| Home Page |
Column 21
Market Power (Green Paper)
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine) : With permission, I should like to make a statement about possible options for strengthening the law to curb anti-competitive practices in the marketplace.
The Government are already committed to improving the law against price fixing, market sharing and other cartels. Following extensive consultation in 1988, the Government set out their proposals in the 1989 White Paper, "Opening Markets : New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices". Our manifesto confirmed our intention to legislate on this basis.
I am today publishing a Green Paper which looks at whether changes to the law on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviour should be made at the same time as changes to the law on cartels. Copies of the Green Paper, and a summary of it, are available in the Vote Office. The Green Paper addresses the behaviour of companies that abuse their power in the marketplace. This includes such practices as refusal to supply or driving out competitors through loss-making pricing. It also covers companies that use their market power to take unfair advantage of their customers, for example, by excessive prices or refusing to sell one product unless one buys several others. The current law on monopolies and anti-competitive behaviour is largely effective and has served us well, but it has shortcomings. In particular, there is a lack of deterrence against anti-competitive conduct. There are no penalties for past misconduct and no scope for interim relief for injured parties. Competitors can--and do--go out of business before action can be taken.
The Green Paper sets out three possible ways in which the law might be improved. The first option is to strengthen the existing legislation. That would involve strengthening the monopoly provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the anti-competitive provisions of the Competition Act 1980.
The second option in the Green Paper would be to replace the current legislation with a prohibition system. That would be consistent with our proposals for dealing with cartels. By making abuse of market power unlawful, such a system would permit penalties for past misconduct. That would strengthen deterrence and encourage vigorous, but fair, competition. The third option would be to introduce a prohibition, while at the same time retaining key elements of the current legislation.
Most companies compete fairly and should benefit from these possible changes. Small firms in particular, should welcome more effective powers to prevent suppliers and others from abusing their market dominance.
The regulated utilities and nationalised industries operate in a somewhat different environment from the rest of industry, with their own statutory and regulatory framework. The Green Paper therefore proposes arrangements under which they should be as fully subject to competition legislation as is consistent with this framework. The Government are looking for a wide- ranging and genuine consultation on the three options in the Green Paper between now and mid-February. We are
Column 22
particularly inviting industry's views on the likely compliance costs and benefits of the legislative options, in line with our commitment to keeping regulatory burdens to a minimum.Competition policy is good for industry, good for commerce, good for small firms and good for consumers. It stimulates enterprise and innovation. It promotes efficiency and encourages wider choice and lower prices. Our proposals are designed to meet those objectives and do so in a more responsive way than the present regime. My announcement today concerns the publication of the Green Paper on the abuse of market power. This is an important consultation document. We await the views of industry, consumers and others and I commend the Green Paper to the House.
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) : There will be a broad welcome for the document, which, on the basis of the statement, appears to fill a gap in the Government's original proposals on restrictive practices which were identified in many of the responses to the 1988 Green Paper. There will be a particular welcome from small businesses if the proposed measures oblige suppliers to treat them on the same footing as major outlets and end practices that end up with small businesses having to pay higher prices than enterprises that have larger economies of scale.
On the options as outlined today, the President of the Board of Trade would not want the House to anticipate consultation by closing down those options. Our present preference would be for a prohibition system. So that we may establish whether that preference is misplaced, will the President of the Board of Trade clarify what deterrence will be provided by the first option, which involves strenthening existing legislation, particularly as he himself rightly identified a major criticism of present competition policy as the absence of suitable deterrence?
The House will be impressed that the President of the Board of Trade attaches such priority to competition policy that he felt moved to make an oral statement on it. As he has volunteered the statement on competition policy, may I press him to express a view on one issue that has caused considerable controversy on competition policy, particularly as I can tell him that an exhaustive three-hour research has failed to produce previous guidance on the point?
The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that the Tebbit guidelines for referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have attracted considerable criticism. He will be aware that they have attracted widespread criticism that they are too narrow, that they have prevented referrals to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission of takeovers that were against the public interest, and that they have permitted takeovers that were destructive in their impact on both the industry that was taken over and the broader economy. The President of the Board of Trade will be aware also that, in December, the Trade and Industry Select Committee recommended that the public interest should be considered in referrals to the MMC. As we have not detected any previous statement on the issue from the President of the Board of Trade, before we lose the opportunity provided by this statement, may we press him to tell us whether he intends to accept and abide by those quidelines, or whether, in keeping with his many statements about the need for a partnership with industry,
Column 23
he accepts that that would require a broader view to protect from takeovers by creditors industries that are vital to national technology and vital also to regional employment?Mr. Heseltine : I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he has given the Green Paper. He is absolutely right in reflecting the mood that generally will attend upon our announcement. It is the case, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that the need to address the abuse of market power flowed from the discussions that were associated with the White Paper which dealt with cartels. "Abuse of Market Power" deals, of course, with individual companies. I am sure that that is a logical step forward.
As for preferences, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be quite wrong now to anticipate the consultation that we are launching today, but a number of things could be done in pursuit of option 1. One could strengthen powers in respect of penalties, and one could introduce powers to deal with interim relief, for example. There are things that could be done, but they do not go as far as the introduction of a general prohibition.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Tebbit guidelines, of course I have not made any suggestion that they should be changed. They are not as restrictive as has sometimes been suggested. Significant powers are in the hands of the Secretary of State, but they are procedures through which matters must progress before they can be exercised.
Sir Michael Grylls (Surrey, North-West) : Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be a wide welcome for strengthening the Government's competition policy? Does he agree that one of the prime aims of that policy is, or should be, to strengthen the formation and growth of private businesses? The British economy, which has been over-concentrated, will benefit from such changes. The abuse of market power within the United Kingdom can be dealt with effectively by the United Kingdom authorities if the changes are made, as the powers are similar to those of the European Commission within Europe. Will he comment on that?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is right. Articles 85 and 86 put powers in the hands of the European Commission to deal with restrictive practices and the abuse of market powers. Among the proposals that we are considering is the option to move domestic practices into line with those that are open to the Community, where there is intra-national trading. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the proposals. I have no doubt that they represent a climate of opportunity for small companies to innovate, to come into the marketplace and to be able to resist, with a certain degree of confidence, pressures to drive them out again.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : Are we not entitled to treat the welcome statement as a plea of guilty for all the private monopolies that the Government have created, and for all those cases in which they have failed to act on behalf of the consumer? Will the Green Paper deal with the position of regional electricity distribution companies, which have a monopoly and can charge consumers what they like for electricity that is generated by more expensive means than coal? Will it address the
Column 24
issues raised by the failure to refer the British Airways-Dan-Air takeover to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Is it not the case that too many of the Government's best friends are monopolists and that some of them owe their licence to print money to the Government?Mr. Heseltine : That is a rather mean intervention by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and out of keeping with the broad welcome that the proposals I announced have attracted. On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, I agree with the view of the Director General of Fair Trading that the merger of British Airways and Dan-Air raised concerns about competition. However, taking into account all the circumstances--in particular the likely consequence for services at Gatwick if the merger were not allowed to proceed--I agree that the public interest would be better served by not referring it to the MMC. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's dismissive view of the transfer of large public organisations to the private marketplace. That has proved to be attractive to customers and to the British economy and we shall continue with that policy.
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : Can my right hon. Friend be more specific about how the Green Paper proposals might help small businesses? Would he care to say whether the excessive discounts given by some suppliers to supermarkets--to the detriment of small traders--will be within the scope of his review, as well as the practice of some supermarkets to delay payments to their suppliers, especially to farmers? Will the measures cover banks' charges to small companies, which many of us regard as unfair practices?
Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the reasons why the proposals could be extremely interesting in the wider context of competition policy. Excessive discounts are exactly the sort of issue that can make it extremely difficult for small businesses to compete and they could be considered if they were improperly applied. Delays in payment and bank charges are matters to consider in the light of the consultation and the final proposals.
Mr. Ken Purchase (Wolverhampton, North-East) : I welcome the statement because it is important that we attack monopolies wherever we find them. It would have been interesting to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether banks are to be included in the review, because, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) said, small companies are frequently the innovators in manufacturing, but they face considerable difficulties in obtaining from the banks the long-term finance that helps that innovative process.
It would also have been helpful if the President of the Board of Trade had referred to last week's statement from the Engineering Employers Federation, which called on the Government and, in particular, the right hon. Gentleman to be a better champion of industry. The west midlands knows a great deal about the problems caused by not having a proper champion for industry, because, for 13 long years, we have suffered from redundancies and the slimming down of industries. The Engineering Employers Federation said that without a proper industrial strategy, strategic thinking and basic information, market forces
Column 25
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is at last coming to market forces, so perhaps he would also come to the question, which I have not yet heard.
Mr. Purchase : The question of market forces is central to the debate. The Engineering Employers Federation stated categorically that market forces cannot be expected to function as intended without the broader view that an industrial strategy would provide. Would the President of the Board of Trade please come to the House, post haste, with an industrial strategy for the recovery of manufacturing in this country?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members who I could mention, might have failed to notice that the Chancellor reduced interest rates to save industry about £10 billion a year. We have also seen the introduction of extra capital allowances, increases in capital expenditure and more flexible public sector rules governing how to deal with private money in the public sector. All those changes are part of the industrial strategy of the Government.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on both the matter and the manner of his statement. May I ask him specifically whether he is aware that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and I--I should declare an interest in this matter--have tried and failed to persuade Yorkshire Water to honour the original quotation given by its predecessor, Yorkshire water authority, relating to connection charges to an hotel in Leeds? That quotation has increased from £3,000 to £208,000. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that matter is entirely within his remit and that it would be an appropriate example for the imposition of penalties for past misconduct, as suggested in the Green Paper?
I also commend the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage last week, who also produced a Green Paper. Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that many of his hon. Friends welcome the proposition of producing Green Papers for genuine consultation? Will he commend that practice to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in relation to the future of railways?
Mr. Heseltine : I will ensure that the views of my hon. Friend are made available to those of my right hon. Friends to whom he has drawn my attention. Long experience of my hon. Friend, however, has meant that I have discovered that he is rather good at making sure that his views are known without any intervention by myself, but he has my assurance that I will use my intervention.
As to how the public utilities will be affected by the Green Paper proposals on the abuse of market power, broadly speaking, they are not caught if they are carrying out their responsibilities as required either by statute or by licence. The sectoral regulators, however, will, under certain of the proposals, be given concurrent powers with those of the Director General of Fair Trading. It will be possible for private actions to be brought against the public utilities in the event that it is felt that an abuse has taken place. If such an action is brought by a private individual or a private company, the sectoral regulator will have the right to be heard in any proceedings.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon (Ashfield) : In strengthening competition policy, will the President of the Board of Trade ensure that an investigation is held into the
Column 26
geographical cartels that currently control the wholesale distribution of newspapers? As part of that investigation, will he guarantee that all small businesses that want a regular supply of newspapers can receive them?Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is already examining that issue. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to comment on it.
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : I welcome my right hon. Friend's Green Paper-- Hansard readers may like to know that it is fluorescent green. How does he see monopoly policies being developed in a European context? On 1 January, we shall have a completely free market, and the way in which we legislate on monopolies needs to be brought into line with our European partners' proposals. Do we intend to proceed in a communautaire way with those proposals?
Mr. Heseltine : I am delighted that my hon. Friend confirms that the Green Paper is in the Vote Office. One of the nightmares of Ministers making a statement to the House is to say that the document is there, only to discover that it is not. I am reassured to discover that the document is there.
On the relationship between domestic and European Community practices for monopoly legislation, one of the arguments for moving in the direction of either option 2 or option 3 of the Green Paper is that they bring the practices for domestic purposes closer to those of articles 85 and 86 of the treaty of Rome. Many in industry perceive that as a useful streamlining.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray) : When the President of the Board of Trade responded to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), he said that the issue of late payment by large organisations to small companies could come within the scope of the consultation. Does he envisage the possibility of a legalistic framework ensuing from the consultation period, whereby payments by those large organisations can be enforced? Late payments have been very much to the detriment of small companies and are surely one of the biggest abuses of power in the marketplace.
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Lady touches on the essence of the issue : those matters are now subject to consultation as a result of our Green Paper. However, it would be necessary to put such a process under way to establish the fact that it was an abuse of market power and an exercise of a dominant position, with the purpose of restricting competition. The announcement that I made today is not without constraints, although they are clear constraints.
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by many of my small business constituents in Plymouth, many of whom have suffered the burden of anti- competitive practices by large companies? Is he further aware that they will be heartened to learn that the review's scope will include the practice of high street banks, many of which have now become less popular than estate agents? Will he say a little more about the sanctions that he has in mind? He will be aware that the current deterrents and sanctions set out by the Fair Trading Act 1973 are
Column 27
toothless and that often, by the time an anti -competitive practice is spotted, it is far too late for the small business that has already gone to the wall.Mr. Heseltine : My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I must make a qualification to his first point. I have not said that the arrangements will enable the banks' practices to be examined. That matter will flow from the consultation and the ultimate decisions. However, I note what he said in the context of a wider message. The sanctions are set out for consultation in the Green Paper and the possibility of fines in certain circumstances is envisaged, ranging from up to 10 per cent. of turnover with a ceiling of £1 million ; it is possible to go beyond that provided that certain circumstances are fulfilled. So there is an escalating set of procedures through which fines can be imposed in the event of conviction.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I should like to ask about anti-competitive practices, especially the practice of refusing to supply, about which the Director General of Fair Trading has not been too good in recent years. Will the review look specifically at the refusal to supply to shopkeepers hi-fi equipment, white goods, furniture, textiles and clothing, and chemists' supplies? Anti-competitive practices are clearly being exercised in relation to those goods and too often in the past the Office of Fair Trading has taken no action.
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman enables me to clarify that under a prohibition system, if we choose that option, everybody, including Government, local government, industry and commerce, is covered. With certain exceptions that I have mentioned in terms of the nationalised industries and the regulated industries, which would not be excluded but subjected to certain disciplines, that prohibition will give comprehensive cover. Therefore, the proposals are comprehensive.
Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West) : Will the Minister say something stronger about the disgraceful failure of the banks cartel to pass on the reduction in interest rates to small business? Will he amplify his statement about loss-making pricing?
Will compulsory competitive tendering be covered, because there is a suspicion that some companies are pricing themselves into work in order to put the direct labour organisations out of business so that later profits can be made?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently met the Governor of the Bank of England to make sure that the anxieties to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House were clearly expressed. I have no doubt that that message from my right hon. Friend and from many other quarters was clearly heard.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect on direct labour organisations of the competitive environment in which they now trade. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my satisfaction at the considerable improvement in efficiency that has been achieved by the new competitive pressures.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Does the President accept that there is no greater abuse of power than that
Column 28
which is exercised by the regional electricity companies, which have shares in gas and are using it to provide electricity which will undoubtedly be much dearer in a few years than electricity generated by coal? Will he answer the question that has been put to him about this matter? Will he ensure that in future the regional electricity companies will not be able to abuse their power? The Government and the Minister himself hold 40 per cent. of the shares in the electricity companies and could stop that abuse of power if they decided to exercise their tremendous strength.Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Member will look forward as keenly as I do to the findings of the inquiry that is now under way and, of course, to the coal review about which I shall report to the House in the new year.
Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : Does the President recognise that small firms will be at a considerable disadvantage if they have to have recourse to the civil courts on matters arising from an abuse of power or an anti- competitive practice? Will he confirm that the arbiter of whether there has been an anti-competitive practice or an abuse of power will continue to be, initially, the Office of Fair Trading and, ultimately, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Mr. Heseltine : When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to look at the document, he will see that in many instances there is a concurrent power. However, it is considered likely that in many cases small firms will go to the director general because he provides a free service, whereas court actions are likely to cost such firms a significant amount. The hon. Gentleman will wish to make his own representations when he has read the Green Paper.
Mr. Bill Olner (Nuneaton) : Will the Secretary of State reinforce his intention to ensure that the current malpractice of the banks cartel against large, medium and small manufacturers will cease as a result of the Green Paper? Will he also assure the House that local authorities will operate on a level playing field so that they are able to compete more fairly with private companies for the supply of services needed by consumers?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman may feel that the concerns that have been expressed about the banks should be addressed a great deal more speedily than they would be by the flow of any legislation arising out of the consultation process that we are unleashing today. That does not in any way query the purpose that he put to the House, but the timing would be too delayed for the urgency with which some people have raised that matter. As to level playing fields in local authority provision of services, my experience is that the level playing fields are denied to the private sector, and not to the public sector.
Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : Does the President of the Board of Trade recognise that many members of the public are taken for a ride, particularly with regard to the repair of electrical goods, by having to pay excessive call-out charges and because, in many cases, small independent repairers are not able to get parts? Will he ensure that, as a result of the consultation, that monopoly is broken down so that the consumer is able to get the best possible repair at the cheapest possible price?
Mr. Heseltine : The hon. Gentleman will want to consider carefully whether that is an abuse of market
Column 29
power, and therefore would come within a regulatory system of the sort that we are talking about. As I have said, the prohibition proposals would cover the entire spectrum of services and we shall explore the extent of that as the Committee examines any legislation that we introduce.Column 30
Bosnian Refugees
4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Wardle) : With permission, I should like to make a statement about further arrangements that the Government are making to accept in the country ex-detainees from former Yugoslavia. In his statement on 5 November, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary confirmed the willingness of the Government to receive from Bosnia and other parts of former Yugoslavia people with special humanitarian needs whom the international organisations judge should be evacuated. We had already advised the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that we are prepared initially to accept 150 former detainees from camps in Bosnia and in due course their dependants.
In the light of the plans made to receive the first group of 150, we have now informed UNHCR that we are willing to receive over the next few months additional groups of former detainees to a total of 1,000, together with their dependants, totalling perhaps 4,000 in all. Arrangements have already been made to receive the first group of 150 ex-detainees as soon as UNHCR confirms that they are ready to depart. The size of further groups and the timing of their arrival has still to be discussed with UNHCR. That will be dependent in part on the speed with which the international organisations are able to bring the detainees out of detention to transit camps in Croatia or elsewhere, and to complete such screening and documentation as UNHCR and the International Committee of the Red Cross consider necessary. We have asked the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross to provide initial reception support and accommodation for the former detainees, both the initial group and subsequent groups. The first group will be taken to three locations, a former mental hospital in Surrey, an existing Refugee Council hostel in London, and a former residential care home owned by the British Red Cross in Cambridge. Arrangements for accommodating subsequent groups of arrivals are being developed. After an initial period in reception accommodation, the evacuees will be rehoused in more permanent accommodation in the community arranged by the Refugee Council.
The British Red Cross will liaise with the ICRC to trace the dependants of the former detainees, and arrangements will be made in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Department and voluntary organisations to bring them here.
Once rehoused in the community, the evacuees, and their dependants when they arrive, will be entitled to receive the range of statutory benefits and services which are available to the rest of the population.
I am sure that we all hope that these evacuees will be able to return in due course to their own country. They will be admitted to this country exceptionally outside the immigration rules for six months initially. We shall obviously wish to review the position in the light of individual circumstances and the on-going situation in the former Yugoslavia.
The Government will be meeting the cost of transport of the former detainees and of their dependants to this country. They will reimburse the costs incurred by the Refugee Council and the British Red Cross in providing
Column 31
initial reception support and accommodation, and they will fund the Refugee Council to provide the necessary on-going support.Mr. Tony Blair (Sedgefield) : I welcome the greater generosity shown to Bosnian refugees. It has rightly been forced on the Government by the strength of feeling in the country about the need for Britain to do more.
Let us be clear about the rules that will govern entry by refugees into Britain. Is the Minister accepting, as we have pressed, that there is a category of refugees who may not fall within the strict definition of the United Nations convention because they are not individually the subject of persecution but whose lives are nevertheless in serious danger because of ethnic cleansing and civil war in Yugoslavia? Therefore, is it not time that we properly defined that group, so that they can be distinguished from mere economic migrants? Once the group has been properly defined, would it not then be right to agree with the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross on a proper process of certification for those who are, in the broadest sense, refugees, and publish the terms of the agreement so that we may debate them?
On the broader issue that the Minister raised, is it not more important that Europe keeps its nerve at present? Although we can all unite against bogus refugee claims, we must not be stampeded into a fortress Europe policy which will not simply shut the door on genuine refugees who fear for their lives but be a serious betrayal of Europe's long-term future? Does the Minister agree that it is better for policy in Europe and Britain to be determined by balancing calmly practical reality with humanitarian causes, not by bending in the wind of racially motivated attacks, whether in Germany or elsewhere? We know that there is a meeting of immigration Ministers today and a meeting of the so-called Trevi group tomorrow. Is the Minister aware that in many other countries the agenda for such meetings is published and debated before their Parliaments? Is it not high time that the secrecy surrounding such meetings ended and we were given the same opportunity to discuss such vital matters in the open as our other European partners are?
Mr. Wardle : The additional number of ex-detainees will be received on precisely the same basis as the 150 to whom my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State previously referred in answering a private notice question. They will be received outside the immigration rules and given exceptional leave to enter. The selection of the ex-detainees to come here will be a matter for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, together with the International Committee of the Red Cross.
There is no such thing as a fortress Europe. Some half a million people a year seek to enter western Europe. Immigration Ministers are meeting today, as the hon. Gentleman said, against a background of increased ethnic tension in Germany. There is nothing illiberal in seeking to establish firm but fair controls. There is certainly no hidden agenda. The agenda for today's meeting was made available to the press days ago, and has been available. My right hon. and learned Friend will ensure that a detailed account of the meeting is made available to the House in the usual way--in the form of a written answer.
Column 32
Up to 2.5 million people have been displaced by the terrible conflict in the former Yugoslavia. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) ducks any sense of responsibility by refusing to say whether he would turn anyone away. We must ensure that an effort is made among the international community, working with the UNHCR, to establish that the most needy humanitarian cases are brought outside the former Yugoslavia.Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North) : My hon. Friend is right to exemplify the arrangements that have been made with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to define how the temporary admission procedure will enable the entry of 4,000 more people from Bosnia or the associated areas of the former Yugoslavia. Does my. hon. Friend agree that the entry of those people imposes a substantial burden on some local authorities, notably in central London and in other parts of southern England? Will he ensure that there are proper arrangements to share the burden of the increasing number of people whom we welcome into the United Kingdom, and that accommodation is available for them outside the inner- city areas?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend's description of the self-selected groups that arrived here until recently--until the visa regime was imposed- -is absolutely right. On the arrangements for ex-detainees selected by UNHCR, I have already outlined the initial accommodation for the first group of 150, and plans are in train to make arrangements for following groups. The Refugee Council will be asked to seek accommodation after the initial reception period, in districts where there is less pressure on local services and where support can be given by voluntary organisations. What my hon. Friend has said about the pressure on some local authorities will be carefully taken into account.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : Does not the Minister realise that it is unacceptable to be told that statements were made to the press days ago and that the House of Commons will be informed by means of a written answer? What are the determinations of the Ministers in the councils that are meeting today and tomorrow in London? Why has the Secretary of State not tabled in the House a proposal to share the burden of refugees from former Yugoslavia which he is prepared to place before his colleagues in the councils and which are being tabled before the Dutch Parliament, and debated there? What proposals is the Secretary of State putting forward on behalf of hon. Members and of many people in this country who are more concerned about the plight of the refugees than the Government appear to be?
Mr. Wardle : I have already made it clear to hon. Members that there is no hidden agenda. The draft agenda for the immigration Ministers' meeting was made available to the press some time ago, and is a matter for general publication. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State made it clear before, and has done so at the immigration Ministers meeting today, that he favours as open treatment as possible of the matters considered by the immigration Ministers. Any text agreed at today's meeting will be published, and my right hon. and learned Friend will take the earliest opportunity to make available to the House in the normal fashion a detailed account of what was agreed at the meeting, as has been the practice in the past
Column 33
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton) : I know that my hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by many of my constituents. Will he outline the response that we can make to constituents such as those from whom I have recently received letters, who have accommodation in their homes and are asking if there is any way in which they can help when people arrive here, complete the counselling process and have been seen by the authorities?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend is right to say that many members of the public are willing to help in a most thoughtful and responsible fashion. However, the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council have advised the Government against the idea of dispersal into family units. They think that it is much more important to provide mutual support by placing people in larger groups in rented accommodation, whether from the private sector or from local authorities. I am sure that there will always be a role for voluntary organisations to play in supporting refugee groups when they have been so placed.
Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West) : As all four of my grandparents found refuge in this country, and as the rest of my family who remained in Europe were wiped out by a previous ethnic cleansing process, I welcome the modest increase in national humanity shown by the Government. Will the Minister give the House and the country an assurance that, in addition to those who are to be admitted now, genuine refugees--people who are escaping from death and persecution--will continue to be admitted to this country in that great tradition of which so many of us are so proud?
Mr. Wardle : The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that there have already been 20,000 applications for asylum this year. The Government stand, as previous Governments have consistently done, by the terms of the Geneva convention--there is absolutely no question about that. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about a modest increase. I hope that he will bear in mind the all-round humanitarian effort made by the Government to assist in the terrible problems of the conflict in former Yugoslavia, and will recognise that, by making an increased offer to the UNHCR, the Government hope that other members of the international community will do likewise.
Mrs. Judith Chaplin (Newbury) : I am sure that many will welcome the additional numbers coming into the country, but is my hon. Friend concerned that the provision of housing and other benefits for the group with which we are concerned may seem unfair to the refugees who are already here and who are not able to obtain such benefits, such as those in my constituency?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend points precisely to the reason why it is important to turn to UNHCR and to obtain the assistance in this country of the Refugee Council and British Red Cross, and properly to organise the placement of the ex-detainees and their dependants. As I have already said, the Refugee Council will be encouraged not to seek rented accommodation to which ex-detainees will move after the initial phase in parts of the country where there is already undue pressure on local services.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Does not the United Kingdom carry a special responsibility for the
Column 34
situation that exists in Yugoslavia, in that it was the European Community, with the support of this country, that recognised the break-up initially? In those circumstances, we should be desperately concerned about the plight of refugees. We should not continue to adhere to a policy that essentially means that refugees must return and be dealt with almost entirely inside Yugoslavia, when we have recognised the disappearance of that country.Mr. Wardle : I understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman expresses. I hope that he will not forget the efforts that are already being made by the British Government within Yugoslavia in terms of 2,300 troops, 200 airlift flights to Sarajevo, medical assistance, trucks and drivers and technical assistance. I hope that he will bear all that in mind. I hope also that he will remember that the United Kingdom is playing a significant part in the pressing cases which UNHCR says should be evacuated from the former Yugoslavia.
I understand that the total number of detainees in camps who have been recognised and identified so far by UNHCR is about 5,000 to 7, 000. That will give the hon. Gentleman an idea of the scale of the contribution that has been made by the United Kingdom. I hope that he appreciates that it is important to take that lead but to understand that 2 million to 2.5 million remain displaced in former Yugoslavia--they face considerable problems--and to attempt to move them in significant numbers would be impracticable and would give way to the evil goal of ethnic cleansing, which I am sure he will agree we must all resist.
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) : I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement, but will he acknowledge that, for schools that have to teach the children of Bosnian refugees, there are additional burdens? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's policy to seek to reform section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 so that schools will be able to apply for additional funds to support the teaching of children whose first language is not English, irrespective of whether those children come from Commonwealth countries or elsewhere?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend makes a clear case for his views about the need for revision of section 11. I am sure that his concern has been heard.
Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Is the Minister aware that we can understand why he appears to be extremely embarrassed about making such a pitiful statement on behalf of the Home Secretary? Is it not shameful that even today he cannot name a date when the 150 refugees will be received here? If the 1,000 are received on the same basis, it will be well into 1993 before they arrive. Was the gesture of receiving 1,150 refugees accepted by the EC immigration Ministers today? Am I right in thinking that the Home Secretary will be making a full statement on that meeting tomorrow or, at the latest, on Wednesday?
Mr. Wardle : I have said already that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be providing a detailed account of today's meeting and tomorrow's meeting of the Trevi group in the normal fashion.
As for the 1,000 ex-detainees that are to be selected by UNHCR, the hon. Gentleman should understand that the Government have stood ready to accept the first 150 since 5 November. We wait upon the UNHCR to select those
Column 35
ex-detainees and to make arrangements to transport them, and stand ready, with the assistance of the British Red Cross and of the Refugee Council, for their reception. The date of the departure of each group is a matter for the UNHCR.Mr. Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the measured and reasonable nature of his announcement makes the Opposition's initial accusations look--in the light of the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary--like institutionalised idiocy? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the arrangements that he outlined, the burden of caring for refugees coming to this country will not fall, as before, on any one housing authority but will be shared on a reasonable basis?
Mr. Wardle : My hon. Friend expresses himself in colourful fashion, in referring to the views held by Labour Members. He is right to point out that, with the help of the Refugee Council and of the British Red Cross, dispersal plans for ex-detainees will be such that undue pressure will not be imposed on any one local authority.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion and Pembroke, North) : Is the Minister aware of the large quantity of mail that all right hon. and hon. Members have received expressing the public's horror at the limit placed on the number of refugees from the former Yugoslavia allowed to enter this country? Why was the Minister's statement confined to former detainees? Although one recognises that they are a most deserving category, there are others whose lives are genuinely in danger because of their political views, ethnic origin, and so on. Does not the limit to which I referred illustrate the Government's illiberal attitude?
| Next Section
| Home Page |