Commons Sitting of 10 December 1991

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]
    Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Amendment made: in clause 6, page 5, line 19, leave out "paragraph" and insert "sub-paragraph". [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
    Question, That the Bill, as amended, be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendment.

    COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords]
      TORQUAY MARKET BILL [Lords]
      Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Pupil-teacher Ratio
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the current pupil-teacher ratio, and that of May 1979; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): In January 1979 there were 18·9 pupils per teacher in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England. By January this year the ratio had fallen to 17·2 pupils per teacher.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend accept the congratulations and thanks of parents, children, teachers and all concerned with education on the great improvement on the 1979 figures? Will he also confirm that overall teacher vacancies have improved by 30 per cent. in the past year? Will he consider conducting an inquiry into what the optimum pupil-teacher ratio should be for each age of children, because that ratio will differ? Some people could not teach five children very well, while others can teach 75 perfectly well.
    Mr. Fallon: The situation today is a big improvement on the 1970s. What is most important is how classes are taught and how a school manages its teaching staff, rather than the actual number employed or the number of pupils per class.
    Mr. Fatchett: Will the Minister confirm that since the previous election in 1987 the number of youngsters in primary schools who are taught in classes of more than 30
    716
    has increased by 100,000? We now face the disgraceful situation of nearly 1 million children in primary schools being taught in classes of more than 30. Are those figures unacceptable even to the Government? Is it not true that Ministers would not accept such class sizes for their children in the private sector?
    Mr. Fallon: Primary class sizes were much bigger in the 1970s under the last Labour Government. I cannot confirm the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I repeat that what is important is how a school deploys its teaching staff, not the number of people it happens to have on its books.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the significant improvement in teacher-pupil ratios since the last Labour Government were in power. My hon. Friend should be aware how much we welcome his statement and that of the Secretary of State, which concentrate on how children are taught in schools rather than on the number of teachers employed. In that regard, does my hon. Friend agree that the commission that the Secretary of State has set up under Professor Alexander to look at the way in which primary school children are taught is particularly welcome? In that way we shall be able to improve standards of education in primary schools.
    Mr. Fallon: The statement that my right hon. and learned Friend made about primary education has been warmly welcomed by parents right across the country who are increasingly concerned about the methods and organisation of delivering primary education in our schools.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has to date been contributed by the private sector to city technology colleges.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): By the end of the colleges' last school year on 31 August, nearly £19 million had been contributed to city technology colleges by the private sector. More than £30 million has been committed in all.
    Mr. Grocott: Can the Minister confirm that in the last financial year, 1990–91, no less than 88 per cent. of the capital costs of the CTC programme, including those of the Telford college in my constituency, were paid for by the taxpayer? Industrialists have been notably unwilling and unforthcoming in responding to the Government's requests. Can the Minister allay my suspicions about this by assuring me that as a result of a few industrialists having contributed to the programme we shall not find the names of certain chairmen and managing directors appearing in the new year honours list? Since we the taxpayers are having to pay for the programme, can the Minister at least listen to the taxpayers on this and spend these huge sums of money on all our children and not just a few?
    Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman should be doing the listening. He should be listening to parents in his constituency who have opted overwhelmingly for the CTC, with more than 500 applications for 248 places last year and with 660 applications for next year. Before he

    717
    makes wild aspersions about other people, he should visit the school in his constituency, where he will find excellent education going on.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Will the Minister pay tribute to the generosity of Mr. Harry Djanogly, who gave £1 million of his personal money to see that Nottingham has a CTC? Will he confirm that the capital cost of the school is no different from the cost of building a new school anywhere, that the funding per pupil is no different compared with any other state pupils and that the evil campaign by Nottingham county council would deny the most deprived children in our inner city a first-class education?
    Mr. Eggar: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Nottingham CTC is extremely attractive to parents and is very well supported. The attitude of Nottinghamshire local education authority has been quite disgraceful by any standards. Why should it be seeking to deprive children of a first-class education? I wish that Labour Members would make their position clear. Do they really want to deprive parents of the kind of choice that their policies would mean in Nottingham, Telford and elsewhere?
    Mr. Flannery: Why does the Minister not talk reality about the city technology colleges? He knows as well as I do that, like the assisted places scheme, they are another step towards privatisation of the education system. The inspectorate is another example. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the CTCs were intended to be paid for by private employers. That failed, so the Government are taking money from the taxpayer to the tune, with the assisted places scheme, of more than £500 million—[Interruption.] That is what it is costing, based on the Government's own figures. That is why I ask the Minister to admit the reality of the situation, with that amount of money being removed from the state system of education.
    Mr. Eggar: The Labour party will simply never understand the position. Parents want choice. Whether they live in the inner cities or elsewhere, they want choice to send their children to independent schools with the benefit of an assisted place, choice to send their children to grammar schools and choice under the new technology schools initiative. Choice is hated by the Labour party because it cannot control what parents and children want if choice is offered. That is the old-fashioned type of socialism that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has always pursued, and unfortunately the occupants of the Labour Front Bench have taken a lead from him rather than from more sensible parents.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the proposed independent pay review body for teachers.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The school teachers' review body has been asked to make recommendations on the pay and conditions of school teachers in 1992–93. It will report to the Prime Minister in the new year.
    Mr. MacKay: Parents in my constituency are anxious that teachers should be properly remunerated because teachers with low morale are bad teachers, and they are
    718
    particularly concerned that there might just be a slight possibility of a Labour Government next year, with a resultant cut in teachers' real pay, as happened when Labour was last in office. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under Conservative rule there has been a 30 per cent. increase in real terms in teachers' pay and that there was an increase of only 6 per cent. during the last Labour Government?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. There has been a substantial advance in real-terms pay under our Administration, and this year the pay award that has been made for the current year is increasing the teachers' pay bill overall by 11·3 per cent. I agree with my hon. Friend that raising standards requires having a good quality teaching force, properly rewarded and encouraged. The public welcome the way we are treating teachers as a professional body by taking the advice of the independent review body, and we look forward to Graham Day and his colleagues producing the kind of advice that we require about how our teachers should be rewarded. The fact that Labour Members voted against the review body approach to teachers' pay should provide the warning that my hon. Friend described.
    Mr. Skinner: Why should teachers have to submit to an incomes policy when the bosses made a 22·7 per cent. average increase last year? What is good enough for the bosses should be good enough for the teachers.
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has just been reminded of the shabby teachers' pay record of the Labour Government whom he supported some years ago—[Interruption.] It was his Government then, although their successors may not be represented on the Front Bench in quite the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish.
    We have set up a review body to advise the Government on the proper remuneration for teachers. It is a status that we give to very few public servants, but we are giving teachers a special status because we realise that their professionalism and commitment are essential to a good teaching service.

    Examination Results
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the relationship between spending by local education authorities and examination results.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There appears to be no direct relationship between the level of education spending and examination results. Some authorities obtain good results at much lower cost than others.
    Mr. Butterfill: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm reports in The Guardian earlier this year that the 12 local authorities with the worst record in English, mathematics and modern language results were all controlled by the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether I can confirm that off the cuff, but The Guardian sometimes gets it right. The figures that I have before me certainly show that the highest spending authorities comprise almost entirely Labour and the occasional Liberal authority and that those have some of the worst results. There is an enormous gap between inner London boroughs, which spent £2,745

    719
    per pupil in 1989–90, under the old Inner London education authority, and Kent, which spent £1,570 per pupil in a comparable year and achieved much better results.
    Mr. O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that local authorities that perform badly in the league tables, which cover a very narrow spectrum of examination results, often spend more on pupils with special educational needs? A local authority that spends less on special educational needs does so either because it has less incidence of such needs or because it is in dereliction of its duties to pupils with those needs. If it has less incidence of such needs, does it not follow that it should score highly in the narrow spectrum of examination results for the most able pupils?
    Mr. Clarke: I am aware of no evidence that pupils with special educational needs are distributed unevenly across the country. Special educational needs include pupils with physical disabilities or particular difficulties in learning. It is simply not true that those needs correlate with high spending local authorities. There are great discrepancies in the amount spent by one authority compared with another, and in the amount that local authorities spend on central administration, but there is little correlation with the results. When we produce the seven-year-olds' test results local authority by local authority, good results will be shown for some authorities serving comparatively deprived urban areas, while shockingly poor results will be shown for others serving similar areas. The quality of education rather than the amount spent is what counts.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it fair for young pupils in an area controlled by a Labour council to have their prospects of good examination results considerably reduced? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, year after year, the examination results of Wolverhampton education authority—a high-spending council—are in the bottom half of the national league? Is it any wonder that I now plead with my right hon. and learned Friend to intervene on behalf of pupils and parents who wish to move their children over the border to Staffordshire because they are fed up with their own high-spending council and they want that council to take responsibility?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend's point. The figures for 1989–90 show that Wolverhampton was about 20th in the list of spenders but 83rd in the list of GCSE results.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware of the serious threat to standards in schools caused by his spending decision in the Prime Minister's county of Cambridgeshire, where the Cambridge branch of the Secondary Heads Association has said that impending cuts will cause
    "larger classes … fewer books, less equipment, reduced sixth form provision and serious difficulty in providing the national curriculum"?
    When will the Secretary of State accept responsibility for the crisis in education provision in Cambridgeshire, or does he believe that it is just another scare got up by pupils, parents, teachers and Conservative county councillors in that county?
    Mr. Clarke: In fact, Cambridgeshire will enjoy an increase in real terms in resources next year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I publicly criticised the so-called cuts
    720
    announced by Cambridgeshire a short time ago. Cambridgeshire is planning substantially to increase spending on education, but has chosen, for some reason best known to itself, to make more money available by imposing sharp reductions in its secondary school budgets. I am prepared to criticise that action when taken by a Conservative council. The hon. Gentleman supports high spending and progressive teaching methods but seems indifferent to the results, which he does not want to give the public in any comprehensible form. He should not intervene in little local difficulties in Cambridgeshire which, sooner or later, will be sorted out when the authority spends its additional resources sensibly by devoting them to raising the quality of education.

    Second Degrees
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will review the operation of the present system of discretionary awards for those undertaking courses for second degrees.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Detailed arrangements for postgraduate student support are kept under review, but we have no present plans for major changes.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister expect that while the award system is kept under review and resources are scarce, some consideration should be given to students who come from poor backgrounds and achieve high marks but are turned down because of a shortage of places? Does he accept in particular that there is a problem involving students from Northern Ireland who have attended English universities and been recommended for further degrees and second awards, but are turned down because they are from Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raises two points. He recently raised two cases on behalf of his constituents. I appreciate his concern that the practical operation of the system for conferring postgraduate awards on Northern Ireland residents can be confusing and may create difficulties. I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to that. The practicalities are being considered by the research councils in the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. I hope that arrangements will be introduced which will be more convenient for Northern Ireland residents. As for the criteria for granting postgraduate awards, postgraduate study and research are academically demanding and candidates should be selected by competition to ensure that the resources available are used as effectively as possible.
    Sir John Farr: Will my hon. Friend look at the issue again? In England there are cases where degree holders cannot get jobs and are therefore forced to attend further education courses to try to improve their qualifications. Will my hon. Friend look at the matter in light of the present strained position in the jobs market?
    Mr. Howarth: The overall number of postgraduate awards has considerably increased over the years. Between 1979–80 and 1990–91, the total of new studentships awarded by research councils rose by almost 28 per cent. We must consider priorities for public expenditure on education, as elsewhere. It is questionable whether it

    721
    would be a topmost priority for us in the context of present economic circumstances to urge a substantial increase in the overall funding of postgraduate study.

    Sport Funding
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will discuss with the chairman of the Sports Council when next they meet the long-term funding of sport in the United Kingdom.
    Ms. Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he next plans to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss funding for sport.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Atkins): The funding of sport in the United Kingdom is one of many issues that I discuss regularly with the chairman of the Sports Council.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will know that the Sports Council is funded on a year-by-year basis whereas, by contrast, the Arts Council receives its funding on a three-year rolling programme. Does the Minister agree that three-year funding for the Sports Council would allow it to plan better for development and expansion? Will he undertake to achieve a three-year funding programme for the Sports Council?
    Mr. Atkins: That is an interesting point. There are differing views about whether three years or a single year period would be better or worse. Three years provide some degree of continuity, but they also build in a degree of inflexibility, making it difficult to react to change. I have no hard and fast views on the matter and I undertake to consider it, but there are no immediate plans to do as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests.
    Ms. Hoey: Has the Minister seen the Sports Council report on projected capital investment by local authorities? Does he realise that it shows huge decreases for the next five years, especially in London, with up to 95 per cent. cuts in inner London and 85 per cent. cuts in outer London? Does he share my view and that of the Sports Council that, with local authorities providing nearly 90 per cent. of all participatory sports facilities, unless we get more capital for our local authorities they will he able to spend money only on basic repairs?
    Mr. Atkins: The most up-to-date figures that we have on these matters show a continuing increase in capital provision, but I recognise that there has been some indication of a downturn in the most recent, as yet uncompleted, year. Our view is that we should let local authorities make their own decisions about their priorities. We shall have to watch and see whether that will mean a cut in sports provision. I have my eye on the subject; the hon. Lady's point is well taken and, in so far as I have control over these matters, I shall make certain that local authorities concentrate as much of their resources on local sport and recreation provision as they should.
    Mr. Cormack: On the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), does my hon. Friend agree that funding both for sport and the arts could be far higher and much more in line with
    722
    demand if we had a national lottery? Will he undertake to support the Bill to be introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence)?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend knows full well that there are differing views on that subject. My own are well known. If my hon. Friend wants to hear them, I shall be more than happy to tell him afterwards.
    Mr. Gregory: Will my hon. Friend agree, when considering the long-term funding for the Sports Council, to look sympathetically on its application for relocation expenses for its planned move from London to the city of York?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend represents his city with as much assiduity as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) represents his, and both are keen on a move by the Sports Council to one of those two great cities. There are no plans at present for such a move. Any request for costs would have to go to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Denis Howell: When the Minister met the nine regional chairmen last week they regarded his statement that he sought to achieve no more funding for sport in this country—Wales received 8·5 per cent., Scotland 15 per cent. and the Arts Council 14 per cent., but the Minister went for only 4 per cent.—as a craven surrender to the Treasury. Is it not time the hon. Gentleman did the job he is paid for and stood up for British sport?
    Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman is as wrong about that as he was in his assertion during the recent debate that I had refused to meet the regional Sports Council chairmen, which he knows to be untrue. In my discussions with the regional councils for sport and recreation—[Interruption.] There is a football hooligan shouting from the Opposition Benches—
    Mr. Speaker: Do not stir it up.
    Mr. Atkins: Wot me, guv?
    The right hon. Gentleman's contention is quite wrong. We went for the rate of inflation, and that is what the Sports Council got. Adding to that all the other money that the Government have provided for sport, sport can reckon that it has had a pretty fair deal from the Government.
    Mr. Dickens: Would my hon. Friend, the excellent Minister for Sport, agree that those who play and train for sport are the least likely to get involved in offences? Does he agree that sport is one of the most character-building of activities? Will he pursue sports within our schools?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is living proof of his own contention.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many applications for student loans have been processed since their introduction.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: More than 245,000 students have received loans since the introduction of the student loans scheme in autumn 1990.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the Secretary of State was mistaken when he said that the initial slow

    723
    and small take-up of student loans showed that there was no widespread poverty and hardship among students since all the evidence of citizens advice bureaux, Members' mail and so on shows clearly that, because of the reducing value of student grants and the attack on student benefits, there is real and widespread hardship and poverty among the British student population?
    Mr. Howarth: The rate of applications for student loans this year is almost double what it was a year ago, recruitment to higher education is soaring and student numbers have increased by 10 per cent. this autumn for the third year running. We are giving more public support to more students than ever before. During the 1980s the participation of 18-year-olds in higher education doubled from one in eight of the population to one in four. That is a widening of personal opportunity, a lifting of the nation's educational attainments and a sharpening of our competitive skills which will stand us in good stead for the future.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real problem facing students, particularly those from areas such as my own in Leeds, is that the local education authorities have been extraordinarily late in supplying their mandatory grants? For example, some eight weeks after the term began students in Leeds still had not had their grants. How long will it be before the Student Loans Company will be able to administer mandatory grants as well as cut out the middle man?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to a deplorable state of affairs that applies in a limited number of authorities—about seven—of which his own in Leeds is a conspicuous example. We have a system of student support as generous as any in the world, but, under long-established arrangements, local education authorities administer the award system and students depend on their playing their part. I am concerned at the failure of Leeds in that regard. We wrote to the Leeds authority at the end of October but no one replied. We sent a reminder letter but received no reply. I am told that the authority is not answering the telephone and that is not good enough.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will nevertheless be aware of the real hardship this summer and of the queues at the soup kitchens on the campuses. Does he believe that the loans plus grants system covers the full year or does it cover only the terms after the Christmas and Easter vacations and, if so, what does he recommend to students who cannot find work during the summer in the present employment conditions and who had to resort last summer to the soup kitchens?
    Mr. Howarth: We introduced the new system of student support last year. We uprated the grant and introduced a top-up loan, the effect of which was that publicly provided support for students rose by 25 per cent. Most students became ineligible for social security benefits, but the loan that was made available was well above the average benefit claimed. To ensure that individual students were not losers under the system, access funds were distributed to higher education institutions for them to use at their discretion to help students in particular need. That is a soundly based principle. More students than ever before are entering higher education. It is important that colleges and universities use the access funds sensitively and target them
    724
    on those who need them. If students do not take up the publicly provided loans that are available for them, they are neglecting an important element of the student support system.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many secondary schools in the London borough of Hillingdon have now been approved for grant-maintained status and how many applications are still outstanding.
    Mr. Eggar: Eight schools in Hillingdon have now been approved for grant-maintained status. There are no outstanding applications. That number, which is almost half of Hillingdon's secondary schools, is both a testament to the support shown by Hillingdon to GM status and a rebuke to those local education authorities that remain hostile to the policy.
    Mr. Shersby: Is my hon. Friend aware that Hillingdon is leading the country in recognising parents' wishes? Does he agree that grant-maintained status plays a significant role in raising the morale of the teaching profession, raising education standards and improving the fabric of buildings?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The move to grant-maintained status has been overwhelmingly supported by the parents of pupils at the Hillingdon schools that opted to go grant-maintained. When I visited Bishopshalt school with my hon. Friend, I saw for myself the superb improvement in equipment and facilities that it has managed to achieve only shortly after attaining grant-maintained status.

    Adult Education
    Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his replies to representations which he has received regarding the future financing of adult education.
    Mr. Eggar: In reply to representations on that matter, my right hon. and learned Friend and I have made it clear that funding will continue to be available from central Government for all types of further education for adults. There is no question of courses being discontinued, or of fees rising, as a result of the Government's reforms.
    Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite his welcome answer, deep concern is still felt by Leicestershire community colleges—which have a proud and longstanding record of providing adult education—that they will be squeezed out by the new proposals? Will he reconsider the matter in the interests of the widespread rural provision of that essential and popular service?
    Mr. Eggar: I am aware of the concern felt by community colleges in Leicestershire, Devon and Cambridgeshire. My right hon. and learned Friend and I met several delegations and held discussions with a number of our right hon. and hon. Friends. We believe that the Further and Higher Education Bill's provisions meet the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) and by others, and we can categorically reassure those colleges that they have nothing to fear.
    Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern felt also by those who attend non-vocational classes in the evenings and at other times who, I am sorry to say, do not believe a word that the Minister says about continuing those classes? They have read earlier statements by the Minister and by the Secretary of State, which convey a completely different point of view.
    Mr. Eggar: Before making such statements, the hon. Gentleman should take the time and trouble to read the Further and Higher Education Bill that is going through another place. If he does, he will find that, among other things, it makes no division between vocational and non-vocational adult education. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my hon. Friend accept that the fears raised in some people's mind by the White Paper have not been entirely quelled by the reassurances that he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have given? There is anxiety that there will be rationalisation and that some colleges and available classes in rural areas will cease to exist. Can my hon. Friend the Minister give any reassurances in that respect?
    Mr. Eggar: I can reassure my hon. Friend that nothing in the Bill will make that sort of rationalisation necessary. Furthermore, both I and my right hon. and learned Friend have made it clear that we want more education provided locally for adults than is currently available. We believe that the Bill will make that possible.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Why does the Minister think that—as the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) said—those having a close knowledge of adult education, including the voluntary sector, women's institutes and members of the Conservative party, are so deeply unconvinced by the Minister's replies that there were half a million signatures to a petition opposing the Government's proposals? Is it not the case that the decision to split adult education between a further education funding council and local education authorities is a recipe for disaster for an important sector of education, which has already been cut to the bone as a consequence of the Government's failed policies?
    Mr. Eggar: In the context of the Bill, we will ensure that more adult education is available locally, and that it is of better quality. That is increasingly being recognised by many interested parties. I wish that the political posturing promoted by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and by Mr. Stephen Byers in particular would cease.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite what has been said, there is continuing concern in Norfolk—as represented by those involved in Wensum Lodge in Norwich? Will my hon. Friend do all that he can to persuade local authorities to play their full part in ensuring the continuation of adult education?
    Mr. Eggar: Undoubtedly, some local education authorities are now spending less on adult education than we think that they should be spending. It is important for those who are rightly keen to ensure the provision of plenty of adult education of an appropriate standard to address their concerns to the education authorities. They should make certain that the authorities are spending a suitable amount on adult education, and that it is available locally as well as centrally.

    Youth Organisations
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will next meet representatives of youth organisations to discuss youth matters.
    Mr. Atkins: I met representatives of the National Association of Youth and Community Education Officers yesterday. I shall be meeting the representatives of the Standing Conference of Principal Youth and Community Officers for the London and south-east Region on 17 December, and I am meeting representatives of the British Youth Council and the Scout Association in the near future.
    Mr. Hughes: I welcome that news. When the Minister meets those representatives—if not before—will he be able to tell them that the Government support the amendment to the Further and Higher Education Bill, which has been promoted by the National Youth Agency and the British Youth Council and backed by hon. Members from all parties? That amendment would put the youth service on a proper statutory basis.
    Mr. Atkins: I cannot make any such commitment at this stage. It is, I think, generally felt that the youth service is already a statutory requirement under various education Acts. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of my hon. Friends who will serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill. However, I do not encourage the hon. Gentleman to entertain high hopes in that regard.
    Mr. Rowe: In recent years, there has been a welcome elision between the definitions of the responsibilities of the youth service and those of the community as a whole. Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the imaginative experiment that the Lord Mayor of London is supporting this year, in which young people go into schools to help pupils with learning difficulties and those who are quicker than the rest of the class? That experiment has had a remarkable effect on the performance of both pupils and helpers.
    Mr. Atkins: I defer to none in my appreciation of the work done by the youth service all over the country. The idea to which my hon. Friend refers strikes me as excellent, and I am happy to support it.

    Arts and Humanities
    Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to improve support for research in the arts and humanities.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The Government provide grant in aid for the British Academy to support postgraduate research in the humanities and social sciences. New financial arrangements introduced this year give the academy greater control over its resources, and enhance its discretion and determine spending priorities across the range of its activities. The Universities Funding Council provides substantial funding on research-based criteria for the humanities.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that, while the science research councils have fared badly under the present Government, the humanities have fared a good deal worse

    727
    under the direct rule of his Department? Is he aware of the part played by the humanities in preserving and developing our national heritage? Why is the Department pussyfooting around, extending the role of the Economic and Social Research Council—which does an entirely different job—instead of accepting the original recommendation of the British Academy for a humanities research council?
    Mr. Howarth: Public provision for the research councils in support of the science budget has already increased by 23 per cent., and will have increased by more than 25 per cent. next year. I therefore cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's opening proposition. Like him, I attach enormous importance to humanities research. I regard the existence of flourishing humanities research as an index to the civilisation of our society; Labour, however, has committed itself prematurely to the establishment of a humanities research council.
    A debate is in progress among scholars in the arts and humanities about whether it would be right to establish a humanities research council or a humanities, economic and social research council, or to continue with no research council at all. Such issues must be considered thoroughly and carefully; every scheme has its pros and cons.
    The British Academy and the ESRC have agreed to establish a working party. I think that it would be best to listen to what it has to say before reaching a decision.

    Special Needs Education
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what improvements there have been in the education provision in primary schools for children with special needs since 1979.
    Mr. Fallon: Among the major improvements, The Education Act 1981 provided a coherent framework for identifying and assessing children with special educational needs. The introduction of the national curriculum and schemes for the local management of schools will build on that framework and bring about further improvements in provision for such children, not just in primary schools but throughout the state system.
    Mr. Battle: Given the Government's stress on education selectivity and exclusivity in the national curriculum and in the league tests, did the Secretary of State insist on a special emphasis on educational special needs when he commissioned his report into primary education last week?
    Mr. Fallon: The inquiry that my right hon. and learned Friend has commissioned into primary education will, of course, encompass the needs of children with special educational needs. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the 1981 Act is now steadily being made more effective, that more resources are being made available every year and that parents are becoming more and more aware of their rights under that Act.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ward: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the European Council in Maastricht.
    Mr. Ward: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join all his right hon. and hon. Friends in wishing the Prime Minister well in his important negotiations.
    Has my right hon. Friend seen a recent public opinion poll which says that 66 per cent. of the people asked believed that taxes under the Labour party would be increased? —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know, but the hon. Gentleman must relate his question to the Government's responsibilities.
    Mr. Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in contrast, the Government have been responsible and does he further agree that the policies of the Opposition seem to be—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not very good, you see, on Government responsibility and this takes up a lot of time. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a conclusion, please.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend further agree that the only hope of keeping low taxation is to return the Conservative party to Government?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that not only hon. Members on this side of the House but the majority of people in this country wish my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other right hon. Friends well in their very important negotiations in Maastricht.
    As for my hon. Friend's other question, I confirm that it is as a result of this Government's economic policies and the growth achieved over the years that we have secured not only higher public spending but a substantial reduction in direct taxes. I saw the report to which my hon. Friend referred and I am not at all surprised that the Opposition tried to shout him down, for the simple fact is that the report revealed that the majority of people in this country recognise that the Labour party has now promised to increase spending on just about everything under the sun, which would mean higher borrowing, higher inflation and much higher taxes.
    Mr. Kinnock: The British people will also note that all that came from the spokesman for the Government who have raised the tax burden to its highest level in British history.
    The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the draft of the treaty at Maastricht today provides for the improvement of employees' working conditions, for legal protection and for entitlement to consultation and to information. When other Community Governments are prepred—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Dickens rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help from the hon. Member.
    Mr. Kinnock: When other Community Governments are prepared to extend those rights to their people, is not it completely wrong for the British Government to refuse to do the same for the British people?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman avoided the first point, because the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward) referred produced the following answer within the Labour party:
    "Some argue it will highlight one of our weaker points".
    It certainly does.
    On Maastricht, we are opposed to a number of the points in the social charter because in practice it would damage employment and prosperity. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been arguing against the social text. It will put a huge burden on industry and will cost jobs. Another point is that it offends the important principle of subsidiarity. I agree with the point made by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) in today's edition of The Guardian. He said:
    "It provides for an expansion of treaty-based Community competence into areas of wage bargaining and social security that should rightly remain with member states".
    That is right and that is why we oppose so many elements in the social charter.
    Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that other Community Governments, many with economies more successful than ours, do not care about employment, about costs and about competitiveness? Of course they do. Why is it that those countries can accept basic, decent minimum standards for their people whereas this Government will not accept them for the British people?
    Mr. MacGregor: In trade union legislation and in other ways, there are different practices in different countries. The plain fact is that some elements of the social charter would run the risk—indeed, would make it a real possibility—of this country returning to some of the trade union practices that did so much damage during the 1970s. What is more, my right hon. Friend's position in Maastricht has the support of the Confederation of British Industry and of the majority of British industry which recognises the increasing burdens that the charter could impose on it, which would damage our competitiveness in relation to countries outside the Community which are not so burdened.
    Mr. Kinnock: When it is obvious that the other 11 Governments are prepared to accept the draft before them at Maastricht today and that this Government are not, the Government are confessing to a unique combination of political prejudice and economic weakness which marks them out from the rest of the Community and which marks Britain down in the Community.
    Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of marking Britain down. My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the dangers which lie within the social charter of making European industry uncompetitive in relation to Japanese industry and to others. It is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman wants to support elements of the social charter being imposed here. That would result in a
    730
    return to the period when 29 million days were lost to strikes and when substantial burdens were imposed on British industry. That is why we oppose the proposals.
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stevens: Will my right hon. Friend today find time to join my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in condemning Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, such as Nottingham, Derbyshire and Richmond, which have blocked the distribution of the parents charter? Does not that hostility to the charter give the lie to the Opposition parties' request for freedom of information?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend and I condemn those authorities. He is right to draw attention to the hypocrisy of those local authorities, as he has described it. They have advised schools not to make copies available to parents. It goes further than that. The Government's education policies in schools are designed entirely to raise standards, to increase choice and to improve information to parents. The parents charter is an important part of that and I am glad that most schools have ignored the attitudes of those Labour authorities.
    Mr. Blunkett: In 1909, Winston Churchill, talking about workers' rights, said that there were necessary laws to be passed to ensure that the bad employer was not undercut by the very worst. Is not that why other Governments and employers across Europe understand well today that the Government are reneging on that and wish this country to undercut others by treating workers in the worst way possible?
    Mr. MacGregor: This Government have implemented all 18 of the social measures that have so far been agreed under the social charter, which is more than can be said of a lot of our Community partners. We do implement such measures where we believe that it is right to do so, but we have opposed the working time directive, for example, because it could have added an extra £5 billion to British industry's costs. We believe that that would destroy jobs and make industry uncompetitive. We have been successful in going in the opposite direction—in increasing the number of jobs and in making British industry more competitive in the past 10 years.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the majority of my constituents believe that what they voted for in the referendum on Europe was a single market, not a single currency? Does he further accept that the failure of the common agricultural policy, coupled with doubts about the realisation of the level playing field for goods and services by the end of next year, mean that this is a singularly inappropriate time to extend the competence of the European Community? Does—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is enough.
    Mr. Gill: Would my right hon. Friend—
    Hon. Members: Sit down.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In fairness to everyone else, the hon. Gentleman should sit down.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is very unfair to other hon. Members.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am afraid that I could not catch the last part of my hon. Friend's question, but I agree with him about the importance that he attaches to the single market. That, of course, is why the United Kingdom Government have been in the lead in pressing for the completion of the single market and that is why, in the current negotiations, we are arguing for steps to strengthen the observance of Community law to ensure that a level playing field is included in the single market.
    As to the steps that are now being taken at Maastricht on the development of the Community, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that if he gets an agreement that is right for Britain and for Europe, he will sign, but it' he cannot, he will not.
    Miss Lestor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britain was one of the countries that ruled against the inclusion of the role of overseas development and co-operation as part of the discussions at Maastricht? Was that because it could mean that Britain would have to increase the amount that we spend on overseas aid and development to match the contributions of other European countries?
    Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on details of the negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—because I do not know the details of what is actually happening today, but it is quite clear that we have been arguing that matters affecting foreign policy should continue to be decided under the auspices of intergovernmental co-operation. On overseas aid, the hon. Lady knows that this year we have yet again increased the amount of money that is spent on that.
    Mr. Butterfill: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.
    732
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Butterfill: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the courageous efforts of the European Community observers in Croatia? Does he share my concern that they have found almost universally that the aggression has been initiated by Serbia? Does he agree that it is desirable that today's events in Maastricht might lead to future improved co-operation on such matters by the European Community which may, in the end, lead to a reduction in the genocide in that country?
    Mr. MacGregor: Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to the efforts of Lord Carrington and others within the Community who have been endeavouring to obtain a ceasefire, and to the efforts made by Mr. Cyrus Vance. My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the benefits of Community co-operation. We have already seen much of that in the lead that has been given by the Community, which has taken special steps to limit the damage and the fighting to enable the parties to come together. Britain has played a large part in that. We have set up a peace conference, sent in monitors and have established ceasefires. I very much hope that that co-operation and the Community's continued efforts will produce the results that my hon. Friend seeks.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have been asked to reply.I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that under the Tory council tax every millionaire who lives alone will be entitled to a 25 per cent. rebate while the majority of pensioner couples with modest savings or occupational pensions will have to pay the full council tax? Is this the classless society but only open to millionaires?
    Mr. MacGregor: The council tax will produce about 40 per cent. of total local authority revenue and people on higher incomes will contribute to local authority expenditure much more through the taxes that they pay.
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Prime Minister on his initiative yesterday with President Mitterrand on the Soviet Union? Does he agree that it is a sign of considerable leadership that, right in the teeth of the complexity of the negotiations at Maastricht, the Prime Minister should have recognised that the awesome events on the other side of Europe may have an even larger say in the history of Europe?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. Friend has done throughout the year with regard to events in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Yesterday he drew attention to the three matters of concern to which I have no doubt that he will turn, in co-operation with other countries who are equally concerned, as soon as the Maastricht negotiations are complete.

Reserve Forces
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, I should like to make a statement on Britain's reserve forces for the 1990s.
Earlier this year I set out the structure of Britain's defence for the 1990s and in particular, in July, I announced the new structure for the Army and its role in NATO's new Rapid Reaction Corps. I referred to the vital contribution that reserves make to our defence effort, and said that we were studying the best mix of regulars and reserves, and would make a further announcement about this later in the year. I now turn to the details of our proposals.
In July, I set out the approach taken by the Royal Navy to rationalise the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Naval Auxiliary Service and to develop naval reserves that are streamlined but more closely integrated with the Royal Navy.
We have also been looking for opportunities for the wider employment of reserves in the Royal Air Force. Two of these are Royal Auxiliary Air Force personnel in our Rapier anti-aircraft missile force, and as support for our mobile air defence radar convoys in the new United Kingdom air defence system. We are also looking to employ auxiliaries in mission planning for Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft. We intend to retain all the six current Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment field squadrons for the area defence of airfields. We are also aiming to increase the number of Royal Auxiliary Air Force defence force flights for the perimeter defence of other vital installations.
I turn now to the Territorial Army. We need to adapt its roles to support and complement the new roles of the regular army. Under the previous strategy, it had important roles defending positions close to the previous West German border in support of the substantial British stationed forces. Clearly this task is no longer relevant in a unified Germany and under the new NATO strategy of greater flexibility and mobility. Instead, new opportunities arise to be part of the Rapid Reaction Corps and in national defence, and it is for these new roles and responsibilities that the Territorial Army units must now be structured and trained.
In some of those roles they will take over from regular units. A TA Yeomanry Regiment will provide reconnaissance for the Rapid Reaction Corps with tracked armoured vehicles. Two TA Royal Artillery regiments will be equipped, for the first time, with 155mm FH70 towed howitzers. Three Air Defence regiments will be equipped with the new Starstreak surface-to-air missile when it enters service. The TA Royal Engineers will have wider roles and take on greater responsibility for airfield damage repair and support of the RAF Harrier force. Some TA Royal Signals units will be equipped with the Ptarmigan communications systems for both ARRC and national deployments.
Elsewhere, the TA will also take over from the Regular Army greater responsibility for the direct defence of the United Kingdom. It will not be limited to the more static tasks previously associated with military home defence. Longer warning times mean that that role will increasingly be seen as that of a more flexible general reserve for national defence.
734
The strength of the infantry will reduce by around 18 per cent., but the Royal Engineers, Royal Signals, Intelligence Corps and Army Air Corps will all need to attract substantially more volunteers to meet the new roles which they will be taking on. As with the Regular Army, the TA will in future be properly funded and trained to take on the roles required of it. There will be even closer links between the Regular and TA parts of what we see as 'one army'.
The main changes are set out in a briefing pack which will be available in the Vote Office at the end of this statement.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why should these be available in the Press Gallery now, as they are not available to Members of Parliament in the Vote Office now?
Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree.
Mr. King: I agree with the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and I apologise if that is the case.
In summary, the changes will be as follows. Although reorganised, there will continue to be five yeomanry regiments. There will be 36 infantry battalions, compared to 41 today. With one exception, all will adopt a three-rifle-company organisation, compared with four companies today. In respect of the Parachute Regiment, 15 Para will amalgamate with 4 Para, and the new battalion will include one company based in Glasgow with its headquarters there and detachments where the battalion is currently based in Scotland.
In the Royal Artillery, two Air Defence regiments will amalgamate. Royal Signals and Royal Engineers will also reorganise for their new and expanded roles. A second Army Air Corps Squadron will be formed, building on the success of the first, which was raised in 1987. The Royal Army Medical Corps will be reorganised as smaller self-contained units, although its overall size is being studied further as part of a wider review of the defence medical services.
The Home Service Force was formed in 1985 to guard selected key points in the United Kingdom. Its members were permitted more flexible age and medical standards. Given the increased warning time, we no longer need a separate organisation. The HSF will therefore be absorbed within the mainstream TA and its members given the opportunity to transfer initially on their present terms of service. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to those who have served during those years in the Home Service Force.
The current facilities are established for a paper strength of the TA of some 91,000, significantly above the figure recently achieved, currently some 74,000. We have therefore been keeping a much larger infrastructure of regiments and buildings than the manpower justified. I said in July that we expected the long-term future strength of the TA would settle at between 60,000 jand 65,000. The force structure that we have developed, based on our future operational needs, requires a peacetime strength of around 63,500. It would be reinforced in war by the addition of regular reservists to a fully mobilised establishment of over 71,000. In particular while many units are presently under strength, we intend that the units in the new structure should be fully manned.
I have made it clear that, in the changes, we would not wish to turn away willing and suitable volunteers, and the

735
changes proposed will be achieved by natural turnover. Where units move or change their role every effort will be made to offer volunteers an alternative opportunity to serve, if not in the same TA centre then in another unit in the vicinity. Where necessary, local units will be allowed to keep a higher strength than their paper establishment.
In developing these proposals, we have consulted widely among those with an interest in the TA with senior serving volunteers, with regimental colonels, the Council of Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations, the TAVRAs, and, most recently, local associations. I am most grateful to all those who have contributed for the positive and consultative approach they have taken. Further consultation with local TAVRAs will now begin to determine the implications of the changes I have described for individual TA centres. The proposals will result in some modest reduction in the support staff of the TA. Every effort will be made to help those affected.
The highly successful Army Cadet Force often relies on the use of TA facilities. In restructuring we will ensure that this important and successful national youth movement is safeguarded. The current strength of the Army Cadet Force is around 40,000, supported by some 7,000 adult instructors. This has been recently reviewed, and there are no plans for further changes.
Detailed work will proceed in the new year to plan the implementation of these proposals and to enable decisions to be taken on regimental titles, affiliations and local estate matters, so that restructuring can begin from 1 April 1992.
To underpin the more flexible and responsive role which reserves can play in future, we shall seek in the next Parliament to amend the Reserve Forces Act 1980 to ensure their most effective use.
The whole House appreciates the commitment of those who give up their time to serve in the volunteer reserves, including a number of hon. Members. At a time of considerable change, when the structure and role of reserves is changing as well, this statement makes it clear that we see a continuing and important role for them, working as fully manned units in support of our regular forces and taking on a number of important and challenging roles in our future defences.
I commend my statement to the House.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. The whole House recognises the contribution made by the reserves—the Territorial Army, the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force—to the defence of these islands and beyond. The review has provoked a flood of correspondence from our constituents. The high regard in which the forces are held is clear.
This is only an initial statement, and the information pack, which will add a great deal more meat to the bones of the Secretary of State's statement, will require close study. I hope, therefore, that the House will have the opportunity for a debate when we have had time not only to digest the information pack but to get the reactions of constituents to the important and wide-ranging statement.
The Secretary of State has missed an opportunity to be more explicit about attempting to secure the employment prospects—
Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The documentation is not available in the Vote Office.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, but I share the concern that is expressed. If the press have been issued with the information, it would be appropriate for it to be made available also to hon. Members. Perhaps the Minister will do something about it.
Mr. O'Neill rose—
Mr. Donald Anderson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have already said that you have a certain sympathy because the documentation was not available before, and is not now available, in the Vote Office. Are we not left in an impossible position? We shall be forced to ask questions in the dark and we cannot properly probe on behalf of our constituents. Should there not be a period of reflection, an adjournment during which we can find out the facts to equip ourselves to ask appropriate questions?
Mr. Speaker: This is not a matter for me. However, hon. Members would be able to ask more pointed questions if they had the information available to them. I agree with the shadow Minister that perhaps the best thing would be to have a brief exchange today, especially in view of the business before the House, and to have a debate later.
Mr. O'Neill: I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State has adopted a high-handed approach, either by accident or by intent. This issue will not go away, and doubtless we shall return to it—I hope in Government time and at mutual convenience.
The Secretary of State made an oblique reference to the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Can he confirm that that Act covers possible changes to employment protection legislation? That will ensure that the jobs of those members of the Territorial Army with less than two years' service with the company or firm will be guaranteed when they return from their summer camp. The voluntary scheme now in operation does not cover all members of the TA. We all know of TA members who went on summer camp and returned to find that their jobs no longer existed. They do not have recourse to employment tribunals to make an appropriate appeal against unfair dismissal.
How many pilots are there in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force? Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether there are plans to make use of flight simulators to train those pilots who have left the RAF and who are now working with commercial airlines? Those pilots have been trained at considerable cost to the taxpayer, but their skills are then lost to the armed services, because there are no means to enable them to keep up to scratch.
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the references he made to the 15 Para amalgamations and the location of the company in Glasgow will, nevertheless, mean a reduction in strength from a battalion to a company? How many people does he expect will be based in Scotland and the north of Britain, because 15 Para covers the area north of a line from the Wash to the Mersey?
What will be the significance of the contribution of the territorials to the Rapid Reaction Corps? The right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking to NATO that that

737
contribution would be equivalent to no more than 20 per cent. of our forces in the second corps. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee to adhere to that figure?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also take account of the concern about the reductions in the infantry? Will he make every effort to ensure that those who are made redundant as a result of reductions in the infantry have an opportunity to volunteer for the other services where the right hon. Gentleman expects an increase in numbers? What does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate will happen to those members of the Home Service Force who are over the right age and whose fitness may not be the same as that of the members of other forces? Will they be discarded, or will they be able to continue in uniform as part of the reserve?
Finally, what savings will be made as a consequence of today's announcement?
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a number of his comments. He referred to the flood of correspondence, and that is testimony to the degree of consultation that has taken place. People have had ample opportunity to make their comments.
It is fair comment to say that I made this statement in general terms deliberately. It is backed up by a number of documents. I know that hon. Members will want to read those documents, and I apologise for their absence. However, I do not believe that their availability now would have helped hon. Members enormously in making an immediate response to my statement. Those documents deal with a huge amount of detail, because we are talking about the locations of more than 600 different units around the United Kingdom. That involves the exact location of individual drill halls in towns and cities across the country, the catchment areas and the way in which different units operate their pattern of recruitment and service, which is special to the TA.
The fact that I have been able to make the statement now means that, during the recess, hon. Members will have an opportunity to hear the views of those who will be affected. They will also have an input, because from now on it will be for the local TAVRAs and TA associations to become involved in determining the most suitable pattern for the future in their areas.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) spoke about the job protection legislation. I am sure that he would want me to pay tribute to a distinguished Scot, Mr. Tommy MacPherson, who plays an outstanding part as chairman of the National Employer Liaison Committee, and to all the members of that body for the work they do in encouraging employers to be ready to assist their employees and give them support for playing their part, and giving up their time, in support of the volunteer reserve. I take note of the point that the hon. Gentleman made.
He asked for details and numbers of pilots. I will check on that and let him have the information. I will also answer his question about our NATO contribution.
The hon. Gentleman questioned me about the cost. Our best estimate, for manpower and equipment, is that the cost of the TA will be about £250 million a year. It is difficult to make a more precise estimate, but I would see the savings as being approximately proportionate to the
738
reductions in numbers, which are about 17 per cent. So, whether it is £40 million or £45 million a year, it is a significant figure.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. In relation to points of order that have been raised with me, it may help the House if I say that this might provide an admirable subject for a debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, subjects for which should be submitted to my office by the rising of the House this evening. I hope that some hon. Members may take that opportunity.
Mr. Neil Thorne: On behalf of a large number of territorial soldiers who have asked me to make representations to my right hon. Friend, may I thank him for listening so carefully to the representations that have been made, and for undertaking to listen in future to representations?
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, when units are allowed to recruit extra personnel above establishment, they may do so in all ranks and not just in the junior ranks? He will appreciate how important it is in the TA to have sergeants, warrant officers and more senior officers—captains and majors—in post and ready for an emergency. That is much more important than just allowing them to recruit extra riflemen.
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. In general, I can respond positively to his question, although he will understand what I mean when I say that it should not be abused. We are seeking to overcome the difficulty of having an establishment and, because of the scale of the turnover in the TA, there is a great gap between what we think the number is—the number for which we have provided—and the number actually recruited.
The figure that I have given—of 63,500 as the number we think we can recruit—is genuinely the strength we want to achieve and is not so far below the present level; in the future, with the demographic trends we face, it may prove to be quite a challenging target. In general, I seek to respond positively to my hon. Friend, because he understands the purposes for which I have agreed that units can keep a higher strength than their paper establishments, but it should not be abused.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: The Minister will appreciate that there will be great sadness at the apparent demise of 15 Para, not least in the battalion but also among those who have an interest in airborne forces. However, I welcome the apparently discriminatory approach which the statement reveals—not least, for example, in the enhanced role which is to be given to the Royal Engineers. If there is, in general, to be an enhanced role for reserve forces, does that not, however, create a continuing obligation to see that they have the best equipment and best training opportunities? Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that, so far as it lies within his power, that training and those opportunities will be available?
Mr. King: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern about 15 Para, and we sought to respond constructively by making an announcement. Incidentally, Scotland will have a new yeomanry regiment, which we have based on the Ayrshire Yeomanry, and a

739
new engineer regiment, which will work on airfield damage repair not far from the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency, so developments have been made. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, the measure seeks to complement effectively the structure of our regular forces, so it discriminates in that there is some reduction in infantry, a significant increase in the Royal Signals—an increasingly important part of modern warfare and communications—in the Royal Engineers and in the Army Air Corps. That shows how we have sought to approach the matter.
One of my concerns was to maintain a substantial range of regular forces but to give them support and backing in terms of spares, equipment and training capability. My slogan, "smaller but better", is directed precisely to that point. If we expect people to volunteer and to give up their own time to serve, it is our duty to see that they have the support, equipment and training that they deserve.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those members of 15 Para who wish to pursue their activities can do so through the company based in the other units throughout Scotland? Will they be given an opportunity to serve in, for instance, other specialist units like the Royal Marine Reserves? Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that his comments about the Royal Auxiliary Air Force show that the Scottish component of that reserve activity is enhanced and increased, and is thus seen as more important, in keeping with the increased assets of the Royal Air Force deployed in Scotland?
Mr. King: I can confirm that the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve will be increased in absolute terms for the whole country. There are opportunities, for members of 15 Para who wish to pursue their activities either within the company in Glasgow or in the other detachments that form part of that company. There are also opportunities in 15 Para—there is a commando detachment in Greenock and there are TA SAS units in Glasgow. Scotland suffers no amalgamations in terms of infantry regiments, so opportunities exist. f do not want any willing volunteers to he turned away.
Mr. James Molyncaux: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the wisdom of his decision to retain all 16 squadrons of the Royal Air Force Regiment? With regard to the TA, the Secretary of State will remember that he and I had an exchange on 14 October about the lack of proportionality. At that time, the TA in Northern Ireland was to be cut by 40 per cent. but by only 19 per cent. in Great Britain. Does the Secretary of State's statement redress that imbalance?
Mr. King: It is slightly better than that, but there will be greater reductions in Northern Ireland. In reality, however, Northern Ireland will still have a higher percentage of volunteers per head of population than in all but two other TAVRA areas in Great Britain, and all cap badges now represented in the Province will be retained. However, there will be reductions because of the much higher percentage of volunteers in the TA in Northern Ireland in the past.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: We all have a great respect for and pride in our TA, and I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) in thanking my right hon. Friend and my hon.
740
Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for listening to our representations so patiently and for dealing with a difficult problem with such sensitivity and understanding.
Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of his proposals by making them known to a wider audience through an intensive recruitment campaign, which would be of much value? On a more parochial note, will he reassure me that the Surrey and Sussex Yeomanry has a future?
Mr. King: I think that "re-roled" is the answer to my hon. Friend's latter point. I think that it does have a future. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's initial comments. I can confirm the importance of continuing recruitment. We shall be looking to recruit 20,000 to the TA this year in recognition of the substantial turnover —30 per cent.—in the TA every year. Although hon. Members may hear about what appear to be reductions, we shall be launching a significant recruitment advertising campaign immediately to ensure that the TA is kept at the necessary strength.
Mr. Alan Williams: Tomorrow I shall receive a 25,000-signature petition in support of the 4th battalion the Royal Regiment of Wales, based at Swansea. Is the Secretary of State aware that his objective of finding alternatives within the vicinity will not apply if that battalion is closed, as the alternative is Cardiff, which is itself due for a 25 per cent. contraction? There will be considerable resentment in Wales if the contractions are imposed on us when the south-west, to which we lost our district headquarters, is to receive 5,000 full-time civilian defence posts.
Mr. King: As the right hon. Gentleman says, it is proposed that the 3rd and 4th battalions the Royal Regiment of Wales TA will amalgamate and adopt a three-company organisation. The local TAVRA has been considering plans that involve detachments in different locations, which will help those who serve in the regiment. We do not want to turn aside any willing volunteers—as the right hon. Gentleman may know, there are significant differences between the recruiting abilities of those two regiments. We hope that the new arrangements and the local agreements on the locations and drill halls of the new regiments will be helpful.
Mr. John Farr: Will my right hon. Friend say something about the Royal Navy? In his sensible restructuring of the reserves, he rightly said that the Army and Air Force would have opportunities to modernise the equipment that reservists use, but the Navy is in a difficult position because the old purpose of the NATO exercise—to provide an opportunity for reservists in the Royal Naval Reserve to go to sea—is out of date. Will my right hon. Friend say something about the future role of the Royal Naval Reserve?
Mr. King: I referred to the statement made in July on the overall structure. We are reconsidering the regular-reserve mix of the Royal Navy. I cannot go further today, but I can say that we are keen to ensure that both the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Fleet Reserve are used as effectively as possible, as well as the Royal Naval Auxiliary Reserve, which also plays an important part.
Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of State accept that the new roles and responsibilities to be

741
given to our reserve forces mean that high-quality training becomes even more important? Will he give an assurance that adequate resources will be invested in training, and guaranteed for training? Will he assure us that, whenever money runs short, training will not be the first activity to be cut?
Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman has a close interest in the matter, he will know that, while introducing the changes, one of my objectives has been to ensure that those changes were fully funded. I. think that it is generally accepted that the public expenditure announcements recognise that the resources allocated to defence enable us fully to fund our programme. That applies both to the Regular Army and to the reserve forces.
I stress what I said earlier: there has been a tendency to keep too big a structure which is too widely spread. We have been keeping an infrastructure—a capability—way beyond that used, which is a waste of money. I would much rather that the money was used for proper training and facilities for the people who serve and are able to train, than wasted on buildings which are not used.
Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his declared intention to integrate our reserve forces more closely with the regular forces will be widely welcomed? With that in mind, will he assure the House that he will try to integrate training between reserve forces and regulars far more than in the past?
Mr. King: That is very much one of our purposes. Integration and complementary roles are necessary for effectiveness in the new strategic dispositions of our forces, not least for the Rapid Reaction Corps. In training, twinning the work of the regulars, the TA and the volunteer regiments is also the way to use them most effectively. It is important to ensure that the reserve forces reach the highest possible standards, and I shall certainly concentrate on that.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The Secretary of State has told us once again that the whole package, including the Scottish element, is based on the assumption that there will be longer warning times of any conflict—up to a year instead of a matter of weeks or a month. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House how much warning time he had of the conflict in the Gulf, how much warning he expects to have from the IRA before any outrage and how much warning he expects of the consequences of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the activities of extremists like Mr. Le Pen in France?
Mr. King: Warning time is a NATO concept to do with the situation on the central front and the threat of aggression from the east. It has nothing to do with warning time for the invasion of Kuwait, which has no relevance to my statement. We do not envisage using the TA to respond immediately to outrages in Northern Ireland or to make it the first wave of our assault for the repossession of Kuwait.
Mr. Robert Boscawen: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is much to be commended in general in his decision to reduce the infantry battalions by only 12, 13 or 14 per cent., which is a great deal better than what he did for the Regular Army?
742
Will he ensure that these infantry battalions are more swiftly available in future? Will he give us an idea of the future role of the Royal Corps of Transport? Will it, like other forces, merge with the Regular Army?
Mr. King: The role of the Royal Corps of Transport will take account of the lower overall force levels and hence its new scale of responsibility. It will also take account of the successful introduction of DROPS—the demountable rack offloading and pickup system—which has made a significant contribution to the capability of the Royal Corps of Transport, given the quantity of stores that can be shifted with the available resources.
When hon. Members read the fact sheet attached to my statement, they will see that it is difficult to compare like with like. Many of the units are not fully manned units, and hon. Members will see that the number of regiments, squadrons or batteries that we propose to keep in future show the truth of this. We will, for instance, keep the same number of signals regiments, but that will involve a 20 per cent. increase in manpower—a reflection of the fact that many of the present units are not fully manned.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Army Cadet Force. Over the years, many children from underprivileged families have been able to join youth clubs from which they were able to go away on camps during the Glasgow fair fortnight and at Easter and in September. I am encouraged to learn that TA companies will be expected to offer support, because I know that, when cadet units have been based with TA units that supported the Army Cadet Force, the boys got more training and help.
Finally—
Mr. Speaker: Briefly, though, please.
Mr. Martin: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
If the force is to be linked with the Regular Army, legislation must come before the House to make employers give leave of absence. It was ridiculous that highly trained personnel were prevented from going to the Gulf because of their jobs.
Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says about the Army Cadet Force, with which many hon. Members will agree. I have referred to the complicated question of administration, which will require careful drafting, but we want to try to ensure that those who serve in the voluntary reserve forces are available when they are needed and that their position is properly protected.
Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his enlightened proposals for a revised and enhanced role for the TA in these uncertain times. I particularly welcome the close relationship between the TA and the regulars. Will my right hon. Friend add a new dimension to the debate by commenting on whether any studies have been carried out on how the TA could provide relief in the event of natural disasters, which would have the agreeable effect of combining military efficiency with humanitarian benefits?
Mr. King: As my hon. Friend knows, the TA already does do that on occasion, and I am interested in the ways in which it could be developed. I do not wish to comment further now, but I am sympathetic to his point.
Mr. Dick Douglas: The Secretary of State has clarified the position on savings, but will he give us some idea of the savings which will result from a reduction of effectiveness in Scotland? Can he clarify the position in relation to 15 Para and talk in terms of numbers rather than amalgamations? What will be involved in the reduction from a battalion to one company in Scotland? Are we to take it that the company headquarters, not the battalion headquarters, will be in Glasgow? What will be the cost-effectiveness of having four subdivisions of a company? How can that possibly be cost-effective in terms of the operation of a paratroop battalion?
Mr. King: I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman the first information that he requested. The picture is complicated because there are a number of changes—pluses and minuses—in the situation in Scotland. Until the further consultation to which I referred in my statement takes place, it is difficult to know which drill halls will continue and where the detachments will be based. When the hon. Gentleman sees the full details for the range of different places involved, he will realise that there are some complicated plans for north of Inverness —for example, at Dingwall, Kirkwall, Stornoway, Thurso and Wick—and it is not yet possible to determine how they will work out. Fifteen Para will be a company with a company headquarters, with the option, if it wishes, to have detachments in places where the paras are presently located.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, at one time, considerable concern was expressed that the Marches, including Herefordshire, would not have the opportunity to contribute fully towards the defence of the realm in terms of reserve activities? Can he confirm that 5 Light Infantry will continue its activities in that part of the world, which, if so, will be welcome? Will he confirm that the disposition of companies is not yet set in tablets of stone, and that circumstances relating to premises and recruitment records will have a distinct bearing on where those will be finally located?
Mr. King: On the first point, I can confirm that 5LI will continue and will include a company from the 4th battalion the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment. I can also confirm that it is for the TAVRAs and for the local people to determine the most appropriate location for the individual company headquarters.
Mr. George Galloway: Fifteen Para, which has its headquarters in my constituency, was being marched to oblivion until public opinion brought itself to bear on the Ministry, and I am grateful that it has taken a step backwards, but we still do not know what size that step is. For the fourth time of asking, what will be the impact on 15 Para of the change from battalion to company status, where will the battallion headquarters be, why is it being taken out of Scotland, and, at a time when the Secretary of State says that flexibility and mobility are the key attributes of Britain's Army, why are we making major reductions in a force which is the most flexible and mobile in the British Army?
Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the TA parachute regiments are not charged with a parachute role, but serve mainly in an infantry and
744
national defence role—as do ordinary infantry regiments. Unfortunately, 15 Para was significantly not as well recruited as the other two parachute regiments. It had four companies with only a 67 per cent. level of recruitment. Although the hon. Gentleman accepts that my announcement represents an improvement over the previous situation, I am anxious to see that those who want to serve have an opportunity to do so. I believe that the arrangements that we have announced give the best chance of ensuring that that will be the case. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) sought to undermine that, but he will see how far we have gone.
Sir Charles Morrison (Devices): My right hon. Friend reminded the House that the Territorial Army is currently under-recruited in comparison with establishment. Is he aware that the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry Squadron at the Royal Yeomanry Regiment, based in Swindon, is notably, if not extravagantly, over-recruited? Will he confirm that that squadron will continue to enjoy old and new opportunities?
Mr. King: I should like to check on that before replying specifically to my hon. Friend, but I will certainly write to him. I know of his close interest in that matter.
Mr. Harry Ewing: As a demob-happy Member of the House, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he realises the absolute shambles that he has made of Territorial Army recruitment? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, for example, that when my wife and I were strolling along Blackpool promenade during the recent summer, I was accosted by a Territorial Army recruiting sergeant and put under enormous pressure to join the TA? Is the Secretary of State's announcement of a reduction in the age, health and fitness qualifications for membership of the Territorial Army meant as a calculated insult to me, or to the TA?
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman will know—although the House may not—that, if there is one person who greets the news of his demobilisation with a particular sense of grief, it is his old pair. I cannot accept it with any great tranquillity. However, I am not sure that even any relaxation of more flexible age and medical standards could quite accommodate the hon. Gentleman in his present seniority.
Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend envisage the creation of a Territorial Army element in the Household Division, which would go some way to alleviating the greatly increased overstretch that the 40 per cent. cuts in the regular Household Division have caused? That would maintain the dual role that is vital to recruiting to the Household Division itself.
Mr. King: That suggestion has not been made to me.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will remember my exchanges with the Prime Minister in respect of volunteering, so he will understand my regret at the reduction in opportunities for those who want to volunteer for the TAVR in Northern Ireland. It seems rather strange that, if one does one's job well, one's opportunities are reduced.
Having said that, I welcome the retention of the Ulster Air Defence Regiment. However, is it to be reduced to two batteries—one in Coleraine and the other in Belfast—as originally planned, bearing in mind the tremendous

745
tradition that regiment has? When may we expect a statement on the medical services aspects which are so important to the Northern Ireland situation? Will there be protection for those who have served in the Territorial Army for some 10 years, so that they may be allowed to complete their service and receive their TA decorations?
Mr. King: I will need to consider the hon. Gentleman's latter point, and I cannot comment on it now. I appreciate the disappointment felt in Northern Ireland, because I know the willingness to serve that exists there. It is striking how many more people proportionally have served in the TA in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. I make that point with proper sensitivity. Those who wish to continue to serve can volunteer to do so on a part-time basis in the Ulster Defence Regiment. We are maintaining a significant presence in Northern Ireland: there will still be a higher percentage of volunteers per head of population there than in all but two of the other TAVRA areas.
We are moving on with the medical services. All the services are involved—the regular medical services of the RAF, the Navy and the Army. The question then arises of the most suitable arrangements to be made for the Territorial Army. In the past, the TA has been responsible for massive field hospitals; the current approach is to make such hospitals much smaller and more flexible, and to increase their number. Work is now in progress, although I cannot give an exact date for its completion. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect our subsequent business, on which there is considerable pressure. I will allow questions to the Secretary of State to continue for 10 minutes; if hon. Members ask brief questions, they will all be called.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I congratulate my right hon. Friend particularly on the formation of a second Territorial Army Air Corps squadron? Is it not a little perverse that, while the Army seems to recognise the value of flying reserves, the Royal Air Force is not yet convinced—unlike the air forces of the United States, Switzerland and Israel?
Would it not be more cost-effective to use auxiliary jet pilots who have come out of the service under "Options for Change" than to train women as fast jet pilots, however keen they may be? Most of them will probably go off and get married.
Mr. King: In that interesting contribution, my hon. Friend has probably managed to offend two distinct groups. He has expressed some fairly pungent criticisms, but his point is interesting, and I take note of it.
Mr. David Marshall: Is it not astonishing that the Secretary of State, having made a decision on 15 Para, cannot or will not answer the pertinent points put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)?
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Para battalions should have been the last to be cut, and that, if cuts must be made, they should be made on the basis of
746
operational effectiveness, not political expediency? Is not this the worst possible decision for both 4 and 15 Para? For how long can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee the existence of a 15 Para based in Glasgow? Why did he not decide to reduce the three para battalions to the new standard size?
Mr. King: I am interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I am sure that that announcement will be greeted with great interest by the 1st and 2nd battalions the 52nd Lowland Volunteers and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd battalions of the Highland Volunteers. They happen to believe that they, too, make a pretty pertinent and effective contribution to the Territorial Army from Scotland.
Of course the paras make a valuable contribution. That is why we have sought to respond to representations, and to continue to give people in Scotland who wish to serve in the parachute regiments the opportunity to do so. There will be a number of such opportunities, whether they be among the commandos or the Marine commandos, or in the SAS, the new Royal Engineers Regiment—whose headquarters will be in Scotland—or the new Scottish Yeomanry Regiment which is to be set up. Certainly, it is no secret that, in proportional terms, Scotland has done rather well out of the arrangements.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is there any message of consolation that I can take to the very bruised people in Staffordshire, who watched with pride as the 3rd battalion received its new colours in September? Will that battalion be allowed to survive?
Mr. King: I am not sure which battalion my hon. Friend means, but I shall look into the matter and reply later.
Mr. John McFall: The Secretary of State's catchphrase "smaller is better" has now given way to "so small that it is almost non-existent" in regard to 15 Para. With only one company left in Glasgow, is it not a fact that numbers will fall from over 600 to 150? That will do nothing for morale and recruitment in Glasgow.
Does not the Secretary of State agree with one of my constituents, Brigadier Alastair Pearson, who was the regiment's honorary colonel until 1989? In a letter to me, the brigadier said, "It is nothing but political. It is Treasury-led. It is not based on military criteria, and it will do nothing whatever for Scotland."
Mr. King: Sadly, that comment is completely uninformed. I do not know when it was made, but it is incorrect. The hon. Gentleman serves on the Select Committee on Defence, and he knows that a settlement has been made. The Select Committee has taken an interest and has recognised that we have fully funded the programme that we set out. Far from being Treasury-led, it is defence-strategy-led, and the Treasury has now agreed to fund the programme, so the comment was uninformed. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman cannot see the broader picture of what is happening to the other units and that it is not an unfair arrangement.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) for not responding to him. I confirm that the 3rd battalion will continue.
Mr. Ian Grist: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dismay that his proposals have caused in Wales? Why have the cuts been so disproportionately heavy there?
Mr. King: When my hon. Friend has a chance to read the full details, he will see that, although there is an amalgamation of regiments, other units will be moving into Wales and there will be new opportunities for serving in Wales. Proportionately, the reduction in Wales is less than the average for the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. William McKelvey: Has the Secretary of State made any advance in redressing the ridiculous situation of the Scottish soldiers in the territorial units who served in the Gulf for 51 days and who were constantly under attack by Scud missiles? They have been informed that they do not qualify for their bounty because they have spent insufficient days at summer camp, despite serving 51 days in the Gulf. Are not 51 days in the Gulf more of a training exercise than running around the sand dunes at Barry with thunderflashes?
Mr. King: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is considering the issue, having given an undertaking to the House to do so. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's interest is drawn to his attention.
Mr. Peter Viggers: As to the background, does my right hon. Friend agree that, such is the high level of unit loyalty, any change will be greeted with apprehension by the Territorial Army community and the reserve community? However, does he agree that the news that he has announced today is good news for the reserve forces, because the units will be well equipped and will have an important role, and there will be full support for good recruiting areas such as Hampshire?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has summed up the issue much better than I could. That is precisely the point—the new reserve forces that we have announced will have important roles, will be relevant to our new defence strategy and will be well supported and equipped. That is our absolute intention. It is also our intention—this differs from what has been the case for a long time—that they will be fully manned units.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it likely that the changes and related developments will lead the Ministry of Defence to release land in Scotland which it presently owns and leases for training purposes?
On a more parochial basis—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Only one question, please.
Dr. Godman: The Secretary of State mentioned "Grennock"—was he referring to a detachment in Greenock?
Mr. King: That pronunciation is a mistake that I made all the time that I worked in Scotland and I know the sensitivities which it aroused. I apologise.
There will be some rationalisation of the estate, but not in terms of training areas, of which there is, if anything, a
748
shortage. Following the changes under "Options for Change" and the withdrawal of our units from Germany, there will be considerable pressure on our training areas. However, there may well be some rationalisation in terms of drill halls and buildings, and some buildings may become available.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Although I welcome the way in which my right hon. Friend has responded to pressure from those of us who are concerned about the future of the volunteers in the Territorial army and elsewhere, and I especially welcome his statement about the future of the Army Cadet Force and the support it receives from the reserves, what are his particular plans for the three reserve battalions of the Royal Anglians? I understand that the changes are fairly limited, and I should be grateful if he could give me any further information.
Mr. King: I think that there was concern that, under the previous proposal, one further Royal Anglian Regiment battalion would be disbanded. I can confirm that the 5th, 6th and 7th volunteer battalions of the Royal Anglian Regiment will continue. That should deal with some of the problems about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
Mr. Robert Banks: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the structure and military role that he has announced today? Will he consider the historical importance of many units, especially in Yorkshire, which have provided reservists for emergencies? Will the 8th (Yorkshire) battalion the Light Infantry Regiment be maintained?
Mr. King: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. I give him that assurance.
Mr. Conal Gregory: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the review of the Territorial Army to commend to the Confederation of British Industry, to the Institute of Directors and to others the training that is given by the TA so that greater public recognition can be given to it? For the TA's members in Yorkshire, can my right hon. friend give any reassurance to the House in connection with the Yorkshire Volunteers, which will next year celebrate its silver jubilee? Are there any plans to re-badge the Yorkshire Volunteers?
Mr. King: The 1st and 2nd battalions of the Yorkshire Volunteers continue, and the 3rd and 4th will be amalgamated. My hon. Friend also has an interest in the Light Infantry, which is relevant to Yorkshire.
In respect of the role of the CBI and of employers, I pay tribute to the work done by employers and by the National Employers Liaison Committee. What my hon. Friend said is profoundly appreciated by those who have employees who serve in the TA. The quality, calibre, extra capability and extra commitment that they give are well worth any time that may be given up to volunteer reserve service.
Mr. David Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When I put my question to the Secretary of State for Defence, I referred to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars). I should have referred to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who comes from Govan. I apologise for the error.

Points of Order
4.31 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, over a week ago, I raised with you the fact that an hon. Member had clearly used the free post improperly on behalf of Islington, North Labour party. I have been sent another example, which is rather more serious.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is specifically identifiable on this occasion. It seems that he has been using the free post to send out quantities—I do not know how many—of his so-called "Annual Report". It has been sent back with a frosty message from one of his constituents, who is unidentified. There is plainly an abuse.
I seek your guidance on two further matters, Mr. Speaker. The royal crest is used on the front of the annual report, which I should have thought was improper. I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, East thinks that he is important, but he is not that important. The crest of Parliament is used on the inside of the report. I thought that that could not be used, so I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I asked the hon. Member before to bring the matter to my office. I will look into it. From what he says, there appears to have been an abuse.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED

    AMUSEMENT MACHINES (PROTECTION OF CHILDREN)
    Mr. Patrick Thompson presented a Bill to empower local authorities to prohibit in their areas the use by children of amusement machines:
    And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

    ESTABLISHED CHURCH
    Mr. Michael Latham presented a Bill to abolish the General Synod of the Church of England, on a date to be appointed; to provide for the creation of a Church of England Assembly, consisting of a house of all diocesan, suffragan and assistant bishops, and a joint house of clergy and laity, to be directly elected by all Church of England clergy and lay persons on parochial electoral rolls; to make provision for the Diocese of Sodor and Man; to empower the Assembly to decide on all appropriate matters, except those within the legal responsibilities of the Church Commissioners, without further reference to Parliament;
    750
    to provide for the election of new bishops by members of the house of bishops, saving the right of final approval of the chosen candidate by the Crown; to abolish the Ecclesiastical Committee; to abolish the automatic places of bishops in the House of Lords; to permit ordained clergy of the Church of England, with the consent of a diocesan bishop, to seek election to the House of Commons; and for connected purposes:
    And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 February 1992 and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
      Ordered,
      That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wood.]
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. Harry Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure what you referred to just now as "an abuse". You have not yet seen the document out of which the tell-tale hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is making a career day in and day out. Before you consider the document, may I remind you of a letter that you received from the convenor of Stirling district council? The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth)—I am not complaining about him, so I do not apologise for not having given him notice that I should raise the point—uses the crest of the House of Commons on his parliamentary report. He also uses the crest of the House of Commons on his advertisements for his constituency advice bureau.
      I honestly do not see anything wrong with that, and I am not complaining about it. However, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I have seen your reply in which you said that using the crest of the House of Commons on such material was not an offence, so I hope that you are not referring to that aspect of the issue that the tell-tale Member has just raised with you.
      Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am constantly enjoined not to give my reasons, but I did. When I said that I must look into the matter, I was referring to the franked envelope, not its contents.

      ESTIMATES DAY
      [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
      ESTIMATES DAY
        SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1991–92
          CLASS XIV, VOTE 1
          [Relevant documents: The fourth report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1990–91 on the Financing of Private Residential and Nursing Home Fees (House of Commons Paper No. 421) and the first report from the Health Committee of Session 1991–92 on the above report (House of Commons Paper No. 28).]

  Residential Homes
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum not exceeding £1,680,076,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on non-contributory retirement pensions, Christmas bonus payments to pensioners, pensions etc., for disablement or death arising out of war or service in the armed forces after 2nd September 1939 and on sundry other services, on attendance allowances, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance; on pensions gratuities and sundry allowances for disablement and specified deaths arising from industrial causes; on income support, transitional payment, child benefit, one parent benefit, family credit, and on the vaccine damage payment scheme.:[Miss Widdecombe.]
  4.35 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: It is my privilege to open the debate on the report of the Select Committee on Social Services into the financing of private residential and nursing home fees. It gives me the opportunity not only of placing on the official record the Committee's thanks to its staff for their work, not only of drawing to the attention of the House what I think is the first debate on community care to be initiated in the Chamber which is not part of a debate on another measure, but also of drawing attention to the number of firsts that we score with this report and debate.
  This is the first joint report to be submitted to the House by the Select Committees on Social Security and on Health. This is the first time, speaking in this capacity, that I have welcomed my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) to the Opposition Front Bench. Anyone who knows my hon. Friend's track record before he became a Member of the House will know how well deserved that promotion is.
  This is also the first time that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has been allowed out to speak from the Treasury Bench in the Chamber. We heard from the hon. Lady several times in Committee, but the Secretary of State for Social Services has kept her firmly muzzled on other occasions. Hon. Members can draw an important lesson from the hon. Lady's rise to office as a junior Minister in the Department. She got the post because she proved such a thorn in the Government's side on this very issue. Those hon. Members who are told by the Whips that their loyalty, obedience and voting record will all be taken into account may rest assured that those things are, indeed, taken into account, but in a totally different way from what one is led to believe if one wants to speak in the House from either Front Bench.
  752
  With those introductory remarks, I hope that I have drawn attention to the firsts that we celebrate in this debate, but although those matters are important, matters of far greater importance form the substance of our debate. I refer to what has been, is and will be happening to the financing of some of the most frail and vulnerable members of our community who live in residential or nursing homes.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) wishes to contribute to the debate if he is able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. From the many written questions that my hon. Friend has tabled on this matter, I note not only that the numbers of people in residential and nursing care have increased substantially, as we all know, but also the surprising fact that there has been only a modest fall in the numbers of people in local authority care. I had thought that there had been a really massive shift from what one might call the public sector into the private sector. Although there has been a slight fall in the numbers of people in local authority care in the past 10 years, there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers of people cared for in what is described as the private sector—in the homes run as nursing or residential care homes.
  I know that criticisms will be made as a proper part of our deliberations today about whether that is the best use of the money. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised such criticisms in Committee and may well do so again later. However, on behalf of many of my constituents—I am sure that this is true for many other people around the country—I should like to stress that, although none of us thought in 1979 that we would be discussing this situation today, as a result of it many of our constituents have received a quality of life far superior to that which they might otherwise have had.
  I certainly recall visiting residential and nursing homes in my constituency of which one could genuinely say that one would be pleased to be a member of that community. We are called upon to make such statements in all sorts of circumstances in our constituencies and sometimes we do it slightly with tongue in cheek, but I can genuinely make such a statement about many homes. I do not want any criticisms that we may have of some home owners or some trends to detract from that important fact.
  We all agree, however, that there are some real problems with the current provision. Many of us share some deeply felt worries about what will happen under the current procedures until the changeover takes place in 1993. While our minds may boggle at the difficulties which exist now, goodness knows what the scene will be after 1993. We welcome to our debate the Minister for Health, who is in her place on the Treasury Bench.
  First and foremost, there has been a remarkable and outstanding growth in the social security budget for residential care. This is one of the few occasions in the House when I can say that many hon. Members on both sides of the House told the Government that that would happen if the Government allowed the policy to develop in the way it has. Hon. Members made a plea in the early stages of the 1979 Parliament that the Government should allow local authorities to appoint gatekeepers who would judge whether people qualified on not only income grounds but more general medical needs grounds for the care that they sought.
  Every time hon. Members put that point to the Treasury Bench, the Government knocked it aside. One of

  753
  the consequences of that is a high level of provision, from which many of our constituents benefit. But if some of our constituents had been offered other options, they would not have chosen residential or nursing care.
  It is because the Government would not allow local authorities to appoint a couple of gatekeepers that we face a bill probably in the region of £1·9 billion. Undoubtedly, the Under-Secretary of State will bring us up to date on that. I think that it is fair to say that, if hon. Members on either side of the House had realised 10 years ago that we would be debating a sum of almost £2 billion, none of us would have recommended the one-track community care solution that has been adopted. To some extent, that is water under the bridge.
  I do not say that to score a cheap point. It is not a party point but a House of Commons point against the Treasury Bench. I make the point because, in the report that we are debating, we make several recommendations and we wish the Government to take them more seriously than those that we made in the past. The fact that the Government disregarded our recommendations largely accounts for the debate that we are having today.
  The next problem that the Government face is the fear of evictions. If I were the Secretary of State for Social Security, which I am not, my nightmare would be the early morning phone call from the Department's press office saying that an eviction is taking place that day, that the media and particularly the television cameras will be there and asking whether I would be there and what were the Government's comments. It is because that fear exists that some home owners know perfectly well that they have the Government over a barrel. When they want to see fees generally jacked up, we get talk of impending evictions.
  The Under-Secretary of State said in her discussions with the Select Committee that she did not have any examples of evictions, yet the Association of Metropolitan Authorities told us that 24 per cent. of its members had reported evictions to it. It added a phrase so extraordinary that I quote it directly:
  "although these were felt to be isolated incidents."
  All that I can say is, thank God that they were isolated incidents. Even so, a quarter of the authorities reported to their central body that such incidents had taken place. It is a real worry that evictions might take place.
  It is because we wish to strengthen the Government's hand against a fairly well organised industry which seeks universal general increases that we make a series of recommendations in the report, to which I shall come in a moment. The Government are vulnerable at any time, but especially in the run-up to a general election, to the prospect of evictions of people who are no longer able to pay the full fees for which the home owner calls.
  The Committee has highlighted two other problems. When the policy was first implemented, there was no question but that those who were then on supplementary benefit and are now on income support gained a first-class service from the homes. Indeed, many of the homes said that the fees from supplementary benefit were so adequate that the people who came in on that ticket were given some of the best accommodation in the establishment. That is not so now. There is not only a form of filtering within homes of the rooms offered to those on income support, but homes sometimes put up a bar against those whose
  754
  only contribution is up to the ceiling laid down by the Government. Within homes, a two-tier system is developing.
  More importantly, a different tier system is developing in different parts of the country. I see the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) in his place and I know that he hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He is a member of the Select Committee on Health and played an enormously valuable part in our proceedings. We were given evidence by Age Concern England. It quoted a Health Advisory Service report on Bromley, which said:
  "Frail, elderly people face exile in private residential homes far from Bromley".
  In other words, the rates that the Government lay down are such that one must be extraordinarily lucky in Bromley and many other places to obtain a place near one's home. It gives a new and cruel twist to community care that people may have to be shipped perhaps as far as Birkenhead to find a community home. That provision will cut a person off from all that he or she most values—family and friends. That is the background to some of the problems that the report has highlighted.
  I come quickly to our recommendations. I stress that we have made them in the most constructive vein possible. I sought to score points earlier on the cavalier way in which previous Ministers dismissed the suggestions from the then Select Committee, by which we sought to limit the rate of increase in the residential care part of the Government's budget. We did so not because we did not want money spent on community care, but because we did not necessarily believe that a one-track policy was the best way to ensure the ideal form of care. We want the Government to think carefully and respond positively to our recommendations, because we are anxious that the rate of increase in the Budget from now on should not be jacked up by the powerful lobby of the industry and the influence that it can exert on the Government.
  Therefore, our recommendations were tailored to some selective targeted measures which the Government could implement to avoid conceding increases across the board. We emphasise in our report that we do not see those measures as a way of dealing with the shortfall. We are interested in how to make good that shortfall. That is what our recommendations are about, but we also aim to help the Government to limit the rate of increase in the budget.
  I wish to touch on three proposals. First, the Secretary of State told the Committee and the House that the new form of community care, which will be run by local authorities, would have the extraordinary advantage that people in the locality who knew the scene would make the decisions. Why cannot that proposal be brought forward, so that the local offices of the Department of Social Security could make the decision about topping-up arrangements?
  Secondly, as new residents in homes will be able to claim housing benefit under the new proposals, why cannot housing benefit be claimed as a way of helping to make good the shortfall? Thirdly, as the Government are turning a blind eye to many of the disregards being allowed for people on income support and in residential and nursing care, could that be codified and made safe for all forms of disregard?
  We hope that the Government will respond to other priorities and suggestions in the report, which I shall list as headings because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and will doubtless develop many of those

  755
  arguments. We are worried about the date on which local authorities will know the size of their budget. Will the Government issue clear guidance on which responsibilities will fall to health authorities and which to social services? How far down towards the locality will the decision on housing benefit be made?
  One more issue, which I often return to from these Benches, although I hope that before long I shall be able to support those on the Treasury Bench from the other side of the House—
  Mr. John Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman crossing the Floor?
  Mr. Field: When I am ready for residential care, I may totter over to that side of the House, but until then I am happy to stay on this side.
  Finally, on the proposals in our report about extending freedom, many of us fear that, after the changeover, people's freedom will be limited under the Government's proposal, although so much of their rhetoric suggests the opposite. We have three proposals. First, as we wish to encourage carers and strengthen families—even the extended family—if a person who is caring for someone loses them to a home, the person's home should not have to go on the market to meet the cost of fees.
  We are not saying that taxpayers should not be able to claw back some of the costs at a later stage, but the carer's position should be protected. Under the new system, we want people to have rights to choose the sort of care that they receive, rather than be directed to it. We all have too much experience of what it is like for council tenants trying to exercise their supposed freedom for us to lie easily with the Government's assurances on that matter.
  The most important issue regarding freedom is that we fear that, far from more people being given control over their lives, when the new system comes into play, fewer people will have control. Our plea to the Government is that they take a leaf out of their own book on the independent living fund, which was set up in haste and has played a role that it was never meant to play. It has been a noble role, as it has allowed people grants and cash to fix the level of care that they want. They have been in control. Under the new system, we want an increasing proportion of the budget to go into a pot of cash, which local authorities will be able to give out. That cannot happen in year one, but as the years went by, it would enable people to build their own packages of care rather than having to take care designed by others for them off the shelf, as in a supermarket.
  As I have emphasised three times, the previous Select Committee on Health and Social Services made a number of pleas to the Government not to get us into the position that we are in now. I am being polite about the way in which the Government have behaved when I say that they have dealt with our recommendations in a cavalier fashion. When the Under-Secretary of State responds, I hope that we will know that the joint recommendations from the Select Committee on Health and the Select Committee on Social Services will be taken more seriously than previous recommendations.
  4.54 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My contribution will be brief. I support everything said by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Services, the
  756
  hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am sure that all those who participated in the report—in his Committee or in my Select Committee on Health—endorse the responsibile recommendations and conclusions in the report.
  The hon. Gentleman presented the case for the Committee and introduced the debate in a measured and responsible way. Like him, I welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security to the Front Bench to respond to this important debate. As the hon. Gentleman said, she made a substantial reputation for herself by the stand that she took in seeking to represent the best interests of the elderly and others who would he looked after in private residential or nursing homes.
  Having endorsed—on behalf of the Health Committee —all the recommendations made by the Social Services Committee, I wondered precisely what my contribution to the debate could be. I need not have worried. Following the appearance that I made with the hon. Member for Birkenhead on a Channel 4 programme, which generated quite a volume of correspondence, I received a letter from the proprietor of a private nursing home in Chesterfield. The letter precisely sums up the remarks that I would have wished to make in this debate.
  The gentleman concerned—the proprietor—decided to establish the home after he had cared for his father-in-law in his own home until he died. He described that as a traumatic and difficult experience, following which he and his wife pledged to find a better way to look after the elderly and people who need residential or nursing care.
  In his compassionate letter, he advised me that, after 12 years research and work, they opened their present nursing home. He told me that they have about 50 residents, cared for in a purpose-built home by about 100 staff. That is a measure of the cost of looking after the elderly and those who need residential and nursing care properly. The 100 staff include 25 state registered nurses.
  Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I have taken considerable time during the years that I have represented Macclesfield in the House to visit private residential and nursing homes and part III county homes in my constituency. I have not given notification but have dropped in.
  The proprietor says in the letter that the facilities that he is able to provide are a better way to look after people who are among the most vulnerable in our society. The kernel of the argument is that, because of the costs he incurs by running a highly staffed, well-motivated and caring establishment, he has to limit the number of income-supported residents that he can accommodate. The fees that he can get back from the Department of Social Security are inadequate to cover the costs that he incurs.
  In his letter, he gives one or two examples:
  "May I give Margaret as an example of costs. This lovely lady has suffered extreme arthritis for many years, and her skeleton is crumbling away. Three of my staff take 1 hour to wash and dress her, morning and night—cost £210·00 per week.
  Treatment, laundry, food, room and other overheads raise the true cost of her care to £400·00 per week. Income support for this lady is £255·00 per week, or £1·55 per hour."
  The cost of £210 is the fee that he currently charges the lady.
  He asks me to consider another case whose Christian name is Jennie:

  757
  "This delightful lady is frail and confused, requiring a lot of care and attention. At night her bed linen is changed 6 times to keep her warm, dry and comfortable. her bedroom carpet has been shampooed daily for the past 2 years. Yet Jennie is charming, retaining dignity and pride, and is loved by all of us.
  Not one of our residents could live on their own now. Many have spent years in their own homes, coping with frailty, loneliness, poor diets, falls, fear, burns and hypothermia."
  Perhaps the most serious of those is loneliness. Sadly today, the extended family is not as caring and is perhaps too extended to enable them to take care of their elderly relatives.
  The gentleman who runs the home advises me that the only alternative environment for the residents would be a hospital. Of course, that would not be so homely or comfortable and it would go entirely against the policy of successive Governments, which is to have these people looked after in a much more caring way, hopefully within the community. In addition, the cost of a hospital bed is extremely high.
  The proprietor of the home in Chesterfield says that they cannot reduce costs. He thinks that the Government's regulations are reasonable, but says that they demand only minimum standards, while he seeks to establish standards which are higher than the minimum. He says that his charges are well below those of local hotels which
  "do not offer skills to reduce the pain, or reassurance and a cuddle when you are afraid."
  He continues:
  "Recently I spoke to a chairman of a health authority, who confirmed that substantial economies are being made by closing 'Grannie beds' and transferring patients to private nursing homes."
  We all know that that is happening. I am making no announcement that is not well known to the Government. If the Minister of State and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary are determined that community care should work and that the more vulnerable groups within society should have a better life in their declining years, they will ensure that the level of income support for those who need to rely upon it is as high as is necessary to enable them to be looked after in a private residential or nursing home which can provide the proper quality of care that the House would wish them to receive.
  Those examples are not untypical of what is happening throughout the country. I have not mentioned Southfield Manor, just outside my constituency, which I brought up during our deliberations in Committee, where Mr. McCabe looks after 94 infirm, confused, mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients with serious behavioural problems. That nursing home requires a high level of qualified staffing. He may have to close at the end of the year unless many of the patients, most of whom rely upon income support, have an increase in their benefit.
  I take the examples of top-up and housing benefit recommended in the report by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. If something like that is done, we can stagger through to 1 April 1993, but a very serious position will develop then. I hope that the Government of the day—my own Government, I trust—will pay serious attention to the matter and make better plans.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: In 1982, as mayor of Newtownabbey, I took the opportunity to visit all the residential and nursing homes, in addition to the hospitals, in the borough. Since then, I have visited many homes in the rest of my constituency. But it was the visits that I made as mayor in 1982 that gave me my first insight into the running of such establishments. I saw at first hand the facilities which were being offered to the disabled and elderly residents.
  I should explain to the House that most of the homes were under the control of the Department of Health and Social Services, because in Northern Ireland the local government set-up means that district councils have no function in the delivery of social services to their ratepayers. The position remains the same today for the public provision of care, and many private residential and nursing homes now exist in the Province.
  Returning to 1982, I was generally pleased with the lay-out and surroundings of most of the homes; unfortunately, some fell far short of the standards of comfort and homeliness that many people, including the residents, would have liked. What impressed me greatly in all the homes was the dedication, hard work and helpfulness of all the staff, each working to overcome, in a minority of homes, adverse conditions of overcrowding and unsuitable, ancient buildings, in order to ensure that the residents were kept comfortable and contented.
  I was made aware by those in charge of the homes that, because of better health provision and the demographic trend, a large rise in demand for places in residential and nursing homes was inevitable and that major changes would occur as a result. I am sure that those staff members, like me, have been startled by the huge increase, not only in the number of residents in the homes but in the vastly increased number of homes, particularly private homes.
  It is revealing to compare the figures for 1982 and 1990. In 1982, residential homes in Northern Ireland totalled 246; in 1990, the number was 337, a rise of 37 per cent. In 1982, there were 12 nursing homes; in 1990, the number was 164, a rise of 1,250 per cent. Recently, I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to supply me with up-to-date figures for residents. The total number of residents in all homes in 1987 was 2,382; in 1990, it had grown to 4,489, a rise of 85 per cent. in just three years.
  The figures for different categories are interesting. Residential homes had 85 mentally ill and 1,321 other residents over 60 years of age; 41 mentally ill and 203 other residents were under 60. The nursing homes had 80 mentally ill residents and 2,533 other residents over the age of 60, seven mentally ill residents and 219 other residents under the age of 60.
  All those residents received income support. That means that, according to the 1991 benefit rates, approximately £1 million per week is paid in Northern Ireland for those in residential homes and nursing homes. That figure does not reveal how many of those residents are supported by their relatives, who cover the real cost of the residential care in many homes.
  The principal demographic change in the 1990s will be a rapid expansion in the number of pensioners over the age of 85. By 2001, the proportion of elderly folk living alone in the United Kingdom will have increased by 600,000 over the number living alone in 1986. We are already

  759
  aware that living alone is the second greatest demographic risk factor, other than age, that necessitates admission to hospital or to residential or nursing care homes.
  Those figures put into context the conclusions and recommendations contained in the report of the Select Committee on Social Security. They reinforce the vital importance of agreeing on an effective policy for such specialist care.
  I support the report, and commend it to the House. I am not a member of either major political party, and I was impressed by all my Committee colleagues, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I have been impressed by their industry and obvious concern when investigating this important subject. I was also impressed by the manner in which they laid aside party preferences—except on one occasion—to arrive at conclusions aimed to be beneficial to residents and fair to people who have taken on the task of caring for those who are no longer able to manage in their own homes. We must not forget those who undertake that work.
  I welcome the extra finance that will be provided by the Secretary of State for Social Security next April. However, I wonder whether various hidden expenses in running a home have been taken into account. In Northern Ireland, it appears that the Rates Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order could lead to some residential and nursing homes being rated by the valuation department. It also appears that, as a result of the new council tax, some of those homes will have to pay that tax. I do not believe that that hidden expense has been taken into account when deciding on the finance to be provided next April.
  I sympathise with, and understand, the argument of those asking for a general uprating. However, I also sincerely believe that that would create a situation in which fees could be raised to absorb that extra cash. I am also concerned that, on occasions, a resident's personal allowance is used to top up their care home fees. The personal allowance belongs to the individual, and it must remain his property.
  Recommendation (x) in the report asks that residents' homes should be exempt
  "from consideration as capital assets in connection with Income Support claims in those cases where a carer remains living in the home or where there may be a reasonable possibility of the resident returning to live at home."
  It also states that, should the resident's spouse sell the home to raise extra money, that money should be excluded from the calculations of income support entitlement.
  I should like that concession extended to family smallholdings or farms where a similar problem can arise, with the result that land that has been in a family's hands for centuries is sold to pay for the former owner's residential or nursing home fees. That deprives his spouse not only of her home, but her livelihood. Such a sale places the land and the house in the hands of speculators who care nothing for history, tradition, or, indeed, farming.
  In the future, we face the prospect of more and more pensioners taking on the responsibility of looking after their even older parents, as well as themselves, on a fixed and, in many cases, inadequate income. Therefore, it is obvious that we have a short time only in which to resolve the problem. It is up to us to ensure that those who created the wealth of the nation in the past are properly looked after without the pressures, tensions and worry to which many are unfortunately subject now.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: The House is indebted, not for the first time, to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for the manner in which he chairs the Select Committee on Social Security and for the way in which he introduced the debate today. The report from the Select Committee is a valuable one on an important subject. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead mentioned, the report also creates a precedent by being as near as possible a joint report of two Committees, the Select Committee on Social Security and the Select Committee on Health, of which I am a member.
  Government is divided into different Departments, but life is not. There are bound to be overlaps in the work of different Departments, and therefore of different Select Committees. There are circumstances in which it is useful to conduct joint inquiries. I hope that it will be possible to amend the Standing Orders to produce joint reports, instead of having to follow the rather odd procedures which we did.
  People are expected, not unreasonably, to try to make some provision for their old age, but some are better able to do so than others. Some are able to live in their own homes and look after themselves, with or without help from relatives, literally until their dying day. Others— none of us know what the future holds—need to go into residential homes or nursing homes to receive care. In both cases, the costs can be substantial, but they are especially great in the case of nursing homes. Where such costs can be met from a person's resources, it is right that that should be done. When that is difficult or impossible, the state, through the payment of social security benefits, should step in.
  I recall a case in my constituency of a lady who had to go into a home. Her son wrote to me from an address that suggested that he was not too badly placed. He protested that his mother's application for income support had been refused because she owned a home. He said that that meant that he would have to sell that home and therefore deprive himself of his inheritance. I am afraid that he got a rather dusty answer from me, because I did not see why the taxpayer should pay to support his mother when there was such a property in the family.
  Any benefit system involves rules and regulations which are almost bound to produce anomalies. Some people will be covered, others not. Some will get benefit who perhaps should not have it. We must try to build in some flexibility and consider cases on their merits. That, without going into a detailed argument, is a feature of the social fund.
  Income support for people in homes is not flexible. The rules specify the circumstances in which it shall be allowed, and the sums are fixed. On the Minister's admission, income support is not intended to meet the full cost of fees of residential and nursing homes. So how is the gap to be filled between the fees charged and the income support provided? Sometimes it is met by relatives, and that is not unreasonable if they are people of means. Sometimes charities are asked for assistance to fill the gap. But some people do not have relatives, while others have relatives who do not have the means to help.
  Many examples were quoted to the Committee and are recorded in the evidence. They include a letter which I received about a 102-year-old lady in a modest residential home in my constituency for whom the difference between income support and fees is met by her son, aged 80, from

  761
  his pension. That cannot be right. Similarly, there is the case of a lady in a nursing home in my constituency who receives retirement pension, war widow's pension, attendance allowance and a grant from the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, her husband having fought in two world wars, plus income support. But that is still not sufficient to pay the nursing home fees. The difference must be paid by her son, an ex-POW pensioner turned 70.
  I urge the Minister seriously to consider the recommendations in our report, which would enable local offices to top up in individual cases, thus providing the flexibility that I have advocated. The arguments against a general increase in income support levels are rehearsed in the report, but I suggest that the alternative, of individual top-ups, would be less costly and a far more effective use of resources.
  Reference has been made to carers. I cite the case of a lady in my constituency who, since her father died in 1975, has lived with her mother, sharing household costs and maintenance, and latterly has combined a full-time job with looking after the mother in failing health. The mother is now 82, her Alzheimer's disease has reached the stage where she needs 24-hour care, and she has moved into a nursing home. The daughter's entire net salary, plus the mother's pension, are insufficient to meet the nursing home fees, so an application has been made for income support. That benefit will be issued for six months, but not for longer, because the house was in the names of the father and mother and since the death of the father has been in the name of the mother only. So she is not eligible for income support after six months, the period which is given to enable her to dispose of the house.
  That means that the daughter, now aged 52—she does not fall within the bracket of being either disabled or over 60—will be obliged to sell the roof over her own head. She is, in effect, being penalised for spending those years caring for her mother by having to sell her home of 20 years, on the proceeds of which she will apparently have no claim. The irony is that if, on the father's death, the home had been transferred not to the mother but to the daughter, there would have been no problem for the mother or daughter.
  I urge the Minister sympathetically to consider our recommendation that in those circumstances the Government should exempt homes from consideration as a capital asset. I invite the Minister to look at the practicability of the ingenious solution mentioned by the Chairman of the Committee, by which social security might have a claim at a subsequent date on the estate or on the estate of the carer.
  Some of those problems will cease to arise when the new community care schemes are introduced in 1993, and I emphasise the importance of the Government transferring sufficient funds to local authorities to enable needs to be met in full. We recommend that some research be undertaken to ascertain what the figure is likely to be. I suspect that, when assessment gets under way, we shall find much of what might be described as hidden need.
  While, as I say, the problems should cease to arise, the existing problems will remain, because those at present on income support, and on support in April 1993, will continue under that system and at the rates then applying.
  762
  We could therefore find after 1993 that in the same home will be people receiving income support because they were there before April and others who were put in the home at a later date by the local authority having their costs met in full.
  The impact on residential and nursing homes of the new council tax is causing concern. It seems clear from the Local Government Finance Bill that a person will be exempt from the council tax if
  "his/her sole or main residence is in a residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home in England and Wales, and is receiving care or treatment in the home."
  Miss Sheila Scott, secretary of the National Care Homes Association, sought clarification from the Department of the Environment, which said in a recent letter to her:
  "The Government proposes that the landlord or the owner of a residential care home should be liable to pay the council tax. It will he for that person to decide whether to seek a contribution from residents through fees and charges as he would with any other overhead".
  Rather confusingly, the letter went on
  "Occupants of residential care homes will give rise to a discount. A maximum of two discounts will apply if there are no liable adults resident in the home."
  While people on income support will not be liable, in any event, to the council tax, there is concern about what the implications will be for owners of residential and nursing homes, for if those charges are substantial—and in the past the rates did not apply—and if now a substantial, council tax is to be imposed, the tax will have to be passed on to the residents and will increase fees even more.
  I hope that the Minister, either when replying to the debate or by letter, will clarify the misunderstanding, if it is a misunderstanding, because it would be unfortunate if life were made unnecessarily more difficult for people in residential and nursing homes whose position our report endeavours to assist.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: Having served on the Select Committee on Health and been involved in the joint inquiry, I endorse the report's conclusions and recommendations. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for his role in engineering the joint working of the Social Security Select Committee and the Health Select Committee, and to the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for his role in the process. It was a useful exercise and we all have a right to feel proud of the end result—the content of the report.
  There has been a broad consensus in the debate so far, but I hope that I can break it as I take a different view from some of those that have been expressed. Some would say that my view is more politically partisan. I apologise for the fact that my argument may be familiar to most hon. Members present. The two Ministers present have certainly heard me take this line before, and my hon. Friends and most Back Benchers have heard it on a number of occasions. Furthermore, any similarity between the speech that I made to the Doncaster trades and Labour club a couple of weeks ago, when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were in the Chair, and the speech that I shall make tonight, is purely coincidental.
  We have heard comments about the Government's community care programme and have debated the matter in the House on numerous occasions. None of us would

  763
  argue with the broad political consensus that community care is desirable, and we all support the processes in which successive Governments have been engaged in the past 20 or more years. We all support the break-up of the large old lunatic asylums and the movement of people from geriatric wards into the community, but we may raise questions about how those changes were handled. The number of children who have been introduced into institutional care has also been reduced, and community schools have been broken up. Anyone who knows people who have lived in such institutions will support such measures. Alongside that process, however, there has been an alarming growth in the movement towards private institutional care. We have now reached a stage where community care is in a horrific mess and we have to unravel it. The report that we are discussing tonight is one contribution toward unravelling the mess that—let there be no mistake—has arisen because of the Government's policies alone.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) spoke of the huge explosion in the number of care homes in his part of the world. The official figures provided by the Library show that, in the past decade or so, the number of places in local authority care homes have been reduced by some 4 per cent., while the number of private residential care beds has been increased by 316 per cent. It is not possible to obtain reliable estimates of the number of private nursing home beds, but I am reliably informed that, in my area of Yorkshire, the increase in the past decade has been some 1,000 per cent. That is a massive increase in the number of people in private nursing home care.
  It may be argued that the reason for that is the explosion in the number of elderly people, but the figures provided by the Library show that that simply does not justify the explosion in the number of people in private nursing home care. The increase in the number of elderly in the same period is 9·5 per cent., and the increase in the number of very elderly who might be expected to end up in care is only some 20 per cent. Therefore, the actual increase in the number of elderly people in society in no way justifies the increase in the number of private care beds in the nursing home and residential care sectors.
  The Government's policies have pushed into residential care people who do not need to be in such care. I say that not just because of what I see when I visit care homes in the public and private sectors in my constituency, as I frequently do. The Audit Commission said recently that 25 per cent. of the people whom it saw in care homes could have been cared for in the community and had no need to be in institutional care. That point was picked up by the previous Social Services Select Committee.
  The Health Select Committee recently took evidence from directors of social services who said that their registered care homes officers reported that 50 per cent. of the people whom they saw in private care homes in their areas need not have been in those homes but could have been accommodated in the community. That is an indictment of the Government's policy in the past decade, and we must do something about it. Because of the Government's policy, people who do not need to be in institutional care are being placed in it. Whatever Government are in power, that is wrong, and I hope that the report will be a starting point for a change in direction.
  The reasons for a revival in the institutional model of care are clear. The Government have pursued policies that have directly led to people being forced into accepting—
  764
  they have no doubt had a resigned attitude—the need to enter care because the preventive services have sometimes been pulled from under their feet.
  We can argue all day whether the Government have funded the national health service properly. There is plenty of objective evidence that there has been large-scale cumulative underfunding since the Government have been in power. However, I have seen cases in my area—I have mentioned them in the Chamber before—of people who have had basic services such as bath nurses withdrawn, resulting in their having to be forced to leave their homes, to give up the ghost, and to enter care. If the Minister wants details, I can name cases in my area where that has happened.
  The Government are committed to a reduction in public spending, which has affected the availability of preventive, caring services—alternatives to institutional care. It is ironic that, although the Government are committed to reducing public spending, huge amounts of money—some £1·7 billion in the current financial year—have been thrown willy-nilly at the private care sector. If one looks at that in detail, one finds that it is a gross and highly irresponsible misuse of huge amounts of public money, which could be used far more effectively elsewhere.
  My local authority has experienced major difficulties in attempting to provide the basic services that are required by people who did not want to enter care but wanted to remain independent and who had carers prepared to support them, with a little help from outside and from local authorities. Yesterday, I received a note from the deputy director of my local authority about its present financial position. I asked about the position of the local authority with regard to its standard spending assessment in the next financial year. He said that the local authority had experienced problems in the past few years and added:
  "For 1992–93 the Standard Spending Assessment for Wakefield District Social Services, excluding specific grants is £26·3m.
  Current expenditure plus inflation, if carried forward into 1992–93, will be £28·6m. The SSA is therefore £2·3m less than we need to maintain current expenditure plus inflation.
  However, the letter from the Department of Health dated 26.11.91 giving details of the Standard Spending Assessments for the personal Social Services states that 'In setting the 1992–93 figure the Government has taken account of demography and inflation and has allowed for the implications of Community Care and the Children Act 1989. Also included are the revenue consequences of the specific grants'."
  Mr. Cullinan, the deputy director, then said:
  "In round terms I would estimate that we need an extra £2m to allow for the minimum implications of the Community Care Act, Children Act and the revenue consequences of the specific grants.
  This means a shortfall of £4·3m between the Standard Spending Assessment and what we need as an absolute minimum in 1992–93 to meet legislative requirements."
  This is the reality for my constituents who want assistance with home care and the variety of levels of provision such as day care and respite support, which enable people to remain independent or semi-independent.
  In the period since the Government came to power, the pattern of expenditure on personal social services has been changed. By virtue of the Government having reduced the rate support grant, they have taken some £6 billion out of the budget of personal social services. That money should have been spent on preventing people from having to enter the hugely costly care programmes that we are discussing today. I do not want to expand that point, but it is

  765
  important for the Government to accept that their local government policies have greatly damaged the prospects of people who genuinely wanted to remain, and could have remained, in the community. It will cost the Government more to adopt those policies than if they had allowed people to remain independent or semi-independent if they wished.
  The role of housing in relation to community care is absolutely vital. Last year was the first year since the 1920s when no new council houses were built in my district. No one is making the sort of provision we need to enable people to remain semi-independent by moving into sheltered housing when they can no longer remain in their own homes. The voluntary sector and housing associations have simply been unable to expand the provision in the way needed during a period when there has been an increase in the number of elderly.
  Alongside those policies, we have seen a clear effort by the Government to make it easier for people to enter private institutional care. There was a change in 1981 in the supplementary benefit system. People have told me that they have struggled to try to get telephones, day and home care facilities, but their local authorities have genuinely not been in a position to assist them because they did not have the resources. However, as soon as the decision was made for those people to give up the ghost and go into institutional care, the money flowed.
  The money is available, but not where it is actually needed. It is not used to allow people to remain independent or semi-independent. It is not used on basic services such as home care and facilities that would allow people to remain in their own homes, which is tragic. I have met many people who have been affected by those policies, and I believe that the Government have made regrettable decisions.
  It is also important to mention the way in which a market experiment in the private care sector has, with substantial public support and money, had a bearing on the type and range of services now available. Provision in the private sector is unplanned. If it is planned, it is done purely and simply by entrepreneurs who realise that they can make money by providing establishments in a particular district.
  Perhaps because there are not many large Victorian mansions in Wakefield, vast numbers of people who have lived all their lives in that district have had to move away to live—often for the rest of their lives—many miles from where they were brought up. Provision for people in need has not been available where those people live, and they have had to move to the facilities. If there were proper planning of community care provision, those people would have been granted the necessary facilities in their homes.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is making such a strong argument. In my short speech, I spoke of a private proprietor who had built a purpose-built nursing home for the infirm and those who could not operate within the community from their own flats or houses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to admit that, if special accommodation is not provided by the county council social services or through the old geriatric hospital wards, it must come from another source. The private sector can fill and is filling an important vacuum.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I certainly do not disagree that, where provision is specialised and limited—as it might be for young disabled people—it might be necessary for the person requiring that care to travel some distance from where he or she lives. However, I am not talking about people with specific needs, but about elderly people who simply need elements of care that are not provided in their communities.
  I know of a number of examples where individuals have been discharged from NHS geriatric care and have been told that they must move into private care as there is nowhere else for them. As private care is not available in their local authority district, those people have had to travel to find accommodation outside their local authority area. They have ended up in the private care of another local authority. After some time, they have applied to that local authority for funds to return to their own local authority district where they have lived all their lives. They are then told that the authority is not prepared to support them because they are ordinary residents.
  They have to live out the rest of their lives in a district many miles from their own homes where they have lived all their lives. I know of a number of such deplorable cases. As private care is largely unplanned, it is often not in the interests of the many residents who have to move from the district where they have lived all their lives and where they have their friends—[Interruption.]
  Having been given a nod by the Whips, I shall come to my central theme, although I should have liked to go on for at least another half an hour. Private sector provision comes primarily in one form: institutional provision, which is the easiest way to make money. I do not believe that institutional provision should be the only facility available to the elderly or disabled. There are other forms of provision which could be available to people in their own homes.
  People keep plugging the fact that the new legislation will introduce assessments. Hopefully, the assessment scheme will be introduced in the 1993 legislation, but assessment alone will not cure the problem. A social worker can assess a person, but only on the basis of the services available at any one time. If there are no alternatives to institutional care, assessment is nonsense. It would be wrong to assume that assessment will cure the problem.
  I shall briefly summarise the points that should come out of the debate, and I hope that the Government will take note. The Government have engineered a deliberate redirection of public resources away from preventive domiciliary supportive services in the community towards institutional care in the private sector. It is ironic that, up to the last financial year, the amount of money spent on institutional care in the private sector through income support provisions—previously, supplementary benefit—was about £6 billion. That sum was provided to people entering private care since 1981. The amount of money taken out of local authority preventive services budget was about the same—£6 billion. That is what the Government have achieved during their period in office.
  The incoming Labour Government will have a huge challenge: to engineer a complete transformation of residential care. No one has referred during the debate to the quality of care available in homes. The Government have commissioned various reports; the report analysing the costs of care did not mention quality. I agree with Lady Wagner who said that local authority homes should be

  767
  "progressively adapted to provide fewer residents with better accommodation on the model of very sheltered housing."
  That is the policy that we should adopt for residential care. We should not simply put people into Victorian houses miles away from where they have lived and forget about them, as happens at present.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) agrees that, when we are in government, we must urgently implement a substantial redirection of public resources away from residential care towards supportive services in the community, whether in the voluntary or local authority sectors or elsewhere. We shall thus enable people who choose to live independently to remain in the community with the support facilities which they require and which, in many cases, have been removed by the Government.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Although the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) may have thought he was introducing a contentious note, only in the closing seconds of his speech did I find much to disagree with. It was the second time that I have heard that speech, but it was well worth a second airing and there was a great deal in it with which I would agree.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield fairly pointed out that the amount of money spent on residential care is massive. Our report notes that since 1979 the amount spent on income support for people in residential care and nursing homes has risen by about 160 times—a massive increase. Without wishing to spoil the atmosphere of consensus, I must point out that, although the hon. Gentleman said that the money could have been spent in better ways, I have a strong suspicion that, had it not been increased by this amount, he might have said that it should have been increased by more. That sums up the nature of the dilemma that he identified.
  It is common ground between us that residential care of the standard that we expect for our fellow citizens is not a cheap option. Whatever else divides us, that statement cannot. It is an expensive option, and so it should be. The chances are that it is the most expensive option of all, so on social, pragmatic and financial grounds, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was right to draw our attention to the fact that there may be better ways of spending this much money.
  I do not, however, see the spending of money in this way as inhibiting our reaching a more attractive regime. It is a necessary step on the way there. We are getting away from the institutionalised Victorian establishment to something which approximates more closely to the sort of conditions that people enjoyed or wanted to enjoy when they were still independent enough to live in their own homes. The type of home with which all hon. Members will be familiar, operating at its best, is a step in the direction of the right sort of care.
  We owe the hon. Member for Wakefield a debt. The last recommendation in our report is that the Government should undertake a study into the types of service that should be made available as alternatives to residential or nursing home care. That recommendation was included to satisfy the point made by the hon. Member, and it makes the report all the better.
  In a sense, however, we need the evidence to back up the hon. Gentleman's suspicions. I am sure that he is right to say that we could be more creative, that we could keep
  768
  certain people in their own homes either for ever, or at least for longer. That is only common sense. I must sound a note of caution to the effect that the evidence does not yet exist. I share the hon. Gentleman's strong suspicions, but quantifying them will depend on the evidence. If the recommendation in the report is taken up, we may well gain the evidence that would carry the hon. Gentleman's suggestion further ahead.
  The recommendations in the report would not have been made without the highly skilled chairmanship provided by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who shows us where consensus lies and who makes it clear that the easiest options of all are not available. Many people who take an interest in these matters might say I hat all that is necessary is to spend more money. This above all others must be an example of a problem on which expenditure of money would do the trick. As the hon. Member for Wakefield and I would agree, however, there is more to it than that. Our acknowledgement of that lends our report credibility and makes it harder for the Minister not to follow at least some of our recommendations.
  The first recommendation contains the following statement:
  "We do not recommend a general uprating of the Income Support level, other than the normal annual uprating. We welcome the increases to be made in the 1992 uprating, particularly the additional £15 a week rise … We understand and sympathise with those who have asked for a general uprating, but we believe that in all probability it would simply push fees up further and actually exacerbate the problem."
  That says it all. The hon. Member for Birkenhead, with his customary fairness which makes it so difficult to attack the parts of his presentation with which one does not agree, said that a general uprating would merely put the Government, the Treasury, the taxpayer and the system over a barrel. So the message should not go forth that this is just a question of spending more money and then the problem will be solved.
  The recommendations can be divided into three categories. Recommendation (xvi), which I have already mentioned, falls into the first. It is valuable and free-standing. The next category discusses specific ways in which money might be spent to deal with a problem that was always bound to exist before community care was finally implemented—but it does so in a targeted way that would not amount to a general uprating. The third category I will refer to in a moment.
  The difficulty with which the Government have to wrestle—I can say this in a debate in which there has been far more agreement than disagreement—is that, although we have pointed out the dangers of a general uprating and done our level best to come up with a package of recommendations that do not amount to a general uprating, it may be hard to implement the recommendations in their entirety in such a way that they would not amount to a general uprating, thus having the precise effect that the Committee did not want.
  We Back Benchers do not have to wrestle with these problems; we have done our part by pointing out responsibly how to deal with the problem. But we would do our own credibility no good and we would not serve those with an interest in this debate if we did riot acknowledge that, unless we are careful about our solutions, we shall bring about precisely what we do not want to achieve.
  Finally, I arrive at the third category of recommendations, which includes action that can be taken that will not

  769
  require expenditure. Recommendations (vii) and (viii) amount to much the same thing. The Committee was given clear evidence that some health authorities indulge in what can only be described as sharp practice, either by passing on to the social security budget or by passing on to relatives obligations that the authority is supposed by law to fulfil. The recommendations try to rectify that; the practice must be stopped.
  Health authorities may reply that they want more money, but then they would, wouldn't they? Times do not change; that is a respectable pressure to bring to bear on the Government of the day. But first things first: if authorities have an obligation in law, they must discharge it. Whatever else may cause the Minister difficulty when she sums up, I cannot imagine that she will not be able willingly to clasp to herself those two recommendations. She can do that without embarrassment or fear of comparison with past speeches.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) alluded to recommendation (x)—the consideration of capital assets in connection with income support cases when one carer is present and one is not. This recommendation combines compassion, common sense and—although we do not have the evidence to assess this—good solid fiscal sense. For that reason, if for no other, it should be adopted.
  The report does not underestimate the problems; it tries to deal constructively with them, and it responsibly points up the fact that we must be careful lest, by implementing the recommendations in their entirety, we bring about what we do not want to achieve. Mercifully, we Back Benchers do not have to wrestle with that.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. David Bellotti: First, I thank the Chairman, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and all the Members of the Select Committee who worked hard to produce the report and the excellent recommendations which are contained therein.
  The report is simply a look at the current situation which will grow more serious as time goes on. The United Kingdom has 10 million retired people, about 18 per cent. of the population, but that figure will increase considerably in the decade to come. By the year 2030, although the overall population will rise by about 7 per cent., the rise in the 60 to 74-year-old age range will be about 36 per cent. and the rise in the over-75 age range will be more than 44 per cent. Those figures show that we must consider the report's recommendations seriously, because, unless we act properly on them, the situation will be more difficult to deal with as time goes on.
  First, we must determine our principles for care in the community. There should be a mixed economy of care. It is for the House to ensure that all three sectors, public, private and voluntary, have the opportunity to develop and grow during the challenging years ahead. We should try to maintain high standards in all three sectors because that will lead to an element of choice for the client or the customer, help us to ensure that we obtain value for money and, to some extent, maintain standards, because only by rigorous inspection and comparison between the three sectors can standards be maintained.
  770
  In the real world, however, local authority public sector provision for residential care is in difficulty. Sussex is no different from many other areas of the country. There, the local authority is having to reduce the number of places available and to close existing residential homes in order to find the money to bring the remaining homes up to the standard which should exist across the three sectors to which I have referred. Therefore, the number of places in the public sector is being reduced.
  The voluntary homes are also in difficulty because of recent changes in the financing of many of those which are registered as housing associations. Many of them are finding it difficult to balance their books, and relatively few are looking forward to developing new projects in the next 10 years. Their development plans are few and far between.
  The third sector, the private residential and nursing home sector, has suffered because of the gap which has been created between income support and the real cost of delivering care. I was extremely pleased to see that one of the report's major recommendations was that the Government should immediately commission research to provide information about the shortfall between income support and fees paid, so that the funds to be transferred from the Department of Social Security to local authorities in 1993 can be accurately determined, because, if a problem exists now, it will be much worse then. That is important because, if funds are not there, standards of care will decline.
  Slightly less important, but nevertheless important to homes that I visit, is recommendation (ix), which has not yet been referred to, requesting the Department of Social Security to ensure that high priority is given to assessing and paying claims for income support in care homes. I have visited many residential homes in Eastbourne where the proprietors are concerned about the time that it takes for those receiving income support to obtain it. That causes initial problems at the very moment when confidence in the system is needed.
  The 7·7 per cent. increase in social services spending in the recently announced standard spending assessment has been referred to by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities as "absolutely devastating". The Association of County Councils has also expressed strong concern. The problem with that figure which gives local authorities cause for concern in the public sector is that it is not a 7·7 per cent. increase above their spending last year but above the SSA, which is what the Government thought that they should have spent. Therefore, the real increase in the funds available to social services departments next year will not be at the level above inflation which would meet the existing problems. Many social services departments throughout Britain are already spending well above their SSAs.
  An example of where that is not only occurring but is leading to delay is in the provision of a much needed facility by the Key housing association in Kilmarnock. Because Strathclyde region cannot be sure about next year's funding, it is unable to give the sort of encouragement that such a proposal has so far received, and there could well be a delay in the provision of residential accommodation as a result of those delays and uncertainties. It is important that not only the right figure is arrived at through the SSA, but a figure that will give people confidence to move forward.

  771
  In evidence to the Committee, widespread concern was expressed about the gap which is emerging. The Royal National Institute for the Blind, which I quote not least because one of its residential homes is in my constituency, said that, from April 1991, its fees were £262 per week, whereas its real average costs were about £300 per week. It concluded that there was an urgent need for the weekly limits to be raised so as to ensure that visually impaired people received the care they needed.
  I am sure that the Minister is aware that that concern is shared by other voluntary providers and by the private sector providers. In addition, private providers tell hon. Members that, unless the gap can be reduced or some other solution arrived at, they are particularly worried about the future. The British Federation of Care Home Proprietors says:
  "As the gap between income support and real costs continues to widen, choice, a major concern of the Government"—
  something to which, as I said at the beginning, I too am committed—
  "will be restricted and a two-tier system of residential care may be the inevitable and regrettable consequence."
  I think that all hon. Members will accept that we do not want to support anything that would lead to the evolution of a two-tier system of care. The report contains many examples of concern expressed on that front. Given the comparison of the fees, of which we had much evidence, it is not surprising that concern has been expressed from so many quarters.
  Another report dated 7 May 1991 comparing the income support for 1991–92 with two surveys one from Price Waterhouse and one from Laing, it is easy to see why that concern is so widespread. For residential care running costs, income support for the present financial year was £160. The Price Waterhouse survey concluded that the real cost was £187 and Laing concluded that it was £204. In nursing homes, the comparative figure for income support was £255. Price Waterhouse concluded that the real cost was £293 and Laing, £287.
  Those figures will be well known to the Minister, but they illustrate and add to the views being expressed from so many quarters. One way of providing residential care is often for individuals to sell their properties when they retire and to use the capital to purchase their care. Unfortunately, it is becoming more difficult to do that. Apart from the problems of selling property at this time, the average house realises only £66,000. Even if the whole of that sum is invested, the income thus produced is unlikely to be sufficient to support someone living to a very old age. An extremely helpful booklet produced by Pearl Assurance states:
  "Many people use the proceeds from the sale of a house to help finance the fees. Even large amounts of capital do not last forever, so it is a good idea to get professional advice well in advance of the time you anticipate moving into a home."
  Given the large number of people who are likely to enjoy a quality of life into old age, consideration must be given to how they can be financially supported, because that cannot be done only by the sale of their property. Price Waterhouse points out that average residential care and nursing home costs in London and the south-east are 15 per cent. higher than in the rest of the country.
  Current uncertainty means that developments such as that in Kilmarnock which I mentioned are not proceeding as we would wish, and it is affecting individuals who are receiving care but who are not properly funded. I know
  772
  that the director of nursing at one Sussex establishment has written to the Secretary of State and to a number of other right hon. and hon. Members, pointing out that his home has provided places to ex-hospital patients, but that they have not been awarded the income support to which they are entitled.
  On 24 September, the National Association of Mental Health legal director successfully represented 12 of the ex-hospital patients in that home before a social security tribunal, which awarded them income support. However, the Benefits Agency decided to appeal against that decision to the social security commissioner. While that process continues, those individuals are left without any income. The Minister should give consideration to such cases, which place enormous pressures on the establishments concerned, and which could arise even after "Care in the Community" has been implemented.
  In all this, we want also to protect the carers. At some stage, they could become the very people who need financial help for residential care. If we mortgage their future on behalf of those for whom they care, we shall not be providing for their own care in due course. Clearly, income support levels are not high enough, and the Government must address the alternative solutions available to them. Funding must also be reassessed—and I am sure that if we put our minds to that task, we could all do better.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I pay tribute to the Chairmen of the Social Security Select Committee and of the Health Select Committee, who have found a way around the difficulties of operating together and have produced a more interesting report as a result. Having been through that process once, the Social Security Committee is clearly interested in other areas. When problems such as those created by the Maxwell affair, for example, come to light, that Committee and the Department of Trade and Industry could operate together.
  The report therefore establishes an important precedent: it means that Government policy will not always be departmentalised but will he seen in the round. The problem with Select Committees is that they are sometimes compelled to take a narrow view, rather than the broader view that is reflected by the report.
  The report gives further evidence that residential and nursing homes are an enormously important and valuable source of care for the elderly. The Government have made significant improvements in that regard. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State must be delighted that she will be summing up in a debate that concerns an area of activity in which expenditure has increased 160 times under this Government. Even given the expenditure that the Government have devoted to the public sector, there cannot be many Ministers who find themselves in such a favourable position.
  The number of claimants has increased from 12,000 in 1979 to 220,000. There were 9·5 million old age pensioners in 1979, but there are now some 10·5 million. Those extra I million pensioners must account for many of the additional claimants. The frail or very elderly account for an increasing number of pensioners, and that emphasises the importance of nursing home and residential care.
  The evidence to the Select Committee suggests that the private sector has not only expanded well in terms of

  773
  growing numbers and additional services, but of maintaining its assets. There was, however, evidence that public sector homes have been poorly maintained and that councils had spent their money elsewhere. Councils have had an enormous amount of money through their hands, and have spent it in an equally enormous number of areas over the past 12 years.
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: A recent report named my local authority of Calderdale as the second most efficient metropolitan council in the country. Because of the threat of poll tax capping this year, it was compelled to cut £5 million from its budget. I do not think that even the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) could accuse that authority of being profligate, but those cuts will affect the care of the elderly in Calderdale.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Lady ought to examine local authority budgets. I was on a local council for some years that thought it was well run, but we still found it possible to get rid of a tier of management. It is always possible to do that, and to use elsewhere the money saved. Many councils have employed too many staff over the years, have been too inefficient, and have not maintained their homes for the elderly and residential care homes as well as they should have done.
  The Committee was told of a backlog of maintenance. That is because councils do not keep proper accounts or records. One of the problems in the public sector is that no one keeps a balance sheet, so there is no proper record of maintenance costs and of depreciating assets—whereas the business man or woman who manages a private care home is alive to the importance of maintenance, and of protecting the value of that asset.
  The Government made a good move in calling in Price Waterhouse, because clearly there was concern among residential care home owners about their funding through the income support mechanism. We welcome the Government's commitment to keeping finance and income support levels under review; the Committee will examine the position from time to time, and ensure that the levels remain reasonable.
  As the Committee's Chairman pointed out, the Government must maintain a fine balance. They must be careful not to make income support too generous, thus causing the taxpayer to lose out and causing funds to be taken from other provision for the elderly and disabled. The Government must exercise the wisdom of Solomon: although they must not put too much money into that sector, if they put in too little, the owners of care homes will tend to withdraw the little extra facilities that are so enjoyed by the elderly people.
  As the report points out, resources must be made available to those who enter residential care with no resources of their own for those "little extras". Their spouses may not have been able to save much during their lives; they may have had low-paid jobs. Thank goodness, the current pensions policy is improving the position: many more people will retire with second pensions. Many others, however, will have retired some time ago, and will not have sufficient resources. The Government should consider setting up a scheme to provide top-up money when residents' families cannot provide it themselves.
  774
  The question of evictions is open to misconception. The evidence of such evictions is very weak; I felt that the evidence presented to the Committee was based more on political considerations than on hard numbers. One organisation suggested, however, that—although no actual evictions had taken place—some people had been discouraged from going into homes because of the cost involved. We recognise that some homes are more expensive than others, and that some provide more facilities than others; we must ensure, however, that no one falls through the net because basic income support is not available.
  The report makes a recommendation about the assessment of claims for income support, and the payment of such support. We are led to believe that there are administrative problems. As we know, all Government Departments have such problems, but a review of administration might be helpful.
  In my constituency, a care home owner admitted an elderly person over a weekend after that person had suffered a fall in her own home. The home owner had not waited for the bureaucratic processes to be completed; she had acted out of the goodness of her heart. Rather than being rewarded by the social security system, that home owner suffered a disadvantage. Payment of income support is related to pension payment days, and she was not remunerated for the first five days of the elderly person's occupation. The home owner had to pay herself. It is clear that legitimate and reasonable owners of residential care homes are suffering. The less money is given to such homes, the less is available for the "little extras" to which I have referred.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned alternatives to residential or nursing home care. Although I disagreed with some of what he said, I agree that we should consider whether more people can stay in their own homes. As I have said, there has been a substantial increase in the number of pensioners, but surely new technology and the availability of volunteers could enable more people to stay at home for longer. We should take a radical approach to the position of elderly people beyond the year 2000, and consider whether technology can allow them to enjoy a better standard of living and to rely less on residential and nursing homes. Surely, in the early years after retirement, fewer people will need to go into such homes.
  I commend the report. I believe that many of its recommendations deserve wider and deeper consideration, and I hope that the Government will take them on board.
  6.25 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on his excellent chairmanship of the Committee; I also congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who played an important role. I welcome the recommendations in the report.
  The report addresses itself very well to a specific "client group", the elderly and sick. Over the past decade, the care of that group has been privatised: the hon. Member for Macclesfield illustrated the process very clearly when he referred to an excellent nursing home in his constituency, a fairly large institution containing trained nurses. The

  775
  taxpayer financed the training of those nurses: there is a hidden bonus for the owner of that home, and for the owners of many others.
  In the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who is not in the Chamber now, moved to amend paragraph 88 of the report. I am sad about that. The paragraph clearly spelled out the story of supplementary benefits and income support payments to fund care in residential and nursing homes, saying that it was a telling example of what could happen if change was made in an ad hoc way.
  The section that was deleted struck me as very important. It pointed out:
  "no overt decision had been made to phase out geriatric wards; the practice grew as health authorities saw the opportunity to transfer costs to the budget of another Government Department by transferring one aspect of care to the voluntary and private sector. That practice has now brought about a major change in the NHS. A service free at the point of delivery is being changed, for some, to one in which they or their relatives are asked to make what is often a considerable weekly contribution."
  When Opposition Members talk of creeping privatisation, that is exactly what we mean. I am sorry that an excellent paragraph was amended, effectively to blame carers—or their neighbours or female relatives—for neglecting to do their unpaid duty.
  Paragraph 94 expresses dismay that the funding of nursing home care should be private, and that health authority managers should draw a distinction between the elderly and others who need care. I hope that the Minister will take note of that important paragraph. I have argued with my district health authority for many years I know that many hon. Members have done the same with theirs —because it has for various reasons shifted the problem of elderly sick people to the private sector. It is increasingly difficult for the relatives of the elderly sick to obtain even respite care in many hospitals when they themselves need a rest. The crisis has occurred because of the Government's policy—which, whether or not it was deliberate, has been disastrous, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said. We have ended up in a mess.
  The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) attacked local authorities, but that will not wash. It is no good knocking local authorities—we have only to consider the figures to see the massive amount that has been removed from rate support grant while the number of elderly people has increased. If the local authorities had been given the money that has been poured into the private sector to be spent on domiciliary packages, more home helps, special care attendance and occupational budgets to provide aids and adaptations for people in their own homes, we could have saved the Government and the country millions of pounds. My local authority of Calderdale spent responsibly, and a Government Department patted it on the back, saying that it was the second most efficient metropolitan authority in the country.
  I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said that £1·7 billion has gone into the private sector in the current year. With that money, we could have provided what the people wanted and real choice. I imagine that, for 90 per cent. of the elderly sick, the choice would be to receive nursing home treatment under the national health service or the care packages which would enable them to stay in their own homes. If local authorities and councillors had wasted the money in the way that many of us believe the Government have done, they would have
  776
  been surcharged and hounded out of office. It is a disgrace that Government Departments are not subjected to the same scrutiny and punishments.
  I do not want to criticise those who provide private care, because I recognise that there is as much good care in the private sector as there is bad. However, I criticise the trend towards not having highly paid and experienced staff. Many of the private homes are pretty, Laura Ashley, chintzy places, but do they have rehabilitation programmer or free therapy for their residents? Do they have the orientation programmes which I have seen in many of the local authority homes that I have visited in my constituency?
  The crux of the report is funding, and the growing gap between income support and what it now costs to keep people in either nursing homes or elderly residential homes. The growing gap now means that the elderly people or their relatives must find that difference. When the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), was in a less exalted position, I remember listening to her make a clear and, I thought, slightly emotional but honest contribution to a debate in the House. She talked about Florence Smith, an elderly constituent of hers, and how she was caught in such a gap.
  Since she became Under-Secretary, I have written to the hon. Lady about such gaps experienced by many of my constituents. I am afraid that her reply was not as sympathetic as the contribution that she made as a Back Bencher when talking about Florence Smith. She also told me that there had been no evidence of evictions, but, however hon. Members interpret it, the evidence given to the Select Committee by Mr. Harris of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities was clear. He said:
  "about 24 per cent. of our member authorities are saying to us that they have recorded instances of eviction."
  Mr. David Shaw rose—
  Mrs. Mahon: I shall finish this point, and then I shall give way.
  A constituent of mine was on the verge of being evicted. Fortunately, her relatives were able to move her to another home which was cheaper: that is an increasingly common practice. Elderly residents are being downgraded and sometimes have to share rooms, and that situation will get worse. I am concerned that that will happen long before the community care changes come into force.
  I want to draw the House's attention to recommendations (vii) and (viii), which are important. They deal with hospital discharge procedures and state that district health authorities should obey circulars. We need to know how the recommendations will apply in the new internal market for health care. We know that circulars that go to trusts are sent for the purpose of information, not action. If the recommendations are shortly to be accepted by the House, we want to know specifically whether the opted-out hospitals will be excused from obeying that recommendation. If so, there is not much point in us debating the issue. The report is excellent, and I hope that its recommendations will be carried out.
  I finish where I started, by saying that the report confirms absolutely that there has been a wholesale privatisation of care for the sick and elderly. That is unfair, and it is also slightly sinister to say that, when somebody reaches a certain age, he can no longer receive care under

  777
  the NHS. I welcome the fact that that has been exposed and, despite the amended paragraph 88, I welcome the recommendations as a whole.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I shall be brief, as I understand that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and the Minister want to reply to the debate. I also wish to put on record my congratulations to the Select Committee and its Chairman for their hard work.
  I hope that we never reach the position that I have sometimes, although not often, met in my constituency, when I have received a phone call from a private home to the effect that it could no longer keep a patient who had perhaps become doubly incontinent. If the relatives could not pick the patient up, he would be lodged in the casualty department of the local hospital. It is scandalous that elderly patients should be treated in that way.
  I repeat what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) said about patients' private needs payments. It has been brought to my attention that that money, which patients regard as pocket money, is sometimes taken from them by private residential homes to be used as payment.
  I take issue with some Conservative Members who spoke of second pensions solving the problems of the elderly in our communities. I ask them to visit some of the communities that I represent, from which industry has disappeared and in which it is not only the person approaching pensionable age who is unemployed and in receipt of social security benefit, but the caring young people in the family who want to do the best for their relatives. I do not see how those people can accrue a second pension. To get a second pension, a person needs a job, and the jobs are just not there.
  I have no objection to private residential care for those who can afford it, but the Minister must admit that local authorities do an excellent job in terms of residential care and that there should be more local authority residential care places. The Minister must know that, when Conservative Members attack local authorities, they are attacking—sometimes unconsciously—dedicated men and women who have fought for years to get first-class old folk's homes.
  If we mean business in looking after our elderly—and not just the elderly, as young and middle-aged people may be stroke victims or have other problems which mean that they need residential care—local authorities should be encouraged to build more places. I hope that the Minister will encourage local authorities which do an excellent job in terms of residential care.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: It gives me great pleasure to commend to the House the fourth report by the Select Committee on Social Security. It is a model of detail and clarity in reporting on private residential and nursing homes. It is of great credit to the Committee that it describes the situation so clearly and that it points out many of the problems that have come about as a result of Government policy towards private residential care over the past few years.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for his kind comments in his introduction to
  778
  the debate. No one has more expertise or knowledge of these matters, and it is to the credit of the House that he brings those qualities to bear in our debates. He has always been a source of inspiration to me and I hope that he will take it as a compliment when I say that, from the days when I was a student, he has been an inspiration to me.
  I intend to reinforce and highlight some of the recommendations that have been mentioned in many thoughtful contributions this afternoon and I will pose a series of questions to the Minister, whom I welcome to her first estimates debate. I hope that, in the short time available, she will be able to answer those questions.
  I support my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) in their general comments on the broad area of policy on residential and community care. Many people who care or who are cared for find it difficult to understand why they cannot get the resources for that care when such vast amounts go towards people who are in residential care. Such people have been disappointed, to say the least, that the Government postponed the community care programme by two years because they saw it as an opportunity for the balance of resources between residential care and community care to be readdressed. They also saw it as an opportunity to get the packages of care that they sought implemented as early as possible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax made the point that the rundown of long-stay care for the elderly in our health service and the move towards the elderly having the opportunity to go only into private nursing care is to be deprecated. I am not in favour of long-term institutional care in hospitals, but the balance between the opportunity for decent health care for the elderly in our hospital services and the opportunity for other care has gone much too far. In my local hospital in Withington, the number of beds for the elderly has decreased in the past few years from 140 beds to barely 20.
  I was informed today that elderly people who are trying to get into hospital are being put on to wards in which the nursing staff have not been designated specifically for the care of the elderly. They are put into such wards because there are not sufficient resources in the health service to open up other wards that have been closed because of the general lack of resources in the health service. We must consider clearly the balance between health care provision in the national health service and health care provision in private nursing homes.
  We must also examine the way in which the run-down of resources through personal social services and housing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield pointed out, has led to local authorities having to suspend many innovations. Cities such as Sheffield and Manchester have been at the forefront of examining alternatives to residential health care to ensure that people can live happily in the community. I commend the programme of the development of elderly persons' resource centres in those cities.
  In Withington, we have such a centre, which provides domiciliary care, meals, laundry services, recreation services, shopping facilities and companionship. The people who attend those centres can still live in their own homes because of the support staff who work from those resource centres. The number of people in the catchment area of the resource centre who now seek residential care has dropped dramatically. Few now seek residential care because of that support in the community.

  779
  I hope that the Government will re-examine the funding of such developments in local authorities in conjunction with their community care programme so that local authorities and others can again consider a flexible response to ensure that we do not only seek residential care, but that we look forward to proper community care and support in the home.
  My hon. Friends have highlighted some of the report's recommendations. The report is clear that there is substantial evidence from many organisations such as the citizen's advice bureaux, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, Mencap and MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—that the level of income support does not match the costs in private residential care and that there is a threat, although Conservative Members may doubt it. People in such homes are anxious that, because of the gap between income support and charges, there is a threat of eviction. Indeed, there are cases of eviction. They may be few and far between, but they cause worry to elderly people who fear that the gap may lead to them being put in the same position.
  An AMA survey in September 1990 showed that 24 per cent. of local authorities gave evidence of evictions. It is a particular problem in the south-east, where there are escalating costs. There have been examples in local councils in the south-east—Hertfordshire springs to mind —of evictions taking place. We must study the gap closely and we must realise that, in many of the homes that have come on to the market, on which there has been significant capital outlay by people moving into the private sector, the costs have escalated because of the massive increase in interest rates. Those costs have been passed on to the residents, so the gap has widened.
  We have heard today that the gap has had to be filled by resources from relatives, from charitable organisations and, most appalling, from the meagre personal allowance available to people in residential homes. They cannot then use that small amount for the few personal items that they may want to buy when they are in residential homes. We must ensure that the gap does not lead to anxiety about possible eviction. We must also ensure that the escalation of costs does not lead to elderly people having to move from a single-bedded room to shared accommodation, which would be a lowering of standards in their residential home—and it is their home. We must ensure that those problems in the south-east are addressed.
  I support the recommendation—I hope that the Under-Secretary will do likewise—that the extra allowance that is given in the Greater London area should be extended to out-of-area boroughs that have similar high charges. Her Department should act on the recommendation that local officers should be able to top up that gap for claimants if no other resources are available. There should be local flexibility through income support benefits to meet the different charges around the country.
  I also support the suggestion that has been made by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux about housing benefit continuing to be paid until the new system commences in 1993. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Social Security in his place, because he has said that the decision in January 1991 to stop such payments was taken because
  "It has never been the intention, nor is it sensible, that in the generality of cases Housing Benefit should be available as an alternative to income support".
  780
  After 1993, the finance to meet the charges will come from income support, housing benefit and local authority community care budgets. Therefore, would it not be sensible to reintroduce the housing benefit element now to ensure that that gap can be met?
  I strongly urge the Under-Secretary to look closely at the recommendation that the personal allowance should not be used as a contribution to bridge the gap between the charges and the benefits. The personal allowance must be ring-fenced to ensure that people in residential care can have a small amount of money for their personal needs.
  Several hon. Members have highlighted the position of carers who may be disadvantaged because of the capital rules on income support. Their position was well summed up by the Carers National Association, which has stated that the current rules could have "disastrous consequences" for the family and friends of the claimant who may have moved into the home to take on the caring responsibilities. We must not do anything to discourage people from taking on that caring role. People often give up their own home to move into the home of the person for whom they will be caring but may lose that home as a result of the income support capital rules.
  Although a spouse may be protected if he or she stays in the home, if the partner goes into permanent residential care, the spouse may want to move into smaller and more appropriate accommodation. In that case, the spouse must forgo 50 per cent. of the proceeds of the sale of the property, which means that his or her opportunity to purchase something more appropriate is diminished. I urge the Minister to comment on that and to look at the way in which capital is treated for income support purposes to ensure that such disadvantages do not continue.
  Perhaps the most crucial recommendation is that relating to the funding that will be available for community care after April 1993. The report highlights three issues: the amount of money to be transferred from the budget of the Department of Social Security; the way in which housing benefit will be calculated after 1993; and the division of responsibility between the health authorities and the local social service departments.
  The first issue is the amount of money that will be transferred in income support from the social security budget into the community care budget. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities estimated in its evidence to the Committee that there would be a £300 million shortfall in that provision. Although the Secretary of Slate questioned that figure in his evidence, he did not say what he believed the shortfall would be. However, there is irrefutable evidence that there will be a shortfall, and if we do not ensure that that gap is identified and ascertain where the resources to meet that gap will come from, not only will the people who are currently seeking community care be disadvantaged, but, more importantly, future generations who might seek care in the community will not receive the resources that at present they believe that they will get.
  I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary could comment on the way in which housing benefit is calculated. I hope that the Government do not intend to set a national figure that will apply throughout the country. Without regional and local variations, a further gap will be created. We must ensure that there is local

  781
  flexibility when assessing housing benefit so that it is sufficient to meet the charges that are imposed locally and to ensure that the gap does not widen.
  We must also ensure that the Department of Social Security and of Health reach a clear understanding about the way in which the community care system will operate in future. From my reading of the evidence, it appears that there is a certain amount of buck-passing between the Ministers in the two Departments about who will identify the gap, where the resources will come from and who will come clean about the budget that will be set for community care provision. The local authorities need to know now how the standard spending assessments will be calculated so that they can make definite financial plans. Such planning is crucial if our hopes for community care are to be realised after 1993. The local authorities need to know where the resources will come from and how they will be allocated between the different areas of the country.
  I end with some final thoughts for the Under-Secretary. Many questions have been posed and many recommendations highlighted in this debate. The Opposition commend them all, and I hope that the Minister will say that she will implement them. More crucially, however, will she tell the House how the Government will meet the identified shortfall in community care funding? If they do not meet that shortfall, there will be a sorry start to the future system of community care.
  6.56 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I begin by joining in the congratulations paid by hon. Members of all parties to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on the production of an excellent report, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who chaired the Select Committee on Health, which was also involved.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) to the Opposition Front Bench and look forward to many a debate with him. I look forward especially to a future opportunity to develop his views on the desirability of keeping national insurance contributions as low as possible and of working out exactly how that fits in with the policies of some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is for another occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Before turning to the detail of the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Health, who has been present for most of the debate, has asked me to apologise to the House on her behalf for the fact that she could not stay throughout.
  The hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield referred to my part in the events of 1990. It could scarcely be more vivid in their memories than it is in mine, but what is also vivid in my memory is the aftermath of those events, which was the Government's sensible accommodation of the fears and anxieties that had been expressed.
  I refer not only to the substantial amount of money that was made available, resulting in a £45 per week rise for nursing homes, which cost us a total of £225 million, but to the amendment that allowed the Secretary of State, after community care had been in place for some time, to take
  782
  account of the local authorities' assessments of reasonable rates and of their experiences in general. I will not say that much of this debate has been irrelevant, because that sounds as if I am dismissing what has been said, which I am not, but it is irrelevant in the context of 1993, because the advent of the new system will answer many of the problems that have been identified.
  The fact that we can examine what local authorities are doing has been comprehensively ignored, yet it could have an effect on many of the points that were raise.
  The hon. Members for Birkenhead and for Withington raised the problem of evictions. They seemed to be selective in the evidence that they quoted. I was particularly surprised to hear the hon. Member for Withington home in on Hertfordshire, because, among those giving evidence to the Select Committee was a Mr. Herbert Laming, the director of social services in Hertfordshire. He said:
  "there is no statistical evidence that is known to me at the present time … of people who are actually being discharged from the private sector … We do not have evidence … to bring to you … of a substantial number of people who have been discharged against their will from the private sector."
  We must take into account that evidence, as well as the other evidence, which seems to point the other way but has not been statistically upheld and has never been put before us in any form that we could check or examine.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister accept that I have an example? A private care home in my constituency accepted an elderly lady for respite care. Her son and daughter who cared for her were going abroad for a fortnight's holiday. After a period, the home evicted the woman, put her in a taxi and sent her to the local police station. Is that an eviction? Is that responsible behaviour by the private sector? Does the Minister accept such behaviour? It is happening elsewhere to my knowledge. It is not merely anecdotal evidence. There is clear evidence.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman said that it was happening elsewhere to his knowledge. Perhaps he could produce chapter and verse evidence of such incidents.
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: May I finish, please?
  If the hon. Gentleman sends the evidence, we will examine it to see what happened in that case, and whether it is evidence of a larger problem. There will always be homes, local authority as well as private sector, which do not always behave as well as they should within the rules. That is not evidence of a general trend. The hon. Gentleman has not produced evidence of a general trend.
  The problem of carers was sensibly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and by several other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Withington and for Birkenhead. We already make exceptions to the capital rule where homes are occupied by a spouse, a relative over the age of 60 or a relative who is incapacitated. We have considered whether any further easement is possible. Although I cannot give the House any good news on that score tonight, I can say that we are considering the matter.
  We have to consider factors other than merely resources. Opposition Members seemed to suggest that the hold-up was resources, but there are other factors, not least the fact, that, if we needed primary legislation, it would come on stream in about 1993, when the

  783
  responsibility for assessment and the decision about what to pay passes to local authorities. No new cases would come on stream for us to deal with. There seems to be a slight practical difficulty there.
  Furthermore, we would have to devise fairly tight rules. Yes, the cases quoted are clear ones, in which carers have been in the home for a long time, but obviously we would wish to avoid a position in which the carer was in the home for a short time in the expectation that he or she would then be allowed to stay there. All those factors are being taken on board.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) raised the problem of the personal allowance, as did several hon. Members. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State alluded to the problem when he was giving evidence to the Select Committee. It is my understanding that, after 1993, the personal allowances will have to be given to the individual, but we have a problem. The personal allowance belongs to the individual. It is for the individual to do what he or she likes with it. We cannot forbid individuals to use that allowance in whole or in part to pay fees for their care. So that is another problem. Opposition Members want us to forbid the use of that personal allowance, if only in part, for a particular purpose.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst said that, on Ministers' own admission, we no longer paid the full rate of fees. That is not true. We have said that we have never been committed—it is not something new—to paying the full fees, however high. In many instances, the income support rates cover the fees.
  Mr. Frank Field: The Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) to give her more evidence of evictions. May we ask her for evidence? History seems to be being rewritten. Could she give us just a handful of examples of people who were moved from geriatric beds into the private sector in the early stages of the development of the policy and were given the assurance that she says was publicly given that the Government had no intention of meeting fees, however high? Is not the truth that practically everyone was told, "Don't worry—social security is picking up the bill."
  Miss Widdecombe: Social security has always been committed to meeting a reasonable rate. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, indeed it is in his report, that, by simply increasing the income support rate, all that we do is cause the fees to rise behind it. That point has been made consistently. That is the point that we have addressed in saying that we will not meet fees, however high. I do not believe that we ever said to anyone in geriatric care or anyone who entered a home for any other reason, "Don't worry—social security will pick up the bill, however reasonable or however high." The hon. Gentleman challenged me, but I challenge the hon. Gentleman to provide the examples of where we said that.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made an interesting speech. He seemed to suggest that the problems with the policy had largely been caused by the Government withdrawing funding from local government for domiciliary and other services, thus forcing people into residential care. I do not know how he reconciles that with the 59 per cent. increase in spending on local authority care services since 1979.
  784
  The hon. Member for Wakefield said that he did not like private institutional care. May I draw his attention to comments in the recent issue of "Community Care" by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) The hon. Member for Perry Barr is not an apologist for the Government, but he said that the Labour party was committed to a mixed economy. I welcome his commitment. That also means a commitment to private residential care as much as to local authority residential care.
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I would like to make progress, because the hon. Member for Birkenhead wishes to reply to the debate.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the Minister give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: For the last time.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I said that I did not like institutional care, whether private or public. We have more of it in Britain than in any other country in Europe, and it is wrong.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman said that private residential care was effectively institutional care, and went on to say that he did not like institutional care. By the application of simple logic, anyone can work out that that means that he does not like private residential care.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Bellotti) was the only hon. Member to refer to recommendation (ix). I shall turn to the other recommendations in a moment. Recommendation (ix) calls upon local offices and the Department of Social Security to give higher priority to those entering residential care to to make sure that their claims for income support are processed in good time so that people do not have weeks of worry or possibly weeks in a home without paying.
  I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that, because it is not often realised that such claims can be made up to three months before the person enters care, although I am aware that the circumstances do not always allow that. Few people enter care on the spur of the moment as a result of a catastrophe. For most people, it is a planned exercise. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity to exhort people who are considering the option of residential care to make inquiries as early as possible with the social security department.
  Of course, there are national targets for all categories of claim. The target for income support is five days. Obviously, there will be difficult cases, especially where there is perhaps a house or capital to be considered. However, we will take on board the recommendation and try to ensure that people are not kept waiting on any appreciable scale. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastbourne for raising the matter.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne also quoted a Price Waterhouse survey at some length, and referred to shortfall between what we pay and the fees charged. If I heard him correctly, and I thought so, judging by the figures that he was quoting it must have been a more recent Price Waterhouse survey, not the original. The more recent survey was based on an example of 85 homes. We based ours on an example of more than 700. Therefore,

  785
  statistically, one should take the results of the first survey, and we based our rates of income support on its median rates.
  I shall now deal with the rest of the recommendations which have attracted debate in turn. The comments on recommendations which relate to the responsibilities of my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will be passed to her for examination.
  Two major recommendations in the report have attracted most publicity. The first is top-up payments, which the hon. Member for Birkenhead recommends should be made by local offices; the second is the reintroduction of housing benefit. I shall deal with the second recommendation first, because it is based upon a complete misunderstanding.
  Housing benefit was never payable in addition to income support, but was used in place of it by people who would not have qualified for income support, such as people living in a room run by a close relative, the long-term disabled and various other categories of people under pensionable age who were not eligible. They were protected when the change was made. However, we were not keen for housing benefit to be used in place of housing support for care, which is properly the provision of income support.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead also misunderstood what will happen after 1993. Yes, housing benefit will be an element of the total package, but will not be for the whole cost of care and will not be wholly additional to current rates of care. It will be the rental element of the home, but there will still be a package. Housing benefit will not come in on top of the rates.
  Mr. Frank Field: That is what we advocated.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman says that that is what he is advocating, and says that we should reintroduce it now for those who face a shortfall in fees, but it would not make up the shortfall, because it would be part of the reasonable rate of fees.
  Mr. Field: It would be additional.
  Miss Widdecombe: It would not be additional. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not understood the working of housing benefit.
  The remarks about top-up by local offices was also based on a misunderstanding. In his opening speech, the hon. Member for Birkenhead said that we should "bring forward" the arrangements which will prevail after 1993, but it will not be down to the local adjudication officer to assess people to decide the appropriate care and to assess the reasonable rate. The hon. Gentleman is proposing something entirely different, which would certainly be without the law, which is not an advance on 1993 and which is probably impossible. Local adjudication offices could not assess individuals and it would be difficult to decide why Mrs. Y should get a top-up but Mrs. X should not. That is simply meeting the fees, no matter how high, in a more disguised and reasonable form. It would work in exactly the same way as a general rise in rates.
  The hon. Member for Halifax asked whether national health service trusts would be subject to the same guidance
  786
  rules and discharge procedures. She is a victim of her own propaganda. NHS trusts are NHS trusts, so they are subject to NHS guidance after 1993.
  Mrs. Mahon: We know that when NHS circulars are sent to trusts they are sent "for information", but that they are sent "for action" to directly managed units. I was asking about that.
  Miss Widdecombe: On discharge procedures and the trusts having to take care—in exactly the same way as health authorities now have to take care—of those for whom they believe that care is appropriate, the same rules should apply.
  In the last minutes of the debate—the hon. Member for Birkenhead need not worry; I am leaving him time within the advice that I have been given—I must mention the generality of the issues raised. Time and again we have heard tonight—especially from the hon. Member for Withington—about shortfall and about the measures that we should take to meet it. Throughout the debate, shortfall has been defined as the gap between fees charged by some homes and the maximum level of income support which we will pay for different categories of persons in those homes.
  The crucial thing is that we are talking about fees charged by the homes, not about reasonable costs. We are talking not about reasonable fees, which have been independently assessed, but about a fee levied by a home. That is vastly different from saying that we should consider the shortfall between the fees and the costs incurred by the homes. The answer is that we do not intend to meet all that shortfall. We have never committed ourselves to meeting it, no matter how high the rate.
  In the light of all the sedentary interruptions from the Opposition, I would be interested to hear whether those hon. Gentlemen intend—in the unlikely event that they ever change places with us—to meet that shortfall, no matter how high the fees.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield said that under an incoming Labour Government local authorities would receive much more support. We cannot wait for a Labour Government. We have to act in 1993, and we shall do so. Unless Opposition Members are prepared to stand up and pledge that they will meet the costs of every private home, no matter how high and heavy, our proposals for 1993 will overtake most of their objections. and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to respond to the debate.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the debate.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman requires the leave of the House. Is that agreed?
  Hon. Members: Yes.
  Mr. Field: With the leave of the House, it remains for me only to thank the Select Committee on Energy for allowing us to hear the Government's reply. Even if the election is postponed until July, the Government will not be able to maintain the line that we have heard from the Dispatch Box.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates)

  Coal Industry
  [Relevant documents: Fifth report from the Energy Committee of Session 1990–91 on Clean Coal Technology and the Coal Market after 1993 (House of Commons Paper No. 208) and the Government reply contained in the first special report from the Energy Committee of Session 1991–92 (House of Commons Paper No. 67).]

  CLASS V, VOTE 9
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum not exceeding £4,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry. —[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  7.17 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: The Select Committee on Energy believes that we all want to get the best that we can from one of our big national resources—coal—and for that reason we have carried out an inquiry into clean coal technology and the future of coal after 1993. We are grateful for the opportunity of this Estimates Day debate to bring our report to the attention of the House.
  Coal was the foundation of our industrial revolution and coal remained the lowest cost source of energy in this country until the long period of low oil prices in the 1960s. Then the coal industry, faced with tough competition for the first time, slimmed down, modernised, introduced new equipment and new working methods in a way that should be applauded because it did so at a time when the rest of British industry was resisting change. Coal, however, faced the challenge.
  The coal industry certainly coped with contraction admirably on the first occasion. As a result, at the end of the 1960s it was in a much healthier and stronger condition, which would have been ideal to take advantage of the fivefold increase in oil prices in 1973. However, the industry then had the misfortune to suffer two of the most disruptive and damaging strikes in our history. The result was that, as a business, the coal industry did not progress, despite further major technical improvements and large investments. Its markets were sheltered by the high oil price in the heyday of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel and to some extent the industry was cosseted by those high oil prices. Then there was the collapse of oil prices, followed consequentially by the collapse of world coal prices.
  Since then, the industry has had to manage a second period of change much steeper than the first. That decline has again been managed remarkably well—indeed, better than any of us might have believed. For the second time in 25 years, something smaller but in every other way better has emerged. There may have been a vast reduction in employment but with the Government providing generous and substantial help, those who have gone from the industry have been properly provided for, while those who remained are better off, with high earnings, a safer environment and better equipment. The days lost by disputes are at a record low, and productivity is twice what it was five years ago. Of course, one has to commend the so-called super-pits for the way in which they can set European records, with outputs of some 30 tonnes per man shift.
  788
  Most politicians of all parties believe that, despite the many problems that the industry faces, British Coal can and should make a valuable long-term contribution to our energy economy, especially now that we face some decline in North sea oil and later some decline in gas. If' it continues to perform as it has done over the past five years, British Coal has a major part to play for the benefit of us all.
  The problems that we have to deal with come in part from coal's position right at the end of a series of privatisations. The commercial freedom given to British Coal's principal customers—the electricity generators—has had a negative knock-on effect on the coal industry, which has to compete with other fuels and with imported coal for its share of the market.
  We must make a clear distinction between three different challenges. First, there are the challenges arising directly from the structure which has emerged from the privatisation of the energy industries to date, with the consequent changes in the marketplace which have produced greater competition for British Coal. Secondly, there are challenges and problems which come from perceived need to clean up coal-fired generation. Thirdly, there is the greater availability of competitive fuels, such as gas which is used in high-efficiency combined cycle generators, and imported coal.
  Let us consider price competition and market forces. There may be a case for easing the pain for British Coal by having to compete against world coal prices for a short while, but there is no case for the long-term ring fence accorded to the German and Spanish coal industries. Perhaps we need a European coal policy to get equality throughout the Community. To see the high cost coal elements preserved artificially in other countries within the Community, while at the same time our low-cost coal industry contracts, is economic folly—and no more so than when looking forward with all idealism to the spirit of 1992. If, as I am told, British Coal's anti-dumping case is technically sound, it should be investigated and not pushed aside simply because the Germans totally protect their coal industry.
  Of course we are not immune to similar problems. We have to address our internal inefficiencies, the most striking of which is the protection of the nuclear industry and the way it benefits from subsidy. If we have to get rid of protection subsidies on coal, we should not perpetuate subsidies on any competing fuel.
  Nuclear power must receive its proper credit for riot contributing to greenhouse gases and acid rain emissions. It must be given the opportunity to develop as a future source of fuel for the next century, perhaps as an insurance policy. If we neglect coal and lose our coal resources and our ability to mine coal, we are more likely to need an insurance policy.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has made pointed remarks about nuclear power. He was at the Nuclear Forum this year, and he probably heard the chairman of Scottish Nuclear say that he thought that there was a case for subsidising nuclear power in the interests of defence and strategic needs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that statement?
  Dr. Clark: My view—I am not speaking for the Select Committee here—is that nuclear power is a power source

  789
  which cannot be ignored and which should be developed, even if there is a cost. We need the insurance policy, but we shall need it more if we allow coal to run down. If we allow coal to take its natural course and if we develop more coal-fired power stations with clean coal technology, the need for the insurance policy will be less obvious. Perhaps then we could run down our nuclear industry.
  If we continue saying that we shall become dependent on oil, most of which will be imported in 40 or 50 years, and on coal which may be imported because we have no indigenous source of supply, the only indigenous source of supply left will be nuclear. In those circumstances, perhaps we should subsidise it. There are ways around that. One is to let coal come back naturally into the marketplace. Then we would not need to do so much for nuclear power. I did not mind the interruption; it may have helped to put my argument across.
  If we are to get rid of subsidies on nuclear generation, we must do so fairly quickly, because we need to know where the nuclear industry stands by 1994 when the Government review its future. If we can get a proper review of the nuclear industry clearly before the country, we shall know better where the coal industry will stand after 1994.
  Clean coal technology was dealt with in the first part of the report. The need to clean up coal-fired generation is a problem, in that massive expenditure is required to retrofit existing power stations to take out sulphur dioxide and stop acid rain emissions. Massive expenditure will be required on all existing coal-fired power stations, but the wise and economically sound solution is to build new clean burn coal-fired power stations which, due to their high thermal efficiency, create an opportunity for coal to compete more effectively with the gas-fired combined cycle generators which seem to be so much in vogue.
  Clean coal technology cannot reduce the price of indigenous coal, but it can increase thermal efficiency so that coal in general, from wherever it comes, can better compete with gas. Clean coal technology can make a major contribution to solving the problem of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide emissions, because there will be less emission per megawatt of electricity generated. Clean coal technology can also help to increase demand for coal, even imported coal, thus helping our indigenous coal industry to expand in an energy market which accepts that coal is clean and economical.
  In July 1991, the Select Committee that I have the honour to chair concluded that it attached great importance to clean coal technology, both in terms of providing an energy source and an electricity source for the country, and also in terms of the future of the coal industry. The Department of Energy said in evidence that it recognised the United Kingdom
  "as an acknowledged leader in development of some aspects"
  of clean coal technology which has a research and development objective
  "to support work which would not otherwise be undertaken on an appropriate timescale".
  The Department of Energy still refuses to give even modest help to demonstration projects. However, the Secretary of States has said that it is
  "self-evident that there is a very big demand for clean coal technology."
  790
  In the Select Committee report, we recommended that a credible long-term strategy should include certain elements. First, there should be a new sense of urgency, which recognises that the United Kingdom's competitors are making progress with clean coal technologies in the expectation of obtaining significant export markets. If we do not go ahead urgently and make some progress with such technology, in due course we shall have to import it.
  Secondly, we should recognise that the United Kingdom is unlikely to succeed with clean coal technologies unless the Government are as supportive towards such technologies as are our competitors' Governments. In fairness, I acknowledge that the Department of Energy has given encouragement and funding to the project at Grimethorpe. However, that funding falls short of what is needed by that project. It also falls short of the funding that has been given to similar pilot plant processes in other countries. I hope that the Minister will address that when he replies.
  Thirdly, new emphasis should be placed on demonstration projects, which go one stage further than pilot plants. That would require a significant increase in Government funding to ensure that the necessary resources are available to push the development of such technology forward towards commercial use.
  There have been plans for a demonstration project at Bilsthorpe, but those plans are now on the back burner and the project may never materialise. However, I heard just a few days ago that a demonstration project is to go ahead at Gardanne in France. Well done, Gardanne, but it would be nice if we could have a demonstration project as well, so that, in due course, we do not have to import such technology from the other side of the Channel.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: They are discussing that at Maastricht right now.
  Dr. Clark: Perhaps, but I suspect that it will be low on that agenda.
  Fourthly, there should be a realistic appraisal of the extent to which each stage of research, development and demonstration projects can expect to attract industry funding. The Government are rightly keen to get industry to fund such projects, particularly demonstration projects. Certainly, industry funding would be the most admirable way in which to make those projects work as well as a commitment to build those projects and to recoup the investment. The Government should encourage industry to make such investment, and perhaps they should also match some of the funding for the research, development and demonstration projects.
  It is not yet known when the Government will reveal their strategy in response to our report or in response to the report from their own coal task force. That strategy may not be announced until after the election or until the plans for privatisation of the coal industry are announced, but the impact and importance of that strategy, when it is known, cannot be underestimated. That strategy will ultimately determine the final size of the British coal industry, it will influence electricity prices and it will have a significant effect on environmental protection.
  In conclusion, the United Kingdom of the 1990s and beyond will be very different from that of the 1980s, which was overflowing with energy riches. Let no one think that it does not matter if we let British coal resources remain unexploited. It would be most ironic if the country's

  791
  largest fuel reserves disappeared at the very moment when the combined cycle might be readily available for coal-fired generation.
  It would be ironic if we lost the ability to produce coal in this country at a time when the world was turning towards it and when, at the beginning of the next century, there might be a revitalisation of the coal industry. If that happened, our coal industry would be in danger of being unable to follow the rest of the world because we had allowed it to become too small and to decline too far. That would be to the detriment of us all.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: It is extremely kind of you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to call me so early in this debate. That does not usually happen to me.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who made a remarkable speech. He examined many aspects of the coal industry, and some of his findings were forthright and honest. In particular, he identified the fact that the Government have shifted their energy policy away from the coal industry. Unless something is done about that, the nation will lose an important asset.
  It is important to consider what has caused the Government to shift their support from the coal industry. Therefore, it is important to consider recent events in the coal industry. If one considers the past 12, or should I say unlucky 13, years of Conservative Administration, it is clear that there has been a policy shift away from the coal industry. That industry is having to pay for that today.
  The conclusion of the Select Committee on Energy report calls for measures to ensure the future security of the coal mining industry. I must remind the House that those who work in that industry have always faced insecurity. Rumours abound about possible Government action after the next election. Hon. Members are aware that the Government never have tried to hide the fact that, if elected, they will introduce a Bill to privatise the coal industry. That Bill would hardly make those in the industry feel secure.
  Recent leaked reports—they have been disowned, in common with others—reveal what will happen to the coal industry. Those reports have been commissioned at a great price by the Government. One such report recently predicted the devastation of the coal mining industry and predicted a further massive reduction in the number of coal mines. That is hardly designed to make miners feel secure. The Rothschild report predicted that, at best, there would be 14 pits left in Britain and, at worst, only 12. That was devastating news for the coal industry, and it has caused immense insecurity.
  It is important to consider what has happened to the coal mining industry in recent years—an industry that formed the backbone of British industrial production for decades. That industry has suffered the loss of 180,000 direct jobs, together with the loss of hundreds of thousands of associated jobs from our coalfield communities.
  We in Nottinghamshire have suffered the loss of 25,000 jobs in coal mining, with the loss of 4,000 ancillary jobs. In other words, we have lost about 29,000 jobs in eight or nine years. In that area, the capital of the coal mining industry, 80,000 further jobs have been lost in service and
  792
  other industries that supported or were reliant on coal. Well in excess of 100,000 jobs, representing absolute devastation, have gone from Nottinghamshire.
  The action and planning that have resulted in that degree of loss have not helped to create security in coal mining. Not only do those still working in the industry feel insecure, but the threat of Rothschilds or something similar hanging over their future makes them feel terrified.
  I know that the hon. Member for Rochford appreciates the plight of those in the industry, because his home is in the area and he has connections with the county of Nottinghamshire. I am anxious to remind hon. Members who are not familiar with coal mining about the situation in Nottinghamshire, because it is not dissimilar to what is happening in other coalfield communities.
  Nottingham is a new coalfield compared with many others. People working there originated in Scotland, the north-east, Lancashire, Yorkshire, Wales and Kent. Many of them arrived in Nottinghamshire as their second or third move from other coal-mining areas. Some had moved from Scotland to the north-east, on to Yorkshire, on to Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire and then even further afield. It is incredible to think that that has happened within a few short years. Many families in my constituency have had to move more than once or twice in that way.
  Many of my constituents who are anxious to live and work in the area are being denied the opportunity to do so by the insecurity that is being forced on them. I know many men who are working in their fourth or fifth pit in the Nottinghamshire coalfield because of the rate of close-down elsewhere in the country.
  With the demise of 25,000 jobs in Nottinghamshire, we are left with only 14,000 miners—in a part of the industry that was described only a few years ago as the king, the capital of the British coal mining industry. The Government should put an end to policies which create that degree of uncertainty, and I am grateful for the recommendations of the Select Committee on that score.
  We cannot consider the future of British coal mining without taking account of the Government's attitude to imported coal. In the past, some Conservative Members have argued that imported coal is important for the continuation of deep-mined coal in the British coalfield. That is absolute nonsense: it is a smokescreen for Conservative policies towards the industry.
  I remind the House of the long battles that took place against the imposition of private ports designed to cater for imported coal from, for example, Australia, Poland, China and Colombia. Much of it was blood coal, extracted at low labour cost, shipped to Europe, mixed with other coals elsewhere in Europe and then imported into Britain. We fought long battles in this Chamber over Immingham and Killingholme to try to stop the building of ports, the main activity of which was the importation of cheap foreign coal. Indeed, I recall a chairman of the then CEGB admitting, on being questioned, that up to 8 million tonnes of cheap foreign coal would be imported via those ports.
  Conservative Members also argue that we cannot have a European coal policy. They go so far as to say that such a policy would be illegal. That, too, is absolute nonsense. We could get our act together for the benefit of the British coalfields, because we produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe. We shall soon have a Labour Government,

  793
  but whatever the complexion of the British Government, hon. Members in all parts of the House should get them to get our act together and achieve a Europewide policy.
  Conservative Members argue that GATT prevents us from restricting imports from areas outside the European Community into Britain. They claim that such action would be illegal. We should tell the other Governments in Brussels that we welcome aspects of the social charter and want them applied to trade agreements with countries outside the European Community. Then, the miners in those countries, including children—in Colombia, South Africa, China and so on—would work under a law approved by the EC. That would enable them to benefit from that social charter when digging coal in their countries. On that basis, coal could be landed in Europe only if it had been mined in accordance with that law.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: My hon. Friend will know that we have been in the Common Market for 18 years and that for all that time the member countries have not bought our coal. We hear lots of talk about our colleagues in the EC and about how we are all working together. We buy their goods, manufactured and otherwise, and although we have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe, our so-called colleagues never buy our coal. One would think that, after 18 years, they would be buying some by now. That prevents me from going down the EC road which my hon. Friend seems to be taking. Is he suggesting that we get deeper into the EC web, when the countries of Europe are not delivering—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I suggest that we return to the subject of the report that is before the House.
  Mr. Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he and I have been, and remain, close on European matters. My argument is that, as we are in the EC, like it or not, we should try to establish with our European partners a common policy for coal, including cheap international imported coal.
  I appreciate the point that my hon. Friend makes. He too spent many long hours in the Chamber campaigning against private ports being used to import cheap coal. For example, South Africa coal was shipped to some of our partners, notably Holland and Belgium, mixed with cheap coal there and then sold on to Britain as European coal. That cannot be a common European coal policy. Instead, we must try to get our act together to ensure that the coal industry is supported.
  I thank the hon. Member for Rochford for some of his comments. I welcome the report, which starts to put some of the arguments together. I hope that it will make hon. Members, wherever they stand, realise that coal is one of this country's major assets for the future. I hope to God that we shall not throw it away.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Peter Rost: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) that the coal industry and its future should have a European dimension. We should recognise that, in so far as we have a European Community energy policy, the European Community as a whole should take a view on how far we can allow our major indigenous energy source to run down.
  794
  May I offer an additional solution to this major problem? In their reply to the report of the Energy Select Committee, the Government said that a strong market will develop for key coal technology at the end of the decade. I am sure that that is right, but I am concerned about whether we shall still have much of a coal industry left at the end of the decade if we wait until then. That is why I shall consider the problem from a shorter-term perspective. My solution could help to get the coal industry out of its present dilemma and allow it to survive long enough to meet demands for energy at the turn of the century.
  We all know that British Coal is fighting to retain its market. It is threatened by cheaper imported coal and, above all, by gas, which is the flavour of the month for combined cycle gas turbines. Furthermore, environmental pressures to develop cleaner energy are imposed on us by the European Community and the Toronto protocol.
  Against that background, it is not surprising that we are now undertaking a huge investment in gas turbine power generation. I have just been involved in a working party with a number of experts, including representatives from the National Union of Mineworkers, British Coal, the power generators and industry. We are producing a report trying to assess what the market for coal will be—a second guess to the Rothschild report. Our best estimate is that we have at present 6·5 GW of combined cycle plant under construction or firmly committed, with probably another 10 GW likely to go ahead, which in total will almost certainly replace some 30 million tonnes of coal. That is the dilemma.
  Although new combined cycle gas turbines offer cheaper electricity than new coal-fired plant, they do not compete with existing coal capacity. Electricity from existing coal-fired power stations underprices electricity from the new combined cycle gas turbines. There is plenty of evidence of that, for those who want to find it. The evidence comes from PowerGen and National Power, which have admitted that they are pushing up the price of electricity in the pool to justify the cost of new investment in combined cycle gas turbines. We know that environmental considerations are an additional reason. The power generation industry has rightly been told that it must reduce emissions over a period of years.
  Those are not the only reasons why we are developing so many combined cycle gas turbines. Such development is not justified on economic grounds, because it is leading to the premature closure of coal-fired power stations that could still compete in the electricity market. National Power has admitted that it has already closed down 3 GW —3,000 MW—of coal-fired plant in the past two years, PowerGen has closed down about seven of its coal-fired power stations, and both companies propose to close more. I challenge the suggestion that all those power stations are uneconomic, as both generators maintain.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have heard those arguments directly from one of the big generators that he mentioned. Does that not run contrary to the ideology behind the privatisation of the electricity supply industry—that new competition would force down prices?
  Mr. Rost: I shall come to the question of competition. I do not accept the manner in which the hon. Gentleman puts his case. I shall argue that we do not have proper

  795
  competition. If we had, we would not be closingdown so many coal-fired power stations. They are being closed down because there is a duopoly rather than a series of competitive producers. The duopoly is more than anxious to get rid of excess capacity, some of which could compete in the marketplace.
  In order to get rid of excess capacity, an artificial scarcity in electricity is being created, so that the duopoly can justify its huge investment in new combined cycle gas turbines. Some of the existing coal-fired plant that is being closed produces electricity at the marginal cost of some 2p per kilowatt hour. New combined cycle gas turbine plants cannot produce electricity at that price—it costs 2·5p to 3p, depending on the gas contract. Some of the new gas turbine plant that is about to be ordered has yet to obtain a long-term gas contract. I should be surprised if the cost of that were not at least 3p per kilowatt hour. Much of our existing coal fired plant underprices that.
  If I am wrong, let us put it to the test. The coal-fired plants which the duopoly is closing down, has already closed down or proposes to close down because they are supposedly uneconomic, should be offered for sale to others who think that the duopoly may have got it wrong. They should he offered to a wider range of independents, or perhaps to the regional electricity companies or British Coal.
  I presume that, if they are of no interest to National Power of PowerGen, their only value is the site or scrap value, so it would not cost much if anyone else wished to prove that they could still bid into the electricity market at a competitive price. I suspect that many of them could. Some of them could be and would be refurbished as clean coal-burning fluidised bed combustion plants, as is already happening at the Slough estates and as some of the regional electricity companies wish to do. That would also meet the emission standards, and produce a higher thermal efficiency.
  If that competitive opportunity is denied by the duopoly, and the market for British coal is thus restricted and contracted, British Coal will be unfairly penalised in the market. I go further, and suggest that British Coal should be allowed to compete fairly in the new, privatised energy market. British Coal should have the same opportunity to invest in power generation as its main competitior, British Gas, which is using its fuel to compete in power generation. Why should not British Coal use its coal for the same reason?
  British Coal should now—before privatisation, or it may be too late—be given sanction to raise money that it requires for commercial decision taking by its shareholder the Government. If not, it should be free to raise funds in the financial markets, as do privatised industry and its competitors in the energy market. That would enable it to make viable decisions to enter the power generation business, perhaps in a joint venture. After all, British Coal has competent directors and management to make such decisions.
  Given such a level playing field of opportunity to compete, I suspect that British Coal would look for joint ventures with independent power generators or regional electricity companies in order to prove that some of the coal-fired plants that PowerGen and National Power claim are uneconomic could compete in the electricity market. If British Coal were privatised, I believe that it would now be doing just that. I have no doubt that British
  796
  Coal would have taken a more active commercial step to protect its market, as any industry does if it sees its market collapsing around it.
  However, we know that British Coal has been restrained by its shareholder and the Treasury from investing or diversifying in power generation. I believe that British Coal, under privatised management—which should have happened many years ago—would be taking on the duopoly power generators. I believe that it would be saying to them, "All right, you do not want to buy our coal, so we will use it ourselves and show that we can compete with you." My theory should be put to the test in order to prove whether existing British Coal and British power stations fuelled by coal can compete with the new combined cycle gas turbine power stations. I believe that they could.
  British Gas and the oil industry are already entering the power generation market. Industry is also doing so, through combined heat and power. In addition, regional electricity companies are competing in power generation. Why should not the nation's leading producer of fuel for generation also have the freedom to do so, especially when its future is being undermined by its competitors and it is unable to compete fairly because its hands are tied behind its back?
  If the Government want a successful privatised British coal industry, which I am sure they do, would it not be a great deal easier to privatise British Coal as a stronger commercial asset, which would make it more attractive to potential buyers, if it were involved in some profitable power generation and had thus secured some of its own coal markets? British Coal's freedom to move into power generation by taking over power stations that National Power and PowerGen had rejected and by using its own coal would also help to build up competition in the electricity market which does not currently exist. That point relates to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  The competition does not presently exist, because the duopoly is, to some extent, abusing the system. It has all the power plants at present, although, in due course, independent plants will come in at the margins. At present, the duopoly is getting rid of excess capacity, even though some of it could still be competing, which is restricting competition.
  If the Government want to help the competitive power market, they have an opportunity to allow a new player into the power generation market: British Coal. That would not only provide competition but would make British Coal a more attractive proposition for privatisation and, above all, would give British Coal a life saver in the transition period between now and the turn of the century, when, hopefully, the new clean coal technologies will come to its rescue.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will at least consider my argument reasonable and worth some consideration. I hope that he thinks that my proposals go some way to finding a solution to the difficult transition period now facing British Coal.
  I believe that the energy balance—the economics of energy—will change in years to come as gas prices begin to rise because of the extreme pressure of demand throughout Europe. I believe that the balance will begin to change back in favour of coal, which will make the clean coal

  797
  technologies the investment choice by the turn of the century. I hope that, by that time, our coal industry is still able to participate.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Terry Patchett: I am grateful to have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall be brief, as I know many of my colleagues who wish to speak have a genuine interest in the coal industry. I am fortunate in that my constituency still contains the semblance of a coal industry, albeit its manpower is less than a third of what it was in 1985.
  I find it difficult to speak in this debate, given that its subject is the future of the coal industry. I believe that both parties in any debate should have a genuine interest in the subject, and be open and honest. The Government, on their past record, do not meet any of those criteria. They have always stated that British Coal should take its chance in a fair and free market, but they suported private Bills—for example, the one that is now the Associated British Ports Act 1990—which helped British Coal's rivals. They have used the British coal industry to pursue Tory dogma. They initiated an unnecessary year-long strike which cost the taxpayer £5 billion. They did so just to make the trade unions look bad, ably assisted by their friends in the press. That did no good and had nothing to do with the industry.
  The Government's friends in the press vilified, and attempted a character assassination of, a trade union leader whose heart and soul was genuinely in the industry —Arthur Scargill. His only crime was to speak the truth about the Government's pit closure programme. In this very Chamber, he was called a scaremonger and a liar. Ministers, including the then Prime Minister, told the House that they had no such programme, but history proved who was telling the truth.
  If the Government are really interested in British Coal, they should take an interest in the health and safety of its workers, yet they have proceeded to deregulate health and safety. I refer to certain types of support systems and the number of hours worked in a shift. I have been involved, and I know the inherent dangers. This dangerous move displays a callous indifference to the work force, but it fits in well with the former Prime Minister's love of Victorian values. Hers was an era that cared little for the life and limb of the work force.
  If the Government really care about free and fair market forces with no Government interference, why have they allowed more private mines? Why have they assisted opencast mining by relaxing planning controls and allowing the rape of our countryside unnecessarily? We can well do without opencast coal, yet the Government have interfered and helped rivals of British Coal.
  I am satisfied that only the Opposition have adopted an open and honest approach to the industry. I know that the Rothschild report will be mentioned often in this debate, so I will not dwell on it, but I am worried about one or two of its aspects. For instance, why was there a need to commission the report when the way in which the generating industry is moving shows that the Government are implementing Rothschild's recommendations in advance? The Government have been moving in that
  798
  direction for many years, so why spend taxpayers' money on a report that changes nothing and merely supports the Government's political ideology?
  The report does not mention any effect on our balance of payments. It is typical of the Government to pursue the dogma of privatising coal without a thought for the economic consequences of that decision. Social consequences are never mentioned in the report, yet we all know of the traumatic problems brought about by the lack of tax revenue and the increases in unemployment payouts—these are the social costs. We are talking about social costs and human problems, not exclusively about profits.
  The Government have clearly shown their interest in the coal industry by the amount of money that they have poured in to supplement redundancy terms. That is a sign of the way in which the Government want the industry to go.
  I was pleased to hear the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee refer to clean coal and especially to the fluidised bed experiment at Grimethorpe in my constituency. The privatised energy industry has shown a distinct lack of interest in that experiment and has put little money into it, but if it is proved a successful and profitable venture, the privatised industry will be in there with its sticky hands to cream off any profits that may be had.
  I should like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to assure the House that the fluidised bed experiment will be allowed to be completed. If the Government have a genuine interest in British coal, let them show it by some real action.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: This debate on the coal industry is not only opportune but imperative in view of the report by the Energy Select Committee, and I congratulate the Committee and my colleagues who have already spoken in this debate.
  In the past 100 years, the House has heard much more about the coal industry than about any other, and rightly so, because coal was the parent of our industrial revolution, and until 1950 our only indigenous source of energy. The industry controlled our economy, and 2 million families associated with it.
  With each and every debate—the last being on 14 November—we get an historic resume, political criticism, and emotional speeches from Members who have been miners and speak from experience, which is understandable. Nevertheless, I hope that they accept that Conservative Members who represent coalfield constituencies care about the industry no less than they do.
  My speech on the Coal Industry Bill on 14 November at column 1262 touched on the past and present and questioned the industry's future role and size. While it would be in everyone's interests to repeat that speech in full, time is limited, so I will concentrate my remarks on the essential parameters of renewed contracts with the power generating companies post-1993, and the opportunity for British Coal to secure every tonne of commercially viable business. This, of course, will depend on the total demand for electricity and the share given to coal in generating that energy.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has often said that British Coal must face the challenges to its markets head on. It has done that—only to find half the power stations' fuel market in England and Wales entirely

  799
  removed from that marketplace. That is not free and open competition, but rigged protectionism, denying consumers the benefits which would accrue from the unique offer made by British Coal—to supply coal at lower costs and steady prices.
  What my constituency miners want to know is why an annual productivity-induced unit cost reduction of £150 million is not passed on to the consumers, as it would he in a truly free market. In addition, they have to subsidise Nuclear Electric, allowing it 20 per cent. of the electricity market share, costing three times the unit price of coal. That is not the market working, but political intervention. Some would like to call it a diversity of supply. That may be so, but it is a feeble excuse to use to our miners who have done so much in the past five years, increasing productivity by 108 per cent. and reducing prices by 40 per cent. in real terms.
  Further commercial mismanagement is about to surface from gas also being given favoured status. From their new-found cash resources, National Power and PowerGen have signed continuous gas generating contracts coming on stream up to 1995, equivalent to 25 million tonnes of coal. Having done so, the companies now discover that 40 per cent. of this market share is hopelessly uneconomic compared with their present coal-contracted generation.
  Unlike Nuclear Electric, the companies are not asking British Coal for a subsidy to fund this mistake; their means are more subtle—to remove the competition by closing 12 GW of modern coal-fired generating stations, and to demolish the plants. To the lay person, that may seem an insignificant figure, but it is equal to all the power plants in the Trent valley, which currently produce a third of England's electricity requirements. If that was all, it would be bad enough, but a further 17 million tonnes of coal-equivalent gas contracts are waiting for the signature of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, all at unit prices 30 per cent. above those of British Coal. In view of those indisputable facts, my right hon. Friend will have no difficulty in returning those contracts to sender unsigned.
  Having 50 per cent. of the energy market protected by intervention, British Coal looks to a potential market after April 1993 of between 50 to 55 million tonnes, most of which it could meet at economically sustainable prices. To get there would require a degree of predictability and orderly progression which only the Government can sponsor. That process must be undertaken soon. Miners are despondent because they continually hear vague promises that, if they keep going, success will come, while at the same time seeing their market decrease and ever-increasing investment in port capacity to handle large quantities of foreign coal.
  I make no apology in returning today not only to the question of the wisdom of importing coal on spurious economic grounds but to the extent to which our strategic requirements could be put in jeopardy by allowing such a policy.
  Winston Churchill, our great leader and a man of vision, secured in 1914 a 51 per cent. stake in the Anglo-Persian oil company, now British Petroleum, for no other reason than to secure oil supplies. History has proved him right, and nothing has changed to remove that
  800
  need except that we have now abdicated our responsibilities to two commercial companies, National Power and PowerGen, whose only claim to fame so far is their record-breaking dash for gas.
  My constituency miners also demand an economic audit on the importation of coal. It costs 1·80 to produce a gigajoule of domestic electricity worth £20 from British coal compared with £1·50 from imported coal. Eliminate the former, and the cost of the latter will rise through the roof, leaving industrial and domestic consumers at the mercy of foreign Governments.
  The United Kingdom already has the lowest domestic electricity prices in Europe and, given the opportunity, British Coal can offer long-term guarantees to keep that price advantage at or below the United Kingdom retail prices index. The starting price could well be reasonable —say 160p per gigajoule or 10 per cent. below present prices—but the contracts are unlikely to be firm, with reopeners at regular intervals. With action as described, British Coal could secure 50 to 55 million tonnes per year, most of all on a firm five-year basis and at much the same price as would be achievable from the lower volumes should any of that market share go to imported coal.
  Therefore, we need the Government's support not to dictate on future coal contract prices, but to ensure that the dominant position of the generators is properly regulated rather than abused and that the contract negotiations are decided on genuine, not make-believe economic grounds. Otherwise, instead of the desired increase in competition, there would be an inevitable and dangerous decline in the diversity of energy supplies available to the consumer. The Rothschild report was just one of several options in the privatisation of British coal, but in the end it could be the only one. To abandon the United Kingdom coal industry in that fashion would be a decision which was not only historic but irreversible.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the Select Committee on Energy for its report. It is particularly helpful that it has highlighted its concern about the potential decline in the extractable reserves of British Coal to a critical level. My only concern about that is it has left it a little late: it might have been helpful if that concern had been registered earlier. Some of the closures that have taken place are irreversible.
  However, at least Conservative Members now recognise that the Government must do a bit of thinking about the coal industry's future in relation to the consequences of the privatisation of electricity, the opening up of the market for coal, which even the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) accepts may not be an entirely level playing field, and the future ownership of the coal industry.
  I make no apology for being particularly concerned about the future of what little is left of the coal industry in Scotland. We have one operating pit and two mothballed pits. That is the Scottish coal industry. The consequences of the coal strike were more devastating for the Scottish coal industry than any other region. The industry was effectively decimated.
  I spent some hours this morning in the company of members of the Monktonhall miners' consortium. As the Under-Secretary of State well knows, it has put in a bid to take over the licence for the Monktonhall colliery from

  801
  British Coal, and British Coal has said that a decision is likely to be made by the end of the year, which presumably will be announced early in the new year. It is my firm belief that that bid is being treated seriously by British Coal only because the consortium has persisted in its determination to try to take over its old pit.
  It is a matter of some concern that a company that so far has shown no interest has suddenly popped up at the end of the day and said that it will put in a counter-bid. That is of particular concern when one knows that, in spite of the fact that the principal of that company may be from the Isle of Lewis, he has been as far away from Lewis as he could be for most of his life, and his interest has only materialised recently. Indeed, he has said that he was desperate to take over Monktonhall as soon as he learned that the licence might be available. He has not said when he learned that, but I am sure that it was nothing like as long ago as the Monktonhall miners, who have for three years been trying to take over the licence from British Coal.
  It is perhaps also a matter of concern that, for the past two years, the company has made donations of £50,000 a year to the Conservative party. One wonders whether that may be why it has some expectation of results. It is my experience that companies give donations to the Conservative party not to promote and uphold free enterprise but in order to prevent the effective operation of free enterprise and to secure advantages within the marketplace from a Government who are willing to be deflected from their professed ideology in order to favour their friends and backers.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The hon. Gentleman has just made a serious allegation to which I shall be responding in due course, but meanwhile, will he tell the House whether the consortium which seeks to take over Monktonhall, or the coal industry generally, will be helped by the Liberal Democrats' call for an immediate carbon tax, as set out in their recently published environmental policy document?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: we have not called for an immediate carbon tax. We have raised the question that the Government have also raised—how we should deal with the problems of carbon dioxide emissions and the operation of the market. The chairman of the Conservative party, a previous Secretary of State for the Environment, is on record as saying that energy taxes will have to rise if we are to deal with our environmental problems. Therefore, the Conservative party is in no position to cast such aspersions on how we deal with the problems of carbon dioxide. The Government's record on that is less than impressive.
  The particular point about which we must now be concerned is whether the consortium that has put in the application for the licence for Monktonhall will be successful, and the Government's role in that.
  I am glad that, on this occasion, the Under-Secretary of State is in his place. I am not criticising him for his absence when this matter was previously debated, because I know that his colleague the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), who is responsible for oil and gas, reported the debate to him and the concerns that I
  802
  expressed at that time. As a result, I am pleased to note that he met the consortium and the Chairman of the Energy Select Committee, I think on the same day, and I know that the consortium welcomed that opportunity. That leaves the interesting question why those meetings took place, when the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary of State, and the Minister at the Scottish Office responsible for industry refused persistent requests for meetings over the past three years—saying that it was a matter not for the Government but for British Coal.
  I wonder whether it had to do with the fact that the request for a meeting came from a Conservative councillor in Edinburgh who had previously shown no interest in the consortium and is not directly connected with it. Is it not odd that there should be that sudden change of Government policy? I suppose that that is an indication of the way that things have changed in recent years. As a rule, Ministers did meet Members of Parliament wanting to make representations to them. It is interesting that Ministers are only prepared to do that now for outsiders who are members of their own party. That is a regrettable development.
  More seriously, to what extent does that indicate a change of Government attitude? In the past, they said—the Minister knows my view, that this is the wrong position to take—that the licensing of coal pits was entirely a matter for British Coal, and there was no point in meetings, because they would interfere in the management of British Coal. The Minister knows that, when I have attempted to meet Ministers' requests to seek a meeting with British Coal directors, they have refused to do that, or to discuss matters in any way, shape or form.
  Ministers who are supposedly accountable to the House refuse to accept their responsibility to be accountable to Members of Parliament, and then pass the buck to people for whom they are responsible, but who in turn refuse to meet right hon. and hon. Members. The business of the House is being frustrated and undermined by the inability of right hon. and hon. Members to make proper representations on the policy of a Government who have been in office too long, and who have grown too arrogant about the power they hold.
  Who will make the decision on Monktonhall, and what impact will it have on wider proposals for the privatisation of British Coal? If the decision is to be made by British Coal, why did the Minister meet the consortium? If the Government told British Coal what they want the outcome to be, why did they not tell the House, and outline the priorities?
  I have twice tried to put amending legislation through the House to transfer the ownership of British Coal and its licensing responsibilities to the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary has shown that he is not unsympathetic to that suggestion. That ought to happen before British Coal's privatisation, particularly if coal is to be privatised in a different way from that adopted in respect of previous privatisations of single monopolies. Do the Government have any clear thoughts on privatising British Coal as a single entity or in a different way?
  The Monktonhall miners consortium simply wants to take over the pit's licence as soon as possible, and certainly this side of a general election. They have waited long enough, and the signs are that a decision will be made shortly. Will the Minister make it clear that the Government believe that the licence should go to that consortium, unless there are commercial or other reasons

  803
  why that would be inappropriate—in which case, the Government should state what they are? The consortium has managed to persuade its financial backers of its viability, which suggests that its proposition is realistic.
  British Coal should not put any charge on that licence. Monktonhall has been a liability to British Coal, and is costing it money. If anything, British Coal ought to put a little money in, to have the pit taken off its hands. However, the consortium does not seek that—only to take over the licence. Will the Government indicate that will be allowed to happen?
  The consortium is frustrated because, over the past three years, it has received very little support from quarters from which it might have expected it. An expensive report commissioned by the National Union of Mineworkers, Lothian regional council, Midlothian district council, and East Lothian district council—the political complexion of which I do not need to point out to the Minister—is fundamentally an attempt to persuade British Coal to take over the running of the pit.
  It is an interesting point that the miners consortium has no confidence in British Coal and does not believe that it could run the pit any more profitably than before. The miners believe that the consortium in which working people own the pit could be effective and profitable. It is only right to give them a chance to prove that. I thought that the Conservative party would also consider that something worthy of its support. The consortium should be given an opportunity to show that the commitment it has shown over the past three years can yield results. There is no public money at risk—only the opportunity for the local community to prove that it can deliver the goods.
  The membership of the consortium totals 250—which is greater than the number of jobs that would be created in the first instance. The members have all said that they would put up £2,000 of share capital in the consortium, and there are more people to work in the pit, above and below ground, than could initially be provided with employment.
  Critics have said that a constraint on the consortium is the limit of 250 underground workers for that pit. Initially, that limit would not be exceeded anyway, but eventually the consortium would be able to employ about 500 people. Will the Minister make it clear that there is no reason why that limit should present any obstacle? Every year, Bills on the coal industry go through the House. The Government have already upgraded and amended—
  Mr. Barron rose—
  Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman will just listen, he will understand that I am urging the Government to say that they would if necessary amend the legislation to allow the consortium to progress.
  Mr. Barron: The limit would have to be changed by statute, as was the case with the Coal Industry Act 1987, which raised the limit to 150 persons. Why has not that same argument been advanced in respect of the current Coal Industry Bill by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was supposed to be the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on the industry?
  Mr. Bruce: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well what happened with the previous Bill. My amendment was
  804
  defeated by 21 votes to one, because Labour Members voted with the Government to defeat it. I know exactly what is Labour's position in that regard.
  The miners in the area in question are thoroughly and utterly disillusioned with Labour for its total lack of support. They say to me, "Isn't it extraordinary that here you have working people wanting to take over a pit that they care about, and putting up their own money to that end, and Labour is backing the bosses who closed the pit in the first place—to prevent those workers taking over their only means of a livelihood'?" That is what Labour does for working people, and that is why working people in that part of the world will turn against Labour at the next general election.
  I ask the Minister to recognise that he is in a position to ensure that those miners are given the opportunity to do what they have spent three years trying to do—to take over the pit they know and to show that they can make it profitable.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made a number of assertions, to which my hon. Friend the Minister will no doubt reply later. As to the case for Monktonhall, it seems that the hon. Gentleman is seeking privatisation before a Bill has passed through the House. That is an interesting line from the Liberal Democrats.
  Few industries in this country or in the Community as a whole have seen such tremendous changes over the past decade as the coal industry. Those changes essentially relate to a slimming down in the industry itself, but also to significant structural changes.
  On the debit side, over the past 10 years output reduced by 35 million tonnes or 28 per cent., but the parallel decrease in consumption is much less. It has fallen by only 11·6 million tonnes, or 9·6 per cent. On the plus side, there have been dramatic productivity increases, from 2·32 tonnes per man shift in 1980–81 to 4·70 tonnes in 1990–91 —a rise of 103 per cent. in 10 years. That was not achieved at the expense of health and safety, because over the same period fatal accidents fell by 72 per cent.
  Over the same period also, British Coal cut colliery costs by 40 per cent. in real terms. Those are not the statistics of an industry in terminal decline. It is high time that some of the myths presented by Labour Members were buried once and for all. The first is that the British coal industry will be decimated in the near future; the second is that the present Conservative Government are actively working to achieve such a decline, together with the substantial job losses that accompany pit closures.
  The Government's commitment to the coal industry has been clear over the past 10 years or more; they have also shown their commitment to a successful future for the industry. After all, who invested more than £25 billion over the past decade—some £2 million each working day? Who put British Coal on a solid financial footing by writing off its debts with a massive £5 billion capital reconstruction programme? Who introduced a Bill—long overdue—to deal with the coal mining subsidence problem? Who restructured British Coal so that it was able, last year, to make a profit of £78 million—the firs bottom-line profit for 13 years?
  Was it the Labour party, operating behind the scenes? Was it the National Union of Mineworkers, under its

  805
  renowned leader? Were those achievements the result of efforts by Labour Members? Of course not; they are the tangible evidence of a Government's full commitment to one of the country's major industries.
  Let us contrast those achievements with Labour's record in office. The Labour Government closed more pits in their two terms than the current Conservative Government have ever closed. Under Labour, between 1964 and 1970 and again between 1974 and 1979, a total of 295 pits were shut down; since 1979, there have been just under 140 closures. That is half the closure rate under Labour.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what percentage of collieries have been closed under the present Government, and what percentage were closed under the last Labour Government?
  Mr. Moss: I think that absolute figures are much more important than percentages. In the last analysis, they relate to the number of pits, and the number of jobs available at each pit.
  Under Labour, productivity increased annually by an average of just 2·5 per cent. Since 1979, under the present Government, that figure has trebled to more than 6·5 per cent. The message is loud and clear; according to any measurement that we care to take, the Conservative Government's record on the coal industry is significantly better than that of Labour.
  What of the future? Of course, the coal industry faces real challenges—environmentally, for instance. Stringent targets relating to carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nox emissions make it difficult for coal to compete with other fuels, especially in power generation. Coal also suffers from competition from gas, which is more environmentally friendly, and—as we have heard this evening—is becoming far more important in terms of baseload electricity generation in the near future. The third challenge comes from the liberalisation of world energy markets, a trend that will undoubtedly continue through the GATT negotiations.
  None the less, British Coal has achieved remarkable improvements in the past decade, which can and should continue. Tribute should be paid to both management and work force for those tremendous achievements: they deserve the highest praise. The same management and work force face the challenges of the current position, but there is nothing to suggest that they lack the collective will, expertise or enterprise to negotiate a very successful future for themselves and their industry.
  Much has been made of the contracts coming up for renewal with the main power generators in the United Kingdom—National Power and PowerGen. Their generating capacity, however, still lies to a significant extent in coal-fired generation. Their new gas plants will not be on stream for several years; they need a secure, well-priced coal contract for a long time to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) pointed out, as negotiations are currently progressing, there is every chance that some 50 million to 55 million tonnes will form part of that contract negotiation.
  806
  Coal-fired plants are mainly located inland, and very close to existing coalfields. That surely gives British Coal a distinct advantage over importers in negotiations.
  The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) raised another possibility for British Coal's immediate future. British Coal produces the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe; the cost is substantially lower than that of coal from many other producers in the European Coal and Steel Communities. Surely there is tremendous scope for diversification of British Coal sales into European Community countries, particularly Germany. Here, national subsidies are under continual threat of elimination as discussions progress within the ECSC and under the treaty.
  As we have stated clearly and repeatedly, the Government are pledged to achieve the largest economic coal industry that the market can support. To say anything less would invite protectionism, ring fencing and subsidy. With privatisation, after the next election, the industry will be more effectively structured to meet its challenges and build on its achievements.
  What of Labour's plans for the future of the coal industry? Its pledge is to maintain the industry "at around about its current size". Let us ignore for the moment what Labour actually means by that; how will it deliver on its promise, bearing in mind the fact that the nuclear industry is already ring fenced, gas contracts have already been signed and committed to combined cycle gas turbine plant, and coal imports are perfectly legal under European law?
  Labour's coal strategy simply does not stand up—first, on environmental grounds. Labour is pledged to freeze carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000; that is five years ahead of the Government's pledge. How will that be possible, given that Labour wishes to phase out nuclear, which could easily push up carbon dioxide emissions by at least 10 per cent. a year and prevent the development of combined cycle gas stations, which emit half as much carbon dioxide as coal-fired stations?
  Sulphur dioxide emissions would also increase if that strategy were implemented. The only way in which to meet sulphur dioxide targets would be the adoption of a massive flue gas desulphurisation programme on existing coal-fired stations. Who would pay for that? If Government grant is given to the companies running the stations, it will come from taxpayers' money. Or will National Power and PowerGen be forced to do the retrofit? That would mean significant increases in the price of electricity for consumers. We have heard nothing this evening about where the money will come from.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: The hon. Gentleman said that Labour would need to implement an FGD programme, and asked who would pay for it. Surely the Conservative Government have already set out proposals for such a programme: they should be telling him where the money would come from.
  Mr. Moss: The existing programme represents a commitment by National Power and PowerGen to retrofit about 8 GW. That is clearly contained within their financial programmes. Labour's plans involve an increase, or a stabilisation, of coal burn in our power stations, at the expense of gas or nuclear, at the same time as a reduction in both carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide levels.

  807
  Without FGD retrofit across many more stations than are represented than those 8 GW, I do not think that that will be possible.
  Mr. Barron: What does the hon. Gentleman think about the fact that National Power and PowerGen are currently importing orimulsion and getting permission to burn it? Orimulsion emits three or four times as much sulphur as coal.
  Mr. Moss: The point at issue is whether National Power and PowerGen meet the carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide targets that have been set for them.
  The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) raised the question of clean burn technology. I have no doubt that additional points will be raised about that aspect later because of the Select Committee's excellent report. I have little doubt that it represents a future for coal-fired power generation in the next decade. However, it seems that the technology is not right at the moment in economic terms to fill the gap and to play a part in the crucial current round of negotiations in which the future of the coal industry in the next three to four years is the most important issue.
  Furthermore, Labour's policy of reducing or banning imports of coal and of reducing the development of gas-fired stations is, in many eyes, quite illegal. First, the banning of imports might land the Labour Government in the future in front of a European court and, secondly of course, if the Labour Government attempted to use their 40 per cent. stake in National Power or PowerGen to bring pressure to bear on those companies to reduce the development of gas-fired stations, they might end up in a United Kingdom court for breaking United Kingdom company law.
  I believe that Labour's statement that it will maintain the coal industry at
  "around about its current size"
  is unworkable—especially in the light of the developments that are already in train—and also uncosted. British Coal has an excellent future. There are still sizeable markets within this country and in the European Community. We cannot consider the future of British coal with preconceived notions of output, size and number of pits because that would be unrealistic. Further improvements in productivity and price are, of course, necessary but the price gap between British coal and the generators is certainly not unbridgeable.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: In considering this important subject, it would be churlish not to congratulate the Select Committee on Energy on the report that it has produced, which to some extent analyses the current position of the mining industry and its position in the future. However, I wonder whether the Government will pay a blind bit of notice to the report, which illustrates not only what will happen to the mining industry but what will happen if we allow it to contract.
  When the Chairman was introducing the report, I intervened on the question of nuclear power. I do not say this in a malicious way or to score debating points, but I said that the chairman of Scottish Nuclear had argued at the Nuclear Forum that there might be a case, in the strategic interests of the nation, to subsidise nuclear
  808
  power. We have argued for a long time that there is a peripheral argument that in the strategic interests of the nation we should be concerned about the coal industry.
  To judge from the way things are going, there will be difficulties in respect of the size of the industry. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) wiped about £30 million or £40 million off the take from the coal industry. He said that his first speech in the previous coal debate made the headlines of Coal News, but I do not think that the chairman of British Coal will he grateful that the hon. Gentleman has halved the take and production of coal in his remarks.
  If we see the demise of the coal industry, the nuclear power industry will be subsidised. That is, in essence, what I was told. Let me remember how unforgiving the nuclear power industry is. To think that we should destroy the coal industry and then say, "Well, if we have no coal industry, we shall have to have a nuclear power industry and what it costs does not really matter because it is in the nation's interest to do it," does not make sense.
  When one reads and analyses the admirable report, one discovers a number of threats—the importation of foreign coal, the question of how the board will react to privatisation and the Government's Rothschild report which is not, in fact, a report but a slaughter of the coal industry. The estimates that we are debating propose that a further £4 million should be spent on preparing the future privatisation of the coal industry, but what is £1 million or £2 million between friends? If the taxpayer understood what the Government are planning with this privatisation and what they are doing to the coal industry, there would be no doubt what would happen at the next general election. It is absolutely disgraceful that this proposal should be put before us. Who is getting the millions of pounds? It is certainly not the miners.
  The whole point of the admirable report is to point out what is the biggest threat to the coal industry. It is, of course, the gas industry—there is no doubt about that. It is a threat because the Government have sat back willingly and said that they do not care if another 30 million tonnes of coal is taken out of the take and if there are to be gas-fired power stations. One of the hon. Members who spoke earlier pointed out the dangers, and I wonder whether the Government are aware of the dangers of the policy that they are pursuing in relation to gas-fired power stations. It will affect not only the coal industry but the consumers who will have to pay an ever-increasing price for gas.
  There is an assumption that gas is a green fuel. The Government are helping to support the idea that coal is a pollutant but that nuclear power is green friendly and that gas is green friendly. In addition, it is said that gas is cheaper, but that is not true on two counts.
  Because of the lack of time I shall draw attention to a recently published report entitled "UK Energy Policy Post-Privatisation" which was written by Professor Fells. He meets head on the issue of the future of gas and its price. It is time that the Government examined the issue because as a result of the policy that they are actively backing—or at least not opposing—the consumer will face colossal electricity bills because of the escalation in gas-fired power stations.
  The report to which I have just referred states:
  "Reserve depletion, especially of oil and gas, must still be a concern for the long-term, but in the medium-term, constraints of supply security and the environment are more

  809
  worrying than is depletion of the resource base itself. Probably now, and certainly after 1992, it is not certain that gas in the United Kingdom sector will be landed in the United Kingdom; it is likely to be sucked into mainland Europe, where prices are higher. Viewed in this perspective the privilege of the United Kingdom is temporary; the price and availability of natural gas in the United Kingdom depend"
  on many other factors into which I do not have time to go. I put that comment on record as the position is serious.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that he met the consortium today. He has not discussed the matter with me, although Monktonhall is in my constituency. I have never made any secret about the fact that my view on Monktonhall colliery is that British Coal should reopen the colliery. We have had many meetings on that, and the miners' parliamentary group has met the chairman of British Coal several times. We have had long meetings with the Secretary of State for Energy on the future of Monktonhall. There is no question that the issue of Monktonhall was not put forward, as the hon. Member for Gordon seemed to imply. I have never made any secret of the fact that I believe that the future of Monktonhall lies in British Coal working the pit and we have said that from the start.
  It is a bit much for the hon. Member for Gordon to show a report and to say that it was compiled by Labour-controlled Lothian regional council. He obviously has not read the report—
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have.
  Mr. Eadie: If he had, he would not have made the remarks he did. The report on Monktonhall was compiled by an independent consultant; it had nothing to do with political views. It was unanimously agreed by Lothian regional council, including Liberal Democrat councillors and Tory councillors, that there should be a report. The hon. Gentleman did not say that.
  The report said that what was happening at Monktonhall should be costed. It went into great detail about how much it would take to start the colliery again and said that it would cost millions of pounds. It said that the capital's availability in the open market was doubtful and suspect. My view of the consortium has always been, "Good luck to it." However, I am concerned about where the money will come from and what the rates of interest will be. I want to ensure that my constituents do not lose the money that they are supposed to invest.
  One does not have to look at the report which the hon. Member for Gordon has thrown away with such disdain. The Government with British Coal decided that they would get an independent consultant's report to study how the mine could be put up for licence—whether under the consortium or under private ownership. I have a copy of the consortium's report and the hon. Member for Gordon should have got a copy because it was identical to the Lothian report. The only difference was that the consortium's report said that it would cost another £250 million for subsidence damage.
  The consortium has been advised by a mining engineer who was made redundant by British Coal. He proposes that the coal seams should be worked in the advance. It is good mining practice that if one is to work all the mine that has already been developed—and £60 billion has been
  810
  spent in its development—one does not work it in the advance, but in the retreat. I have good reasons to be doubtful.
  The hon. Member for Gordon says that the people of Midlothian are sick of the Labour party. The people of Midlothian are sick of the Liberal Democrats, because an argument is going on at present in Midlothian about who most wants to back the consortium and whether it is the Scottish National party or the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats write to The Scotsman and say that they were the first to back the consortium. They should not play about with people's livelihoods.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: We did not back the consortium.
  Mr. Eadie: I did not interrupt the speech by the hon. Member for Gordon. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech about the constituency of Midlothian, he will have to do a lot more homework than he did tonight. We have problems, and the hon. Gentleman is one of them. We have problems with the Liberal Democrats, who change their mind every five minutes and who have a different policy for every constituency. I want to try to be kind to the hon. Member for Gordon because he is out of his depth. He knows nothing about mining.
  I do not know what will happen about Monktonhall. I want it to remain open, but I also want to understand the position. I do not want only Monktonhall, but the 100 years worth of coal which stretches to Musselburgh bay to be developed. Incidentally, I knocked down the girders that were to go to develop a new pit which would come from Monktonhall into those reserves.
  I do not need the hon. Member for Gordon to lecture me about my affinity with the mining industry. I worked in that industry for 30 years. My record will stand alongside his in relation to the future of mining in Scotland or in relation to any miners in Midlothian. If the hon. Member for Gordon wants to make speeches criticising the Labour party, he should do more homework first.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way so that I can express the East Lothian interest in Monktonhall because Musselburgh bay lies under the east Lothian coast. My hon. Friend has long experience in the mining industry and is aware that the proposed privatised operation at Monktonhall would be restricted to an underground work force of only 150 people. Does my hon. Friend feel that justice could possibly be done to the coal reserves in that pit with such a small squad?
  Mr. Eadie: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The hon. Member for Gordon treated this matter as a little joke, saying in the local press that everything could be changed in only five minutes. He has said that one only needs a dispensation from the mines inspectorate. That is a load of rubbish. One could not get a dispensation from the mines inspectorate to increase the manpower. I appeared on the Front Bench in the Committee Sitting in which the hon. Gentleman referred and received an assurance from the Minister that getting a dispensation would not be a problem. However, when I tabled a question to that effect, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Wells (Mr. HeathcoatAmory), answered by stating that, before the position could be changed, primary legislation would be required.

  811
  The hon. Member for Gordon does not seem to understand either that primary legislation would be required or that such primary legislation takes longer than five minutes to be put on the statute book.
  I shall finish on this note—
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Eadie: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not—
  Mr. Stewart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I listened to what he said earlier and have since checked my speech. There is only one small difference between what I said on 14 November and what I have said today. I said on the 14th that the equivalent of 25 million tonnes of coal gas contracts had been given, with a further equivalent of 10 million tonnes lying on the table for the Secretary of State to sanction. I have since discovered that that figure is not 10 million tonnes but 17 million tonnes. That is the only difference.
  Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman should read his speech again.
  I shall conclude now because I am taking up valuable time. When I first became a Member of the House, I learned that one should never speak about things that one does not know or does not understand. As that applies also to the subject of mining, I shall give that advice to the hon. Member for Gordon, who spoke on a subject about which he knows very little—and it showed.
  9.6 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) appears about to leave the Chamber, as I intend to refer to him. The Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy apologised to me earlier for the fact that he has had to leave the Chamber because he is due to make a speech on clean coal technology elsewhere in London.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) when he said that the Labour party did not have much interest in or seek to represent the Monktonhall miners. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committee carefully considered the Monktonhall bid and that our discussions were forcefully led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion).
  I do not mean to be offensive to the hon. Member for Sherwood when I say that he has entertained us with his prepared briefs in many of our coal debates, but that it is a bit rich of him continually to criticise the contraction of the coal industry when he has supported many of his Government's policies on the industry. I hope that the Nottinghamshire miners and Coal News will note that that is hypocritical. When I read Coal News after our last coal debate, it appeared as though the only people to speak on behalf of the mining industry were the hon. Member for Sherwood and his hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo). I hope also that British Coal has not helped to produce some of the briefs that we have heard in previous coal debates.
  I am a long-standing member of the Select Committee on Energy and like, I am sure, many other members of that Committee, am beginning to feel like a parrot. We have produced reports year after year expressing anxiety at what was happening to the British coal industry. Over the years, we have had different witnesses, different Secretaries
  812
  of State and different chairmen of British Coal. They have told us, "There are no figures at all. All you read in the newspapers about running down the mining industry has no truth in it."
  However, the Select Committee report is based on clean coal technology, on which we have taken a great deal of evidence from expert witnesses. I am trying to cut my speech short because other people want to speak. I simply say that it is fairly obvious that Britain could have taken the lead in clean coal technology. Unfortunately, we have failed to do so. We have had leading opportunities in British Coal's topping cycle for coal-fired generation. We had the British Gas Lurgi coal gasification and coal liquefaction. We have failed miserably to support those experiments financially.
  The Government contribution to the Grimethorpe project was much less than that of foreign Governments. We now find that, because we have failed in the past 10 or 12 years, to recognise the need for clean coal technology and support the schemes that were in operation, it will take eight to 10 years for plants to become operative and produce clean coal. In the meantime, foreign competitors are moving ahead of us.
  The biggest problem is that when the clean coal technology plants are available, judging by present progress, the British coal industry will be run down to such an extent that it will not be able to meet the demand from the plants. Once again, we shall be in the hands of our foreign competitors.
  It is rather ironic that we continue to run down our coal industry and sterilise billions of tonnes of coal. I shall refer to the Rothschild report later. I hope that the Government have read the latest British Coal press release from its chairman. I shall not read it out, because there is not time, but it makes the very point that, purely and simply for medium-term policies and commercial reasons, we shall sterilise billions of tonnes of coal.
  Mr. Illsley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Government's response to the Select Committee report? Both he and I were members of the Committee when the report was produced. The Government's response was:
  "it is not true to say that the reserves are lost forever if pins currently accessing them are closed."
  On the following page, the British Coal memorandurn says:
  "The Committee is right to draw attention to the fact that, once a mine is closed, the capacity is effectively lost."
  Does that not show how wrong the Government are?
  Mr. Lofthouse: Now that my hon. Friend has brought me to the matter, it is right to put on record the comments of the chairman of British Coal in the press release.:
  "Speaking in London almost a year after becoming Chairman of British Coal, Mr. Clarke said: 'What we are seeing is a sort of energy arms race, with attempts to justify it on the grounds of guaranteeing security, diversity and competition—but in reality, guaranteeing nothing but higher electricity prices, a rapid abandonment of other fuel reserves, and reliance on as yet unproven overseas resources.' … Coal's advantage still held good when account was taken of the cost of fitting flue gas desulphurisation equipment, said Mr. Clarke. The next supply contracts which British Coal will negotiate with the big electricity generators would offer electricity users an even better deal because of coal's success in reducing costs.…'This is no exercise in abstract economics for British Coal,' Mr. Clarke stressed. 'The dash for gas affects us directly, and in a particularly perverse way.' The economics of gasfired stations meant that investors

  813
  wanted long term supply and sale contracts to make them bankable. Typically, such contracts were for 15 years. 'Each new contract, each new gas station, eats into coal's share of the market—a share we could supply competitively. And we have to close down capacity as a result. Because we can't re-open mines, that capacity is lost for ever.'"
  That is the case, and no expert would refute it.
  The future of British Coal depends on the results of the next general election in a few months' time, and I do not think that any hon. Member or the Minister would refute that. That will decide whether we have a mining industry able to supply the demand for coal in the medium and long term, or whether we shall have the Rothschild recommendations. The Minister has an obligation to tell us whether the Government intend to implement Rothschild if they are returned to power. If that is the case, we may as well throw all our debates and the report out of the window.
  The Minister has heard speeches from the chairman of the Energy Select Committee and all its members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), who have been privileged to listen to expert witnesses. People without any political bias have given honest evidence and enabled the Select Committee to produce the report, which was a genuine effort to draw to the attention of the Government their folly in running down the coal industry to the extent that they are planning to do.
  The Committee has done so in the past, but the Government have taken no notice. Even though they are hellbent on privatising the coal industry, I hope that at this late stage they will take notice of the Committee's report. It is a sincere and honest endeavour to try to inform the Government of exactly what is happening to the industry and what folly it would be if they allowed privatisation.
  I hope that there will be no opportunity for the Government to introduce the Rothschild recommendations and that a Labour Government will be returned. They will treat the mining industry and the country in a responsible way and will maintain reserves of fuel which the country so badly needs in the medium and long term.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: I do not know whether the Minister would agree that, until now, we have heard explanations from both sides of the Chamber about the imperfect and expensive competition which has arisen as a result of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The House should ask what we are doing taking a decision on class V, vote 9, which will give the Government an extra £4 million from the Consolidated Fund
  "to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry."
  I do not know whether the Minister agrees with the evidence given by the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and by my hon. Friends about privatisation of the electricity supply industry. However, it is obviously as much a waste of funds to give money to privatisation of the coal industry as it was to give money for the poll tax.
  814
  A lot of nonsense has been talked—and a lot of myths —when the privatisation of the coal industry has been discussed in the House and elsewhere.
  "Now the first myth that deserves a liberal dollop of embalming fluid is the notion that British Coal management can't do the business. That a change of ownership would usher in new ideas and allow productivity to soar and new markets to be exploited."
  I do not know whether the Minister agrees.
  "I can tell you that's absolute rubbish".
  Also, people believe that there can be "a quick fix". I do not believe that there is a quick fix for the coal industry. Anyone who thinks that he can improve on the commitment and effort of British Coal managers reveals how little he knows about the coal industry and coal mining.
  Those two quotes about "absolute rubbish" and "a quick fix" are not my words; they were taken from the speech made on Thursday last week by the chairman of British Coal. He ought to know; he was appointed by the Department to run British Coal. He says that the idea that British Coal can bring anything new to the industry or the nation is a myth. I should like the Minister to tell us whether he believes the myth about privatising the coal industry. If it is a myth, how can he justify the request for another £4 million of public funds to be spent on merchant bankers and other advisers like N. M. Rothschild sending reports into the country in brown envelopes which show that the future of the British coal industry is bleak?
  We are debating the issues in the report of the Select Committee on Energy. I welcome the commitment of the Select Committee to secure the future of the coal industry in Britain and to develop a credible long-term strategy for research and development of clean coal technology. The whole House should commend the conclusion of the Select Committee in paragraph 89 that the strategy must include
  "recognition that the UK is unlikely to succeed with clean coal technologies against foreign competition unless the Government is as supportive towards those technologies as competitors' governments."
  The failure to support our industry is amply illustrated by the Bilsthorpe and Grimethorpe projects. In the case of Bilsthorpe, the Secretary of State's excuse for lack of Government support was that the project was neither commercial nor a demonstration project. In paragraph 78, the report records the Secretary of State as saying:
  "the view that we took was that the technology that was involved was reasonably well proven … We were perfectly satisfied that it would work."
  While the Government were refusing to take a 20 per cent. stake in the project, a fluid bed boiler of the same size and design was built at a mine in Lorraine on the initiative of the French Government, who funded 60 per cent. of the cost. That is a fair example of how Britain is lagging behind the rest of Europe.
  In their response to the report, the Government have said that the Bilsthorpe project failed to achieve the support of the European Commission after an assessment by technical experts. Is not it the case that the European Commission, through the THERMIE programme, would back Bilsthorpe only if it was certain to go ahead, and that the only way to ensure that was through Government support? All the indications are that the Government did not support it and, as a consequence, it was not supported by the European Commission. Now the Government choose to blame the European Commission instead of putting the blame where it rightly lies—on their own lack of support for the project.

  815
  We have also had what is described by the Select Committee as the "sorry tale" of the Grimethorpe topping cycle. In paragraph 72, the Select Committee says that it reflects
  "the lack of a long-term strategy and the failure to review the R & D role of the Government and other bodies in the wake of privatisation."
  Apparently, the Government now agree that such a long-term project needs to be funded in such a way as to avoid unnecessary delays.
  I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether the project at Grimethorp is now securely funded, so that it will be able to complete its programme of 1,250 hours of operation? Will the money run out, as it did once before, with the consequential loss not only of the technological advantages gained but of the scientific and technical expertise? My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) has taken an avid interest in the Grimethorpe project, not only because of its impact on his constituency but because of its impact on energy development. Will Grimethorpe complete its current programme without any further problems? My hon. Friend and I want to know the answer.
  The report of the Select Committee is notable because it managed to clarify the Government's position in relation to the generators commitment to retrofit flue-gas desulphurisation systems to coal-fired power stations. Paragraph 107 of the report notes the Secretary of State insistence that PowerGen, the smaller of the two generators, cannot withdraw from its programme of 4 GW of FGD retrofits to coal-fired stations. However, from evidence submitted by McLoskey Coal Information Services and the British Association of Colliery Management it is clear that orimulsion, the fuel from Colombia, has a higher sulphur content than British coal. That means that those coal-fired power stations which use that fuel need FGD retrofitting. National Power and PowerGen have been given permission to burn that fuel at their power stations at Pembroke, Richborough and Ince.
  The Select Committee took a great interest in the issue of FGD retrofitting. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will take the necessary steps—if necessary through Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—to ensure that PowerGen complies with its commitment to retrofit 4 GW of coal burn should it not do so voluntarily? The Ferrybridge sea power station has not got permission for its 2 GW coal burn. That power station is the biggest sulphur emitter in Britain, and any investment in plant to get rid of sulphur emissions should be directed at such a power station.
  Will the generators be required to retrofit FGD if they decide to burn orimulsion? Would the sulphur emitted by that coal be in addition to the 4 GW limit set now?
  It is a pity that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) is not in the Chamber. Attendance on the Conservative Back Benches is thin to say the least, especially when the Government tell us how much they support the coal industry. I note that my hon. Friend the member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has moved to those Benches in an attempt to put the imbalance right.
  The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East made much about sulphur emissions, but the Government are taking no action to stop generators bringing in foreign coal. Surely that behaviour is anomalous. The Government say that those generators need the coal
  816
  because it has a lower sulphur content, but at the same time they give them permission to burn orimulsion, which has a higher sulphur content than any coal produced in Britain. The Minister must explain that dichotomy.
  The consultation paper of the coal task force recommended:
  "the Government should accept the need for it to take action to provide a framework to encourage the development and promotion of new cleaner coal technologies"
  That view is also reflected by the Select Committee's report, paragraph 67 of which states:
  "without Government assistance no demonstration plants wil be built. Without demonstration plants, the UK's clean coal projects cannot proceed towards commercial implementation. Without commercial implementation, the UK's R & D in this field will have been largely futile."
  Most people would agree. I hope that the Government will take on board what the all-party Select Committee has said about clean coal technologies and act on those recommendations as a matter of urgency.
  The second part of the Select Committee report is about Government intervention in long-term contracts for the British coal industry. Paragraph 137 of the report says:
  "it is precisely because of the uncertainty over future energy needs and supplies that secure, indigenous sources of fuel are important."
  Indeed they are, and most energy commentators in Britain take that view. We do not know whether a certain institution takes that view, because it has little to say about whether the long-term security of indigenous sources of supply is an asset to Britain. The institution to which I refer is the Department of Energy.
  Even so, the Government reiterate their belief that the supply of fuel is a market-only decision. They
  "believe that only the participants in the market can have the necessary knowledge and the incentive to determine the economic size of an industry. It is therefore for the electricity supply industry to ensure that it has access to secure long-term supplies of competitive fuel."
  In stubbornly repeating that, they rebut the Select Committee stance which rejects total reliance on the market. Indeed, in its conclusions in paragraph 149, the report points out:
  "if the generators take decisions which turn out to have unfortunate long-term consequences, it is the nation as a whole (and electricity consumers in particular) who will pay the price, rather than the generators themselves."
  If decisions are taken for short-term economic reasons and in the full knowledge of their likely effects, a future Labour Government would not see their duty lying in protecting the profits of the generating companies at the expense of consumers. I want the message to go out loud and clear that a future Labour Government would not feel that we had to put consumers at risk because of decisions taken now by generators in the knowledge that, while coal is offered at home with guarantees on its price structure for years to come, they feel that they should run elsewhere for short-term economic gain.
  The Government's stated belief in a free and open market on the basis of willing buyers and willing sellers, their unwillingness to subsidise what they term uneconomic production and their rejection of the coercion of customers sits uneasily on the protection of the nuclear industry's markets through the non-fossil fuel obligation and the nuclear levy.
  In the debate on Second Reading of the Coal Industry Act 1990, I spoke of the European Commission's proposed reference price for coal. The Minister seemed unaware of the proposals. Indeed, he said:

  817
  "He did not tell us what was in that plan"—
  referring to the plan that I had mentioned—
  "other than mentioning something called a reference price". —[Official Report, 14 November 1991; Vol. 198, c. 1318.]
  It was astonishing to hear a Minister say that in November 1991, when the European Commission had for many months been discussing exactly that matter in relation to the future of the European coal industries.
  The Select Committee has no such qualms, for it said in paragraph 145:
  "the concept of a reference price band … is … an important step towards a harmonised policy in respect of European coal reserves and towards defining the value of the security which indigenous coal production provides."
  The Select Committee called on the Government to play an active part in the deliberations on that. When one considers that that was said in July and that the Minister responsible for coal said in November that he did not even know about the reference price, one cannot have a great deal of faith in him or in his ability to protect the British coal industry.
  The Government's formal response to the Select Committee is muted, to say the least. They will give, as they call it, only "careful consideration" to proposals when they emerge, rather than be actively involved in formulating the proposals. That should come as no surprise to us, given the Government's record. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the Government do not take a more positive attitude.
  In a recent letter to George Stevenson MEP, the EC Director-General for Energy said:
  "the Commission believes that the current world market price for coal is not a sufficient criterion for assessing the competitiveness of Community coal. It is therefore realistic to define a security premium for the Community coal production which covers both the long term prospects for the evolution of the world coal market and the coal supply security."
  I hope that the Minister will join more enthusiastically in the vital discussions on long-term markets and security of supply which affect the future of the British coal industry.
  The Commission's paper on reference prices says:
  "it would be particularly unfair for pits to continue to close in those Member States which have nearly completed the restructuring exercise, while substantially less productive pits in other coal-producing Member States are kept running thanks to a national system of subsidies and other protective measures."
  That was also pointed out by the Chairman of the Select Committee. Surely that covers the British coal industry because, if our restructuring is not complete, how many more pits will have to close in Britain?
  The letter to George Stevenson MEP also states:
  "Further reductions of British coal production capacity are certainly worrying."
  It is a shame that the Government are not worried by such prospects. Their approach to negotiating a new contract between the coal corporation and generators is a clear expression of their easy come, easy go approach to the coal industry. I cannot believe that it is in the national interest for the Government to proceed as they have. We must not lose the nation's assets because at some stage there will be a national crisis in terms of where our energy resources should come from.
  I do not think that I could conclude my speech better than by reporting the warning in the conclusions the Select Committee report:
  "if a significant proportion of the UK's coal reserves were abandoned … resulting in a major reduction of long-term
  818
  energy security, the Government should understand that the country would see this not as a commercial decision, but as a largely irreversible decision of historic significance for the UK."
  I hope that the Minister and the Department of Energy will take our great national assets more seriously than in the past and ensure that we have an asset that will serve the national for many generations to come, as it has for centuries past.
  9.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the Energy Select Committee and all who serve on it on the quality of their report, which is one of the subjects of this evening's debate. They examined the prospects for the coal market after 1993 and the possibilities of clean coal technology. Naturally, I do not agree with all their conclusions, but I recognise the high standard of the report.
  I listened with particular interest to the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), who spoke with great authority on his report. He has given me notice that he is unable to be here for the latter part of the debate. Obviously, I entirely accept his apology and there is no possible discourtesy. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members referred to the painful restructuring that has taken place in past decades in the British coal mining industry. There is nothing new about colliery closures. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) drew attention to periods under Labour Governments when similar pit closures were experienced and large numbers of coal miners were displaced.
  We have ensured that restructuring and social grants are available to help that painful process. We have also provided deficit grants to aid the industry more directly. Since 1979, more than £7·5 billion of new investment has been made available by the Government through British Coal. The total grant aid provided in those years comes to more than £17 billion—including more than £6 billion of deficiency grant provided in the Coal Industry Act 1990. It cannot be said that the taxpayer has been stingy in supporting the industry.
  Mr. Derek Enright: Does not the Minister agree that the blocking of the RECHAR grants has deliberately stopped considerable sums of money that should have come to districts such as mine, which was a considerable blow?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a separate issue. I regret that one of the European Commissioners is apparently refusing to release RECHAR money to this country as it could be of direct assistance to some of the affected regions. I know that discussions are taking place between the Government and the Commission on that issue, and I hope, that before too long, the Commissioner involved will authorise the release of the money, which we can certainly put to good use.
  I am sure that all hon. Members recognise—it has been asserted again in the debate—that the coal industry faces competition from other fuels. That would be true under any Government and whether the industry were in private or public hands. It faces competition from the nuclear industry, the growing number of renewable energy sources

  819
  —which, although few at present, are of growing significance in total—and also from the gas industry, which is now to provide power for electricity generation.
  Under any Government, a number of large gas generating plants would be commissioned over the next year or two, which would inevitably affect the market for coal. However, we believe that there is still a significant market for coal. The prospects of British Coal winning that market are good, particularly if we succeed in transferring the industry to the private sector.
  That is why we are working out proposals to do so after the next general election and are bringing forward the supplementary estimate which is one of the subjects of this evening's debate. Decisions on the timing and details of the privatisation package and the Bill that we shall bring before the House will be taken after the next general election, but it is sensible to consider in detail the technical issues involved and some of the options that may be appropriate.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) wanted us to act faster and transfer ownership of the Monktonhall pit to a consortium of coal miners in advance of the main privatisation Bill. It is not possible for us to do that without changes in the law, so I think that he must have meant that the licensee should be the miners consortium, although there was some confusion in his remarks between the two different approaches.
  The hon. Member for Gordon prefaced his main suggestions with an allegation that applicants could influence the choice by contributing to Conservative party funds. I very much resent and utterly reject that allegation. He then, confusingly and paradoxically, suggested that I should involve myself in the choice of licensee. He went further, and said that my choice should be his favourite consortium—the mineworkers consortium—which has discussed its proposals with me. I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman, to the House and to the mineworkers consortium: the choice is not for me but for British Coal. I am glad that an independent operator may be given the chance to work these reserves if the necessary conditions can be guaranteed, but the choice between competing applicants is not one for me to make.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I. accept that, but does not the Minister accept that British Coal may be compromised? The Government have made it clear that it is to be privatised. They have also said that it will continue to be the licensing authority for private coal pits. Does not that leave British Coal in a position in which its judgment of who may be the best operator for a pit may be the one likely to be the least successful, or at least less of a threat, not the one who might operate in the best interests of competition, the local community or the wider economy? Should not the Government transfer the licensing role from British Coal to the Secretary of State as soon as possible?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are working within the statutory framework of the 1946 nationalisation legislation. Until it is altered by this House, it would be quite wrong for us to suggest that any other body could act as a licensing authority. However, when we bring our proposals for the privatisation of the industry before the House, it will be entirely appropriate to deal with matters such as this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support
  820
  our efforts to give outside independent private miners and mining companies opportunities to exploit British Coal reserves. But that is a matter for another debate.
  I noticed that the hon. Member for Gordon failed to answer my earlier point, which was that the Liberal Democrat party poses as a friend of coal—he did this evening—but the environmental document recently published by that party is extremely enthusiastic about a carbon tax and makes it clear that such a tax would bite most savagely on the combustion of coal. The economic and industrial implications of a carbon tax are discussed in the latter part of that document, but it is entirely silent on the question of the coal industry.
  Not only would the Liberal Democrat proposals be highly damaging to the industry that the hon. Gentleman purports to support, but his document fails to discuss the issue at all. So I take his professed support for the British mining industry with a large pinch of salt.
  Other hon. Members have rightly discussed coal research and development, a subject which formed an important part of the Select Committee's deliberations. I hope that hon. Members will therefore welcome the fact that last year we initiated a major review of the United Kingdom's coal research requirements in the longer term. We set up a coal task force, which was the Department's advisory committee on coal research, and it produced a consultation document in August.
  That has already led to a large number of comments from overseas as well as from the United Kingdom industry. The report has been generally well received, and it certainly deals with the anxieties expressed this evening in favour of research being long-term. Research and development carried out in the United Kingdom should certainly be conducted in a framework that includes the long-term implications of coal burn.
  At present, we are reviewing the comments that we have already received, and in the course of next year we shall publish a considered response to the coal task force. It gives the strategic direction referred to in the debate.
  I emphasise that we are not standing still while we await the outcome of that review. In partnership with British industry, British Coal and overseas agencies, we have recently launched five new clean coal projects with a contract value of about £20 million, bringing the total contract value of coal research and development to more than £100 million. Further projects are at the planning stage, and announcements will be made in due course.
  We believe strongly that collaboration between the Government, the coal industry and the rest of British industry is essential, not only to attract additional money for coal research but also for the technical and commercial skills that it can bring.
  Reference has been made to the need for demonstration plants. We have already established an industrial working party, drawn from British Gas, the electricity generators and other plant manufacturers, to examine prospects for an integrated gasification combined cycle demonstration plant.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to Grimethorpe and the need to complete the research there. It is not true that the Department has delayed the development of the topping cycle at Grimethorpe and elsewhere. In fact, my Department found £.3·7 million at short notice last year to keep the project on schedule. An important feature of that

  821
  research is that we are working closely with other partners, in particular PowerGen, GEC Alsthom and British Coal, to decide the most appropriate next steps.
  Mr. Eadie: Has the Minister had any discussions on the closure of the Westfield plant in Scotland, which was manufacturing synthetic gas from coal?
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am aware of that closure and the experiments and research carried out there. There is no immediate prospect of large-scale funding from my Department, but we remain interested, and if industrial partners come forward to carry that research to another stage, my Department will be interested in encouraging that.
  The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to a reference price for coal. No such request, information or details have been sent to my Department from the Commissioner concerned. However, we understand that the object of a European reference price is not to boost subsidies for coal, but rather to put a limit on them. We remain in touch with the thinking in Europe about a reference price, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that proposals have been made. At this stage, no such proposals have been made.
  No one pretends that in the years ahead the coal market will be easy. If faces severe environmental and economic pressures. We accept that the Government have a role in ensuring an adequate collaborative research and development programme, and I have instanced some of the projects that we are hoping to take forward. We believe that combined with our proposals to return the industry to the private sector after the next election, the outlook for the industry is by no means bleak.
  9.53 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I am grateful for the opportunity to have a few minutes in which to speak, having been a Member of the Select Committee on Energy which produced the report that we are debating, part of which related to the coal industry's future after 1993. The sad fact is that, at best, the coal industry's future at that time will be uncertain and at worst it will have no future.
  The Government have said that, if they are re-elected next year, the coal industry will be privatised, and their advisers have suggested that about 14 collieries will be left if that privatisation goes ahead.
  This evening, the House is asked to vote £4 million for the industry's privatisation. Under the present Government, the coal industry does not really have a future, and privatisation is to go ahead without any word of the industry's liabilities after the next general election. They will include concessionary fuel to those beneficiaries who are entitled to it, and the industry's existing liabilities in respect of compensation for industrial deafness claims and so on, which date back a good few years.
  The industry has very little in the way of assets. After 1993, it will not even have a production contract unless the generators relax their stand and agree to renew their contracts for substantial tonnages, whereas they have indicated tonnages of half the present figures.
  The industry faces problems other than its run down and privatisation. It has a future only if it can sell the coal that it produces, but the power generators made it clear
  822
  that they do not want its coal, for several reasons. The generators talk about importing coal, orimulsion, and using gas, to force extra concessions from the beleaguered coal industry, such as lower prices. The generators do not want reliance on British coal but diversification and a number of fuel sources.
  The generators also want the flexibility to switch from imported to domestic coal. Despite advice from British Coal, the Government are reluctant to accept that once British collieries are closed, they cannot reopen for several reasons—one of which is the economics involved. All that despite the fact that the industry has improved its productivity by more than 100 per cent., and decreased its costs by more than 25 per cent. by closing collieries and reducing manpower.
  Private sector generators have only one goal—to increase profits for their new shareholders. To do that, they will burn the cheapest fuel. They will go for cheaper prices and increased profits. Hence the dash for gas—increased gas generation, which has required British Gas to implement a 35 per cent. price increase for some projects suggested for the future. It could not see that enough gas would be available to meet all the new gas projects on the drawing board.
  The generators talk about importing gas from Norway and the Soviet Union. The uncertainty in the Soviet Union at least means that gas supplies from that source may not be relied on. We are using a fuel to create a fuel, and wasting it for the sake of short-termism and increased profits.
  We have heard also that the power generators will burn orimulsion, because Venezuelan tar sand is very cheap, but it has very high sulphur levels. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) said that the generators could burn orimulsion and still remain below their emission targets, because they would be burning gas, which has much lower emission standards. I make the point that the generators are willing to go to the limit—and because orimulsion is cheap, they will burn it, despite the fact that it will produce high emissions.
  The Government have deliberately encouraged the coal industry's complete rundown through privatisation. The industry's only answer is further to increase production, to try to reduce its costs. We have heard that opencast production could be increased to reduce costs. That will merely flood the market with coal which the industry will not be able to sell, because the generators do not want it. Consequently, more pits will close as the industry argues that it needs low-cost capacity in a handful of collieries.
  Over the past 10 years, the Government have simply allowed the coal industry to be whittled away, leaving the rump of pits mentioned in the Rothschild report. That will happen after 1993, when the generators say, "No, we will not burn 60 million tonnes, or 50 million: we will burn half what we burned in the past."
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
  Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Questions on Supplementary Estimates, 1991–92 (Class XIV, Vote 1 and Class V, Vote 9).

  CLASS XIV, VOTE 1
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £1,680,076,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on non-contributory retirement pensions, Christmas bonus payments to pensioners, pensions etc., for disablement or death arising out of war or service in the armed forces after 2nd September 1939 and on sundry other services, on attendance allowances, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, mobility allowance; on pensions gratuities and sundry allowances for disablement and specified deaths arising from industrial causes; on income support, transitional payment, child benefit, one parent benefit, family credit, and on the vaccine damage payment scheme.

  CLASS V, VOTE 9
  Resolved,
  That a further sum not exceeding £4,000,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Energy in connection with the privatisation of the coal industry.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed to put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.).

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1991–92
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,743,208,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 6 of Session 1991–92.

  ESTIMATES 1992–93 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £75,069,116,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1993, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of Session 1991–92.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. David Mellor, Mr. Francis Maude, Mrs. Gillian Shephard and Mr. John Maples.
  Mr. Francis Maude accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1992 and 1993: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11].

  Ministerial and Other Salaries
  Mr. Speaker: I have not been able to select the amendment on the Order Paper, because it is out of order.
  10.1 pm
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 2nd December., be approved.
  I am sorry that a small error appeared in the final version of the 1991 order in article 2 on the first page, where an "of" appeared instead of an "or". The necessary correction slip is being issued.
  Our proposals for increases to the salaries of Ministers and paid officials in this House are, this year, quite straightforward.
  On Monday 2 December, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page), I announced in a written answer all the details of the changes that we envisage. The increase in salaries in this House and in another place would be 4·5 per cent. effective from 1 January 1992. The total cost of those increases would be just over £154,000 in a full year.
  Ministers' recent record on pay restraint—and, indeed, that of the past 10 years—has been good. Over the lifetime of the present Government, most Ministers have received increases significantly lower than the increase in average earnings in the economy as a whole. From 1979 to 1991, such average earnings increased by 218 per cent. whereas Commons ministerial salaries increased by between 94 per cent. and 115 per cent. Over the same period, the retail prices index increased by 147 per cent., so there has been a fall in ministerial salaries in real terms. Moreover, ministerial salaries in the Commons have increased more slowly than parliamentary salaries, which, as the House will know, are increasing by 6·5 per cent. from 1 January 1992. There is no doubt that Ministers have given a clear lead in practice in regard to pay restraint.
  I believe that the proposals that I have outlined continue to demonstrate the Government's commitment to pay restraint, and I commend the motion to the House.
  10.4 pm
  Dr. John Cunningham: The burden of the remarks of the Leader of the House was that the increases for Ministers were very modest. My first comment is that the performance of Ministers has also been very modest. Indeed, to say that it has been modest is almost an exaggeration—it has been much less adequate than that.
  Of course, by any outside comparisons, Ministers of the Crown are underpaid. I say that in an objective sense, not in support of Ministers in the present Government. But for the fact that the salary of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was included in the order, I might be moved to recommend that we vote against it. However, in the circumstances, such a recommendation might be open to misinterpretation, so I shall not recommend such a move to the House.
  During their term of office, the Government have been molved—I was going to say "obsessed", but that is perhaps an exaggeration—to pursue arguments about performance-related pay. I can say only that, if the country was asked whether performance-related pay should apply

  825
  to Ministers of this Administration, it would almost certainly say yes and call for cuts in the salaries of certainly a number of Ministers.
  I cannot believe, for example, that people in the country at large think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has earned any increase in salary in view of his performance in the past few months. If the salary of the Secretary of State for Employment were reduced by just 10p for every job lost in the past 12 months—and that means 580,000 jobs—he would end up having to pay the taxpayer to be able to stay in his post instead of receiving a salary. It will seem strange to some people outside that we should be recommending a salary increase to the Secretary of State for Employment when hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs as a result of the disastrous performance of the Government's employment and industrial policies.
  We shall not divide the House on the order. The Leader of the House said that the salary recommendations were modest. I say that the Government's performance is equally modest, and I am sure that people outside this place are looking forward to the opportunity to hold their own review of the Government's performance when the general election comes. I have no doubt what the outcome of that review will be.
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There are three component parts to the order. The third gives you, Mr. Speaker, an increase and I have no quibble with that. The second gives an increase to the Leader of the official Opposition and to the Labour Chief Whip. Although I do not quibble about either of those two gentleman being paid more, I agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the general issue of salaries. The first and largest in terms of its consequences for the public Exchequer means that Ministers of the Crown should be paid more.
  I have been advised that, although it was in order to table an amendment to try to reduce the salary of a Minister of the Crown, it was unlikely that it would be in order for it to be called. I understand that the procedure has been changed in recent years to make that an impossibility, which seems to be a protective mechanism for the Government. Therefore, one has to deal with the issue generally rather than specifically. By contrast, there have been debates in the House in which one has been able to move a reduction in ministerial salary. I think that the most recent was in relation to the Lord Chancellor, whose salary is dealt with in a different way.
  I share the Lord President's view that one cannot criticise the general principle of the amount of the increase. It is a modest increase in view of the annual and average rate of increase across the board. I do not dissent from the view that Ministers—and I include Members of Parliament—should be paid relatively more. I believe that, relatively, the amount that they earn is still inadequate to recompense them for the importance of their job and their functions.
  As the hon. Member for Copeland rightly said, it is an anomaly that there is no way in which the House can make a judgment on the link between Ministers' performance and pay. Ministers are carefully protected from that.
  826
  It is even more inconsistent for the Government to make a virtue out of performance-related pay. They always defend pay rises for highly paid chief executives of the now privatised but formerly public industries as justified by the importance of their jobs. When we complain about the salary increase for the boss of British Telecom or for the boss of British Gas, we are told that it is because they do an important job and deserve to be well paid. Many people have been relatively inadequately paid all the time. The great tragedy of the Government is that the gap between the top 10 per cent. and the lowest 10 per cent. has widened consistently. We are a far less equal society than we were in 1979, 1983 or 1987. There should be performance-related pay.
  I put it on record in an objective way that leaders of parties other than the principal Opposition party should have a compensating increase above the allowance of the ordinary Member of Parliament. I do not include only the leader of my party, but the leaders of other parties, perhaps parties over a certain size. If we expect democracy to function and to flourish, there is a strong argument for that.
  I understand the historical reasons why the Leader of the Opposition has a different status in the House from the status of the leaders of other parties, but there were often not so many other parties as there are now, and the logic of increases being given only to the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip—apart from yourself, Mr. Speaker—is now historic, and the anomaly should be corrected.
  The hon. Member for Copeland cited two examples. There is a failure in the system if it does not allow us to challenge the way in which Ministers increasingly hang on to office, no matter how poor their performance in specific areas. My amendment illustrates my case. No matter how serious the breach of convention, there is no possibility that a Minister in this Government will resign for a constitutional failure. It seems that that is now an historically unrecognised position.
  The most relevant examples have appeared in the Home Secretary's most recent year in office. I make no personal comment about him. One may consider a Minister to be a perfectly pleasant bloke or woman, but that is not the point. The point is how he or she does his job. We are all accountable.
  It has been an extraordinary year in the life of the Home Secretary since last November. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Copeland that, if the public were asked tomorrow to judge how much each Cabinet Minister should be paid, and if they were paid according to the public's perception of how well each did his job, it would be a salutary lesson for the Government because they might discover that some Ministers would be paid very little.
  I do not attribute the general rise in crime to the Home Secretary, although I attribute to him the increasing numbers in prisons, the inability to deal with that problem and the inability to cope properly with the law and order issue. The Home Secretary has had several run-ins with the courts on Government immigration policy. In March, the High Court asked him to review a decision to return an asylum seeker to Togo. In May, he said that he did not intend to introduce legislation to curb dangerous dogs, but then he decided to do so. In July, two IRA prisoners escaped from Brixton prison. One shot a friend of mine,

  827
  Malcolm Kemp, the driver of the car that was attacked outside the prison when he and his wife were on their way—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is outside the scope of the order.
  Mr. Hughes: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I seek to address how we judge the record of Ministers, and I am giving examples. I accept that I may have extended that example too far. The prison escape was so significant that the Home Secretary returned from his holiday because of it. Things then became even more suspicious when we heard that someone had been planted in Brixton prison as part of an escape advisory service for prisoners.
  We then had a summer of joyriding, followed by an announcement at the Tory party conference that there would be legislation to deal with that, and a Queen's Speech which suggested that there would not be any legislation. Then, in the past two or three weeks—
  Mr. Roger Gale: Rubbish.
  Mr. Hughes: It is not rubbish—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether or not it is rubbish, it is wide of the order.
  Mr. Hughes: The Home Secretary said that he would do one thing, but he did not do it until he was chased. As the House knows, in the past two weeks—at the very end of the year—the right hon. Gentleman was told off by the Court of Appeal. There were many protests across the House about the fact that the Home Secretary is the first Cabinet Minister ever to be held guilty of contempt of court. It has yet to be seen, of course, whether that decision will be borne out by the House of Lords. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary was criticised by the court and, in the same fortnight, refused to implement the law on Sunday trading.
  There may be other examples, but if ever, in any one year, there could he more reasons for saying that somebody has failed the duty of his office—
  Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is this discussion about Sunday trading in order and, if it is, may I join it?
  Mr. Speaker: I have a suspicion that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is coming to a close.
  Mr. Hughes: As so often, Mr. Speaker, you are correct.
  If ever there was a case for being able to ask whether a Minister should stay in office, that must be a good example of it. It is a failure of the House that there is no way in which we can challenge a Minister's entitlement to his full salary if he does not do his job properly. I hope that the next Tory party manifesto will contain a pledge to the effect that performance-related pay will be applied to Ministers as well as to the rest of the economy. That might improve their performance considerably.
  10.17 pm
  Mr. MacGregor: This has been a brief debate, so I shall make a brief response. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made two main points. I note that he thinks that Ministers—and Members of Parliament generally—are underpaid for the responsibilities that they carry. One way of dealing with that point in
  828
  relation to Ministers' pay would be for the Top Salaries Review Body to undertake another review of Ministers' pay. That has not been ruled out, but none is planned at present.
  In answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I shall certainly not stray into all the policy issues that were raised, in view of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but I totally reject the hon. Gentleman's charges against my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend has made his position on the escapes absolutely clear, and has totally justified it.
  The hon. Gentleman was completely wrong about the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Bill. As he knows, there were an increasing number of cases involving dangerous dogs, and my right hon. Friend acted extremely speedily to draft legislation that was not easy to draft, and to push it through the House quickly, with the full support of all hon. Members. That was prompt action.
  My right hon. Friend announced his intention to introduce legislation to deal with aggravated vehicle taking at our party conference. The legislation was not included in the Queen's Speech—many Bills are not—because we were still involved in drafting what proved to be a complicated piece of legislation, but that has been done—and done quickly. The legislation has now gone through the House.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey is therefore completely off beam on both those points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acted promptly, and a great deal faster than is sometimes the case for other urgent matters requiring legislation.
  The hon. Gentleman was also wrong to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should implement the law on Sunday trading. That is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He made his position clear, rightly and fairly, in the House the other day, so I reject the charges—
  Mr. Gale rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: I do not want to become involved in a debate on Sunday trading, and I reject the charges absolutely.
  Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way on that precise point. I speak as one who opposes Sunday trading. Does my right hon. Friend recall that our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General came to the House to announce that he did not intend to take action on Sunday trading because the matter was before the European Court, and is it not the Liberal party that wants all our laws to be made in Europe?
  Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point.
  My final point relates to the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). He posed a hypothetical question about the public response on Ministers' performance. Indeed it was hypothetical. When the country is asked who should head the negotiations at Maastricht, people give a clear answer, as we saw in recent polls. By a substantial majority, they support my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. People have shown clearly that they have faith in my right hon. Friends and do not have faith in the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Dr. Cunningham: Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has not seen the news of tomorrow's poll—or perhaps he has seen it and is ignoring it. The greatest criticism of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) should have come from the Leader of the House, but perhaps I understand why he did not make it. The hon. Gentleman seems to want to remove the Government one Minister at a time. It will be quicker and far better for the country for them all to be removed together.
  Mr. MacGregor: I am happy to await the verdict on that matter. Meanwhile, there is general agreement this evening that the House should proceed to pass the order. Therefore, I am happy to sit down.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1991, which was laid before this
  House on 2nd December, be approved.

PETITION

  Human Rights (Kashmir)
  10.21 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: On Human Rights Day, I am proud to present a petition signed by 2,600 Bradford citizens of Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri origin, including Councillor Amin Qureshi of Bradford.
  The petitioners remind the House that the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions declaring that the final disposition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir would be made in accordance with the will of the people, expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations. Whereas both Lord Mountbatten and Mr. Nehru solemnly promised that a referendum would be held, and whereas the Indian security forces now occupying Kashmir have perpetrated gross and persistent violations of the human rights of the people of Kashmir, the petitioners pray that
  your honourable House will condemn the systematic mass murders, torture, arson and rape by the Indian forces of occupation in Kashmir; promote international efforts to help refugees fleeing Kashmir and to relieve the hardship and suffering of the people who remain in the territory; demand that India permit Amnesty International and other international human rights agencies to enter Kashmir, with a view to investigating and reporting human rights violations; and calls for the withdrawal of India's armed forces and security forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and their replacement by an interim United Nations Administration with the task of restoring law and order, and as soon a practicable, conducting the said plebiscite.
  I am extremely proud to present this petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Poll Tax (Enforcement Procedures)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Dave Nellist: One of the central features of the hearing that saw me expelled from the Labour party on Saturday was my attitude to the poll tax and my work in the past three years to defend those who are unable to pay, by welding together with many others that force, which resulted in not only the demise of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), the former Prime Minister, but the Government's biggest climbdown in their 12 years by abandoning what the right hon. Member for Finchley called the flagship of the third term of the Tory Government.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: The third Reich.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Yes, the third Reich.
  Mr. Nellist: Perhaps, more accurately, if not the third Reich, as my hon. Friends, whom I am still happy to call my hon. Friends, have just said, certainly the Titanic of that regime.
  It is even more apposite to stand here this evening and to begin a short debate on the poll tax and its enforcement procedures on a day when attitudes have hardened in Scotland and a headline has apparently appeared in the Evening Times, "Poll tax war in Glasgow streets."
  I realise that the Minister speaks on environment matters not for Scotland but for England and Wales. However, today 1,000 people in one of the poorest boroughs in western Europe stood in solidarity outside the homes of those who are unable to pay the poll tax, to attempt to stop an especially pernicious and mediaeval barbarity called poinding, which is the theft of items from people's homes by what we would call bailiffs, but by what are referred to in Scotland as sheriff officers, to sell those goods—often at a fraction of their value—to try to meet civil debt.
  Of the 1,000 people, 29 were arrested. Although some were young, there were also a number of middle-aged men and women—a cross-section of working-class people—who stuck together on the cold streets of Glasgow. I think that it is the first time that sheriff officers, without any provocation from protesters, have called in the police in Strathclyde in that way. It marks a hardening of attitudes in Scotland on the enforcement of the poll tax. It is one year ahead of England and Wales on enforcement of the poll tax.
  Strathclyde—a Labour authority—like many others, has promised, using the terms of the legislation and almost the words of the Secretary of State for the Environment, that only "wilful" non-payers, who can pay but refuse to do so, would ever have the full weight and majesty of the law thrown at them.
  One of the people who was being protected in Springburn today—whose door the sheriff officers threatened to kick down—was an old woman who was wheelchair-bound. A large proportion of those suffering the ultimate sanction of imprisonment in England and Wales, have not been people on high salaries, whom Ministers and Tory MPs like to categorise as the only ones involved in the battle against the poll tax. In Scotland, England and Wales, the poorest and weakest are hardest
  832
  hit by the poll tax and by the oppressive, authoritarian and barbaric measures of enforcement which are now being deployed.
  In Britain, the final sanction is imprisonment, but it is ironic when one considers the expense. I do not know the value of goods collected today. I am told that one door went in and about £150-worth of goods were brought out. I should like to see the figures tomorrow showing how much police time and the time of sheriff officers, court and council officials was spent to get £150-worth of goods out of that person's home.
  Where is that effort on a Sunday? I know that you ruled that Sunday trading was wide of the mark in a previous debate, Mr. Speaker, so I shall make only a slight diversion for a sentence or so. Where were the V formations and the special patrol groups in B and Q and Sainsbury on Sunday, enforcing the Shops Act 1950, in the same way that 25,000 hours of court time has been spent in England and Wales in the past 15 months to enforce poll tax legislation? If the same tests were applied to that legislation as Ministers have apparently said should be applied to the Shops Act, millions of people voting with their feet by ignoring it, millions of people have certainly voted with their feet on the poll tax.
  We know why B and Q and Sainsbury do not get attacked in that way. Perhaps it is because B and Q put on dances for agents at Tory party conferences and Sainsbury has representatives at ministerial level.
  The poll tax is unenforceable and uncollectable in Scotland—after three years, 64 per cent. of the population have not paid, and in Strathclyde 84 per cent. have not paid. Out of 3·7 million adults, 2·5 million have received sheriff's warrants. The figures are also huge in England and Wales. The best description is that they are of herculean proportions.
  The Home Office has admitted to me—it took a while to get the figures readily—that, in the 18 months from 1 April 1990 to 30 September 1991, 8,023,621 people in England and Wales were summonsed to court, and 195,845 had turned up, taking up 23,558 hours of court time. That is what the Prime Minister meant, shortly after he came into office, having seen the right hon. Lady deposed, when he told a Back-Bench Tory committee that the poll tax was uncollectable and unenforceable. Up to the end of September in England and Wales, 195,000 people had turned up in court to tell the magistrates why they could not and would not pay the poll tax. Committal warrants for prison have been issued in respect of 2,815 of those people.
  Although the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment will be replying to the debate, I asked the Home Office only a few days ago for comparable figures for the five years before the poll tax of the number of people who had not paid their rates. It did not collect the figures. I am not surprised; it did not want a comparison. The citizens advice bureaux did a survey in 1987, which showed that 370 people were summonsed and given committal warrants for non-payment of domestic rates. That is about 15 per cent. of the number of committal warrants issued so far in connection with the poll tax, with only one fifth or one sixth of local authorities moving down that road.
  The latest figures show that 54 local authorities have sought to gaol 152 people. As of tonight, 115 have served sentences. Again we are told that they are deceitful and

  833
  wilful non-payers—not people who cannot afford to pay. Let us hear an explanation when 30 were unemployed, 15 were pensioners, and three were on invalidity benefit.
  Let us hear an explanation of why, a fortnight ago in Stroud, 22-year-old Maria Jones, having offered £5 a week out of her £42 a week benefit and having explained that she was 31 weeks pregnant, was still sentenced to 60 days in prison. Let us hear what her major crime was. Let us find why Richard Northover, so far the oldest person to go to prison, was sent there, not for not paying the poll tax—he had paid it—but for not having filled in the registration form two years ago. He got 28 days in HMP Dorchester at the age of 80.
  Other pensioners of that age have been put away. Bill Jones, from St. Helens, was taken into HMP Walton—the same prison in which my good friend and comrade, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), served 58 days of a sentence in principled opposition to the sentencing of pensioners and those who cannot afford to pay the poll tax. When Bill Jones arrived at Walton, what happened? Bill is old; he is also a war veteran; he is a diabetic and he has only one leg. So they collapsed his wheelchair, gave him a firefighters' lift up the stairs and put him in a cell. Bill has voted Tory all his life—another little irony. I do not think that he will be voting Tory after that experience.
  Pensioners have had heart attacks in Preston and other prisons. None of this is to collect money. If we take the costs of imprisonment, the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders says that prisoners cost an average of £47 per day. It is not long before that is no longer cost-effective when the poll tax debt is £200.
  There are too many poll tax prisoners. I have dealt with a number of cases with the Home Office, particularly in Kent, where people have been kept in police cells for some days. One was there 15 days. According to NACRO, the average cost of keeping prisoners in police and court cells is £220 a day. It costs only £190 a night to stay at the Ritz. Keeping a prisoner in a police cell for one day usually costs more than the entire bill the prisoner is fighting.
  There are other examples, such as 69-year-old Ron Cassidy from Northumberland, near where I come from. He is a star dominos player in his local pub, where his team used to win every night. Two nights in a row they lost, so they went looking for Ron. They found him in Durham maximum security prison. He owed £62 poll tax and they put him away for 90 days in that prison—a day in prison for every 69p that he owed.
  What about the Guinness scandal? What happened to Ronson? Eight million quid went in that scandal, but he got one day in prison for every £30,000 that he owed. He was not sent to a maximum security prison, but to an open prison. He was entitled to remission, and parole. Poll tax is a civil debt, however, and there is no remission and parole—one serves the full sentence when one is put away. Ronson got that parole and remission, and when he got out he was invited to dinner with the Queen Mother. No poll tax prisoner has received a letter from the royal family inviting him to dinner.
  Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend has illustrated powerfully the double standards employed by the Government to deal with ordinary people and those in the City. My hon. Friend should accept from me that his powerful case is
  834
  ample justification for his award as Back Bencher of the year and why I believe that a serious error was committed in West Bromwich on Saturday.
  Mr. Nellist: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that on the record.
  Many of those who have been sent to prison rely on income support alone. Others, such as pensioners, are on fixed or low incomes. Some have no income. A number of women with no income have been sent to prison because they were unable to pay the poll tax.
  No doubt the Minister will tell us that safeguards were built into system when income support was increased to cover the 20 per cent. of poll tax for which everyone is liable. That support was based on the false assumption that it covered the rise in real poll tax levels as opposed to the notional, national averages. It was also based on the even worse assumption that the actual level of income support in April 1990 was sufficient for people to live on in the first place.
  Four years ago, I argued with the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Security about the Fowler review, which led to cuts in income support. A 33-year-old widow with four children in my constituency lost free school meals and housing benefit—a total loss of £25.
  Millions of people lost as a result of those cuts, but the difference between their anger and that felt by those in the poll tax battle is glue. In the anti-poll tax struggle, nearly 2,000 groups emerged, and at its peak we had 25 groups in Coventry. Those groups welded people together and provided collective community action. People did not have to face the problem alone as they do so often when it comes to social security benefit cuts.
  In April 1990 the amount of income support was not sufficient for people to live on, so the increase to cover the 20 per cent. poll tax charge was not sufficient. Thorough research conducted by Newcastle polytechnic has been passed on to me by the Rev. Paul Nicholson, who has done sterling work to highlight the problems of those on income support. He has also opposed the imprisonment of those unable to pay their poll tax.
  The research revealed that, in April 1990, the income support—including the supplement to cover 20 per cent. of the poll tax—for a family of two adults and two primary school children who use the cheapest form of fuel and do not "waste" their income through smoking and drinking, constituted two thirds of the minimum sum experts have identified as sufficient to meet their living requirements. Those who were compelled to use oil for heating and enjoyed a drink and a smoke received an income support entitlement that was just over half of what experts identified as necessary to meet their requirements.
  The Secretary of State has refused to answer my questions on this matter. The Government trumpet the £140 reduction, but the reduction given to those on income support is inadequate and does not match the needs of those in receipt of that money.
  In conjunction with the Home Office, the Department of the Environment should issue a circular immediately to every magistrates covrt. I do not know whether the rules and procedures governing magistrates' decisions on poll tax cases have been communicated to them in a proper training package. I have tabled parliamentary questions about that, but I have received no proper answers. The Secretary of State should issue an instruction tonight to all magistrates to the effect that they have the power to remit

  835
  the payment of the poll tax for anybody who cannot afford to pay. It should be their automatic policy from tonight that anyone in receipt of income support or low incomes equivalent to income support—and, say, 50, 60 or 70 per cent. above those levels—should automatically have their poll tax debts remitted.
  I now intend to bring before the House a series of private Member's Bills. The first will be designed to bring English and Welsh law into line with Scottish law, which four years ago, under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987, abolished in Scotland the medieval barbarity of putting people in prison for civil debt. That law should apply in England and Wales as well. Were it to do so, literally hundreds of thousands of people would tonight not be sitting at home frightened about whether they might be dragged into the courts and on to prison.
  Many people have been forced, when trying to pay the poll tax, into choosing between food, fuel and clothing and paying the tax. In 1991, we should not be making the poorest in society the scapegoats for a policy that even every Tory Member admits is dead, is dying and should be abolished. We could do something tonight by having the Minister announce that magistrates will stop putting in prison people who cannot pay their poll tax. He should seek immediate discussions with the Home Office with a view to having the law altered, to bring English and Welsh law into line with Scottish law.
  I ask the Minister to do one more thing for those millions of families, many of whom are part of that 250,000 who are more than six months in arrears with their mortgage repayments, who fear that their homes will be taken from them and who have paid the poll tax. They have been responsible locally, particularly in areas of the highest deprivation, and they are paying surcharges to local councils of £20, £50, £70 and more a year for those who cannot pay the poll tax. Those who have paid have been surcharged. That should be on the national Exchequer, not on those locally who are trying to make ends meet.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to put those arguments before the House. I do not expect much joy from the Minister tonight, but I give warning that, for the time I remain on these Benches, with the label on which I came here eight and a half years ago—as a Labour Member of Parliament, albeit a Member who has a label beneath his name on the TV as an expelled Labour Member—I shall bring before the House the necessary measures not just to talk about the death of the poll tax but to bury it once and for all.
  10.42 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on his success in raising an important issue on the Adjournment. I also congratulate him on winning The Spectator's Back Bencher of the Year award. I fundamentally disagree with his proposition, although I congratulate him on the stand that he has taken for his principles. Many parliamentarians would also congratulate him, however strongly they might disagree with him.
  The hon. Gentleman illustrated his argument graphicaly, and so shall I. No hon. Member will forget the riots in Trafalgar square and elsewhere in the country that were provoked by those opposed to a system of taxation
  836
  endorsed by Parliament. Nor will we forget those hon. Members who were regarded as the darlings of the rioters. Whatever justification there may have been 600 years ago for riot and revolt, there was never such justification today. The House will recall just how often in recent years the hon. Gentleman was compared to Wat Tyler, leader of the peasants' revolt of June 1381. They have precious little in common, except that they both worked in the construction industry before journeying to London.
  I begin my answer to the hon. Member by reminding the House that those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. I will show why the hon. Gentleman has achieved nothing of any worth or substance by his protest. Tyler was a mob leader. He would have been quite at home in those Trafalgar square riots. He and his comrades sacked and pillaged their way from Rochester to Canterbury, from there to Lambeth palace and Southwark. They dragged Archbishop Sudbury from the chapel in the Tower of London and plundered and slaughtered their way through London. They, too, felt strongly about prisons. They incited prison riots, burned prisons down and sacked and burned John of Gaunt's splendid palace of the Savoy. Was history repeating itself when The Spectator magazine recently perpetrated the huge joke of wining and dining the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East on his success as Back Bencher of the Year at today's Savoy palace?
  Wat Tyler was defeated by the courage and judgment of his king—a boy of 14—and the wisdom of Parliament. History surely repeats itself in the poll tax rebel's end. Wat Tyler was struck down and fatally injured by the sword of the loyal Lord Mayor of London, whose name is commemorated in time-honoured fashion. In the road named after him, today's so-called tribunes of the people decided to bring to an end the antics of the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East. The Lord Mayor who saved the king and all that he stood for was William Walworth. The young king had made concessions to appease the rioters and prevent further loss of life and bloody rioting, but within a year, they were revoked by Parliament, and no permanent results were obtained by Wat Tyler's poll tax revolt. None have been obtained by the hon. Gentleman, either.
  The legislation ensures that people have a statutory right to pay the community charge in manageable instalments. The community charge regime is an improvement on domestic rates in that respect. On receipt of a bill, the charge payer is given a specified date by which he or she should pay each instalment. The date governing the first instalment cannot be sooner than 14 days after the issue of the bill.
  If an instalment is not paid, a reminder is issued. That requires the outstanding instalments to be paid within seven days. The authority may issue a second reminder notice, but it is under no obligation to do so. Charge payers are therefore given at least two opportunities to pay their community charge instalment.
  If, following the issue of the reminder, the charging authority still does not receive payment, the right to pay by instalments is lost and the charge payer becomes liable to pay the authority the full amount of community charge outstanding for the remainder of the year. That sum must be paid to the authority within a further seven days.
  If payment is still not received, the authority will take enforcement action against that person to ensure that the required sum is paid. To start that procedure, the

  837
  authority applies to a magistrates court for a summons. The summons requires the person to attend the court to explain to the magistrate why the sum has not been paid.
  If the bill and the reminder notice have been issued in accordance with the regulations and the charge is still outstanding, the magistrate must issue a liability order to the council so that it can take action against the defaulter. That order is made for the aggregate of the sum payable and for costs incurred by the charging authority and the court in obtaining and issuing the order.
  Once the order has been issued, the charging authority has a number of recovery options available to it. We have strengthened and widened those powers compared with those that were available to authorities for the enforcement of the old domestic rates. Under the rates, the only means of enforcement available were to distrain and sell the ratepayer's goods in order to discharge the debt or, if insufficient goods were found, to apply for a committal warrant. Both remedies apply in the case of the community charge and will apply to the council tax.
  In relation to the community charge, we have given authorities the powers to attach a defaulter's earnings or to ask the Department of Social Security to make deductions from income support payments. Those remedies were added because we believe the payment of debt by manageable amounts to be more civilised than distraint. Those are powerful additions to an authority's enforcement battery. They will also apply to the collection of the council tax.
  Mr. Nellist: First, will the Minister give an assurance tonight that his Department will start to collect statistics on the attachment of earnings orders and how many have been collected or returned? I have asked for those figures, and apparently none exist. Secondly, why is there imprisonment in England and Wales when the Government abolished it four years ago in Scotland? Why are there two different systems of law?
  Mr. Key: That is an historical question, which the hon. Gentleman should address to the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have answered parliamentary questions from the hon. Gentleman when I have been able to do so. Where the information was not available, I was obviously not able to do so.
  On imprisonment and so-called amnesties, it is illegal and irresponsible to withhold payment of the community charge. Such action merely deprives authorities of funds that they need to provide services enjoyed by the whole community. It also transfers the debt to those law-abiding charge payers who pay their charge, many of whom will be earning considerably less than hon. Members who chose to default.
  The Government have made it clear on a number of occasions and I repeat it now: there will be no amnesty for non-payers. People must realise that local authorities will pursue non-payers until they have secured payment, however long it takes. The introduction of the council tax will not mean that people who have not paid their community charge can forget about it. If they still owe their local authority money, they must pay it: they will not be let off the hook.
  As I explained earlier, the community charge procedures give charge payers every opportunity to pay
  838
  their community charge. Enforcement action can be stopped at any stage by the payment of the amount due. If a charge payer is in financial difficulties but is prepared to offer to pay off any arrears at a reasonable rate, most authorities will accept such arrangements. However, if someone wilfully refuses to pay the charge, it is right that he should have to pay the price for his illegal action. In those circumstances, a magistrate can sentence someone to a maximum of three months in prison. So far, only a tiny minority of the 36 million law-abiding charge payers in this country have chosen to face that ultimate sanction. Most of them did so to make a political point and to gain publicity.
  The hon. Gentleman has made much of the power of imprisonment for non-payment. He has pointed to the difference between the treatment of offenders in Scotland and England, and said that the Scots do not imprison defaulters following their acceptance of the Scottish Law Commission's report, which recommended that civil imprisonment for the non-payment of rates and taxes should be abolished.
  The collection position in Scotland is far worse than in this country. The Scottish National party must take much of the blame for the lack of payment in Scotland. They have irresponsibly encouraged people to withhold payment, and then at the eleventh hour they have made payments, leaving those poorer people who were foolish enough to follow their appalling example to face the consequences of now owing a lump sum.
  The threat of imprisonment for non-payment of local taxes is not unique to the community charge. It existed under the old domestic rating system, and still exists for those who do not pay rates in Northern Ireland. Among our European colleagues, people in the Netherlands who do not pay local taxes can also be imprisoned.
  To deprive someone of their liberty is never an easy decision to make. Imprisonment is a harsh measure that should be used only when every other reasonable avenue has failed. However, I state again that enforcement procedures offer plenty of opportunities for someone to pay their dues and so avoid imprisonment. Before any committal warrant is issued, the magistrates court must hold a means inquiry, and it is only following that that a warrant can be issued.
  The courts have shown themselves sympathetic in cases where the charge payer does not have the means to pay. The court will issue such a warrant only where it is satisfied that the failure to pay the charge was wilful or negligent. Those warrants do not necessarily need to be served by the police. A local authority can make its own arrangements to arrest defaulters, which can include the use of bailiffs, and the defaulter must comply with such a warrant from the court.
  People who go to prison for non-payment of the community charge do so because they choose to lose their liberty rather than pay the amount that is rightfully theirs to pay. Some Opposition Members have campaigned to stop the imprisonments. We have no wish to see people imprisoned any more than they have, but the law must be upheld. If someone deliberately flouts the law in that manner, they only have themselves to blame for the consequences. I urge all Opposition Members who have not paid their poll tax to do so without delay.
  Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Key: Of course I shall not give way. There is no question of my giving way—
  The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.