asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the regulations governing the opening of a school by a private individual.

Under part III of the Education Act 1944, all independent schools have to be registered initially on a provisional basis. This is precluded only if the proprietor or premises have previously been disqualified under the Act. In applying for registration, proprietors have to conform to the requirements of the Education (Particulars of Independent Schools) Regulations 1982.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that there are wide disparities between the qualifications of staff and the facilities available at private schools, although they are not always recognised by parents? Is there not a strong case for the reintroduction of the efficiency classification scheme that existed until April 1978?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not prepared to extend public sector manpower to carry out a service that some of the independent schools are conducting by their own accreditation scheme.

Will my right hon. Friend consider revoking the circular issued in 1978 by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) and permitting educational nursery schools to register as efficient, thereby removing them from the effects of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948?

That is a slightly different question, I shall study the issue and write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of proposed primary school closures submitted by local authorities he has approved since May 1979.

Published proposals for the closure of 538 primary schools were decided between 1 May 1979 and 28 February 1983. Local education authorities determined 89 of these as they attracted no statutory objections. My right hon. Friend and his predecessor approved 426 and rejected 23 of the remainder.

When reaching decisions about school closures, what weight does my hon. Friend place on financial considerations? Does he agree that it is difficult to get accurate financial information about savings on prospective school closures? Are there not special difficulties relating to the closure of rural schools and claimed savings in school transport, bearing in mind that the cost of school transport continues to rise?

Before decisions are made under section 12 my right hon. Friend considers proposals for school closures from local education authorities. The considerations are primarily the education of the children involved, the fact that small schools may not have the variety of teachers required, how far the children have to travel to school, whether journeys take more than 35 minutes, and finance. The more that is spent on one aspect of education, the less that can be spent on another. However, rural schools are examined carefully, because of their effect on rural communities.

In considering school closures, will the Secretary of State have regard, as he did in a recent case in my constituency, to the important contribution of Church schools to our education system? Will he note the threat by the Liverpool Labour party to abolish Catholic schools and the reaction of the Catholic authorities? Will he resist any doctrinaire attempt to drive out of the system the contribution made by Church schools?

The Government and, I am sure, many Opposition Members, are committed to the retention of denominational schools where parents desire them. I have read a report of what the hon. Gentleman referred to, and I know that that subject concerns many hon. Members. Children ought to be brought up in the faith of their parents if their parents wish them to attend denominational schools.

Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the schools threatened with closure receive tremendous parental support? What weight will he give to that parental support in reaching his decision?

The objections of parents and people in the area to any proposed school closure are considered carefully. If statutory objections are made by parents or others, they go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We always pay close attention to verbal and written objections from parents and consider their desire for a school to continue.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that hon. Members have just heard an unusually cheapjack jibe from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), which would seem to have much more to do with Darlington than with Liverpool or any other part of the country? I am sure that the Under-Secretary knows that the Labour group in Liverpool has published a comprehensive statement declaring its support for the continuation of denominational education and the proper exercise of parental choice in that city.

It is difficult to know what the question was. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said that he was sure that I knew about the statement, but I have not seen it. However, I must look at it and reply to it. In fairness, I have quoted in the House statements of certain Labour Members who are certainly against denominational schools. This is not the first time that the issue has come to the notice of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he had before chartered status was given to the University College of Buckingham.

In advising the Privy Council I had before me written memoranda from the Association of University Teachers, the Central Council for Non-Teaching Staffs in Universities, the Council for National Academic Awards and the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals.

Is it not a fact that that proposterous institution is now a university only because it is so styled in the charter that has been awarded to it by the Secretary of State? Will he confirm that the CNAA declined to validate the honours degree at Buckingham nine years ago and that the Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals would have recommended—had the right hon. Gentleman chosen to consult it—that there should be an independent academic assessment? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us see this issue as a shabby political pay-off of the worst possible kind, and an insult to reputable academic institutions in this country?

The college became a university by the same process as other modern colleges have become universities over the years. It is true that nine years ago the CNAA refused to validate a particular course, but the professional bodies served by the students gave professional qualifications to graduates of Buckingham college. This institution shows what can be done outside the state sector. It is an admirable example of combining relatively short degree courses with high standards and research. There is much for the public sector to learn from that university.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the University College of Buckingham is an excellent institution of higher education and that this country needs more—not fewer—such establishments?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that the university started from a relatively small base makes it the same as other places that are now accepted as perfectly normal universities.

Just to prove that it is not a shabby political pay-off, will the Secretary of State consider granting a charter to Goldsmiths' college in the borough of Lewisham, which is to lose its London university status, or would the Left-wing leanings of Mr. Richard Hoggart, its principal, act in some way against that, just as they did when he was on the Arts Council?

The hon. Gentleman is free with his allegations in the House. I would hope to bring the same standards to bear on any proposal for university status that came before me.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department issues guidance to local education authorities on truancy.

The main responsibility for school attendance rests with local education authorities. However, I share my hon. Friend's concern about the problems of truancy. We have recently sought information about truancy from a selection of authorities.

As 12,000 school children between the ages of 11 and 15 were convicted of criminal offences in the west midlands alone last year, and as 15 out of every 100 secondary school children are known to have a history of hard core truancy, does my hon. Friend accept that there is a direct link between hard core truancy and teenage crime? If so, what steps does he propose to take to make parents more responsible, teachers more accountable and the courts more effective?

That is a wide question. I read the article that my hon. Friend recently wrote on this issue. From the research that I have seen, which is available to other hon. Members, it would seem that there is undoubtedly a connection between hard core truancy—I believe that was my hon. Friend's phrase—and criminal activity. We are having informal discussions with local authority bodies because we are concerned about the figures. Indeed, a recent survey in inner London showed that about 10 per cent. of pupils aged 11 were absent from school and that about 25 per cent. were absent by the age of 15. That is very serious.

Does my hon. Friend agree that pupils play truant from school when the school courses are not up to the proper standard? What is my hon. Friend's view of the practice of the French Socialist Government of withholding family benefit from the parents of children who persistently play truant?

It is no doubt true that if pupils do not consider that their school courses bear any direct relationship to the life that they will lead outside school they are more likely to play truant. The idea of the new technical and vocational education initiative is to make school more relevant to all our pupils. I believe that my hon. Friend has recently been to France, and I look forward to the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security having consultations with him.

Will the Minister agree not to take the line that has been suggested? I know that the Government like to punish the worst off families, but that would hit them very hard. Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration not only hard core truancy but the fact that much juvenile delinquency occurs when children occasionally play truant, perhaps because they do not like a teacher or because there are troubles at home? Does he agree that checking up in the schools can act as a form of protection against that?

The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of schools. I agree that the education and welfare officer—who was once called the school attendance officer and who at least knew what he was doing—has an essential part to play in getting children to school. The hon. Gentleman implied that the Government might take it out on hard-luck families, but that is not true. We are concerned that all children should have a genuine feeling for life and a good education. That is why we want them all to be in school.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will arrange for an allowance to be paid to those young people who remain in full-time education after 16 years of age.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to a questiion by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on 22 February 1983.

Is the Minister aware of the concern being expressed by local education committees in towns such as Oldham that the economic pressure on 17 and 18-year-olds will be intensified by the introduction of the youth training scheme? It will cost parents, who may be unemployed, £25 per week to keep a child at school.

Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that the staying-on rate in full-time education for those over 16 years is higher than it has been since the raising of the school leaving age. It is extraordinary that it should be the Labour party's official policy to pay perhaps £500 million in dead weight to youngsters who are already staying on.

Is the Minister aware that the democratically elected London borough of Newham has decided to pay the £25 per week to students who stay on at school? May I take it that the hon. Gentleman, or his Department, will ensure that at least part, if not all, of that will be paid for out of the Exchequer's funds, because it will keep those young people off the streets and save a great amount of the money spent to make good the effects of vandalism and so on? Is it not worth giving a little towards that, thus probably saving on the large amounts given to the police to deal with crime and vandalism?

I remind the hon. Gentleman that local education authorities can already give education allowances or discretionary grants. More than £20 million was given in that way last year. I have seen the press notice in the local press. We have no details yet, but I saw in the press notice that £500,000 is being reserved for that purpose. No doubt the ratepayers will realise that the money is being paid to youngsters, most of whom would stay on anyway.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to encourage more 16-year-olds to stay in full-time education.

Is the Minister aware that when I put the point to the Secretary of State yesterday he did not want to believe me when I quoted to him the figures given to me in a written answer by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 9 March? Is he aware that the figures show that in the United Kingdom only 2·4 per cent. of the population are attending post-compulsory education compared with very much higher percentages in Japan, West Germany, France, Italy and even in Ireland? If one considers universities—

Order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) must ask a question, because other questions on the Order Paper must be reached.

I am asking a question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware of all the facts that his Department has given to me? What is the Minister doing—I can see that the Secretary of State is prompting him—and what: is the Department doing—all four Ministers are present on the Front Bench—to ensure that we do not waste the skill and talents of so many young people today?

If the hon. Lady reads the footnotes, she will stop misinterpreting the figures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will write to her. I repeat that more youngsters are staying on in full-time education post-16 than under any previous Government since the raising of the school leaving age.

Despite what the Minister has just said, is he aware that some 16-year-olds who should stay on at school to take A-levels are reluctant to do so because they do not wish to be a financial burden on their parents? Will he ask Her Majesty's inspectors, after consultation with the principals of colleges and schools, to investigate this problem?

I accept that there is a problem, but it is somewhat alleviated by the raising of child benefit allowance, which goes to parents of youngsters in full-time education, and also by the discretion of local authorities to pay awards and allowances to those in financial hardship.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning special assistance from his Department for the ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend often receives representations about the particular educational needs of ethnic minority children. Our policy is that all children, whatever their background, should have an education which enables them to fulfil their potential and to play their part in British society.

For how long will this special assistance to the ethnic minorities continue? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no diminution in educational standards as a result of resources going into those areas?

If children come from non-English-speaking backgrounds, additional resources are required to teach them English, not only for their sake, but for the sake of other children in their classes. If that need is there, help will be given.

Will the Under-Secretary of State, who is keen to protect and maintain denominational schools, ensure that Sikhs, Hindus and Moslems are able to participate in their own religions in the state schools?

As a former headmaster of schools with mixed intakes where there were separate assemblies, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is nothing to stop local education authorities and schools arranging for separate assemblies inside their schools where there are specific groups or numbers of any of those particular religions.

How many local authorities have specialised language centres for helping children from ethnic minorities? What resources are currently being made available to them?

Local authorities differ in the way in which they deal with this matter. Some send the teachers to the schools; others take the children out to special centres. I cannot give the figures. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will give him all the specific information that I have.

I fully endorse the comprehensive responses made by my hon. Friend to the questions put to him so far. However, does he agree that ethnic minorities in this country have a responsibility to their own children? Does he further agree that it would be helpful if the mothers and fathers of those children who have recently come to this country did their best to help their children by speaking English in their homes, as there would then not be so many problems in the schools? What consideration is my hon. Friend giving to this aspect? Does he agree that, by providing too much money for ethnic minorities, many of our own people may suffer as a result?

It is normal for immigrant parents who speak English to speak English in their homes. The problem arises when the parents do not speak English. Some authorities have started evening classes which parents can attend. It is an excellent move for authorities to arrange for evening classes in the English language so that mothers, particularly, can also become part of our society.

As a Minister, and as the hon. Member for Brent, North, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is committed not only to assisting education for ethnic minorities but to developing multi-cultural education to the advantage of all children, and that it is to the advantage of all children to spend properly on education for ethnic minorities? In keeping with that, does he recall the recommendations of both the Rampton committee and, indeed, the Scarman report about the importance of in-service training for teachers and the needs of children from the ethnic communities? If so, why was there no commitment in yesterday's White Paper to the improvement of such in-service training?

The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) may remember that when we were considering the future of colleges of education, and the rest, special access places were kept open specifically for the training of those teachers. North London polytechnic is a specific example. There is concern about this matter. The important factor that we must remember on both sides of the House is that these children, from wherever they come, should be trained and taught to fit into our society. That is as vital for the host community as it is for the immigrant community. Anything that we do must be in keeping with that overall intention.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to make his intended second visit to the London borough of Newham.

I hope to visit Newham again later this year.

When he does, will the Secretary of State ensure that sufficient notice is given so that a proper programme can be arranged? Does he agree that the pupils of Newham deserve the facilities and resources provided by the London borough of Newham? Will he assure the House that the above average expenditure thereby incurred will not debar that authority from receiving specific grants which are now available from his Department?

I make many visits to education authorities and I accept the programme that is discussed between the host authority and my representatives. I shall do the same when visiting Newham later this year. As for specific grants, each application will be considered on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science under what circumstances local education authorities are empowered to claim back student grants.

Under the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations, LEAs are empowered to claim back from students any amount they have been paid which exceeds, for whatever reasons, the grant payable in respect of that year.

Will the Minister confirm that there is neither Government pressure on nor legal necessity for a local education authority to sue the estate of a deceased student for the return of an education grant? Will he also tell the House and the Cambridge education authority whether it is statutory or mandatory for the grant to the sister of a deceased student to be cut in the middle of an academic year by virtue of the death of her brother?

I shall take the latter point first. I believe that the hon. Gentleman knows that a local authority has the right to alter a child's grant if no grant is being paid to another child. All these matters are within the discretion of the local authority. Local authorities have different views about these matters.

When a discretionary grant has been paid by a local authority to keep a youngster from being unemployed, do the Minister and his Department consider that the authority should approach the Department of Employment to recover that money?

I am not clear to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was talking about a mandatory award. It is wholly within the discretion of the local authority to give or withdraw discretionary awards.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, in the past two years, how many applications he has received from local education authorities to close village primary schools with school rolls of 35 pupils or fewer; and in how many cases he has refused to give his consent.

In the two years ending 31 December 1982, 163 proposals to close village primary schools were approved by my right hon. Friend and his predecessor or determined by the local education authorities concerned; 120 of these schools had 35 or fewer pupils. Over the same period proposals for 10 schools were rejected; five of these had fewer than 35 pupils.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that the standard of educational provision in these schools is by far the most important criterion, followed by the impact that any such closure would have on the local community? Are not those two aspects far more important than dubious economic criteria?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that the children's education and the continuation of village life are important. One must accept also that there has been a tremendous drop in the birth rate. There are about 1 million fewer children in schools now than there were four years ago. If one continues to spend large sums of money on schools whose pupils are almost disappearing, one must spend less elsewhere.

When the Minister considers again Beadnell school, which is one of those with fewer than 35 pupils, where he refused permission to close, will he take into account not just the good reasons that led him to refuse permission when the application reached him last year, but the undesirability of local authorities resubmitting, at great detriment to the school, closure proposals when there has been no change?

I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Schools like stability, and if schools have threats of closure hanging over them continually parents cease to send their children to that school. The law allows the local education authority to return to us, but we should expect a local education authority to come back a second time within a short period only if it could place new facts before us.

Can my hon. Friend assure me that neither the figure in the question nor the figures that he mentioned in his first answer will become the rule and that smaller schools will be closed automatically? Will he also bear in mind that village schools, sometimes smaller than those mentioned, can still provide good education, a basis for learning responsibility and good discipline?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will bear all those points in mind. The Government have sometimes preserved schools with 12 or fewer pupils because of the case that is put up and the education that is being given. We have more schools now with fewer than 25 children than we had last year. The birth rate is dropping faster than closures of small rural schools.

If the British economy can prop up television stations with fewer than 35 viewers, why cannot the Minister allow schools to operate with fewer than 35 pupils? They are more important than the breakfast television operation run by his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken).

Answer.

I shall answer. A significant question such as that must be answered. I believe, though, that there is a slight difference. In the schools, pupils are in one place, but, as far as I know, the 35 viewers to whom he refers are not sitting in one room.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the latest figure for the number of schools that have closed between May 1979 and the present, or for whose closure he has given his approval.

Between 1 May 1979 and 28 February 1983 approval was given for the closure of 426 primary and 162 secondary schools. In addition, local authorities have determined proposals for 89 primary and 15 secondary schools in accordance with section 12(7) of the Education Act 1980.

Is there not a danger that, just as most local authorities complete the closure of substantial numbers of schools, there will be a demand to open new ones? The Minister should look at the increasing number of people within the 18 to 21 age group. It does not take much imagination to appreciate that there is likely to be an increasing number of children in primary schools within the next 10 years, and in secondary schools within the next 15 years?

The birth rate picked up in 1980, but it began to fall again last year. There are no signs at present that it is increasing. It needs more than imagination to increase the birth rate.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to face the problems of school closures, bearing in mind the rapidly falling number of pupils in schools? Does he agree that it is much better to grasp the nettle now and put pupils into the right number of schools of the right size, rather than to let them rattle about in understaffed schools with artificial pupil-teacher ratios?

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I do not like children rattling around in half-empty schools. I believe that that does happen in many cases with the falling birth rate. There are schools that are only one third or half full. Teachers are withdrawn from them and they do not have full curricula. If they are not in isolated rural areas, consideration should be given to amalgamations or closures of such schools.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current position over the proposed new examination for pupils at 17-plus; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend hopes to make an announcement before Easter.

Does my hon. Friend feel that a separate examination board will be necessary for the 17-plus, or does he believe that the existing City and Guilds of London Institute can do the job perfectly well?

I must ask my hon. Friend to wait a little for the full details, but I can tell him that a joint board will be validating the examination.

If the Secretary of State is in favour of a 17-plus examination to meet modern needs and to have a wide coverage, will the Minister urge his right hon. Friend to introduce a £25 grant for all youngsters staying on in education after the age of 16 so that they will' not be afflicted by the great payment differential between those who undertake the youth training scheme and those who continue in full-time education without that financial inducement and advantage and with great difficulties for their families?

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman was paying attention when I answered question No. 5.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the reduction in university places between 1980–81 and 1982–83.

Home student entry to full-time undergraduate courses in universities fell by about 4,500 between 1980 and 1982. The entry to such courses in other institutions rose by over 18,000.

Is it not disgraceful that people, the nation's most precious asset, are being denied the opportunity to develop talent and ability by the Government's policies, particularly as we have a Government who are supposed to enshrine freedom of choice? Is it not true that the freedom of choice that the Government support is the freedom of individuals to spend money while at the same time the public sector, which is the best way to give people educational opportunity, is being eroded by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. What is normally called the public sector has increased by 18,000 places. Concern over what the hon. Gentleman mentioned in the first part of his question has meant that the Government have maintained the highest participation rate for the biggest age group in full-time higher education courses.

With regard to the reduction in engineering departments, can my hon. Friend and his Department do anything further to see that good engineering departments in various universities in the United Kingdom are maintained and encouraged, because we need the people who go to those departments?

The output of trained engineers into the economy is steadily increasing and will continue steadily to increase. We very much hope that industry will give those people the employment that they need.

What is the justification for the Government and the UGC to penalise financially an autonomous university that feels it can admit more students, and thereby work more efficiently, and those students are fully qualified for that course? Why penalise an institution for its action in trying to be more efficient in carrying out its task?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes to attack the UGC for trying to make a strategic plan. The UGC is trying to maintain that plan. I emphasise that in no case have the token penalties been greater than the additional income brought to the university by the extra students.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that as a result of the change in the balance of university courses we now have greater strength in technological subjects, which is particularly important to this country's industrial and economic future?

That is certainly the intention behind the changes that the UGC has been making.

As a direct result of the Government's policy in the last academic year there was a 3 per cent. fall in the number of students admitted when the number of applications rose by a similar amount. How long will the Minister be able to boast about the age participation rate for universities?

The hon. Gentleman, with a characteristic one-sided view, is looking only at universities. Overall, the age participation rate has been maintained and improved.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to introduce proposals for a university grant loan scheme; and if he will make a statement.

I am still considering the subject and no decisions have yet been taken.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that ever since the late Mr. Anthony Crosland first floated the idea of a loan settlement in student grants there has been widespread support for at least an experimental scheme along those lines? Will my right hon. Friend consider following the example set by many other European countries and countries such as north America and introduce a mixture of loans and grants in an experimental scheme as soon as possible?

There are strong views about both sides of the case. The Government are considering all the factors. No decision has yet been made.

We understand that the Secretary of State's hon. Friend is seeking large loans for his station, which, in order to survive, has turned itself into a soap opera in which people devour each other for breakfast. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an extremely serious matter and that if he were to introduce proposals for student loans he would face the same sort of student opposition as was faced by the present Government in Germany, where there have been the largest student demonstrations of all time against the proposal to introduce student loans?

The fact is that there are supporters and opponents of the idea in all the political parties. I note that the German Government were re-elected by a handsome margin.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to introduce any changes in the school appeals procedure under the Education Act 1980 in the light of its first year of operation; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) on 16 March, he considers that the school appeal procedure of the Act has, on the whole, worked reasonably well and to the benefit of parents. He has at present no plans for the Act's amendment.

Will the appeal procedure cope with the huge demand for places at the new Church of England high school, the Twyford Church of England school in Ealing, which has become so much more popular than it was before it became a Church school? Is my hon. Friend aware of the huge pressure against the establishment of that Church school by the whole Labour party, led by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)?

By chance, I have the figures for the applications to that school. It is amazing to note that when it was a maintained non-denominational school there were applications for only one in four places, but when, from last year, it became a Church of England school, there was a great increase in applications. This year there are more than one and a half applications for every place in that school.

Has the fact that Ealing borough has proposed the closure of two neighbouring comprehensive schools anything to do with the increased applications for Twyford?

We can look into that matter. We shall do so. My constituency adjoins the constituency in which Twyford school is situated. That is one of the reasons why, by accident, I have the figures today. There has been a great demand for the Anglican denominational education at that school throughout the whole of north-west London, and it has the approval of parents and churches in the area.

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 22 March.

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is attending the European Council meeting in Brussels. This evening she will be attending a banquet in honour of President Kaunda at Buckingham Palace.

Is the Home Secretary aware of the concern at the way in which a Romanian was sent back to his own country last week without having much opportunity to see whether another country would take him in? Is it not the case that that person served many years in a Romanian prison for offences that would not be considered criminal in a democracy? Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the concern of the Opposition at least would be the same if we were dealing with a Chilean or a South African who was opposed to the apartheid regime?

I accept at once what the hon. Gentleman said in his final remarks. I think that it is appropriate, in view of the press comments that have been made over the weekend, to say clearly what the position is. I hope that the House will allow me to do so. This country has a proud record under all Governments of providing refuge for people from many different parts of the world who are in danger of persecution for their beliefs. I shall continue to uphold our traditional policy in that area. However, we cannot grant every application that we receive. It would be quite wrong to grant applications without the most careful examination of each case on its merits in accordance with the established principles that apply to political asylum. In 1982 we granted 2,368 applications for political asylum out of 4,167 Mr. Papasoiu's case was examined with the utmost care, but, having considered all the circumstances, we came to the conclusion that he did not qualify for political asylum.

Was not Mr. Papasoiu in this country for several months without any direct reference to the Home Secretary? What is the explanation of his apparently disgraceful treatment at the end of that period without the Home Secretary being consulted?

This man was the subject of many representations, as was proper, from Members of Parliament. That is why his case was considered for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when there are representations cases have to be considered over a reasonable period. That was done. We considered very carefully all the circumstances that were put to us. We, in the final event—I say "we" because I want to make it perfectly clear that I am totally associated with this decision—decided that in this case this man was not a genuine political refugee. That was a perfectly reasonable decision. Such decisions were made by the right hon. Gentleman as Home Secretary and by every other Home Secretary. Either they or their Ministers of State have always decided every case on its merits. That is the correct way for it to be done.

In view of the widely reported allegations that the Romanian in question has spent nine out of the past 10 years in prison in Romania, will my right hon. Friend say when he arrived, when he was first seen, what he said about his previous record on that occasion and when he first suggested that he had spent nine out of the past 10 years in prison?

I understand that he came in April 1982, was examined on various occasions after then and gave different accounts of what had happened during his time in Romania. All that he said was taken carefully into account. We have granted many applications, but we decided that he did not fall within genuine refugee status. That was a reasonable decision for us to take.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is widespread disturbance in the House and throughout the country about this case. Will he undertake to make a further statement to the House about it? I do not believe that the matter can be left where it is now.

Perhaps I may raise another issue that concerns his reputation and that of the Government with regard to the protection of our freedoms. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Police and Criminal Evidence Bill involves so many infringements of civil liberty and elementary freedoms that the only possible course now open to the Government is to withdraw it?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, if the House decided that, on the basis of a strict and fair policy, every person who came from an eastern European country was automatically to be accepted as a political refugee, that would be a serious matter that would affect all of our immigration policy. No Home Secretary has done that. It would not be right. I have stood by what I believe to have been the practice of all of my predecessors. I have already given the number of applications for political asylum that have been granted. We face difficult circumstances and we have been generous. I ask the House to appreciate that, when it comes to granting political refugee status, extremely difficult decisions have to be made. I and my Ministers, like all Home Office Ministers in the past, have examined the circumstances carefully. We could not let everyone into Britain.

I shall now deal with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It is right for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me about it. There are two clauses in that Bill that give rise to considerable anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman, who clearly has not read the Bill or anything to do with it, has said that because of two difficult clauses the entire Bill should be withdrawn. He should remember that the Bill, which is being debated properly in Committee, is intended, on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, to enable the police to bring criminals to justice more effectively. I should have thought that the whole House would want just that. The question is whether the safeguards of individual liberties are satisfactory.— [Interruption.]

If I am attacked, as the right hon. Gentleman has attacked me, I am entitled to reply. Oh yes, I am. The extra safeguards that we have provided are not understood in the House or in the country. They allow everyone the right to have his case argued before a circuit judge. If they are not sufficient, I am prepared to consider further safeguards at a later stage of the Bill. The onus is on those who dislike the Bill to admit honestly that they want to see criminals brought to justice.

When the right hon. Gentleman describes those who are not properly qualified to understand the Bill, does he include Lord Salmon, who described the intrusions into freedom that are involved in the Bill as "shocking and monstrous"? As he says that there are two clauses to which he objects, let those two be withdrawn for a start. The Opposition and the country are determined to protect the right of asylum. The Opposition have never said that everyone should be let in, but the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly have judged the matter correctly if he was in the type of mood then that he has come to the House in today.

Perhaps I may ask both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Salmon to read the Bill carefully. I have never said that I wanted to withdraw those clauses. I have said that the safeguards in those clauses should be examined carefully. I am prepared to do that.

As to my mood and the question of asylum, I have been bitterly attacked for what I believe to be a decision—which was made after careful investigation—which fully accords with everything that we have previously done with refugees. I yield to no one in being fair and generous towards refugees during my time as Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

We still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. If he does not, we shall repeal it.

That proves to me that, if the right hon. Gentleman ever has a chance to repeal the measure, he had better read it first, because his right hon. and hon. Friends who are discussing it would greatly dislike it if all of its provisions were withdrawn. He must answer the question "Do the Opposition want the police to be enabled to pursue criminals and bring them to the courts and justice?" If they do, they should examine the Bill.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since agreement on a common fisheries policy was reached, employment in the fishing boat building and the fish processing industries in my constituency has been greatly enhanced?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 March.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Is the Home Secretary aware that the report of the Court of Auditors of the Common Market institutions reveals long-standing rackets among members of staff whereby messengers and secretarial assistants receive entertainment allowances of £180 a month, other staff have access to holiday camp accounts and the control of the payment to staff in subsidiary offices is so lax that the Common Market simply does not know whether the salaries being paid relate to the people who are employed? Is he further aware that those practices went on undisturbed throughout the time when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was in charge of the Common Market? Is he aware that they came to light only when the right hon. Member for Hillhead left the Common Market and became leader of the Social Democratic party?

In view of the serious allegations of financial mismanagement in the Common Market, what attitude do the Government take about the lack of control of Common Market institutions?

I understand that the issue was discussed last night. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) would like to get together and argue about it all again. I undertake to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 March.

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to study the Young Socialists' conference agenda, which calls for Army officers to be elected by their troops, for the abolition of the monarchy and the police force, and for the conferring of political status on the so-called IRA prisoners of war? Is this not evidence of increasing extremism within the Labour party, and will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to condemn views that are repugnant to the great majority of British people?

If the Young Socialists spoke for the majority of the Labour party it would be a serious flatter, but, as I am a very kindly person, I still hope that they do not.

I beg to move,

That this House, being opposed to the reduction in capacity of British Rail Engineering Limited which would arise from the proposed closure of Shildon, Horwich and Temple Mills railway workshops, is concerned at the devastating unemployment which would result; and therefore calls upon the Government to reject entirely the Serpell strategy for British Rail Engineering Limited and to develop a comprehensive programme for the modernisation and expansion of freight and passenger services.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

The Government are running down British Rail by starving it of the investment needed for rolling stock, signalling and electrification. The investment expenditure of British Rail has fallen from £513 million a year in 1979 to £333 million a year in 1981. Therefore, it is not surprising that British Rail orders for British Rail workshops have slumped. The slump can be seen in practically every part of the new build work in British Rail's workshops.

The number of new high-speed train locos ordered fell from 27 in 1979 to 15 in 1982. The number of high-speed train coaches ordered fell from 125 to 45 in the same period. The number of other coaches ordered fell from 221 to 97, and the number of freight wagons fell from 2.269 in 1979 to 1,140 in 1982. What is more serious for the workshops in general, and for Shildon in particular, is the projected further rundown that British Rail and British Rail Engineering Ltd. are planning.

Last week I was told that the rundown of freight wagons will continue until it reaches a level as low as 200 or 300 a year over the next two years. That is why British Rail Engineering Ltd. is proposing to close Shildon, Horwich, apart from the foundry, and Temple Mills.

This is a clear responsibility of the Government. The Secretary of State is all too fond of telling us that these decisions are for British Rail. Today, let us have some realism in the debate, and let us face up to the fact that it is the Government and not British Rail who have refused to approve the major investment proposals of the board. It is the Government and not the British Railways Board who have set an investment ceiling and then set an external financing limit that makes it impossible to attain that ceiling. It was the Government and Conservative Members who carried the legislation through the House that has ensured that British Rail's profitable subsidiaries will be sold off and it will no longer be able to co-operate in maintaining the investment programme. By their commissioning of the Serpell report and their attitude to the report, the Government have confirmed their anti-rail bias that has led us to this appalling decline in the prospects for British Rail.

The spectre of unemployment now haunts the railway workshop towns. Unhappily, the three main workshops that are the cause of today's debate are all in areas that already suffer from high unemployment. In particular, the Horwich workshop, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), who will wind up the debate for the Opposition, is in the Wigan travel-to-work area which already has 19·3 per cent. unemployment. Almost one in five is out of work.

The Shildon workshop is in the Darlington and southwest Durham travel-to-work area which already has 15·2 per cent. unemployment. What is more, that workshop is in the Bishop Auckland labour exchange area, where unemployment has already reached 19·5 per cent. On some estimates that I have been given, the prospect is that unemployment in Shildon would reach 50 per cent. if the workshop closed.

We are talking only of the immediate effect in the workshop towns. Hon. Members should not forget the knock-on effect of closing workshops, which is considerable. In new build it is estimated that about 60 per cent. of the work is brought in from private industry. So for every job destroyed in the new build section of British Rail workshops there will be a job and a half destroyed in the private sector.

The unemployment that the Government will undoubtedly cause if they continue to pursue their policy is a tragedy not only for the workers in those workshops and the local communities but for the country as a whole. If one takes the Treasury estimate of the cost to the nation being some £5,000 a year per worker for every year of unemployment, these closures will cost the nation £2·2 million a year. One wonders what economic theory justifies creating social tragedy at public expense in the way that these workshop closures inevitably will.

It is a particularly poor reward for the workers of Shildon, who have co-operated to the hilt with management in developing Shildon as one of the finest freight wagon building works in the world. When I went to the workshops and talked to the craftsmen and stewards, it was clear that there had been the highest degree of cooperation to make possible that fine, highly productive, profitable capacity. If the workers ever believed the Prime Minister when she suggested that the way to guarantee job security was to co-operate with management, never have a strike and make the workplace productive and profitable, they have learnt a bitter lesson and will never trust such propositions from the management again. The workers were told when they engaged in the exercise of cooperation that it was inconceivable that there would ever be a time when the capacity at Shildon would not be required by British Rail. Now, a few years later, they are told that all the capacity for new build is surplus to requirements.

When I think of the times that we have listened to Conservative Members publicising with delight those rare examples of disputes on British Rail delaying progress towards higher productivity, I wonder why they were so silent about the excellent example of worker co-operation creating this valuable capacity for our country. These people have been led into believing that they were making efforts that were not only in their interests but in the interests of the local community, and in the interests of a promising future for British Rail. They are now seeing that promise turned into a prospect of the most appalling decline.

The area of decline which is of the greatest importance to Shildon is in freight services. After 30 years of decline in its freight services, British Rail planned a massive comeback for the 1980s. In the preceding 30 years, the railways' share of the combined road and rail freight movement went down from more than half to a stage where lorries were carrying five times as much as trains. That was the measure of the decline. British Rail planned enormous expansion of modern freight services in the 1980s. I have here the beautiful glossy brochure in which British Rail announced how it would expand Speedlink. It said:

"There are firm plans for continuing expansion to provide an even better range of services to meet the needs of the '80s."

This is the publication in which British Rail talked of the

"big traffic switch to Speedlink".

Ironically the part which refers to tailor-made wagons now reads:

"So extensive and specialised are the transport needs of industry today that even British Rail's large fleet of freight wagons cannot meet every requirement."

Here we are, just a few years later, debating the closure of the finest freight wagon building capacity in this country and probably in Europe.

The planned expansion is forgotten. British Rail is getting out of wagonload traffic as fast as it can, apart from what remains of the Speedlink network. British Rail's tonnage of freight carried has fallen from 22·8 thousand million to 12·2 thousand million. Of course, we know that part of the fall has been due to the slump in heavy industries. But if we run down our capacity to the needs of the bottom of a slump, what prospect is there for growth when we have an economic recovery? Labour policy is to stop the decline and to increase freight services. British Rail's planned expansion of the Speedlink network must take place and the investment for that must be provided.

Between 1970 and 1981 wagonload freight fell from 93 million tonnes to 17 million. At every factory which I visit I am told that it does not want to provide the storage for the amount of raw materials that would come in a trainload and then run the materials down until another trainload is due in a week or a fortnight. A factory wants the materials delivered as soon as it is ready to use them. When production is completed, the factory wants the goods carried straight to its customers. The wagonload facility is the modern need of industry. Unless that facility is developed through Speedlink, there will be an increasing decline in the proportion of freight carried on the railway system. That decline must be stopped.

Speedlink, the pride of the expansion programme of British Rail, is carrying only 2 per cent. of British Rail's freight tonnage. That was where its glorious future was supposed to lie. The lack of money for British Rail to invest in specialised freight wagons has resulted in a fair proportion of the work being transferred to other sectors, particularly the building of specialised freight wagons. Because BR has had to tell potential customers that it cannot provide freight wagons, arrangements have had to be made for them to be obtained from other sources.

Public money has been used to ensure that the wagons have come from other sources. The Government have handed out £5·1 million in section 8 grants to private firms to buy wagons from private suppliers. One wonders what those firms will think when they consider the Serpell report. Will they still have rail connections on which to run the wagons? Not only has £5·1 million of public money been handed out to private owners to buy wagons, but banks and finance houses have been told by the Treasury that they can offset money provided for this sort of construction in the private sector against corporation tax on a lease-back basis. So public money is being used on an appreciable scale to ensure that wagons will be built by private manufacturers for private ownership to be run on British Rail's services. As a consequence, more than 80 per cent. of the wagons have been built in private workshops.

Are we surprised that we are now debating a cutback of British Rail's engineering capacity? If British Rail was allowed to compete fairly, there is little doubt that Shildon would have plenty of orders. However, British Rail is handicapped by a Government who have a doctrinaire attachment to handicapping nationalised industry while aiding the private sector.

The development of Speedlink, which needs to be brought about quickly, will increase the need for special wagons and therefore put the Shildon workshop at a further disadvantage. In the past Shildon has competed successfully in the making of specialised wagons. It has built them profitably and, if allowed, could do so again. Unless we can expand modern rail freight services such as Freightliners and Speedlink and give the customer the opportunity to hire a freight wagon to carry his product as easily as he can hire a lorry, there is little prospect of getting a sensible balance of freight movement between rail and road.

On the passenger side, there is a dearth of work in the building of passenger locos and passenger coaches, although clapped-out rolling stock is being used to try to maintain services. Many of the electric and diesel multiple units on the feeder services, which are the backbone of the commuter services, should have been replaced years ago. It is a tribute to railway workshops that they can keep them running at all. Over 66 per cent. of the electric and diesel multiple units are between 20 and 30 years old and were built to a design which was intended to have a specialised life of about 10 years.

The closure of railway workshops is only the forerunner of service cutbacks. We know it in the north-west where we have been informed by British Rail that sleeper services will be withdrawn because it cannot afford to replace the sleeper coaches or even have them refurbished. That work would have gone to a British Rail workshop. That shows the link between the closure of workshops and the cutback in services.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, because of the marked decline in and current slow production of high-speed trains, HSTs are often doing 1,000 miles a day and are doing so much work that they are not maintaining the high standards of reliability that they achieved when they were introduced? The demand is for more HSTs so that the existing ones may have a slacker schedule.

My hon. Friend has raised an important point in connection with the workshop programme. Not only has the new build been cut back, but so have the overhaul and refurbishment programmes. The British Railways Board—some of its members must be capable of doing double-backward somersaults, because they signed a document at the beginning of 1981 which said that they could not continue with the present level of investment without a rundown, and some of them are still serving as members, in spite of the lower investment now—said that if the investment programme were maintained at the then level the availability of main line locos over a decade would fall to 50 per cent. Who can run a railway with only 50 per cent. availability of main line locos? Incidentally, the board also predicted that it would have to take about 2,000 track miles out of use and put another 800 miles under speed restrictions. That was at the then level of investment, which has been cut since that time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the locos now running on British Railways are not being adequately serviced, in that they are continually in use?

It is clear that on certain services it is impossible to maintain a scheduled service with the existing locos, given that they were subject to the normal maintenance cycle. That has meant in some cases that the services are provided by locos which were not designed for that service, and in other cases that locos are run for longer periods. However, the Serpell recommendation is that too much is being spent on maintenance and that experiments should be conducted to see whether maintenance standards can be lowered. What Serpell is saying today is what the Government are thinking now and what the Government would say tomorrow if they get another electoral endorsement—highly unlikely, I admit, but it is a possibility that we must take seriously.

We are seeing the tip of the iceberg, with the closure of the workshops. It will lead to closure of services, and subsequently to the closure of the railway network. I believe, therefore, that the Serpell approach to British Rail Engineering should be rejected by this House, as it was rejected by the British Railways Board. In the rest of the world, railways are being developed. This country is being left behind in that development. British Railways is meeting more of its costs from revenue than almost any other railway system and, as a result, the price of using British Railways makes it the most expensive railway system in Europe. Our investment in railways is the lowest in Europe.

The Labour party's policy is to invest in electrification and in the development of modern freight services. In doing so, we believe that we shall not only improve our transport system but make a sensible and valuable contribution to the regeneration of our country's economy. If the Government continue with their present financial policies, Shildon, Horwich and Temple Mills are only the start, and the replacement programme that will be left will not be sufficient to fill the remaining workshops. Then there will be even more closure proposals.

The Government are master-minding a double tragedy. They are killing the industry which we shall need to modernise our transport system, and simultaneously they are dashing the hopes of those who, by their labour and co-operation with the railway management, have developed a superb railway manufacturing and maintenance capacity. Their reward from the Tory Government for doing that is to have the misery of unemployment visited upon them.

I therefore call on the House to support our motion and to reject the Government's amendment.

I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:

"recognises the need for British Rail Engineering Limited to rationalise its workshop capacity in the light of changed requirements; and supports vigorous and constructive measures by all concerned to promote alternative and durable employment in the areas affected."

It is many years since this House has had an opportunity to discuss railway workshops, now in the form of British Rail Engineering Ltd., in prime time—so to speak—although, of course, there have been a number of Adjournment debates over the years, arising out of particular closure decisions. I do not resent or regret the opportunity to discuss the railway workshops and the developments that have given rise to the Opposition motion.

First, it is ironical that, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) well knows—he is very familiar with the investment programme and the freight building capacity at Shildon—the outcome and prospect of closure at Shildon arises not from low investment but from a massive programme of high investment in the new, air-braked freight wagons to which he referred. Moreover, it is British Rail policy, as the right hon. Gentleman again well knows, to build up to a level of 22,000 air-braked freight wagons. That has now been achieved. It is also BR's policy to move away from the old vacuum-braked wagons.

The present number of wagons will fall considerably. The right hon. Gentleman knows, as do all right hon. and hon. Members who are familiar with railway equipment and supply, that these new air-braked wagons have double the capacity, carry 29 tonnes, have vastly greater utilisation and higher speeds, and can be run at 75 mph over the track, instead of 45 mph, and that the demand for railway wagons has dropped to a minimum level as a result of the high investment in railway wagons.

Will the Secretary of State say what difference will be made to rail freight carriage by his recent agreement to 38-tonne heavy goods vehicles on our roads?

I believe that it will be very small, but we are talking about closures that result from British Rail's present needs and the present assessment of BR's need for freight wagons in the future. British Rail tells me that it will need probably not even as much as 150 wagons a year over the next three years, and perhaps rather more after that. Shildon's capacity is 1,500 new freight wagons a year. As I said, the new wagons have twice the capacity of the old ones. They can be utilised four times as much by better handling and better computer control of wagon movements. So, on that score alone, demand for railway freight wagons has dropped by up to one-eighth of what it was. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may say—I would join them—that that clearly creates a major change in the market for freight wagons. Of course, it does, but it is a technological change resulting from higher investment. The closures that are now being discussed at Shildon and Horwich result from a higher investment programme. There was no recognition of that fact in the right hon. Gentleman's emotional comments.

I am the first to recognise, and I agree strongly with those who say it, that the men at Shildon have superb skills. They can make any type of wagon, and they have done so. The finish and the accuracy are excellent. Nevertheless, the wagons are simply not needed on the scale of Shildon's capacity.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke about specialist wagons. I do not recall whether he said anything about exports, but I should like to say a word on that subject. When the pattern of British Rail's needs began to unfold, with its greater reliance on freight wagons and the decline in its demand for the type of wagons that Shildon provided, I looked, as did British Rail and British Rail Engineering, at the possibility of new markets overseas. In one case, the Government helped to secure an order. Here again, the size of the orders—for instance, the order from the Congo for 115 wagons—does not begin to match the large capacity at Shildon, which is a single-purpose works, was developed as such, and now has a capacity far in excess of anything that British Rail will need.

The truth is that the decision to reduce the whole United Kingdom wagon-building capacity has become inevitable. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He also knows—and if he does not, he should now acknowledge it—that if BREL does not streamline and rationalise itself it will put the whole British Rail engineering business at risk. Why? Because it vastly increases the overheads. It is estimated that to keep Shildon open and maintain the Horwich repair works will increase the overheads on British Rail engineering by £20 million.

We are moving into a world where it will be absolutely essential for British Rail Engineering to compete in export markets and in the sort of areas to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, including specialist wagons and other rolling stock. I do not see how he can argue at the same time that a business that will have to compete to secure the orders we all want to see should retain round its neck this millstone of an additional £20 million a year of overheads.

Imagine what would happen if we were to follow the advice which is not, admittedly, in the Labour motion but is in the amendment tabled by the Social Democratic Party, to the effect that Shildon be kept open. One effect would be that the repair work which, at present, BREL tells me, it wants to centralise and concentrate at Doncaster would not go there. Doncaster would have to keep the locomotive work, which, on BREL's present plans, ought to go to Crewe. The unemployment would therefore occur at Crewe.

Unemployment cannot be avoided in the conditions that I have described of completely different market requirements. Unemployment is bound to come. Does the right hon. Gentleman just want it to be pushed from one area to another, or does he want to see a serious attempt made to put BREL into competitive shape for the future? If he wants the latter, he should adopt a ra0074her different approach from the one that he seems to be taking and that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) seemed to take when he visited Shildon, which was that, somehow, Shildon works could be kept open even if there were no demand for the freight wagons.

If the right hon. Gentleman takes the view he does, why did he and his officials twist the arm of British Rail to make the proposal it did on 9 March to do exactly what we propose— mothball the main works, keep some men on wagon repair and breaking up wagons at Shildon after 1984 and review the position after two years?

Neither I nor my officials twisted British Rail's arm at any point. This is a decision that has been left to British Rail and BREL, to handle the whole question of rationalising British Rail's engineering capacity throughout the country. There is no question of ministerial or official arm-twisting in the matter.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) have said that they would keep the Shildon works open. I believe the latter would keep the works open as part of a commitment to his party's reflationary programme. That seems to be the position of the Social Democratic party.

rose—

I want to turn in a moment to the kind of damage that I believe that kind of political opportunism does to the future capacity of British Rail Engineering and to the people of Shildon but I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene once again and for the last time.

I think the Minister will understand why I want to pursue this point. If it is the case that he and his officials did not twist British Rail's arm to make this offer, why does British Rail tell me that it wishes to close the Shildon works and does not wish to pursue the course of action proposed here?

And if the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell him, ask Tony Cook.

I do not think I have ever before agreed with a sedentary intervention by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but this afternoon I shall make history by doing so.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East is ascribing to me responsibility for events that did not occur and to British Rail an attitude that it has not taken. Two sets of politicians have cast doubt and confusion on the situation, some belonging to the party of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and the others to the party of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. Before I turn to some of the damage they have done in getting in the way of job creation and constructive approach to these problems that I believe to be necessary, I shall return to the main theme of my speech. I was asking the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness whether he was aware that if Shildon were to be kept open there would be difficulties elsewhere in British Rail's engineering capacity and that, in particular, there would be a possibility of unemployment at Crewe, and whether that was what he wanted.

Perhaps I can say a word about the private wagon builders to whom the right hon. Gentleman also referred. If BREL keeps open uneconomic works, because of the great contraction in the wagon freight market—and we are not just talking about the home market—other works would have to fold. There are private wagon works throughout this country, at Wakefield, Cardiff, Gloucester, Stafford, Birmingham, Wigan, Heywood and elsewhere. Why did the right hon. Gentleman take a view that seemed to imply that he really did not care about the workers in those wagon works? Their interests and their future are just as much involved. If British Rail maintains uneconomic capacity with substantial overheads that it cannot possibly fill with future orders, the backlash falls on the works in the private sector. I would take the protests and promises of Members on the Opposition Benches much more seriously if we heard an occasional word of support for the workpeople in the private sector of the industry.

May I help my right hon. Friend? It is quite obvious why Opposition Members are not talking about the private factories involved. It is because there does not happen to be a by-election in any of the areas where these factories are situated.

As I began by saying, it is very many years since Opposition Members have felt moved to bring this subject to the Floor of the House of Commons on a Supply day. One must query their motives in raising this issue at this time in this way.

Will the Minister just recall for a moment that I did talk about the effects of the cutback on the private workshops and that I said that, as far as new building investment was concerned, the cutback would probably destroy one and a half times as many jobs in the private sector as in British Rail workshops? Will he therefore acknowledge that I did talk about the effect on the private sector and will he tell us why he has made no reference to the massive reduction of investment and its effect on British Rail's workshops work? Does he contend that had he maintained the investment level inherited from the last Government there would have been anything like the present crisis in the workshops?

The reason why I have not dealt with the second point is that I have not yet come to the figures for investment, but I can say now that many of the right hon. Member's propositions are wholly misleading and not founded on fact. There is a much more constructive approach to the need for BREL to rationalise its capacity than has been taken by either him and his right hon. and hon. Friends or Members from the other political parties represented on the Opposition Benches. That more constructive approach is exemplified, for instance, by the attitude of the local district council at Shildon, which has indicated that a positive and co-ordinated effort is now required to create new jobs and to meet the problems thrown up by the prospective closure of Shildon. The Sedgefield district council will be centrally involved, as will the regional offices of the Department of Industry and the Department of the Environment and the Manpower Services Commission and BREL itself. All Government agencies which can help will be working with BREL and others locally to stimulate new jobs.

It will be difficult. There can be no naivety of the kind shown by some hon. Members when they visited Shildon about waving a magic wand and pronouncing that jobs will be re-created. It will be difficult, but I believe that the opportunities exist, especially now that we are unwinding the Labour party's tax on jobs and creating unparalleled new work incentives, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget. BREL has nominated a director specifically to help with this task. It is also prepared to provide financial resources. Work of the right kind is taking place to provide jobs and enterprises to replace the jobs that are bound to disappear because of lack of demand.

rose—

I should like to make one more point before giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, to his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, sitting beside him, and to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, who speaks for the Social Democrats, that when they or their representatives went as political visitors to Shildon and gave the impression that there is an alternative to closure, what they did—this will be the case so long as they go on doing it—was to ensure further delay and a prolongation of the time in which people will continue to resist and not adopt a constructive response to the unemployment position. So long as people go on feeling that closure can somehow be avoided, there will be difficulty in getting a constructive response.

By far the best service that they, or their political representatives or candidates, could render would be to adopt the view that I have stated in the last few minutes. By working together, the local authorities, British Rail Engineering, the agencies of the Government, the local community, enterprise trusts and other bodies can make a real start in providing jobs and work for the future. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen intend to continue raising totally false expectations and giving promises that cannot be fulfilled, all they are doing is prolonging the difficulty and delaying the day when we can get started on a decent job programme in the area.

The Secretary of State is in cloud-cuckoo-land. He talks nonsense. Is he not aware that he does not have to initiate the co-operation between all these authorities in the northern region? We are experts at it. Our experience is that the promise that the Secretary of State makes about new jobs is not fulfilled. The result of working on the principle that he has espoused is that, in Hartlepool, unemployment has continued to increase. One man in three is out of work. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman stop talking such utter rubbish?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's deep feeling over high unemployment in Hartlepool—

The right hon. Gentleman has no feeling.

—but we are not talking about that. We are discussing the problems at Shildon. I have made clear that the closure results from high investment. The need is to find new jobs and to create new businesses in the area. I believe that this can be done, but not while totally false expectations are raised for short-term purposes and apparently to buy votes in a way that passes all standards of normal political opportunism, even though we see plenty of it in this House.

Does the statement made at the shopmen's national council meeting on 9 March represent that kind of opportunism?

I do not know the statement to which the hon. Gentleman keeps referring. If it relates to the claim that British Rail had its arm twisted by Ministers and officials, it is totally untrue and without foundation.

The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness has asserted that the problem stems from lack of investment and financial support. I should like to deal with the facts relating to investment and financial support. I take the two sets of years, 1975 to 1979, when the right hon. Gentleman had some responsibility, versus 1979 to 1983. The facts fly directly in the face of everything that the right hon. Gentleman stated. They are perhaps worth repeating slowly and clearly. During the period 1979–83, grant support to British Rail from the Government was double, in cash terms, the sum provided from 1975–79. The amount was £2,600 million against £1,300 million. Obviously, expressed in constant money terms, it is not double. However, it is still significantly larger.

Under this Government, substantially more social grant has gone to British Rail in the same period than during the four years under the Labour Government. That is a fact. It needs to be repeated clearly. Again and again, the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his right hon. and hon. Friends ignore that fact, which does no service to British Rail. They make assertions about international comparisons that appear not to be right. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman is, I believe, wrong about the Bundesbahn. There is evidence that it gives a smaller amount of support in relation to total revenue than we do. That is confirmed by recent figures that appeared in the Financial Times. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is difficult to obtain the actual figures from the Governments concerned.

rose—

I have given way so often that I think I shall now push ahead and complete my speech. The figure for social support through the public service obligation is £2,600 million over the four years versus £1,300 million over the previous four years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that figure. It is fact.

I come now to the investment figure. The right hon. Gentleman and his Opposition colleagues have made great play of the consequences of the fall-off in the level of investment. I have explained, in relation to Shildon, that it is not the fall-off in the level of investment but the maintenance of a high level of investment in air-braked freight wagons that has led to the fact that the Shildon capacity cannot be used. I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the overall figures. In the four years between 1975 and 1979, investment in British Rail was £1,100 million—in fact, slightly over at £1,114 million. In the four years 1979–83, it has been £1,600 million, a considerably larger sum.

If the right hon. Gentleman asks for those amounts to be expressed in constant money, I shall do so. It is certainly correct that, in constant money terms, the figure of £1,600 million represents a lower sum than the figure of £1,100 million. [Interruption.] Not by very much, but it does. If the right hon. Gentleman asks why investment is down, I think that even as he asks the question he knows the answer. He knows that last year, as a result of the ASLEF dispute, £170 million was bled out of the system during the summer that could have gone into investment. Labour's Front Bench Members are the last people on earth to be lecturing the Government in complaining about lack of investment in British Rail.

rose—

No, I shall not give way. Mr. Huckfield: Let us have real figures.

When that money was bleeding out of the system, they were actively inflaming the situation. We do not want lessons from them on the kind of investment that they think should go into British Rail.

It is true that, since I last spoke in the House on British Rail matters, ASLEF has agreed to operate the Bedford to St. Pancras electric passenger line. That is welcome although many members of the travelling public will, I am sure, say "About time, too". We shall not take lessons from the Labour party on how to support our railway. If its example of support for rail services is of the kind given last summer, it is no help at all. It is the kind of support that they could do without.

The situation at Shildon arises not from lack of investment but from the consequences of investment. That needs to be stated again. I make no apology for repeating it. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness could not bring himself to state what he knows to be the facts. The transition is, of course, painful. The workpeople affected deserve, and are fully entitled to, every conceivable effort to help them and their families and their communities. The Opposition motion does none of that. By purveying the idea that Shildon can somehow be kept open, the motion is pure escapism and pure opportunism. The same applies to the amendment of the Social Democrats. Neither will help British Rail Engineering in the slightest degree to procure more jobs or more orders. Neither will help with finding and creating more jobs in the areas concerned. I suspect that neither will help towards achieving the aim that I imagine lies behind them, that is, promoting the Labour and SDP candidates at Darlington. Indeed, as far as I can make out the Labour candidate is busy trying to disengage himself as fast as he can from the policies and views of the Left wing in control of the Opposition Front Bench.

For these reasons, I can see nothing in the Opposition motion that would bring any help to the people concerned or the workers concerned in these closures. No one gets any joy from seeing these closures. They arise from the high investment in air-braked freight wagons. It would have been far better for British Rail Engineering and the future of the railway system if the motion and amendment had never been put forward and it would be far better now if they were withdrawn.

There will be deep resentment in my area at the Secretary of State's suggestion that there has not been a constructive response to this proposal. The district council, the town council and the county council—all Labour-controlled—and I have worked unceasingly for the past 12 months to develop a constructive response to this closure, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

The Prime Minister and the Government ceaselessly extol the virtues of what they call the old values, by which I take them to mean thrift, hard work, sturdy independence, self-reliance, family life, the sense of community and pride in the community. That describes almost completely the community of the township of Shildon of some 14,000 people. Those are values which we, too, respect. But how can a man stand on his own two feet and be self-reliant when he has not got a job? If the Prime Minister and the Government really want to preserve those values, if they really mean what they say and this is not just empty rhetoric, they should do something to save the community of Shildon. But they stand idly by and do nothing while Shildon is threatened with long-term unemployment, poverty, the destruction of the whole community and the break-up of family life. They make great play of being the party of the family, but long-term unemployment and poverty have done more than anything else to break up family life in this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment.

The work force at Shildon is a most valuable asset, first, because of its engineering skills, which are acknowledged by everyone, and, secondly, because people have devoted the whole of their lives to the rail works there. Indeed, sometimes as many as three or four generations are involved. Railway production has been going on at Shildon for over 150 years. It is a valuable asset because of the workers' pride in their product and their commitment to the rail works. It is a valuable asset, too, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, the workers have been cooperative, adaptable and flexible—everything that the Government say they ought to be.

rose—

No, I shall not give give way. Many hon. Members want to speak in this debate.

The work force has been described by British Rail Engineering Ltd. as the jewel in the crown. It has been described by a former managing director of British Rail Engineering as the most efficient wagon works in the whole of Europe. It has been held up as an example to other British Rail Engineering works of how co-operative and flexible they ought to be.

rose—

No, I shall not give way.

Yet, in spite of all that, the flexibility, co-operativeness and adaptability of the workers is being thrown back in their faces.

Because of the closure of Shildon, the workers will find themselves without jobs. Those workers have not priced themselves out of their jobs, as the Government say on so many occasions. This is not caused by union bloody-mindedness. On the contrary, they have done everything that has been required of them.

The reason why they are out of work, we are told, is that the market has changed. That is true. We acknowledge that the market has changed. What markets have survived this recession? That, of course, is a material factor. We acknowledge that there is a more efficient way of using wagon works. We have never denied that.

What has been the growth of the private sector fleet? When I raised this question before, there was some confusion. The Secretary of State admitted that he was getting confusing reports from British Rail and British Rail Engineering. It seems to me that there has been a significant growth in the private sector over these past years while the British Rail fleet has been reducing. This has been partly because British Rail fleet clients have been buying wagons themselves, and that has been partly because of the tight investment limits placed on British Rail by the Government. I admit that it has also been partly because of good marketing sense. Of course, British Rail clients have begun to lease wagons—as we have been over this ground before I shall not go into the details—and that is not open to the British Rail Engineering works at Shildon. Therefore, we now find that we need small-batch, more specialised production.

What incenses me about this is that British Rail Engineering has almost entirely written off the idea that the Shildon works can carry out and compete for this kind of work. By extolling its flexibility and adaptability, however, it is pointing out that Shildon is capable of doing that kind of work, or indeed any kind of specialised production work that is required for today's market.

For a long time the over-valued pound did our manufacturers a great deal of damage. We discovered that other countries were prepared to subsidise their exports through their overseas aid programmes. In saying that, I acknowledge the help that the Secretary of State gave in securing the Congo order. We find that European competitors, too, often subsidise their rail wagon production through subsidised coal, transport and steel.

There is still a great demand for wagons. For instance, in my constituency 1 million tonnes of opencast coal is carried by road. The district council and I and British Rail Engineering have brought out schemes at Shildon which would enable it to be carried by rail, but these have not met with the proper response from the NCB.

I understand that British Steel is applying for a section 8 grant—public money—in order that wagons can be bought to transport scrap. Those wagons are going to be bought in the private sector. Again, public money ends up subsidising production in the private sector in competition with the rail works at Shildon.

Furthermore, in the past two or three days I have discovered that British Steel is exporting beams of steel to the continent in wagons imported from West Germany. What efforts are being made to make certain that wagons carrying British Steel products—the products of a nationalised industry—are built in this country? None, it seems.

Even if we were to concede that the market has changed and been reduced, it would still be there if the Government were to listen to sense and have an integrated transport policy in which rail played its full part. When we consider our European competitors and the percentage of traffic that they transported by rail, we begin to wonder why so little goes by rail in Britain.

I understand that official EC policy is for the integrated transport policy that we are advocating. Conservative Members of the European Parliament have voted for such a policy, yet Conservative Members in the House do not see the sense in that. It makes a great deal of sense. It would stop the damage being done to our buildings and villages and the slaughter on the road and would conserve fuel. Those are well-acknowledged arguments for transporting more freight by rail. The market would be there if the Government were to invest sensibly in British Rail along the lines advocated by both the unions and Sir Peter Parker in the rail policy documents. If that were done, there would be a full workload, not only for Shildon but for all the other wagon works.

Because of its adaptability and flexibility, Shildon is capable of producing other products. One would have thought that the business brains in the Government and in British Rail—people imported on to the board from the private sector—could devise an alternative business strategy for works such as Shildon to establish a growth pattern in place of this vicious cycle of decline. It seems that the people running the nationalised industries are experts in managing decline, with no imagination to look for diversification within their industries. Shildon's present workload could be used as a base upon which to diversify into other products. Every engineering process that is carried out at Shildon is capable of producing many saleable goods.

We throw down a challenge to the Government. The conveners, the district and county councils and I have always wanted to be constructive. Let us together work out a business strategy that would allow Shildon to prosper. If we could do that, not only would the Shildon works prosper, but that prosperity would spill over into the surrounding areas as well. Indeed, it might even become a growth point for south-west Durham instead of being a place that will accelerate its decline. It might become a new weapon in the armoury of regional development. Instead of accepting that the works must close and spending about £10,000 a job to bring new jobs in over a five or 10-year period—that is what we are talking about—we should save the existing works and its workload and diversity its products. Why do the Government not see the sense in such a policy? The public sector costs of closure are estimated this year to be £20 million at Shildon alone. It is estimated that to attract a comparable number of jobs would cost about £40 million. The Secretary of State said that £20 million would be saved, but a lot of Government money will have to be spent as a result of the closure.

Where were the Conservative and Social Democratic Members of Parliament when, on two occasions, 10,000 people marched through Shildon because the community was so incensed by the proposed closure? Where were they when 1,000 people marched upon Westminster and lobbied the House against the closure? Where were they when 5,000 people recently marched through the town of Darlington? Darlington vibrates with the sound of Tory crocodile tears splashing into their gin and tonics. One can also hear the quiet sobbing of the Social Democrats in Darlington as they eat their delicacies and wash them down with claret. But that crying is the result of fluffed orders rather than the demise of Shildon.

Only the Labour movement has shared in Shildon's struggles. Only the Labour movement has fought and marched alongside the work force. Only the Labour movement believes in them, their skills, values and way of life. Only the Labour movement wants to share power with them, and only the Labour movement can save those works.

We have heard from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) a sober and responsible account of Shildon's position. It was considerably more to the point and impressive then the account given by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Not even the Secretary of State, in the run-up to a by-election, seemed able to bite on the bullet and tell us the facts about it. We must look at the real reasons why it is proposed that jobs in Shildon should be lost. Then we should see whether anything practical and sensible can be done about it. I know that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has thought about that a great deal.

Why will the jobs go? The first reason has hardly been mentioned up to now, and that is that the railways are changing; they are using fewer wagons. The number of wagons dropped from 1 million when the railways were nationalised to 500,000 or 600,000 15 or 20 years ago. There are now 65,000 British Rail wagons and perhaps that figure will be roughly halved in two or three years. We might not like that. It might not be good news for those who work in Shildon, but it is irresponsible to conduct a debate without mentioning it. It is a salient fact that the market that has previously been supplied by Shildon has declined. We must not duck that.

We must also be clear—again the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness was less than honest about this—that, although more investment is necessary, the more modern the equipment on the railways, the less maintenance work will be required. The right hon. Gentleman knows that 80 per cent. of the work in the railway workshops is spare part construction and maintenance, not new build. Even with a substantial programme of new investment, that proportion would not alter significantly.

I travelled to Braintree the other day in a carriage that must have been constructed shortly after the first world war, certainly not long after the second world war. God knows, we need new investment. Every time we produce a new multiple unit, locomotive or wagon we produce, certainly in the short run, less maintenance work, not more.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of using the TOPS computer with a modern fast—running railway wagon, is that many more tonne miles a year will be run by each wagon and that means more maintenance, not less?

I am sorry to have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about that. Of course, wagons are used more intensively, but at the end of the day less maintenance is required pro rata, and he knows that as well as I do.

The second reason for the problem in the railway works—

rose—

I shall give way in a moment.

The second reason for the problem in maintaining rail workshops at their existing level is the decline in our basic industries such as steel and coal which are closely related. We know that a large part of the railway freight traffic is in coal and we know that when the coal and steel industries are suffering British Rail's turnover does not prosper. Indeed, it has declined. Therefore, the world recession has produced part of the problem, and that should not be avoided by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness and his colleagues. The Secretary of State also should have mentioned it.

The third reason—here I fully agree with the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness—has been the failure to plan ahead and to invest accordingly.

For once the dividing line of 1979, which for understandable reasons the official Opposition pick upon, is significant. According to the Serpell report, after 1979 the amount of money made available for investment, and the amount that British Rail was taking up, declined substantially in real terms. The figures, expressed in 1982 prices, are £513 million in 1979, £401 million in 1980, £333 million in 1981 and £300 million in 1982.

There has been a decline in investment. There is a limit to how far that investment would have produced more maintenance work for the railway workshops. Hon. Members must be careful not to make the automatic assumption that more investment means more work in railway workshops. It is arguable that it might mean less. Nevertheless, more investment would mean more new build work than is currently being planned. The Government must take a share of the responsibility for that state of affairs.

The fourth reason for the decline in employment in the railway workshops—it has been skated over by both of the old parties—concerns trade union attitudes. I accept that the record at Shildon is extremely good. I am sure that the account given by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was accurate, not least because it met with the agreement of other hon. Members who have spoken on the subject. Union relations at Shildon are not the only problem. Strikes affect freight and passenger traffic and, therefore, the demand for coaches and wagons. There are problems of restrictive practices and overmanning.

The recently settled dispute involving the Bedford-St. Pancras line is a classic example of the way in which the attitudes of the railway trade unions, especially ASLEF, have discouraged investment and traffic. It is to the eternal shame of the Leader of the Opposition that during that dispute, which did great damage to the railways, he could do nothing but give his tacit support to what everyone knew and accepted was the most outrageous and damaging behaviour on the part of a small group of train drivers, because the trade unions pulled the noose tighter and tighter round the neck of the Labour party.

Those who work in the railway workshops will probably pay the price for the incompetence and irresponsibility of our political system over many years. This debate has been initiated not because of the proposed closure of three railway workshops or the lack of investment in the railway industry, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness asserted, but because of the Darlington by-election. Had it not been for the Darlington by-election, there would not have been a debate.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the official Opposition are allowed a certain amount of Supply time. This is the earliest opportunity that the official Opposition have had to debate this issue since the closure of the three workshops was announced. The debate has nothing to do with the Darlington by-election. The closure decision was taken four weeks ago and this is the first opportunity that the Labour party has had to debate it in the House.

I am tempted to remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you believe that you will believe anything. The remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) do not deserve a serious answer. The cause of this debate is the Darlington by-election. The hon. Gentleman protests too much.

It is a little galling that the Social Democratic party should be accused of opportunism by the Secretary of State. Despite his protestations, the truth is that there was no suggestion of the type of reprieve that is proposed in part for Shildon until after the Bermondsey by-election. Suddenly, informal discussions commenced in the week beginning 2 March or thereabouts between British Rail Engineering Ltd. and the National Union of Railwaymen to find out whether something could be done about Shildon. That just happened to be the week—surprise, surprise—when hon. Members knew the date of the Darlington by-election and when the writ would be moved. There was a meeting on Wednesday 9 March which the Secretary of State told me he had nothing to do with. However, as it occurred a few days previously, and British Rail did not seem to have any intention of producing those proposals until then, and as the only change in the intervening period was the announcement of the Darlington by-election, we must take his denials with a pinch of salt. At that meeting proposals were put forward that provided a basis for some progress as it was stated that a limited presence of 260 staff would remain at the works employed on breaking up surplus wagons, wagon repair, and manufacturing drop stampings and forgings.

rose—

I shall give way shortly.

In addition, it was thought that it might be possible to employ some further workers on wagon repairs or to allocate jobs at Doncaster to men coming from Shildon. British Rail proposes—

rose—

I shall give way when I have finished what I am saying.

British Rail proposes that £250,000 should be given to the Sedgefield-Shildon Enterprise Trust—the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has played an honourable and worthy part in getting that off the ground—to establish whether something could be done, as it was euphemistically termed, to "cushion" the consequences of the closure of the Shildon works.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) for having given way. His sentences are so long that it is hard to know when to intervene. A few moments ago he questioned my word. I told him categorically that there was no question of Ministers or officials intervening with the management in the handling of the Shildon closure procedure, or with negotiations by BREL or in any way twisting BREL's arm. The hon. Gentleman must take my word and not question my word, because that is the position.

Perhaps it is better to leave it as one of life's remarkable and outstanding coincidences. Of course I accept the Secretary of State's word. I hope that he will accept my suggestion that the timing is quite remarkable, and we are grateful for small mercies.

Did I understand the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) to suggest that one way in which Shildon could be helped would be by a transfer of work from Doncaster? Doncaster is already facing several hundred job cuts. If the hon. Gentleman is advocating that, he is advocating redundancies at Doncaster.

I am not suggesting that. I quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. One of the proposals floated at the meeting on 9 March was that some of the workers at Shildon might, if wagon repair work was transferred from Shildon to Doncaster, do it there. The figure mentioned was about 100. As far as I am aware, there was no suggestion that there should be compensating cuts in the staff at Doncaster. As I understand it, that proposal was an addition. They were not my proposals but those of British Rail. They were volunteered entirely by British Rail coincidentally in the week when it became clear that the Darlington by-election would take place.

Shildon is important to people in the north-east because it demonstrates the Government's attitude to that area, and not only in terms of the jobs that might be lost. Unemployment in the north-east, even on the official, artificially low, figures, is 207,000, with about 6,000 in the Darlington area. Hon. Members know what has happened to the steel, coal and shipbuilding industries in the north-east. Shipbuilding has lost 10,000 direct jobs in the north-east since the Conservative party came to office. The power plant industry, which the Secretary of State knows something about and which affects my constituency, has lost many jobs and there is the prospect of more losses.

The north-east is coming to the conclusion that the Government do not have the will to save jobs in the area. They took an interest only when the Darlington by-election arose and the Government thought that there was an outside chance that they would win it. Previously, they had thought that there were no seats to be won in any shape or form in the north-east, so why bother about it? Before Labour Members lean back to take comfort at that thought, I should point out that the north-east is also rapidly coming to the conclusion that, because the Labour party thinks that its seats are fiefdoms for ever, it has taken the area for granted.

Before I hear any more protests from the hon. Member for Westhoughton, I should make clear what happened when he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). My constituents had to fight up hill and down dale against a Labour Government to save jobs at C. A. Parsons. The plan that the Conservatives are now reactivating about power plant would, if carried through, reduce employment at Parsons in my constituency to 2,000 people and was originated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Therefore, people in the north-east are not too enthused by the policies that the Labour party and Labour Governments have offered them.

What was in the hon. Gentleman's election address?

I probably agreed with more of my election address in 1979 than the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) did and I probably agreed with 90 per cent. more than the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) did. However, that is their problem, not mine.

The Labour party's irresponsibility is clear for all to see. It stems from something that we saw again yesterday. It stems from the connection between the Labour party and the trade unions, which has now taken the party out of the frying pan of the far Left into the fire of the TUC. We can see the improper relationship that is developing in the deal that has apparently been done with the TUC. In my day, deals with the TUC were thought improper. However, according to today's edition of The Times, Mr. Len Murray is to appear on a platform with Mr. James Mortimer and the Leader of the Opposition to launch the deal. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale cannot even get the quid pro quo of an incomes policy for all the sacrifices that he is offering up. Because of the improper relationship in the past between the Labour party and the trade unions, many of the problems in the railways and in the railway workshops have not been faced in time. The men at Shildon may well find that they are having to pay for a change in attitude and an acceptance of the new world of the railways that is coming far too late.

I shall briefly explain exactly what our position is, because I know I shall be accused if I do not do so. We believe that the very minimum that should be done is what was put forward at the railway shopmen's national council meeting on 9 March. We believe that that would provide a breathing space. It is wholly unrealistic to suggest that the whole of the Shildon works could be preserved as it is. No one in the north-east believes that that is a practical proposition. However, the position of Shildon could be preserved and the works could be restarted if we had a Government who would invest, would electrify our main railway lines, would renew the rolling stock that so desperately needs renewal, and who would go for a firm commitment to maintain the rail network more or less as it is now and let the railways develop again.

The position of Shildon could be preserved if that was paralleled not by an incestuous relationship with the trade unions but by a proper relationship with them that spelt out clearly that an efficient, profitable railway that invests cannot be run other than on a proper basis. By "a proper basis", I mean proper manning, not overmanning, doing away with restrictive practices, running stock that has been purchased and allowing investment to pay off. Unless those two factors are twinned, the jobs at Shildon cannot be preserved. The Government have no will to preserve the jobs. They make the blind, simplistic assumption that competitive pressures will sort everything out. There is no will to save those jobs in the north-east. On the other hand, Labour Members make the old assumption that if the unions are given whatever they want and if public money, paid for by others who end up out of work, is thrown at the problem, it will be solved. Neither of those solutions makes any sense.

If there were a general reflation of the economy, proper investment in freight traffic, and a highly productive and internationally competitive industry in maintenance, manufacture and the running of the railway system, the Shildon works might have a chance. However, I resist the charge of opportunism. We believe that if that chance does not pay off and if at the end of a period of grace of two years—after 1984—it became clear that it was impossible to sustain the position at the works or to obtain the necessary work, we should have to face up to the conclusion. However, that must not be done without having thought about it properly.

That is what is wrong now. Things have been done too precipitately. It should be possible to think in terms of what can be done through a trust, other industry, an employee buy-out, or whatever. However, none of those things has been done. It was intended that the works should be closed without doing any of them. A minor solution and proposal was cobbled up in the week beginning 2 or 3 March when the Conservative party saw a by-election coming along. As a result, we are debating the issue today and the situation is in a mess. The problem is not capable of easy solution, but it is capable of a better solution than either the Conservative or the Labour party offers.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) down his many lanes. I am very tempted to give him my railway policy, and policy for the north-east. When I had the honour to be Parliamentary Secretary at the Board of Trade between 1962 and 1964 we produced in those three years as many new jobs for the north-east as have ever been produced. Therefore, I shall not take lectures from the hon. Gentleman about how to help the north-east. I have not had that ministerial responsibility for many years, but that is another story.

Like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) I have personal reasons for seeking to intervene in this debate about the future of our railway workshops. First, I think that the House knows that the British Rail workshops in Eastleigh have traditionally been the largest employer in my constituency. However, some would argue that that accolade should now go to Pirelli General.

Be that as it may, the British Rail workshops are still substantial employers of great significance to my local community. Like the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, I pay particular tribute to the part that railwaymen and those in railway workshops play in the community. They play a prominent part in charities and local affairs. Even though they do not always support my political views, they are very good colleagues and neighbours.

Eastleigh has seen a major change in the pattern of its railway workshops. It is worth reminding the House about it, because it is relevant to the workshop prospects in other parts of the country. When I first became Member of Parliament for Eastleigh there was not one workshop, but three workshops. We had an admirable locomotive workshop, which made splendid steam locomotives. With the passing of steam, that facility went. When the market disappeared we had to stop making them, because they were no longer required. We had a carriage works, where we made new carriages. That is not done any more. We also had a smallish wagon works.

Today there is only one works, which is devoted entirely to the repair and maintenance of rolling stock, and especially to major overhauls. The reconstruction of coaching stock is of particular importance. It is an ill wind that does not benefit somebody. I think that we have marginally gained from the lack of investment by the southern region in new coaching stock. As a result, carriages are being given a new lease of life in our workshops, whereas in the past they would almost certainly have been scrapped. Indeed, in an ideal world they probably should be.

Eastleigh has, therefore, been through all the stress and anxiety of a fundamental change of function within the railway system, and without any major industrial conflict. I wish that the critics of the British Railways Board would give it and the rail unions more credit for the amount of change and the overall job losses that the railway community has absorbed with remarkably little "aggro" since the end of the second world war.

My second reason for intervening in the debate is that I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport. Since the Serpell report was debated in the Chamber we have taken public evidence from the principal characters involved. We have not yet made our report to the House on those hearings and it would be most improper of me to anticipate it. Therefore, I must exercise a degree of self-denial in what I say today. However, it is entirely proper that I should draw to the attention of the House evidence given in public that bears upon the subject of today's debate.

The first factor about which I should like to remind the House is the scale of BREL's activities. This was given to us clearly by Mr. James Urquhart and supplements chapter 7 of the principal Serpell report. Of BREL's turnover of £600 million, about 60 per cent. goes to the maintenance of the existing British Rail fleet; 15 per cent. goes to the manufacture of new equipment needed to maintain that fleet; 20 per cent. goes to the construction of new rolling stock; and a little simple arithmetic shows that 5 per cent. goes on miscellaneous activities, which include some outside work.

As I have always understood it—it is certainly the case in Eastleigh—the management has always been free to take outside work where it can be fitted in to its main works programme for its principal customer, British Rail. It has been open to the works management to find outside work where it can. The management always tries to do so, but I can speak only for Eastleigh.

It is clear that 75 per cent. of BREL's activity relates directly to the current operating needs of British Rail. It therefore follows that the future scale and deployment of BREL's activities must be closely related to the future of the railway system as a whole. It cannot be viewed in isolation. Indeed—I put it this way—it must follow decisions that are made about the future of the railway system.

I am glad to be able to report to the House that the chairman of British Rail has, in the past, taken the same view as me. He told me in July 1981 that

"the works at Eastleigh is in a better situation than most as its main workload involves the repair of passenger train locomotives and rolling stock for use on our Southern Region."

This raises the question whether there should be a separation of responsibility for maintenance work from new construction. I put to a number of witnesses the clear question whether it would not be a better management model if the maintenance responsibility came directly under British Rail and was not hived off, as it is, to BREL.

rose—

I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Mr. Urquhart, who is, as the House knows, the main board director of British Rail and has overall responsibility for the workshop activities, gave an interesting reply. He said:

"We have thought in the past, and considered the pros and cons, of totally separating the maintenance workload from the building and we have concluded there are tremendous benefits in the present mix, in that there is a stable workload for maintenance, which provided the ability to sustain the factory capability, which in turn can absorb the peaks and troughs of new building and work as it comes along."

I shall not continue the quotation but Mr. Urquhart develops in the point further. To me that is a strong case in favour of present arrangements, but would those arguments remain valid if there were a different relationship between BREL and British Rail?

The hon. Member has certainly made a good case, with much of which I agree. The hon. Gentleman said that he had an assurance from the present chairman of British Rail that Ashford would more or less remain as it is. In the event of the present chairman being demoted, which appears to be on the cards, will that assurance hold under a new chairman or will the cut take place in Ashford?

It is not Ashford, but Eastleigh.

I meant Eastleigh.

Ashford is in a rather different position. The letter from which I quoted was written in July 1981. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) will not be surprised to learn that I have recently written to Sir Peter Parker to ask him whether he could renew that assurance in the post-Serpell context. I have not yet had a reply.

Will the new chairman do so?

I assume continuity of collective responsibility.

I was about to develop the point that the separation of maintenance responsibility from manufacture could be made a valid managerial case if some of the proposals in the Serpell report were to be carried out. What seems to be agreed by one and all is that there should be an arm's length relationship between BREL and BR. It is the current working of that arm's length relationship that has been questioned by Sir David Serpell and by Mr. Goldstein. However, the relationship in its present form is strongly defended by Mr. Urquhart, who said:

"I think the relationship between BREL and the railway on operational day-to-day issues and the running of the railway is excellent. The problem of the relationship is one of contractual agreement during the period when there is demonstrably developing a surplus of capacity in BREL and the problem really is to identify what that surplus is and how the surplus may be removed and how the railway can avoid having to pay for the surplus."

There, in a nutshell, is the issue facing the House.

It is interesting, too, that Mr. Goldstein, who was a critic of the way the arm's length relationship was working, nevertheless found himself compelled to commend the standard of management in BREL. I shall quote some of the phrases Mr. Goldstein used. He said:

"I hope it comes through the report, with some very bright management people in BREL, very keen, that whilst they were very loyal, inevitably there was a degree of limitation, restraint, imposed on them. They really want to get up and go and do well. They are not masters in their own house and when we looked at this it did seem to us that whilst the principle of arm's length has been the intent, de facto it would not work and therefore we felt that it ought to be instituted."

I take that as quite encouraging. An independent consultant, much criticised in the House for being too tough, comes away praising the management of BREL. That should be worked on and I hope that British Rail will work on it.

It is simply not possible to make decisions about BREL in isolation. It comes back to the clear message coming out of our debates, coming from all the reports and, from listening to witnesses on the Select Committee—that the future of the railwork workshop depends almost entirely on the decisions that have yet to be taken on the future and shape of our railway system. Therefore, the future of BREL cannot be determined in isolation. But, determine the former and the latter will almost certainly determine itself.

In my judgment, the railways will always need their own workshops. Therefore, the sooner the major policy decisions about the future of the railway system are taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the better it will be for everyone. I am sure that he will recognise that the uncertainties leading to continuing anxiety in the railway community, which have been stimulated by Serpell, are bad for everyone. The sooner they can be ended, the better for us all.

Before I call the next hon. Member, I must inform the House that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at about 6.20 pm. Many hon. Members with strong constituency interests still wish to take part in the debate. It will help greatly if speeches are brief.

I hope that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) will not be offended if I say that I thought he made an excellent speech, or if I were to suggest to the Government that he would make a better chairman than Sir Peter Parker. I am not enraptured by Sir Peter Parker or by the Government allowing him to work part-time for about £75,000 a year.

It is amazing how the Government can find millions of pounds to bring men from Canada and America, give them jobs and then put them on to part-time. The Government always sack the lower-paid workers and make them redundant. The trouble with British Rail is that there are far too many highly paid administrators. Cut a few of them out. Cut out some of their first-class travel, and we might make some progress.

It annoys me that the Government are deliberately causing unemployment and preventing an advance towards full employment. A couple of weeks ago the Lords debated the Transport Bill in the other place. They objected to a nominal subsidy for the man who goes out to work to earn money, although the Lords are being paid. Some of them get £300 per day. That is paid for by the workers while the Lords object to the workers receiving a subsidy to travel to work by train. They receive a 100 per cent. subsidy for first-class travel. They do not object to that. They come from their homes in Scotland right down here. They say, "Hello" and off they go—firstclass—while the poor old railway worker must be kicked.

I resent the Lords. They all have two or three jobs. They are allowed to hold chairmanships of public boards, private boards; have a fiddle here and a fiddle there and help themselves here and help themselves there—legally, of course. They have tax-free pensions. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) is here from the Social Democratic party. Thank God that Lord Shawcross has gone over to them. We have lost him.

We could solve all British Rail's problems by encouraging the railways. Cheaper fares would encourage people on to the railways and off the roads. We would save on the import of tyres and the rubber that goes into them, and be able to increase production. Instead, everything that is done is done to run down the industry.

Temple Mills is in the area that I represent. The hon. Member for Eastleigh rightly paid a tribute to railway workers. This country, the Minister, and the House would not be here if it had not been for the excellent endeavours of railway workers during the last war. I know" I was there. Temple Mills was bombed night and day. People lost their homes, not once, but three or four times. They still worked to repair the trains and get the locos out to move the munitions and everything else.

The industry was promised many things and then along came Dr. Beeching and all the other cuts. There were cuts at Temple Mills and the great heroes who had helped the country to survive were kicked out. Lord Beeching is all right; he goes up to the other place and receives hundreds of pounds a day.

The Government are responsible for causing muggings, lawlessness and vandalism. In my younger day, when kids left school they used to fight for apprenticeships at Temple Mills. There is no fear of them doing that now. There are no jobs. They do not want to go to school; they want a job. Instead of standing around they start smashing and vandalising things. As a result, the Government pour money into the police. They double police pay to ensure that there are enough police to deal with these chaps who should have jobs in the railway workshops.

The Minister mentioned exports. It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) is not here. He is very interested in the Third world, as we all are. Today we have with us his excellency President Kaunda of Zambia. We welcome him. It is rumoured that he will ask for more of the British taxpayer's money to help his country. God bless him, I hope that he succeeds.

I have only once, during 38 years, had the pleasure of going to a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference. A couple of years ago I went to Zambia. I was delighted to be able to travel from Stanleyville to Lusaka. It was an eight and a half hour train journey. The train was dead on time leaving and arriving. It was the most beautiful train that I have ever seen. I asked where it was made and was told that it was made by Hitachi in Japan.

The United Kingdom supplies Zambia with money, and it buys trains from Japan. Why do we supply it with money? We want to help it, but why cannot we say "If you want trains, we will supply them. We will build them here." Instead of giving them British taxpayers' money and putting our people out of work, we should supply all these developing countries. They do not need to go to Japan. It would help not just those employed in the railway industry. The trains would have to be shipped. We heard yesterday about the shortage of work in the shipping industry. There is a shortage of orders for ships. We should need the ships and the seamen to transport the goods.

It is about time that we stopped giving money to developing countries for them to spend where they will. Let us say to them "If you want trains and railway lines, we have the best workshops and the workmen. Do not go to Hitachi and other countries. Come to Great Britain." The Government should insist on that. It would not cost more money. It would not lead to inflation. Instead of giving hundreds of millions of pounds to Zambia, Zimbabwe or anywhere else, we should tell them to let us know what they want and we should provide the goods. They cannot manufacture everything themselves. We should supply them with goods to develop their agriculture. They buy marvellous agricultural implements and machines, but not from Great Britain. They use British money to buy those goods from Germany and France.

The leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), spoke earlier and walked out. He has declared that he receives a pension of half his salary. He spoke about his party not having an incomes policy. How would an incomes policy affect him? He receives a tax-free pension of half his pay. Does that come from the British taxpayer? We all talk about what should and should not be done. It is simple; all we have to do is take our fingers out of other people's pockets and say that we will look after the workers.

When the chips are down, everything that we have in this country is paid for by the ordinary blind, disabled, sick and unemployed people on the street—the consumer. It all comes out of taxation. All those people now pay taxation. In my young day they did not. They did not have enough money, so did not pay taxation. Now we have VAT, thanks to the SDP. We have indirect taxation. Now everyone pays taxes. Ultimately, the ordinary taxpayer pays. If we asked the ordinary taxpayer who is paying X pounds per week whether he wanted the money to go towards good railways with a good freight and passenger service or whether he would rather pay the unemployed unemployment pay, I am sure that he would say that he would rather we developed the industry than carry on in a stupid way, as the Government are doing.

I am delighted that the debate is taking place today, because it is right that the official Opposition should do their job of opposing, and, as the Government, we should be here to explain. I am disappointed that there is not one Liberal Member in the Chamber. It is only a suspicion on my part, that many of them are knocking on doors in Darlington and making promises when they should be fighting with the Opposition for the people in that area. They are paid to be in this place, but they are not here.

On many occasions when my hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been pressed at the Dispatch Box about the economy, she has said that the only way for our industry to survive is for it to produce products that people wish to buy, deliver them on time, make them the right quality, give a good after-sales service and make them at the right price—in other words, a competitive price. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber will agree that the British Rail Engineering workshops have done an excellent job. We could not criticise them on the last four items that I have mentioned. They fall down on only one item. It is no fault of their own. This is a changing world. British Rail is not producing in its workshops the products that people wish to buy because of the changing world.

I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House offer sympathy to the families of the work force. I know that sympathy does not help, but at least all of us care about unemployment and we are deeply conscious that to close the workshops means misery and sacrifice for families in many parts of the country.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on many occasions that the Conservative party has a fresh and resolute approach. We are not going for cheap popularity for the benefit of by-elections. It would be easy for a weak-kneed Government to buy a few votes by making a promise from the Dispatch Box to keep the workshops in Shildon open. That would be popular and might even win us the by-election. However, that is also a great responsibility for a party in government, because, if we subsidise and keep unviable units open, someone else has to pay for them. We are the custodians of other people's money. We control the taxpayers' money. We have to use it sensibly. That is the only way to manage a country.

The Labour party need not show great glee, because I recall the British Steel Corporation closures in places such as Ebbw Vale, East Moors, Shelton, Glencarnock and Bilston. I also remember the days of Lord Robens, under the Labour Government, when tens of thousands of miners were thrown out of work as pit after pit was closed, causing misery to many of the communities that had no other form of work. The Labour Government did not introduce the sort of measures that we have introduced in an attempt to save and produce new jobs, and they did not emphasise the importance of small industries and private enterprise. Those people were left absolutely stranded.

Unfortunately, three closures of railway workshops have been announced—Shildon, where 2,000 jobs will be lost, Horwich, where 1,100 jobs will be lost, and Temple Mills, where 300 jobs will be lost. No votes are gained after people's jobs have been lost. If there was an easy, quick solution, do not Opposition Members think that we would have applied it? Most of us have been affected by unemployment.

Let us consider the argument. Shildon is a single—purpose factory. It could produce 1,500 new wagons a year. That is what the factory is designed to produce with its equipment, gantries, cutting and preparation machines, bending machines, and so on. It could even repair 15,000 wagons a year. However, we know that for the next three years at the very best it will have orders for only 150 new vehicles per year and, optimistically, only 9,000 wagons will come into the workers' hands for repair.

The Shildon work force is superb. There is no doubt about that. It is good and not out of date, but the workers are heavy fabricators, with platers, welders, riveters and fitters. There are few electricians and no vehicle-building craftsmen. It cannot go into other areas, because it is not geared to do so.

We have heard talk of the new type of wagon—the modern freight wagon for the Speedlink services. If British Rail is to be competitive and attract business, it must do it in the cheapest and most effective way. Otherwise, it means shovelling taxpayers' money into the nationalised industries yet again, the result being false jobs and no future.

Nearly £1 billion was given as a grant by the Government last year and £1,600 million has been invested in British Rail since 1979. I remind the Opposition that only £1,100 million was invested by the Labour Government in the previous four years. British Rail has tried to save those yards. It has been said that it did not care and that we did not care. We care and British Rail cares.

British Rail consulted British Steel about its movement of steel and the wagons on which the steel was carried. There was serious consultation with British Steel. British Rail got in consultants to study job creation in those works. It has done everything possible to try to save those jobs.

British Rail will try to suppport the local enterprise trust. The House will be pleased to know that at the moment negotiations for an enterprise agency in Shildon are going on. I want to talk about help. When the Labour Government carried out their cuts, there was not much help. People say that we do not care, that we throw people out of work and that no provision is made for them, that we have done nothing and that now, when there is a by-election, we are saying that we shall do something. I shall remind the House of some of the things that were done before there was any talk of a by-election.

Help for small businesses is being given in the Shildon and Darlington area. There was some provision for employment in my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget. Since 1966, about 55 manufacturing firms have located projects in the area. Sadly, 18 of those have since closed. The remaining firms, which employ 3,800 people, include Carreras Rothman, which opened in 1971, and Darchem, which opened in 1974. There have been more recent positive developments. Cleveland Bridge and Engineering Company Ltd, which opened a new £26 million factory in Darlington in January 1982, has recently won a £20 million contract to supply steel sections for a new power station in Berlin. Tallent Engineering, Darlington, has increased its work force by 80 as a result of a contract to supply suspension arms for the Ford Sierra. Fine Fare is to build a 56,000 sq. ft. superstore in Bishop Auckland, which will employ 180 people by mid-1983. GEC Telecommunications, Aycliffe, is recruiting 165 workers in 1983 as a result of its job-sharing scheme. Construction of a new £1·75 million office and shops development in Aycliffe town centre has begun and 100 new jobs are expected there.