the tenure of office of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), as he was a member of the Labour Government in the Department of Social Security at the time. He is a standing monument to that Government, who not only broke the earnings link to which Labour Members now refer as though it were inviolate, but failed to pay the Christmas bonus. The hon. Gentleman was there to tell the tale.
    Mr. Bradley: Does not the Secretary of State realise that one of the most vulnerable groups of elderly people is the over-80s? Is it not an insult to them that the additional benefit that they receive is a meagre 25p a week—less than the amount needed to buy a loaf of bread? Will he immediately review the increase for the over-80s to ensure that they receive a retirement pension that enables them to lead a happy, healthy and secure retirement?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that over-80s on income support received an extra increase of £1 for single people and £1·50 for couples in April. This is to be followed by a £2 and £3 increase in October, and is geared and targeted to those most in need. I understand that the Opposition Front-Bench team is thinking of doing away with the universal retirement pension and targeting it instead. We would be interested to know how they intend to carry out that policy.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement on the work of the Serious Fraud Office in 1992.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The current caseload of the Serious Fraud Office is 59 cases, of which 28 are being tried or are awaiting trial, 13 are awaiting committal or transfer and 18 are under investigation.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Maxwell scandal among the 59 or are the Government not interested in them, like Peter Walker and other fat cats, who made money out of the Mirror group pensioners? Is it not a scandal that an ex-Tory Minister who graced the Front Bench picked up £440,000 and a Mercedes and, instead of asking him to give the money back to the pensioners, the Prime Minister has given him a job and a peerage? What a scandal!
    The Attorney-General: To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he may not have noticed—but I think that everyone else in the House has—that the Maxwell case is under investigation, arrests were made recently and the investigation continues. On the second part of his question, the hon. Gentleman is free to scatter allegations in the House, but I think that his constituents and those who come from the good working-class stock of which he prides himself, would prefer the careful and impartial investigation of the Serious Fraud Office to the approach that he has taken in asking his question.
    Mr. John Moris: Is the Attorney-General aware of the concern that has recently been expressed, particularly by the Bar, on the method, timing and publicity given to some arrests involving the SFO? Is it necessary frequently to arrest in the early hours of the morning, with press and television in attendance? In order to ensure that our procedures, from the moment of arrest, are seen to be fair, will the Attorney-General consult the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to consider whether it would be appropriate to issue guidelines to minimise concern and ensure that both the public interest and the rights of the individual are fully protected?
    The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably have seen my recent written answer to him dealing with the matter. One understands and shares the desire not to inflict unnecessary humiliation on any potential defendant. However, such matters are operational matters for the police, and the versatile critics might well ask themselves what they would say if a potential defendant, having been accorded a particular privilege, were then unable to be arrested.

    Cases (Referral)
    Mr. Dickens: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on his practice in referring cases to the Court of Appeal for possible increase of sentences.
    The Attorney-General: Since 1 February 1989, when this power came into effect, my predecessor and I have applied for leave to refer 86 sentences to the Court of
    14
    Appeal, including five to the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland. Ten were later withdrawn in the light of futher information, but of the 61 so far reviewed, 48 have resulted in substantially increased sentences.
    Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to retain public confidence the sentence must fit the crime and should provide the victim with some comfort? Does he further agree that the sentence should contain an element of retribution, punishment and deterrence? If all those are seen to be in place, the public are satisfied—but in so many instances they feel that judges pass sentences that do not fit the crime.
    The Attorney-General: I entirely agree that in sentencing, not only must there be an opportunity for over-severe sentences to be reduced by the Court of Appeal but that public confidence requires that where a sentence is unduly lenient, the court should have an oppportunity to fix a more appropriate and, where necessary, more severe sentence.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Attorney-General accept that in a case that I referred to him in which the relatives of a man prosecuted for serious sexual abuse over many years made the dramatic and courageous decision to appear in court, they were deeply disappointed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not choose to appeal against the sentence of probation? As the Attorney-General knows, that sentence allowed the convicted man to be seen by his last victim—a 12-year-old—wandering around a local town. The relatives felt deeply betrayed because the Government did not ensure that a sentence was imposed that would ensure that that man was kept well away from the area where he committed his vicious crimes.
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman referred to me. Such cases are not easy. It is essential that the considerable power to refer a sentence as unduly lenient should be exercised by the Law Officers after careful examination of the facts and in the light of the principles of sentencing, which are carefully laid down by the Court of Appeal.

    Sedition
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Attorney-General how many current cases relating to possible prosecutions for sedition are being considered by the Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): None.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the laws of sedition that remain on the statute book cover threats below the level of treason, where the interests of the state are at risk? Does he agree also that they could apply to, and be used in bringing prosecutions against, republicans in the newspaper world who seek to undermine state institutions—including of course the monarchy?
    The Solicitor-General: Although the material to which my hon. Friend refers is highly offensive to many, it must be remembered that an essential element in sedition is the intention to incite violence for the purpose of disturbing constituted authority. The attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has not so far been drawn to any material that falls into that category.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Attorney-General how many requests have been received within the last year from other EC countries for assistance from the Serious Fraud Office.
    The Solicitor-General: While the Serious Fraud Office has received no specific requests for assistance from European Community countries in the last year, it has excellent working relationships with the overseas authorities with which it comes into contact. In the last year, co-operation and assistance have been given by countries including France, Switzerland, the United States of America, Channel Islands, and Isle of Man.
    Mr. Trimble: I am disappointed that the Solicitor-General's list does not include the Republic of Ireland because, as he knows, there have been a number of serious financial scandals there in recent months. The Garda makes no secret of the fact that its resources are not sufficient to deal with them. I refer in particular to the Goodman scandal concerning export credit insurance for beef, which the current Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr. O'Malley, said resulted from Goodman's unusually close relationship with the Taoiseach, Mr. Albert Reynolds. The ramifications of that case extend to Northern Ireland, because it appears that export credit insurance was given for large consignments of beef that originated in Northern Ireland. In the light of that, would it not be appropriate for the Serious Fraud Office to play a more active role in examining the ramifications of those scandals?
    The Solicitor-General: I have recently returned from Northern Ireland. The Serious Fraud Office is always anxious to help when it can, but its powers under section 2 of the Act are limited to cases in which it is investigating a fraud in our jurisdiction; it cannot act as an agent for a foreign country in regard to a fraud within a jurisdiction of that country. We need a United Kingdom foundation before the SFO can act.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Attorney-General what improvements are being made to the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: The principal current initiatives within the Crown prosecution service centre on continued improvement in the recruitment of lawyers, and in quality of service through the implementation of national operational practice —that is, national standards for casework management.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Crown prosecution service employs enough staff to ensure that the perpetrators of a crime are brought to book swiftly and effectively?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I am pleased to confirm that recruitment in the Crown prosecution service has continued in a very satisfactory way. The numbers recruited during the past 12 months include an extra 200 lawyers, bringing the total complement of lawyers now in post to 2,017.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Population Growth
    Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the Overseas Development Administration is making to examining the link between environment and population growth; and to what extent the strategies in the Rio declaration present an opportunity for expanding current activities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The Overseas Development Agency has recently initiated a programme of research into the links between environ-ment and population. The Rio declaration and programme of action confirmed the need for a better understanding of these relationships. We will continue to look for opportunities to develop our activities in this area.
    Mr. Worthington: Action, rather than research, is needed. "Agenda 21" states clearly that a surging world population, linked to unsustainable consumption patterns, led to the present threat to the earth. We know that the support provided by family planning organisations in laying down voluntary principles has worked; we also know that, in 20 years, the average size of families in the developing countries has fallen from six to four. Is it not time that we allowed choice to the countless millions of women who are currently denied an opportunity to choose the size of their families?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I believe that we need further research as well as action. We have committed substantial resources to research—both World Health Organisation research, to which we have contributed £2·75 million, and our own research, to which we give £200,000 a year. We are also bringing about considerable action: we hope to launch new projects in Kenya, Ghana and Zimbabwe this year alone, and we have quadrupled the funds for such action over the past 10 years or so.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Perhaps unusually, I support what was said by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is widespread Conservative support for the placing of greater emphasis on population policy in the Government's development programmes? Is he aware that, in recent years, the Government have established a fine record in that regard? Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues, however, put pressure on large and wealthy nations —notably the United States—to fund international bodies that are interested in population and environmental issues?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's question. At present, we are taking particular action in regard to the European Community. We are pressing the European Commission with a view to encouraging the Community to provide more support for population programmes, and we intend to move a motion to that effect at a meeting of the Development Council in November, which I hope to attend.

    Earth Summit
    Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in implementing the initiatives agreed at the Earth summit to help developing countries.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Work is under way on a number of fronts. The European Community Lisbon Council endorsed proposals by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for action to work towards a replenishment of the global environment facility, and aid to help developing countries implement "Agenda 21".
    Dr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that the substantial extra resources for "Agenda 21" goals that were promised in the Prime Minister's Rio speech were in addition to the £100 million pledged for the global environment facility? Bearing in mind that, under the present Government, official development assistance has fallen from 0·51 to 0·32 per cent. of gross domestic product, will the Minister tell us how much new money will be made available to fulfil the Prime Minister's pledge?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are talking of funding spread over many years. I cannot possibly answer a question such as that. However, I can confirm that the funding that has been promised for the replenishment of the global environmental facility is distinct from any funding to implement "Agenda 21". I am certain that in all these areas there will, as has happened in the past, be substantial funding to this aid.

    Africa (Non-governmental Organisations)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being given to non-governmental organisations working in African countries suffering from drought and famine.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: British bilateral aid channelled through non-governmental organisations to drought and famine affected countries in Africa since September 1990 stands at £87·83 million.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the performance of British charities in Africa is far more effective than the performance of any other European charities? Does not that reflect the excellent co-operation between the Government and non-governmental organisa-tions such as Oxfam and the World Development Movement?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. Substantial funding is provided by both the non-governmental organisations and the Government's Overseas Development Administration. We are the leading European donor to both South Africa and the Horn of Africa. We are also the leading European donor in southern Africa and the third largest donor there.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I say how valuable and vital is the aid from both this country and the European Community and from the non-governmental organisa-tions, but is the Minister aware that if we are to prevent the drought in southern Africa from becoming a famine, with millions of deaths, the remaining third of the pledges that were asked for by the United Nations needs to be honoured? Moreover, further contributions are needed.
    18
    Countries such as Zambia and Zimbabwe also need debt relief. Efforts should be made towards that end this week in Munich.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we are increasing our funding in response to the crisis as it develops. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the director of Oxfam returned recently from a visit to Africa. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Chalker announced on 30 June an increase of £10 million for drought relief in southern Africa.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Why has there been no statement in the House by the Government on the crisis in sub-Saharan Africa? How can the 40 million people at risk possibly survive if there is a 60 per cent. shortfall in pledges of aid and if the international relief effort fails through lack of funds? Will the Minister ensure that the blockages at European Community level are removed and sorted out rapidly? Will he also ensure that there are no further delays in transporting food from the regions into the villages, where people are dying daily before our eyes?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We cannot possibly be responsible for the failings of other countries, but can I assert what the British Government are doing? Since January 1992, we have given £48 million worth of humanitarian aid to southern Africa and £33 million worth of humanitarian aid to the Horn of Africa. In other words, since January of this year, we have provided nearly £80 million worth of aid to those areas.

    Somaliland
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards meeting the urgent need for humanitarian aid and development aid to the republic of Somaliland.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We want to help all Somalis in need. Since January 1991, we have provided £11·6 million worth of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, including our share of European Community aid.
    Mr. Michael: While I appreciate the importance of the aid that is being given, does the Minister accept that stability is necessary if there is to be a reconstruction of the economy of Somaliland and if the thousands who have had to flee to refugee camps in Ethiopia and elsewhere are to be able to return home and society restored in that part of the country? Does the Minister accept that the people of the republic of Somaliland look not only to the international community and the United Nations but particularly to the United Kingdom to help them to restore stability?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have given nearly £2 million worth of aid to the north of the country in question. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Stability is a necessary prerequisite before substantial rehabilitation help can be given. All rehabilitation depends upon an improvement in security. We have been pressing the United Nations to step up its efforts in northern Somalia towards that end and have emphasised precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

    Population Growth
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the principles outlined in "Agenda 21" relating to world population growth.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: "Agenda 21" emphasises the importance of measures to strengthen family planning services and of further research into the links betweeen population and environment at global and local levels.
    Mr. Robathan: As my hon. Friend has said, during the British presidency of the EC we intend to propose a
    20
    resolution to the development council in November. In March, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote that he wishes to encourage European consensus on population programmes and to urge greater support from European donor agencies. What detailed progress has been made in dealing with this matter and the resolution at the development council meeting?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are working at a diplomatic and official level. The fruits of that work will appear at the development council in the autumn. As my hon. Friend will be aware, we have given great priority to this matter domestically; our "children by choice not chance" initiative was launched only last year.

Dentists (Ballot)
3.31 pm
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the decision by dentists, in a ballot, to withdraw in whole or in part from NHS service.
The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): We have already made it clear that, whatever the result of the ballot, we will take the necessary steps to safeguard NHS dental services.
I regret the results of the ballot. In recent years, there have been considerable improvements in dental care. There has been a 43 per cent. real terms increase in spending on general dental services since 1979. I hope that dentists will not jeopardise this progress. I hope that no patient is deterred from seeking dental care by this action. Patients currently have, rightly, high expectations and respect for their dentists. I hope that they will have no cause to change that over the coming weeks.
Dentists are independent contractors. They will now have to consider carefully their next steps.
Dentists' pay is decided on the basies of recommenda-tions by the independent review body. This year, we agreed to the recommendation that they should receive an 8·5 per cent. pay increase in full. To achieve the £35,800 recommended by the review body would have required a fee reduction of 23 per cent. We decided that a 7 per cent. fee reduction, with the introduction of prior approval for costly treatments, was a fair and reasonable way forward. This will give dentists an average income of about £41,000 this year. At the same time, we increased their allowance for expenses by 11·6 per cent. to more than £47,000, so that they will, on average, receive about £88,000, including expenses.
Patients will find it surprising that a profession which was prepared to accept £35,800 is now threatening to take action when we intend to pay them well over £40,000—substantially more than the review body intended.
All are agreed that the present system of remuneration needs a fundamental review; I have asked the Minister for Health to take this forward. Detailed arrangements will be announced shortly. We must find a system that is fair to dentists, fair to patients, and fair to the NHS. We are monitoring the situation through the family health service authorities to ensure that NHS dental services remain available. We have reminded them of their powers to seek to employ salaried dentists if necessary.
Meanwhile, I hope that the House will agree that the fundamental review offers a far more constructive way forward than action to withdraw NHS services from NHS patients.
Mr. Cook: The Secretary of State expressed the hope that the current dispute would not affect patients. Are we to understand from her reply that, apart from that hope, Ministers intend to do nothing in the face of a decision by 80 per cent. of dentists to accept no more NHS patients?
Do not Ministers recognise that the current crisis is a direct result of their policy of increasing charges to patients while cutting fees to dentists? As the Secretary of State appears to think that dentists are better paid than ever before, will she explain to the House why they are leaving the NHS in larger numbers than ever before?
22
I agree with the Secretary of State on one point. After the chaos created by the current contract, we urgently need a new system of dental remuneration, but how does she hope to get dentists to agree to a new contract if, on Wednesday, she proceeds with a cut in fees that breaks the existing contract? If she will not help dentists, will she at least help their patients? What is she going to do to guarantee the right of new NHS patients to dentistry on the NHS?
The Secretary of State mentioned salaried dentists. Is she aware that last week we were told that there are precisely nine salaried dentists in the whole of England outside London? How far does she think it is reasonable for a new patient to travel in search of a salaried dentist?
May I remind the Secretary of State that before polling day we were assured that the NHS would not be privatised —[Interruption.] What other word would Conservative Members prefer us to use now that more and more dental patients are being told that they must go private? Will the Secretary of State now admit the truth—that all those promises about the privatisation of the NHS were as hollow as all the claims about economic recovery?
Mrs. Bottomley: I can assure the House that we are monitoring the situation carefully and that there are no known cases where it has not been possible to secure an NHS dentist. FHSs are empowered to seek to employ a salaried dentist, and so far we have no reports of it not being possibile to find an NHS dentist.
The BDA said that it may take some months before the picture becomes exactly clear. I very much hope that it will co-operate with the fundamental review and will think long and hard before taking steps that will jeopardise the system of dentistry in this country which has, after all, delivered unprecedented results in the quality of dental care.
We have never had so many people participating in dental care in this country—30 million patients are signed up; there has been a 29 per cent. increase in the number of dentists; and 12 per cent. of family health service authorities now employ salaried dentists. We have made it clear that, although we wish to be fair and reasonable to dentists, we must also safeguard the interests of patients and of the NHS. I do not think that it bodes well that the Labour party seeks to support a professional group which is seeking to secure not only £5,000 over and above the 8·5 per cent. increase recommended by the review body. If I were one of the lower paid workers in the NHS, I would not have great confidence in the Labour party.
Mr. Roger Sims: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about the timing and nature of the fundamental review to which she referred? Does not she think that it is highly irresponsible of professionals to take the action that they have at this particular stage when there is a real prospect of the problems of dental remuneration being solved by the review to which she referred?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope that dentists will think long and hard before taking steps in relation to the future reduction at a moment when we all agree that we must find a better way of remunerating dentists. It may be a system that has stood the test of time for many years, but the time has now come when we need

23
a system that inspires more confidence in dentists and in the NHS and is better for patients. There are a number of obvious difficulties. The BDA said that it was
"looking for a positive sign from ministers that there is a future in NHS dentistry."
There is a future in NHS dentistry. I believe that the fundamental review, the arrangements of which we hope to announce shortly, will make that future very clear.
Ms. Liz Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that NHS dentistry is in crisis because dentists are being penalised for making a success of a contract that they did not want in the first place? Now that dentists are baring their teeth, is not it about time that the Secretary of State swallowed her pride and ensured that dentists get their just deserts, that the nation's health does not suffer and that the nation's dental health does not go into terminal decay?
Mrs. Bottomley: NHS dentistry has never been more effective, with 30 million patients signed up for continuing care. The hon. Lady is correct in saying that the dental contract was a success. More work has been undertaken as a result. That is precisely why the dentists were given 8·5 per cent. by the review body when the nurses and the doctors were given 5·8 per cent. and 5·3 per cent. We are proposing that, in addition to the 8·5 per cent., the dentists should keep £5,000. I think that that is a fair and reasonable way forward for dentists.
Sir Paul Beresford: May I, as a Member of Parliament as well as a dentist, ask the Secretary of State whether she agrees that we should be asking the British Dental Association to respond to this House? The BDA should be using its professional standing to look for changes within the global sum, as the argument with dentists as a profession concerns not so much the global sum as the way in which it is distributed.
Mrs. Bottomley: I very much hope that we shall be able to work closely with the BDA in taking forward the fundamental review. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, the system of dental remuneration is based on an average income, which applies across the country, and the average expenses required to deliver that average income. A number of practical and sensible proposals are coming forward, from the BDA and others, about how we might more appropriately develop a system of remuneration which is more fair to dentists, fair to the taxpayer, and fair to the NHS. I very much hope that the BDA will settle for this year's fair and reasonable arrangements and work constructively for the future.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does not the Secretary of State realise that her idea that there should be a fundamental review rings very hollow against what seems to be a fundamental dictatorship, given that she has indicated that she will go ahead with her plans irrespective of the democratically expressed views of the BDA? Does not she realise that, in seeking to have the national health service supported by salaried dentists, she is creating in many rural communities, particularly in the highlands, the north-east of Scotland and the islands, a situation in which people will have to travel many miles to find a dentist? She has alienated people who wish to continue within the
24
health service. Will she agree to postpone her decision on Wednesday to allow a review and a discussion to take place?
Mrs. Bottomley: In order to deliver the income of £35,800 recommended by the review body—a reasonable income by any standard—we should have introduced a fee reduction of 23 per cent. A 7 per cent. reduction, together with the introduction of prior approval, seems fair and reasonable. The employment of salaried dentists should not be a first option. I very much hope that dentists will think long and hard before taking steps that would jeopardise NHS patients. But if they do take such steps, we shall have a duty to safeguard the interests of NHS patients, and we shall not hesitate to seek the employment of salaried dentists.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend warn the dentists robustly and clearly that two groups will be hit by today's ballot? The first group is those dentists withdrawing from the national health service who will suffer particularly in terms of their professional integrity. The second is the large group of poor people who are not poor enough to be on income support and, thereby, qualify for free treatment. These people regard it as quite outrageous that a group of professionals—who are supported by the Labour party—who have just had an increase of 8 per cent. granted by their pay review body and had their fees increased by 11 per cent., should leave the poor in the lurch.
Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his points very well indeed. This year, with the 11·6 per cent. increase in expenses, dentists will take home an average of £88,000 gross. That is a very sizeable amount of money, and every dentist should think long and hard, from his own point of view as well as in the interests of his NHS patients, before taking such a step.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would preside over the creeping privatisation of dentistry?
Mrs. Bottomley: I have made it clear that I am committed to NHS dental services. That is why I shall not hesitate to encourage the employment of salaried dentists when the need arises. I think, however, that there are great strengths, and that there has been great progress, in NHS dental services. Since the Labour party was last in power, there has been a 43 per cent. increase in spending on dental services. There are more dentists, and more patients are treated now.
Mr. Den Dover: Does the Secretary of State accept that at a meeting with 12 dentists last Saturday two points came across—first, they all wanted the continuance of a first-class national health service dental system; secondly, whereas they were perfectly happy with the gross income, they had misgivings about the sampling in the first quarter of the year only, which led to their net income not being truly representative of their own experience?
Mrs. Bottomley: Some aspects of my hon. Friend's remarks should be discussed in the fundamental review. As for the average income and average expenses of the average dentist, the right place for the dentists to discuss them was at the dental rates study group. It was a great error on the part of the dentists to refuse to attend the

25
meeting of that group; it is, after all, precisely the setting at which there is a rigorous deployment of the figures. They did not arise.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her over-optimistic comments about the health of national health service dentistry in this country? Will she recognise the extent to which dentists are withdrawing from offering a service to people under the health service and are continuing to threaten to do so? Will she think about the number of poor communities —for instance, the Ferrier estate in my constituency, where the only dentist operating has made it clear that he cannot afford to continue to operate—I have given the Secretary of State evidence of that—if she proceeds with her proposals? Will she think again, and think about the interests of the health of this country and its poor people instead of pursuing her dogmatic adherence to the Government's position?
Mrs. Bottomley: Dentists have always been indepen-dent contractors who could be selective about the patients whom they took on. Concerns about that should perhaps rightly be the subject of the fundamental review. Substantial resources go into NHS dental services. Last year, 30 per cent. of dentists earned more than £100,000, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that 40 dentists earned more than £200,000—[Interruption] —as someone rightly says, with their expenses as well. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that there should be greater variation in the deployment of remuneration in the various regions, I accept that point; it should rightly be taken forward in the fundamental review.
Mrs. Judith Chaplin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that dentists' costs vary enormously and that that should be a key element in the fundamental review about which she speaks?
Mrs. Bottoniley: My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) addressed from a different angle. There has never been a time, however, when dentists' remuneration incorporated those variations. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I take the view that this should be part of the fundamental review. When discussing the dental contract, we agreed to remunerate business rates for dentists more directly. That was a step forward.
As for expenses, it is fair to say that an 11·6 per cent. increase in expenses, up to £47,000—that is what we are introducing—is generous on any count. We hope that we can discuss these matters further. On the last three occasions when dentists thought that their expenses had been under-recorded it turned out on examination that we had overestimated them for each year in question.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now make progress.

Points of Order
3.48 pm
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As we are now members of the European Community, would it be in order for the House to summon the French Prime Minister and Transport Minister to the Bar of the House to answer for the devastation that has been caused to my constituents and those of other Members by the French lorry drivers' strike?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me. That is a question that he must put to his Government and not to the Chair.
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order about which I have given you, Madam Speaker, and the Secretary of State for Education notice. I want to refer to the date of publication of the proposed White Paper on education.
In the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Secretary of State said that the White Paper would
"be brought before the House in due course."—[Official Report 12 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 587.]
However, in the closing minutes of the debate on special needs education on Friday, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools refused, in reply to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), to promise that the White Paper would be brought before the House before the House went into recess. We have since learnt from the newspapers that the Government plan to publish it in late July, after we have gone into recess.
I have had the Journal Office check the precedents. No Government in the past 18 years have issued a policy White Paper in late July after the House has risen for the recess. On only one occasion—in 1983—has a White Paper been published in August. It has not happened since.
In your ruling on the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 9 June, Madam Speaker, you made it clear that you were alive to the need to protect the rules of the House and its conventions and courtesies. In view of that, may I invite you to rule that, if the White Paper is published after the House has risen for the recess in late July or August, it would show gross contempt for hon. Members and that it would be a breach of long-established practice and of the clear undertaking given to the House by the Secretary of State only eight weeks ago to publish the White Paper "in due course"?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman did me the courtesy of giving me some idea of the point of order that he wished to raise. I know, as he has said, that he has carried out a great deal of research into the matter. As he is aware from his researches, it is not a matter for me. As he is also aware, under Standing Order No. 137, Ministers can present Command Papers to the House during recesses. As the hon. Gentleman said—
Mr. Straw rose—
Madam Speaker:Order. The hon. Gentlean should not get ready for another point of order.

27
The hon. Gentleman is aware that Ministers present Command Papers from time to time. As he knows full well, as Speaker, I have no authority or powers to prevent them from doing that during recesses.
Mr. Straw: I am aware of what you say, Madam Speaker. However, in your ruling on 9 June in respect of the complaint of my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough about whether hon. Members can intervene in constituency cases arising in other constituencies, you made it clear that, although it was not a matter for the rules of the House—something you regretted—you deprecated the practice and, with respect, you were right to do so. As no Government over the past 18 years have published a White Paper just after the House has gone into recess, thus showing such gross contempt for the House, I invite you to deprecate the practice and to ensure, so far as you have influence, that Ministers do not act with such contempt for the House.
Madam Speaker: I saw the material relating to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. As he is aware, I have not yet seen the White Paper which the Government propose to publish. As he knows, I have no discretionary powers in the matter. It is not a question of common courtesy to me. Standing Order No. 137 allows Ministers to publish White Papers during parliamentary recesses. I have no authority to stop them doing that.
Mr. Clive Soley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I had a conversation a couple of hours ago with the Lord Chancellor's Office about a matter which affects the established rights and practices of hon. Members. It has been the practice of the Lord Chancellor's Office to release the figures about mortgage repossessions from all courts in the country, initially by telephone contact by a Member of the House. That practice was changed a couple of years ago so that a letter is now required, and I accepted that. However, I understand from a report in The Sunday Telegraph yesterday that it is the intention not to release the information in that way, but to release it, at best, quarterly in accordance with the Lord Chancellor's decision.
The practice is particularly important because hon. Members have raised the issue through the Lord Chancellor's Office and, if necessary, directly with the courts in their areas. One could phone the court in the area in which one was interested to get the figures. If that practice is to be stopped as well, hon. Members will either have to phone all the courts in the country or give up the practice altogether. If we phoned all the courts in the country, it would be good news for British Telecom but bad news for British democracy.
When a major attempt is made to change the
28
established practices of the House in a way which restricts hon. Members' ability to obtain information, it is vital that Ministers make a statement to the House and not just slip the matter through in that way. I know that the way in which others and I have used the procedure is a matter of political embarrassment to the Government—I make no apology for that—but the matter concerns all hon. Members' right to obtain information in the way that we always have done, and I ask for that to be continued or, if it is not to be continued, for a Minister from the relevant law office to make a statement to the House before the Government make the proposed change.
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from any Minister to make a statement, but the hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for me and that, over the next few days, he may exercise his imagination and ingenuity and find several occasions on which he may raise the matter with the Government, who have responsibility for it.
Ms. Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I made my way to Wallasey at the weekend, I perused The Spectator, and discovered that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had commented on almost 10 per cent. of hon. Members—that is, the female Members. He said that we are
"not desert island material"
and that we look as though we are
"from the fifth Kiev Stalinist machine gun parade."
He also referred to you, Madam Speaker, and perhaps you would like to look up the reference for your own interest. Is it in order for someone who seems to reside in a permanent state of sartorial inelegance and who is not my idea of a desert island dream boy to make such comments about 10 per cent. of the membership of the House?
Madam Speaker: I take it that the hon. Lady has informed the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) that she would raise the matter. [Interruption.] Order. There are some periodicals that I do not read, and that is one of them, although the article has been related to me. If the hon. Lady wishes to take the matter further, perhaps she will write to me about it. There are procedures that I must look at, but the hon. Lady must put her request in writing, as she probably knows.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.),
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Question agreed to.

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]

Industry
Madam Speaker: There is great interest in this debate, so will hon. Members please voluntarily restrict their comments so that I may call as many hon. Members as possible?
Also, I inform the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.57 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I beg to move,That this House deplores the continuing impact of the recession which has caused the longest period of continuously falling output since 1945 and affected every region in the economy; condemns the record level of business failures and house repossessions, the serious decline in manufacturing investment, and the unacceptably high level of unemployment, which has risen for 24 months; regrets that repeated Government promises of swift recovery have not yielded the promised results; and calls upon the Government to adopt modern industrial policies which reduce unemployment, promote investment, tackle Britain's major training and skills crisis and enable the regions to play their full part in the economy.
First, the motion calls for special investment measures and a new industrial policy for Britain; secondly, it makes the case for action to assist hard-pressed regions with a new regional policy for the country; and, thirdly, it calls for urgent action on training and jobs so that we can bring to an end rising unemployment, and the fear of rising unemployment, which is the single biggest barrier to confidence and recovery.
Since the election, business failures have risen by about 15,000, the worst recorded figure in our history; house sales are 20 per cent. down on last year; and repossessions are still at record level. Even the Government's own Insolvency Service, the only part of the Department of Trade and Industry's budget that seems to be expanding, is predicting that insolvencies will increase from 21,000 two years ago to 35,000 this year, a 60 per cent. increase; and unemployment has tragically and disgracefully continued its rise for 24 consecutive months—up over two years by 30 per cent. in the north, by 40 per cent. in the north-west, by 90 per cent. in the midlands, by 120 per cent. in the south, and by 150 per cent. in the south-east.
It is clear not only that the recession is still with us but that the promised recovery has not arrived. Despite all claims to the contrary, business bankruptcies and redundancies are rising as fast as ever. The continuing inaction and complacency of the Government in the circumstances is not only unjustifiable but inexcusable. It is a gross betrayal of the urgent needs of Britain.
We have suffered two full years of recession in which total output has fallen by 4 per cent.; employment by 5 per cent.; manufacturing by 8 per cent.; construction by 13 per cent.; business investment by 14 per cent.; and manufacturing investment by an astonishing 28 per cent. That is unparalleled in the rest of western Europe or the G7 countries.
The tragedy for Britain is that there is not only no end to the recession but no Government strategy to bring it to an end. There is not one new special initiative to boost
30
investment or training, to cut closures or to bring about recovery—no recovery and no plan for recovery; nothing in the manifesto, nothing in the Queen's Speech, nothing in the weeks since and, of course, nothing in the reshuffling of desks at the Department of Trade and Industry, which was an apology for a British industrial strategy when the Secretary of State announced it on Friday.
Mr. Richard Tracey: The long list that the hon. Gentleman gives us is all very well, but before he goes any further perhaps he could pinpoint for the House what policies in the Labour manifesto at the general election would have done anything for British industry. Will he bear in mind that, of 200 top industrialists who were interviewed just before the general election, 86 per cent. said that the return of a Labour Government would be a disaster for British industry? If I may give the hon. Gentleman a bit of advice, he should concentrate on what Labour would do.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman feels the need to ask the Opposition what policies should be pursued to bring us out of recession. Is it not the case that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency unemployment has risen by 73 per cent. in the past two years? Would he not do better to argue with his colleagues in the Government about action that must be taken on unemployment?
The Prime Minister is at the G7 conference in Germany today. Is it not a disgrace, after all that he has said about Britain leading Europe and Britain being the economic miracle country in Europe, that Britain is bottom of the league of the major countries for growth not only for 1991 but, according to all forecasts, for 1992? We have been bottom of the league for demand for two years running. We are bottom of the league for business investment and employment growth. We have been seventh out of seven in the G7 for two years running, and we are now 12th out of 12 in the European Community.
We have the lowest growth forecast for this year, the worst fall in employment, and the poorest business investment record. We are the only country to face the harsher conditions of the internal market with less investment this year than last year and less investment last year than the year before. That is a remarkable achievement with which to commemorate our European presidency.
When they should call for co-ordinated interest rate cuts across Europe, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer strut the world stage with solutions for everyone else's problems but their own and a policy for every economy but ours. No wonder they do not want to talk about unemployment in the EC or the G7 countries. In Europe, the Prime Minister sits profoundly at the top of every table while, as a result of his policies, Britain sits sadly at the bottom of every league.
If anything sums up the Government's failure to take action to deal with the recession that they created, it is their callous attitude to those whom they have made unemployed. There is rising unemployment in every region. We have the fastest rising unemployment over two years of any country in Europe. There is an ever-growing number of casualties and victims of the Government's policies. Not only men and women in their 50s but those in their 40s fear that they will never work again. Young couples are jobless and homeless.

31
Not only are thousands of young people denied their first job, but this summer they are likely to be denied their first training place. The Government have not only cut training and training places but betrayed even their promises of temporary placements for the unemployed. Employment Action was launched in a blaze of publicity last spring. The Government promised 30,000 places as early as the end of March. Now there is a mere 19,000 places. So in some constituencies, such as those represented by my hon. Friends, approaching 10,000, and in some more than 10,000, men and women are unemployed, and the best that the Government can do is offer an average of 30 temporary placements for those whom they have made unemployed. This is not employment action but unemployment inaction, and it is a callous disregard of those whom the Government have made unemployed.
As we know from newspaper reports yesterday, the Government's response seems to be not to reduce unemployment but to consider reducing unemployment benefit. Just as the length of unemployment increases, the Government are considering reducing the time that benefit is available. It is not the unemployed who are to blame for letting down the Government but the Government who are to blame for letting down the unemployed. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Government will use the power of Government and the public spending round to attack the recession rather than to attack the unemployed.
This is the Government and the Prime Minister who told us that they would create opportunities for all, yet, as unemployment, the biggest single destroyer of opportunity, has risen by 1 million, as 50,000 businesses have closed, and as homes have been repossessed, they have done virtually nothing. This is the Prime Minister who promised during the general election campaign that he would create a classless society, a nation at ease with itself.
While thousands of people feel under threat of losing part of their £43 unemployment benefit, privatised utility executive directors, such as those in Thames Water, are allowed to award themselves huge salary rises followed by huge boardroom perks and to push up water prices by 14 per cent. at the expense of consumers and are given licence to make excess profits. Does the Prime Minister criticise them, or legislate against them? No, his response is confined to accepting gratefully from Thames Water, on behalf of the Conservative party, a cheque for £50,000 for the election campaign. When the Government do nothing about recession profiteering while the Conservative party benefits from it, the electorate will not forget and the Conservative party will pay a heavy price one day.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: How much would the hon. Gentleman be happy to add to the costs of British industry by accepting the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the question of the social chapter because that will allow the Secretary of State to put on record his support for the social charter. I meet around the country thousands of people who are worried about the Government's failure to take seriously their responsibilities for social policy within the Community. I hope that the
32
Secretary of State will continue to remind the Cabinet that the principle of the social chapter is acceptable not only to him but, according to every opinion poll, to the vast majority of the British people.
In the face of all this, the recession and unemployment, let us recall the promises that the Government have given so freely. They have promised not just that the recession would never happen, that it would be short-lived and shallow, that it would be over by last summer, last autumn, or last Christmas—the Prime Minister gave an interview on 1 January in which he said that the recovery had started as he spoke—but, just before the election and in search of power, that recovery would follow the election victory just as day followed night. During the campaign, the Prime Minister said:
"Britain is ready to move forward when others are sliding backwards. All that Britain is waiting for to achieve recovery is the confidence a Conservative Government will bring".
He also said:
"Vote Conservative on Thursday and the recovery will continue on Friday."
Three months have now passed. What is industry saying about these promises? According to McAlpine Ewart Hill, one of the Tories' election backers, these are
"The most difficult trading conditions this company can recall."
Sir Anthony Pilkington said:
"I've not met a single industrialist who sees any sign of upturn."
The Burton Group said:
"The only pick up is not in consumer demand but in conversation about consumer demand."
The Prime Minister who promised recovery last spring, last autumn, last Christmas and at the beginning of the year and was so explicit in his promises during the election campaign is responsible for a manifesto built on a fiction and has been guilty of misleading the country.
What of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose comments were few and far between during the election campaign? Budget purdah, when the Budget was kept under wraps before Budget day, was followed by the election purdah when the Chancellor was kept under wraps. In one of his rare public utterances, he said:
"The vital key to unlock recovery is … the confidence that only a Conservative Government can bring."
The Trade Minister, not to be outdone, his comments in the campaign, as ever, never knowingly understated, made a speech entitled, "Prosperity through the 90s". One of his remarks, not lost on nearly 1,000 British Aerospace workers who have lost their jobs and 40,000 whose jobs are under threat, was:
"I say to all those people in our aerospace industries 'You can trust the Tories' … the only kick-start that will work will be the confidence created by the election of a Conservative Government on 9th April."
What has that kick-start been? Sixty thousand more job losses? Fifteen thousand businesses gone under? More repossessions?
Indeed, yesterday, when The Sunday Times abandoned what it calls its green shoots of spring economic optimism index, it was because just about the only signs of recovery that it could find and report on in its columns over the past few weeks were Moss Brothers saying that dinner suit hire was rising at its Regent street and Covent Garden branches, and the Tea Council saying that Britons were drinking an average of five more cups of tea a year. No doubt the economy will boom when we see more people sitting around in hired dinner suits drinking more tea.
Even The Sun tells the Chancellor of the Exchequer:

33
"For God's sake, wake up Norman. The economy is crumbling around you and yet you still do nothing.''
We have a Conservative party on which even The Sun is setting. The central promise of the election campaign that the recovery would follow victory is in tatters. It is a trust betrayed and a cruel deception now being unmasked. The truth is that the only recovery that interested Tory Members was the recovery of power, and the only unemployment that concerned them was fear of their own.
Let us be clear about the sheer extent of the betrayal of promises. Before the election we were told that investment would rise by 1¼ per cent., but it is now falling; that domestic demand would rise by 3 per cent., but it is stagnating; that consumer expenditure would rise by 2½ per cent., but it is barely recovering; that GDP would rise by 2¼ per cent., but every day it is revised downwards; and that the balance of payments would rise to £6·5 billion, which was bad enough, but it is now running at a deficit level that is 50 per cent. higher.
From those difficulties that our economy faces in the short and long term it is clear that the promised recovery through confidence has not arrived, that every excuse given for inactivity—that confidence would be triggered by Conservative victory—has been exposed as a mirage, and that the Government now have absolutely no justification for inaction over the recession.
The Government must act in two ways immediately. First, we shall not swiftly bring the recession to an end unless we bring an end to the fear of rising unemployment, which is preventing people from spending, investing and moving home. That requires emergency action with a jobs programme for every region. Secondly, as the widening figures for the trade deficit already show, it is other countries' industries, not ours, that are likely to benefit from any recovery. To ensure lasting recovery for Britain we must have new investment in machinery, technology, skills and the regions as part of a new industrial policy for Britain.
Faced with all these problems—a recession, a trade deficit and Britain bottom of the league—what has been happening in Government since 9 April? What has been achieved by the Trade Minister? His first action at the Department of Trade and Industry was not the much-needed change of policy, but the wholly unnecessary change of title —calling himself President. What has been achieved as the President approaches the end of his first 100 days? The President should have known the difficulties that he might have from the right of his party when he heard of the election night party of Baroness Thatcher and her right-wing friends. Although much of the media attention was focused on Mr. Patten, now the member for the comparatively safe seat of Hong Kong, East, even then it was the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) who was being targeted by the right. Here is the first-hand account of The Daily Telegraph correspondent. He was at the party and later wrote:
"It is not true to say the right wing cheered when the left wing chairman of the Tory party was defeated … I was there.
In fact, Mrs. Thatcher was quick to express her sympathy for Mr. Patten … when Mr. Heseltine made an appearance on the TV she did though put her hand over the screen."
That gesture is at once symbolic and, as it turns out, prophetic. He has become President—but President of what? President of a Board of Trade which never meets, which has no active members, which must somehow spearhead a bold new industrial strategy for a new century and a new millenium, but which last met on 13 December
34
1850. The Board of Trade was wound up years ago, and there is no one there to notice should the President decide, on impulse and no doubt on a matter of principle, to walk out. The right hon. Gentleman is not so much the emperor with no clothes as the President with no board and far too little trade.
What of the right hon. Gentleman's ministerial colleagues, who are all on the Treasury Bench, all the President's men—or are they? The Under-Secretary of State for Technology is from the No Turning Back group and, unlike the President, he believes that regional policy is a phoney activity of Government. Perhaps he is there to keep a watchful eye on the President. The new Minister responsible for competition is also from the No Turning Back group and, unlike the President, he believes that Britain should not be in the exchange rate mechanism and that Britain should be the free port of Europe. Perhaps he is there to report back to the Prime Minister. This is the first time it has been thought necessary to impose on a Cabinet Minister not just one minder but two. As the President would have put it in one of his great speeches in the election campaign, "Thatcherites to the left of him, Thatcherites to the right of him, Thatcherites everywhere."
Let us stand back and look at the right hon. Gentleman's plans for the Department of Trade and Industry and at his books, "Where There's a Will" and "The Challenge of Europe". Calling himself President was not the limit of his ambitions. As President he would create not only an English development agency, introduce a public test for takeovers in a new law, and a new European company statute, transform research and development with a tax credit, but formulate an industrial strategy that would sweep across Whitehall, encompassing every Minister.
The right hon. Gentleman also had ambitions for his colleagues. The Secretary of State for Employment would be told to introduce a new training law, a tax or levy; the Secretary of State for Education would be told to have a new skills investment programme; the Secretary of State for Transport would have to have a new transport review; and in the book the Foreign Secretary was told:
"Some of the work of the Foreign Office is unsatisfactory…"
and changes would have to be made. Of course, the Prime Minister would have to sign the social charter. The whole of Government was to be reshaped in the image of the right hon. Gentleman's presidency. There were policies for every Department and roles for the President, not just as chairman of the National Economic Development Council in place of the Chancellor, because through the new industrial policy committee of the Cabinet,
"the president … should have the power base of a new cabinet committee on which he would take the chair … and on which other Cabinet Ministers … would sit."
One of the "inevitable roles" of the committee would be to decide for or against major projects, such as the channel tunnel and power stations, and it would control education and even taxation policy, which sounds a bit like the Chancellor's job.
What would be the Chancellor's role in this great new strategy? The book says:
"If the DTI is to increase its influence the Treasury will see this as a threat and so it should. Somehow we have to shift the balance. We must oppose the Treasury's never ending round of book keeping."

35
I am sorry that there is no one here from the Treasury to hear this while the Chancellor is away. The book continues:
"How often the Treasury can fail to see the big defect in its conduct … The weakness in Government is that there is not sufficient challenge to Treasury judgments which may frustrate the strategic … objectives of the Government and the work of the DTI."
What has happened to this great design, this ground plan, this master strategy? The 100 days of the President started with his determination to expand the National Economic Development Council with him in control. But they have ended, not with the President taking the chair from the Chancellor, but with the straightforward abolition of the NEDC by the Chancellor himself. In those 100 days the President's big achievement has been to make even the Chancellor look decisive and powerful. The 100 days began with his plan for the power base of a new industry committee. What has happened? The committee that started as the President's base from which to control the rest of the Government is to be chaired by Lord Wakeham, whose remit is undoubtedly to keep a close eye on the President. What started as the President's plan for an expansion of his power has become a means by which the Presidents is kept under control.
What of the Foreign Office? The 100 days were preceded by the statement:
"The present role of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is unsatisfactory … a changed role would naturally require considerable changes in the training of diplomats".
The 100 days have now ended with him saying exactly the opposite. I quote from his speech on 1 June:
"Let me say it here, the Foreign Office has developed an experience and a sophistication in the promotion of our national enterprise that is now world class."
It is not so much a case of the 100 days that changed the Foreign Office as the 100 days that changed the views of the President.
The same is true of training. The 100 days which were preceded by the demand for compulsory action, with a levy or tax on training, have ended with him praising the voluntary approach. The 100 days were preceded by the demand for action, with research tax credit, the English development agency, and investment in seed corn research. Undoubtedly, the need for new money has ended with the President in retreat, saying that he needs no more money —the first time that a spending Minister has conceded his case even before the spending round has begun.
How do we sum up the President's first 100 days? After seven years of Kennedy-style build up and campaigning for the presidency and three months of Camelot hype, I can tell him what has happened. As President Kennedy would have put it, "Ask not what you can do for the Cabinet; ask what the Cabinet has done to you." The City responsibilities of the DTI have gone to the Chancellor, who is almost 10 years younger. The film responsibilities for the DTI have gone to the rising star, the Secretary of State for National Heritage. Public spending directions are now at the behest of the youngest Cabinet Minister, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As President Kennedy would have put it, "The torch has passed to a new generation."
The President is able to call himself what he wants, talk to whoever he chooses, hire any advertising agency he fancies. He has full powers and unlimited responsibilities
36
to reorganise the desks within his Department, but he cannot begin to contemplate the implementation of a genuine industrial strategy for Britain. Perhaps next week there will be an announcement on the dramatic reshuffle of the office furniture, and the week after that sweeping new recommendations on the colour of the curtains. But when there are no new measures on research, manufacturing, technology and exports, his is absolute power over a Department that is unfortunately becoming absolutely powerless.
The Minister—the President—who spent years in exile working out his plans, who promised so much, who stormed the country with his new ideas for an industrial strategy, who was the darling of the Conservative associations, the hero of a thousand Conservative party lunches, the interventionist tiger of the rubber chicken circuit has been brought low, reduced to trophy status. The tiger that was once the king of the jungle is now just the fireside rug—decorative and ostentatious, but essentially there to be walked all over.
My concern is not so much for the personal fate of the President, but for the fate of industrial policy. We face massive technological, demographic, industrial, training and environmental challenges in an increasingly global economy. There is an urgent need for our industrial strategy to have the backing not just of the President but of the Government. It must, first, encourage long-term investment to bridge what the President has called the investment gap. Secondly, it must boost training and technology to reverse the deterioration and erosion of our position. Thirdly, it must back exports to end the position where, as the President has said, our attitude to the trade deficit has been simplistic. Fourthly, it must ensure that our regional economies play a full part in balanced, sustainable growth in this country.
We are faced with huge regional imbalances and growth rates in our regions which, over the next few years, are predicted to be a third or less than half those of the most prosperous regions of Europe. The Secretary of State has promised action, but there was nothing in the manifesto and nothing since, and cuts are taking place in the Government's regional investment budget. Regional selective assistance is to fall by 6 per cent. this year. Is it not vital that the Prime Minister and the Government listen to the views coming from the regions? Is it not vital that they do not use the review of regional aid maps to cut regional support? Also vital is detailed consideration of the creation of the long-sought English development agencies, and of work to strengthen those that already exist in Scotland and Wales. The President himself admitted a crisis in research and development funding, that the gap between ourselves and our competitors is widening, and that he proposed measures that have not yet been implemented. At the same time, support for technology has been cut this year, and nothing in the Queen's Speech reverses that.
I want from this debate a guarantee that the Government will carefully consider the reports from the House of Lords and from their own scientific advisers that specifically make the case for information technology, and the creation of a new research tax credit and country-wide technology transfer network to ensure that we do not move out of the current recession with an even weaker technology base.
Training also is recognised to be in crisis. The President spoke of Britain's lamentable training record and patchy part-time education, one of the poorest performances in

37
science up to the age of 14, and alarming weaknesses in mathematics among teenagers. He said also that the youth training scheme is not an adequate building block. The right hon. Gentleman proposes changes in training legislation. Will he use his influence to bring training cuts to a halt so that our country will cease to be the only one in Europe whose training budgets are being cut? 'Will he promise to push for a new training policy so that skill levels can be improved?
We know from the British Exporters Association that United Kingdom jobs are being exported because of lack of assistance, and that workplace redundancies are occurring because of the Government's cuts in export support. In Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the importance of tackling the trade deficit. He said that it was not of incidental importance, self-correcting, or easily financed.
I want the Government to outline measures to support British exports, end privatisation, and support regionally based export services that will lead to Britain winning new markets in Europe and elsewhere. I want a Government strategy for manufacturing, investment, training, technology, and our regions that measures up to the challenges of the future.
We need a Government who will act in the public interest to end the recession, tackle the trade deficit and secure lasting recovery, preside over an investment decade for the British economy, and with the ambition to make our work force the best trained and educated in Europe. We need a Government who will take measures now to reduce unemployment, tackle poverty, and eliminate low pay. We need a Government who will confront the challenges that face our country in an increasingly international economy.
We have instead a Government who, three months after an election victory, have no strategy for recovery other than to talk about it, no plan for unemployment other than further to penalise the unemployed, no policy for helping industry other than cutting its budget, and who are so complacent and arrogant that they do not even pretend to care about the misery caused by bankruptcies, closures, and unemployment in every region.
We have a Government who are creating not a classless society but a heartless society. It will be the job of the Labour Opposition to attack Conservative failure, to expose the broken promises, and to point the way to a better future.
4.28 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine).: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'recognises the essential need to maintain British competitiveness by containing inflation and improving productivity; and believes that the long term needs of British industry are best served by the control of public expenditure, competitive tax rates, deregulation, and an incentive economy.'.
Three essential matters ought to preoccupy the House in any debate on recession in industry. The first, to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred at length, is not in dispute—the existence of the recession itself. The second is the nature of the practical options available to the Government to combat the difficult situation. The third is the world context in which our economy operates.
38
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East regurgitated a range of facts about the recession. I might argue with one or two of the pieces of evidence that he produced, but I certainly do not take issue with his claim that we are in a recession—the most difficult recession that we have experienced since the war. I am prepared to recognise at once the strain that that places on companies and employees, including those who, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, have lost their jobs or fear that they will lose them. We all understand that as constituency Members of Parliament and it is understood by every member of the Government. Such issues are drawn to our attention constantly, and rightly so.
Although I do not take issue with the hon. Gentleman over the existence of a recession, I consider the naivety with which he presented his case that it was largely a United Kingdom phenomenon more suited to the politics of opposition than to any serious analysis of the real problems that face our economy. We heard virtually nothing of the fact that across the trading world, and among economies broadly comparable with ours, very similar Governments face very similar problems. The United States, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Australia and New Zealand are all experiencing a degree of recession. Beyond peradventure, there has been a world turndown.
The hon. Gentleman did not say how he expected the British economy to buck the present economic situation, or how a whole range of developments could take place in this country, given that the bulk of our export trade is with markets that are themselves in difficult circumstances. He seem oblivious to the fact that the leaders of the Group of Seven countries, who are meeting today, are acutely conscious that growth was lower last year than in any year since 1982. The catalogue of problems that he described are a consequence of that.
The hon. Gentleman said that particular problems were associated with our position, but he entirely failed to add that one of the reasons for that was the high rate of growth enjoyed by our economy in the 1980s. He also failed to point out that unemployment has risen in most European countries and that in Japan, for example, industrial production has fallen by more than 5 per cent. over the past year, compared with only 0·5 per cent. in our economy.
When I begin to analyse the options available to the Government, the division between the hon. Gentleman and myself becomes acute. At its simplest, the Government's task is not to find more ways of spending money; it is to find a way of helping the British economy to become more competitive. That task is never-ending and our competitors are not resting in the process: there is a constant change of circumstances, and a continual quest for further competitiveness, in the competing economies with which we must do business.
I make no apology for saying that I intend my Department to continue to examine the factors in the British economy in regard to which we can and should do better. That strikes me as the proper purpose of the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Thomas Graham: Does the Secretary of State recall the promise that was made to thousands of young school leavers? Every one of

39
them was guaranteed a training place, but they are still desperate to obtain such places. Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise to them?
Mr. Heseltine: I am fully aware of the commitment to provide young people with, originally, places on the youth training scheme, and I am also fully aware that it was the Labour party that resisted those proposals—partly because they offended the trade unions, which felt that they would present a rival alternative to their own training procedures. That is the clearest example of the way in which, over the past decade, the fundamental issue of how to improve training in the public sector has been addressed by the Conservative party and resisted by Labour.
A major characteristic of the Labour party is its response to our efforts to address the fundamental issues involved in a lack of competitiveness. Whenever we have tried to address those issues, the Labour party has resisted our attempts, on behalf of the forces of the producer-led trade unions that it represents. That has been the tradition of the past decade.
Mr. John Spellar: The intake of apprentices in the electrical contracting industry has gone down from 3,000 a couple of years ago to 1,000, and the number is falling. The unions and the employers are co-operating, but they find that they get very little Government co-operation.
Mr. Heseltine: I do not accept for one minute that they do not get Government co-operation. There has been more focus on Government-led training over the past decade than in any other decade since the war. That is the experience of all those who have any understanding of what is going on.
I intend to make sure that my Department improves the quality of our dialogue with the different sectors of the industries that we sponsor. Equally, I am preoccupied with ensuring that the services that we provide are delivered as effectively as we can provide them—close to those people who are responsible for running our companies at the trading level and at the local level.
We have no choice but constantly to search for ways in which the Government can properly assist and advise the companies on which our wealth-creating process depends. I repeat, however, that a persistent characteristic of the Labour party is always to resist changes that are designed to pursue competitiveness.
To take the most significant of them all, the battle against inflation: inflation fell from nearly 11 per cent. in 1990 to 4·3 per cent. in May 1992, yet the Labour party resisted at every turn the steps that were necessary to get inflation under control. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) asks me who was responsible for the inflation. He forgets that inflation had been running at 27 per cent. under a Labour Government. with all the devastating uncertainties that apparently the Labour party wants to forget. We have faced the unpalatable truths about a competitive economy and pursued what we believe to be the right means of achieving it.
When the Conservative Government lowered the levels of direct taxation to provide an incentive economy, the Labour party voted consistently against that process and campaigned, mercifully unsuccessfully, in the general
40
election to reverse it. We reduced corporation tax from 52 per cent. to 33 per cent. The moment that we did it the party that was prepared to see corporation tax at 52 per cent. switched its ground dramatically in order to argue that we should go back to the industrial tax allowance procedures, even at the low level of taxes that we had introduced.
I fully understand the arguments of all those people who say that we should give more export credit. That was the point that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East wanted to make. He believes that we should provide more aid and trade provision support. He ignores the fact that inevitably a judgment of what we can afford has to be made by the Government. The hon. Gentleman never told the House that in the case of past debts, incurred under export credit, we are currently asking the British taxpayer to pick up a bill of £400 million a year because many of the risks have proved to be well-founded. In those circumstances, the Government must make a decision.
I have every sympathy with those companies that face competition from companies backed by other Governments. They see tantalising contracts within their grasp, provided that the Government will back the risk. We do so on a significant scale, but there is a limit to what we can do, and there will always be such a limit. In the end, we may be unable to reach the judgment that all companies would like.
Mr. Dennis Turner: Does the Secretary of State accept that what he has just said is a serious smokescreen? He has not touched at all on the major issues that face industry and business—interest rates. That is the greatest problem facing companies in my town of Wolverhampton and throughout the west midlands. There have been 2,000 bankruptcies in the past six months. Tell us about high interest rates.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to the hon. Member. Interest rates have fallen from 15 per cent. in September 1990 to 10 per cent. now, thereby cutting industry's costs by £6 billion a year. The Labour party, which thinks that inflation can be fought without taking difficult decisions, has no credible alternative to deal with that vital part of our industrial strategy.
If we are to debate genuinely the harsh facts of industrial competitiveness—the House must realise that whether we debate those facts or not is secondary to the fact that the world outside understands what they are—we must realise that Britain's inflation is still higher than that of our principal competitors. In the United States, inflation is about 3 per cent. but in Japan it is less than 2·5 per cent. Nothing that we do or say in the House will prevent a wider audience from weighing the facts of our wage settlements with those of our competitors.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, with his catalogue of generalisations and fictional policies, diverts the attention of the country from the reality that last year our manufacturing earnings grew by about 8 per cent., compared with 6 per cent. in Germany, 4 per cent. in Japan and only 3 per cent. in the United States. There are no policies whereby any domestic Government can prevent the conversion of those statistics into lost jobs, lost competitiveness and higher unemployment. The longer the Labour party goes on talking as though there were, the more the consequences will be felt by people who listen to them and are deluded by the escapism that it peddles.

41
In our drive to continue the increased performance of our industry. we have, yes, increasingly privatised a growing sector of our economy. I accept that the Labour party thinks that we are wrong. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said today that we were wrong to privatise the nationalised industries. He wanted to keep control of the industrial sector in London, whereas we have transferred it to the regions. He wanted to keep tax at 98p in the pound so that he and his colleagues could spend the money that we believe the wealth-creating sector can better spend at its discretion. That is what socialism was about.
When Labour Members talk of privatisation, do they ever realise that when a great raft of industries were nationalised they were not allowed to trade overseas or to move into export markets? That is what socialism meant —trade union-dominated committees, power vested in London, no competitiveness, vast subsidies and a raft of the British economy neutered out of the trading economy.
We have been prepared to face down the Opposition and to carry through those policies of privatisation. What has been the outcome? Throughout the world, are Government after Government or country after country following the advice of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East? Are they listening to him? Are they harking back to the great days of Britain's industrial supremacy under the previous Labour Government?
Show me a Government who want to go back to what the Labour Government were doing. The Malaysian Government identified 147 privatisation candidates in 1990 alone, with 37 due for sale in the next two years. Poland—perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East harks back to the system that the Poles are trying to overthrow—plans to transfer 200 companies. Plans are well advanced in Singapore for the privatisation of its telecommunications network.
The same can be seen throughout the world. Hungary is in the second stage of its privatisation programme, with 300 companies on the list. The Mexican Government have reduced their holding in their telecommunications business to less than 10 per cent. The Greek Government are planning to sell 49 per cent. of Olympic Airways before the end of the year. The Bundestag has voted to privatise air traffic control and the German Finance Minister has confirmed that Deutsche Telekom is a prime candidate for privatisation. Who was right, and what conceivable advantage would there be for the British economy to revert to the practices which have been discredited here and which everyone overseas is abandoning?
All we have left is an ever-dwindling gathering of yesterday's zealots, competing to recycle yesterday's ideas. What is the purpose of the competition? What is the only target that Labour Members really understand? It is to win a place on the national executive committee of the Labour party or to grab the top slots in the parliamentary party. None of my colleagues would give house room to those targets, but Labour Members are obsessed with them.
I absolve Labour Members from any form of doctrinal obsessionism. Nothing is sacred in the battle that they are fighting among themselves. Three months ago, the Labour party had a manifesto and was at war with the Tory Government. Today, to the best of my knowledge. the manifesto is still there but the Labour party is at war with itself. Everyone now knows that we persuaded the country that Labour's manifesto was wrong and ill-conceived.
42
That was no mean electoral achievement. But none of us realised at the time just how great an intellectual achievement it was. It took time to realise that we had also persuaded large parts of the Labour party that the manifesto was wrong and ill-conceived. I found it extraordinarily difficult to keep up with Labour Members. Take my old friend, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). We followed each other in and out of television and radio stations during the campaign. In every programme, he waxed more lyrical about Labour's policies for the 1990s. I had no idea how closely he was listening to me until I read shortly after the election what he had told readers of New Statesman and Society. He said:
"Our endorsement of Tory macroeconomic policy and acceptance that it should aim for no more than monetary stability meant that we were unable to offer … a convincing route to full employment or economic recovery … all we had to say [to those on middle incomes] was that we intended to tax them more severely."
The hon. Member for Dagenham was uncharacteristic-ally slow in trying to gather back the departing middle classes compared with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was determined to play his own inestimable role in frightening them off for good:
"there is a good case for public ownership … which I am happy to accept."—[Official Report. 11 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 388.]
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East is as happy, but nothing more clearly reveals the divide that opened up in the Labour party after the election. We all knew it before the election, the country discovered it during the election and now Labour Members are beginning to understand it for themselves.
Against the background of that internecine battle for Labour's soul, we today heard the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East trying to invent a new industrial strategy. What is the only creative aspect of his new industrial strategy? It is to get himself made shadow Chancellor. I wish him well. He will certainly enjoy a great deal more loyal and consistent support from Conservative Members than he will ever receive from Labour Members. When the hon. Gentleman becomes shadow Chancellor, he will he forced to consider the third set of issues which confront Government on an international scale. The first is to reconcile the public expenditure pressures of recession with our membership of the exchange rate mechanism, with all the disciplines that that imposes.
I have already referred to our relatively uncompetitive inflation figures. I assume that the hon. Gentleman is not one of those who are arguing to ease counter-inflationary pressures by transferring the strain to the pound. There is nothing new in that approach, except that this time it would mean realigning the pound for the first time within the ERM. That is not a new argument; it is only a reproduction of the old argument about J-curves which the siren voices have advanced many times since the war. The problem for us was that every time we let the pound take the strain, we encouraged domestic inflation to erode any temporary competitive advantage that we achieved; thus the incipient decline in competitiveness continued. The Government have set their face against that course.
The second international issue which would confront the new shadow Chancellor is arguably the most significant of all. The Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade has been under way for six

43
years. Its successful conclusion could deliver nearly 5200 billion a year in extra world trade. The outcome could lead to a bigger increase in help to the developing world, central Europe and the former Soviet Union than any conceivable aid programmes ever could. The investment that it could provide would far exceed in environmental benefits anything agreed at the recent Rio conference.
There should not therefore be the slightest doubt about our commitment to success in bringing a satisfactory conclusion to the GATT round. In fact, there are the makings of a deal. In particular, there is an opportunity —indeed, I would go further and say that there is a responsibility—for the European Community and the Commission to resolve the internal divisions over agriculture, which are the single greatest impediment to a successful conclusion of the GATT round.
As shadow Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman would also wish to contemplate the completion of the single market under the British presidency. It was a Briton, the noble Lord Cockfield, who in 1985 forced Europe to abandon its customary rhetoric and to focus its attention on a detailed agenda. We shall see most of that specific agenda and a great deal else completed by the end of the year.
It is impossible to overstate the importance of that achievement or the consequences for our trading companies. Two thirds of our overseas trade is now with Europe. There is an overriding national priority to ensure that no controversy over the Maastricht treaty clouds the judgment of the smallest company about the inevitability of the single market.
It was 1986 and the Single European Act which set in stone our trading patterns for the foreseeable future. There are opportunities but no entitlements. Indeed, the Government's policy is constantly to widen those opportunities. Thus we strongly support Commission proposals to allow access by EC-based undertakings into other member states' oil and gas supply industries. The third aviation liberalisation package is another good example, leading to direct benefits to consumers and operators. It is here that some of the most exciting developments for our economy are taking place.
I was appalled by the hon. Gentleman's misrepresenta-tions of the relative strengths of the British economy. He talks as though there were no signs of recovery and as though everything were going wrong. It just so happens that, without selecting anything other than today's news. I found on my desk the figures for sales of commercial vehicles, which show an increase of 5·16 per cent. on a year ago. New car registrations are up 4·4 per cent. on June 1991, so there are significant examples of recovery beginning to emerge.
This morning I happened to read an account in The Times which made it clear that other European companies such as Volkswagen and Mercedes Benz scour British component manufacturers so that they can enjoy the benefits caused by the entry into our market of three big Japanese companies and the improved productivity that has followed.
It is against that background that I invite the House to consider whether the increased productivity and increased performance of our work force, companies and managers are not the real world in which we must make a judgment. I ask the House to consider whether the shadow Secretary
44
of State for Trade and Industry is more likely to bring a dispassionate account of performance of our economy than, say, a rather more perceptive observer such as Jacques Delors, who has described—[Interruption.] The House is likely to recognise that the President of the European Commission, who describes our economy as
"a paradise for Japanese investment",
is more likely to be telling the truth than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. We must then consider why Jacques Delors made that judgment.
Between 1988 and 1991 we attracted nine times more inward investment than Germany, five times more than Italy and three times more than France. The House will want to judge whether that is God-given or whether it is because there is in this country an opportunity to trade successfully on a scale not available in the rest of the Community.
The House will also perceive another significant change about which we heard nothing from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, which is the performance of British exports. For the first time since the end of the second world war, Britain's share of world trade has stabilised and even improved slightly. [Laughter.] It is not surprising that the first reaction of members of Labour's Front Bench is to laugh. Are they laughing at the fact that it has stabilised and improved, or are they laughing in shame at their record in government when it constantly declined?
Mr. Brown: Will the President of the Board of Trade simply confirm that Britain's share of world trade rose under the previous Labour Government and has declined under this Government?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall not confirm that because it is not the case. Since the 1950s, Britain's share of world trade declined consistently, and the first significant reversal of that happened towards the end of the 1980s. I am fully aware of our economy's propensity to import and of the open access of our distribution system, but I am equally aware of other impressive statistics which give grounds for optimism.
Exported goods account for more than 18 per cent. of our GDP, compared to 9·6 per cent. for Japan and 7·1 per cent. for the United States. It is therefore unthinkable to argue that we arc not capable of winning world markets, because we do so with a larger proportion of our GDP than almost any other equivalent economy in the world. In the three months to May 1992, British experts— [Interruption.]—were 5 per cent. higher than a year earlier, despite the most difficult trading circumstances in the world economy for some years.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has one overriding problem. He knows full well that in practice there are no short-term fixes or quick gimmicks to affect the course of a nation's economy, but the difficulty of being a spokesman for the Opposition is that one must give the impression that there are. Let me take the most frequently touted solution of them all which encapsulates the whole case that he made today. Broadly, the solution was that, somehow, if I were to ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for some dramatic increase in my Department's expenditure, which I will not do, and if my right hon. Friend were to agree, which he would not do, I should be able to fix it jobs would flow, cash registers would ring, the nation, miraculously, would

45
be back to work. It is a delusion. I should merely be recycling the taxes that someone else has to pay, or keeping interest rates higher than they would otherwise be.
As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said, it is perfectly true that my Department's budget, at £1·4 billion, is a fraction of what it was in 1979. But what was the Department in 1979? I do not seem to remember that it was some great power-house of technological advance, driving the foreigners out of the marketplaces of the world. Oh, no, it was something very different, something that the Labour party understands—indeed, thrives on: losses, slush funds and industrial incontinence. In 1979–80 the Labour party spent, at today's prices, £3 billion propping up nationalised industries. That is why the budget of the Department of Trade and Industry was larger. British Steel required £1·5 billion, British Shipbuilders £0·6 billion, and so it went on. I have to confess that we are still, this year, spending £1 million, and we shall try to do better. But we do not have the slightest intention of asking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to go back to the horrendous subsidies that were characteristic of the Labour party.
It is very easy for the Opposition to talk of the white heat of technology. That was the label on the door. The closest they got to white heat was the roasting they received from the International Monetary Fund. One cannot make an economy efficient by subsidising inefficiency. Any institution can produce at a cost, but the point of production is to sell. I should have thought that the Labour party, with its new-found commitment to the wilder extremes of salesmanship, would realise that orchestrating large-scale extravaganzas is of limited appeal. But it never learns. Only three months ago, we saw, in Sheffield, the rally that was designed to herald the end of the lonely years—red roses, even redder faces, the limos, the charas, the razzamatazz. That was to be the night of which a future generation of young socialists would cry, "Where were you, daddy, on the night of the great rally?" More to the point, where are they now? I invite my right hon. and hon. colleagues to support us in making it clear that they are on the Opposition Benches and that is where they will stay.
5.1 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I am grateful to have been called so early in the debate. I am conscious that many hon. Members on both sides wish to speak, so my remarks will he brief.
All of us who heard the Secretary of State will see this as a sad occasion—sad for him personally, and sad for the state of debate in the House of Commons. Over the years the right hon. Gentleman has tried to take industrial policy seriously, so it is sad that he should be reduced to the sort of speech to which we have just had to listen. What we have before us is nothing but a muted Tarzan riding a paper tiger, a President without powers, in charge of a Department without power. That is not exactly the agenda that the right hon. Gentleman set for himself, and I think that he will take it from me that many Opposition Members seriously expected from him more than he has been able to deliver. However, we understand the reasons. The right hon. Gentlman has been humiliated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ignored by his Prime Minister —the two people on the Government Benches who owe more than anyone else to the right hon.
46
Gentleman for their elevated positions. Were it not for his pyrrhic victory and then his quixotic charge for the leadership of the party, they certainly would not be where they are today. What we have is a Secretary of State who had a very clear blueprint of what he wanted to do once he got to the very Ministry on which he had for so long set his sights if he could not get the leadership.
What was wrong with that blueprint? What was wrong with the idea of redressing the balance within Cabinet, within the machinery of Government, in favour of industry and against the Treasury? What would have been wrong with having an industrial sub-committee of the Cabinet of which the Secretary of State, whoever he was, was the chairman, and the Chancellor a member? Those were very good ideas—to be found in the right hon. Gentleman's book, which many of us have read—and many of us in the Opposition would have liked to incorporate them into our policies had we won the election. The only thing wrong with them is that the right hon. Gentleman has been unable, in power, to implement them, and the country and the Government are the poorer. They were good ideas.
What was wrong with the idea of an enhanced NEDC, now reduced to a rump to be located in the Department of Trade and Industry? The one change—a magnificent organisational change—that the right hon. Gentleman has made is that we are back to the sponsoring departments of his Ministry. It is a good idea, but if there is no money with which to sponsor, even that idea is not worth having. There is no point in trying to make a virtue out of the vice that the right hon. Gentleman has inherited—a Department devoid of funds. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the change whereby all the vital funding from our own Department was switched to European funding was matched nowhere in Europe. In the rest of Europe national funding was carried on in tandem with European funding. Indeed, it was used to promote those companies that were anxious to get into BRITE—basic research in industrial technology in Europe—for electronics and other projects. Britain, alone, under the last Prime Minister, thought fit to slash all the subsidies. It cut to the quick the promotional, constructive funding that had been very successful under SEFIS—the small engineering firms investment scheme —product development programmes in the early Tory years.
So it was with no pleasure that I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's pathetic speech this afternoon. In the past, we have been entertained, we have been chastised, and we have seen him at his best. Today we saw him at his very worst. If it were only a personal tragedy it would not matter so much, but it is a national tragedy, about which hon. Members throughout the House will have to think very clearly as we enter a four-year Parliament. It seems to me—and this question or charge, however it is seen, is put forward very seriously—that the Government, in effect, have decided that they really do not mind if the recession is unduly prolonged. They do not mind if they do not take action that they know that they should take now.
They ought to risk a reduction in interest rates, but they fear that if the recovery were to get under way too quickly they might have to face a second election with the economic cycle out of kilter with the political-electoral cycle. That would be a very serious charge, but I put it to the Secretary of State as a serious question because it seems to me that there is deliberate inaction. What we are seeing is unnecessary postponement of interest rate

47
reductions. The Government wish to delay the pick-up, which will come, so that it coincides with the next electoral cycle. I can find no other reason. This is something about which the Government will have to come clean with the House and the country.
I want to take this opportunity to put two other issues to the President. The first concerns the European fighter aircraft. This is one of the crises that occur in a Government's lifetime. In my opinion, it is a crisis of very serious proportions and of potentially very serious repercussions for the British aerospace industry. The withdrawal of Germany from EFA is a mortal blow to that programme in its present status. The murmurings from Spain that we have heard—the right hon. Gentleman will know far more about them we do—confirm that. Here we have a classic example of the balance of power in Government about to be played out in precisely the way the Secretary of State foresaw in his book.
The international scene has dramatically changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the removal of the threat from the former Communist bloc, but is the decision to be driven by the Treasury or will it be taken by a Cabinet that is fully informed of industrial interests and in which those interests are fully defended? The right hon. Gentleman has lost out in all his battles so far: this is one battle that he must not lose.
We shall understand if certain aspects of the EFA programme have to be modified to take account of the new defence situation—that will be unravelled as the debate starts. But we cannot accept the idea of the right hon. Gentleman losing this battle and the programme collapsing.
My second point concerns the use of the Department's funds for the manufacturing sector. There are many initiatives which the President could take. I have already mentioned the small engineering firms investment incentive. It was highly successful, as were product grants. They could be reintroduced by the sponsoring Department and used in conjunction with companies' approaches to European funding for this country. Unless Europeans know that our own sponsoring Department is behind a programme, we are unlikely to get our fair share of the funds that become available.
It occurs to me that I should declare an interest, as chairman of a publicly quoted company—Transfer Technology Group plc. At the sharp end we are increasingly aware that the United Kingdom Government are the only Government of a major industrialised country in Europe not supporting their own manufacturing industries. That will not do; the challenge that remains for the Secretary of State—if he survives in his position or feels that he can live with himself masochistically as he endures the humiliation to which I have already referred—is: can he bring our Department of Trade and Industry in line with other such departments in Europe, in line with best practice, and in support of British industry?
The Secretary of State must be honest with himself and accept that if he cannot do that—he has failed to do so in the first 100 days—he will have no option but to take the honourable step, as he did once before, we hope with greater consideration on this occasion, and resign.
5.11 pm
Mr. John Biffen: I declare an interest as a director of Glynwed International plc, J. Bibby and Sons plc and Charterrail Ltd., all of which are directly involved with British industry.
It was a delight to listen to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It was a vintage performance and it was a privilege not to have to go to a party conference and engage in a standing ovation to hear such a speech—it was brought to us here and I thank my right hon. Friend for that.
I follow up my compliment by saying how much I appreciated my right hon. Friend's emphasis on the Government's growing success in respect of inflation and productivity. My right hon. Friend knows, as all Conservatives know, that the Government's economic fortunes are intimately connected with all their fortunes. The problems, from dentistry to Maastricht, will be enveloped in a sombre veil if they are played out against the experiences of economic underperformance. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend's optimism in this respect is well-founded.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand if I speak candidly about how I see the prospects for the economy. I am delighted that we have moved away from the ministerial optimism that seemed to prevail for a while shortly after the election, when one felt that the spectre of Herbert Hoover and his presidential slogan "prosperity around the corner" was still apparent. Nobody feels that that applies now.
There is bound to be some anxiety about why measures are not being taken to remedy what is clearly the most protracted recession since the war. The things that inspire caution in the Treasury are fear that measures may be ill-timed and not reversible and fear that they will have consequent inflationary implications. I understand that judgment, but it needs a little further consideration.
Of course there are powerful inhibiting factors. The first concerns public spending. It cannot be adjusted as though it were a contra-cyclical element in economic management. Broadly speaking, we have tried to proceed with Budgets that run over a period and are not subject to short-term change. I am prepared to bet that the present public spending round will confirm that judgment. I have reason to believe that it will produce spending ahead of last year's and that it will reflect underlying and undeniable social demands for spending on education and health and other parts of social expenditure—albeit exacerbated by the recession.
The second aspect of the economy in which there is little room to manoeuvre is revenue. There was a time when it was fashionable to think in terms of being able to use it as a short-term weapon of economic management. We had the regulator to deal with indirect taxation. That has now lapsed—it is no longer formally available and it is certainly out of fashion, and all who lived through that experience will understand why.
The problem is much wider. We have it on the authority of the Prime Minister that value added tax is not to be altered or widened and that its rates are not to be increased, so a major area of indirect taxation has been, to some extent, insulated, making economic manoeuvring more difficult.
The pressures in respect of income tax are that it should be rigorously contained, so the Tory pattern of taxation

49
does not admit of much manoeuvre. We are confronted with high borrowing and, as the recession unwinds much more slowly than we should have liked, borrowing levels will persist. That is not very agreeable. I do not allocate blame, but I believe that this type of analysis has to be made in a House of Commons debate of this character so that we may judge as dispassionately as possible what the best course of action is.
Although a policy of masterly inaction may have some merit, I do not believe that the politics of the situation will admit of it—nor would the economic situation. That is why I turn to what I know is distressing for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade: the final element in the economic equation, interest rates. The bank base rate of 10 per cent., giving a real interest rate of 5·7 per cent., seems profoundly high for an economy in the state of ours—output is static and Ernst and Young's Item Club in The Times of today prophesies that in the, year ahead the economy will contract by 0·6 per cent.
No one could argue that there is much pressure on capacity: I would argue the reverse. There is clear evidence of spare capacity in the economy. Against that background, what would happen to inflation if there were a cut in interest rates? That is a calm and unemotional question. It is not an objective question, because it contains a political judgment. What would such a cut do for personal savings? Would it trigger a credit boom? One can only give an instinctive and highly judgmental answer. However, all the evidence points to the fact that there is great caution in respect of consumption. People are rebuilding their savings. I do not believe that they are poised ready for an expansion in credit reminiscent of a decade ago.
What effect would such a cut have on the corporate side? Would it set off a great expansion of corporate investment? I do not believe that that is the case. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) has experience of industry and he would echo my judgment. The serious devastating problems in the corporate sector involve costs. The tangible gain from the change that I am advocating is that it would provide some relaxation on the costs of the corporate sector and on industry more than any other aspect of our total economic activity because credit plays a rather greater role in that respect.
I am advocating a modest change and step. However, I believe that it would be welcome and would be highly relevant in trying to develop the policies prosecuted by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. If, at the end of the day, we are told that such a change cannot be made, not because of inflationary considerations, which I have tried to address, but because of exchange rate considerations, I must state that, having established a fixed exchange rate around which we dance as if it were a totem, we will re-create for ourselves the difficulties of the 1960s which hon. Members will recall. The Labour Government were crucified by the way in which they had to pay regard to a fixed exchange rate.
I began by referring to a rather austere American, Mr. Herbert Hoover. To maintain the transatlantic link, I shall conclude by quoting a very exotic American, Mr. William Jennings Bryan. He became considerably agitated about economic guidelines in the great debate about gold and said,
"Man was not born to be crucified on a cross of gold."
If the argument for interest rates suggests some real action for members of society infinitely more hard pressed than
50
any hon. Member, they will wonder what world the Front-Bench spokesmen occupy when so little was said about the problem of interest rates bearing upon the whole range of industry.
It is not just the privilege of Front Benchers, committed to the exchange rate mechanism, to decide that those matters are not available for wider discussion because of the implications that the whole thing is so horrific and horrendous, fundamental and revolutionary that it cannot be addressed. A system of fixed exchange rates on a Community basis is the apex of centralism. If we are moving towards a more relaxed view so that decisions can be taken more at the periphery—towards, dare I say it, subsidiarity—the argument for this country being master of its own exchange rate in partnership with its sister Europeans is valid. I hope that my few words will eventually, in their subversive way, convince even my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade of that.
5.23 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: It is always a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who turned what was becoming a debate about one President into a debate about several Presidents. He introduced an analysis with which, in large measure, I do not disagree—apart, that is, from its conclusion. I agree with the need for flexibility of manoeuvre and with the paramouncy of considering interest rates as an element of that. However, we should not do that in the structural ways that the right hon. Gentleman described.
The areas where there is no disagreement in the debate are interesting. There is now no disagreement between the Government and Opposition parties' Front Benches about the extraordinary, unique and difficult situation. The Government accepted the analysis set out in the Opposition motion. The Government broke ranks with the Labour party only in arguing about what should he done, although I do not believe that they argued very effectively about that. However, there appears to be no internal or external dissent about the extent of the recession, its depth and the fact that it is the worst since the war. We all have to accept the difficulties that we face.
It is also accepted that there are no short-term fixes. No one now imagines that things will be different in a matter of weeks or months. It is noticeable that, in his most recent pronouncements, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is no longer talking about turning corners in the next six months. He is now talking in much longer time scales than that.
The Chancellor made a much more realistic analysis last month. He said:
"In two or three years' time, I believe that people will look back and see that it was during this critical period that the right decisions were taken."
We can argue whether the right decisions are being taken, but there is no argument that it will take two or three years before there is recovery and that this is the critical time.
What is the agenda? What are the possible ways out of the recession? The newspapers have today confirmed the depths to which we have sunk. We are at the bottom of the league in comparison with our G7 partners meeting in Munich today. In comparison to the other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, it is clear that no one is going to have a lower growth rate than ours, which is forecast at zero for this year.

51
The tragedy is that the President of the Board of Trade ruled out many things. He reminded us of some things that will happen automatically. However, his speech appeared to be one for the Tory party conference, as the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said. It was not a speech to encourage industry. The President of the Board of Trade said nothing to make people outside this place believe that the Government have a strategy to carry us forward. It is a wait-and-see policy, and a wait-and-see policy is no policy at all.
The President of the Board of Trade said that we must continue down the road of privatisation. That has competitive benefits and is now increasingly accepted around the world, as he rightly said. He said also that we must follow a low inflation road. It is right that we should keep inflation as low as possible. He also said that we must keep wage increases down and that is right. There can be no dissent about that. He ruled out devaluation and I accept that because that is not the way forward.
The President of the Board of Trade also highlighted the importance of the GATT round. That is fundamentally important and I wish the Government and the Prime Minister well in their attempts to remove the blocks that are preventing the GATT agreements being reached which would liberate world trade to our benefit and, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, to the benefit of the developing world as well.
I also agree with the analysis by the President of the Board of Trade that the single market, which will come into force at the end of the year, will provide more opportunities. However, that is happening anyway. It is not the result of Government policy since the general election. It was signed, sealed and delivered by the noble Baroness Thatcher in 1986.
So far, so good, but that is still not new policy. We heard no new policy to address what remained the unspoken issue on the Tory Benches before the general election. If there are to be more than 3 million unemployed sooner rather than later and if the figure is to rise steadily not just next year, but until the next general election, we must ask whether that is a price worth paying. My colleagues and I do not believe that it is. We believe that by reducing unemployment by taking various targeted measures, we will simultaneously restore the dignity of work and the economic capacity of the country to produce, export and earn and therefore save the money that is much more wasted by paying people not to work at all. There are small signs that some things might be improving, but I do not think that we can read much into them. We have to accept that the position is indeed at its worst, and that we have to find some remedies to make it better.
I shall show with one or two examples from this capital city of ours how dire the position now is. Insolvencies in the capital city are already considerably up in the first six months of this year compared with all of last year. There are parts of our capital city—my constituency is one—with more than 20 per cent. unemployment. One in three males in inner urban working areas such as mine now are out of work, at a time when all the other indicators of economic progress are unhelpful.
I have been talking to secondary school head teachers in my constituency. The most frightening statistic that I
52
have heard since the general election is that, as presently analysed, of secondary school leavers this year, fewer than 3 per cent. are going into jobs and only about 2 per cent. so far are going into training. I have no idea whether that is a common pattern, but, if that is the economic base upon which we are planning to build our recovery, there is something fundamentally wrong indeed.
What can be done? We do not believe that it is particularly productive to examine things that could have been done some years ago but have no: we have to look at what could be done now. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North referred to the exchange rate mechanism as the apex of centralism.
We believe that it is possible to have a package of measures which provides the room to manoeuvre that the right hon. Gentleman rightly says is necessary but without breaking ranks entirely, as the right hon. Gentleman would argue—perhaps not surprisingly, given his views in the past. If we left the exchange rate mechanism, the danger is that the pound would plummet, interest rates would potentially go up to support the pound, or the pound would fall so much that the consequences for inflation would be bad. There are severe risks with that extreme solution, and I know that the Secretary of State and the Government have not accepted it either.
Alternatively, if we reversed our policy of opting out of EMU, if we moved sterling into the narrow bands, and if we gave the Bank of England independent control over interest rates, interest rates would not only be likely to come down to give us the competitiveness that we need and industry the boost of additional resources that it currently does not have, but it would bolster the credibility of anti-inflation policy at the same time. It is interesting that the London Business School has recently come around to that view as well. It would then be as part of a package that interest rates would be cut, but it would not be as part of a political fix mechanism, which always undermines the credibility of such an action.
Another important matter relates to the other side of the coin. The public spending round is coming up. I argue as strongly as I can to the Government that to be unnecessarily tough in the public expenditure round will be the worst of all possible worlds. Our social infrastructure desperately needs the extra investment for which spending Departments are bidding. It desperately needs investment in training, education, public transport, housing and so on. More public expenditure, not less, is needed. We therefore have to allow that money to be spent, but not at the expense of either seeking to put up taxes, which would be the wrong way forward, or of giving ourselves further difficulties of another sort. We have to make sure that we do that in a way that gives us the long-term recovery that everybody has said that we need.
I end my remarks by saying why we should not cut public expenditure at this most crucial moment, when we are trying to get out of our deep economic hole. Our national debt is at an historically low level, relatively to others and absolutely in terms of its level in the past. Even if we ran a deficit for the first half of the 1990s, we would still be unlikely to reach the average of our competitors in Europe. There is no good economic reason at the moment for seeking to reduce our national debt if the alternative is to put money back into the economy, which in turn will help us to build and compete our way out of recession.
Even with the more realistic non-Treasury growth forecasts for the next few years, we should be able, without

53
great difficulty, to meet the public finance side of the Maastricht convergence criteria. We should keep that as an objective of Government economic policy.
Private sector savings are high. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there will be personal reluctance to spend that money. I do not think that there will be a consumer boom. People have learnt the lessons of the 1980s and will hang on to their finances for retirement or for later investment. Spending is more likely in the corporate sector than in the private sector. But it will not be difficult, because of the high level of private sector savings, to finance the PSBR over the next year. If savings are high, if there is no financing problem, current and forecast levels of PSBR will not lead to pressure on interest rates. Therefore, if the Government drop their unrealistic target of balancing the budget over the medium term in favour of a savings target, we could have a credible package of non-inflationary fiscal policies which would allow the public and private sectors to collaborate in getting us out of the recession that we all want to end as soon as possible.
We accept that there will be a long haul and that constraints will be imposed on us by the international economic framework, but we do not accept that the Government can do nothing new to put forward a package to the country and show us a way out of the recession at home. The speech by the President of the Board of Trade contained no indication of new thinking nor of any commitment by the Government to reduce unemployment or seriously end the recession. The Government's position is not a policy to end the recession; it is an abdication of responsibility by a Government who have a responsibility to do something about it.
5.36 pm
Mr. Warren Hawksley: I shall respect the wishes of Madam Speaker, who has called for hon. Members to be brief, as many hon. Members wish to speak. As a retread, I have an advantage in paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir John Stokes, in that I have seen him in the House. During his years in the House he commanded great respect from all hon. Members. In the constituency he increased his majority, which is something that we all hope to do. He began by winning the former Labour scat of Oldbury and Halesowen in 1970, and by the time he fought his last election in 1987—admittedly with some help from the boundary commission—he had built a majority of more than 13,000. Hon. Members can appreciate how popular he was with the electorate.
It is probably in the House and in the country at large that Sir John was even more respected. He was one of the characters of the period. There are fewer characters in the House than there used to be, and he was certainly one of them. I like the description that I read of him as
"a traditional right-winger and superpatriot."
That just about covers his expertise on many issues, although I rather liked the comment of Andrew Alexander, who described him as
"the most amiable of hangers."
Having last year been chairman of the national campaign for capital punishment, I feel that, to a certain extent, I am following in his footsteps, and that is a great pleasure.
History could have been changed if, in 1937, by the time Sir John was already president of the monarchist society, he had been slightly more successful in the election for the presidency of the Oxford University Conservative
54
Association. He lost that election by seven votes. The person who won is now the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). How history might have changed had Sir John won that battle many years ago.
I rather like to describe my constituency, similarly to my previous constituency of The Wrekin, as very mixed. It has many commuters. It has old and new industries. It is typical of many west midlands constituencies. It was interesting to read Sir John's maiden speech in 1970, in which he made two particular points about his constituency as he saw it. The first was the need for further reconstruction. The second was the problem of roads. I regret to say that 22 years on, despite the actions of successive Governments, my constituency still has the same needs.
Until last May we had a Labour council. It refused even to tackle the problems created on the roads by the Merryhill shopping centre —one of the largest in Europe. The council was not prepared to provide the necessary infrastructure and put decent roads into the area. Within weeks of the Conservative council taking office, the plans to build new roads had been resurrected and put into the transport programme which will be sent to the Minister shortly.
The council has now also encouraged a bid for City Challenge. We are one of the candidates to be considered by the Department of the Environment shortly. Now that we have a prudent Conservative authority, it should be successful in that bid. The money would be the pump priming that the Government should provide. I do not believe that the Government should necessarily have responsibility for putting large sums of money into the economy.
The Opposition motion drags up all the ills that it could possibly find in the economy. But it fails to consider one of the most important aspects of the recession—that it is not home made. How do the Opposition explain the fact that socialist Governments elsewhere are suffering from the recession? They do not try to do so.
The problems of the economy were demonstrated by the comments of one of my constituents whom I met just before the election. He is in heavy industry and exports 60 per cent. of his products around the world. He has been exporting for about 40 years. He said that this was the first recession in which all his markets were down at the same time. Previously, if the British market did not do well, one of his export markets, either Europe, Australasia or the far east, was still fairly successful. This time he found for the first time that none of his markets was providing a demand for his items.
The west midlands has suffered more than most areas during the present recession. We have the fastest rising level of unemployment. Our output has fallen more than that of other regions. But we have some advantages. Our labour costs are lower than in many other areas—70 per cent. lower than in Germany. Our production costs are 20 per cent. lower than those in Germany.
You may ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what I want for my constituency from the Government and the Department of Trade and Industry. I do not want them to throw money at the problem. I do not believe that that would help. They should ensure that we control inflation and maintain our greatly improved industrial relations. The Opposition would have us believe that industrial relations have improved by accident. But that is not the case. Last year

55
we lost the fewest working days through strikes since records began over 100 years ago. That has happened not by accident but as a result of Government policies since we have been in office.
On Friday my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade proposed a revamp of the Department of Trade and Industry. He was right to offer services to more people. People need expertise, advice and help and it should be easily available. After I lost my seat in The Wrekin five years ago I set up a hotel with my wife and continue to run it with her. We experienced the problems of commerce and of running a business. That helped me considerably in the period that I was out of the House.
We developed a derelict ruin into a hotel and restaurant which within two years got into the "Good Food Guide". We needed Government help and we received it in two ways. It was pump-priming help. We were entitled to enterprise allowance. That was one method of helping us over the initial few weeks and months. The second form of help was from the Welsh tourist board. We received section 4 help, which unfortunately is not available in England. I know that people in tourism hope that consideration will be given to reintroducing that help as a pump-priming exercise in England. It can and should be means tested and given to those who have the greatest need for it. That is the way in which the Government could give more help.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) rightly pinpointed interest rates. As one who borrowed to set up a business, I know that the current level of interest rates, although considerably lower than it has been, discourages the development of industry and in particular small and middle-sized companies. We must not let the European exchange rate mechanism stop us from doing what we believe is best for British industry.
It is no coincidence that within weeks of the general election result people started to believe that confidence and enthusiasm were returning to industry. That happened because the alternative frightened industry. The feeling that things were beginning to get better was highlighted in the west midlands not only by engineering employers, whose business trends were the most encouraging since November 1989, but in the west midlands business survey carried out by the Wolverhampton Business school in conjunction with the Warwick Business school and Price Waterhouse. It received encouraging responses. However, both the survey and the report from the engineering employers said that it was early days and that expectations might be clouded by the euphoria caused by the Conservative Government being returned in the general election.
I wish to highlight a few points from the west midlands business survey. The survey was completed in May 1992. The forecasts that firms made for the next six months were, indeed, the best that they had made for lime time: 66 per cent. expected sales to increase; 33 per cent. expected employment to increase; 66 per cent. believed that general business conditions in the west midlands would improve.
I notice that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) is not in his place. He interrupted earlier to make a comment about interest rates. It was interesting that a report by a body in Wolverhampton said:
56
"Continuing the low rate of inflation has taken over from lower interest rates as the most important factor leading to improvements in general business prospects".
That is important. That is why the Government are right to move slowly. If the Government became involved and did too much there would be a great danger that the economy would move forward too fast. It has overheated before. A slow movement out of recession would be more desirable than the Government forcing a faster movement.
I look forward to supporting the Government's amendment tonight and voting against the Labour party's motion, which offers no hope for Britain and should be rejected.
5.48 pm
Mr. Alan Keen: I have two things in common with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). This is my maiden speech and, like the hon. Gentleman who said that he met somebody who worked in heavy industry, five weeks ago, I also met somebody who had a job. I do not intend to answer the points made by the President of the Board of Trade, but when he slipped up and spoke of experts, instead of exports, going up by 5 per cent. I thought that that could only be receivers and bailiffs.
I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Patrick Ground QC, about whom I heard nothing but good from the electorate during the election campaign. His party should be grateful to him because he fought Feltham and Heston three times before winning it in 1983 and he doubled his majority in 1987. It was no fault of his that he lost it this time. He is a most honourable and likeable man. I should like also to refer to his predecessor, Russell Kerr, many of whose colleagues are still Members of Parliament. Russell was known for his sense of fun and his dedication to his principles and ideals. He will never be forgotten.
This is not the first time that I have worked in Whitehall. I felt nostalgic when I came here in April because I first came here in 1960 at the invitation of Her Majesty the Queen as I was serving in the armed forces. I must have been more important than I am now because I got a desk and an office on my first day. I shared it with seven others, but it had three windows looking out on Whitehall and two into a yard on Horseguards. Two soldiers on horses guarded me every day. My career has gradually slipped away since those days, but the compensation is that I have been told that now that I am a Member of Parliament I cannot go any lower—unless I cross the Floor of the House.
This debate is a suitable one in which to make my maiden speech because, like many working people, I have been affected by the economic and industrial policy. No doubt some hon. Members would like to know how it is that somebody who was born in Lewisham in south-east London and who has lived near Heathrow for 30 years should speak with such an obviously Middlesbrough accent. The answer goes back 70 years. My mother, who started work at 14, found, at the age of 16, that there was no work for her. She was forced to come to London where she worked as a servant for many years. She told me many times about the difficulties of coping with personal problems so far away from family and close friends. In one of those crises, she took me, aged three weeks, back to Middlesbrough. I am proud to have spent my childhood, school days and the beginning of my working life on Teesside. That was one generation.

57
When I finished my Army service in 1963, I also found that, in order to get satisfactory work, I had to stay in the south. I worked in Brentford and settled in Feltham. That is two generations. People may say that things must be better today, but if one wants to see the third generation, one has only to go into the pubs in the west end and listen to the accents on both sides of the bar. One will hear Geordies, Scots, the Welsh—people from all the regions in the United Kingdom. They are here because they cannot get jobs in their home towns. They are the lucky ones. If one goes a short distance further, down Kingsway and the Strand and the Embankment, one will see hundreds who have no jobs, no homes, no hope, no future. I do not know what sort of country we are and what sort of House it is that allows that to happen.
The regions are used to high unemployment, but the ratio of jobs to the unemployed in Feltham and Heston is now worse than it is in Newcastle, Sunderland, Middlesbrough and even Jarrow. Youth unemployment in Feltham increased by 145 per cent. last year. Unemployment has gone up by almost 200 per cent. in the past two years. Unemployment in London is higher than the national average for the first time. I do not know what will he done to put that right.
When I first worked in Brentford in 1963, on what was known as the Golden Mile, west London had a flourishing engineering industry, renowned throughout the country. When Trico finally moves away from Brentford in a few months' time, there will be not one major manufacturer left on that Golden Mile. Watneys in Isleworth closed its gates last Friday and called time for the last time. That is gone—a place where fathers and sons worked together, with grandfathers before them. In Heston, Fairey Engineering, one of the premier high-tech companies, closed its gates a few months ago, leaving a highly skilled work force searching for jobs in a non-existent manufacturing centre. In Feltham, the Hecta engineering training centre which once had 250 people passing through at the same time now has only 40 and its future is in great jeopardy. Something must be done.
Of course we want international trade and are pleased by the number of international headquarters buildings in Hounslow, attracted there by Heathrow airport. The people to whom I talk want to have again the pride of being able to buy British goods in British shops. We must do something about that. I do not know what has happened in the past 10 years. I do not know what the policies are, nor what action will get the manufacturing industries producing again. I do not know where the investment incentives are to assist our manufacturing companies to modernise and lay down new plant and equipment.
Feltham is proud of Heathrow airport and the jobs that it brings, but we pay a heavy price in pollution, noise, traffic jams and one of the highest accident rates in the country. Sadly, the people of Feltham and Heston are telling me that they do not mind about the noise at Heathrow, they want all the expansion that is possible so that they can have jobs and keep their houses. Let me make it clear to those in the pleasant areas of Barnes, Putney, Richmond, Twickenham and Chiswick that they will have to do something about the recession or, while they may not suffer in their pockets, they may soon be suffering in their ears.
It is clear from what I am saying that we need a partnership between industry and Government. We need
58
long-term planning and, in the air transport industry, international planning. We do not want a planning application for the expansion of Heathrow to be put in as soon as the furore over the last one has died down. There must be long-term planning.
The British people have seen enough of this free-for-all. Yes, we want efficiency, and we understand that it is necessary to have competition which forces management to greater cost cutting and efficiency. This can be achieved whilst at the same time retaining sensible public control over major decisions to ensure responsible environmental policies. I do not advocate interference on a day-to-day or even week-to-week basis with management. However, the public are beginning to demand they be involved in making decisions in such mammoth organisations. It is possible to compete in the hot house of free enterprise while still being democratic.
Worker co-operatives throughout the country survive, sometimes perhaps with difficulty, in competition with private firms. That happens not just at the small end of industry; look, for example, at the Co-operative movement. It has a turnover exceeding £10 billion, more than 133,000 staff and policies of healthy food, responsible animal farming and ethical investment. Competitive edge and democracy go hand in hand. Compare that with Thames Water, which operates with no competition, no democracy and no choice for the public. It has only high salary increases for those at the top, high price increases for the users, and, at £50,000, a large sum for the Conservative party. The British expect and deserve much better than that.
5.58 pm
Mr. Barry Legg: Thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before doing so, I must pay tribute to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen). It demonstrated a wit and eloquence that I hope that we shall hear often in the House. I hope that his broad experience is available in the House on many future occasions so that we can benefit from it.
I know that it is customary for one to refer in a maiden speech to the traditions of one's constituency and to one's predecessors. As a new Member of Parliament for a new seat in a new town, I am struggling somewhat on predecessors, history and tradition.
The part of Buckinghamshire in which Milton Keynes, South-West lies has had many varied and distinguished Members of Parliament over the centuries, ranging from Disraeli to Robert Maxwell. Milton Keynes itself, however, has had only one Member of Parliament and that was Bill Benyon. I know from my work in the constituency of the high regard in which he was held. Both in the House and among local people he was seen as an example of what a good constituency Member of Parliament should be. No case or no problem was too small for him. During my time as a prospective parliamentary candidate and since, I have met many people who have been helped or who know somebody who has been helped by him. Over the years I shall aspire to maintaining his record.
The Milton Keynes constituency does not have a great deal of history. The ancient road of Watling street runs directly through it and many armies on the march have traversed that road. Indeed, it is believed that Boadicea

59
was defeated by Suetonius within the environs of my constituency. My constituency may be able to lay claim to having had the biggest bloodbath in British history.
Although the history and traditions of the constituency are somewhat light, I have the advantage of representing a constituency that is a microcosm of Britain today. The employment and industrial structures of Milton Keynes closely mirror the national employment and industrial structures. More than 70 per cent. of employment is in the service industries. That should be borne in mind when we listen, as we often do, to Opposition proposals that centre on subsidies and assistance to manufacturing industry only. A large number of small businesses exist in my constituency. More than 65 per cent. of all businesses are small with 20 or fewer employees. During the past 13 years, those businesses have grown and done extremely well because of the Government's measures to help small businesses grow and to provide employment.
I have good news for the House this evening: during the past few months, unemployment in Milton Keynes has been falling. Previously, as in most parts of the country, the level rose, but to nowhere near the level in the early 1980s. Throughout the 1980s, Milton Keynes and many towns and cities like it developed a stronger, much better balanced economy. As a result, unemployment is falling; in Milton Keynes, it is below the regional and national averages.
Many overseas companies have invested in Milton Keynes, often from the traditional areas of the United States, Germany and France. However, some of the newer overseas businesses are coming from areas such as South Korea. That shows where there is strength in the global economy: in the Pacific rim and the co-called dragon economies. Growth rates are much higher there than anywhere in western Europe.
Earlier in the debate the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) gave us growth rates in western Europe and described how Britain's rates ranged against them. During the past 10 years, growth rates have been low in Germany and strong in the far east. We must ask ourselves why that is the case. The answers are straightforward. Those far east economies are highly deregulated and have low levels of taxation. No far east economy is trying to impose a social chapter, to reduce the working week to 48 hours or to seek a four-week minimum holiday period; nor is it believed that the already excellent levels of economic growth can be improved by a single currency.
The years of the German economic miracle have gone. Recent economic developments there mean that we shall not see a resurgence in growth such as Germany experienced in the 1950s and 1960s. The level of social provision has increased and a minimum wage has been imposed in the eastern part of Germany as part of the process of unification. Because of that, and because of the inaccurate conversion of the east German currency to equal the west German currency, we will see low levels of growth in Germany throughout the 1990s. That will have adverse consequences for the rest of western Europe.
Britain can learn from some aspects of the German economy, especially from the control of inflation. I greatly admire the way in which the Bundesbank has consistently controlled inflation. When its president, Professor Schlesinger, visited this country last year and spoke to the
60
London chamber of commerce on 21 June, he set out how Germany had managed to keep its inflation low during the previous 20 years. His recipe was setting and adhering to broad monetary targets. That is what produced low inflation in Germany.
In 1986 and 1987, broad monetary indicators here, in the form of sterling M4, were growing at 15 per cent. At that time, conventional opinions, by the Treasury and the Bank of England, were that the figure had little meaning and was a side-effect of financial deregulation. However, some economists warned that 15 per cent. monetary expansion meant that we were getting into serious economic difficulties, with rising inflation and an overheated economy. In retrospect, we can all see that they got it absolutely right.
Monetary aggregates are now growing at their slowest rate since the 1950s. Broad money, sterling M4, is growing at 5 per cent. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), I believe that the present risks in the British economy are all on the down side and that we are more likely to face further deflation than further inflation unless we take significant action to ease monetary policy.
Public expenditure is the other area in which our economic policies may be somewhat out of balance. It is some time since the Treasury has forecast the likely levels of the public sector borrowing requirement and public expenditure, but the independent private sector is producing many forecasts which are extremely worrying. They show, for example, that the PSBR for 1993–94 may be of the order of £40 billion. That would be well beyond any convergence criteria laid down in the Maastricht treaty. Our borrowing requirement would be some 6 to 7 per cent. of GDP.
I welcome the Government's commitment in their amendment to firm control of public expenditure. Public expenditure provision for 1993–94 allows for an 8 per cent. increase. If we are to believe newspaper reports that there are bids on the table to add a further £15 billion to £16 billion to that already ample provision, Ministers will face a great deal of work during the recess to bring that side of our economy back into balance. I wish them well in their efforts.
The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not seem to be at all concerned about an expanding PSBR and thought that it could continue to expand because of the small national debt. I doubt that that is the case, especially when our financial policies provide for full funding of that deficit. Expanding the borrowing requirement further will not stimulate the economy.
All Conservative Members are committed to firm control of public expenditure and low taxation. Those have been the central principles of Government since 1979, and our policy of low taxation was one of the central reasons for a Conservative Government being returned for a fourth term. I hope that we shall continue vigorously to pursue our policies and to control public expenditure as firmly as possible. I hope that we shall maintain our commitment to low taxation, because that will deliver economic growth to the private sector and ensure that the Government are re-elected for a fifth term.
6.10 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: It is a privilege to follow three maiden speeches. In accordance with custom, I am pleased to congratulate all three hon. Members on their fluency. I am also pleased that the tradition of completely anodyne and bland maiden speeches seems to be dying. None of the three hon. Members was afraid to make telling and hard-hitting points, and I welcome that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) endeared himself to me by his complimentary reference to Russell Kerr. Many hon. Members and many people in the Labour movement remember the good work carried out for us by Russell and Anne Kerr. I was taken by not only my hon. Friend's wit, which has already been commented upon, but the coherence of his vision of what the House should be about. I welcome him and look forward to hearing many more of his speeches.
Obviously, I have much less in common with Conservative Members. However, in common with the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley), I had to make a second maiden speech. It is a bit strange to make a speech as what might be called an experienced maiden, which is something of a contradiction in terms. The hon. Gentleman's analysis of the west midlands was interesting. He spoke about the terrible fall in the economic standing of the area and described what he called an advantage, low wages. Whether low wages are an advantage depends of one's point of view, and many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would not think it much of an advantage.
I have not often visited the constituency of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) although I pass through it all too often on my way to the House. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Boadicea. That reminded me that I once went to Milton Keynes to address what might be called a counter-meeting, a fringe meeting at the opening by Mrs. Thatcher of an impressive shopping centre. One of the aims of the counter-meeting was to draw attention to the deficiencies of the ambulance service in the area. I hope that there is now a better service to match the handsome shopping centre.
The President of the Board of Trade engaged in a peculiar exercise in logic when he admitted that we were in a recession but that it was not our fault because the whole world was in recession. Later, he took us on a world tour to prove that the rest of the world was following the same policies as those of his Government. He said that the whole world was in a mess but as the rest of the world was doing what this Government were doing, the Government would continue to do it. That is not a very impressive exhibition of logic, because if the rest of the world is in a mess by doing what we are doing, we should be searching for something else to do. I should like to suggest one or two options.
I am not surprised at the President of the Board of Trade's admission that we are in recession, because in the past six months more than 236 businesses have collapsed every working day. The gap between north and south is increasing, with all the consequences for social cohesion. The GDP gap per head in the north-west compared with the south-east, excluding Greater London, rose from 10·3 per cent. in 1979 to 19·8 per cent. in 1990. There is zero growth in manufacturing. There is a high savings rate, not because people are happy with their lot and have no wish to spend but because they fear for the future. Retail sales
62
are flat, not least because of the high savings rate. The CBI estimates that there was a fall in investment of 19·5 per cent. between 1989 and 1992. It is not surprising that the President of the Board of Trade had no alternative but to admit that we were in recession.
It is not only Labour Members who think that the Government have some responsibility for the recession. Roger Humber, the director of the House Builders Federation, says in the federation's latest journal:
"The economy is overhung by high … interest rates … an exchange rate fixed by ERM against the D-Mark which few can now find credible, … Despite this, the Chancellor tells us there is no prospect of cuts in interest rates nor of any devaluation within ERM to facilitate such cuts.
And yet, more and more voices are being raised asking what is being achieved by such policies. We approach three million unemployed. Retail spending is not rising … Industry will not invest when faced with these interest rates and, in any event, the banks now won't and can't lend, as their liquidity is seriously threatened by the collapse of Olympia and York, … It is difficult, therefore, to see what current policies are achieving, when they will lead to success or what the measure of that success will he."
The director of the House Builders Federation is absolutely right. The spectrum of opinion that he represents shows that not only Labour Members are worried and fearful about the situation into which the Government are getting us.
I come from and represent Preston but do not need to deliver a "come to sunny Preston" speech because this is not my maiden speech. However, every time I speak in the House I remember my constituency and try to represent it. We in Preston are alarmed about several matters. We are alarmed about the situation facing British Aerospace. We are alarmed about the European fighter aircraft. I believe that money spent on defence should be spent in this country to save jobs in this country, and should be spent on defensive defence. I put a fighter aircraft in that category and I want the EFA to be supported.
It is a disgrace, however, that we in this country depend to such an extent on the narrow technological base of the defence industry. We depend on it not only in my district but in the country at large. The Germans can consider what they should do about the EFA in the light of all the circumstances, as they see them, because they operate from a much wider manufacturing base than we do. We depend so much on one sort of industry that we are constantly in danger.
Although I support the EFA project, I do not believe that, in the long term, it is sensible to earn one's living by depending on the arms industry and arms exports. I worry about that, and believe that it is the Government's responsibility as well as that of British Aerospace to widen this country's technological base. We should have been talking about diversification in the arms sector a long time ago.
Nevertheless, Preston still has other industries. GEC makes trains, at least when there are any trains to make, which is not very often. We have heard much from the Government about how it would be wrong to throw public money about. However, they throw public money about when they fail to act to reduce the need to pay unemployment benefit. That is a waste of public money which could be better utilised helping to provide jobs for those who need them.
The Government huff, puff, bluff and fudge around the Jubilee line, the prospects for which have been damaged by what has happened at Canary Wharf. They should have

63
pump-primed with £40 million to extend the Jubilee line, to create 3,000 construction jobs in London and a great many jobs in manufacturing elsewhere. I hope that jobs will be created in Preston when trains are needed for the extended line. However, instead of doing that, the Government prefer to engage in a game of bluff with the private sector and do not care that people will be laid off instead of engaged in constructive work on a project that is all set to begin.
I would be more impressed by the Government's attitude towards the recession if they showed any sign of forming a coherent approach to industrial, economic and financial policy to enable people to be usefully employed. Such a policy would be perfectly possible. A Government who say that they can do nothing, and claim that it is a world disease, should not have run for office. If they can do nothing, what are they doing in government?
The President of the Board of Trade said that industry should become more competitive. That is an insult to many of our working and skilled people, and to some managements. GEC gained a Queen's award for exports, has splendid quality control systems and produces a good range of products, second to none. It needs a shop window, and orders to be placed in this country by London Transport and British Rail. Without those factors, Government talk of international competitiveness is merely so much hot air.
I am not impressed by the sort of society that the Government are building. I can give an illustration to show the way in which the Government and their privatisation polices are taking us. I have recently learnt that North West Water in my constituency, which has paid massive increases to its top officers, is trying to make customers pay their bills. That is fine—I think that people should pay their bills. But, if a customer is not on the telephone and cannot be telephoned directly, one of the techniques used by North West Water to try to contact its customer is to telephone his or her neighbours. That shows the sort of society in which we live.
Water supplies are being disconnected and neighbours are being telephoned by North West Water in efforts to chivvy customers into paying their bills. I believe that most, if not all, of the customers will not pay, not because they do not want their water supply disconnected but because they cannot pay. They cannot pay because our society is becoming increasingly impoverished.
The amendment tabled by the Prime Minister mentions the long term. In the long term we are all dead and, at the rate the Government are going, so is the British economy.
6.27 pm
Mr. John Whittingdale: It is with great pleasure that, in this my maiden speech, I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), whose views I have long held in great regard. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), all of whom made excellent maiden speeches and made my task considerably more difficult.
As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Chamber it is only right that my first act should be to pay
64
tribute to my predecessor, Lord Wakeham. For 17 years John Wakeham represented, first, the constituency of Maldon and Rochford, and then my constituency of Colchester, South and Maldon. He did so with enormous distinction in a way that won him friends throughout the area. I have lost count of the number of people who have come up to me in the past year and told me that I have a hard act to follow. But I have never doubted that they were absolutely right.
In this place, John Wakeham was perhaps better known for his role in Government. He is one of that dwindling band who joined the Government in May 1979 and has remained a member of it ever since. In that time, he has held an enormous variety of positions, but he will be best remembered for his time as Chief Whip when he set a standard against which all his successors are likely to be judged. He once described himself as the Minister for stopping the Government doing silly things. It is a cause of great pleasure to my constituents and all Government supporters that he is still in the Cabinet and still fulfilling that role.
In 1984 John Wakeham suffered severe injuries in the bombing of the Grand hotel at Brighton, which also caused the death of his first wife. I am sure that no one in the House who witnessed it will forget the moment when a few months later he walked back into the Chamber unaided. I remember listening to that event on the radio, and in particular the reception that he was given by hon. Members. It was a tribute to his remarkable courage—a courage that he has displayed every day since that terrible event.
I should also like to mention some of my other predecessors. Before 1983, the Colchester part of my constituency was ably represented by Sir Antony Buck and, before him, by Lord Alport, to both of whom my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) paid deserved tribute. Previous Members of Parliament for Maldon include Brian Harrison, who now lives in Australia but is still a regular visitor to the district. It was also once represented by Tom Driberg, who will be remembered as one of the more colourful Members of Parliament. Earlier still the constituency was represented by Mr. Quintin Dick, who is said to have spent more than any other hon. Member on bribery at parliamentary elections. I shall not follow his example, even if we do receive increased allowances for our office expenses.
My constituency stretches from the southern part of Colchester to take in the whole of the Maldon district. It is an area rich in history. Colchester was the first Roman capital of England and is Britain's oldest recorded town. At the end of the Dengie peninsula, at Bradwell, is the chapel of St. Peter-on-the-Wall—one of the first Christian churches in England. It is just a short distance from Bradwell power station—the first Magnox nuclear power station to be built in Britain.
Maldon itself was made a royal borough in 1171, and almost 200 years earlier was the subject of repeated assaults by invading Danes. The battle of Maldon in 991, in which the great Saxon leader Bryhtnoth was slain, inspired a famous Anglo-Saxon poem. Last year, the battle was re-enacted as part of the millennium celebrations. The House will be glad to learn that my constituents now regard the Danes in a much friendlier light.
The recession has hit my constituents hard. The Colchester Lathe Company has announced its intention to cease production, light industrial companies throughout

65
Essex have shed labour, and retailers, small business men, and the construction industry continue to suffer from lack of demand.
Confidence among Essex business men remains low. I am frequently asked what are the Government doing to bring about an upturn. I have always replied that it is not in the Government's power to conjure up recovery. Only business can create lasting jobs, and it is the Government's duty to create the right climate in which enterprise can flourish.
Having spent almost three years as special adviser to three of my right hon. Friend's predecessors as President of the Board of Trade, I read with interest his proposals to reorganise the Department of Trade and Industry. I welcome in particular his efforts to improve communica-tions between that Department and industry and to reduce further the regulatory burdens on business.
However, the key to recovery lies more with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I said, it is primarily for the Government to create the economic conditions in which recovery can take place. In the words of my right hon. Friend's amendment, that can best be done by controlling public spending, reducing taxation, relieving business of burdens, and, above all, getting inflation down. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on his success in achieving that aim, and agree that nothing must be done to jeopardise the progress made so far. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take the earliest possible opportunity to reduce interest rates again. With inflation falling, the real level of interest rates is actually rising, which is adding to the difficulties facing my constituents.
I hope also that when interest rates fall again, that will be reflected in the rates charged by banks to small business men. I am concerned that too often they tell me that, despite the nine reductions in interest rates, the interest on their loans has not fallen accordingly—or that they have had to pay more in other charges.
The other essential requirement for recovery is continued control of public expenditure. In that, I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West. It is understandable at a time of recession that the public sector borrowing requirement will increase. Although it is higher than I would like, I am reassured that it is less than the average under the last Government, and that it is this Government's intention to restore it to balance in the medium term. That will not be easy. It will require my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, like Ulysses, to lash himself to the mast and to fill his colleagues' ears with wax so that they do not succumb to the siren voices in favour of higher public spending.
If my right hon. Friend does that, and if the proportion of our gross domestic product taken by public expenditure can once again be reduced, allowing industry and the public to keep still more of the wealth that they create, then I am confident that, as the recovery gathers pace, the future for commerce and industry in my constituency and throughout the country will be bright.
6.34 pm
Mr. Richard Caborn: I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on his impressive and sincere maiden speech. We all concur with the hon. Gentleman's remarks
66
about his predecessor, and remember the moving occasion on which he first returned to the House after the horrific incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have no doubt that we will hear a lot more about the hon. Gentleman's constituency. However, he need not concern himself about the Chief Secretary to the Treasury having to lash himself to the mast—many others will be doing that in the not-too-distant future. Nevertheless, I welcome the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon to the House, and no doubt he will contribute to many debates in years to come.
It was interesting to hear the President of the Board of Trade admit that Britain is suffering the worst recession since the second world war. Unfortunately, he did not produce many solutions for tackling it. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House ought to consider the recession itself, the practical options available to the Government, and the world context. The depth of the recession has been highlighted by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. The seriousness of the situation emphasises the lack of Government foresight. Many of the people who watch this debate or who read it in Hansard will feel concern about the lack of Government initiatives.
I can offer the right hon. Gentleman practical options not only in terms of action taken centrally by his Department but regionally. If only the Government were prepared to give effect to subsidiarity in its true sense. We have heard from Government Members about monetary control but little about the real economy. There are many in the country who seriously want to tackle that aspect. In my own area, they include industrialists, academic institutions, local authorities, trade unions, and local communities. After surviving the recession of the early 1980s, which destroyed much of our manufacturing base, industry in my region became leaner and fitter, but in the current recession those enterprises risk going to the wall. That is true of many of the country's other industrial areas.
I hope that the President of the Board of Trade will in the first instance consider public expenditure. Expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry, Ministry of Defence, and Department of Transport in the south-east of England is £546 per head of population, whereas it is only £248 in the north. At a time when resources are scarce, there ought to be more equity in the way that they are distributed.
Many parts of the United Kingdom attempting to grapple with the serious problems that confront them receive little support from central Government. Last Friday's announcement about the streamlining of the DTI is itself welcome, but in terms of overcoming regional problems it will offer few, if any, advantages. Although people may argue in the macro sense about interest rates —and the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) made a compelling argument, which I hope is taken on board—the exchange rate mechanism and the City's short-termism should also be considered.
The Government could do much to assist the entrepreneurial spirit in the regions, and to create a climate in which that spirit can operate, without necessarily creating a climate of intervention, or adopting a hands-on approach. The DTI should give serious consideration to the partnerships that are developing in the regions, thus enabling them to operate more effectively and to initiate their plans for local economies. The Government and, in

67
particular, the DTI are obstructing and stifling the development of ideas in regions. It was, I believe, the Audit Commission that described the DTI's actions as a programme overload in a strategic vacuum.
I trust that I have spoken briefly, although Front-Bench Members are looking daggers at me. Let me conclude by expressing the hope that, as the Secretary of State travels around the country, he will take seriously, in an entirely non-partisan way, the ideas that are currently being expressed. People are genuinely trying to work in partnership, and to ensure that the industrial base—the real economy—gets back into first gear. I hope that, when considering further reforms of his Department, the right hon. Gentleman will take that on board. His record and his writings lean in such a direction, and I hope that he has the guts and the determination to make certain that his wishes are carried out by the Department.
6.41 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) that, at this point in the calendar of the parliamentary Labour party, Front-Bench Members do not look daggers at anyone.
The motion has given rise to a good debate in the short time available. We have heard some eloquent maiden speeches from the hon. Members for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), and a "return maiden speech" from the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley). We also heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen), who was generous in his praise of his predecessors in both parties, and showed great un-derstanding of the problems that face industry and those who work in it. Middlesbrough's loss is Feltham's gain, and long may it remain so. We also heard interesting speeches from the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and for Sheffield, Central.
In a speech of the highest quality, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) outlined the case for an industrial policy. In the speech that followed it, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) admitted that the present recession was the deepest that the country had experienced since the war. I do not know whether that was a boast or a complaint, but it was significant that the right hon. Gentleman should make comparisons with Malaysia and Poland rather than comparing Britain with the great nations of Germany and the United States, as he might have done in the past.
People in this country know that unemployment has now reached 2·6 million and has been rising for 24 consecutive months—a tragedy that has caused depriva-tion and hardship in all walks of life and all regions of the country. In my own region, north-east England, 153,000 people are now out of work; most alarming of all, 35 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs have been lost between 1979 and 1992. Output is now below the 1988 level, and
68
—if this morning's forecast by Ernst and Young is correct —the 2·6 per cent. fall in output in 1991 will be followed in 1992 by a further fall of 0·6 per cent.
Manufacturing output has fallen for seven consecutive quarters. Business failures were up by 32 per cent. in the first six months of this year, and mortgage repossessions were at an all-time high. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will know of the pain and hardship that that has caused families throughout the country, because of the increasing number of people who have come to their surgeries to complain.
Most critical of all at this time of deep recession is our serious trade deficit. Is not that the most telling statistic of all? More successful industrial economies with stronger manufacturing bases show, at the very least, a major improvement in their balance of trade at a time of recession, and many run a trade surplus as the demand for imports falls; yet, after two years of deep recession, the British economy now has a projected deficit of £10 billion for 1992.
I take issue with the right hon. Member for Henley on two points. First, he said—if I understood him correctly —that the world recession has been a major contribution to Britain's difficulty in achieving recovery by means of an export drive. The right hon. Gentleman has missed the point. As Britain was in recession first, we should still have been able to increase our exports more than we did before other countries, in Europe and elsewhere, went into recession. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to face up to the fact that our real problem is our lack of supply-side competitiveness: that is what has prevented us from improving our balance of trade.
Secondly, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was both wrong and complacent in saying what he did about world trade in manufactured exports. Britain's position improved under a Labour Government: its share rose from 7·4 per cent. in 1974 to 7·9 per cent. in 1979. and subsequently fell to 6·4 per cent. in 1990 under a Conservative Government. That is a telling statistic.
Does not our trade deficit tell us, very sharply, that our industrial base is so weak that we cannot even meet our domestic demand for many industrial products? Does it not tell us that there has been no supply-side miracle that we still have all the problems of under-investment, lack of training, lack of export assistance and inadequate infrastructure? Most damaging of all, does it not tell us that any upturn in the economy—and we all want an upturn—is likely to be halted quickly when a further surge in imports of industrial products that we can no longer produce leads to more balance-of-payments problems, and they in turn lead to a further policy of deflation in an effort to control inflationary pressures in the economy and to hold the currency?
In the past, the right hon. Gentleman has acknow-ledged the formidable nature of the task faced by British industry. I want to be fair to him: he has been recognised by hon. Members on both sides of the House as a man with the courage to face up to the nation's problems. He has shown courage in Cabinet—not to be dismissed lightly just because it was a little over-focused on the question of helicopters. He has shown courage in the wilderness, displaying enormous fortitude in the dark ages of 1985–86 and carrying his message to countless dimly lit church halls and civic centres. He was then in competition with Jeffrey Archer in the great battle of the chicken-leg suppers. The right hon. Gentleman's publisher has told me, with some

69
chagrin, that, although the right hon. Gentleman may have edged ahead in the battle of the chicken legs, he could not match the about-to-be-ennobled Jeffrey Archer in the battle of the autographed paperbacks.
The right hon. Gentleman showed courage in his comeback. When he realised that he needed a new legend, he cried from the same dimly lit church halls, "You Margaret, me thinker." Where is that thinking now? Where is the thinking that was contained in the book that the right hon. Genlteman published in those dark, dark ages? Where are the strategies, the policies and the measures to help industry? Where is the firm action to rebuild our industrial base? Where is the right hon. Gentleman's British solution now? Surely he does not claim that the shuffle of desks announced on Friday addresses the issues that he identified previously.
Industrialists—people who work in industry and have experienced the damage done to their businesses and jobs —want to know when the President of the Board of Trade will preside. When will he preside over tax allowances to help companies to invest in new equipment? When will he preside over the establishment of an English development agency, to which he was previously committed? When will he preside over the establishment, or rather reestablishment, of a body like the National Economic Development Office, which could provide a real forum for partnership discussions—where industry and the world of science and technology could sit down independently to discuss Britain's problems with Government, and to tackle the problems of competitiveness, market share and export potential? Does the Secretary of State support the need for a body such as the National Economic Development Office, or is he caught up in the same revenge or the same spite as the Treasury which, rather than deal with the problems that have been thrown up by the N EDO reports, has sought to shoot the messenger?
Many people have lost their businesses and jobs as a result of the recession. Both those who have lost their jobs and those who still struggle to provide the nation's wealth know that further damage to industry could still be caused by present policies. They know that lack of investment has often left their businesses and jobs uncompetitive; they know that there has been no supply-side miracle in the economy; they know that industrialists abroad get real support from their Governments to help them undertake research and development, invest in new equipment, and make sure that the work force is highly skilled.
Our industry could have the same support, but that will demand honesty by the Government about the difficulties that industry faces. It will demand determination by the Secretary of State to build a partnership with industry to meet the challenges of the 1990s and genuinely to modernise the supply side of our economy. It will demand policies to avoid another plunge into further recession. It will demand that the Secretary of State does not timidly serve his parole in Cabinet in permanent hock to the post-Thatcherites in the Treasury. These are reasonable and realistic demands. The House should support them.
6.51 pm
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): This has been an important debate, for three reasons. First, it has given the House an opportunity to hear some fine maiden speeches. Secondly, it has provided a constant reminder to us of the importance of controlling inflation. The control
70
of inflation is the key to sustainable economic recovery and to international competitiveness. Thirdly, it has provided us with some indication of the ideas—or perhaps I should say lack of them—of the Labour party on industry.
I pay tribute to the excellent maiden speakers. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) will perhaps forgive me if I include him among them. We welcome him back to the House. I particularly appreciated his tribute to his predecessor. The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) also paid a nice tribute to his predecessor in the witty first part of his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) deserves to be congratulated on the skilful way in which he overcame the handicap that he identified of being a new Member for a new seat in a new town. He, too, paid a generous tribute, not just to half his predecessor but to the whole of his predecessor. He made some interesting comments on the economy which I am sure all those who did not hear his speech will want to read.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) paid a particularly moving tribute to his predecessor, whom we are delighted to know is now helping us from another place. He added a miniature, albeit interesting, history lesson, although I am not sure what conclusions we should draw from it.
The House always expects, and always gets, a thoughtful and interesting contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He will appreciate it, I know, if I say that I do not always agree with him, even on the subject of interest rates, but he knows all too well that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps interest rates always under review. There are, however, many implications in making changes in interest rates, particularly for inflation. If I followed the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North on the exchange rate mechanism, I fear that there would be implications not only for inflation but for inflationary expectations.
We are well aware that lower interest rates could help industry, but I am sure that we all agree that consistently low inflation is more important. Among other things, it is the key to improved productivity. During the 1980s, substantial progress was made on productivity. It grew faster in Britain than in any other major industrial country, after decades when our record has been quite the contrary.
We tend to think of inflation most in the context of the general level of prices and the disastrous effect that high inflation can have on our international competitiveness and exports. That is certainly important, but it is by no means the only reason why keeping inflation down is vital for industrial success. Investment decisions are always difficult. I know that from my own experience in industry. They require not just an analysis of facts and figures but judgment.
Judgments are made more difficult and the outcome of investment decisions more unpredictable the higher the rate of inflation and the greater the difficulty of forecasting the costs—particularly the cost of investments, of which there are many, that take several years to complete before products are ready to be sold in the marketplace. The larger the scale of the investment, the longer the time scales involved, the more difficult the judgment becomes, if we have high inflation. Therefore, we have to make sure that we control inflation. That is the only way to avoid

71
deterring investment and to ensure that good investment decisions are made. High rates of inflation erode the purchasing power of wage packets. That in itself can lead to industrial unrest, as we were all too frequently reminded during the period in office—now, happily, a fairly distant memory—of the Labour party.
There has been general recognition throughout the debate of the severity of the recession. Conservative Members recognise that it is an international phenomenon and that there are no quick fixes. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) recognised that there are no quick fixes, but I am not sure that he carries his party with him. I suspect that some members of his party have always been addicted to quick fixes.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) called, as he often does, for a regional policy. He never says what a regional policy is meant to be, nor does he recognise what our regional policy is now doing to help the various areas. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) also referred to that point. The current assisted areas map—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. There is an undercurrent of conversation on both sides of the House. It makes it difficult for me to hear the Minister, and that I wish to do.
Mr. Sainsbury: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was about to say that the current assisted areas map —the map that identifies the areas which receive regional assistance—was drawn in 1984 and covers some 35 per cent. of the working population: 15 per cent. in development areas and a further 20 per cent. in intermediate areas. I hope that even the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East agrees that in the intervening seven and a half years British industry has gone through major changes. As one would expect, the effect of those changes on employment opportunities has not been uniform throughout all the regions. After such an interval, therefore, it must be appropriate to review the assisted areas map to ensure that it remains effectively focused on the areas of greatest need.
As the House will know, we have issued a consultation paper which confirms that measures relating to unemployment will continue to be the major component in the review, although other factors will also be considered. Our intention is to reach conclusions on the review later this year. I shall make the results known to the House at the appropriate time. Our assisted areas map, like those of other European Community countries, is subject to clearance by the European Commission. A new map should therefore be in place in early 1993.
The Government are conscious that assisted area status is important to many local and regional bodies that are concerned with economic regeneration. We have decided, therefore, as part of the review, to consult as fully and widely as possible. We have invited local and regional bodies that wish to do so to make representations before the end of September. I assure the House that we take such consultation very seriously and that we shall listen carefully to any points that are put to us. The Government remain committed to an effective, properly targeted regional industrial policy.
72
The third benefit of this important debate was the reminder that it gave of the views of the Labour party. We heard outdated ideas, with which we are familiar, and antiquated policies. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade eloquently and powerfully reminded the House of them. He said that, even among Labour Members, some doubt is creeping in about those outdated ideas and antiquated policies. Some of those doubts were expressed. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East may think that we heard too much. Again, we heard nothing about the alternatives. It is no wonder that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East did not remind us of the extraordinarily toxic—perhaps lethal —cocktail of policies that the Labour party proposed for British industry in the election: higher taxes to deter entrepreneurs and investors and to frighten away inward investors, and the abolition of the reforms of the trade union laws that have been of such benefit to industrial relations and investment.
As always, we heard from Labour Members about red tape, regulation, quangos and committees too numerous to mention. However, worst of all, although it is not often mentioned now, we heard about the minimum wage. Everybody knows that that would have destroyed jobs and increased unemployment.
I cannot say that we cannot wait to hear what changes might emerge from the moving of chairs in the Labour party, but, happily, I can say that the electorate has ensured that we do not have to worry about those ideas and that industry does not have to worry when it recovers from the recession. I therefore urge the House to reject the motion and accept the amendment.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 262, Noes 301.

Division No. 50]

[7.02 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Callaghan, Jim

Adams, Mrs Irene

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainger, Nicholas

Campbell, Menzies (File NE)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Armstrong, Hilary

Clapham, Michael

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Ashton, Joe

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Austin-Walker, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clelland, David

Barron, Kevin

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Battle, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Cohen, Harry

Beckett, Margaret

Connarty, Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Corbett, Robin

Benton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bermingham, Gerald

Cousins, Jim

Berry, Roger

Cox, Tom

Betts, Clive

Cryer, Bob

Blunkett, David

Cummings, John

Boateng, Paul

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Boyce, Jimmy

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Boyes, Roland

Dalyell, Tam

Bradley, Keith

Darling, Alistair

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davidson, Ian

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Burden, Richard

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Byers, Stephen

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)

Caborn, Richard

Denham, John

73

Dewar, Donald

Leighton, Ron

Dixon, Don

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dobson, Frank

Lewis, Terry

Donohoe, Brian

Litherland, Robert

Dowd, Jim

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Loyden, Eddie

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lynne, Ms Liz

Eagle, Ms Angela

McAllion, John

Eastham, Ken

McAvoy, Thomas

Enright, Derek

McCartney, Ian

Etherington, William

MacDonald, Calum

Evans, John (St Helens N)

McGrady, Eddie

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

McKelvey, William

Fatchett, Derek

Mackinlay, Andrew

Faulds, Andrew

McLeish, Henry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Maclennan, Robert

Fisher, Mark

McMaster, Gordon

Flynn, Paul

McWilliam, John

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Madden, Max

Foulkes, George

Mahon, Alice

Fraser, John

Mandelson, Peter

Fyfe, Maria

Marek, Dr John

Galbraith, Sam

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Galloway, George

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Gapes, Michael

Martlew, Eric

Garrett, John

Maxton, John

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Gerrard, Neil

Meale, Alan

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Michael, Alun

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Godsiff, Roger

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Milburn, Alan

Gordon, Mildred

Miller, Andrew

Gould, Bryan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Graham, Thomas

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morley, Elliot

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Grocott, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Gunnell, John

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hain, Peter

Mudie, George

Hall, Mike

Mullin, Chris

Hanson, David

Murphy, Paul

Hardy, Peter

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Harman, Ms Harriet

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Harvey, Nick

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Hara, Edward

Henderson, Doug

Olner, William

Heppell, John

O'Neill, Martin

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hinchliffe, David

Patchett, Terry

Hoey, Kate

Pendry, Tom

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Pickthall, Colin

Home Robertson, John

Pike, Peter L.

Hood, Jimmy

Pope, Greg

Hoon, Geoff

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hoyle, Doug

Prescott, John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Primarolo, Dawn

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Purchase, Ken

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Randall, Stuart

Hutton, John

Raynsford, Nick

Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

Redmond, Martin

Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'Id, H)

Reid, Dr John

Jamieson, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Janner, Greville

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Roche, Ms Barbara

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Ruddock, Joan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sedgemore, Brian

Keen, Alan

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C & S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'I Br'g'n)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Khabra, Piara

Short, Clare

Kilfoyle, Peter

Simpson, Alan

74

Skinner, Dennis

Turner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Tyler, Paul

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Vaz, Keith

Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)

Wardell Gareth (Gower)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Watson, Mike

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Welsh, Andrew

Soley, Clive

Wicks, Malcolm

Spearing, Nigel

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Spellar, John

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Wilson, Brian

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Wise, Audrey

Steinberg, Gerry

Worthington, Tony

Stevenson, George

Wray, Jimmy

Strang, Gavin

Wright, Dr Tony

Straw, Jack

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

Tipping, Paddy

Mr. Eric Illsley.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Congdon, David

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Conway, Derek

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Cormack, Patrick

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Cran, James

Amess, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Ancram, Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Arbuthnot, James

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Aspinwall, Jack

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dicks, Terry

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Baldry, Tony

Dover, Den

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Duncan, Alan

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bates, Michael

Dunn, Bob

Batiste, Spencer

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bendall, Vivian

Eggar, Tim

Beresford, Sir Paul

Elletson, Harold

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Emery, Sir Peter

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Body, Sir Richard

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evennett, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Faber, David

Bowden, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Bowis, John

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandreth, Gyles

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brazier, Julian

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bright, Graham

Forman, Nigel

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Budgen, Nicholas

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Burns, Simon

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Burt, Alistair

Freeman, Roger

Butler, Peter

French, Douglas

Butterfill, John

Fry, Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Gale, Roger

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gallie, Phil

Carrington, Matthew

Gardiner, Sir George

Carttiss, Michael

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Cash, William

Garnier, Edward

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gill, Christopher

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Chapman, Sydney

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Clappison, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Gorst, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

Coe, Sebastian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Colvin, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

75

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Lidington, David

Grylls, Sir Michael

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Hague, William

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Lord, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Luff, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hanley, Jeremy

MacKay, Andrew

Hannam, Sir John

Maclean, David

Hargreaves, Andrew

McLoughlin, Patrick

Harris, David

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Haselhurst, Alan

Madel, David

Hawkins, Nicholas

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hawksley, Warren

Malone, Gerald

Hayes, Jerry

Mans, Keith

Heald, Oliver

Marland, Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Marlow, Tony

Hendry, Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Hicks, Robert

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Horam, John

Merchant, Piers

Hordern, Sir Peter

Milligan, Stephen

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Moate, Roger

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Monro, Sir Hector

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Moss, Malcolm

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Needham, Richard

Hunter, Andrew

Nelson, Anthony

Jack, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Jenkin, Bernard

Nicholls, Patrick

Jessel, Toby

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Norris, Steve

Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Page, Richard

Key, Robert

Patnick, Irvine

Kilfedder, Sir James

Patten, Rt Hon John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Pawsey, James

Knapman, Roger

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Pickles, Eric

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Knox, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Rathbone, Tim

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Redwood, John

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Legg, Barry

Richards, Rod

Leigh, Edward

Riddick, Graham

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Robathan, Andrew

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

76

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Thomason, Roy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Thurnham, Peter

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Sackville, Tom

Tracey, Richard

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Tredinnick, David

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Trend, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Trotter, Neville

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Viggers, Peter

Shersby, Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sims, Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Ward, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Soames, Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Speed, Sir Keith

Watts, John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wells, Bowen

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wheeler, Sir John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whitney, Ray

Spink, Dr Robert

Whittingdale, John

Spring, Richard

Widdecombe, Ann

Sproat, Iain

Wiggin, Jerry

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wilkinson, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Willetts, David

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stephen, Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)

Stern, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stewart, Allan

Wood, Timothy

Streeter, Gary

Yeo, Tim

Sumberg, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Sweeney, Walter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Tellers for the Noes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. David Lightbown and

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the essential need to maintain British competitiveness by containing inflation and improving productivity; and believes that the long term needs of British industry are best served by the control of public expenditure, competitive tax rates, deregulation, and an incentive economy.

Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must announce to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.15 pm
Dr. David Clark: I beg to move,
That this House regards Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy as currently one of the greatest threats facing British agriculture; notes with regret that Her Majesty's Government's estimate of the cumulative total of cows dying of BSE was 20,000 and that to date more than 60,000 cows have succumbed to the disease and these numbers are rising; calls upon Her Majesty's Government as a matter of precaution to establish a working party of outside experts to undertake a strategic review of the current position and Her Majesty's Government's response to it, and to extend the ban on specified bovine offal, including the brain, for human consumption to offal from cows under six months of age; and, in order to ensure that no cows dying of BSE are slipping into the food chain, demands Her Majesty's Government undertake random sampling of routinely slaughtered cows.
We make no apology whatsoever for raising the important issue of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. As stated in the opening lines of the motion, we regard BSE as
"currently one of the greatest threats facing British agriculture".
It is now more than two years since we had a full-scale debate on it in the House, so that it is time for us to reassess the situation. I fully appreciate the fact that the Government are not worried about BSE, and that is all the more reason why the House should show concern. The Government's complacency is clearly an error on a scale that is plain to see if we care to look.
It is worth emphasising the fact that the problem is almost peculiarly a British problem, and it is a British problem largely because of the actions of Conservative Governments. Tragically, the world recognises that it is a British disease, with the result that many countries still refuse to accept British meat or British cattle. Even our partners and neighbours in Europe discriminate against British beef in that no British beef containing bones from BSE-infected herds is allowed into any European Community country. Their officials still believe that a question mark hangs over BSE.
Mr. Christopher Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is doing anything to help the British cattle industry by continually highlighting the problem in Parliament?
Dr. Clark: It is two years since we had a full-scale debate on the topic. Has society reached such a state that we are not allowed to discuss a serious aspect of Government policy or to question that policy seriously and responsibly without being charged with scaremongering by Conservative Members who have other interests, as he has made plain to the House?
Mr. Gill rose—
Dr. Clark: I must continue, or we shall not make much progress.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) somehow linked to the industry? If so,
78
does not he think that he should have declared to the House what that link is before he made that intervention? Would he care to do so now?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. If hon. Members have an interest, it is incumbent on them to declare it.
Mr. Gill: I am happy to declare my interest, which is stated in the Register of Members' Interests. If I may continue, does the hon. Gentleman—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the declaration, or otherwise, of an interest and not pursue the previous point which was the subject of an intervention.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ludlow alluded to an interest. As our proceedings are televised and the public witness our debate, will he tell the House precisely what his interest is? It may be that the hon. Gentleman's decision to intervene was motivated by that specific interest. Will he tell the House what his interest is?
Madam Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member catches my eye he will have to declare any interest, but there is no requirement to declare an interest during an intervention.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: With great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to differ with you when you say that there is no requirement, in an intervention, to declare an interest. There is such a requirement. The hon. Gentleman was not putting a question to a Minister; he was making a statement, which will be recorded in Hansard. Again I ask whether he is prepared to make a specific declaration of his interest in this debate so that hon. Members may be aware of it. Perhaps you should take advice from the Clerks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: When I need to take advice I shall do so, but not at the behest of the hon. Member. The position that I have taken will stand until such time as I discover otherwise.
Dr. Clark: As this is a very serious and important matter, I hope that we shall be able to get on with the debate.
This disease did not simply happen, nor was it an act of God; it happened because the Conservative Government were incompetent. With their obsession—their continuing obsession—with deregulation, they have brought about this terrible disease. It is a generally accepted scientific explanation that originally the disease was introduced by cows eating meal containing scrapie from sheep. But, as that is a common practice throughout the world, why did this happen in Britain? It happened in Britain because of the Government's attitude to the rendering industry. Before 1979 the then Labour Government was concerned about the standards in the rendering industry, and they published tighter draft regulations. Unfortunately, the incoming Conservative Government, following the Conservatives' usual practice of rewarding their friends, including those in the rendering industry, scrapped those regulations. The rendering industry did not hide this; it was quite honest. Indeed, the chairman of the United Kingdom renderers said:

79
"The original proposals were very expensive, but there was a distinct change of heart when the Conservatives came into office. They were happy to drop the idea of a code and settle for random testing."
Mr. Field, an executive member, went a stage further. Referring to the different technology permitted by the weakened regulations, he said:
"This was partly as a result of changes in animal feed technique, but the basic motive was profit."
I repeat:
"the basic motive was profit."
It is because of that obsession with profit, at whatever cost, that we have this terrible disease in Britain.
Faced with that situation, the Government did not know what to do. As usual, procrastination, coupled with their policy of being "economical with the truth", was the order of the day. The Government were obsessed with secrecy. It was a question of too little, too late. The Government took 18 months to make BSE a notifiable disease, and two and a half years to announce a ban on cattle offal. And, having announced the ban, they took five months to bring it into effect. After the disease was made notifiable, they took 20 months to introduce 100 per cent compensation.
All this has taken place against the background of the Government's deliberate running down of the state veterinary service. Between 1979 and this year the number of veterinary officers employed by the service has declined by 42 per cent. No wonder the veterinary service is hard done by in its attempts to deal with the BSE problem, which has now affected almost one third of the dairy herds in the United Kingdom—31 per cent. of herds having had at least one case of BSE.
But that is all in the past. The Labour party is here to focus attention on the present and, indeed, the future. It is our sincere hope that the Government's policies on BSE are effective and that their timetable for the disappearance of the disease is correct. However, we should be failing in our duty as the official Opposition if we were not to raise the public anxieties, and if we were not to seek to explore the full truth with a view to ascertaining the current position.
Until recently most people in Britain believed that BSE had gone away. They have been shocked by the news not only that BSE has not disappeared but that the situation has actually worsened. It is a matter for regret that, in respect of these matters, the Government have not always been as open as they should have been. For example, on 13 March this year the Minister flatly refused to give me the number of BSE cases. However, while we may disagree about details, there is one simple matter upon which the House can agree, for it is a matter of fact and of record. I refer to the fact that the Government got their estimates and their predictions badly wrong.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Hon. Members: Here comes a farmer!
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Yes, I am a farmer.
The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the forecasts were not correct—it was difficult to forecast—but he seems to be trying to suggest that the disease is still spreading. That is not the case. The number of animals that were fed on this substance is finite, and there have been no cases of
80
spread of the disease to the next generation. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to dissuade people from eating beef, which is perfectly safe to eat.
Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady attends most of our debates on agriculture.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: All of them.
Dr. Clark: She attends all of our debates on agriculture. I will deal with some of these points in the course of my speech. Serious points must be addressed.
In February 1989 the Southwood report, which was published and endorsed by the Government, estimated that, given the usual lifespan of the milk cow and the nature of our dairy herd, there was
"a cumulative total of about 17,000 to 20,000 cases from cows currently alive and subclinically infected."
If the hon. Lady were correct—if there were no new cases among cows born after that date, which is not so— Southwood would be adhered to. The maximum would be 20,000 cases. There is no doubt—the hon. Lady has conceded the point—that the Government got their figures wrong just over three years ago.
But they went further and said that the number of cases would peak at about 350 to 400 a month. I emphasise that the period referred to was a month. I do not quibble with those figures—they were the best available at the time— but we are concerned about the fact that the Government's whole strategy is based on that estimate, and, as the House knows, they got the figures wrong. For example, from the Government's own figures we know that, far from the total number of cows dying from BSE being 20,000, it is now more than 60,000 and is increasing literally every day. Far from being 350 to 400 cases a month, the latest confirmed figure is 1,080 a week—not a month—or, extrapolated on a monthly basis, 10 times higher than the Government's predicted figure. Even if that figure is an aberration, the weekly average for the first six months of 1992 is 703—and it is better to take six months rather than a week.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman will surely allow that there is a distinction to be drawn between a weekly rate of confirmations and a weekly rate of reporting. Attributing confirmations to the week in which they were reported shows that the actual rate is significantly lower than 1,000 a week.
Dr. Clark: It is for that very reason that I said that we must examine the figures over a decent period. When hon. Members look at Hansard tomorrow, they will find that the sentence that I used immediately before the Minister intervened was to the effect that it is much better to look at the figures over six months than to take one week at random. I stand by that.
The Government have been changing the goalposts— changing the rules and taking one week with another. Surely the best way of measuring the rate of incidence of BSE is to take the number of confirmed cases: actual cases of actual cows confirmed as having actual BSE. That must be done over a period.
It is not very ingenious of the Minister to play around with the figures and to muddy the waters with other figures when confirmed cases, taken over a period, are the best way of judging the scale of the problem.
Even on averages for a year the figures have risen. Up to the end of April there were 631 cases a week. The

81
Government talk of 400 a month. By the end of June, the figure had risen from 631 to 703. So it is clear for all to see that the Government got the scale of the problem wrong; the figures are between five and 10 times worse than they predicted. Far from a total of 20,000, as the Government estimated, in all likelihood 100,000 will have died.
One reason why the Government got the scale of the problem wrong was that they got the science wrong in some areas as well. I mentioned at the outset that the original assumption was that the virus or agent was introduced to cows by their eating scrapie—contaminated meat, scrapie being endemic in our sheep flock. It was on that thesis that the Government made their predictions and based their strategy.
Now it is widely suggested, even by Ministry vets, that the disease increased dramatically because parts of the cows already infected with BSE by scrapie were then fed to other cows—straightforward cannibalism. Thus, although the original route for the virus was scrapie, most of the increase was due to BSE—infected feed being given to cattle. In other words, cows were more susceptible to catching BSE from meal made from cows already infected by BSE.
If this theory is correct, the Minister clearly has some aspects of the science wrong, and that raises what may form part of a hidden agenda behind tonight's debate—the transfer of related brain diseases species. The surprise initially was that spongiform encephalopathy had jumped species from sheep to cows; not quite as surprising was the transmissibility within a species. Similarly, an article published in The Guardian today reveals the transmission of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease between humans as a result of injections from the pituitary glands of dead people We are at the edge of the unknown, and that is why this debate is so important.
Before I move on I want to ask the Minister a question about the disposal of carcases. The Minister has already agreed under pressure from the Opposition that all carcases should be disposed of by incineration. He told me in a parliamentary answer on 22 May that the capacity for incineration is about 1,000 a week, although there has already been one week in which there were more than 1,000 confirmed cases. Having visited incineration plants and discussed this with the operators, I think that the Minister's figure may be on the high side.
Will the Minister confirm that certain BSE carcases are being stored in the back of refrigerated lorries while awaiting incineration; and what is the longest time such carcases are held in such a fashion? It is clearly sensible that for incineration they should be moved in refrigerated wagons, but it is not sensible to hold them in those wagons.
The Government's sole response so far to this public debate has been to say that the problem will soon start diminishing; it will go away. I sincerely hope that they are right, but I suggest that policies based on a hope and prayer are not necessarily the best policies. They may be the Government's only response, but they are not necessarily the best.
The Government argue, rather misleadingly, that the pattern and the figures are exactly as they predicted. In that they are not being truthful. Mr. Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer, has been precise on this point, as we would expect from such an eminent scientist. On 2 September 1991 he told a London conference, according to MAFF press release number 292/91:
82
"the latest predictions point to a rapid decline in the number of confirmed BSE cases within the next year."
That is explicit enough. More than 10 months ago he asserted that in less than two months from today there would begin to be a rapid decline in BSE cases. I hope that he is right, but the Labour party asks: why wait for two, four or six months? The potential scale of the problem is so serious that precautionary steps should be taken now.
One of the tenets of all scientific inquiry is that of the examination of one's thesis and experiments by other scientists in one's peer group. We challenge the Government to allow that in the case of BSE. We believe that the time is ripe for a peer group review of the strategic implications of the Government's approach to BSE. We do not question the ability or integrity of the scientists advising the Ministry, but we do suggest that they have been so deeply involved in the project for two years that outside experts might prove of some further assistance. The problem is so threatening that there is nothing to lose —so why is the Minister so reluctant to follow this precautionary approach? Even the Farmers Weekly supports the Labour party's position on this.
I suggest that the Minister invite the Royal Society to undertake this strategic reassessment of the Government's role. As the Minister knows, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who sponsors science in the Cabinet, has shown his general support for giving the Royal Society this type of role. Indeed, he did so as recently as 11 June, as reported in column 493, during a debate on science and technology, in response to a suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who has pursued this suggestion for some time, arguing that BSE would be an ideal topic for this type of review.
If the Minister is prepared to follow this line, he will have the wholehearted support of the Labour party and of most people outside. We believe it unwise to waste a further six months in the hope that the Government's policies will work. Too much is at risk for that.
Our second positive suggestion is that proscribed offal, including brains from cows, should be extended to that from calves under six months old. We think it ludicrous that the brains of calves can still be legally used in meat products such as mock turtle soup and meat pies. Of course we understand that it is unlikely that the BSE infection will have manifested itself in a calf, but the agent or virus may be present even in nascent form, and we cannot predict how it will react in different host species. We plead with the Government to take some action and to follow a precautionary line.
Finally, it really is time the Government acted on the suggestion of their own Tyrrell committee advisers and introduced random sampling of routinely slaughtered animals. We see no reason why Ministry scientists could not visit slaughterhouses and select routinely slaughtered cows' heads for examination. That too would be a precautionary measure, and, assuming no cows were found positive, it would provide the ultimate reassurance for the public. If infected cows were found to have slipped through into the animal food chain, other action might be necessary.
The public have a right to know, and if the Government are so sure of their ground I challenge them to take up the gauntlet and to introduce random sampling. When we put it to the Government originally, they said that they felt that they did not have the necessary scientific techniques to undertake that work. However, that problem has now

83
been overcome. The Minister wrote to me on 18 April 1991 rejecting a move to support Dr. Narang in Newcastle because he was working on a simple post-mortem diagnostic test. The Minister said that that was unnecessary for
"Quite simply, an effective post mortem test for BSE already exists."
The Government now have the techniques and there is no
reason why they should not act. They have the scientific evidence, but do they have the will? What are they afraid of'? If the Government are so confident, why not go ahead and undertake random testing?
I hope that I have made it clear that we earnestly and sincerely wish the Government well and hope that their policies are successful. However, the essence of our case is that they have got the scale of the problem wrong by a factor of between five and 10. We are urging a precautionary approach by suggesting another look to see whether we have got the science right.
7.40 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'endorses Her Majesty's Government's vigorous and comprehensive action in response to the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to bring the outbreak under control:.
When discussing BSE it is important to start at the beginning and to consider the various steps that have been taken. It is my thesis that we have taken every measure that was recommended and that we have done that promptly and effectively. We have the disease under control and we will see the disease disappear. However, it is necessary to trace its cause to know why we took the actions that we did and why we took them at particular times.
BSE was first diagnosed at Weybridge in 1986. It had no known cause and the agent looked like scrapie. In order to define diagnostic criteria and to study the natural history of the disease, it was necessary to have a sample of around 200 cases. In the event, a study was carried out on the basis of 189 cases. That study showed that we had a genuinely new disease; that the first case probably dated back to 1985; that it was not imported and that all the animals had been infected from a single source. There was no evidence of transmission between animals or of maternal transmission.
The early outbreaks showed that we were not dealing with an infection. That is still the case because many herds had had only one case within the herd. They showed that the incidence was highest in the south of England and that it struck mainly, although not exclusively, at dairy herds. They showed that it hit mainly adult animals. There was no association with the sex of the animals, pregnancy, lactation, time of year or, within dairy breeds, the breed of the animal. The presence or absence of sheep on the farm was irrelevant. Those were the findings of the early studies.
Those findings led to the central hypothesis that has governed Government action: that BSE was a new disease; that it was caused by infected food; that the food was probably meat and bone meal, including the remains of sheep infected with scrapie; and that something had happened in 1981 or 1982 which permitted the infection to
84
move across the species from sheep to cattle. We were subsequently able to identify that "something" as a change in rendering practice. In particular, most plants stopped using a process in which hydrocarbon solvent was used to remove extra fat from the processed material by applying wet heat at high temperatures. We believe that that application of wet heat was the effective destroyer of the agent. Significantly, the only two plants still using the technique are in Scotland and Scotland has had a very low incidence of BSE. Nothing which has happened since then has invalidated those conclusions. It is a remarkable tribute to the scientists concerned that, 60,000 animals later, the findings still hold good.
In April 1988, the Ministers of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and for Health appointed Professor Sir Richard Southwood to inquire into the health implications of BSE. Before any recommendation from that committee was received, the first big control measure was put in place: the disease was made notifiable and a ban was introduced on the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminant animals. That measure was, is and will remain the keystone of the policy to combat BSE on all the evidence available to us.
Three weeks later, on the basis of an interim recommendation from the Southwood report that suspect animals should be taken out of the human food chain, and on a purely precautionary basis—the precautionary basis that has informed the whole of Government policy—we ordered the slaughter of suspect animals and their destruction.
The pattern of the Government's response was clear: to resort to the best scientific expertise available—and we could not get better than Professor Sir Richard Southwood; the acceptance of recommendations made on scientific grounds; the pursuit of a twin track policy to control the disease as an animal disease, and address, on an ultra-precautionary basis, any public health concerns; and, finally, the pursuit of epidemiological studies so that, if necessary, the Government would be informed and be able to adapt or change their controls.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: If, as we understand it, precautionary considerations are taken into account, why should a cow which has the disease and whose meat— according to what we hear—is uncontaminated be slaughtered, and a cow which is not showing any physical indications but which has the disease and which might be caught in the random sampling—to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred—not be slaughtered? What is the difference between the two? Is the difference simply the physical movement of the cow which shows that it has the problem? Why should one be slaughtered and not the other? Why should one be identified and not the other? I do not understand the distinction that the Minister has drawn.
Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will reply to that in detail when he has had time to work out what the question means. I must confess that I have not managed to work out the nature of the hon. Gentleman's question. We undertook that a suspect animal would be slaughtered on a precautionary basis. That remains a sensible policy and it is one that we have always pursued.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The Minister has said that the Government decided that the infected animals would

85
be slaughtered, so why were the Government so slow at providing the appropriate incineration plants to dispose of the infected animals? Such facilities are still not yet in place.
Mr. Curry: That is not true. The incineration facilities are in place. Only two infected animals have not been incinerated this year and both of them were in the most extreme rural circumstances. Even if animals are not incinerated, they are buried 20 ft down. That is a safe means of disposal. However, all animals can now be incinerated except in the most exceptional circumstances that I have just described.
There are basically two important strands to policy. The first is the control of the disease in animals and the other is the prevention of any possible disease in humans on a precautionary basis. With regard to the disease in animals, the first important measure was the ban on feed. As I have said, that is still the fundamental measure to prevent recycling within the cattle chain. That alone will eliminate BSE on the evidence that we have.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Can the Minister confirm that there have been some cases of vertical transmission from cow to cow?
Mr. Curry: There has been only one case among the thousands of cases in which we have not been able to establish irrefutably that the animal was possibly exposed to contaminated feed. I will deal with that later.
The second important measure was the restrictions, on a precautionary basis, on pregnant cows about to calve again to prevent any possible spread to other animals, although, as I have said, there is no evidence that that can happen.
The third important measure was the ban on the feeding of specified bovine offals—brains, spinal cords, thymus, tonsils, spleen and intestine—and all proteins defined from them, to any animal species. That measure was taken in September 1990 following evidence that a pig could be infected after massive injections simultaneously into the brain, veins and abdomen of infected material. So of course it is possible to transmit the disease in laboratory conditions with the injection of enormous doses of heavily infected materials. We have not had any cases or been able to prove any cases of any transmission outside those conditions. That is a very important factor.
As for protecting human health, we have the slaughter and destruction of suspect animals and, of course now, as I have said, centralised incineration facilities, and, again on a precautionary basis, the prevention of the use of milk from suspect animals for human or animal consumption, except the feeding of the animal's own calf. Also, in June 1989, the Government announced and, later that year after the statutory consultation, implemented, the decision to ban the use of offals in human food—not a recommenda-tion of the Southwood report but something that the Government implemented, again in pursuit of their policy of precautionary action. That was done, of course, because it was based on identifying the tissues susceptible to the scrapie agent. The ban did not extend to calves under six months, because scrapie has never been found in sheep under 10 months, and young cattle will not have been fed the infected agent. That remains the policy.
There are, of course, two possibilities for spread which have to be and are being investigated, as I have said. One is maternal transmission. As I said to the hon. Member for
86
Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), there is one case out of 60,000 where there is a possibility—an animal born in October 1988 which went down two years later. Even then, we cannot establish that it was not exposed to contaminated feed because we do not have all the information about conditions when it was a young animal. Even if there were maternal transmission, it would still not sustain the epidemic because to do so would require one new case for every existing case. On average, fewer than one of the calves born to dairy cows survive to enter the dairy herd. So there is no evidence of maternal transmission or of horizontal transmission. Forty six per cent. of herds which have had a case have had a single case, and in 80 per cent. of herds there has been no case at all.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to come back to this point, but I want to press the Minister to satisfy myself. Could a cow with BSE which is not showing the physical symptoms of BSE and which is not wobbling or whatever such cows do, enter an abattoir without any one knowing, be slaughtered and be subject to all the restrictions, constraints and controls and the meat of that cow enter the food chain? I am not suggesting that the meat will be contaminated, but simply asking whether that cow can be slaughtered and its meat get into the food chain when physical symptoms are not apparent but when it might have BSE.
Mr. Curry: Where there are no physical symptoms. the cow is a healthy cow. If it is a healthy cow, it is slaughtered —[Interruption.] Opposition Members cannot expect us to detect BSE by psychology. Where an animal has shown no symptoms—
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: Let me finish my point. Where an animal shows no symptoms of BSE, it is deemed to be a healthy animal. Because we take the ultra-precautionary approach even to healthy animals, all those tissues and elements of an animal in which the scrapie agent might he found are removed. The agent has been found only in the brain, so we are doubly precautionary in our approach.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is a very important matter. Some might argue that, despite the fact that the animal does not show physical symptoms, it might have BSE in its early stages. Is the Minister actually saying that that animal can be slaughtered and that the meat, without restriction, can go into the food chain? I am not suggesting that the meat has BSE. Will the Minister confirm that, as that appears to be what he is saying?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that no beef should be eaten. That is the only conclusion to what he is saying. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if an animal has no symptom, presumably it should not go to an abattoir, should not be slaughtered and the meat should not be eaten. That is the only conclusion to be drawn from what he has said. That policy would merely prevent anybody from consuming beef. I cannot see that that addresses the problem in any sense. It is important that, on the precautionary principle, those tissues of an animal which might harbour the agent, on the basis of the analogy with scrapie, are removed from all animals, and they are removed from all animals because we take such a cautious approach.

87
The Southwood report was published in February 1989 and it said that the chances of transmission to humans were remote. Since then, the Food Safety Advisory Centre has published a leaflet about BSE, and Professor Southwood has written a foreword to it, in which he states:
here has naturally been much anxiety as to whether the disease could pass from cattle to humans. Even prior to the implementation of the current measures this risk was remote. With the present precautions, as explained in the following pages"—
he goes on to refer to them—
"we have more reason to be concerned about being struck by lightning than catching BSE from eating beef and other products from cattle".
That has been stated quite categorically by Professor Sir Richard Southwood, and I know of no reputable figure in the industry who would dispute those conclusions. Professor Southwood recommended that we set up a committee to examine research needs, and of course that is what led to the committee under the chairmanship of Dr. David Tyrrell, and that committee still exists in order to monitor and recommend on our research activity.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Knowing some of Sir Richard Southwood's colleagues and his distinguished department, may I ask what precisely is the remit that he now has? Does he have a continuing remit to monitor the situation? What precisely is his locus in the matter?
Mr. Curry: The continuing remit is with the committee that was set up by Dr. David Tyrrell, which monitors research activity and makes recommendations in relation to research into BSE. That report came out recently. He is also able to make continuing recommendations in this matter. We maintain contact with the scientific opinion which we called into being.
It has been suggested that we should opt for random testing for BSE in routinely slaughtered cattle. We already inspect a high proportion of cows at slaughterhouses for clinical signs of the disease. I do not think that it is worth while to keep pressing for something which the first Tyrrell committee saw as a very low priority. That has been confirmed by the current Tyrrell committee. It would not add to our comprehensive public health precautions or to our animal health measures. The offals ban already removes from the food chain the relevant tissues from any pre-clinically infected animals, and all that random testing would do is to direct resources in terms of expertise away from the more important work.
But what about the numbers? That is the nub of the case made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). Professor Southwood made very heavily qualified forecasts. He said—it is stated quite clearly in his report —that his forecast assumed that the only cause of the infection was sheep-to-cattle transmission via bonemeal. In his calculations, he discounted, and said that he was discounting quite clearly, the recycling of material from infected cattle to cattle via meat and bonemeal. That has proved to be a significant factor. It is the main driving force of the epidemic and it accounts for the higher than anticipated numbers, particularly as meat and bonemeal rations were used in calf feeding.
It is important to remember the pattern of diagnosis. We need to know the date of infection. We do not know the date of infection; it is impossible to know the actual date of infection, but one needs an approximate time. Of
88
course, the incidence has been most frequent in animals of a mean four to five years, and the minimum age at which any animal has gone down is just under two years. We need to know the date of the first symptoms, the date of notification, the date of slaughter and the date of confirmation. They are, of course, different dates because the rate of confirmation and the rate of incidence of the disease are not the same.
In 99·99 per cent. of cases, the animals were born before the feed ban and had the opportunity to eat the infected feed. We cannot prove that they did, of course, but we can prove that the feed was available for consumption. That is the important link. However, the key lies in cases born since the ban. There have been 101 of them and only two came from mothers with BSE. Eighty-nine out of those 101 were found in the course of investigation to have been born before the end of October 1988, within three months of the ban. We know that contaminated feed was still hanging around on farms at that time.
We are now seeing the results of what happened in 1987–88. The disease has an average incubation period approaching five years. In the early weeks of 1992 we averaged more than 900 suspected cases a week. In the past four weeks the average has been fewer than 700. We expect an increase in late summer and autumn, consistent with the pattern in previous years. But the increase will be much smaller than if the feed ban had not been introduced. In the youngest age group—two to three years—the number of cases is significantly smaller than it would have been if the epidemic had followed its earlier pattern. This year will see the peak, as we get over the 1988 hump, and then we shall be on the downward path.
We got it right from the start. We are still right in our actions. There is no hidden research. There are no secret findings. There is no hidden horror. There is no secret agenda. Our actions are based on expert advice implemented openly and a precautionary approach which is extreme in its carefulness. The policies are in place to control and eliminate the disease. There is no threat to human health. Our beef is safe.
We have acted promptly, wisely and openly. We have nothing to conceal and everything to be proud of. From the farmer to the processor to the supermarkets, we have an alliance for honesty, openness and effective action in this tragic business. We shall sustain that policy. It has been endorsed by the Select Committee and by national and international experts. We have nothing to learn from the Opposition in this valedictory debate introduced by the hon. Member for South Shields. I invite the House to endorse our policies.
8.1 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: It is important that we set the problem of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the context of the economic problems that face many livestock farmers.
I had the pleasure of attending the royal show today before coming back to the House for the debate. A Cornish farmer handed me an interesting equation on the back of a traditional envelope. It said that if in 1970 a livestock farmer had had £1,000 he could have bought six cows or one tractor; or he might have had the opportunity to invest it, perhaps more wisely, on the stock exchange or in another form of investment. Capital appreciation might have brought the total to £10,000.

89
Of course, today that £10,000 would be far less effective. If the farmer had stayed in agriculture during that period, he would need to sell 12 cows to make £10,000 but could buy only half a tractor. It is extremely important that we consider the problem of BSE in the context of the livestock industry as a whole.
As the Minister said, most of the traces of the extraordinary and sad tale of BSE can and have been detected. It cannot be a coincidence that major changes took place in the rendering plants in the late 1970s. The processing of meat and bonemeal for animal feeds changed dramatically. Instead of processing batches of carcase material at high temperature and removing the fat with solvents, many plants—indeed all except, as the Minister said, those in Scotland—went over to continuous processing at lower temperatures. The high temperatures to which the product was previously subjected to remove the solvents were also abandoned. That final heating surely must have been the reason why the disease did not occur previously. Certainly, William Reilly, the chair of the British Veterinary Association's committee, believes that that is what killed the scrapie virus.
The long incubation period is another problem that has made BSE difficult to deal with. It can be anything from two and a half years to eight years. The massively variable lead time makes it extremely difficult to deal with the disease, as the Minister acknowledged.
Some would say that the most effective way of dealing with the problem at the outset would have been simply to reverse the trend and go back to the previous systems of rendering. If the rendering processes had still achieved high temperatures, it might have killed off the virus.
We must take it into account that the disease has a limited impact on small parts of the carcase—the brains and spinal cord. It is absolutely clear from all the evidence that those are the parts which are affected, whether in pigs, marmoset monkeys or whatever. One of the most important immediate remedial actions that should have been taken when the disease first appeared was to ensure that all those parts were removed completely from the food chain until the disease disappeared. If that had happened, the knackers' :yards, which are currently going out of business at a fast rate, could have retained their position in local rural economies. The side effects on the knackers' yards are serious, as all of us who come from agricultural areas know. The fate of fallen stock is now a great conundrum. The answers to questions that we have put to Ministers have shown that the full pattern of the fate of fallen stock is not known.
Is there a public health risk—a human health risk? The major risk may be from the unknown consequences of the ending of the knackers' service and the effect on the fate of fallen stock. Even though scrapie has been around for about 200 years, it seems that there is no apparent link with Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There is certainly no evidence to suggest that people who work closely with sheep or in areas with a high incidence of scrapie are more likely to get the human version of the disease.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in the 200 years that scrapie has existed—scrapie is a similar pathogen to BSE—a link has never been proven with the human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He underlines my point. So far as I am aware, there is no proven case. If there was a connection, one would have thought that the great searchlight of interest in the issue since BSE was discovered would have uncovered it.
It is also important to recognise that the period immediately after the changes in the rendering process was one of enormous expansion in the sheep flock, particularly in the west and south-west of the British Isles. During the 1970s and early 1980s the sheep flock increased from 13 million to more than 17 million. So the simple pro rata increase was bound to have its effect. The fact that it coincided with the changes in rendering methods cannot be seen as pure coincidence. It must have had some causal effect.
There are legitimate fears about the relationship between confirmed and reported cases of BSE, I noted the exchanges between Members on the two Front Benches. I hope that the Minister will refer again to that when he replies. There is naturally some anxiety that if all the attention is placed on confirmed cases it will not necessarily be the best test of what is happening to BSE.
We must all have noted the point made by the Minister about the number of cases which have been proved to be or could have been the result of maternal or vertical transmission. The possibility seems infinitesimally small. We can rule that out unless other evidence comes to light. But, of course, we must still be worried about the overall growth of the disease. I calculate that in 1987, before the disease became a major problem, we had eight confirmed cases a week. As we heard earlier, in 1992 we have 703 confirmed cases a week. Within that figure there are regional variations. For example, the south-west has a particularly large number of cases. But, of course, it is not the snapshot but the trend that is important. I understand that at the moment there are no figures for regional trends. However, we need to know what is happening region by region.
We can also justifiably ask the Minister to be specific about when he expects reported cases to stop rising, when the confirmed cases are expected to drop and what the total number of cases are projected to be by the end of 1992 and 1993. As we heard earlier, previous forecasts have proved to be wrong. Furthermore, when do we expect BSE to be wiped out?
We may need more research on the tests. At the moment, there is no viable test on a live animal. It is possible that one does not need a test on a live animal. However, if we could establish one, it would be possible to ensure that infected animals were taken out much more quickly and BSE could be identified earlier. I am not sure whether the Tyrrell committee is studying the viability of tests on live animals, but if it is I hope that its report will be made available as quickly as possible.
We should be grateful to the Minister for the information that he has given the House, but is it in the public interest that the information has to be dragged out of the Ministry? Should it not be in the public domain already? As I said earlier, I spent some time today at the royal show and I took the opportunity to go to the Department of Health stand in the food hall to gather all the information that I could on food and health matters. The stand had excellent documents and a lot of information and, on my train journey back to London, I read every word of it. The initials BSE do not appear in

91
any context. There is no reference to it. It has been left to some of the supermarkets to produce a short guide to the problem and to identify the information available.
So far, this has been a useful debate and when other hon. Members on both sides of the House and representing many areas have contributed, we shall be the wiser. What a pity it is that the detailed information that we have from Ministers this evening was not available this afternoon to the industry and to the general public. Scaremongering breeds in an atmosphere of confusion and complacency, and when there is only limited information.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Will the hon. Gentleman accept that all the figures that he could want are freely and readily available in the public domain?
Mr. Tyler: With respect, we have had information this evening that could have been on the stand at the royal show today and the public, who are legitimately interested in this issue, and the industry, which wants to see the right information in the public domain, had every reason to expect it to be there. It was not there, and we have a right, as consumers and producers, and as representatives of the agriculture industry and the backbone of England, to expect our Ministers to be more forthcoming.
8.12 pm
Mr. Paul Marland: I am alarmed and horrified that this debate is taking place. The object of the Opposition is to undermine the confidence of not only the farmers but the meat trade and the consumers. The idea that the visitors to the royal show should want to go away weighed down with masses of technical and scientific information about BSE is nonsense. This small but detailed study makes it clear that everyone believes that beef is in no way damaging to health and that it is safe to eat.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on his quick reaction to this problem when it first arose. He took professional and scientific advice and relied on experts to give him advice to point the way forward. That was thoroughly responsible, and I cannot understand why, as matters are unfolding along the lines that they were predicted to follow, the Labour party is calling for more information. Advice on how the disease came about has been given and it has been made clear that the disease takes four years to develop. It occurs only in older dairy cattle, rather than in those cattle that go for slaughter for beef.
Others have spoken about the experiments on vertical and horizontal transferability and on infection between species, which have been encouraging because of the lack of evidence that that takes place. The slaughtering and disposal methods have been closely examined and recommendations have been made. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the Select Committee on Agriculture examined the problem and with only one partially dissenting voice produced a unanimous report that was accepted by the Government.
Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marland: Here comes that one voice.
Mr. Martlew: I agreed with the Select Committee report, which said that the Government had dealt with the matter much better than they had dealt with the salmonella problem. Let us remember that we thought that the way that they dealt with salmonella resulted in a shambles.
Mr. Marland: It is good to see that there has been some improvement. I shall not forget that point. However, I started by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on taking action quickly. and said that that action was based on proper scientific advice. The Select Committee was responsible enough to examine the problem and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) will remember that we went to look at an incinerator to see how the process was carried out. It is not good enough to use one case, about which there may have been a misunderstanding, to try to prove that a whole policy is wrong. That is a favourite trick of the Opposition.
Dr. David Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House of the "one case" to which I presumably referred?
Mr. Marland: The hon. Gentleman tried to undermine the case that has been made by the Government and the Government's actions. He implied that there was some evidence that the situation was not under control, but I disagree.
The Government have taken advice from the chief medical officer, who said that beef could be eaten without risk. The Tyrrell report concluded that all safeguards were in place to stop the spread of BSE. The EC experts—that must be worth something—have endorsed the Government's action and confirmed that there is no risk to public health in eating beef. The Food Safety Advisory Centre leaflet with a foreword by Sir Richard Southwood, which was probably available at the royal show today, confirmed that steps are being taken that will lead to the disappearance of the disease by the end of the decade. That should answer the question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) about when the disease would be bred out of the system.
We examine a problem thoroughly and get the best advice that there is in the land. Not for us the cranks and quirky advisers who have found favour among those on the Opposition Benches, who may be peddling this information for their own ends rather than for the good of the public. Those of us on the Select Committee remember full well who those individuals are.
Recent figures forecast that the incubation period was four years and that the numbers of cattle infected with BSE will decline by the end of the decade. It had been forecast that there would be an increase in the number of BSE-affected animals during 1992 and early 1993, but that the number would start to decline thereafter. BSE will grow out of the system, and everything is happening more or less as predicted.
Public confidence has recently returned to beef sales. This debate shows that the Labour party does not give a damn about the facts but wants only to cause trouble. The holier-than-thou attitude that the Opposition like to adopt on certain occasions is of little constructive help to anybody. I hope that the House, to a man, throws out the motion.
8.19 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I took part in the debate on BSE two years ago and I detect in the Government and in Conservative Members the same complacency as there was then.
We had predictions then of the incidence of BSE for the early 1990s. We were told that the ban on ruminant protein from animal feed would solve the problem. The Southwood report estimated that there would be about 20,000 cases. The fact is, however, that the numbers are far higher than anything envisaged in the report, as the numbers given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) show.
I have with me the figures for the past five years. In 1987, there were 460 cases; in 1988, 3,038; in 1989, 7,614; and, in 1990, 14,332— the figure doubled in each of those years—
Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that it is possible to forecast with any accuracy the number of animals likely to be affected by the disease?
Mr. Williams: That was clearly the impression that the Government gave in the debate two years ago.
Mr. Gill: But what does the hon. Gentleman think?
Mr. Williams: The forecast was based on the best possible assumptions in 1990. The figures given were 400 a month and a total of 20,000.
Mr. Gill rose
Mr. Williams: I will not give way again on this point. I want to develop my argument.
We should like an explanation why the incidence is five times as high as the Southwood report suggested. To complete my figures, I should add that last year there were 17,997 incidents. I must confess that last year when I heard reports of those figures I thought that perhaps we had reached a plateau, because the number had not increased by as much as in previous years. Unfortunately, in the first six months of this year we already have 18,000 cases. When the Minister replies, he must explain why the numbers are five times as high as the projection.
I am concerned about farms where there are multiple cases of BSE. I have an article here about a farm in Pluckley, Kent where 12 milking cows have contracted the disease since 1988. That is by no means uncommon. Apparently, about 100 farms have more than 10 incidents each of BSE. It would be instructive to carry out tests at some of those farms on the animals that have contracted the disease. Where there is such a cluster, all the cows should be slaughtered and examined for sub-clinical symptoms of BSE. A pilot study might provide useful information. In that context, the Select Committee called for routine random sampling of cattle at slaughterhouses.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: As the hon. Gentleman has clearly studied the Select Committee report, will he acknowledge that we considered slaughtering whole herds to find clinical symptoms and that scientific advice and all the evidence concluded unanimously that, even if that information could be gathered, it would be perfectly useless in trying to reduce the incidence of this disastrous disease? If the hon. Gentleman knows of any merits in such a test, perhaps he can explain more fully what they may be.
Mr. Williams: I seriously question that judgment. It raises the very same question that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) put three times to the Minister in his opening remarks. The diagnosis of BSE is very crude. It is done simply by physical appearance, not by a biological test of any kind. Many cows that are being slaughtered may have sub-clinical symptoms of BSE, but how can they be told apart? It is not black and white, as the Minister seemed to suggest—that either a cow has or it does not have the physical manifestations. It is a progressive disease. Thousands of our cows may be without the physical manifestations of BSE, yet within a week or a month they will develop those symptoms. We need to find out more about that by conducting random sampling.
On 13th February 1992, The Guardian published information on the incidence of BSE in young cattle. It is important that the Government keep a sharp eye on the number of cows of two or three years of age that contract the disease. The numbers given for 1989 were 28 cows of two years and 586 cows of three years and, for 1991, 46 cows of two years and 3,000 cows of three years. Bearing in mind that the offal ban was introduced in July 1988, no two-year-old cows should have contracted BSE in 1991 if the sole cause was ruminant beef in offal. Why, then, has the number of cattle infected by BSE increased from 11 per cent. of the total in 1989 to 17 per cent. in 1991?
Although the Government will not like these comments, I must quote what Dr. Helen Grant, a recently retired consultant neuropathologist at Charing Cross hospital, said when those figures were put to her:
"Quite a number of these animals are so young that they may have got the disease after the offal ban was put in place."
If that is the case, there may be another route of transmission other than that of offal. I note that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) shakes his head. I sincerely hope that his judgment is right. I know that he knows much more about this than I do, but that article has caused me serious doubts. The Government must look into that matter carefully.
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Shields about the need for a new inquiry by independent top scientists. Obviously, eminent scientists at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and on the Southwood and Tyrrell committees have been investigating the problem for several years, but the Royal Society has in its good offices the expertise and manpower to investigate the whole array of social and technical problems. I hope that the Government will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion of asking it for a peer group review on this subject.
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman should know that Dr. David Tyrrell, the chairman of the Tyrrell committee, is himself a fellow of the Royal Society.
Mr. Williams: There are 800 fellows of the Royal Society. I suggested a peer group review. We should let the Royal Society appoint half a dozen eminent scientists from various relevant specialisms to look independently at the work of the Tyrrell committee and what has been happening in the past two or three years. There is much to explain. We need to assess the success of the control methods so far and to review the evidence on transmission, especially where young cattle that should never have caught the disease are victims of it. We must revise our projections. Is the curve exponential and is there no

95
plateau? A new inquiry needs to recommend what further action can be taken to control the spread of this awful disease.
8.30 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: The Select Committee on Agriculture concluded that beef was safe. That has always been the Government's belief and it is my strong belief. There is no way in which the consumption of beef can affect humans, but BSE clearly has an effect upon the brain of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and his condition is getting worse by the hour. I am worried about that because if the disease progresses to its natural conclusion, I shall lose my pairing and no amount of compensation would be adequate for such a disaster.
This is the day on which agriculture leaders gather for a biannual event and it is unfortunate that the Opposition have chosen to stage this debate today. If the hon. Member for South Shields attended the royal show, he would learn a great deal more about agriculture and possibly about BSE than he will learn from the debate. To choose today for the debate was quite unsympathetic and unfeeling.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no risk from eating beef, and I desperately want to believe him. I keep asking myself one question: how is it transmitted from the gut to the brain, assuming that it is transmitted orally?
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman would do well to study the voluminous evidence presented to the Select Committee. I note that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) has that evidence with him. The evidence shows how much the scientists know or do not know about the disease. The Committee's unanimous view was that beef was safe and I have no evidence to show that it is not. The debate has once again brought the issue into the public forum at a time when the bogey had been laid and the public reassured.
Sales of beef have increased and the industry desperately needs those sales. Snide and ill-informed comments without basis are damaging. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) should study the evidence and discuss it properly. I am simply repeating what great scientific brains have concluded. The hon. Gentleman should put his questions to a better source. The Committee, which consisted of Conservative and Opposition Members, listened to the evidence and unanimously concluded that beef is safe.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Wiggin: No, I shall not give way again. There is no point in throwing queries from one side of the House to the other. As I say, when we considered the evidence, the Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman concluded that beef was safe.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: All the latest scientific evidence suggests that the pathogen is incubated in the spinal cord and brain tissue and not in muscle tissue. Therefore, it is quite safe to eat beef.
Mr. Wiggin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am not a scientist. The evidence was presented to the Select Committee two years ago and I regret that we did not have
96
an opportunity to debate the Committee report. Such is the fate of many of our reports but perhaps this is an opportunity to comment on one or two of the issues.
The hon. Member for South Shields said that the cause was Government parsimony. He was right to say that there was a change in the rendering process. There is circumstantial but no clear evidence that the older, more expensive and slower process of rendering meat may well have dealt with the BSE agent. As far as I know—this was certainly the case at the time of the inquiry—no one has identified the true and final nature of that agent. That is one of the intriguing mysteries of this scientific puzzle. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that the cause was Government parsimony. The cause was scrapie which was endemic in our sheep flock for several hundred years. The transfer from sheep to cattle, from one species to another, via rendering meant that cattle contracted a disease which to all intents and purposes was exactly the same as scrapie. The hon. Member for South Shields shakes his head, but what I have said is correct.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a valid point about tests. If we had a foolproof test on the live animal to show the presence of encephalopathy in cattle or sheep, it might be possible to eliminate scrapie. We all agree that that would be well worth while because scrapie prevents the export of sheep to some countries and causes a continual loss of sheep.
There is no connection whatever between the increase or onset of BSE and a decline in the number of people in the state veterinary service, which is still too large. The service should consist of a small handful of expert veterinary surgeons to advise Whitehall. Almost all the work carried out by the service could be contracted out to the private sector. I have experience of the way in which the state veterinary service and the private sector operate. In the foot and mouth outbreak in Worcestershire in the 1970s, a great many herds had to be slaughtered and many veterinary surgeons were immediately required, but there was no way in which the state veterinary service could provide such manpower at short notice. Many private sector vets were brought in and an extremely competent operation was conducted.
Everyone agrees that Sir Richard Southwood was a powerful and convincing witness before the Select Committee. His immense grasp of the intricacies of this difficult problem impressed every member of the Committee. We considered the evidence of many experts, but without difficulty we attached prime importance to what Sir Richard said.
I shall not trouble the House with all the Select Committee's recommendations, but it is appropriate to consider one or two because there was no debate on our report, although it was generally well accepted. We had our differences in Committee, but the report was unanimous. Perhaps we should now question our judgment on one or two of our weaker mutual recommendations—however, the report was prepared two years ago. We started by discussing the level of scientific knowledge on the subject. We said:
"We believe these measures should reassure people that eating beef is safe".
That was the clear, definitive and fully agreed statement, and nothing that has happened since has led me to believe any differently.
The hon. Member for Carlisle represented the Opposition in Committee, and did so extremely well in

97
that he spent much of his time opposing. We listened carefully to what he said and sometimes adopted his suggestions. He rightly said that we had commented on the fact that there had been a substantial improvement on the Government's handling of the salmonella crisis.
We were deeply concerned that, when the salmonella crisis broke, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not able to convince the public or put forward a view without seeming to suggest that the Government were hand in glove with the producers and less interested in the consumers. That point was well taken by the Government, and our purpose in the phrase contained in the report was to show that the Government's handling of the BSE crisis—it was a serious crisis; we have no illusions about that—was considerably better. I do not think that there is any easy way for a Government Department to handle such a problem, but I believe that in this case it did so in a way that we were unable to fault.
However, the all-party recommendations of the Select Committee calmed down the general level of public concern. It took the issue out of the arena of sensation. I am deeply sorry that there are still some hon. Members who would seek to put it back in that category, given that we have done so much to try, in a reasonable and authoritative way, to take it out of such low-level debate.
We commended MAFF on relying on independent scientific advice. The more I think about the matter, the more I am absolutely certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister was right to do as he said he would: take advice from the scientists, then act on it. We are, by nature, a little big-headed and we thought that we knew more. We qualified my right hon. Friend's decision by saying that "in the interests" of reassuring the public, he could have taken one or two steps beyond the scientific advice. Such action, which would not have been too costly, would have gone a little way towards helping people such as the hon. Member for Workington to realise that the matter was being dealt with properly. However, my right hon. Friend stuck to his guns. He refuses to go beyond the scientific advice. That no longer matters, but at the time we rightly registered a note of criticism.
One of the virtues of my right hon. Friend's approach is that, in arguing our case with foreign countries, we can do so on a purely scientific and veterinary basis. It makes it much easier for us when dealing with matters of animal health to be able to say that we will act on the grounds of scientific evidence, not the grounds of political or commercial will. Those unfortunate influences can lead to difficulties, distrust and, eventually, disaster.
We were not told of any possibility of live tests and were informed that research on the issue would take a long time. If my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary could say anything about testing in his winding-up speech, I think that the agricultural world would be extremely interested—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
Mr. Wiggin: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend saying, "Hear, hear". I will remember this debate for an aside, which may not have been picked up by the Hansard reporters, to the effect that my hon. Friend was once a dairy maid. We respect her deep knowledge of such matters.
I have no hesitation in saying that the Government have played a straight bat; they have got it right in so far
98
as one can get it right on such a national disaster. I am sorry that the Opposition should feel that there is any political difference over the issue. It is a matter of national concern, and it is a great pity that all hon. Members cannot come together to deal with what has been an unpleasant, damaging and unfortunate experience for the nation.
8.46 pm
Mr. Eric Martlew: I am sure that today is the right time to be re-examining the problems created by BSE. It is now two years since the crisis broke, and the media have lost interest in it. If people do not believe me, they should look at the Press Gallery. Today we can say things that we could not say two years ago for fear of fuelling the panic. If we were to ask the general public what they remember about the BSE scare they would say that they remembered the Minister of Agriculture trying to force-feed his delightful daughter with a couple of beefburgers.
The issue has disappeared from the public consciousness, but let us consider the cost. One reason for re-examining and debating the problem is the financial cost of compensating farmers that the taxpayer has had to pick up. In 1989, the figure was £1 million. In 1990, it was £4 million. In 1989, farmers were paid only half compensation, but by 1991 the figure was £10 million. It is estimated that the figure for 1992 will be £18 million in compensation. As estimates are normally wrong, that figures is likely to be £20 million—a staggering amount. The total compensation for farmers over the past four years is £40 million.
The Opposition do not begrudge the farmers that compensation. It was only through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the Government were forced into paying full compensation. Time and again Ministers came to the Dispatch Box and refused to authorise the payment of full compensation, and there was not much support among Conservative Back Benchers for our proposals at the time.
The Government's inaction caused the terrible plague among cattle. First, they decided to ignore the report of the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in 1979. It warned the Government that there would be problems in feeding rendered animal pieces to animals. Were any layman to consider the idea of feeding pieces of animals to ruminants such as cows, he would be bound to agree that there would be side effects. The Royal Commission warned the Government of that in 1979, but the Government did nothing about it.
At that time there were also changes in the rendering regulations. The Government's inaction meant that the problems created through the new rendering processes— which reduced the temperature at which rendered sheep carcases were treated and so introduced scrapie into the cows' food chain—allowed the virus to persist. We are not sure that BSE is a virus—it is difficult to decide exactly what it is—but we know that it exists in scrapie, cattle and, unfortunately, man. Autopsies on all those show the disease looking the same.
References have been made to the Select Committee's handling of the BSE crisis. It was better than the Government's handling of the salmonella scare, but a Minister resigned over that. The Government's handling of that crisis was a shambles and a disaster, and anything would be better than that. However, they did not take all

99
the advice. Were the Chairman of the Select Committee to read the recommendations on beef safety, he would see that he forgot to mention that it was stated that cast-iron guarantees could not be given. I accept that beef may be safe now, there can be no cast-iron guarantee for the future.
The Select Committee asked MAFF to discourage farmers from breeding from the offspring of cows with BSE, but it refused. It refused also to extend the offal ban to calves. There is growing evidence of vertical transmission. It is limited, but even the National Farmers Union brief makes mention of vertical transmission from cow to cow. If that exists, the disease is being kept alive, and offal from calves that could be affected continues to be sold for human consumption.
As to the random sampling of carcases, there has been some shifting about among Conservative Members tonight. The Government are obviously against random sampling. The reason is obvious. If they look for evidence of infected animals entering the food chain, they are likely to find it. Professor Mills of Cambridge says that only cattle visibly affected by BSE are destroyed, so apparently healthy animals can enter the food chain. Only cattle that look as though they have BSE are incinerated.
The Government are against random sampling because they know that if they look for BSE, they will find it—and then they will have to explain to the public why infected meat entered the food chain. I accept the logic of the argument that it does not matter much if the offal, brain, and spinal cord of infected carcases are removed. By the same logic, however, there is no sense in burning the carcase of an infected beast, because that part of it that remains will be perfectly safe.
The Government have got their facts wrong. One Conservative Member suggested that we should not accept any Government figures. I agree that the Government have a habit of getting their sums wrong—but to be wrong threefold is rather a lot, even for this Government.
If there is little evidence of vertical transmission—though there is some—at some point the Government must consider eradicating BSE from British cattle by a policy of culling. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is listening—he does not look as though he is. I repeat that the way to eradicate BSE will be at some point to decide that all cows born before 1988 must be destroyed, and full compensation paid.
Several Hon. Members indicated dissent.
Mr. Martlew: That seems to be a problem. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has done his sums, but I presume not. BSE has already cost £40 million. Our cattle cannot be exported live—no one wants to buy them at present. Britain has a terrible reputation throughout the world because of BSE. Before 1988, we had some of the finest dairy herds in the world. If we want to retrieve our good name, my suggestion represents one option.
Mr. Richard Alexander: Can the hon. Gentleman estimate the effect such a policy would have on the view held in this country and abroad on the safety of British beef to eat?
Mr. Martlew: I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because I understand that he has only just entered the Chamber. We currently have a bad reputation, but if we cleared out BSE, we could only improve it.
I am convinced that there is little risk to humans from BSE. The point was made that more people are likely to be killed from being struck by lightning, and that is correct. Nevertheless, I remind the House that every year a few people are killed by lightning.
8.54 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I join those who criticise the Opposition's motion, and as declaring one's interests is currently fashionable, I must declare mine, in having many farmers in my constituency who make a living from rearing beef.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) gave as the feeble excuse for the motion the fact that the topic has not been debated for two years. I share the view of farmers in my constituency that Labour Members have been campaigning on it for a considerable time. Each time that the Opposition seek to make the headlines, it is a stab in the back for British farmers. Each time that the Opposition raise the matter, it threatens to reduce the income of farmers who are already considerably hard pressed.
Of the big restaurant chains, one in particular that buys beef in advance reduces the orders that it places with its wholesalers by 25 per cent. every time that BSE comes back into the news. That is the sum total of the damage done to farm incomes in this country by those who continue to harp on the subject.
As the hon. Member for South Shields knows, farmers in my constituency and in Scotland report a very low incidence of BSE, yet they are punished by continual references to the threat that it poses. Farmers and traditional butchers are baffled by the topic being raised yet again in this debate. Some unkind pundits may say that the Opposition are knackered and do not have any better ideas. Others may say that Opposition Members have been watching too much television. It is odd that this debate comes in the wake of the BBC television series "Natural Lies", which spread seriously damaging rumours about BSE and prompted the chief veterinary officer to say that
"the BBC is unwise, if not stupid, to put this on."
I heartily agree. It was also disgraceful of The Guardian to make mention in an article today of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in connection with tonight's debate. That article has nothing to do with BSE in animals.
Where is the science in all this? One well-known professor suggested in 1990 that 6 million cattle ought to be slaughtered. Luckily, we did not listen to him. We know also of the views of Dr. Helen Grant, a retired consultant neuropathologist who served as the paid adviser to "Natural Lies". Against that, we have the advice of Dr. David Tyrrell; Keith Meldrum, the chief veterinary officer; Sir Richard Southwood; and many others. They have all shown that BSE is under control and will soon be on the way out.
There was talk of 600 or 700 cases a week. We should give credit to the Ministry for predicting in the late 1980s that the figure would rise to 1,000 a week. That has not happened, and over the past three years there has been a decline in the incidence of BSE, certainly in the case of two-year-olds. All the evidence suggests that the crisis is now abating.

101
I urge the Opposition not to continue to use the issue as such activity damages our farmers' interests. I believe that farmers should be allowed to get on with earning a living as best they can in these difficult times. I also believe that the final summary in the Tyrrell report is as true now as it was when it was published in 1990:
"We have no hesitation in saying that beef can be eaten safely by everyone, both adults and children."
8.59 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: There can be no doubt that the situation is deteriorating beyond the Government's expectations, and that it continues to raise fundamental issues. We need not apologise to hon. Members who criticise us for raising such issues.
In European Community terms, we are talking about the effectiveness of common policies and freedom of trade. In United Kingdom terms, we are talking about a continuing serious challenge to the livestock industry, and a cause for legitimate public concern. There is no doubt that the Government took action; that is not the issue. There is also no doubt, however, that the Government made mistakes. I hope to demonstrate that for the benefit of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland)—although I intend to quote from MAFF reports rather than refer to quirky advisers.
Undoubtedly, a delay in positive, direct action between 1986 and 1988 caused the present situation. The Minister shakes his head, but others disagree with him. Another factor is the extent to which the problem was underestimated. Government figures show that, between 1986 and 1991, 26,000 BSE cases were identified—an incidence of about 11·;6 per cent. in the total herd, or 3·9 cases per 1,000. The latest figures suggest that some 60,000 animals have been slaughtered; between 1991 and 1992, the number of cases has more than doubled, even according to Government figures. That is not a cause for complacency. At the time of the Southwood report there were 100 cases per week, and now even the Ministry suggests that there are between 600 and 700 cases per week.
I question the Government's continuing prediction that the incidence of BSE will peak towards the end of the year and will then fall rapidly. At best there is serious doubt about that, and I do not believe that it will happen. An important factor, of course, is the two-year delay between the identification of BSE in 1986 and the taking of action in July 1988. During that critical period, when the situation was deteriorating, no decisive direct action was taken. Why?
Many people—I do not count myself among them—believe that producer interests were the dominant factor. The Government did not want the matter to be brought into the public domain; meanwhile, consumers were blissfully unaware of the seriousness of the position. In 1988, the Government moved at last. I believe that the measures that were taken then had more to do with public pressure than with the Government's enthusiasm for taking steps.
Compulsory slaughter was introduced on 8 August. Again, mistakes were made; thankfully, they were righted later, but again that was a result of pressure. The introduction of 50 per cent. compensation had two inevitable results: first, it did not encourage producers to take their animals to slaughter, and, secondly, fewer cases
102
were recorded and the real figure did not emerge. In February 1990, the Government saw the error of their ways and introduced 100 per cent. compensation.
Mr. Curry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was absolutely no change in the pattern of reporting the consequences of that move from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. compensation? We introduced 100 per cent. compensation to assist the industry, not because we thought that farmers were holding back information that they should have given us.
Mr. Stevenson: I thank the Minister for offering that advice to me. I am always grateful for it, as he knows from our debates on these issues in other places. However, the Government were forced to change their mind. They did so reluctantly, after pressure from the Opposition forced them into it.
Reference has been made to changes in the processing and rendering industry. The use of lower temperatures may have led to more infection. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that that was probably so. There were other changes in the industry at that time. Even Ministry documents suggest that there was a significant reduction in the use of solvent extraction methods for removing fat from the meat and bonemeal. The report concluded that.
"This was one of the factors that caused an increase in exposure which resulted in critical cases of BSE in cattle."
These were not quirky advisers; they were Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials. They concluded that changes were only for commercial reasons. Once again the clear evidence is that the Ministry did not take any notice of what was happening in the industry and that that led to an increase in identifiable BSE cases.
Despite the Government's efforts in 1988, two examples demonstrate that the Government's amendment is somewhat incredible. First, the ban on the feeding of specified bovine offals to pigs and poultry was a welcome development, but that important step had literally to be forced on a reluctant Government. In a January 1990 news release the Minister said:
"There is no scientific justification to extend the ruminant food ban to pigs and poultry."
In May 1990 the same Minister said:
"I have, for example, been asked to ban the use of ruminant protein in pig and poultry diets. Doctors and scientists see no justification in that. This is entirely consistent with other feeding practices."
Four months later—not a year later—the Government announced exactly that ban. Does that suggest that the Government had carefully considered the evidence? Not a bit of it. They reacted four months later because of public pressure. Any suggestion by Conservative Members that the Government had carefully considered the position is not borne out by the facts.
The second example is the latest action taken by the European Community to ban imports into the Community of embryos taken from cattle born before 1988 and the offspring of cows suspected of or confirmed as having BSE. That is another example of the Government having been forced to move by public opinion and pressure. In the press release of 25 September, to which I referred earlier, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said:
"There are some who have suggested that there should be a ban on breeding from the offspring of BSE cattle. The Southwood committee did not recommend that, but I was concerned to ensure that all up-to-date information was taken

103
into account and referred the question to the Tyrrell committee, and they confirmed fully what Southwood said. I am placing a full statement of their advice on this point in the Library."
Again complacency forced the Government to agree on 14 May of this year that a ban on the export of the same embryos to which the Minister had referred should be put in place. Why is that? There is increasing concern in the European Community about the issue, where the view has been established that embryos represent an unacceptable risk. These instances of changes of mind reflect, in my view, an initial dogmatic refusal by the Government to accept the obvious.
I referred to the Government belatedly acting in 1988, but much remains to be done. Our motion should be accepted to make our task clear. We must take all measures to defeat this disease. The Government amendment is complacent in the extreme. They claim "rigorous and comprehensive action" to bring the disease under control, but the statistics show the falsehood of that claim.
There has been a massive increase in recorded cases of BSE. The Government's complacency simply will not do. The greatest precautions should be at the heart of the steps that are taken. The benefit of any doubt—hon. Members agree that there is some doubt—should come down in favour of public health and protection of the food chain. That should be the overriding consideration.
I hope that the House will accept the motion, because it proposes the measures that need to be taken and reflects the wider public interest.
9.10 pm
Mr. Edward Garnier: I was interested to note that on 21 May I followed the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) when we both made our maiden speeches. I said then that he would be a trenchant contributor to debates, and he did nothing this evening to change my mind.
With great sadness, I part company with the hon. Gentleman in his support of the Opposition motion, the first clause of which says:
"That this House regards Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy as currently one of the great threats facing British agriculture".
That underscores the Opposition's approach to this and many other matters of public concern. Hyperbole is the Labour party's watchword. Exaggeration beyond all logic may not win the scientific or intellectual arguments but it will frighten the public, especially the beef-eating and beef-buying public. BSE is not now and has not been in its development in the past four to six years one of the greatest threats facing agriculture. It may become so if the Opposition and the single-issue lobbies that sustain them continue unjustifiably to scare the public about the effect on public health of eating beef.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said: that tonight of all nights is the worst possible occasion to debate BSE. We are in the middle of the royal show, when we should be supporting our agriculture industry rather than knocking it. I wish that we were not debating the subject tonight.
The chief medical officer said that there is no risk to public health from eating beef. EC experts agreed, said that the Government's action is correct and confirmed that
104
beef is not a risk to public health. The Tyrrell report concluded that all safeguards are in place to prevent the spread of BSE and any possible risk of transmission to humans.
If the Labour party wants to damage the British beef farmer and the British beef industry and to give our overseas competitors a free hand, it should say so, but there is no justification for an exaggerated and irresponsible approach to the beef industry or the BSE issue. Its line this evening towards the Government and the recommendations of their advisers is to be deplored. From the outset, the Government have tackled the problem of BSE in dairy herds responsibly and according to the best advice available. If the Labour party had been in office since 1986, I very much doubt that its approach would have been any different. The scientific, veterinary and medical advice would have been exactly the same, regardless of the colour of the party in government. I suggest that the findings and recommendations would have been exactly the same, and we have been listening to them for the past few years.
I am told that BSE is caused by an unconventional living agent, an unclassified germ, which is not within the normal categories of germs that scientists come across. It is not, for example, from the protozoa family, the microscopic animal which causes diseases such as malaria; nor is it a fungus which causes, for example, farmer's lung; nor is it a bacteria which causes enteritis or pneumonia and nor is it a virus which causes diseases such as rabies.
The origins of BSE in cattle are to be found in the common extended feed source which transmitted the modified scrapie-like encephalopathy from sheep to cattle. The sheep disease scrapie has been known in the United Kingdom for more than 250 years with no established human connection. There is no proof of any link between BSE and any human encephalopathy, and any theoretical risk is still more remote because of the care taken in the slaughter of all cattle completely to separate and destroy— the brain tissue and central nervous system—the only parts of the body in which BSE has been found—from the rest of the animal. I therefore suggest that it is practically impossible for there to be a risk to human beings from eating beef.
From the first few baffling cases in 1986, through 1987 when the Government and their advisers were collecting and assessing the available data, until the ban on feeding ruminant protein to ruminants was implemented in July 1988, the Government have acted with common sense and sensitivity. It is not Government inaction or Government failure that underlies the rise in the estimated number of affected cows from 20,000 to more than 60,000.
We have been faced with a previously unknown problem in cattle husbandry and epizoology. As research continues under the Tyrrell committee, our knowledge becomes greater. We now know that BSE takes far longer to incubate than was thought or anticipated in 1986–88. We also know that there is no evidence that the disease is spreading. It is the cattle infected before the feed ban came into effect which are now presenting. The number of affected beasts may not begin to fall this year, but I believe that it has peaked or is on a plateau and, by the turn of 1992–93, the numbers will decrease. I venture further to suggest that in the decade 1986–96 the problem will be eradicated.
My constituency is famous for its grass and beef cattle and, traditionally, beef herds have been fattened for

105
market on its rich pasture. We have perhaps no more than 20 dairy herds in the constituency but they are some of the finest not only in the county of Leicestershire but in the country as a whole. That under the ownership of the Co-operative Wholesale Society at Stoughton and Stretton is probably the biggest in the country and probably one of the best.
The CWS dairy herd, which, I believe, is made up of seven milking herds of about 200 cows and a breeding herd, contains cows of the very highest quality. As a result of being fed on a high nutrition diet, they can be milked three times a day. However, nothing could be better calculated to damage the reputation of that fine herd—especially the breeding herd—and of other fine dairy herds in the constituency than the alarmist attitude towards BSE exemplified in the motion and especially in its first sentence.
The CWS has traditionally been a good friend to the Labour party, but I wonder whether that will be the case after this evening. Not only will the dairy farmers be damaged by the Opposition's attitude to BSE and to the steps taken by the Government on the advice of their experts, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, as a direct result of the Opposition's decision to hold a debate on BSE tonight, one of the major restaurant chains has this week dramatically cut its order for beef.
What is more, it is not just the big butchers that will be affected; the small butchers, other small shops and small restaurants where beef is popular will also experience cuts.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government took speedy action after the discovery of BSE? The fact that they spent 10 million over the past three years—and they will spend £15 million over the next three years—made consumers sufficiently confident to go back to eating beef. This debate, which was instigated by the Opposition, will lead to a reduction in sales and to an erosion of the confidence that has been restored as a result of our action.
Mr. Gamier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making my point for me. He did so much more eloquently than I could have done.
My final point, which echoes my hon. Friend's remarks, concerns public confidence. This is not a problem at the present, but it will be a problem in the coming weeks as parents queue up outside schools to tell headmasters and teachers that they do not want their children to eat beef in school dinners, and as worried relatives tell matrons, nurses and doctors that they do not want their sick or elderly relations to have beef in hospital meals. The residents of old people's homes too will be influenced against eating beef. A whole culture against eating beef is being encouraged by motions such as this. That is something that has to be staunched. I urge all hon. Members to reject the motion and to support the Government's amendment.
9.21 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I refuse point-blank to be intimidated by an outside commercial lobby with representatives in the House of Commons into failing to address a matter that is legitimately a subject for debate in this Chamber. That is what the House of Commons is about. People outside who study the remarks
106
made by my hon. Friends this evening will find that every one of them spoke with great care, very conscious of the need to avoid any adverse reaction from the public in its beef-eating habits.
Let me say what worries me about the commercial lobby. One of the members of the Select Committee was the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). I am sure that he is a very honourable gentleman, but he must understand that, as he, a director of an abattoir and of a meat-processing company—I take that from the statement that he made to the Committee, published in the Committee's report—was taking evidence from senior civil servants and from experts in the field, I, like any member of the British public, am entitled to ask whether such action was proper.
Mr. Gill: That remark calls for some comment by me. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is showing a great deal of interest in this debate, and he has undoubtedly read the minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee. In case he has not done so in detail, let me refer him to evidence recorded on page 15 of the report of 23 May 1990. On that occasion, at the opening of the inquiry, my very first action was to declare an interest. Members of the Select Committee, some of whom are in the Chamber at present, will remember the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who said—and there was more than a grain of truth in this—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. This is a rather lengthy intervention.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has added nothing to what he said before. He should check my words, and what he said is a matter of record in the Committee minutes—
Mr. Gill rose—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I want to move on to what the Chairman of the Select Committee said—
Sir Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have no intention of giving way; I have only six minutes.
Mr. Gill: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right that the hon. Gentleman should make such allegations without accepting my explanation? I was halfway through that explanation when you ordered me to sit down.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was very lengthy—beyond what is acceptable to the House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Ludlow would do well to read the report of our proceedings tomorrow, when he will see that his intervention was unnecessary in the light of what I have said.
I come now to the remarks of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture. I do not profess to be an expert; until my train journey this morning I knew very little about these matters. But I have read the documents that I had with me. Today I asked the Chairman of the Select Committee a question about transmission from the gut to the brain. He said that all these matters had been

107
dealt with during the course of the Select Committee's proceedings: in other words, he did not give me an answer. It was not until another Conservative Member intervened that my question got a response. He said that the pathogen is isolated in the spine. That is still not an answer to my simple question.
All I want to know is how the pathogen gets from the gut to the brain. Perhaps it is transmitted via some blood route—I do not know. If, however, that is the answer, surely the Chairman of the Select Committee could have given me it. It is not an answer to tell me that we heard experts in the Select Committee and discussed the matter in a general way. Laymen like me, and members of the British public, are entitled to ask these questions and have them answered, but they have not been dealt with in this debate.
Various matters have been misrepresented in this House over the years. My hen. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) offered two examples to which I believe the Minister should respond. Those who were here for our debates on Chernobyl will recall that Ministers made statements that turned out subsequently to be wrong. Farms within a few miles of my constituency are still subject to the post-Chernobyl restrictions six years on. We were not told that that would happen at the time. Last week the Parliamentary Secretary was able to release a number of farms in the county of Cumbria from those restrictions, for which I thank him.
The Minister of Agriculture also misrepresents certain issues—I do not know whether it is fair to say that he does so deliberately, but he does. After the so-called agricultural settlement of a few weeks ago, we were assured that the deal from Brussels was good for Britain and for our consumers and taxpayers. Within a matter of days a report by the Court of Auditors stated that that settlement was a recipe for fraud. Whom should we believe? A Minister gave us assurances at the Dispatch Box, but someone in Brussels said, "I'm sorry, but you have got it wrong. You have misunderstood what the farm settlement is about when it was represented to Parliament as a means of breaking the GATT deadlock."
Looking at the issue today as a layman and not as an expert, I tried to establish whether there is a threat to beef. I passionately want to believe what the Chairman of the Select Committee told the House. Indeed, I am sure all hon. Members would want to believe him. We want to believe that beef is safe and, hopefully, it is safe. However, I found a news release among my papers from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which stated:
"As part of this programme of work designed to clarify the range of species susceptible to BSE, an experiment conducted by the Medical Research Council and MAFF has resulted in BSE being transmitted to a marmoset, following inoculation of cattle brain material from a BSE infected cow into its brain and body cavity."
The report then refers to the Tyrrell committee and what it is doing. It continues:
"I am arranging for a copy of this advice to be placed in the Library of the House."
That report was about transmission to the marmoset. I went to the Library expecting to read that very substantial document about transmission to marmosets. However, I found only one sentence about that which read:
"Marmosets exposed parenterally to scrapie or BSE have succumbed to spongiform encephalopathy."
108
The problem is the way the information is presented. We are told by MAFF that a report has been published. However, when hon. Members go to satisfy themselves they find that there is only one sentence in the report about that matter.
If we are to have an honest debate, everything must he published. Let us read everything and then there will be no need for arguments and debates like this.
9.31 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has captured the expressions from the Opposition Benches very well. I have listened to the debate with great interest and there seems to be as clear a divide as ever between the Government and the Opposition on the matter.
We have heard a succession of Conservative Members state that there should not be a debate on the matter and that Opposition Members are scaremongering or raising unjustified fears. However, Hansard will record some very informed and analytical speeches by Opposition Members and none more so than the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) who have studied the subject in great detail.
We heard a defence of vested interests from Conservative Members. If we consider those Conservative Members who have spoken, we should not be too surprised about that. That hoary old character, the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), was the first to lead the charge.
Mr. Martlew: Where is he now?
Mr. Davies: It is worth pointing out for the record that all the Opposition Members who participated in the debate remained in the Chamber throughout the evening and had the courtesy to listen to the contributions from the Conservative Benches. Several Conservative Members who made speeches or interventions have not had the courtesy to remain for the duration of the debate, let alone for its conclusion. Never mind, perhaps they will learn to do that.
It is worth remembering that the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made the same intervention tonight that he made two years ago. He raised the same arguments. He wants no debate, discussion, deliberation or public information about BSE. That is not because he is a scientist. He was not speaking as a parent. He was speaking tonight as a butcher. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, who is from exactly the same background, was not concerned to protect the interests of consumers or of public health. He was concerned solely to represent the interests of the farming community. The prize went to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), who joined the farmer and the butcher. Of course, he is a failed Agriculture Minister. He was sacked from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and now he has been put in the chair of the Agriculture Select Committee. He had the audacity tonight to speak against the many recommendations of his own Select Committee. [Interruption.] I hear my hon. Friends—
Mr. Wiggin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: Let me finish. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, he had the opportunity to make his speech. He

109
made a number of comments which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) bitterly resented. That should not come as a surprise to Opposition Members, because I had a look at "Dods" and I saw the hon. Gentleman's interests. I found that he is a member of the Beefsteak club. That should not surprise us. [Interruption.] He is not only a member of the Beefsteak club; he is a member of Pratt's club as well. I leave it to my hon. Friends to decide which is a better qualification for speaking in the debate.
Conservative Members had some new recruits The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) claimed to represent the interests of farmers in his constituency. Where is he? He referred to the debate as a campaign which is a stab in the back to farmers in his constituency. It is a pity that he is not here now and it is a pity that he was not here during our debates in 1990 or 1989, because he will know that, without fail, every initiative that the Government have taken on BSE has been presaged by Opposition calls months and, in some cases, years before the Government took action. The hon. Gentleman lists his interests as a former director of the British Field Sports Society. As long as he spends his time chasing little furry animals across the countryside to deliver them a cruel death, he will not have much credibility in the House.
Let us consider the substance of the case. We are told by hon. Members who are trying to frustrate the debate that we do not need and should not have a debate. Let them read Hansard tomorrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington made this point very clear. Not one Opposition speech can in any way be construed as anti-farmer, anti-meat industry or anti-beef. We have tried to ensure that that message comes across very clearly. Of course, there are major grounds for concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out. In April alone, there were 4,000 cases of BSE. In 1989, about 4,000 cattle herds were affected by BSE. In 1990, that figure had nearly doubled to 7,590 cases. Last year, more than 11,000 herds were affected by BSE.
If Conservative Members are not prepared to stand up and speak for the interests of farmers whose livelihoods are directly affected by that plague, we are certainly not afraid to stand up in the House of Commons and say that the matter has to be debated. Nor will we shirk our responsibility to speak for consumers. Their choice has been restricted. As beef consumption figures show, many consumers are so concerned about the beef industry that they have changed their pattern of beef consumption. That is a matter of concern and we should be prepared to address it in the House of Commons.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a press office which takes cuttings for him, he will know that scarcely a week goes by in which specialist journals or our quality press do not mention BSE and consumers' real fears. Tim Lang, who is the director of Parents for Safe Food, is a very well respected nutritionist. [Interruption.] He is a very well respected nutritionist who speaks for a wide range of opinion. His view is quite clear and quite uncompromising. The Government—
Mr. Wiggin rose—
Mr. Davies: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry. The Minister wants time to reply. The matter is on the record.
110
Tim Lang made it clear that the Government could not continue pretending that BSE was not an issue. The Southwood committee must be reconvened. It must be open and it must have consumer representation on it.
The scientific community and the veterinary profession are worried about many aspects of BSE. They are worried about the method of transmission, the range of animals affected, the geographical distribution of the disease and feeding offal of six-month old calves into the human food chain. We know that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has some strange habits. The incident of force-feeding hamburgers to his daughter told us as much about his search for publicity as his regard for the sensibilities of his family.
Let me put a direct point to the Parliamentary Secretary, who will reply to the debate. There is clear evidence that some calves and some cattle have contracted BSE since the ban on feeding infected offal to cattle was introduced. The number of cases is in at least double figures. The Minister said earlier that there was evidence that the animals might have had access to contaminated feed. The fact remains that they were born since the ban came into force. If BSE is vertically transmissible—there is considerable veterinary opinion that that is the case—is it not logical to ban the offal from six-month old calves from the human food chain? Vertical transmission might not have built up to critical proportions but the fact remains that the agent exists in the brain, the spleen and the thymus of those six-month old calves.
Why do not the Government accept their responsibility and ban such calves from the food chain? I will tell the House why. It is because there is a lucrative trade in under-age calves to the continent. The Minister realises that this is one occasion when he must put the vested financial interests that he represents before the interests of the consumers. That is why he will not take the action that we demand.
Various attacks have been made on the Opposition tonight. The fact remains that the Government do not want their record on BSE to be examined. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West has now returned to the Chamber. He did not defend the interest of farmers in his constituency by making the comments that he did tonight. He hid behind the farmers of his constituency.
The hon. Member for Hexham still has not had the courtesy to return to the Chamber. I say to him that the only debates in the House of Commons on BSE have been those initiated by the Opposition. The only action on BSE has been that which we have demanded. When we have specified what action must be taken, the Government have acted months and sometimes years later. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not remain in the Chamber for the debate. I do not know where he has been. I suggest that he takes the time to read the record in Hansard.
The information that we have on BSE has been obtained only as a result of the vigilance of Opposition Members who dragged it out of the Government. [Interruption.] Let us examine the Government's record as the Minister finds it so amusing. In his reply, let him challenge any of the statements that I am about to make. In 1985 the Ministry knew that cattle were being stricken by a mystery disease but covered it up. In 1987 the Ministry knew about a scientific paper which intended to

111
refer to a scrapie-like disease in cattle and censored it. The Ministry suspected in 1987 that contaminated feed was the problem and did nothing until August 1988.
In June 1988 the BSE order made the disease notifiable and banned the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminant animals. But the Government did not implement it until July 1988. Ruminant protein continued to be used in pig and poultry feed until September 1990, yet two years previously we demanded that the practice be stopped. In June 1988 the Southwood report recommended introducing compulsory slaughter. The Government did not act until August 1988. For almost two years the Government resisted our calls for 100 per cent. compensation. Initially they paid farmers only 50 per cent. compensation for their animals. For nearly two years, they resisted our claims, and, despite all the public concern and our calls in the House for the banning of bovine offal for human consumption, they did not act until November 1989. Those facts are beyond dispute. I hope that the Minister will have the courtesy to do the House the honour of acknowledging them.
Let us have a look at our record on this matter, as we have been the subject of an attack. We initiated the first debate on this subject in May 1989, the second debate in May 1990 and the third debate tonight. On a whole range of issues, months before the Government took action we called for action. We called for the banning of offal for human consumption. Years later, they introduced a ban. We called for the banning of offal from meat and bone meal exports. Years later, they conceded that. We called for the banning of offals from feeds for pigs and poultry. Years later, they conceded. We called for the raising of compensation to 100 per cent. Years later, they conceded. Let us look at the omissions. We also called for compulsory antemortal inspection, so that all cattle going to a slaughterhouse would be inspected by a veterinary surgeon before slaughter. We also called for sampling, as did the Select Committee on Agriculture, so that the brains of 10 per cent. of cattle slaughtered would be tested to see whether they had the disease. That is the only sure way to find out about the distribution of the disease. We called for the banning of offals from calves under the age of six months. All those claims were supported by the Tyrrell committee, the Select Committee on Agriculture, European legislation, the British Veterinary Association, by a wide range of scientific opinion, by demands in the House of Commons and, above all, by common sense. On all those critical issues, the Government did nothing.
We have made it clear that the case for having random sampling is overwhelming, but the Government have resisted it. We have made it clear that, as the first line of defence, there should be veterinary inspection for all bovines destined for slaughter both at the livestock market and at the abattoir. Two and a half years ago, the Government promised that they would take action. Here we are in 1992, and 50 per cent. of the bovines slaughtered for human consumption are inspected by veterinary officers neither at a livestock market nor at an abattoir. Can the Government justify such a record?
The Government accuse us of scaremongering but we are not scaremongering. We are not looking to create scare stories—
Mr. David Harris: No?
Mr. Davies: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, that is not our aim. We are not taking an alarmist position. We want responsible government and responsible action for farmers, for consumers and for animal and public health. If the only way to get that responsible government is by having debates in the House, so be it. We shall not shirk our responsibility.
9.48 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nicholas Soames): To wind up for the Government for the first time is the parliamentary equivalent of riding in the grand national, and in the short time available to me I intend to deal with some of the points raised this evening. The Minister of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—took the House step by step through the chronology of this wicked disease and laid carefully before the House all the evidence and all the available facts. Labour Members criticised the Government, claiming that we had covered up or hidden the effect of this inimical disease. However, every piece of information that the Ministry has on BSE has been, and will continue to be, placed within the public domain immediately. I assure the House that that is so, and it is a disgraceful slur to suggest otherwise.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in an intervention and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) in his speech asked about the difference between animals that are slaughtered and those that are not. Animals that are showing clinical signs of the disease are likely to harbour a relatively large amount of the infectious agent. That led to the Southwood working party's advice that they should be slaughtered and destroyed purely as a precautionary measure. The specified offals of all animals are now withdrawn from human and animal feed. These tissues are those in which the infective agent may be present in animals incubating the disease. It is not possible to identify a cow that is incubating BSE as no diagnostic test is available.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who is not here, asked about incineration and the holding of frozen carcases. The Ministry and all its independent scientific advisers are satisfied that the arrangements for incineration and the holding of carcases, if necessary prior to incineration, are entirely satisfactory. In far-off rural areas where facilities are not available, the disposal of carcases is done by deep burial, which is, in itself, satisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), despite some unreasonable and unfortunate calumnies levelled against him, made a vigorous and effective defence of Government policy. He rightly deplored the scaremongering of the Labour party and the profound damage that it has done and continues to do to the industry.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen asked about the slaughter of whole herds on farms with numerous cases and mentioned a case of which he knew in Wales. Thankfully, herds with a high incidence of the disease are rare. That is encouraging, as it supports the view that transmission from one animal to another is not a significant problem. Government veterinarians carefully study herds with multiple cases and all the evidence supports the thesis that the animals were infected by feed.

113
The hon. Gentleman and others spoke about the disease in animals between two and three years old. There is nothing surprising in the existence of such cases in 1991. It is now clear, however, that the number of cases in two-year-old animals is low. Accurate details have been published in veterinary journals, if hon. Gentlemen could only get on and find them. The fact is that there have been only 101 cases in animals born after the ban and all but one of those animals had access to infected feed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). who was the Chairman of the Select Committee during its inquiry into this matter, was, rightly, listened to with great respect in this debate because of his knowledge. He spoke about the Committee's excellent report which has so well stood the test of time, as has the science. My hon. Friend asked about progress in research into a live test and said that our hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) wished to be associated with the question. A great deal of fundamental knowledge is being accumulated, but a test for the disease in the live animal is still a long way off. That is not for want of effort by the Government; the Ministry alone is spending £5 million a year on research and the Tyrrell committee recently confirmed that the necessary research is continuing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) represented with vigour the interests of his constituents and he spoke of his concern at the damage that might be done by the absurdity of the Opposition motion.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) raised two important points that I propose to deal with properly: offal from calves and random testing. Both were also mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington. Random testing for BSE, in routinely slaughtered cattle is a difficult issue and suggestions about it have been made many times. We already inspect for clinical signs of disease a high proportion of cows at slaughterhouses. I do not understand why Opposition Members continue to press for a process to which the first Tyrrell committee attached a low priority. The offals ban already removes from the food chain the relevant tissues from clinically infected animals, and random testing would merely direct valuable expert resources away from the main problem.
We were also asked about offals from cows aged under six months. The decision to exclude such animals was taken after careful consideration and in the light of advice from experts. The basis of that decision is that such young cattle have not been fed the infected agent in the first place. We also know from detailed work on scrapie that the agent has been found only in animals over the age of 10 months. Therefore, a six months limit for cattle gives a four-month safety margin and action on these offals is deemed unnecessary.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) spoke at length and grossly inaccurately about compensation. However, he asked one important question: why was no action taken earlier than 1988? Action could not be taken until we understood the epidemiology of the disease. That could not be done until enough cases had been studied, and only 189 had been diagnosed by the end of 1987. As soon as we were confident that we knew the cause, we took steps to remove it—hence the feed ban. The hon. Gentleman alleged that we were not careful about protecting food. We attach paramount importance not only to our treatment of BSE
114
but to all that we do to protect the consumer and to maintain the integrity of the food chain and public confidence in it. What the hon. Gentleman said about that was idiotic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) rightly attacked the Opposition for their sloppy thinking and the worrying side-effects of their scaremon-gering. I shall make sure that my hon. Friend's message is carried to the industry when I attend the royal show tomorrow. The hon. Member for Workington treated my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) in a most disagreeable and uncharacteristic manner. He showed a want of chivalry that was quite unlike him. However, he raised the serious issue of how the BSE agent is passed from the gut to the brain. [Interruption.] In my case, the transfer would take a long time. The answer is not known, but the agents of such a disease have never been detected in blood, muscle or any other tissue. The development of BSE research is one of the key targets of all the scientific work carried on by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) made his usual robust speech with which we all found ourselves in almost total disagreement. I shall deal with the numbers issues that he and other Opposition Members raised. Much stress has been laid on the number of cases currently being confirmed, and it is important to understand the meaning of those figures. The weekly figure of confirmed cases simply reflects the number of animals for which the confirmation process has been concluded. Obviously, that is a lengthy process. It is much more important to understand the comparison between those figures and the forecast in the early stages of the epidemic.
We are entirely satisfied, and it has been confirmed by independent specialists, that the Government's figures are entirely consistent with the initial expectations. Although the number of cases currently looks high, it simply reflects the number of animals infected before the feed ban became effective. There is no way of knowing how many such cases there were, but the important point is that there remains no reason to doubt that, through the feed ban, the Government have done all that is necessary to curb the epidemic.
We have heard tonight of the Government's vigorous and comprehensive response to BSE. Their response received endorsement from the Select Committee, the European Community and many other countries. The House will be much more impressed by that reception than by the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Shields that we should establish another committee. The Government's response has been prompt, resolute and effective. Surely—
Mr. Derek Foster rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 310.

Division No. 51]

[10 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Allen, Graham

Adams, Mrs Irene

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Ainger, Nicholas

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Ashton, Joe

115

Austin-Walker, John

Gerrard, Neil

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Barron, Kevin

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Battle, John

Godsiff, Roger

Bayley, Hugh

Golding, Mrs Llin

Beckett, Margaret

Gordon, Mildred

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Graham, Thomas

Bennett, Andrew F.

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Benton, Joe

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Berry, Dr Roger

Grocott, Bruce

Betts, Clive

Gunnell, John

Blunkett, David

Hain, Peter

Boateng, Paul

Hall, Mike

Boyce, Jimmy

Hanson, David

Boyes, Roland

Hardy, Peter

Bradley, Keith

Harman, Ms Harriet

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Heppell, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)

Hinchliffe, David

Burden, Richard

Hoey, Kate

Byers, Stephen

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Caborn, Richard

Home Robertson, John

Callaghan, Jim

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

Hoon, Geoff

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Cann, James

Hoyle, Doug

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hutton, John

Clelland, David

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cohen, Harry

Jamieson, David

Connarty, Michael

Janner, Greville

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cousins, Jim

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Cox, Tom

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, Bob

Keen, Alan

Cummings, John

Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Khabra, Piara

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Leighton, Ron

Darling, Alistair

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davidson, Ian

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Litherland, Robert

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Loyden, Eddie

Denham, John

McAllion, John

Dewar, Donald

McAvoy, Thomas

Dixon, Don

McCartney, Ian

Dobson, Frank

MacDonald, Calum

Donohoe, Brian

McKelvey, William

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McLeish, Henry

Eagle, Ms Angela

McMaster, Gordon

Enright, Derek

McWilliam, John

Etherington, William

Madden, Max

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mahon, Alice

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Mandelson, Peter

Fatchett, Derek

Marek, Dr John

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Flynn, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)

Maxton, John

Foulkes, George

Meacher, Michael

Fraser, John

Meale, Alan

Fyfe, Maria

Michael, Alun

Galbraith, Sam

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Galloway, George

Milburn, Alan

Gapes, Michael

Miller, Andrew

Garrett, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

George, Bruce

Moonie, Dr Lewis

116

Morley, Elliot

Sheerman, Barry

Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Short, Clare

Mowlam, Marjorie

Simpson, Alan

Mudie, George

Skinner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Murphy, Paul

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)

Snape, Peter

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Soley, Clive

O'Hara, Edward

Spearing, Nigel

Olner, William

Spellar, John

O'Neill, Martin

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Steinberg, Gerry

Patchett, Terry

Stevenson, George

Pendry, Tom

Strang, Gavin

Pickthall, Colin

Straw, Jack

Pike, Peter L.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pope, Greg

Tipping, Paddy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Turner, Dennis

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Vaz, Keith

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Prescott, John

Wareing, Robert N

Primarolo, Dawn

Watson, Mike

Purchase, Ken

Welsh, Andrew

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wicks, Malcolm

Randall, Stuart

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Raynsford, Nick

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Redmond, Martin

Wilson, Brian

Reid, Dr John

Wise, Audrey

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Worthington, Tony

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Wray, Jimmy

Roche, Ms Barbara

Wright, Tony

Rogers, Allan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mr. Ken Eastham and

Ruddock, Joan

Mr. Jack Thompson.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Budgen, Nicholas

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Burns, Simon

Aitken, Jonathan

Burt, Alistair

Alexander, Richard

Butler, Peter

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Butterfill, John

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Amess, David

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Ancram, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Arbuthnot, James

Carrington, Matthew

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Carttiss, Michael

Ashby, David

Cash, William

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Aspinwall, Jack

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Chapman, Sydney

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Clappison, James

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Baldry, Tony

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Coe, Sebastian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Colvin, Michael

Bates, Michael

Congdon, David

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Conway, Derek

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Cran, James

Body, Sir Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Booth, Hartley

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Day, Stephen

Bowis, John

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Devlin, Tim

Brandreth, Gyles

Dickens, Geoffrey

Brazier, Julian

Dicks, Terry

Bright, Graham

Dorrell, Stephen

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Dover, Den

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Duncan, Alan

117

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Dunn, Bob

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Eggar, Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Elletson, Harold

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Emery, Sir Peter

Hunter, Andrew

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Jack, Michael

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Jenkin, Bernard

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Jessel, Toby

Evennett, David

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Faber, David

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Fabricant, Michael

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

Jones, Robert B. (W H'f'rdshire)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Fishburn, John Dudley

Key, Robert

Forman, Nigel

Kilfedder, Sir James

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Forth, Eric

Knapman, Roger

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Freeman, Roger

Knox, David

French, Douglas

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Fry, Peter

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gale, Roger

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Gallie, Phil

Legg, Barry

Gardiner, Sir George

Leigh, Edward

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Lennox-Boyd, Mark

Garnier, Edward

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Gill, Christopher

Lidington, David

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Lightbown, David

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Lord, Michael

Gorst, John

Luff, Peter

Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)

MacKay, Andrew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maclean, David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Maclennan, Robert

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Grylls, Sir Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Hague, William

Madel, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie

Maitland, Lady Olga

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Malone, Gerald

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mans, Keith

Hanley, Jeremy

Marland, Paul

Hannam, Sir John

Marlow, Tony

Hargreaves, Andrew

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Harris, David

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Harvey, Nick

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hawkins, Nicholas

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hawksley, Warren

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Hayes, Jerry

Merchant, Piers

Heald, Oliver

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Milligan, Stephen

Hendry, Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Moate, Roger

Hicks, Robert

Monro, Sir Hector

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Moss, Malcolm

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Needham, Richard

Horam, John

Nelson, Anthony

Hordern, Sir Peter

Neubert, Sir Michael

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

118

Nicholls, Patrick

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Steen, Anthony

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Stephen, Michael

Norris, Steve

Stern, Michael

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Stewart, Allan

Ottaway, Richard

Streeter, Gary

Page, Richard

Sumberg, David

Paice, James

Sweeney, Walter

Patten, Rt Hon John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Pawsey, James

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickles, Eric

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Thomason, Roy

Powell, William (Corby)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rathbone, Tim

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Redwood, John

Thurnham, Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Richards, Rod

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Riddick, Graham

Tracey, Richard

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Tredinnick, David

Robathan, Andrew

Trend, Michael

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Trotter, Neville

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Tyler, Paul

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Viggers, Peter

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Wallace, James

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Waller, Gary

Sackville, Tom

Ward, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Waterson, Nigel

Shaw, David (Dover)

Watts, John

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Wells, Bowen

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Wheeler, Sir John

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Whitney, Ray

Shersby, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Sims, Roger

Widdecombe, Ann

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Wiggin, Jerry

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wilkinson, John

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Willetts, David

Soames, Nicholas

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Speed, Sir Keith

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wolfson, Mark

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Wood, Timothy

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Yeo, Tim

Spink, Dr Robert

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Tellers for the Noes:

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Irvine Patnick.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's vigorous and comprehensive action in response to the outbreak of bovine spongiform encephalopathy to bring the outbreak under control.

Prisons
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 21st February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
This short but rather technical order is simple in its purpose. It extends the power in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 to contract out the management of a prison to new prisons holding sentenced prisoners. At present the Act is confined to new prisons holding an unsentenced population.
The greater flexibility to contract out provided by this order was the result of a Back-Bench amendment to the then Bill which the Government were persuaded to accept. I am delighted to see that its original sponsor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), is in his place tonight. The occasion to exercise that greater flexibility has now arisen.
On 5 December 1991 the Government announced that competitive tenders would be sought from the private sector for the management of Blakenhurst prison, currently under construction near Redditch, subject to the approval of Parliament and the receipt of satisfactory tenders.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 15 June 1992 that work on the operational specification for Blakenhurst had been completed and that it had been issued to potential contractors. Copies of the operational and training specifications were placed in the Library of the House. These, I am sure, will have helped to inform this evening's debate, giving, as they do, a clear indication of the standards and safeguards the Government are looking to achieve and which they confidently expect will be capable of delivery by the private sector.
The decision to invite tenders for Blakenhurst followed the successful tendering exercise at Wolds. When Wolds opened in April, it became the first privately operated prison in the country. The exercise showed that the private sector had much to offer. Many of the proposals put forward then demonstrated imagination and insight into the complex issues involved.
Prisoners at Wolds are able to spend 15 hours a day out of their cells within the secure confines of the prison and with the opportunity to participate in a programme consistent with the needs of a remand population. They have full access to legal assistance and generous opportunities for visits, telephone calls and letters. The Government believe that the benefits accruing to the remand population at Wolds should be more widely available to other sections of the prison population notably sentenced prisoners.
Mr. John Battle: As the Minister knows. I represent a Leeds constituency. Armley prison is situated in Leeds. So that we can have a comparison of the weekly subsidy from the Government, can the Minister tell me how much it costs a week, at current rates, to keep a prisoner at Wolds compared with how much it costs a week to keep a prisoner in Armley prison?
Mr. Lloyd: I cannot compare the cost of Wolds with the prison mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. As he knows,
120
different prisons have different regimes and buildings of different sizes. Therefore, the costs are different. However, the tender for Wolds was no higher than the prison service estimated that it would be if it were to provide the manning for that prison. As the hon. Gentleman is so interested in comparisons, he may be interested in what I shall say later. Therefore, I hope that he will continue to pay attention to my remarks, as he has done so far.
To deliver benefits more widely in the prison service we have invited tenders for Blakenhurst, which will be a local prison with a capacity of 649 prisoners. It will hold remand, convicted and sentenced adult men. It will thus deepen and extend prison service experience of private management. The Blakenhurst specification extends to convicted and sentenced prisoners many of the regime improvements that the Wolds prison has brought to its remand population.
Contractors are invited to structure regimes on the premise that prisoners will be out of their cells from first unlock in the morning to final lock-up at night. An absolute minimum cell-free period of 12 hours a day must be achieved. All prisoners will be offered an initial education assessment and thereafter be entitled to a minimum of six hours education a week. Similar provision will be made for physical education, and great care has been taken to ensure that high standards are achieved in providing medical and suicide screening, including the involvement of such voluntary agencies as the Samaritans.
In addition, the sentenced prisoner's time in prison will be structured by a compact agreement. This will set out an understanding between the prisoner and the establishment on the likely profile of activities and goals and the level and timing of commitment that both parties have agreed to make the prison sentence positive and constructive.
Mr. Paul Flynn: We all welcome what the Minister said about introducing the Samaritans into prisons, but is he aware that valuable research was undertaken in an American prison 10 years ago that involved inmates in reducing suicide among prisoners? Sadly, although I brought that information to the attention of one of his colleagues, it was not available in this country because the prison had been privatised and the information was copyright. Is not that the unacceptable face of privatised prisons that we shall have here as well?
Mr. Lloyd: If the information was copyright, those who hold the copyright have the power to release it. That has nothing to do with private prisons. I am puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I think that he is confused, but if he will write to me I shall reply to him more thoughtfully.
Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that his description of the regime for a local prison will be the envy of many other local prisons such as Horfield, which is on the edge of my constituency? When will the tendering process that he has described for Blakenhurst be extended to other prisons?
Mr. Lloyd: Contractors will make bids and we shall see whether they can supply the regimes that we are seeking. Such a regime will not be widely available in the prison service, although many of its characteristics have been developed in various prison service prisons. The order will not extend tendering to prisons already operating in the

121
prison service; it deals specifically with brand new prisons. We are merely extending tendering from remand prisons to those that take sentenced prisoners.
The opportunity for prisoners to engage in productive activity for at least seven hours a day is an important feature of the specification. Contractors are invited to consider the extent to which local, commercial and industrial interests might become involved in order that prisoners can be paid the going rate for the job and from which deductions might be made to offset the cost of board and lodgings, family support and victims' reparation. The impact of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, in terms of preparing prisoners for release and the development of open reporting, will also be fully integrated into the regime. Most importantly. provision will also be made for the management of special category prisoners, including the treatment of sex offenders.
As at Wolds, prisoners at Blakenhurst will have the option of wearing their own clothing or, if their own clothes are unsuitable, of more frequent changes of prison clothing than is at present achievable in the public sector. They will he free to send as many letters as they wish, limited only by their own decision as to how much of their prison earnings they choose to spend on postage. Letters will be checked to prevent any illicit enclosure but will not otherwise be examined or read, except when there is reason to believe that it is necessary.
Visiting entitlement for convicted and sentenced prisoners will be set at a minimum of one visit a week of one hour's duration, twice the current statutory entitlement. Contractors will be invited to improve on that where possible. Facilities for evening visits from legal representatives and other professionals will also be made.
The Government recognise that the prison service currently does a very difficult job, often in unpleasant environments. Following the report by Lord Justice Woolf, the prison service has made strenuous efforts to set new standards for itself and is making great progress towards implementing them. However, the Government believe that the element of competition provided by the private sector in bringing new ideas and, more importantly, new managerial methods to the running of prisons can provide additional benefits to the prison service and the prisoners.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: This is the first time in the 30 years that I have been a Member of the House that I have asked a question about prisons, partly for personal reasons. However, having listened to "The World at One", and having read about the issue, I have become more and more uncomfortable. The Minister talks about competition, but we are dealing with people whose freedoms have been taken away. I should like an answer to a simple question: is it proper for anyone other than the state to deal with people whose freedoms have been removed by the state? Is it proper to talk about competition in that context?
Mr. Lloyd: What is not proper is to stand in the way of the introduction of more positive, demanding and humane regimes such as that at the Wolds and that which is intended at Blakenhurst because of some prejudice—ideological or otherwise—to the private sector being part of it. Of course, the prisons will still be part of the prison service, as is the Wolds. They will take prisoners sentenced by the courts. The Home Office controller will be on duty.
122
He is responsible for investigating any complaints that the prisoners might have and for ensuring that the prison is run according to the contract and in the manner that the Home Secretary and the House expect. It is merely prejudice to deny opportunities to prisoners such as those at the Wolds by saying that the private sector cannot properly be involved. If the private sector can produce superior regimes, it is improper that it should not be involved.
Mr. Derek Enright: Will the Minister allow the same sums of money to Armley, for example, as are to be allowed to the Wolds?
Mr. Lloyd: Yes. The whole point is that where there is no in-house competition the tendering process will not be met unless the tenders at least make a better offer than the usual prison service estimate of the costs of opening the prison. Of course, the prison service must make an estimate of what the opening of a prison will cost. It must decide on normal manning levels, according to the usual processes. We do not necessarily expect to save money with private management, but we expect to get very much better value for the money that is spent.
As I said, the order empowers the Government to contract out the management of new prisons. Naturally, the occasion is Blakenhurst and I have concentrated on our plans for that establishment. However, I want to make it clear that we expect to invite private sector tenders for each new prison that opens after Blakenhurst.
We also want to see the prison service in due course mount in-house bids for new prisons in competition with the private sector. There is at all levels in the prison service a huge reservoir of dedication, experience and managerial skills, which need to be brought together effectively.
I am sure the stimulus that private management is now starting to bring to the prison system will help to achieve the Government's overriding objective: to bring improved regimes—positive and constructive regimes, which everyone wants to see, and which Lord Justice Woolf catalogued in his report; regimes which are designed to address systematically the particular offending behaviour of each prisoner and which help to fit that prisoner, as far as practicable, to resume his place in society, with a better chance of leading a useful and law-abiding life, and to do so as cost-effectively as possible.
I commend the order to the House.
10.30 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: It seems that the Minister and I have been locked in Front-Bench home affairs issues—one side or the other—for quite a long time. I am sure that we have reached the stage of being regarded as trusties in respect of these matters. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his brief in the Home Office. I believe that this is the first time we have met in these circumstances. The hon. Gentleman was not involved in the passage of the long Criminal Justice Act 1991. During the debates on that legislation we discussed these matters in some detail. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had given in to pressure from their Back Benchers by expanding the scope of that Act to embrace the privatisation not only of the remand sector but of institutions for sentenced prisoners. At the Committee stage we fought that very strongly and

123
bitterly, and we continue to do so because we believe that that direction is wrong [wrong in principle, and wrong in terms of practicalities.
I have referred to the Minister's long service in the Home Office team. I do not remember exactly when he came to office, but I know that he has covered the whole gamut of opinion on privatisation. The right hon. Gentleman who is now Foreign Secretary set his face absolutely against privatisation. In July 1987 he said that there was no case at all for privatisation of the prisons, that there was not case at all for handing the business of keeping prisoners safe to anyone other than Government servants. I believe that the Minister who introduced this order was a member of the team of that Home Secretary in those days. Since then he has been led by various valleys —Ribble Valley, Mole Valley—and we have seen the changes in that time. Conveniently the hon. Gentleman has changed his tune with the arrival of each new boss.
His current boss is not from a valley, but he wants to push this even further. This boss has brought some baggage with him. It is not ideological baggage; it is a kind of trick that he sets down in each department. He says, "Here we have a very interesting trick. It is called 'opt out'. It does wonders for the health service and the education service." And now we are told that it will do wonders for the prison service. It is very interesting that before the chickens come home to roost in any of these Departments, off goes the right hon. and learned Gentleman for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to new pastures. We have seen what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has wrought in other Departments, and we fear the worst for the prison service.
We have debated private prisons on several occasions. Each time the Opposition have made clear their profound concern about the whole notion of privatising penal establishments. Indeed, many Conservative Members have shared our concern. The two parties are not always wholly divided on this. I know that hon. Members on both sides have deep misgivings about the trend of Government actions in this area.
The key arguments against privatisation are those that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) encapsulated so well: it is wrong that anyone but the state should deprive men or women of their liberty or be directly responsible for prisoners throughout their sentences. The deprivation of liberty is the worst punishment that can be imposed on a person in this country. Certainly, the judiciary metes out the sentence, but once the sentence is given more is involved than just locking up a prisoner and educating and exercising him—although such activities should take place in a good prison. There is also the assessment of a prisoner's fitness to be released. That is done not by the judiciary but by the men and women who supervise prisoners.
We believe that decisions about the fitness of an individual to be released should be made by servants of the state.
Mr. Tim Devlin: In that case, I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman—he has held his responsibility for some time now—saying that the state does not make such decisions. Such assessments are
124
carried out first by the Parole Board and, secondly, on the advice of the probation service, both of which will remain in the state sector.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman must know that the officers who run our prisons carry out day-to-day assessments of how prisoners obey the rules and how they fit into prison life—all of which feeds into the information on which the probation service and the Parole Board make their decisions. The relationship is highly complex.
Imprisonment is a sensitive and often dangerous task. Ministers have underestimated its dangers. At Strangeways the bravery and resolute behaviour and reactions of the prison officers and the governor came into play. As we shall argue this evening, special circumstances obtain in prisons—circumstances to be found nowhere else.
It is repugnant that private companies should make a profit out of those whom the state decides to imprison.
Mr. Battle: The parallel with opted-out hospitals looms large. Members of Parliament cannot interrogate Ministers about these budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was right: we will not be able to know by how much these prisons are being subsidised, or to compare their budgets with those of prisons in the public sector such as Armley. We will know neither the profits nor the subsidies of private prisons.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members have yet to learn that after every other privatisation accountability has been diminished. Already we cannot find out what is going on in Wolds prison. We are told that these matters are the subject of commercial confidentiality. The Minister came out with some fine words, but he did not say how much subsidy that prison receives; neither would he tell us the costs associated with taking remand prisoners in the public prisons sector—at Armley and other gaols. The Minister would not provide a figure and compare it with the figure for the Wolds. Whenever I have asked the Minister or his predecessor how much subsidy is available to the Wolds I have been told that we have no right to know and the Government would not give us any figures.
The accountability of the House for the prison service has begun to slip away and it will continue to do that. That is a serious condemnation of the Government. However, at the end of the day, they do not care about democratic government or accountability. They do not care about that in Europe or in this House. The Government are so used to Executive power that they would love this place to disappear as an effective scrutinising and checking body.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman really is mistaken. There is a contract with the Wolds which details the expected outputs from the prison. He knows more about what is required from that prison than about any other prison in the prison service. That is infinitely clearer.
With regard to the costs, it is impossible to say that there is no subsidy in respect of the Wolds. Every penny is a subsidy paid by the state to the organisation to manage the prison. The figure is no more than the prison service estimated that it would have to spend to run that prison. However, the regimes are more extensive and positive than the prison service believes that it could provide for that money.
Mr. Sheerman rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) continues, I remind the Minister that he, too, must observe the formula for an intervention, not a speech.
Mr. Sheerman: I am happy that the Minister made that point. He is avoiding explaining why there has been no real comparison. The comparison that he gave was simply an estimate made by the Home Office. The prison service was never able to make an internal bid. That would have been the crucial cost evaluation. If the prison service had been able to bid for the Wolds, we would have seen the kind of subsidy given to the private security industry and, in particular, to Group 4.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with the process if in-house bids are invited for new prisons at the same time that tenders are invited from outside.
Mr. Sheerman: We would be more content in terms of accountability and evaluation. However, that does not overcome the fact that we object to the privatisation of prisons in principle.
Let us continue with the argument in terms of principle. We believe that it is highly dangerous to build up a penal industrial complex whose members have a vested interest in keeping the prison population high —
Mr. Michael Stephen: A penal industrial complex?
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Member may laugh. It is interesting to note that another comedian has joined the Conservative Benches. I had thought that there was an oversupply of that kind of talent on the Government Benches.
I was making the serious point that if we pursue the privatisation of prisons, a large industry will develop. Over the past two or three years many hon. Members have been lobbied by the private prison groups. They are already organised and are paying political consultants and lobbying companies. Some of them have paid Conservative Members—not Labour Members [to lobby for private prisons.
The prison industrial complex already existed and Conservative Members were taking the King's shilling years ago in respect of that professional lobby. That lobby will not go away. It will continue in respect of keeping the number of prisoners at a level that will ensure profits for the private security companies.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making a case which depends entirely on the nature of the contract. If, in time, the nature of the contract were to be so arranged that companies were paid in terms of the success with which they released into the community prisoners who did not reoffend, that part of his argument would fall.
Mr. Sheerman: We object to the principle of the private security industry acting in that way.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Why?
Mr. Sheerman: Let me develop the argument further. Conservative Members who ask why were not members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Time and again, we came back to the heart of our reservations, and that is that the private security industry is unregulated.
126
At present, it cannot be held to any account in a regulatory sense. That means that there are a host of private security companies, some of them made up of cowboy operators employing people with criminal records. Some of the management have criminal records. There is no control of the private security industry.
We do not know what kind of private security company will bid. I am not talking only about blue chip companies being allowed to tender for the early two contracts. Later, as the lowest price becomes the objective of the Government, we shall see all kinds of middle, lower and smaller groups of companies bidding for the contracts when there is no regulation. The Minister will know that the Association of Chief Police Officers is desperately worried about the increase in cowboy private security operators, desperately worried that the Government will not introduce any regulation in the industry, and desperately worried that very sensitive matters of policing and prison administration will go to uncontrolled and uncheckable operators.
Dame Angela Rumbold: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that, when we considered the Criminal Justice Bill in Committee, we gave many undertakings that the people who were to be employed both in contracted-out prisons and, when it came to it, contracted-out services for transporting prisoners backwards and forwards, would be fully trained and fully answerable to the Home Office and the Home Secretary.
Mr. Sheerman: I shall refer to the right hon. Lady's performance and her words in Committee in a few moments. If she will hold her fire just for a moment, I shall remind her not only of her comments in Committee but of some others as well. We shall see whether she wants to intervene then.
We still believe that, despite criticisms by the Government, right hon. and hon. Members agreed on some objectives of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The objectives were that we should try to keep in prison only people who should be in prison—that is, people who have committed such crimes that they have had to be locked up. In Committee, the right hon. Lady and I agreed on many objectives. We recognised the importance of ensuring that imprisonment is used only for those who have committed serious offences. What concerns us is that that attitude, which had all-party support and which moved in that fairly liberal direction, could be put into reverse by pressures, which the Government would underrate and ridicule, to increase the number of prisoners. One has only to look at the United States of America and Australia to see some of the problems that are emerging in the private sector.
Conservative Members do not believe that such lobbying does not take place or that the private security industry will lobby, not only for an increased share of the market but to make sure that the market exists. That will be an important part of its technique, and we are concerned that that might become dangerous.
Mr. Peter Butler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: Not for a moment.
We believe that the Government display a cavalier attitude to public safety by relying on the private security

127
industry, with its appalling record. We are also gravely worried that control of security may be seriously compromised by the inexperienced employees of the private security industry.
We already have reports of problems at Wolds prison. The Minister skated over them.
Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman enjoys every such incident.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman says that, but no Opposition Member wants problems in any part of our prison system. The last thing that we want is for people to be hurt or damage to be caused in any of our prison institutions.
When we hear that there have been problems at the Wolds, we are able to say to the Government, "We told you that the training and the staff that you employ are inadequate for the task." Indeed, as someone said in The Independent on the same day as the Home Secretary made his visionary call for expansion in the private sector, the prisoners in the Wolds have far more experience of a prison regime than anyone running the prison. That is the problem.
When the two incidents occurred at the Wolds it was with deep regret that we reminded the Government that we had said that such problems would arise.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the hon. Gentleman managed to get out of the Government any more specific admission about what has happened at the Wolds than many of us seem to have obtained so far? Does he believe that the troubles extend to a high rate of staff turnover and the exclusion of legitimate press inquiries into what is happening?
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am not sure whether he was here when I referred to the mountain of security which was put round the Wolds prison when people sought to find out what was happening. It is a cause for anxiety that Members of Parliament cannot hold the Minister accountable for what happens at the Wolds. We get the brush off when we ask about its financing and its running. If there is a disturbance at the Wolds it seems that there is a cloak of secrecy. We hear that all the staff have been sworn to secrecy and that the governor is not allowed to make public comment. The lid is put on any publicity about what is happening in the Wolds.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Quite the reverse. The director of the Wolds tells the press about problems that have occurred. He made a particular point of doing so, knowing the untrue rumours that had been put around.
There have been three substantial incidents at the Wolds. That is about average for most prisons. Prisons are places where problems arise. The interesting thing about the Wolds is that each of those difficulties was settled with great skill and competence. That has given extra confidence to the staff. It has given the Home Secretary extra confidence in them. None of the incidents involved any violence whatever.
Mr. Sheerman: It is obvious that the Minister has better information than us. The point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and I make is that the House should have the information that the Minister
128
has. We want to know what is going on in the Wolds. We want to know how things are going. We want to know whether the staff are coping in a prison which, I remind the Minister, has only a third of its complement of prisoners. Already there have been three incidents. I thought that there had been only two disturbances but he says that there have been three. That is three disturbances when only a third of the complement of prisoners are there.
Mr. Lloyd: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He will know, because he has examined the prison service from the outside for several years, that one of the most vulnerable times for a prison is when it is building up its initial complement. The staff is new, the prisoners come in. They have not bedded down. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the experience in new prisons run by the prison service he will see that that is a particularly vulnerable time.
Mr. Sheerman: We want to know the turnover of staff and what are the problems. We want an analysis. If the Government can be judged by the arguments that they made in Committee, this was to be an experiment for learning about how the system works. It is an interesting experiment from which only the Government can learn because the public and public representatives are excluded from proper knowledge. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions, and not just from one side of the House.
Mr. Devlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Sheerman: Not now, but I will later.
Let us quickly look at the American experience. In Committee, we were often told that this was the model for privatisation. However, it has been a failure there. The US now imprisons 1 million people. Given that, it is hard to say why the Government feel that there is any merit in copying their ideas. Out of that huge population, only between 15,000 and 20,000 prisoners are in private prisons —15,000 according to the Department of Justice's "Private Corrections Adult Secure Facility Census of 1990". The experience in the US would appear to be going sour, according to the Washington Post, which said in November last year:
"Once hailed as a quick fix for the nation's overcrowded prisons privatisation is turning into a quicksand for the companies and the communities involved."
That is the experience of America, which the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) mentioned so often in Committee.
There are other concerns about the Government's decision to extend privatisation from the remand facility at the Wolds to include sentenced prisoners at Blakenhurst. The arguments against such a move have been put extremely well, and I hope Conservative Members will listen to them. They include:
"Because of the different purpose of remand, as opposed to the sentence of imprisonment, and the character of the remand regime, the running of a remand centre by a private company would raise fewer difficult operational questions or issues of principle.
An important feature of the system for sentenced prisoners which does not apply to remand prisoners is that the length of time for which a sentenced prisoner occupies a place in the prison is, in the case of those eligible for parole, influenced by the reports and assessment of staff … There is understandable unease that such decisions should he taken with the involvement of private contractors and their staff.

129
Moreover, the regime for remand prisoners as unconvicted inmates is more amenable to the involvement of private contractors because of its different purpose and character."
That quote comes not from the present Home Secretary but from the Goverment's Green Paper of July 1988, entitled "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System". If these arguments were valid then, what has happened to make the Goverment change their mind? Further, because the Government launched their proposals for privatisation solely —
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The purpose of a Green Paper is to provide a basis for consultation. It is not to set something in concrete.
Mr. Sheerman: Let us go on from the Green Paper. The Government launched their proposals for privatisation solely in relation to the remand system. It is a serious criticism of the Government that there has been no proper consultation of this extension of privatisation to this sector of the prison population. No formal consultation has taken place on this major new direction of policy.
Moreover, the Government have misled the House on this issue. When we discussed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, now the 1991 Act, designed to extend the scope of privatisation, the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, said:
"If, and only if. the contracted-out remand centre proves to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the prison service."—Official Report. 25 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 720.]
The clear implication of those remarks and others made by the right hon. Lady was that the Wolds was to be seen as an experiment. If successful, it would be extended to other parts of the prison service. Yet in December 1991, before the experiment had even begun, and the prison at the Wolds opened, we learnt that the Government were intending to extend privatisation to Blakenhurst, a prison that can also hold sentenced offenders.
The Wolds experiment must be the shortest on record —by my reckoning, minus four months. Even in terms of a degree of pragmatism, surely it would have been better for the Government to evaluate what was going on there, to take on board the concerns, to consult properly on the extension of privatisation while the experiment was monitored, and then to take decisions on the basis of that experience.
In an interview in The Guardian last week the Home Secretary made it clear that he was considering privatising existing prisons, too. If dogma dictates, clearly experience is irrelevant.
Mr. Stern: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is timed for one and a half hours. My hon. Friend the Minister in opening the debate confined his remarks to 15 minutes. The hon. Gentleman has already been on his feet for half an hour and still has two pages to go. Is not that an abuse of the House when he still has the right of reply?
Madam Deputy Speaker: In the particular circumstances, the Chair has no power over the length of individual speeches.
Mr. Sheerman: I have given way many times in the debate. It is an important debate and I hope that hon. Members will have a chance to intervene and ask questions —
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We want to make speeches.
Mr. Sheerman: We have an hour and a half and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has time to get in. It is important to get on the record what the Labour Front Bench believes about this important measure.
Although the Wolds has been open only since April, it is already holding one third of the prisoners that it will hold at full capacity. There have already been major problems, about which we know little because of the cloak of secrecy. If the incidents that occurred there did so while it was only one third full, one wonders what will happen when it reaches capacity. It is important to remember that the prisoners at the Wolds are far more experienced in prison life than the staff, as the officers know. Had the Government bothered to wait to see what happened at the Wolds, as they promised, we would be able to judge how effectively the private security company is coping.
I have already mentioned the problem of secrecy. Members of the House and the public have the right to know whether the Crown controller, installed to monitor the performance of the Wolds, will publish an annual report. I hope that the Minister will tell us in his reply. Will there be a published annual report? Will it tell us how much it costs a year to run the Wolds? We have a right to that information. It ill befits the Government with all their recent talk of open government to fob off important questions on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
Finally, we have long argued that the current obsession with privatisation is having a corrosive effect on morale in existing prisons. Here I come to the nub of the argument.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Sheerman: No. In two seconds I will.
Prison governors, prison officers, probation officers, prison teachers, prison chaplains, prison administrative staff and all the major prison reform groups are against privatisation. I wonder why. The Government had a unique opportunity—Interruptionl Perhaps hon. Gentlemen do not want to hear this—after the tragic events at Strangeways, with the Woolf report, which has been enthusiastically endorsed by all those working in the field, to make real changes in policy and produce an appeals system that did what people wanted. Yes, let us provide prisons where people can repay their debt to society and spend their sentence, but prisons that do not demean and dehumanise them. Let us provide prisons where people are given the chance to rebuild their lives and become decent citizens again. That is an objective that I thought nearly all hon. Members would agree with. That opportunity, post-Strangeways, of the Woolf inquiry report has been thrown aside. Privatisation is merely a piece of ideological baggage that the Government will not put down.
We are angry at what is happening, and we represent enlightened opinion on penal matters. That opinion says that the Strangeways riot and the Woolf report provided an opportunity to rebuild anew our rotten prison system. Producing one or two or even a dozen prisons with good conditions avoids the hard job of modernising our prison system and giving governors, prison officers and the people who have kept the lid on our prison system, as Woolf said.

131
for 30 or 50 years, a chance to do the job. At present only a few are being given that opportunity in places such as the Wolds and Blakenhurst.
132
There is a real challenge for a reforming Government to invest in the prison system and in all the men and women who work in it. We oppose the order because it is doctrinaire and avoids the opportunities presented by Woolf and takes us down a narrow, miserable path.
11.7 pm
Dame Angela Rumbold: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in support of the order. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who spoke more concentrated claptrap than I have heard for a long time. Moreover, it was ideological claptrap, which made it even less interesting.
It is important to extend privatisation from the Wolds to other new prisons and, I hope, to existing prisons. The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Huddersfield for allowing prisons to be managed only by the state does not stand up to scrutiny. It is skating on thin ice to argue for subsidy and for the state to manage these institutions simply because they are part of the state. Such arguments are based on ideology and not on fact.
The Wolds has shown the practicality of allowing the private sector to manage prisons. It contains people who have been sentenced as well as those who have not been for trial. It is important to extend that to Blakenhurst and to other prisons with sentenced populations. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, the most difficult part of the prison population with which to deal is the remand section. The Wolds has managed its affairs slowly and there have been one or two disturbances, but the governor and controller of that prison and many of the employees have been in the prison service for a long time, and know precisely what they are doing. That cuts across the point implied by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, that the private sector has no people with experience in the prison service.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the difficulty that the Wolds' employees face is in introducing prisoners into a new prison. There have been great disturbances in new prisons in the public sector, not least earlier this year in Moorlands, where there were some outrageous disturbances by some of the young offenders. They had not been there more than a few weeks before a wing was demolished. That was a disgraceful event that we hope will not be repeated.
It is important to recognise that the staff in the Wolds are no less well trained and experienced than many of those in the public sector.
Mr. Steinberg: Does the right hon. Lady believe that the Prison Officers Association has any role to play in the privatised prisons?
Dame Angela Rumbold: I have never had any problems with the Prison Officers Association. It seems that it can live alongside the private sector; it is up to the private contractors to negotiate with the prison officers if they wish to serve in those prisons. Nobody has ever suggested that they would be prevented from doing so. An arrangement already exists in the Wolds between the trade unions and the staff so that their affairs can be managed under the system currently operated by prison officers in some of the state prisons. It is important to extend the programme to sentenced prisoners because it will not be as difficult to manage a sentenced prison population as it is to manage a remand prison population.
The Wolds and private prisons have better regimes. My hon. Friend the Minister frequently mentioned in his opening speech the extended number of hours that prisoners spent outside their cells. He spoke of the better regimes and treatment and of the greater opportunities
134
that exist for remand prisoners in the Wolds and, one hopes, for those in Blakenhurst. It is exceedingly important that the work carried out in the contracted-out prisons should be repeated and seen to be successful in prisons such as Armley, Wormwood Scrubs and Wandsworth. It has been seen that it is possible for the contracted-out prisons to take in difficult prisoners who have no reason to behave them Mselves, but do so because the regime is better and more sensitive to their needs and provides them with something more constructive to do.
When I was a Home Office Minister, it was always the Government's intention [I am sure that it is still the intention of my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—to improve the regimes within our prison system following the Woolf report and the undertakings that we made in the White Paper published last summer. We cannot improve prison regimes overnight, but that improvement will occur much more speedily if it is demonstrated clearly, as it is through the private prisons of the Wolds and Blakenhurst. That will act as a spur to those in the existing prison system to manage their prisons better and undertake to allow the prisoners to have better regimes. That is a good reason to support the order.
11.14 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a little surprising to hear the former Minister with responsibility for prisons, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold), speaking so coolly about the experience of the state sector and, by implication, overlooking the good work that is being done in the public sector to improve the state's handling of prisoners. It was also surprising to hear her suggest that something as modest as the Wolds experiment can teach those who have been in the business for generations anything of great importance.
I know that the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has visited many prisons in her time, and I am sure that she has seen prisons of different sorts and qualities. I can only think that dogmatism leads the right hon. Lady to suggest that there is a great deal to be learned from Wolds. I share the surprise expressed in the intervention earlier by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it should be thought almost unpatriotic among Conservative Members to suggest that, if the state sentences a person to the deprivation of his liberties, the state has a responsibility—whether exercised directly or indirectly—to ensure that custody is properly effected.
Many people assume, probably rightly, that that is the direct responsibility of the state, the Government, and the House—just as they assume that the defence of the realm will be handled by officers of the realm. We would no more think of sending a brigade of mercenaries to teach the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines how to do their job than we would of expecting the private sector to tell the prison service how to run its affairs. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many seated interventions. It is becoming difficult for me to hear the hon. Member.
Mr. Maclennan: The Wolds is rather like a beauty spot on a rather nastily pock-marked face. It is designed to distract attention from the reality of the ugliness of today's prison system. It seems to have had some success in respect

135
of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for he focused a speech of 35 minutes on that little beauty spot. I am not as informed as even the hon. Gentleman about the Wolds, and few of us would feel confident about passing judgment on it at this stage. In any event, it would probably be premature to form a view about the Wolds.
Mr. Battle: We cannot get the information.
Mr. Maclennan: We certainly cannot, and there are certain difficulties in having questions on the subject answered in the House, which is rather deplorable. I hope that the National Audit Office will have full access, and will be able to bring any uncertainties that it has before the Public Accounts Committee—which will, no doubt, have an opportunity in due course to consider whether the public are getting value for money.
I regret that the Government did not take the opportunity provided by this debate to declare their hand as to how far they intend to go with the experiment. Do they seriously intend to solve the problems outlined by Lord Justice Woolf and Judge Tumim by going down the privatisation route full scale? Is it intended—as was suggested at the weekend—to deal with top security prisoners in that way?
The Home Office does not usually leak the kind of stones that have been circulating among the national press without the intention of following through. It would have been better if the Government had told the House tonight what are their intentions. The reports that have appeared will give rise to great anxiety in the prison service, and to great uncertainty in sectors where a little settling down after the excitements of the last year or two might be a very good thing.
Mr. Dickens: Is the hon. Gentleman really telling the House that the Government ought to publicise prison incidents? Would that not encourage the copycat effect all over England, thereby inciting others in custody to commit similar offences in their prisons? I think it far better for the House of Commons to be satisfied with not knowing exactly what is going on, thus preventing similar events from happening in prisons throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. Maclennan: In many ways the hon. Gentleman is a rather better publicist than I am, and I suspect that he is better at grabbing the headlines in regard to prisons than I could ever be. I have no intention of pouring oil on the flames of prison disputes and other troubles, but I believe that it ought to be possible for the hon. Gentleman to find out whether disturbances have taken place in a prison. The Minister made it plain that such disturbances had taken place, and he has made no attempt at a cover-up.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: That is an important point. I agree with the hon. Gentleman rather than with my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). If disturbances take place in a prison, the House should have an opportunity to ask questions and learn from the answers. Let me make it absolutely clear that hon. Members can ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about any disturbance in the Wolds, just as they can ask about disturbances in any other prison for which he is responsible.
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for the Minister's intervention, although I think that there is still some uncertainty about whether it is possible to table questions that will enable those issues to be raised. I have no doubt that they can be raised on the margins of other questions, but that involves problems.
Mr. Battle: As one who has tried to put questions about the matter, I feel that the position is the same as that applying to social security benefit agencies. We are told that such agencies are—like private prisons—at one remove from the Government, and that they are therefore not subject to direct question from the House of Commons. We are told to write to the governors and the heads of the organisations concerned, and that means that we may not be able to question the answers that we receive.
Mr. Lloyd rose—
Mr. Maclennan: I am sure that you would not approve of an intervention on an intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the Minister will be prepared to hold himself back until the end of the debate.
So far, alas, the debate has been remarkably unrevealing. The Government have chosen to focus attention on the modest little experiment at the Wolds, almost as if they were providing a lightning conductor; but it is too soon to judge. I think that we would do better to put our criticisms of the Wolds on hold until more information is available, and to press the Minister to be more revealing about the Government's medium-term intentions in regard to the extension of privatisation.
I strongly suspect that the motion is directed at the Prison Officers Association at least as much as it is directed at the House. There has been considerable criticism of the association in Government circles on the ground that it has stood in the way of reform. It is not possible for outsiders to judge the merits of the argument; but I doubt that they, or anyone else, will be overly impressed by what has happened to date.
The Liberal Democrats consider it necessary to go a great deal further in implementing the Woolf report than the changes in the prison system contained in the modest order that we are discussing. In particular, we recommend the establishment of a separate prison agency, managed by people with experience of the prison service. That, we think, would enable us to move much faster in the direction recommended by Woolf.
Our prisons are now full to bursting, and conditions in many community prisons are worse than they were when those prisons were built over 100 years ago. The prison suicide rate is causing many people to worry greatly about our capacity to deal with prisoners, particularly those on remand. I do not think that we are focusing on the real, important issues tonight, and I regret that.
11.24 pm
Mr. John Greenway: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that private sector involvement in the prison service was wrong in principle. It seems to me that what is wrong in principle is the Labour party's blind ideological refusal to accept that the private sector has any role to play in the improvement of our prison service. Week in, week out, many incidents occur in state prisons. Therefore, I welcome the progress that the Government have made in introducing the order.

137
It is worth recalling the progress that has been made. When the Criminal Justice Bill was considered in Standing Committee, there was originally a clause that provided for only one prison to be run by the private sector—Wolds prison. Some of us thought that that was a wicked waste of parliamentary time and that at the very least we should extend that provision to allow for a widening of the experiment in years to come. That is why a number of my hon. Friends and I tabled a new clause, which the Government gratefully accepted.
The point has already been made in the debate—I believe during an intervention by my hon. Friend the Minister—that the fact that in many respects remand prisoners are more difficult to handle than sentenced prisoners was a matter that some of us had in mind when we suggested that the private sector should be involved in the provision of prisons for sentenced prisoners.
We should be discussing not ideology but two simple questions. The first relates to the best management structure for the prison service. One has just to read not the detailed reports but the summaries of Judge Tumim's visits to many of our prisons to realise that there is a lot wrong with our prision service. I believe that the management structure needs to be changed. If we are to change the management structure, we should do so in a way that allows for public and private sector involvement. That is why I am an enthusiastic supporter of the order. It allows for private sector involvement.
Secondly, we should address the question of standards. Some hon. Members have referred to that question. How can standards be raised? The Woolf report into the Strangeways riot made a number of recommendations. The Government are to be commended for embracing its key recommendations and trying to bring some parts of our prison estate up to sratch. However, just as we modernise our Victorian prisons, so, too, must we modernise the management structure of our prisons. That is the key issue. The need is urgent.
Even if we approve the order, as I hope we shall, it will still be 12 months before this further experiment comes to fruition. We are not exactly running at a hare's pace. However, this is a welcome development.
The House must ask itself a final question: where will all this lead? To put on the private sector a proper contractual obligation for the way in which prisons should be run suggests to tne that this will lead to a prison regime under which each prison in this country, whether it is in the public or the private sector, follows a properly defined set of standards and criteria. In time, they will have to publish their own reports—
Mr. Enright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: No; I shall not give way because there are only 15 minutes left, and I am not about to finish my speech.
A prison will have to publish its own report and accounts to show how it has used public money, whether it is in the private sector, receiving fees for handling prisoners, or in the public sector, as now. [Interruption.] We can open up to proper scrutiny all that is going on in our prison service. What has been happening in Armley gaol in the past few years, about which the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is as concerned as I am, is an absolute scandal. Interruption.] Our prison service is a disgrace. We need to bring the private sector into play.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Some of the interventions from the Labour Benches are quite unacceptable to me. Will hon. Members please keep quiet?
Mr. Greenway: I believe that much of our prison service is an absolute disgrace. It must be improved, but blind ideology and dogma mean that people refuse to accept that the private sector has a role to play in achieving that improvement.
11.30 pm
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Despite everything that the Minister said, privatised prisons will reduce parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister said that the cost difference between private and public prisons is minimal. Privatisation will only reduce hon. Members' ability to scrutinise how a prison is run.
Standards will not rise. In the United States, the first privatised prisons provided excellent conditions, but they were show-piece prisons and loss leaders. Evidence suggests that their successors, free from the glare of press publicity, got down to the real task of privatised prisons —making profits for shareholders. Standards began to fall accordingly. The Wolds will try to create a superior prison environment because Group 4 wants to ensure that it is awarded future contracts and will loss-lead to make it successful. The Government will then claim that privatised prisons deliver higher standards, but that will not be true. As in America, standards will fall as profits are squeezed by the Government seeking to impose cheaper contracts on prisons. Shareholders will receive state subsidised dividends to ensure that managers keep their jobs. That is unacceptable when Government deprive people of their liberty.
The Government say that standards will be maintained through enforceable contracts, but the effective policing of standards in prisons is notoriously difficult. It depends on prisoners reporting breaches, which is a very unreliable method, or on an inspectorate, and the inspectorate needed effectively and constantly to police all the terms of the contracts will he enormous and expensive. In other words, it will not be properly enforceable at all.
Do not the Government apply double standards? They have been anxious to insist on standards in the private contracts for the Wolds, yet the Home Office went to the European Court to fight attempts to secure the same standards in state gaols. Is not it unreasonable for the Government to argue that higher standards should be achieved in private prisons while insisting on lower standards for state prisons? Rather than subjecting prisoners' care to market forces, money should be spent on bringing state prisons up to the standards of the Wolds and to other private standards that we are seeking to enforce.
The clear moral question is whether it is right that money should be made out of a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment. Having been deprived of their liberty, it is wrong for prisoners to be put at the mercy of market forces. It is wrong that if the profit margins of private prisons are squeezed, as the Government will seek to do, the prisoner deprived of his liberty should see his conditions squeezed to maintain shareholders' profits.
What sort of companies would want to run Britain's prisons? With honourable exceptions, most of the security industry has an appalling record of low-paid staff, long hours, poor training and of employing persons often of

139
dubious character and sometimes ex-criminals. As a criminal lawyer, I remember representing a person who was employed by Group 4, no less. He had previous convictions and was subsequently convicted of another offence but continued to work for Group 4 and, for all I know, probably still does—although not, I hope, at the Wolds.
While at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said:
"I don't want to foist an idea on a system without having sufficient caution to say that I am not going headlong down that route. I am going to take it step by step so that we can test it properly."
Test it properly? It has been open only since April. This is not a step-by-step approach. The order represents a headlong rush. Instead of having a measured assessment of how privatisation is going at the Wolds, the Government are hell bent on advancing nothing but political dogma.
The order is a shallow attempt to shift the debate away from the appalling state of our prisons, as reported by Judge Tumim, and from the Government's disgraceful record on prisons. It is an attempt to shift the debate to a peripheral argument about privatisation.
The Home Office has said that it will train and screen workers for private prisons, but for how long will it do that before it decides to privatise training? I am not the only one who dislikes the idea of Group 4 or any other company being told whether applicants are of good character. Group 4 is not an official body, and it has no right to information about a person's character from police files.
The Howard League has done the only significant independent research into the management of private detention centres. Its conclusions are very interesting because they reveal obsessive secrecy, poor staff in-service training, racist stereotyping by staff and no tangible commitment to justice.
It is the state which rightly reserves unto itself the right to take a person's liberty and the state should take responsibility for all that flows from that. It is directly responsible for the care of prisoners and should not abdicate its responsibilities to others. Its responsibilities include the right to use force to subjugate prisoners in certain circumstances and also, as we heard earlier, in certain circumstances to open and read prisoners' mail. That is not something that should be privatised and given to persons who are not directly answerable to the House.
The real problem is that we have too many bad prisons and too many people in them and a Government who have allowed crime to rise and prisons to become degraded. Privatisation will not deal with the real problems as identified by Lord Justice Woolf after the disturbances at Strangeways; nor will it deal with the failings of the prison service outlined in Judge Tumim's report. The order is a camouflage for what is happening in the prison service, which is why we shall vote against it.
11.37 pm
Sir Ivan Lawrence: One would think that the prisons in this country were an outstanding success, that they were beautiful places in which people could be properly rehabilitated, where those who are likely to
140
offend could be deterred from offending again and where prison officers would be proud and happy to work. In fact, they are a disgrace.
They are a disgrace despite a massive expenditure of public money—£1 billion—on building more and more prisons. They are also a disgrace despite the dynamic activities of the chief inspector of prisons. Judge Tumim, and they are a disgrace despite the Woolf investigation. inquiry and recommendations. They will continue to be a disgrace as long as they are in the type of buildings that they are in, as long as we are subject to the existing old-fashioned practices, and, unless someone takes an initiative to move the prison service away from the circumstances which is has endured for far too long, prisons will go on being disgraceful places. letting down our society as much as they do.
The Government are proposing a new initiative. But one would think that Labour Members did not wish prisoners to spend less time in their cells, did not wish to see cleaner accommodation, the changing of bed linen and clothing, greater access to telephones and the more respectable approach of educating people in prisons.
One would think that Opposition Members were happy to maintain the situation without any improvement or change. I simply do not believe that any Opposition Members are really content with the present situation. Nevertheless, once again their spokesman, in a knee-jerk reaction, has attacked any move towards privatisation or rationalisation of the system. Have not they learnt the lesson that, broadly, the privatisations that have been undertaken so far have been an outstanding success? Have not they learnt the lesson that every time they speak for the trade union movement—for old-fashioned unions like the Prison Officers Association, which wishes to maintain the old operative system that have so let down the prison system—they make the mselves absolutely incapable of winning any general election?
Mr. Battle: The Prison Officers Association is not affiliated to the Labour party.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have warned Members before about seated interventions of that nature.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: This is one of the ways in which the Labour party has continued to make itself incapable of winning general elections. It sides with the unions that adopt old-fashioned practices. When Labour Members have managed to control their obsession with maintaining the last vestiges of the abuse of trade union power and have given privatisation a chance as it begins to show signs of great achievement in the Wolds—and it will continue to demonstrate great achievement—they will realise that the prison system is being improved.
Many of the objections that have been voiced are absolute nonsense. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that he would deal immediately with the point about vetting those who run the prisons, but he did not come to it at all. He cannot face up to the Government's clear undertaking that they will continue to ensure that there is proper vetting by the Home Office—the Home Secretary, the directorate of prisons, and the institutions that will monitor the private prison undertakings as they have monitored the state institutions and will reveal anything that has gone wrong.
Let Opposition Members get a grip of themselves and give this initiative a chance. I have no doubt that if it

141
appears to be failing the Government will change their mind, as they have done in the past. All Governments change their mind. Equally, I hope that, for the first time, the Opposition will change their mind. Actually I do not mean that. The Opposition have changed their mind over the sale of council houses; they have changed their mind over unilateral disarmament; they have changed their mind over a number of nationalisation issues. And I predict that when the new privatised system, introduced experimentally in some prisons, begins to work, they will change their mind about that too.
11.42 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I listened very carefully to the Minister's introductory speech. Everybody agrees that we want improvements in conditions. Nobody has any complaint about good conditions in the Wolds, but we want to know why that matter is connected with privatisation. Why cannot we have similar investment in the other prisons that have been mentioned? What is at issue is the extension of privatisation from new remand prisons to institutions for convicted prisoners. Regardless of what has been said by Conservative Members, this move is fundamentally different from what was talked about when the legislation was passed last year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred to the then Minister's comment that only if the contracted-out remand centre proved to be a success might we move towards privatisation of other parts of the service. Well, has it proved to be a success? When points about incidents at the Wolds were being raised, the Minister said that the system was still in the process of bedding down. If so, how can it be proved a success?
What evidence is there of adequate staff training? We have heard assertions about that, but no evidence. What evidence is there of correct recruitment policies? I have asked about staff recruited at the Wolds. Not a single member of staff there has an ethnic minority background.
If the case is not proven now, will it ever be? And what about accountability? We do not know the costs of employing Group 4 at the Wolds. The Minister would not tell us. We do not know what profits it will make; the Minister would not tell us. We are told that that is a commercial consideration.
We have been told that five of the eight —
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 200.

Division No. 52]

[11.45 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bates, Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Bendall, Vivian

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Amess, David

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Ancram, Michael

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Arbuthnot, James

Booth, Hartley

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ashby, David

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Aspinwall, Jack

Bowis, John

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Baldry, Tony

Brandreth, Gyles

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Brazier, Julian

142

Bright, Graham

Hicks, Robert

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Browning, Mrs. Angela

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Burns, Simon

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Burt, Alistair

Horam, John

Butler, Peter

Hordern, Sir Peter

Butterfill, John

Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Carrington, Matthew

Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)

Carttiss, Michael

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Cash, William

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Chaplin, Mrs Judith

Jack, Michael

Clappison, James

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)

Jessel, Toby

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coe, Sebastian

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Colvin, Michael

Jones, Robert B. (W H'frdshire)

Congdon, David

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Kilfedder, Sir James

Cran, James

Kirkhope, Timothy

Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)

Knapman, Roger

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Day, Stephen

Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knox, David

Devlin, Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Dover, Den

Legg, Barry

Duncan, Alan

Leigh, Edward

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lidington, David

Eggar, Tim

Lightbown, David

Elletson, Harold

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lord, Michael

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Luff, Peter

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

MacKay, Andrew

Faber, David

Maclean, David

Fabricant, Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maitland, Lady Olga

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Malone, Gerald

Fishburn, John Dudley

Marland, Paul

Forman, Nigel

Marlow, Tony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Forth, Eric

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Merchant, Piers

Freeman, Roger

Milligan, Stephen

French, Douglas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gale, Roger

Moate, Roger

Gallie, Phil

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gardiner, Sir George

Moss, Malcolm

Garnier, Edward

Needham, Richard

Gill, Christopher

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gillan, Ms Cheryl

Nicholls, Patrick

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Gorst, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Norris, Steve

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Page, Richard

Grylls, Sir Michael

Paice, James

Hague, William

Patnick, Irvine

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pawsey, James

Hargreaves, Andrew

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Harris, David

Pickles, Eric

Haselhurst, Alan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hawkins, Nicholas

Powell, William (Corby)

Hawksley, Warren

Rathbone, Tim

Hayes, Jerry

Redwood, John

Heald, Oliver

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Richards, Rod

Hendry, Charles

Riddick, Graham

143

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Robathan, Andrew

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Thurnham, Peter

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Tracey, Richard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Tredinnick, David

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Trend, Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Trotter, Neville

Sackville, Tom

Twinn, Dr Ian

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim

Viggers, Peter

Shaw, David (Dover)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waller, Gary

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sims, Roger

Waterson, Nigel

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Watts, John

Speed, Sir Keith

Wells, Bowen

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wheeler, Sir John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Whitney, Ray

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Whittingdale, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Widdecombe, Ann

Spring, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Sproat, Iain

Willetts, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Steen, Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Stephen, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Stern, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Sumberg, David

Yeo, Tim

Sweeney, Walter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John M. (Solihull)

Mr. Sydney Chapman

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

and Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Thomason, Roy

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Coffey, Ms Ann

Adams, Mrs Irene

Cohen, Harry

Ainger, Nicholas

Connarty, Michael

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cousins, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Cox, Tom

Austin-Walker, John

Cryer, Bob

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cummings, John

Barron, Kevin

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Battle, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bayley, Hugh

Dalyell, Tam

Beckett, Margaret

Darling, Alistair

Beith, Rt Hon A. J.

Davidson, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bennett, Andrew F.

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)

Benton, Joe

Denham, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Berry, Roger

Donohoe, Brian

Boyce, Jimmy

Dowd, Jim

Boyes, Roland

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bradley, Keith

Eagle, Ms Angela

Burden, Richard

Enright, Derek

Byers, Stephen

Etherington, William

Caborn, Richard

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Callaghan, Jim

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Campbell, Ms Anne (C'bridge)

Fatchett, Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ronald (Blyth V)

Foster, Derek (B 'p Auckland)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foulkes, George

Cann, James

Fyfe, Maria

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gapes, Michael

Clapham, Michael

George, Bruce

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Gerrard, Neil

Clelland, David

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Golding, Mrs Llin

144

Graham, Thomas

Mullin, Chris

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Murphy, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)

Gunnell, John

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hain, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Hall, Mike

O'Neill, Martin

Hanson, David

Patchett, Terry

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pickthall, Colin

Henderson, Doug

Pike, Peter L.

Heppell, John

Pope, Greg

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)

Home Robertson, John

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hood, Jimmy

Prescott, John

Hoon, Geoff

Primarolo, Dawn

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Purchase, Ken

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Raynsford, Nick

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Redmond, Martin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Reid, Dr John

Hutton, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (H'stead)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Jackson, Ms Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Roche, Ms Barbara

Jamieson, David

Rogers, Allan

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Rooker, Jeff

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Rooney, Terry

Jones, Ms Lynne (B'ham S O)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Ruddock, Joan

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Salmond, Alex

Keen, Alan

Sheerman, Barry

Kennedy, Ms Jane (L'p'l Br'g'n)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Khabra, Piara

Short, Clare

Kilfoyle, Peter

Simpson, Alan

Leighton, Ron

Skinner, Dennis

Lewis, Terry

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Litherland, Robert

Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)

Livingstone, Ken

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Snape, Peter

Lynne, Ms Liz

Soley, Clive

McAllion, John

Spearing, Nigel

McAvoy, Thomas

Steinberg, Gerry

McCartney, Ian

Stevenson, George

MacDonald, Calum

Strang, Gavin

McKelvey, William

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maclennan, Robert

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

McMaster, Gordon

Tipping, Paddy

McWilliam, John

Turner, Dennis

Madden, Max

Tyler, Paul

Mahon, Alice

Vaz, Keith

Mandelson, Peter

Wallace, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Wareing, Robert N

Martlew, Eric

Watson, Mike

Meale, Alan

Welsh, Andrew

Michael, Alun

Wicks, Malcolm

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Milburn, Alan

Wise, Audrey

Miller, Andrew

Worthington, Tony

Morgan, Rhodri

Wright, Tony

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mowlam, Marjorie

Mr. Eric Illsley and

Mudie, George

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 21st February, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Parole Board
11.56 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That the draft Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.
The order transfers responsibility for the release and recall of long-term prisoners sentenced to less than seven years under the new Criminal Justice Act 1991 from the Secretary of State to the Parole Board.
Before describing the new arrangements, I think that it is worth spending just a few moments on the existing parole scheme. At present, prisoners serving more than a year must serve one third of their sentence, or six months if that is greater, before becoming eligible for parole.
Every case is considered by a local review committee and the more serious cases—those serving four years or more—are also seen by the Parole Board. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is the usual buzz of conversation which occurs at this time. If hon. Members want to chat, will they go outside and do it?
Mr. Lloyd: Over the years, the scheme has become somewhat repetitive and lost some of its coherence; it can heavily erode the sentence passed by a court. Those who do not get parole but who are in most need of supervision are released "cold" into the community, and the system has been criticised for its secrecy.
Because of those shortcomings, the Carlisle committee was asked to look at the scheme. It reported in 1988. The new arrangements very largely follow its recommendations, but there was one aspect where the Government did not agree with the committee. The committee had proposed that Ministers should withdraw from the decision-making process entirely and give the Parole Board the final say on release and recall of all long-term prisoners.
We believe that Ministers should keep the responsibility for the realease of those who have committed very serious offences. Therefore, in the White Paper, published in 1990, the Government proposed that the Parole Board should have sole responsibility for deciding the release or those serving between four and less than seven years' imprisonment.
The order is made under the new Criminal Justice Act, which comes into force in October. That Act introduces three early release schemes. Although two of them are outside the scope of the order, the House may find it helpful if I explain them as a unity.
First, those serving sentences of less than 12 months will be released automatically at the halfway point of sentence, subject to good prison behaviour. Their release will be delayed by any additional days awarded—if "awarded" is the right word—for misbehaviour. They will not be supervised on release, but, like all prisoners released under the Act, they will be under liability until the end of sentence. That means that the outstanding portion of the sentence will no longer simply be remitted. If they commit a further imprisonable offence before the end of sentence, that unserved period of the original may be added to any new sentence, thus restoring meaning to the entire sentence passed by the court.
146
Secondly, those serving 12 months to less than four years will also be released automatically at the halfway point —subject to good prison behaviour. But, by contrast, they will be under compulsory supervision by the probation service while they are back in the community. That supervision on licence will extend to the three-quarters point of sentence or to the very end for some sex offenders.
The licence will make real demands on the individual. A condition may be added —for instance, requiring attendance on a course to address an alcohol problem or prohibiting contact with a named victim—and the licensee may, on the decision of a magistrates court, he returned to prison if the licence conditions are breached or may be subjected to a lesser penalty, such as a fine, if the court so decides.
Thirdly, there is the new parole scheme itself which also represents a tougher package. It will apply to those prisoners sentenced to four years or more on or after 1 October this year. They will have to serve at least half their sentence in custody—instead of the current one third —before becoming eligible for discretionary release. If they do not receive parole, release at the two-thirds point is still automatic. But release in either case will be on a licence which will extend to the three-quarters point, or again to the very end of the sentence for some sex offenders.
Contrary to current practice, prisoners will see the reports that constitute the parole dossier and the Parole Board will give reasons for its decisions, which it does not do now. I believe that that represents a significant step towards a more open and fair scheme.
As I have already said, Ministers have decided to retain the final say on the early release of those serving sentences of seven years or more. This seven-year threshold was fully debated during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. We believe that it is the right one for the start of the new scheme. But the Act also provides for Parliament to be asked to approve a higher, or indeed a lower threshold, if in the light of experience that seems desirable.
When the Criminal Justice Act comes into force, the Parole Board will apply specific directions given to it by the Home Secretary on release. Those directions will come in on 1 October and will be announced very shortly and made available in the Libraries of both Houses. The directions set out three conditions which have to be satisfied before the Parole Board can recommend parole. They relate to the risk of further offences being committed; the prisoner's willingness to tackle offending behaviour; and the resettlement plan and rehabilitation.
The order also extends the board's existing recall powers. Those powers require the Secretary of State to act on the board's recommendation to revoke a prisoner's licence and recall him. However, the Home Secretary, will also set out the criteria for recall in new policy directions to the Parole Board. These will be published together with the release directions to which I have just referred. Very importantly, the directions will require the board to assess the risk to the public if an offender is allowed to remain on licence as well as the extent of compliance with the conditions of the licence.
Finally, the order will also provide that the Parole Board, in the light of its expert assessment of any case, may recommend conditions to the licence for released prisoners. This will allow the Parole Board to fit the

147
detailed licence conditions to the circumstances of each offender and take into account the level of risk involved in release in every case.
These may include conditions which prohibit contact with named individuals, or require attendance on courses designed to tackle alcohol or substance abuse. This will be done in close consultation with supervising officers to ensure the correct level of supervision, such as prohibiting contact with a young victim in a sexual abuse case. This will ensure that licence conditions are consistent and demanding.
Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend touches on an important point. Although it may not fall within the ambit of the order, will he assure the House that he has every intention of following through the recommendation in the victims charter that the victims of sex crimes should be informed when their assailant is released on parole under the terms that he set out to the House tonight?
Mr. Lloyd: That is right. My hon. Friend raises an important point. The fact that the Parole Board can make conditions about release in such cases is an added protection for the victim after the perpetrator has come back into the community.
The arrangements introduced by the order represent, I believe, a significant improvement in the way in which parole decisions are administered, both in the interests of offenders and even more importantly in ensuring the protection of the public. I commend it to the House.
12.5 am
Mr. Barry Sheerman: In contrast to what we felt about the former order that we debated, the Opposition broadly welcome this order. It is a step in the right direction to allow the Parole Board to make the decision in parole cases rather than giving discretion to the Home Secretary to overrule the decisions, made after lengthy consideration. However, we should like to know why the order is restricted to those serving less than seven years. The Carlisle committee on the parole sytem in England and Wales, in its 1988 report, argued cogently for the Parole Board to assume executive powers for all cases, as the Minister said. He explained well and clearly the terms of the order and how it would operate, but he did not say why the Carlisle recommendations had not been accepted in their entirety.
Carlisle examined the present system and found it wanting. The report notes that the present sytem, in which the Home Secretary has the final decision, is cumbersome and conducive to delay. It tends to blur the responsibility for decisions, and Carlisle felt the arrangements worked in a particularly unfortunate manner when a case went wrong. The report said:
"The present fragmentation of responsibilities prevents the parole system from giving a robust account of itself when storms arise … We were particularly struck by the contrast with the Canadian system. There the Parole Board is executive rather than advisory, and is willing not only to step into the firing line when there is a furore over a case but also to seek positive ways of enhancing the image of parole through the media."
Carlisle was emphatic about the need for this change. He said:
148
"The present structure … is not the right one for the new scheme which we propose … We believe that the only answer to these problems is for the Home Secretary to seek to be responsible for individual parole decisions."
We still agree with that thrust of the Carlisle recommendations. We think that it is wrong for the Home Secretary to get involved in parole decisions. We know that it is not always he who makes the decision—often, the junior Minister has that onerous responsibility.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Very sound.
Mr. Sheerman: It may be sound, but it is wrong that the decision should be taken by the Executive, by a politician. Parole is a complex matter that depends on a great deal of sifting of behaviour, of the record in prison and reports. Harking back to our earlier debate, I should point out the people who work in prisons—not just probation officers or the Parole Board members, but those who deal with prisoners day after day—make reports and look at the general way in which the prisoner has behaved, and give an estimate of how he is fitting in and abiding by the rules. It makes an important difference—without wishing to be contentious—whether that person comes from the state system or a private security company.
We think that it would be a happy release for the Home Secretary if he were not involved. We are all familiar with cases—I shall not give the tabloid press the benefit of mentioning some of the notorious cases—that become, for some reason or another, famous. Sometimes, for some inexplicable reason, the most ghastly cases do not hit the tabloid headlines while others do. Where they do, when it is the decision of the politician—the Home Secretary is, after all, a politician—it puts him under enormous pressure from people like the tabloid press.
The tabloid press may create an enormous furore about a particular person who has served a prison sentence, has perhaps been a model prisoner and has been recommended for parole. The Home Secretary may then say that the case is politically sensitive and that this notorious person cannot possibly be allowed out. In other words, he bows to the pressure of the tabloid press rather than takes the advice of the Parole Board. It would let the Home Secretary off the hook to have those decisions made by the Parole Board. It is unwise to have a cut-off point at seven years.
The report goes on to explain that the new parole system that is enacted in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, from which some of us bear the scars, removes much of the scope for public policy considerations which provide the rationale for the Home Secretary's responsibilities. The Act changes the ground on which the decision should be made. Prisoners will now be required to serve at least half of their sentence before they can be released on parole. Most parole decisions will be about whether a particular prisoner should be released at his eligibility date or at his mandatory release date a year or so thence. The number of cases where there will be more than two years at stake will be small as only those serving more than 12 years will be eligible for more than two years' parole.
We will not divide the House on the order, but we seek clarification. Why have the Government decided to limit the order to seven years? Why not follow the Carlisle proposals? Carlisle has tremendous support and is respected in the House in this area. He was a former Conservative Secretary of State for Education when I first came to the House. Why not choose 10 or 12 years? Will

149
the Home Secretary be prepared to raise the limit above seven years when he has had an opportunity to judge how the new system works? We have had some assurances tonight, but I should like to have them copper bottomed. We believe that Carlisle was right. This sort of decision should be left to the Parole Board after detailed consideration. The Executive should not be involved in these matters.
I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I have a quick last point. Does the Home Secretary in tend to retain the power to give general policy guidelines to the Parole Board about the sort of cases that he deems inappropriate for parole? Will the board be free from Home Office oversight of that kind? We shall be grateful for the Minister's views on that issue. We believe that it would not be appropriate for the Home Secretary to be able to fetter the Parole Board in this way. It would undermine the effect of the order in relation to those serving under seven years.
The Opposition support the order, but would have liked the Government to have accepted Carlisle's recommendations in their entirety. We agree with the Minister. We want an open and fair system. The Carlisle recommendations seemed to give us the opportunity to step dramatically away from any political involvement. One of the moves that we hope to see over the next few years is the political input in this and a whole range of issues stepping back and the professionals—the justiciary or the Parole Board—making those decisions. During proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill, we on this side of the House argued strongly that Ministers should not get involved in matters that are on the one hand judicial and on the other hand for the professionals who serve on the Parole Board.
We will not oppose the order, but we should like answers to those questions.
12.14 am
Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am less than enthusiastic about the Government's actions on parole. I am not against the transfer of decision making to the Parole Board for sentences of from four to seven years because the Home Secretary hardly ever goes against the board's wishes. However, there are one or two worrying aspects of the whole business. First, I do not think that the public realise that there is automatic release after serving 50 per cent. of a sentence. That will happen more frequently and will make judges consider, perhaps for the first time, the consequences of the length of sentence.
If judges are told that there is no question of parole, and that a person sentenced to up to four years will be released after two years or less, they will be tempted to impose a sentence of more than four years. That will lead to the imposition of longer prison sentences, and to more rather than less clutter in our prisons. There will be no way of stopping judges from reflecting what they see as the wish of the people—that the full sentence passed by a judge should be served, and not half that sentence.
The matter was raised at a recent judicial seminar at which judges openly expressed their concern about the Government's tendency to reduce the effectiveness of sentences. Not only judges but the public would be worried about that if they understood precisely what was happening.
150
Secondly, I am worried about the proposed abolition of the restrictive policy under which a person sentenced to more than five years loses parole if the offence relates to drugs, violence, sex or arson. The sentence imposed in such cases was served, and that was popular with the public.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Even in those cases the whole sentence was not served because normally people were released after serving two thirds of the sentence.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: When he was Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan said that some offences were so serious that the public had to be protected and that he would effectively remove parole. Those offences related to sex, drugs, arson, and violence for which the sentence was above five years. The Government propose to abolish that restrictive policy so that parole is not removed from such people. They will be subject to the parole system. People from whom the public were protected will in future spend less time in prison.
There have been several recent examples of people out on bail or on parole seriously attacking members of the public. Some such people have committed murder when they were released rather earlier than the public would have expected. I understand the pressure on the Government about the prison population and I shall do all that I can to help them come to grips with the problem. I spoke for a few minutes on the previous order on the privatisation of prisons, which will help substantially.
But we must not be tempted to weaken our defences against criminals merely because we are having trouble in building enough prisons or improving existing ones quickly enough to keep prisoners in them. The public will not accept or like that. I have a slight feeling that the measure would not have been proposed before the last general election as the Government would not have wanted to go into the election giving the appearnace that they were weakening their defences against crime, not strengthening them.
I understand the Government's problem, and am not unsympathetic to it, but I warn them that the measure may be counterproductive if the judges pass longer sentences. And, on the more serious offences, I do not like the idea of releasing serious offenders much earlier than they would have been under the proposals implemented by the then Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, for good reason. I am not sure that they are being removed for anything like as good a reason. Therefore, I warn my hon. Friend the Minister that I shall watch the issue closely. Regardless of whether I am or am not a Conservative, I shall not hesitate to speak out against the Government if I think that their policy is misguided.
12.22 am>
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I think that the Government are right to proceed as they are with the order. If judges consider the law as it stands—the order will become part of the law —they will consider issues such as parole and the dates of eligibility for release when they make their determinations. They are bound to bear in mind parole eligibility when they make their decisions on sentencing.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Hitherto, judges were specifically banned from taking into account the consequences of sentencing a person, other than the direct effects. They

151
were not allowed to consider how soon the date of release would be. Now, the Government have made it impossible, under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and other such measures, for judges to rule that out, and they are bound to take those matters into consideration. That is the way in which the judicial system operated.
Mr. Maclennan: Judges are bound to have that issue in mind; it is part of the law of the land. Whatever may have been the case, I believe that in reality such matters were in judges' minds. The law has simply regularised the position, and the Government's decision to do so is satisfactory.
The hon. and learned Member for Burton speaks of what the public would expect. That is a piece of naked populism. The reality is that the public have no expectation about the suitability of someone for release some years after the event in a case where there has been a sentence of between four and seven years. It is difficult enough for the Parole Board to know whether it is appropriate to recommend release on licence; it is impossible for the public who are not apprised of the details of the case.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his constituents and mine expect sentences to mean what they say? If a man is sentenced to six years' imprisonment, our constituents expect him to be behind bars for six years, not to be let out after three. To let a prisoner out after three years is to defraud the public.
Mr. Maclennan: Happily, I think that my constituents are better informed and more intelligent than the hon. Gentleman's. I do not believe that any of my constituents would take such a simple-minded view of the facts. Most members of the public would be astonished at the idea that it was impossible for a prisoner to be released before the end of his or her term of sentence. The hon. Gentleman is not living in the real world.
The Minister cannot sensibly move much farther in the direction that he has taken, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) invited him to do.
Mr. Sheerman: Why not?
Mr. Maclennan: I will explain why. The order will take some time to come into effect. It will apply only to convictions from October this year. The Parole Board's first reviews of the shorter sentences will not, therefore, be made for another 18 or 21 months. If we are to learn anything about how the scheme is working, we will need a little more time.
The exercise of ministerial discretion should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. I hope that view is shared by Home Office Ministers. Nevertheless, such discretion provides a fallback that may be of some residual importance. Certainly, I do not object to the direction in which the Government are moving, and I strongly support the order as a step in a sensible direction.
12.26 am
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I will answer briefly the points that were put to me.
Mr. Maclennan rose—
Mr. Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman want to make another point?
Mr. Maclennan: One so rarely has the opportunity to raise parole matters in the House that I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to say something in his reply about the comment about the Parole Board's resources in the letter to the Home Secretary from its chairman to the effect that they gave him cause for anxiety.
Mr. Lloyd: I will answer the points as they were put to me in turn.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) asked why the Government are not adopting Carlisle's entire recommendations. We are adopting almost all of them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has a much-reduced role. I believe that aspect was the subject of considerable debate during the progress of the Criminal Justice Bill in 1991, so the hon. Member for Huddersfield has seen the mind of the Government exposed over a longer period than I have.
The seven-year period chosen was a matter of judgment, but it encompasses longer sentences and offenders who perpetrate more serious crimes. It is right that the Secretary of State, with his wider responsibilities to the community, should continue—at least for the present and the foreseeable future—to take responsibility for the comparatively small number of longer sentences and for serious criminals who are to be released earlier than the court's sentence prescribed.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked what scope exists for re-evaluating the period in question. The measure has been so designed that, by an order, we can extend or reduce its length. We are very open to learning from future experience, but it will be more than a couple of years before cases come before the Parole Board in any number. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, though a very hard worker, would prefer not to do work unnecessarily that can properly be delegated to the board.
The hon. Gentleman asked also whether the directions will relate to special types of offences. They will not. When the directions that are to come into effect in October are published it will become clear that they relate not to particular offences but to general considerations of public safety. Obviously the Parole Board will take that into account when considering the nature of the crime and progress made in gaol, but no specific direction will be imposed in regard to particular types of offence—although the type of consideration that the board should apply to the whole range of offences will be very clear.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) was unhappy about at least part of what we are doing. He thought that the position would be confusing, but in fact it will be much clearer. Some prisoners will be released automatically halfway through their sentences; currently a prisoner could be released as early as a third of the way through his sentence, or as late as two thirds of the way through it. The judges will be much clearer on the matter: they will know that at least half a sentence will always be served, and will pass sentence accordingly, with the law in mind. The law is now rather more straightforward than it has been in the past.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend misunderstood me. I was not talking about any confusion. At present, a judge has no way of knowing that a person will be released after

153
serving a third of his sentence, because that person's release may be subject to consideration of parole. But a judge will now know that there is automatic release for anyone in the case of a sentence of up to four years. Judges will be tempted to take that into consideration when sentencing, and will therefore be likely to increase the sentence.
Mr. Lloyd: Of course judges will have that in mind when sentencing, and it is quite right that they should. At present, however, anything between a third and two thirds of the sentence could apply. What judges will now bear in mind is much clearer that what they were able to bear in mind before: there will be less confusion and more clarity in the judicial mind.
My hon. arid learned Friend the Member for Burton referred to the restricted policy. At the time of its introduction—although not nowadays the logic of that policy lay in the more detailed general criteria that the board was to take into account. The emphasis was on the need to take into account safety in the community. The board will not release prisoners whose release would be too dangerous, but it will be proper to give parole to some drug offenders.
The most important difference—I think that my hon. and learned Friend Missed it—lies in the fact that, in one respect, the policy that we propose is tougher. When, under the restricted policy, a prisoner was finally released, he was released "cold", whether he was a reformed character or as sinful as he had been before. Under this policy, prisoners will not go into the community "cold"; there must be some supervision. I consider that a real safeguard for the community. The policy is tougher but more flexible, and I think that that entirely justifies the removal of the restricted policy.
I was grateful for the approval of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) intervened to ask whether six years meant six years. His constituents, and those of other Conservative Members, think that six years has always meant six years, but it has not. Under the present rules it has sometimes meant two years, but in future we shall know that it wll mean at least three years.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the chairman of the Parole Board. He was concerned about staff numbers. He will be getting more staff than he thought when he expressed his concerns. The Parole Board is taking on a new set of duties. We shall have to watch carefully the weight of work and see that he has sufficient resources to discharge his duties effectively. I commend the order to the House.
12.34 am
Mr. Sheerman: It was fascinating to hear, after our deliberations in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, the debate between the Minister and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He mentioned sentencing councils. I remember the lengthy argument we had in Committee about sentencing councils. It would be pertinent to think about sentencing councils if judges reacted in the way that the hon. and learned
154
Member for Burton suggested. Common sense suggests that judges have always taken into consideration the length of sentence that prisoners serve.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) referred to resources for the Parole Board. It is easy to underestimate the increase in the amount of its work. Proper resources must be provided to take account of that increase. It is also important to ensure that adequate resources are provided for the probation service. Proper supervision of prisoners when they are released does not come cheap. If the public are to respect that supervision, it must be done well. It must not be the laying on of hands once a year, or even once every six months. As we argued in Committee, the probation service must be provided with additonal resources to provide proper supervision.
We urge the Minister to provide the resources that are required for adequate supervision. I have high hopes of the working of the Criminal Justice Act. Therefore, supervision must be quality supervision rather than nominal supervision.
12.36 am
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is right. The necessary resources must be provided, both for the Parole Board and for the probation service. Additional staff have been provided for the Parole Board. Additional provision is being made for the probation service.
On put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Parole Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 23 June, be approved.

Statutory Instruments, &c
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With permission, I will put together the Questions on the four statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND)
That the Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1992, dated 6 May 1992, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 May, be approved.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1992, which were laid before this House on 15 June, be approved.

INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
That the draft Vienna Document 1992 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 17 June, be approved.—[Mr. MacKay.]
Question agreed to.

Imitation Firearms
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. MacKay.]
12.37 am
Mr. Jim Callaghan: In recent years senior police officers in the Rochdale metropolitan borough, which includes my constituency, have expressed their concern to me about the sharp increase in the number of young men who are stopped late at night and found to be carrying replica guns. When challenged, they say that they are only toys. That causes the police great worry because the police who stop them are unarmed.
The deep concern of police officers is well justified and is echoed by many other police forces throughout the United Kingdom. Reacting to the concern of the local constabulary, last year I wrote to the Home Secretary about their concern and received a reply in early August from the Home Office which I believe was totally unsatisfactory. It suggested to me that the Home Office did not believe that the sale, possession and use of realistic imitation guns was a serious problem and that it was not therefore prepared to initiate any legislation relating to realistic replica guns. I was disturbed by the reply, as I am sure many police officers were; those in my constituency certainly were.
The concern of the police in my constituency is understandable, as two very brave members of their ranks were recently shot by a criminal at the Birch service station on the M62. One officer, Inspector Codling, was shot dead and the other brave officer was seriously wounded. Sergeant James Bowden was indeed very fortunate to escape with his life. I am delighted to say that he has been able to resume his duties and I was very happy to meet him last weekend at a function at St Joseph's Roman Catholic school in my constituency. He told me what happened that night and I can assure the House that it was quite horrific.
Many of my constituents and I find it amazing that neither of those unarmed and brave officers was awarded a medal for their brave attempts to arrest an armed and dangerous criminal. I ask the Minister, quite bluntly and directly, why not? Will that anomaly be rectified in the near future?
By an amazing coincidence, local police officers were called to the Birch motorway services on the M62 in June 1991, acting on an anonymous phone call from a member of the public who told them that two young men at the station were armed. Police surrounded the station and Members can imagine their fears, knowing what had happened on the previous occasion when two officers were shot. They arrested two men in possession of a firearm. On their arrest, one of the men was found to be in possession. I am glad to say, of an imitation revolver. Given the circumstances, both men were detained on suspicion of conspiracy to rob.
As one would expect, both denied that they had the replica gun for criminal purposes. They would say that, wouldn't they? One claimed that he was carrying the gun to protect himself from the irate father of his ex-girlfriend. As a result of extensive police inquiries, no criminal offences were disclosed and the two men were bailed. But the circumstances surrounding the incident did not justify the time and resources expended by the police and the legal profession for such a result.
156
The local police had to deal with two other more serious cases. In the first, a man bought an imitation gun at a local shop in the town and, a short time later, used that realistic replica to commit a robbery at a local bank. With the aid of the realistic weapon, he was able to steal £5,000, but while making his escape he was seen by an unarmed police officer who very bravely gave chase and caught and arrested the man without knowing whether the gun was real or a replica. That man is now serving a period of imprisonment. I am glad to say that that brave unarmed officer was commended for his efforts by the chief constable.
The other serious incident in my area also involved a young man who had bought an imitation gun in the town and used it to rob a bank of £3,000. The same man made a second attempt to rob a post office using the imitation gun but was unsuccessful. Through extensive police inquiries, he was identified and arrested, ultimately convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
To show that such incidents occur elsewhere and not only in my constituency, I shall give examples of cases in the south. In Dorset last July, a young couple alerted the police after seeing a young man loading a pistol in a Bournemouth launderette. During the following operation, the man was tackled by police officers and brought to the ground while an armed response vehicle stood by. The gun recovered was found to be a realistic Browning replica, loaded with blank ammunition. Following that arrest, another man was arrested with an identical replica which also had a considerable amount of blank ammunition. Both guns had been bought in London the previous day.
The intended use of the guns—criminal or otherwise —could not be established by the police, as often happens in cases involving replica guns. If the officers had not surprised the men or if one or both had pointed the guns in a threatening manner, the results could have been tragic.
In another case, a gang of four armed robbers netted £22,000 over 15 months in the home counties by using a starting pistol and firing blank ammunition. When caught, one robber was gaoled for 14 years.
Such incidents are part of a growing catalogue of cases involving realistic replica guns. I am sure that all chief constables could add to the list. Unfortunately, such cases can and do end in tragedy for police officers and for individuals possessing realistic replica guns.
Only this weekend, an inquest was held in Bradford —not far from my area—at which the jury returned a verdict on the death of a young man who was shot by the police while brandishing a replica rifle. Another man found carrying an unloaded air pistol near Wellington railway station in Shropshire was shot and killed by West Mercia police officers.
I have no wish to comment on such tragedies because I do not have detailed information at my disposal, but I offer my sympathies to the relatives of the deceased and to the police officers involved. Officers have a very difficult decision to make and very often have only split seconds in which to make it.
People possessing replica firearms could be playing with fire. While replica firearms are often regarded as toys, their use could have, and often does have, fatal consequences as the type of incident that I have just described grows in number. As a consequence, I call for restrictions on the sale and possession of such guns.

157
Replica guns first appeared in Britain about 30 years ago. They came from Japan, but today they come from Spain and the far east. The market for such guns is substantial and very profitable. Realistic replicas of Kalashnikov and M16 rifles sell for about £260 each, Berettas for £100, cowboy-style guns for about £45, and the Smith and Wesson 9mm is worth about £25. While no one wishes to deny or deprive a child of his toy, the list of guns that I have just given are not toys for children. Some are most sophisticated and dangerous, and the blank-firing gun, which is totally indistinguishable from the real thing, presents the greatest threat and menace to the public and the police alike.
The consequences of possessing such realistic replicas can be lethal, yet there are at present no laws controlling their sale, provided that they cannot be converted or adapted to fire live rounds of ammunition. In my opinion, the present situation is quite ludicrous. Even those who are prohibited, by virtue of a conviction, from possessing even an air gun can purchase replica guns. It is incomprehensible that people, regardless of age or criminal history, are free to carry imitation guns in public places. It is astonishing too that on 3 June—just over a month ago —a Minister could state that he had been advised by the firearms consultative committee that neither a ban nor licensing controls on realistic replica guns would be feasible or effective. Why not? Just where do the members of that committee live? It seems to me that they do not live on this planet. I wonder what decision they would make if they were suddenly faced with a man threatening them with a gun, real or imitation—they would not know which. That is the situation in which many unarmed police officers find themselves.
The sooner action is taken by the Home Office to control the menace of replica guns, the better. The Home Office must be prepared to do something about the increasing number of incidents in which would-be gunmen brandishing replica guns are shot and injured or killed. Police firearms officers are more mobile than ever before and are therefore more likely to attend even more incidents involving arms. For the sake of saving lives I call for a total ban on the sale or possession of imitation weapons. The Government must legislate now to control the menace of imitation guns. Such imitations are banned from aircraft. Why? We all know why. If they are banned from aircraft they should be banned elsewhere.
In the meantime, the range of offences set down in the firearms legislation, which relate to the misuse of firearms, should be extended to cover imitation weapons. If an adult has an imitation gun without an adequate or reasonable excuse, in circumstances in which, if it were a real gun, an offence would be committed, he should be guilty of an offence. And the courts must be given more power to punish offenders. These changes must be brought about as quickly as possible. In the interests of the safety of the public and the police, I call on the Government to ban these weapons now and to extend the penalties to those carrying them.
12.54 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. His views on the problems of imitation firearms are
158
carefully heeded and widely respected, and the House will have heard his remarks about the bravery of two police officers. I am sure that he would be well advised to make a recommendation for bravery recognition—first, to the chief constable.
The Government are well aware that the police and the public are, quite understandably, deeply anxious about the criminal use of imitation firearms. To a person who has suffered the traumatic experience of an armed attack it does not matter whether the firearm was real or not; the shock and distress which it creates are the same. And a policeman faced with someone brandishing what looks like a genuine firearm must, in the interests of protecting innocent people, assume that that firearm is real and act accordingly. The protection of the public requires no less.
These are unpleasant facts and the Government are determined to do what they can to eliminate the problem. But fear of crime is itself a social evil and we must make sure that fears are not fed by misconceptions. So let me put the problem into perspective.
Armed crime remains rare in this country. It may not always seem that it is because, when it occurs, it invariably attracts media attention. But it is important to remember that in 1990, only 0·2 per cent. of all reported offences in England and Wales involved the use of a firearm. Of those incidents, 420 are known to have involved an imitation firearm. The Government recognise that those figures are unacceptable, but the problem is still on a much smaller scale than many people may have imagined. The Government are determined to take whatever steps they can to reduce and eliminate the criminal use of imitation firearms, but we want to be sure that our actions are likely to prove effective.
Under the Firearms Act 1968 the use of any imitation firearm, whether it can be converted to fire or not, in furtherance of crime, or to resist arrest, carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. It is precisely the same as if a real firearm had been used. Under the 1968 Act an imitation firearm is defined as anything which has the appearence of being a firearm, whether or not it can fire any shot, bullet, or other missile. This definition encompasses the whole range of imitations from the simplest toy gun to faithful replicas of real firearms —the hon. Gentleman mentioned some —accurate down to the last fine detail. There are therefore many millions of items in private hands which fall within the description of an imitation firearm.
There is a special concern about the sort of imitation firearm which can be converted to fire live ammunition. Under the Firearms Act 1982 these firearms are subject to the same strict licensing controls as real firearms.
Other types of imitation firearm may in themselves he completely harmless either because they cannot fire at all or because they fire blanks which give the impression of a shot being fired without actually firing any Missile. But it is not the imitation firearms themselves that are harmful —it is the purpose to which they may be put.
The Government have, in the past, looked very carefully at measures which might be taken to reduce the criminal use of imitation firearms. We are frequently told that they should be banned completely or, at the very least, controlled by licence. But workable solutions are rarely so simple.
There are many legitimate reasons for having an imitation firearm. Those which fire blanks are widely used by historical re-enactment groups or for theatre and

159
television productions. Starting pistols are used to start events at school sports days and athletics meetings up and down the country. Many people who are interested in the historical or technical aspects of firearms take pleasure in collecting replicas rather than the genuine article, which reduces the number of real firearms in private hands. So adults, as well as children, get real benefit from owning and studying imitation firearms.
A complete ban on all imitation firearms would prevent all these harmless activities. That would be unfortunate and doubtless unpopular but not necessarily a conclusive argument against banning immitations. The greatest argument against introducing a ban is that it simply would not work.
For one reason, it would be impossible to recover the many millions of imitations already in circulation. So a ban would not prevent criminals from getting hold of them. More importantly, a realistic imitation can easily be made from basic materials. Under conditions of human stress, the poorest imitation can look like the genuine article. There are even documented cases of bread rolls and cucumbers being mistaken for firearms. So a ban would.do nothing to prevent criminals from making their own imitations.
It could be argued that a ban might even increase the risk of violent crime. An imitation firearm, however frightening, cannot kill or maim; but criminals denied access to imitations may well turn either to the real thing or to other dangerous weapons such as knives.
Similar difficulties would arise if we tried to make imitation firearms subject to some sort of licensing control, and that would carry the additional problem of creating a huge administrative burden for the authorities.
It has been suggested that only certain types of imitation firearms need be made subject to control—for example, those which fire blanks and which therefore give the sound and impression of a real shot being fired.
The House will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) sought to introduce a Bill in the last Session along those very lines. The Bill aimed to make blank firing replica firearms subject to licensing by the police. I can understand why my hon. Friend thought that an attractive and straightforward measure. I, and I am sure the rest of the House, can appreciate his aims, but the difficulty is that even a child's toy cap gun is, in effect, a blank firing imitation firearm and would have needed a licence under my hon. Friend's proposal. In any case, what would his proposal achieve? It would make life inconvenient for many law-abiding citizens and yet have no impact whatsoever on criminals, who would simply choose a different type of imitation firearm. Regrettably, the solutions are not that straightforward.
Late last year we asked the firearms consultative committee to review existing controls. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the committee was established in 1989 under section 22 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. The main functions of the committee, which is chaired by Lord Kimball, are to review the Firearms Acts and make recommendations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary for improving them and to advise him on other related matters. The committee looked specifically at the possibility of controlling just blank firing imitations, but advised that any attempt to
160
draw a distinction between blank firing weapons and those which cannot fire at all would be fraught with difficulty. It concluded that it would be well nigh impossible to make workable distinctions between exact replicas, close imitations, de-activated firearms and toys.
The committee concluded that controlling imitation firearms by a ban or by some form of licensing system would be neither feasible nor effective. However, the committee did offer two suggestions for possible action. First, it recommended that the range of offences which apply to the criminal use of real firearms should be extended to cover imitation firearms where that is not already the case.
In broad terms, the committee suggested that where an adult has an imitation firearm with him, without reasonable excuse, in circumstances where, if it had been a real firearm an offence would have been committed, then it should also be an offence to have an imitation firearm in those circumstances and the burden of proof should be placed squarely on the person involved to show that his possession of the imitation firearm was innocent. We have looked carefully at that recommendation. We think that the sort of offences suggested by the committee would usefully strengthen the law in this area.
Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Crown prosecution service, whom we have consulted, agree that new offences of this sort would provide a valuable addition to existing controls. We believe that they would increase the deterrent to those thinking about using an imitation to commit a crime and they would also give the courts more powers to punish offenders.
Precise details of the offences have yet to be worked out. We do not, for example, want to make criminals of parents who happen to be walking home from a toy shop with a new toy gun for their child tucked under one arm, but we think that the proposal has considerable merit. I am glad to be able to take this opportunity to tell the House that the Government have accepted the recommendation in principle and will introduce legislation to create additional offences when a suitable opportunity arises.
The committee's second recommendation was that the public should be made more aware of the dangers of misusing imitation firearms. It suggested that that could be achieved by placing warnings on the packaging of imitation firearms about the very heavy penalties which apply to such misuse. I can certainly understand why the committee felt that such a measure was worthy of consideration. We have examined the proposal in detail. Consultations have been held with the Department of Trade and Industry, the trading standards authorities, and with representatives of the gun and toy trades.
In the light of those discussions, I have to say that we are sceptical about the value of warning labels. It seems to us that a criminal hardened enough to buy an imitation firearm for criminal use is hardly going to mend his ways because of a warning on the packet; and even that thought supposes that he would actually read the warning—or that he would obtain the firearm in its wrapping in the first place. Understandable concern was expressed by the toy trade that such warnings could detract from the impact of important information about toy safety, and safety information is, of course, of much more immediate relevance to the principal purchasers of toy guns, that is to

161
say, parents and children. We have given the recommendation considerable thought. but we are not persuaded that such measures would effectively deter criminal misuse and we are not inclined to pursue that idea.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity to applaud the responsible approach that was taken to the sale of imitation firearms by many in the gun and toy trade. A little while ago, the British Toy and Hobby Manufacturers Association voluntarily introduced a code of practice requiring all toy guns manufactured or sold by its members to be marked, for example, by a bright orange plug, making them more readily identifiable as fakes. Adherence to the code is mandatory for all members of the association, and that will be a useful step forward.
162
It also became clear to us during consultations that gun trade associations take an equally responsible view to the marketing of replica firearms; many firms voluntarily refuse to sell their products to people under the age of 18 and already include warnings about misuse in the packaging material.
I hope that I have managed to respond to most of the points raised in the course of the debate. I have noted the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I hope that I have also made clear that the Government are far from complacent about the issue and will act, where they can sensibly do so, in a practical fashion to reduce the chances of imitation and replica firearms being misused.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past One o'clock.