To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he will meet the chairman of British Coal with a view to discussing the re-employment of the miners sacked during the mining dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Since this is the ninth time that the hon. Gentleman has asked the same parliamentary question, he will be aware that the dismissal and re-employment of dismissed miners is a matter entirely for the management of British Coal. Of the 1,014 miners who were dismissed 663 have been taken back.

The Secretary of State for Energy did not have to ask nine times to get his job back. Is he aware that a fortnight ago Geoff Almond was killed in Betteshanger colliery when he was crushed to death? John Moyle, president of the Kent area and a local inspector, went to the colliery. He is a victimised miner, because British Coal refused to give him his job back. Upon trying to find out the events which led to that tragic death, he was ordered off the premises because he was a sacked miner. It is high time that the Secretary of State for Energy or any of his accomplices had a word with British Coal. When victimised miners who are trying to resolve and find out the cause of such tragic accidents are ordered off the premises, it shows that it is high time that British Coal and all its allies gave up this lust for revenge.

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by once and for all setting this matter in its proper context and giving further details of some of the charges brought during the miners' strike. There were three charges of murder, five of threat to kill, three for explosives offences—

Answer the question.

This is exactly answering the question. There were 49 charges involving offensive weapons, 15 for arson, 1,019 for criminal damage, 13 for conspiracy to cause damage, 39 assaults, 360 for assault on the police, 429 for assault causing bodily harm, 19 for resisting arrest, 31 for burglary and 352 for theft. That is merely the beginning of the list of charges. There were 201 custodial sentences handed out. Perhaps that explains why British Coal cannot take back all the miners.

Does the Minister agree that there is not a private employer in this country who would be expected to take back on his staff someone who had beaten another member of staff with a baseball bat? Offences involving miners included incidents such as concrete slabs being dropped off bridges. Why should the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) come to the House time and time again to suggest to the Government that they should encourage the chairman of a nationalised industry to do something which no private employer would dream of doing?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and as I said in my opening comments, I could have listed further charges which were brought and sentences passed.

The Minister read out a list of charges. Will he list the number of charges dropped after the dispute?

Of course, not all charges were proceeded with. We are talking about 201 custodial sentences. Only 333 miners were, in the end, not reinstated.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the director-general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation since his appointment.

Discussions are taking place between my Department and Professor Littlechild on a wide range of issues.

Is it not wholly improper to appoint Professor Littlechild to a job which requires independence, given his association with a number of Conservative party think-tanks and his former role as a political adviser?

First, Professor Littlechild has never been a political adviser. He has been an adviser to the Government, which is quite different from being an adviser to the party. I have never heard any Labour Members suggest that Sir Gordon Borrie is unfit to hold his job as the Director General of Fair Trading because he stood as a Labour candidate in a parliamentary election. He has turned out to be a distinguished public servant, as will Professor Littlechild.

When is the grid company likely to be able to announce the basis on which it will charge for transmission? Until that is announced, no contracts can get under way, either between the newly independent producers or between the distributors and existing producers.

We are making good progress on a range of issues. I hope that these figures will be available by the end of July.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board; and what matters were discussed.

I regularly meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board.

Following recent reports that the European Commission is to investigate the legality of the electricity privatisation Bill, whose provisions concerning the protection of the nuclear industry are under question, did the Secretary of State discuss with the chairman of the CEGB the future prospects for National Power and its marketability if the European Commission makes an adverse decision?

We shall clear all our plans with the European Commission, with which we have had preliminary discussions. The Commission recognises that at the end of this privatisation we shall have the most open electricity supply industry in Europe. Broadly speaking, it is strongly in favour of our proposals and we expect to be able to satisfy it about the details of the fossil fuel levy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that negotiations are taking place between the generators and the large industrial users about the direct buying of electricity, which comes under clause 6? Will he accelerate that process and ensure that the CEGB's successor will have the right to do just that?

The industry is settling a range of complex issues at the moment. They arise from the fact that we shall be changing the whole basis on which the industry operates. At present, it is producer-dominated and the producer—the generator—has the last word in disputes. In future, producers and users will have to negotiate a settlement between themselves—that is what they are in the process of doing.

Given the expressed view of the chairman that, following the removal of the duty to supply from the Central Electricity Generating Board to the consumer, responsibility for maintaining medium and long-term research fell, upon whose shoulders does the Secretary of State intend that that financing should fall?

My Advisory Committee on Research and Development—ACORD—has been looking at the entire range of research that is carried out in the electricity supply industry. The successor companies have already made it clear that they will carry on with a range of operational and medium-term research. ACORD is advising me whether there are any areas that the companies do not want to pursue which, in ACORD's opinion, should be pursued. The Government would then take those on.

Has my right hon. Friend discussed with the chairman of the CEGB the problems of research and development following privatisation? Following his decision to sanction the closure of Marchwood engineering laboratories and the allocation of their R and D capacity to Berkeley and Ratcliffe-upon-Soar, it seems that the plans that the Government have in mind favour National Power and Power Gen, which will draw on the resources of those two research establishments. If any other bodies such as the distribution companies choose to generate power after privatisation, which they will be empowered to do, to whom will they go to get research and development done? Surely a case can be made for the privatisation of the CEGB's research and development facilities in a single company which can contract its resources to anyone who may want to generate, rather than for making these facilities the exclusive preserve of National Power and Power Gen.

We considered the privatisation of the research facilities as a separate research company, and came to the conclusion that that was not practicable. Private generators would be able to approach these research establishments and seek to place contracts. Other research establishments are available. The main fact was that after the most careful examination there was no justification for maintaining Marchwood. The work being done there can be transferred to Ratcliffe and Berkeley. Marchwood is simply not necessary.

Following press reports last week that the Government have done a U-turn in their relations with the CEGB and National Power, in respect of the full indemnity that we understand will now be given for nuclear waste reprocessing disposal and decommissioning, as distinct from merely the unforeseeable costs of those three categories of the CEGB's and National Power's expenditure, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he agrees that that is a thoroughly undignified chapter in the breaking of a promise made at the Committee stage? Does he agree that he is now reduced to shovelling the shares off the back of a lorry before he finally shovels the Department of Energy into oblivion?

My advice to the hon. Gentleman would be quite different. He should stop believing as gospel everything that he reads in the newspapers. There has been no change in Government policy. The policy as set out during the Committee stage is the policy that we are maintaining. We are advised that clause 93 in its present form did not achieve the aims that we had for it when we put it to the Committee.

If Opposition Members wish to quote either my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State or myself, I hope that they will quote Hansard accurately instead of misrepresenting what we say.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his current estimate of the total costs of advertising and other expenditure to be incurred in the flotation of the electricity supply industry.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cost incurred to date by his Department on advice on public relations and advertising aspects of the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.

No advertising expenditure by Government will take place before the Electricity Bill receives Royal Assent. It is therefore too early to provide estimates of costs.

It is perhaps not surprising that the Minister ducks the question. Will he confirm or deny that the cost of pursuing the Government's half-baked dogma will be between £200 million and £370 million? Does he agree that that kind of money would be better spent on the Energy Efficiency Office—instead of halving its budget—so that it can help people to save energy, to reduce pollution and to cut fuel poverty and wastage? That would be a much better use of the money than electricity privatisation.

I assure the hon. Lady that whatever costs are incurred will achieve value for money for the taxpayer. We cannot help it if the Labour party does not like wider share ownership. We do, and we will continue to back it.

Does the Minister agree that the money that will be spent flogging off the industry would be better spent reducing standard charges for old-age pensioners—or is it party dogma against old-age pensioners?

The Government are absolutely committed to the privatisation of the electricity industry, because we believe that it will achieve much better standards for the consumer, will put a downward pressure on the prices for the consumer and will achieve things that the Labour party would never have achieved in its wildest dreams by keeping the industry nationalised.

Will my hon. Friend explain to the mixture of simpletons and troublemakers on the Opposition Benches that if, in privatising an industry, the advertising cost is more than recouped by an increase in the price that the Government get, it is a jolly good idea for the taxpayer? Will he also point out that companies like Unilever, ICI and other people spend money on advertising, and they do so because they feel that it is commercially beneficial?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The net benefits to the taxpayer are precisely as he states them.

Will my hon. Friend re-examine the consumer advertising, both before and after flotation, of the area boards now and the area plcs afterwards, in view of the still prevailing serious allegations of unfair competition against the private sector retailers, notably in the form of the latest advertisements of the Eastern electricity board—"£50-worth of free current if you buy a cooker from us"?

My hon. Friend has for some time been a champion of the independent sector. The Bill and the restructured industry will recognise the anxieties that he and others have expressed by making certain that the retailing aspects of the privatised industry will be ring-fenced, kept entirely independent, and will not be able to trade in that unfair way.

Although we understand that it is Tory party policy and dogma to spread share ownership much wider, is it right to use public money to publish propaganda for that purpose?

We are absolutely committed to a policy which since 1979 has resulted in an increase in private shareholders from 3 million to 9 million. We absolutely agree with that and think that it is right in every possible sense, not least because it provides a great incentive to greater efficiency within the industry. The process of privatisation involves projecting the industry to the public.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last had discussions with other European Community Energy Ministers on the greenhouse effect.

Although not specifically discussed by Community Energy Ministers, the greenhouse effect is borne in mind in the Council's consideration of energy issues.

In view of the threat to the earth's atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, are not those Greens who advocate the abandonment of the nuclear option foolish in the extreme? Is that generally recognised throughout Europe?

That is generally recognised throughout Europe, and the environmental Council of Ministers made precisely that point in a recent resolution. It is sad that the Greens are pursuing a route which presumably will achieve the opposite to what they desire.

For each therm of energy output, which fuel cycle has the least impact on the greenhouse effect—coal, oil or nuclear?

Nuclear.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is high time that the Labour party learned from President Mitterrand that nuclear power is the friend of the environment?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I notice from the Labour party's latest policy review that the ultimate conclusion of its policy will be to phase out all nuclear power stations. That will have a very harmful impact on the greenhouse effect.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the chairman of British Coal; and what matters were discussed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Coal; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I meet the chairman of British Coal regularly to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

It is time that the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman of British Coal the amount of coal which the Central Electricity Generating Board is to take on. I have serious reason to believe that the CEGB and British Coal have done a dirty deal which will affect the Nottinghamshire miners whom the Secretary of State defends in this Chamber. The take has been reduced from 75 million tonnes to 60 million tonnes. What will the Secretary of State say at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Nottinghamshire miners now?

If I catch your eye later today, Mr. Speaker, I will tell the House that that allegation is complete and utter rubbish. British Coal and the two generators are in the process of negotiation about the quantity of coal and the term for which they will take it. We have made the Government's position absolutely clear. We believe that we have put the industry in a strong position to get the lion's share of that business. That is what we would like to happen.

When the Secretary of State next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he ask him how much it cost to pay off the private coal companies in Bilston Glen as a result of the closure of that colliery? How much pay-off to the private contractors was made in compensation?

I will ask the chairman of British Coal that when I next meet him. However, I volunteer some information to the hon. Gentleman in the hope that it will help him. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Bilston Glen lost £20 million in the last financial year in addition to £50 million of accumulated losses that it had made before then. That is why the colliery had to close.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal, will he congratulate him and his working miners on achieving increased profits of £500 million this year? Fifty per cent. of deep-mined coal comes from Nottinghamshire, which is something of which the people there are very proud.

I shall certainly do as my hon. Friend asks, and I will remind the chairman that Nottinghamshire miners find the attitude of the Labour party towards them totally hypocritical. That party gave those miners no support when they needed it but is trying to exploit them now.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss with the chairman of British Coal a problem affecting my constituency concerning jobs at the new mine at Asfordby near Rutland. Undertakings were given that Leicestershire miners would be offered jobs there. My right hon. Friend will know that a number of Leicestershire mines will shortly close, and jobs at Asfordby are very necessary for those affected. Will my right hon. Friend remind the chairman of undertakings that jobs at Asfordby would be made available to Leicestershire miners?

I shall do as my hon. Friend asks, but I point out that although more than 100,000 miners have left the industry since the end of the strike, not one was refused a job if he wanted to stay in the industry. Every one who left did so voluntarily, with a substantial redundancy payment.

Does the Secretary of State accept that the jobs of many miners in Leicestershire and elsewhere are at stake as a consequence of the short-sighted consideration that sees the importing of South African and other coal as being economical? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends are more interested in the future of the South African coal mining industry than in our own?

The hon. Gentleman delivers a good old emotive sentence but one which has no basis in fact, as he knows. Imports represent about 10 per cent. of our total coal burn, and some of those imports are very necessary because we do not produce all the qualities of coal that we need. Of that 10 per cent., less than 2 per cent. is South African. There is no sign that there will be substantial imports from South Africa.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the reduction in the amount of CO₂, emitted per unit of electricity supplied between 1959 and the present day.

CO₂ emissions per unit of electricity supplied have reduced by 33 per cent. over the period 1959 to the present day.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging response. Can he give an indication of future trends and how they would be affected if nuclear energy was no longer part of the country's total energy production?

It is very important to continue our nuclear programme. If we do not, CO₂ emissions will increase. Of the 33 per cent. reduction to which I referred, about one third is attributable to nuclear-generated electricity, so its abolition—which the Opposition propose should ultimately occur—would have a very deleterious effect.

Given the Government's obvious enthusiasm for the production of energy from non-fossil fuel sources, why have the West German Government abandoned plans to build a nuclear reprocessing plant at Wackersdorf, and why have the Siemens electricity company and the America firm Acro decided to establish Europe's first thin layer solar cell factory at Wackersdorf? Will Government money be invested in similar technology in this country?

I may have many responsibilities, but I was not aware that the European Community had extended them to Germany's energy policies, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman.

Has my right hon. Friend seen today's press reports that in generating sufficient electricity to centrally heat the average-sized home, coal causes three times as much environmental damage as gas? Is not the message from that that the way forward for Britain's energy requirements must be the use of energy sources that do not damage the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect, and that nuclear and gas are two ways of achieving that objective?

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the gas burn directive does not prohibit the generation of electricity by gas, but does not encourage it. The United Kingdom takes a very positive stance on that and we are doing our best to have that directive repealed.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had with the director general-designate of the Office of Electricity Regulation on the possibility of a fossil-fuel combustion tax.

None, Sir.

In view of the speculation hanging over the future of the Department of Energy, and the recent publication by the Secretary of State for the Environment of a document advocating a carbon or coal tax, will the Secretary of State tell us who would be responsible for bringing in such a tax? Would it not be better to introduce energy efficiency measures rather than hitting the coal industry again?

My right hon. Friend made it clear the next day at a press conference that the views that he had expressed in that pamphlet were personal views. He was talking about discussions that are going on in international fora. He also made it clear that we had no plans to introduce a carbon tax here.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for many years now, the taxpayer has subsidised the production of electricity from coal, and that in view of that there is no question of a tax being levied on fossil fuel?

As I have said, there are no plans for such a tax. We and previous Governments have favoured coal strongly: far from penalising it, we have subsidised it.

In the constituency of the Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), is the Coal Research Establishment, which is a centre of excellence for research and development relating to clean coal burn, not just in this country but in Europe. Would the Secretary of State for Energy mind taking his right hon. Friend to visit that establishment to see how we can really start to talk about getting rid of greenhouse gases in the world?

I shall mention that to my right hon. Friend. He always welcomes helpful suggestions, and I am sure that he will welcome this one.

The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise clean coal burn technology. We shall have to change the way in which we produce electricity from coal; coal is the great pollutant, and the way forward is more efficient cleanburn technology.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy by what proportion he estimates the national demand for electricity will be diminished through energy conservation measures in the years 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2010.

I cannot make such an estimate, because improved energy efficiency does not automatically lead to reduced consumption of electricity. However, it is worth noting that the energy used to produce one unit of GDP in 1987 was 7 per cent. lower than in 1983. This represents a saving of over £2 billion.

Following the 50 per cent. reduction in the Government's conservation expenditure, is it not time that the Government started to talk about an energy policy instead of a privatisation policy? Is the Minister not concerned about the industrialists—particularly at Rockwell International in my constituency—who produce for conservation and yet are continually bombarded with Government cuts, with the result that their programme is miles behind? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman began altering his policy?

If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the figures, he will see that the reduction is nothing like 50 per cent. If he also looks at where the reduction is being made, he will find that the programmes involved have come to the end of their lives. He will also find, on reflection, that the large advertising budget of the previous two years has had precisely the desired effect: energy efficiency is now very much at the forefront of most people's minds.

Is it not a fact that although we are conserving energy, at the same time we are living in an electronic age? Most of our offices are now using a good deal of electronic equipment, and, because of our great economy, industries are taking off and are therefore using more electricity than they did a few years ago. Although we are encouraging energy conservation, we are also trying to match the demands of industry, trade and commerce, as it is sensible for us to do.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If we pursued the policies advocated by some, though not necessarily by Opposition Members, the economy would not grow and that is not what most hon. Members want.

Will the Government learn the lessons of the European elections—the performance of the Green party and the tragic results for their own party? Is it not clear that the people of Britain totally reject nuclear power and that they want far more investment in energy conservation and in renewable sources of energy?

If the hon. Gentleman were to ask many of the people who supported the Green party at the European elections, I think he would find that many of them had not read the Green party's manifesto. Had they read what it said about the nuclear aspect, they may well not have voted Green in the elections.

Is there not a growing consensus that the best means of combating the greenhouse effect and of promoting environmental protection is through energy efficiency and conservation, which is precisely what the Lords amendments to the Electricity Bill set out to achieve? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not say that the Government will accept those amendments and, for once, put the public interest before privatisation?

I quite agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about energy efficiency. I wish, though, that he would look at his own party's policy towards coal, which he might find also has a greenhouse effect. If he looked at the Lord's amendments, he would see that they are unworkable. He, of all people, I am sure, would not wish unworkable clauses to be included in an Act of Parliament.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total number of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on the nuclear power industry.

The total number of jobs in the United Kingdom dependent on the nuclear power industry is estimated at about 180,000.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this figure shows that one in every 144 jobs in this country is dependent upon the nuclear power industry? Does that not demonstrate that the Labour party's commitment to phase out nuclear power by the year 2000 makes absolutely no sense at all when one is considering future employment in this country?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) would be particularly concerned about the threat to his party's fortunes if his party's policy, which does not favour the nuclear industry, were to be implemented. While I was researching the answer to my hon. Friend's question, I discovered the interesting fact that close to the constituency of the hon. Member for Sedgefield, 1,000 people are employed on a £9·5 million contract for Sizewell B and that in Stockton, South, which is also close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, there is a £31 million contract for Sizewell B. One of the people who would be extremely worried, I should have thought—if the Labour party's policy on nuclear power were to be implemented—would be the official energy spokesman for the Labour party.

Since the hon. Gentleman is giving statistics relating to the nuclear power industry, and the energy industry in particular, will he confirm that in the last seven or eight years between 150,000 and 155,000 jobs have been lost in the mining industry?

I confirm that—or at least around those figures. However, the output from the mining industry in that period was almost identical to what it was before, when there was all that extra employment. We very nearly doubled productivity in that period. That is one of the reasons why our coal mining industry will be able to compete against the rest of the world.

Following that answer, do the Minister's figures include those for employment in the South of Scotland electricity board's nuclear capacity? Will he compare and contrast that with the figures relating to coal production for electricity in Scotland? When will an agreement be concluded to safeguard the remaining jobs in the coal mining industry between the South of Scotland electricity board and British Coal so that we may retain some jobs in the coal industry in Scotland?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is straying away from the question, which relates to jobs in the nuclear industry. However, I confirm that the figures that I gave are for the United Kingdom as a whole. As to the specific point that he raised, that is currently the subject of negotiations. The Government very much hope that the result of the negotiations will be to the benefit of the coal industry and of electricity consumers. That has to be part of the equation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to announce the awards as a result of the applications for the 11th offshore licensing round.

I hope to be in a position to make the announcement within the next week or so.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is still a very high level of interest in North sea exploration which is a vindication of the Government's policies for the development of the North sea and has led to the massive extension of the proven reserves in our part of the North sea?

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that there is a very high level of interest in the North sea. I hope that when we are able to announce the 11th round it will prove very successful. That means that we can look forward with more than hope to North sea oil and gas for longer than people had orginally thought.

The Minister paints a very rosy picture, and I share some of his optimism, but there is a cloud on the horizon—the serious skill shortage in the North sea which threatens future development and possibly current production. What steps does the Minister propose to take to encourage the oil industry to improve its lamentable training record?

The hon. Gentleman will perhaps be pleased to hear that the matter was discussed at the most recent meeting that I had with Oilco—the oil industry liaison committee—attended by the employers and the trade unions and further discussions will take place. I agree that the manpower in the North sea is vital for its further development. Its success has been achieved because of that manpower.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to ensure that the arts form part of children's education.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and I support the place of the arts in education. The national curriculum ensures this. As I announced in the House on 23 May, my right hon. Friend and I are funding research into good practice to demonstrate the range of educational opportunities available in the contemporary arts, museums and galleries, and public libraries.

Will my right hon. Friend note that it has taken this Conservative Government to make art and music a compulsory part of the school curriculum for all children, and that the previous philistinic Labour Governments never did anything but talk about it? Where do art and education come together specifically for the benefit of London children?

It is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who should be given credit for ensuring that for the first time music is a compulsory subject in school. The new curriculum makes it possible to include almost every facet of art in one form or another and I hope that teachers will take advantage of that. In regard to my hon. Friend's second question, there are a number of examples of good practice in London. The national maritime museum has an excellent scheme for children through the Armada exhibition; the royal opera house has workshops and works with schools, as does the English National Opera, and the London Mozart Players have an excellent education scheme in Croydon.

The Minister will recall his answer to me which showed that an increasing number of museums are beginning to charge for school parties. Will the Minister condemn that as bad practice? Will he confirm that by charging for school parties the heritage and the important educational value of items in those museums are no longer accessible to many school children?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the new guidelines on school activities within school hours. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has already pointed out that parents can make voluntary contributions. However, I have undertaken with my right hon. Friend carefully to monitor the progress on this because we are anxious to ensure that the access of schools to important centres of art and to museums is not only maintained, but strengthened.

Is the Minister aware that the number of school visits to theatres, dance performances, museums and concerts has fallen dramatically in recent weeks as a direct result of Government changes in funding school visits through the Education Reform Act? Is he aware that the national theatre's excellent production of Adrian Mitchell's play "The Pied Piper" had to cancel a week's performances because of Government changes making it extremely difficult for schools to make out-of-school visits? How is that helping arts companies or arts education in schools? Is that good practice?

As I said earlier, I have undertaken to monitor progress and to ensure that there is no setback in terms of the number of schools visiting arts institutions. There is no overwhelming evidence to suggest that what the hon. Gentleman says is right. In one or two examples, much of the misunderstanding has been about the guidelines. Those guidelines are clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has set out what schools can do to ensure that they maintain contact with arts organisations.

To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement about the level of business sponsorship of the arts.

I am pleased to say that business sponsorship has increased from £500,000 a year in 1976 to over £30 million today. The Government's business sponsorship incentive scheme has brought nearly £25 million new money to the arts and to museums.

How many sponsors under the BSIS are new arts sponsors? How many have renewed their generous sponsorship?

It is interesting that the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts has undertaken research which demonstrates that about 90 per cent. of all the organisations that become first-time sponsors decide to remain sponsors because they regard it as a good investment. That is most encouraging. For the first time under our scheme, we have had 1,000 first-time sponsors, so the House can see the scale of the increase in support through sponsorship.

I welcome that increase, but what is the Minister's view on the deficit in sponsorship in respect of the innovative and experimental arts, which, by their nature, attract small audiences?

There are increasing examples of sponsorship to support creativity and innovation. I do not remember whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber during the debate on the arts some 10 days ago, when I announced that the Arts Council had established an endowment scheme designed especially to give support through the private sector—although it is managed by the Arts Council—for innovation and experimentation. Of course, the Arts Council already does that with the taxpayer's money, and that is partly the role of the taxpayer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that English National Ballet, of which I am a director, has taken the lead in business sponsorship? None the less, this cannot possibly enable the company to survive, unless the Government find a way of providing an adequate subsidy from their pocket after the community charge is introduced. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a director, I have a responsibility under the Insolvency Act 1986 to suggest that that ballet company should close if that money is not forthcoming soon?

I am very much aware of the important role that my hon. Friend plays in English National Ballet. I acknowledge his point that there is considerable concern about the possible effect of the introduction of the community charge, especially with respect to Westminster city council, on English National Opera and English National Ballet. I am in touch with the chairman and will keep in touch with my hon. Friend about this matter.

I recognise that the amateur sector is vital in the performing arts. How much money is allocated to it?

It is difficult to give a figure. The Arts Council's main efforts are directed towards supporting professional organisations. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to clarify the point.

To ask the Minister for the Arts how many people attended (a) subsidised and (b) unsubsidised performances of opera in the 12 months to 14 June 1989.

The latest figures available for subsidised performances show that 1,080,000 people visited the opera in 1987–88. No figures are available for privately funded opera companies.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend welcomes the recent success of the "Carmen" production at Earl's Court, given that the two London opera companies receive the lion's share of the Arts Council's support for opera. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the regional opera companies, Arts Council arid local authority funding is vital to their existence and to achieving a wider audience? Is he aware that, in its 10th anniversary season, Opera North achieved 90 per cent. audience penetration?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's close interest in Opera North, which is based in Leeds and sets high standards. Regional opera has been able to achieve the highest possible quality only through a measure of taxpayers' support. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to other private sector activities, such as Carmen at Earl's Court. I understand that recent performances attracted audiences of 95,000. Other companies in the private sector, such as D'Oyly Carte opera company, are attracting large audiences.

Is the Minister aware that Opera North receives money from local government? I congratulate him on being the first Minister whom I have heard express a squeak of concern about the implications of the community charge. I suggest that as well as addressing those concerns to the chairmen of various boards, he addresses them forcefully to his colleagues in Government, who have been oblivious to the effects of the poll tax on local authorities' ability to raise and spend money at their discretion on projects, including the arts, that benefit the community.

My earlier answer on the community charge was related especially to Westminster city council, which has indicated that it has particular problems, unlike other authorities. I hope that borough councils in London will play their part in supporting the important English National Ballet and English National Opera.

To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he is taking to encourage national institutions to send artefacts to local museums and galleries.

National museums and galleries are active in lending artefacts to local museums and galleries. I am specifically encouraging further such activity through my funding provided to the Museums and Galleries Commission's travelling exhibitions unit.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that good news. Is he aware that the high cost of insuring art exhibits is one of the reasons why borough councils and others are deterred from making full use of the increased facilities that the Department has offered? What steps will my right hon. Friend take to make the procedure easier and to assist them with insurances?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on what was the problem in the past. He might be interested to know that in 1988–89 no less than £1 billion of Government indemnity has been provided. That is a record figure and has saved the national museums and galleries £5 million in commercial insurance. The scheme plays a leading role in facilitating lending.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service when he will next meet representatives of the NUCPS; and what matters he expects to discuss.

I have meetings from time to time with representatives of Civil Service trade unions both centrally and during visits to Departments. Matters of mutual interest are discussed.

Is the Minister aware that the senior civil servant in every Government Department has been replaced since the Prime Minister took office? That treatment is almost as ruthless as her treatment of the 1979 Cabinet. Does the Minister support that policy? If not, what steps will he take to restore some impartiality to the senior Civil Service?

I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman means by every senior civil servant. If he is talking about permanent secretaries, perhaps he needs reminding that we have been in office since 1979. It is not surprising that many permanent secretaries have changed and that many of them have retired. To suggest that any of our senior civil servants are not impartial but partial is a serious allegation.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what was the total number of civil servants in Greater Manchester in 1979; and what was the most recent figure.

For the administrative area of Greater Manchester, the number of non-industrial civil servants on 1 January 1979 was 19,270. The most recent figure at 1 January 1989 is 16,720.

From those figures do we take it that the Government's policy to disperse civil servants from London and the south-east to the regions has stopped? Does he accept that there is still a strong argument for encouraging civil servants and Government Departments to move to the north-west, which has a far more attractive environment than London and the south-east?

There is no question of stopping the policy of relocation; on the contrary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security recently announced that 1,000 jobs will be relocated out of London to Glasgow, Belfast and Wigan. Wigan, which is part of Greater Manchester, will get another 260 civil servants. The hon. Gentleman should also take note of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General recently announced that no less than 34,000 Civil Service jobs are under review with the possibility of relocation in other areas. I think that the motive for doing so is getting stronger every day.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service jobs in the London area have been agencified; how many are expected to be agencified during the next two years; and if he will make a statement.

This information is not readily available to my Department. The location of staff in agencies is a matter for the Departments and agencies concerned. But I hope very much that, like other Government activities, they will continue to review the location of their work, including localities which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies.

I hope that my right hon. Friend will find the new logistic terms "agencified" and "agencification" expressive if somewhat ugly. If civil servant jobs are agencified will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is done sensitively and that it pays regard to the morale of the people who are moved of such a scheme? Will he seek an early agencification of passport office jobs with a view to ending all the trouble that we have had there and getting the half a million passports that people are seeking for their holidays out to them?

On the latter point about the passport office, my hon. Friend may recall that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it plain that the passport office is a serious candidate to become an agency as soon as possible—that is now being studied. All the evidence so far suggests that morale is good in the seven agencies already established. They know precisely what their targets and objectives are. That is something that helps the management of the Civil Service and helps morale.

Will the Minister please acknowledge that he makes it more difficult for the Secretary of State for Education and Science to introduce a core curriculum in English if he accepts, without comment, the ugly and incomprehensible word "agencified"?

I have not used that word. I am partly responsible for plain English in the Civil Service and I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point on board.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service agencies he expects to be set up in the next 12 months.

Seven executive agencies have already been set up, and Departments are working on more than 30 other proposals. Those include the whole social security operation and, in my own Department, the Civil Service recruitment agency and the occupational health service.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his commitment to continue the relocation of civil servants out of London will he widely welcomed on the Conservative Benches? Will he couple that with a commitment to a continuing reduction in the total number of civil servants, in particular those who must work in London and are therefore held to ransom to Mr. Jimmy Knapp who has recently replaced his better rail campaign with a no rail campaign?

In the past 10 years, the size of the Civil Service has been reduced by roughly 21 per cent. and now it is certainly a slimmed-down and professional service. It is worth noting that four out of five civil servants are employed outside the Greater London area, and with the policy for relocation, that number is expected to increase.

Does the Minister recognise that many agencies, whether they are in public or in private hands, have been responsible for much of the unlawful discrimination against people on grounds of sex and race? His Department is now to meet that problem through the action programme, which the Labour party welcomed when he announced it. What will he now do with the agencies to see that they do not discriminate in a way that is unlawful and wrong?

It will, of course, be exactly the same for the agencies because they are all part of the Civil Service and those who serve in agencies continue to be civil servants. The hon. and learned Gentleman is, therefore, right to stress that the agencies will have the same objective. Objectives and targets are set under the framework agreements formed in the agencies. I envisage that in the setting up of all agencies it will be a clear intention that: the principle of equality of opportunity in every area should be clearly established.

When considering agencies over the next year or so, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to move more Civil Service jobs out of London into the provinces, especially the north? Is he aware that there is a symposium tomorrow by York city council supported by other local authorities in north Yorkshire for that very purpose?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention. It is worth repeating that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has made it plain that 34,000 Civil Service jobs are now under review with a view to considering whether they should be relocated in other parts of the country. If even part of that relocation takes place, it will be a substantial addition to the 12,000 people who have moved out of London since 1979.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has had with the Civil Service unions about improving the service to the public.

None, Sir. But my officials have held discussions with representatives of the Council of Civil Service Unions on the Office for the Minister for the Civil Service study "Service to the Public" and on training in this area.

Does the Minister agree that the service to the public in both the passport office and the Department of Social Security might be improved by employing more civil servants? If more civil servants had been employed, many of the problems in the passport office this summer would not have existed. If there were more civil servants in the Department of Social Security, rather than simply having to administer, they could give welfare advice to claimants who need the benefits that they are not getting at the moment.

I am glad, of course, that an agreement has now been reached in the passport office and, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, it will lead to an increase in the number of civil servants there. With regard to the passport office and to the Department of Social Security, I come back to the establishment of agencies for which clear performance targets and objectives can be set, including objectives on the quality of service to the public. The House will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made an admirable speech last week, drawing attention to the importance of the quality of Government services to the public.

To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what recent progress has been made in the establishment of Civil Service agencies.

On 24 May, the resettlement agency in the Department of Social Security was launched. On 6 June, I launched the Civil Service college in my own Department as an executive agency. That takes the total of agencies that have been set up to seven with over 30 further activities announced as candidates.

In view of the considerable success of the agencies, especially in respect to the motivation of those who work for them, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he intends to press ahead with the agencies as quickly as possible and across the board?

I can say without hesitation that that is the case. The fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced last month his plan to establish an agency for the Department of Social Security, which includes 87,000 civil servants, is an indication of the importance that we attach to this reform.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we have injury time for Civil Service questions? We did start late.

We did, and I gave it.

I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government given you notice of any intention to announce today what they intend to do to mark the United Nations designated International Day against Drug Abuse and Trafficking? If not, and as there is a full string of the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the Secretary of State for Health presently on the Front Bench, perhaps they could incorporate that information in the reply to the debate.

That is a matter for the Front Bench. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) drew attention to matters contained in early-day motions, and that might be an admirable subject.

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the continuing failure of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that community services are expanded at a rate which matches the closure of mental health hospitals or the growth in the population of the very elderly; expresses concern that the sole focus on the acute sector of the White Paper Working for Patients will further divert resources from chronic care; regrets that, in the year since Ministers received the Griffiths Report on Community Care, they have failed to respond to a single recommendation; accepts its central conclusion that social service authorities should be the lead agency for community care; and rejects proposals that would confine local authorities to being purchasers rather than providers of services for the elderly and handicapped in their communities.

The whole House will know that, more than one year ago, Sir Roy Griffiths presented a blueprint to rationalise and develop care in the community. The Government's enthusiasm both for that problem and for Sir Roy's solution can be gauged by the fact that they chose to publish his report on the day after Budget day in 1988, which made sure that it never disturbed the conscience of a single sub-editor.

Last week we passed another milestone in the history of the Griffiths report, because as of then, Ministers have spent longer ruminating over their response to Griffiths than it took Sir Roy to research, write and print the entire report. There is a stark contrast to that delay. In the same period that Ministers sat on Sir Roy's recommendations, the Secretary of State found the time to write a White Paper that turns upside down the entire acute sector of the National Health Service. It was published at the end of January, consultation on it finished four months later, and we are threatened with a Bill on that White Paper in five months' time.

The contrast between the breakneck pace of the Government's White Paper and the tardy progress in response to the Griffiths report is that no one wants the Secretary of State to force through his eccentric plans for our hospitals—even his Back Benchers are now praying that it will fade away and stop terrifying them in their constituencies—while everyone involved in delivering community care has pleaded with the Secretary of State to respond positively to the Griffiths report.

I understand that the House will not hear the Secretary of State's response today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He has been kind enough to write to me to apologise because he will not be taking part in the debate. I understand that the Government will be represented in both the opening and closing of the debate by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, whose name unfortunately does not even appear on the Government's amendment. Of course, I welcome the Under-Secretary to our debate. He is a gentleman of both courtesy and candour. I shall not try to get him into trouble with his superiors by arguing whether in those qualities he compares favourably or not with them. It is not a criticism of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary when I say that the House might have expected the Secretary of State to participate in this debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I am surprised that he has raised this point. He shadows no fewer than two Departments of State and invariably participates in every debate on any subject arising from either Department. If he were a football player, he would be described as a greedy player. I believe that there are members of his team who are more than competent, but he often seems unwilling to give them an airing. My hon. friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is extremely competent to answer the hon. Gentleman's attacks on this or any other subject, particularly when the hon. Gentleman has chosen to raise a subject which he knows perfectly well will be addressed in a few weeks' time when there is to be a statement on the Griffiths report.

As I understand the Secretary of State's intervention, he is explaining why the Parliamentary Under-Secretary should be Secretary of State rather than himself. He chose to refer to my experience of Supply day debates. I have been to the House of Commons Library and checked on the 54 Supply day debates which have been held since the last general election. Of those 54 motions tabled by the Labour party, on only seven out of the 54 occasions, were the debates not replied to by a Cabinet member. Of those seven, there was only one occasion on which the speech from the Government Bench was made by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary rather than a Minister of State; that was when, unfortunately, the Minister of State, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was taken ill in Brussels and replaced by a Parliamentary Secretary. Although the House may not have fully appreciated his speech, we well understood why the Parliamentary Secretary made it.

The clear conclusion is that the only time when a healthy team of Ministers has left a Parliamentary Under-Secretary to reply to the debate is when the topic under discussion was care in the community. Those outside the House who are concerned about community care and try to make it work, will note that this demonstrates where community care comes in terms of this Government's priorities. Unfortunately, outsiders reading this debate will feel particularly aggrieved as they struggle to maintain services for community care which are in constant danger of being washed away by an ever-rising tide of need.

Since the publication of the Griffiths report, another 40,000 elderly people have been added to the total number of those aged over 85. I recently received a parliamentary answer which showed how the provisions to support those people living at home have failed to keep pace with the increase in numbers. The number of those attending day hospitals per thousand of elderly over 75 has fallen from 552 in 1983 to 498 in 1987. That is a 10 per cent. drop, although such provision can be vital in enabling the elderly to be supported when living at home.

At least central Government can choose how many resources they put into the problem. Local authorities, when providing their services, find that they are ground between the lower millstone of ever-rising demand and the upper millstone of ever-decreasing resources. Sir Roy Griffiths states:

"many social services departments and voluntary groups grappling with the problems at local level certainly felt that the Israelites faced with the requirement to make bricks without straw had a comparatively routine task."

Those people left to take the strain are those officially designated informal carers, by which is normally meant the nearest available female relative. In reality, they provide the great bulk of care in the community. It is an outrage that we leave them to get on with it with minimal support. Nursing is a skilled job. Those in the profession receive three years' training and are then expected to work eight-hour shifts at a stretch. Time and again we ask informal carers to provide 24-hour constant nursing without training, respite or help, and often without sleep. It is hardly surprising that study after study shows that people left in constant attendance without a break are in poorer physical and mental health than the rest of the population.

One development since the Griffiths report clearly shows the Government's indifference to these carers. In April last year, people caring for a disabled relative were the only group on long-term supplementary benefit who received no premium on transfer to income support. As a result, 150,000 carers found that they were £5 a week worse off in entitlement. We owe this group an immense debt; to reward that debt by cutting still further an income that is already pathetic beggars belief.

What makes the Government's meanness towards relatives who care for the elderly at home all the more unjust is the Government's willingness to tolerate dramatic rises in payments of social security to the proprietors of private homes. In 1980, the Government made social security payable to cover residential fees of private and voluntary homes, and presumably intended thereby to stimulate the private sector in residential care. That, certainly, was the dramatic effect.

Unfortunately, as happens so often when the Government are faced with the financial consequences of their own policies, they then rebelled at the bill. In 1985, they stopped paying the fees and imposed a national limit on each category. I have received figures in parliamentary answers which show that the limits on these categories have been lowered in real terms since their introduction in 1985. For elderly people in nursing homes, the money has fallen from £199 to £190 a week; for the mentally ill, it has fallen from £211 to £195; for the mentally handicapped, it has fallen from £234 to £205. The cost of such homes, however, is not falling in real terms: it is rising. In between, a real gap is emerging between what they charge and what the social security system will pay, with the result that a growing number of elderly and handicapped people cannot meet their bills and face the real risk of being put out on the street.

We condemn the Government's irresponsible policy of allowing this sector to grow unplanned and uncontrolled. Some, at least, of the payments that go to elderly people in residential care could have been used to sustain them in the community if local authorities had been given half the resources that the Government are willing to pay the proprietors of private homes. Having created this problem, Ministers cannot justify the cynical response of capping expenditure and leaving vulnerable and elderly patients to face the consequences of being unable to pay their bills.

From the elderly, I turn to services for those decanted from mental health hospitals, where we find the same picture of rising demand overwhelming inadequate provision. The Government have certainly pursued a vigorous programme of hospital closures, nowhere more markedly than in the case of mental health hospitals. The closure programme has been so rapid that Ministers seem to have difficulty keeping abreast of it. Last year I tabled a parliamentary Question inviting Ministers to list the mental health hospitals for which there were no closure plans. A subsequent survey of the list published in Hansard discovered that it included four mental health hospitals which had already closed at the time of the answer and two others which closed during the time that it took to carry out the survey. When I wrote to Ministers drawing their attention to this inaccuracy, I received a letter which had the breath to advise me:

"the majority of the information in the reply was correct."

Apparently it is sufficient for Ministers these days to aim at only a pass mark in a parliamentary answer.

Since then, I have received figures which confirm how badly the expansion of community care has failed to match the contraction of institutional care. Between 1979 and 1986, 28,500 long-stay patients were discharged from mental health hospitals into the community. In that same period, only 2,230 extra places were provided in day centres for the mentally ill. In other words, fewer than one in 10 of those discharged to the community had the opportunity of a place which could provide them with support and the opportunity of comfort. One can, of course, find excellent cases of an integrated range of community care facilities right across the country, from Dorset to Lambeth. It is all the more lamentable that, given those illustrations of what is possible, the majority of cases fall so far short.

A number of studies now confirm that, for most of those leaving care in an institution, care in the community is a myth. For starters, if the statutory authorities are going to deliver care in the community, they must know where to find the former patients who will receive that care. One study of 50 patients discharged from Claybury mental hospitals could trace only 26. Of those 26 who were traced, only six had a place at any day centure. A study of 150 patients discharged from mental hospitals in Essex could trace only 100. Two thirds of those traced had received no help since leaving hospital.

That is not just a problem for the authorities: it is a source of distress for the relatives. A son—perhaps even a wife—may have a serious mental health condition, but his parents may not know where he is—whether he is in accommodation, whether he is being fed or whether he is going through an acute episode or is in a stable condition.

The reality is that, although we may not know where any one patient might be, we have an accurate idea of where they turn up. Hon. Members can find some of them under railway arches within strolling distance of the House. One medical study of the homeless who attended the Crisis at Christmas venue last year discovered that more than half of them had a history of psychotic disorder, and one third displayed psychotic symptoms that very night; yet two thirds of them had no contact with any medical centre.

They also turn up in our remand centres, because it is more convenient for our society to label their behaviour as criminal than to respond to their medical or social needs. At the time of the Rampton disorders, I tabled a parliamentary Question to the Government, from the answer to which I discovered that one in six of those who were inmates at the Rampton remand centre at the time were formerly in-patients at psychiatric hospitals. As Dr. Kilgour, the director of medical services of Her Majesty's prisons, has said:

"My colleagues and I find ourselves having to handle people who are inappropriately committed to custodial sentence due, to put it bluntly, to the failure of the community to provide suitable facilities for them."

I read in The Daily Telegraph last week that this problem has now surfaced in the consciousness of the Prime Minister. Confronted with the closure of Friern Barnet hospital in her constituency, the Prime Minister has ordered plans for further hospital closures to be frozen. I am glad that someone in the Government has recognised the problem, but that emphatically cannot be a permanent solution. Many of our present stock of mental health hospitals were built by the Victorians. Some of them were built as the local poorhouses—places of punishment and detention rather than of medical treatment. The solution is not to perpetuate those conditions indefinitely, but to make a reality of community care by providing the services that are needed to support the patients who leave the hospitals—to provide them with small-scale residential communities, with day hospitals and drop-in centres, and with sheltered employment opportunities, because many of those leaving hospital want to work.

This morning, West Lothian Poverty Action Forum in my constituency published an excellent report that allows claimants to speak in their own voices. I was much struck by the observation of one disabled claimant about the trap in which he found himself. He had no experience; therefore he could get no job. He could get no job; therefore, he could obtain no experience. Only community provision can help him to break out of that trap.

That brings me back to the Government's failure to respond to Sir Roy's recommendations to improve care in the community. There are plenty of reasons why we should treat the report with caution. Indeed, if I suspected that that was why the Government were taking so long to respond to the report, I would treat the delay with more understanding and tolerance. Sir Roy's report contains no commitment to extra resources to make community care work. There is nothing about enabling users to participate in the planning of services or to contribute to the management of those services when they are up and running. For all the rhetoric about consumerism in the report, Sir Roy has produced a design intended to improve lines of managerial accountability, not to make the services accountable to the users.

The hon. Gentleman has criticised the Government for the length of time in responding to the Griffiths report. As I understand it, the Labour party policy review did not agree with Griffiths, in so far as Griffiths calls for local authorities to be more the organisers and purchasers of services instead of the providers. Why is the Labour party so keen on the local authority being the provider? Is that because of the continued obeisance of the Labour party to the trade unions?

It is true that one reason why the Labour party remains committed to public provision is that public provision overwhelmingly provides better working conditions for those who provide the service. We do not believe that a caring and compassionate service can be provided for those in need if it is based on the exploitation of the workers in the service.

It is certainly not the case that we have failed to respond to Griffiths. We have produced major documents in response to the Griffiths report. We have differences with Griffiths. We believe that in many respects he was in error partly because of the remit that he was given by Treasury Ministers and that that explains why he was unable to recommend extra resources. We believe that it is inexcusable that the Government will not tell us whether they agree with Griffiths and, if they fail to agree with him, what they will put in place of Griffiths.

The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has put his finger on the major reason why Ministers have been delaying a response to Griffiths. That has not happened because Griffiths failed to recommend extra resources—that must commend the report, rather than be a handicap in the Government's eyes. Ministers have behaved like paralysed rabbits for the past year as a result of the sheer horror that they must feel at Griffiths's central recommendation. As the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East said, the central recommendation is that if we are serious about care in the community, more responsibility and control of resources will have to be given to local authorities which provide the services in the community. That message is as welcome to No. 10 as telling the Prime Minister that Labour has a 14-point lead in the opinion polls.

The Prime Minister has presided over a sustained strategy of undermining local government, which has abolished the local authorities which she liked least, which has cribbed and confined with restrictions the right to express political opinions of those local authorities which remain, and which is currently compelling the authorities to hand over many of their services to private contractors.

After a decade of running down local government, the Prime Minister and her Ministers have received a report which advises them that, in this matter at least, they cannot do without local government. It tells them that, if they are serious about caring for the elderly and providing for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped, they need local government. Rumours are surfacing in the press that a compromise has been worked out in the Cabinet and that local authorities will be designated as the lead agencies in community care, but that they are to be denied any opportunity to demonstrate leadership because they will be stripped of all responsibility for direct provision of services.

The Adam Smith Institute recently threw a party to celebrate its 100th proposal to be accepted by the Government. It has produced a document along the lines that I have just described. It justifies preventing local authorities from making direct provision on the following grounds:

"Government's priority should be to encourage the growth of the private sector. No initiative by Government should undermine that independent sector or attempt to compete with it."

There is a remarkable double standard there. Local authorities are to be obliged to put all their services out to competitive tendering, but the private sector is protected from competition by the local authority. Given the Adam Smith solution to the Hong Kong problem, we should all be grateful that it is not proposing that we should sweep up the mentally ill and put them down on the Mull of Kintyre.

It cannot be emphasised too strongly that local authorities are the largest single providers of residential and domiciliary care; they understand the needs of people requiring community care; that they have acquired unrivalled experience and professional skills in running community care; and that it would be pure ideological vandalism to break up that service—and we shall fight any proposals to do so.

In the meantime, scandalous examples of the failure of community care continue to accumulate. I mentioned that former patients can be found in hostels for the homeless and in remand centres. Tragically, they also turn up as the subjects of inquests, such as that currently being held into the death of Beverley Lewis. Deaf, blind and handicapped from rubella, and unable to demand help herself, she starved to death in the community in the year since Griffiths. Tragic though her case is, it does not compare with the much greater scandal of the delay and indifference with which Ministers treated Griffiths over that same year. We have already lost a whole year. It is because we believe that there is no more time to lose that we shall vote tonight for an urgent response from the Government.

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

"commends the Government's record on the development and funding of community services for all people in need of care; reaffirms its support for the policy of community care; believes that it will be complemented and strengthened by the proposals contained in the Government's White Paper, 'Working for Patients'; and looks forward to an announcement of the Government's conclusions on Sir Roy Griffiths' report, 'Community Care: Agenda for Action', in the near future."

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for making out an excellent case for my early preferment. However, I do not believe that his recommendation will be entirely productive.

I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, who is chairing a conference of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, which is an important and long-standing engagement. My response will be as brief as possible, because I know that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. If I catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, and with the leave of the House, I shall seek to answer some of the questions that will arise.

What do we mean by care in the community? For the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, we mean providing care away from the large, isolated and inhumane Victorian institutions that for so long have been the hallmark of institutional care. That policy has existed for 20 years, shared with differential rates of fervour by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We want to move away from a regime that involves long-stay facilities, hostels, houses—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) will pay me the courtesy, as she usually does, of listening to my arguments—

It is not worth it.

The hon. Gentleman's remark is a little premature. If he will listen to what I have to say, I shall do him the courtesy of listening to his contribution.

We want to move away from a regime of institutional care in isolated, Victorian institutions to a system whereby we provide a range of facilities much closer to the community.

We want to enable more elderly people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible before institutional care becomes necessary and unavoidable. I quote from the report of the Public Accounts Committee laid on 25 April 1988, which I am sure the hon. Member for Livingston read:

"We draw attention to the fact that up to 23 per cent. of claimants"—

that is claimants of income support—

"entering residential homes could have stayed in their own homes for longer periods had appropriate community support services been made available."

Although not all right hon. and hon. Members may agree with that figure, I am sure that they accept the broad thrust of the Committee's argument.

The Government want to ensure that a greater proportion of the elderly can stay in their own homes for as long as possible, and we fully appreciate that that requires proper domiciliary support. If the elderly are allowed to remain in their own homes they retain their dignity and independence, and are closer to their friends and families. It is a more effective use of taxpayers' money to care for the elderly in their own homes, which is where they want to receive care, rather than in institutions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Lancaster health authority was the first in the country to provide round-the-clock nursing care for those who stay in their own homes? We have two large institutions, and we pioneered the kind of service to which my hon. Friend has referred.

My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to Lancaster. There are many examples of excellent community care facilities, although I regret to say that there are also many areas where they are not excellent. I shall deal with that a little later.

I support what the Minister has said about the importance of people being able to stay independent in their own homes. Does he not recognise, however, that one of the recruiting sergeants for residential care—both public and, increasingly, private—is the present difficulty of obtaining home helps and meals on wheels, compared with 10 years ago? Local authority social service and voluntary sector provision have not kept pace with the growing number of people who need such services.

One of the challenges in any review of community care provision is the need to look carefully at how taxpayers' money is spent. I agree that there is a strong case for using taxpayers' money for the care of the elderly in their own homes—and the hon. Lady listed a range of services—rather than in hospital, if they are cured, or in nursing or residential homes. There must be a case for providing proper support for those who wish to stay in their own homes.

What was Sir Roy asked to do in his report? He was not asked, as the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, to consider the level of resources; he was asked to consider how we should decide which elderly and handicapped people should be cared for in the community, what help should be provided and who should make the necessary judgment. What did he suggest? As we all know, he suggested that the social services authorities should have prime responsibility for assessing and arranging, although they should not necessarily have monopoly in the provision of services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) said in an intervention, Sir Roy recommended a range of provision.

The Government will be making a statement about our response to the Griffiths report before the summer recess, but there will also be a debate in Government time at a suitable point thereafter. A substantial amount of time has been devoted to considering the implications of the report, and I remind the House that different Departments are involved: the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security, the Treasury and, of course, the Department of Health. It is very complicated to work through all the implications, and it would be much better to get the analysis right than to rush it.

The hon. Member for Livingston said that this was the third debate on community care in seven months. It will probably be the last occasion for the Government to listen to comments and advice from the House before we announce our conclusions.

The Minister has given the impression that existing facilities and services were being supported. Is not the Treasury at this very moment discussing with the Department of the Environment reductions in local authority provision, which means that next year authorities will not be able to spend as much on home and meals at home for the elderly? While we are discussing the matter, the service is being reduced. Is that not the reality?

No, it is not the reality. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal shortly with social services provision and the resources devoted to local authorities.

I am puzzled by the Opposition motion. It

"expresses concern that the sole focus on the acute sector of the White Paper Working for Patients will further divert resources from chronic care".

The hon. Member for Livingston has obviously given some careful thought to the wording of the motion. Provision for care in the community was deliberately omitted from the White Paper. We wanted sufficient time in which to prepare a proper response. That will come shortly. There are two reasons why the hon. Member for Livingston needs further time in which to reflect on the phrasing of an appropriate motion. He knows that the White Paper "Working for Patients" does not have as its sole focus acute care. Many of the proposals concern primary care.

The responsibility for providing a comprehensive range of health services for all people, including those in the community—the elderly, the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill—will rest firmly under our proposals with the district health authority. It will be the purchaser of care. Who that care is provided for will depend on a variety of circumstances. The district health authority will be responsible for the balance and range of services that are required and for the care of everyone, including those in the community. By definition, a community health service must be provided locally. The district health authority will have the primary responsibility for ensuring that it is provided.

The Government say that they have not yet responded to Griffiths because they are considering the whole range of responses and want to consider them all carefully. Why, therefore, have the Government not held a debate so that hon. Members could give their responses to Griffiths, which could also be considered by the Government?

We are having a debate on Griffiths today.

But in our time.

I have already said that when the Government respond to the Griffiths report there will, at a suitable time, be a debate in Government time.

Will my hon. Friend remind hon. Members how many debates we have had on the subject in the last two years?

I have already said that this is the third debate within six months.

The hon. Member for Livingston implied that the Treasury was cutting the resources that are made available to local authorities. He should know that personal social services are provided through the local authority. Expenditure in real terms on personal social services increased by 25 per cent. between 1980 and 1989. The provision for personal social services in 1989–90 has increased by 10 per cent. in cash terms. National Health Service provision for community heath services, such as district nurses, health visitors, chiropody, occupational therapy and community psychiatric nurses increased by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1986–87. There has been real growth in the amount of resources devoted to community health services. Income support for the elderly in residential and nursing homes has increased substantially, to approximately £1 billion of taxpayers' money.

Unlike many of my colleagues, I think that the Government have responded to the Griffiths report. They have done so by setting up a structure in "Working for Patients" that makes community care very difficult indeed. The assumption is that most health care is of the "wheel them in horizontal and wheel them out vertical" kind, rather than of a continuing nature, which is what is required by many patients. Is the Minister able to say how many times mental health is mentioned in "Working for Patients"?

I hope that I have made it plan that "Working for Patients" was directed at reforms in primary care and the hospital service and that we shall he responding shortly as to community care for the mentally ill, handicapped and elderly. The district health authorities will be responsible for ensuring that there is a complete range of provision for all those patients.

Turning to mental illness, the hon. Member for Livingston was perfectly fair on the House, and I agree with him, about the rundown in the number of beds in mental hospitals. Between 1977 and 1987, patient numbers have reduced from some 84,000 to some 60,000—a reduction of about 24,000. Over the same 10 years, local authorities and the Health Service have provided about 11,000 places. Day hospital places have increased by 5,000 to 18,000, residential places have increased by 4,000 to 9,000 and places at day centres have increased by 2.000 to 6,000. Between 1981 and 1986, the number of community psychiatric nurses doubled.

Hon. Members who contribute to the debate will share the hon. Gentleman's concern and mine that in the past there has not been adequate provision for those discharged from large psychiatric hospitals. There is no question about that. However, I must make two points. First, any discharge from a mental institution, in the past, or today, is a clinical decision and is not taken by administrators or politicians. Secondly, some of those patients go home where they are properly cared for. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman made a fair point. I agree with him that the provision of facilities in the community is not uniformly adequate and in the past some authorities have discharged patients from mental hospitals without ensuring that there was proper and adequate care. That is one issue that we shall address in our response to Griffiths.

I shall make one final point about hospital closures. At a recent Question Time, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked me a question, and perhaps my answer was not as clear as it should have been. Let me make it quite plain that we have pursued the policy, and shall continue to pursue it with great vigour, of ensuring that a hospital closes only as a consequence of adequate facilities being available in the community and not for financial reasons. I give the House that very clear assurance.

In my constituency there is a large psychiatric hospital from which large numbers of people have been discharged. As any hon. Member in that position will know, one receives a constant stream of complaints from neighbours, relatives, staff who work in the hospital or patients themselves that people are being discharged into the community for financial reasons. The most extreme case that has come to my notice involved three people who were discharged into the community, and two of them committed suicide.

I want to make it quite plain that discharge from psychiatric hospitals is a matter of clinical judgment. It is not for administrators, politicians or ministerial judgment. Hospitals will not close for financial reasons. In future, hospitals will close only when we are satisfied that there are adequate facilities in the community. That has been Government policy. I am not announcing or stating new policy, I am simply emphasising existing policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that considerable pressure is being brought by managers on consultants to discharge patients because they want to empty the hospital to realise its capital value for development? I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friend the Minister—I know that my hon. Friend is deeply committed to the problems of the mentally handicapped, mentally ill and elderly—are aware that great pressure is being brought on consultants which inevitably could affect their clinical decisions.

I do not deny that that pressure exists. Intelligent ways to ensure the release now of the capital value of sites that are under-utilised are already being pursued in the Health Service. Before a hospital is closed, residential facilities must already be in place. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the practice in the Oxford and East Anglian regions, which have excellent bridging finance schemes, and the practice in Yorkshire—

Not enough is done.

The bridging schemes work well in the Oxford and East Anglian regions; perhaps other regions should learn lessons from them. In Yorkshire, where only part of the mental hospital site which I have in mind is used, there has been an imaginative sale and lease-back of facilities, so that all the present patients are properly cared for in existing facilities but substantial capital is released now to construct new facilities. Other measures which the Government have under consideration must await the response to the Griffiths report.

We know of the importance of the timetable as we discussed these matters. I should like to ask the Minister, as we do not have the benefit of hearing from the Secretary of State for Health, about the press reports last week that the famous committee E, which is apparently considering this matter, received evidence. As the Secretary of State is here, perhaps he will take the opportunity to try to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that no one would object. Is it true that the Adam Smith Institute has submitted a paper to that committee and that it will submit a revised paper in two weeks' time?

The newspaper reports are inaccurate.

In what respect?

The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) asked me whether there was a moratorium on the closure of hospitals. I have told him that those newspaper reports are inaccurate. I have described the Government's policy on mental hospitals. When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to contribute in greater detail, I shall be happy to respond.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) referred to mentally ill people who are languishing in prison and on remand. Does the hon. Gentleman have plans to monitor how many people who previously had serious psychiatric disorders are in prison? What does he intend to do to ensure that this tragic business stops once and for all?

The Home Office has commissioned a study of all patients in remand centres and long-stay prisons to ascertain how many are suffering from a form of mental illness. As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, the estimates of prisoners who have some form of mental illness range from 3 per cent. to 30 per cent. Undoubtedly, a number of prisoners in the prison service should not be in prisons but should be either in special hospitals or in mental institutions with some form of security. We are working closely with the Home Office to ascertain the numbers and to work out how initially those people can avoid the criminal system and how those who go through it can be moved, with proper security, to mental institutions.

We have already laid it down that by 1991 all district health authorities should have comprehensive care programmes for the mentally ill. We shall issue guidelines shortly to those health authorities to show how they should put those care programmes in place and what form they should take. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is drawing up guidelines on standards to assess patients before discharge and to ensure that there is proper follow-up thereafter. I assure the House that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health and his Cabinet colleagues are reaching a conclusion on the Griffiths report, they will cover the important aspect of mental illness.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that comprehensive care programmes and plans are not worth the paper they are written on if they are not backed up by comprehensive funding? Does he realise that the constituents who write to me are caught between the Scylla of seeing their relatives in mental hospitals with declining levels of care and others under increasing pressure as funding becomes tighter and the Charybdis of having their relatives in the community, with cuts in the number of home helps, meals-on-wheels services and in the general level of funding and provision in the community? We want to see some action on finance, not merely vague programmes.

I shall deal with the elderly shortly. I commend the arrangements that Oxford region has put in place to transfer capital and revenue funding from large hospitals that are slowly being run down into proper provision, facilities and staffing in the community for mentally handicapped people. We should like such a model to be applied throughout the Health Service.

Between 1976 and 1986 there was a fall of 15,000 in the number of mentally handicapped patients being cared for in larger institutions. All those patients have returned to the community. Some have returned to their homes, but about 8,000 are using day and residential care facilities. Our closure policy for mental-handicap institutions is the same as that for mental-illness institutions.

Residental or village communities may be part of the new range of facilities that will be built in the future. As long as those village or residential communities for mentally handicapped people are not isolated or inward looking, they will have an important role to play. Hon. Members have a duty to explain to our local communities the importance of caring for mentally handicapped people in the community. Too often, we learn of community groups' opposition and of planning permission for the purchase and construction of small homes in the community for mentally handicapped people being contested.