I wish to present a petition which reads:

To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Parliament assembled the humble petition of Robert Neil Franklin, Nigel Glen Pearce, Brian William Palmer and Judith Ball and 9,000 other signatories sheweth that the planned disposal of the world's last airworthy Vulcan is by public auction in the last quarter of the year of 1992 as ordered by the Ministry of Defence.

Nigel Pearce, my constituent, Bob Franklin, Brian Palmer and Judith Ball have been instrumental in getting together a countrywide petition with 9,000 signatures which is designed to void the auction because they believe that this entirely British-built bomber—British-built to the last nut and bolt—which last saw distinguished service in the Falklands should not be auctioned but should be saved for posterity. The bomber has given distinguished service and has countrywide—perhaps worldwide—support.

The petition continues:

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House halt this planned public auction and obtain the XH558 B2 Vulcan as part of our national heritage as a flying work of art; it being the only flying Vulcan left in the world. It is totally British made, being the very first B2 strategic bomber in service in the RAF and the last. Statistics show that every Vulcan sold previously has never flown again. We beseech you to determine this does not happen again; and your Petitioners, as in duty hound, will ever pray.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether during the recess you would care to reflect on the issue of questions on the recipients of the civil list. A number of issues are now being raised, through questions and early-day motions, about expenditure of the civil list. My motion has been submitted to the Clerks and has been altered. I make no criticism of that because it has probably been improved since my original draft.

As a result of the scrutiny of questions and early-day motions, there are sometimes unnecessary delays. Questions on the expenditure of the civil list are not reflections on the Sovereign, but are an essential component of the functions of Parliament. People who are in receipt of taxpayers' money are subject to questioning without much delay in the Table Office. Such questioning should extend to recipients of the civil list.

All I ask, Madam Speaker, is that over the recess you reflect on the matter to see whether the caution that affects the procedure for tabling questions and early-day motions can be reduced to ensure that access is given to Members of Parliament to ensure the scrutiny that has been a function of Parliament over many years.

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman says. There are procedures about these matters. I will do as the hon. Gentleman requests. I am always interested to look at these matters, and during the recess I will reflect on the point he raised.

I thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker, and for giving Wirral Members the opportunity to debate the issue. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is here and I know that he hopes to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. As in the first debate on shipbuilding in which I participated, I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) is in his place. There was never a shipbuilding debate in which the two of us did not take part.

I will set the background to the debate, and I hope that others will continue it. We shall then wait with great interest for the Minister's reply. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box on the first occasion on which we have met in debate in the Chamber. I welcome him to his position not only because of his ability, but because he represents a seat, not in the north but in the south, which has been hit by high unemployment. Unlike many Ministers, this Minister is well acquainted with the underlying theme of our debate.

Perhaps I might begin with a comment on the role that Cammell Laird plays in the Wirral. It is very difficult to think of Birkenhead and the Wirral without a shipyard—not that the men and women who work in the yard believe that they are owed a job or that they have the right for ever and a day to build ships. I happen to believe that there is a role for shipbuilding at Cammell Laird in the future, and not just the immediate future. The men and women working in the yard look forward to other opportunities of deploying their skills for the good of themselves, their families, their town, their area and their country.

This debate is an attempt to persuade the Government to give our town and other towns similarly placed the breathing space that they need to move from being wholly dependent on military contracts to obtaining contracts in the civilian sector. Other Wirral Members will want to catch the Chair's eye today to make this point, too.

Shortly after the 1979 election, the shop stewards wished to set up an all-party group of Members to protect and promote their interests in this place, and although the electorate have made changes in the composition of the Wirral group of Members who represent them in this House, there has been no change in the commitment on the part of those Members to honouring the pledge given back in 1979.

My predecessor, Edmund Dell, was a Cabinet Minister; he made sure that no shipping order was agreed to by the Cabinet before Laird's interests were fully debated. Equally, without the expertise of the yard it would have received no orders at all after 1979. The Wirral group of Members made sure that the yard competed on equal terms; had they not done so, no orders might have been placed after 1979.

The President of the Board of Trade told the shop stewards when he met them recently a little bit of the history of the placing of a crucial order after a sit-in in the yard. I should like to tell a little more of that story, because it is highly relevant to this debate.

I recall the horrendous experience that we went through in the yard when Lord Tebbit was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. A small group of workers thought that, if they called everyone out on strike, Lord Tebbit would be more inclined to give them an order than if they were working. At three mass meetings of the yard, the workers had refused to follow that line, but this tiny group persisted with their strategy and in the end managed to persuade one of the smallest groups in the shipyard to declare a strike and put up barriers around the yard.

It is entirely to the credit of the men and women who walked through rent-a-mob back to work at that time that we are holding this debate today. Had they not shown that courage, the yard would certainly have closed. Many of those men and women are still working in the yard and are having to accept redundancy quietly and with dignity. They walk away down the road without causing industrial strife, knowing that if they caused it to protect their own jobs they would bring every other job down around their ears at Cammell Laird.

After the men and women of the yard broke the sit-in, the Government were about to place a number of frigate orders for which Laird competed. When he met the shop stewards recently, the President of the Board of Trade said that there has been no special treatment for Laird. The yard won the order by fair competition.

As the Minister of State for Defence Procurement knows, when the Government are about to place such orders, there is a frenzy of activity among hon. Members on both sides anxious to win the orders for their areas—knowing that if they win them they will put at risk jobs in other areas. Their first moral duty, however, is clearly to the people who sent them here.

During the negotiations for this key order, the Wirral Members were sure that the competition was being rigged against Laird, but they did not know how. Late one night, one of the Members who was sure that his yard had won the orders came out of the bar and poked me with his finger saying, "Our tender has won both orders." I prayed that my face did not betray the crucial information that he had given me. We had had to put in tenders for the two boats, so we immediately knew that the Department of Trade and Industry, as then run, was asking for our fixed costs to be spread across both orders, whereas other yards were being allowed to submit a single order for both boats.

I relayed this information to the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), who relayed it to the man who is now President of the Board of Trade, who, in turn insisted in Cabinet that the then Prime Minister should not have her way and award the order to Swan Hunter: he insisted that it was his responsibility to place the order. There was no discussion in Cabinet; the Prime Minister decided that she, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would meet afterwards to agree the order, whereupon a prime ministerial minute would be noted.

That was the first time that I realised how Cabinet is run. Far from everyone joining in and debating an issue, everyone meekly accepted that there should be no debate around the Cabinet table and agreed that this crucial question should be decided separately.

The then Defence Secretary, now President of the Board of Trade, won the order for Laird not because he favoured it or felt a special attraction for Merseyside but because he had taken the trouble to phone the yard to ask what its single tender for both boats would be. On that basis, Laird won the competition fairly and squarely on price.

Even in its current desperate situation, Laird is not asking for special treatment. We are asking the House to reflect on the consequences of the Government's "Options for Change". There seems to be no dispute in the House about the correctness of the strategy. Given the massive changes in eastern Europe, it seems right to adjust our defence budget accordingly—although I would enter a note of caution. We welcome the changes in the east, but for the past nine months or more tribalism has been emerging across much of Europe—not merely the old-fashioned tribalism that we experienced before the rise of the nation state, but tribalism armed with weapons, some of them nuclear.

I therefore do not follow the conventional wisdom, often expressed in this Chamber and more often out side it, that the world is a safer place now that the Soviet empire has disintegrated. I think it is a much less safe place. The Government have begun the necessary task of debating and implementing "Options for Change" and the sort of strategy and weapons that we will need to back up the programme in a world in which tribalism reigns. This will necessitate a very different procurement programme from the one that we have followed since the war.

I end with the need for the Government to think about how badly placed some of these communities are. They have served the Government well by expertly fulfilling their procurement programme in the past. We do not hold out a begging bowl or ask for outdoor relief from the Ministry of Defence or anywhere else. Our plea is that we be given time to adjust. I hope that the Minister in replying will discuss the programme of the immediate future for placing naval orders. Perhaps more importantly than that for our shipyards, I hope that he can tell us something about the placing of refit work. If he can, I trust that he will give an undertaking that when those orders, particularly for the refit work, are placed, the Government will consider any serious bid and not confine themselves to the bodies which normally compete for refit work.

We do not simply need work; we need work behind which there is a business programme—I am happy to use that buzz phrase—which considers how yards will make the adjustment over the next few years to ensure that we can continue to build merchant and naval ships in this country. We should be able to take the massive skills in our shipyards safely into other employment which is unconnected with military trade.

That is the plea that I make this morning, and I am sure that other hon. Members will wish to reinforce it. I am grateful for this opportunity to open the debate and to set out the needs of my constituents before we rise for the summer recess.

I am obliged for this opportunity to speak in the debate. I cannot hope to match the eloquence of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I hope to match him in the intensity of feeling that we share on the Wirral.

The hon. Gentleman has the honour to represent Birkenhead, which is perhaps not the prettiest town in the world, but it is our town. It is my town in the sense that I was born there and I count that as great an honour as the hon. Gentleman has in representing the town. My first memory of the shipyard was the launching of the Ark Royal by the Queen Mother in 1953. The history of Birkenhead and the Wirral is of a people who, if they did not work in the yard, certainly had a relation who worked in it or was in some way connected with the yard. It has that proud history, but it has it in common with many other shipbuilding towns, some of which no longer have yards.

I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Birkenhead said. Compassion is not a word that springs easily to the lips of hon. Members when my name is mentioned, but that cannot be said of the hon. Member for Birkenhead. We are not here today on a compassionate basis. We are not here to ask for money, because I know full well that there will not be any. In fact, we have been told that.

Over the past few years, we have, in our various guises, explored every avenue: we have scraped, scratched, seen potential purchasers and looked for orders. With the help of Ministers and others, and especially with the help of the work force in the yard, we have been able, in our own small way, to keep the yard in existence.

If the yard were to disappear, it would not simply be a disaster for the people of the Wirral; in view of what the hon. Member for Birkenhead has said, it would be a disaster for the country as well. The hon. Gentleman was correct to say that the world is not a safer place: it is an infinitely more dangerous place. While I can understand the reasons for "Options for Change", I believe that we should be moving cautiously.

To stray from the subject of the debate for a moment, I must say in respect of "Options for Change" that I have reservations about the merger of the Cheshire Regiment with the Staffordshire Regiment. Indeed, I do not simply have reservations about the merger; I oppose it root and branch and I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

We are not here to ask for money. We are not holding out the bowl. We are here to try to find a way forward, and the hon. Member for Birkenhead has already said what that way forward might be. He encapsulated in a phrase what we are asking for when he referred to a "breathing space".

It is possible that there will be other types of work in the vicinity around Liverpool and Morecambe bays which the yard could take up in future. We might not build ships in future, although I hope that that is not the case. There is certainly other work on the horizon and that horizon is not too far distant.

We have nearly a year before Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. closes down Cammell Laird unless something happens. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit and ingenuity of the Government to find something during that time to allow the yard to continue and so allow the people of the Wirral to maintain that proud heritage.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for his ingenuity in securing the debate. I also thank other hon. Members with interests on the Wirral and elsewhere for taking the time to come to the Chamber to put their case today.

I want to supplement what has already been said and consider the effect that closure of the yard will have on the local community. The view is that closure would be catastrophic. At the moment, about 1,000 people are directly employed at Cammell Laird, but some 5,000 to 6,000 other local jobs in supply industries are thought to be dependent on the yard.

The Wirral saw a dramatic collapse in its economy during the 1980s. There was a 15 per cent. fall in the proportion of people employed in manufacturing over that period. Of the nine divisions of the standard industrial classification, there were modest rises in only two of them in the Wirral over the period—in banking, insurance and financial services and the public sector. There were serious falls in the other seven divisions. There was a 22 per cent. fall in the shipbuilding, engineering and vehicle industry division, and that was above the national average.

We are talking about a closure against the background of an already seriously depressed manufacturing sector and local economy. In 1971, 10,000 people were employed in the yard in shipbuilding. I agree with the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) that most people who live in the area have worked in the yard or have relatives who have worked there. If the yard were to close, the effect on the psychology of the area for manufacturing and commercial investment and on individual confidence would be hard to grasp as being anything other than catastrophic.

Unemployment in the Wirral is currently 14 per cent., although there are patches of much higher unemployment, particularly of the long-term unemployed who often tend to be skilled people who used to work in manufacturing and who simply cannot find jobs in other areas. There is also a very large youth unemployment problem which causes social problems. There are 19,088 officially unemployed people in the Wirral—one in seven of the work force. It is estimated that closure of the yard would add 2 per cent. to that total.

We must bear in mind the fact that many of Cammell Laird's materials and services are bought locally. More than 600 local firms supply goods and services to the yard to an estimated value of £30 million. It is clear from what I have said that closure would have a serious effect. The local authority estimates that closure would cost the public exchequer about £111 million at current prices as a direct cost in lost tax revenues, increased welfare payments and retaining costs.

The solution to the problem has already been outlined to some extent in our debate. All Wirral Members want to keep the yard open. Indeed, it is crucial that it remains open. In the past decade or so, demand in the yard has been influenced by two effects. The first has emerged over the past two years in the form of "Options for Change" and the implications of a reduction in naval building as a result of welcome changes in the world's political environment and our defence needs. The second effect was the general shrinking of shipbuilding.

However, there is evidence that there will be an upturn in shipbuilding over the next decade if we can just maintain our capacity long enough to take advantage of it. It has been suggested that almost three quarters of the world's tanker fleet is more than 10 years old. The normal life span of a tanker is approximately 20 years. There will therefore be plenty of business in that area and we will be in a good position to compete for that so long as the yard exists.

Diversification made necessary by "Options for Change" involves an attempt to move to civil engineering. There is the Hamilton oil development at Point of Ayr, and, as the hon. Member for Wirral, South said, there is much potential work to be had in the Liverpool bay oilfields and in the Morecambe bay area. Cammell Laird would be in a good position to take advantage of that.

I add my voice to pleas for a breathing space, so that, after 1993, when what is left of our contracts will have run out, we can diversify and renew our ability to compete in a revived shipbuilding market and ensure that that crucial manufacturing sector for the Wirral and for the country can be maintained and protected.

I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on his success in choosing this subject. It is an important and timely debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead and for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) and the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) expressed the earnest hope of my constituents in Barrow that the Cammell Laird shipyard is able to remain open and enjoy a successful commercial future in the decades that lie ahead. We share a common heritage. We are shipbuilding communities and we are immensely proud of our traditions and contributions to the economy and defence of this country over many decades. It is tremendously sad to see a great shipyard such as Cammell Laird struggle and be unclear about its future. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments offering a decent future for the shipyard at Cammell Laird.

My constituents and I look to the Government to give a sign that they are conscious of the immense upheaval and distress that "Options for Change" is causing. Hon. Members welcomed the end of the cold war and recognised the immense opportunities that that offered the peoples of the world. At the same time, many constituencies have more to lose than anyone else as a result of the changes. As hon. Members have said, we do not have a begging bowl, but we are legitimately entitled to ask the Government to recognise that reductions in shipuilding capacity are tremendously difficult to replace. The shipyards are strategically important, and not only for our defence needs. As we know, it is immensely difficult to predict 10 or 15 years ahead—perhaps even three or four years ahead—what our defence needs will be and it is virtually impossible to replace a reduction in capability and investment. I hope that the Government are taking that point fully into account.

I do not believe that, as a maritime nation, we can afford to see great shipyards such as Cammell Laird, Birkenhead and VSEL in Barrow go down the plughole. It would be criminal for the Government to sit back and allow that to happen.

I want the Government to recognise that it is incumbent upon them to encourage a policy which will reward innovation and promote investment. We have heard about the immense opportunities that are available in offshore marine engineering, oil and gas exploration, submersible vehicles and perhaps remote-operated vehicles. We have a capability in our shipyards, not only in my constituency but in others, to take advantage of what many believe will be a buoyant, worldwide market for marine engineering products. The Government have a responsibility to tell us what steps they will take to promote those developments.

Underpinning those points is a requirement that the Government recognise the immense economic potential in many shipbuilding communities. In the past, many of our constituencies have been dependent on providing ships for the Ministry of Defence. In my constituency, we have exclusively worked for the Ministry of Defence for at least the past 20 years and for a long time before that, but we have a wider capability than that. My interest in the matter leads me to conclude that the Government should introduce an expansion of the intervention fund scheme so that naval yards such as VSEL and Cammell Laird can take advantage of that source of funding.

Hon. Members who represent shipbuilding communities want clearer information from the Government about their future naval procurement policies. In 1986, when VSEL in my constituency left British Shipbuilders and became a private company, we were expecting 27 SSNs from the Government and, along with our colleagues in Cammell Laird, we expected to build 15 of the Upholder SSK class. Following "Options for Change", those projections of 27 SSNs and 15 SSKs became 19 SSNs and only four SSKs. That is a huge reduction in the work load of Cammell Laird and VSEL. We want clearer information about the Government's future procurement policies and their strategy in respect of maintaining a vibrant shipbuilding industry. I am confident that our shipyards and shipbuilding communities can make a huge contribution to revitalising British engineering. The success of British engineering lies at the root and heart of the success of British manufacturing.

I have found today's debate a rather moving experience, because what the House of Commons does best is what has been happening in this short Adjournment debate—Members of Parliament fighting articulately for the interests of their constituents, particularly at a time of considerable anxiety and worry over the future of Cammell Laird.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for the realistic way in which he opened the debate. He certainly struck a chord with me when he said that it would be hard to think of Birkenhead and the Wirral without a shipyard. Almost my first job in politics was to work as private secretary for some years for the right hon. Selwyn Lloyd, who was born and bred in the Wirral. I spent many weekends working for him and sometimes answering mail from his constituents who worked at Cammell Laird. It is obviously a fine tradition of the area to have not just profound local pride but deep local roots, as exemplified by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) who, like Selwyn Lloyd, was born there. Hon. Members could hear in my hon. Friend's speech great commitment to a local area.

I was glad to hear expressions of deep pride in Cammell Laird. They were entirely justified, because the yard has an enviable record of building warships and a wide range of merchant vessels to a high standard.

The Minister will recall that, a week ago last Monday, he met a delegation from my constituency about the future of Inchterf, the proof and experimental range. Unfortunately, we have had an official decision to close the range. That has deeply saddened my community on the eve of the Glasgow fair holidays. I repeat the request from Strathclyde regional council and Strathkelvin district council that the Minister should visit the location before September when the decision is to be implemented.

I will certainly consider that request sympathetically. I do not want to respond off the cuff when we are dealing with an entirely different subject. I took carefully into account the hon. Gentleman's representations when he saw me with his delegation only a few days ago.

I again refer to Cammell Laird and remind the House of how great its record of service has been, particularly during the second world war when it made a significant contribution to our defences, with the work force putting their efforts into completing an aircraft carrier, five destroyers, four frigates and seven submarines. Since the war, there has been a continuous record of fine service and achievement. The Ministry of Defence has been very happy with the high quality of work undertaken by Cammell Laird not just over the years but recently on the three Upholder class submarines which are being built in the yard. That order was won in open and fair competition with other yards, and the timely achievement of the build programmes for the submarines was a great credit to the work force and management of the company.

In the few remaining minutes, I shall respond to the specific questions that hon. Members asked, all of which revolved around the plea for a breathing space. I listened sympathetically to that plea. It focused on two main areas—the shipbuilding programme and the ship refitting and repair programme.

The Government currently have in hand a major programme of work in naval shipbuilding aimed at the re-equipment and modernisation of the Royal Navy. We have on order 19 ships and submarines which have not yet been accepted into service by the Royal Navy. The total value of those orders, including the weapons and equipment to be fitted into the ships, amounts to the equivalent of approximately £5 billion at today's price levels.

However, as we have previously announced, there is to be a reduction in the submarine force levels. I have discussed the matter at length with the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). The reduction applies to both conventional and nuclear-powered submarines as well as to frigates and destroyers. However, I am sure that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness was heartened by our announcement last week of the firm order for the fourth Trident submarine.

All the changes on the world international scene and in our shipbuilding programme inevitably mean that a reduction is likely in the work load of the industry generated by Ministery of Defence orders. Overall, the potential capacity is in excess of the likely requirements of the United Kingdom warship building programme. That means that the shipbuilding industry will have to turn to new markets. In some yards, notable successes have been made in winning export orders, such as those for frigates for Malaysia, corvettes for Oman and fast patrol craft for Qatar.

I am afraid that I do not have any great expectation of new naval orders during the period of particular anxiety at Cammell Laird—which I take to be the next 18 months before the work on the submarine programme is completed. I say that simply because we now have in place such a large shipbuilding programme that we do not plan to go to tender for the next batch of type 23s until autumn 1993. The possible order for the helicopter carrier is not likely to go out until late 1993. I am sorry to say that we have no plans to order more patrol submarines in the Upholder class.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead referred to ship refitting opportunities, which are of particular interest to him. All shipyards with the required capability and capacity will be invited to compete for ship refitting work. In the next year or so, that is likely to be predominantly work on the ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. We think that there will be approximately half a dozen refits, mainly of ships of the RFA. The contracts are always well publicised in the MOD contracts bulletin.

If hon. Members are interested in following the procedure, they should look at the recent advertising of the ship refitting requirements for the minesweeper HMS Atherstone. The adverts were published in April and the closing date for the bids is the end of July. Provided that a yard can produce the right price and meet our contractual requirements, there is no reason why it should not win some of the work. The House will appreciate that I cannot give precise details of what work will be offered for competition in the next 18 months or so, but I assure hon. Members that all the contracts will be fully advertised in the contracts bulletin as they arise.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead raised the possibility of a bid from Cammell Laird and asked how it would be treated. It is our policy to consider even unsolicited bids from all those who are qualified to undertake the work. From everything that I know about Cammell Laird, I am sure that it is likely to be fully qualified to undertake such work. All such bids must be received within the published time scale and meet our general requirements of financial guarantees and so on. That is a matter which Cammell Laird could usefully examine.

The hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Eagle) referred to the knock-on effects of unemployment at the shipyard. She said that 5,000 or 6,000 ancillary jobs could be lost in other areas. Of course, I understand that well. The hon. Member for Birkenhead was kind enough to refer to the high unemployment in my constituency. I understand how heartbreaking it is to have the scourge of unemployment, at the levels which exist in both Wallasey and Thanet, South, and on top of that to face the major hammer blow of the closure of a major shipyard. I am well aware of the need for a breathing space and the compassionate view for which my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Wirral, South argued.

It is difficult for the Ministry of Defence to be specific in such cases. I was glad that there was consensus that the world had changed and that "Options For Change" went in the right direction. However, we must continue to recognise that the world is a dangerous place and that we shall continue to need a Royal Navy and well-built and refitted warships.

I recognise the grave effects on local communities when circumstances such as those we are discussing arise. I wish that I had a magic wand to wave to solve the problems. I can only say that we have listened seriously and sympathetically to the good arguments made by all the hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate.

In recent days, at the approaches to Westminster, vivid yellow signs have gone up, warning that there will be no access to Parliament square from Westminster bridge as from 17 July. The significance of that date is clear. The House of Commons rises today for the summer recess and closure before then would be in breach of the Sessional Order requiring Members of Parliament to have free access without let or hindrance to this place.

The purpose of the closure is a £2 million operation to safeguard gas mains and telephone lines in the vicinity, in advance of work on the Jubilee line extension. The closure emphasises the significance and imminence of the issue and the urgency of the problem which I seek to raise this morning. The Jubilee line extension, one of the most exciting infrastructure projects for decades, now hangs in the balance.

London Underground's scheme to extend the Jubilee line from the west end to Stratford in east London via south London, docklands and Greenwich has received all-party support, has passed all the parliamentary hurdles of the lengthy private Bill procedure and is ready to start. However, there must now be real concern that the scheme could be delayed indefinitely.

It is a truism that the strength of a chain lies in its weakest link. It is ironic that, in the case of the Jubilee line extension, the weakest link has proved to be Olympia and York, perhaps the largest developer of property in the world. Under the pressure of the recession, which is especially acute in inner-city areas, both across the Atlantic in the United States and Canada and here at home in London, Olympia and York has been brought to the point of collapse. It is in administration.

Olympia and York was to have made a contribution to the construction costs of the Jubilee line extension. That was right, because the benefits of the underground railway link would greatly enhance the value of the property developed by Olympia and York at Canary wharf.

The contribution was to be £40 million last March, £60 million to follow next year, and £300 million—the balance of the £400 million obligation—over about 20 years. The lengthy period of payment means that with inflation the calculated net present value of the contribution is about £160 million. That is a large sum, but when it is compared to the £1·5 billion value of the whole project, it can be seen as a relatively small amount. If the project foundered for want of this one private sector contribution, it would be like choking to death on a crumb.

Yet the Jubilee line extension is not being built simply to assist the fortunes of property developers. It must be stressed that it is a strategic necessity for south and east London and for our capital city as a whole. Some way must be found to build the line without further delay.

What are the benefits of the Jubilee line extension? First, it would serve inner-city areas in Southwark, Bermondsey, Surrey docks, the north Greenwich peninsula, Canning Town, West Ham and Stratford. The extension would be the first west-east line south of the river, in an area with a traditional paucity of underground lines. Of 272 stations in London, only 28 are south of the river. I speak as one born at Blackheath, who has lived for most of his life south of the river as a south Londoner, apart from a few years spent in north London during the war. I have suffered, with many south Londoners, the disadvantage of not having the ease, convenience and comfort of an underground line. It is long overdue in our part of London.

The line would revitalise and regenerate areas of inner London that have so much need of that process. I note that the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the winners of the city challenge competition this morning—£750 million of public money will go to places such as Hackney and Newham. The latter would benefit from the Jubilee line extension, as would all east London.

The extension is important for local reasons and for the regeneration of London, but it is not simply a little local difficulty. The line would improve access to London's first channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo, thence to Stratford on the proposed fast rail link, and to London City airport. Another irony, which I have already mentioned in the House, is that that part of London which is closest to our new home market of continental Europe should be the least developed. That also points to the fact that the strategic development of east London, which is so close to Europe, is long overdue.

While he is focusing on the European importance of London, does my hon. Friend agree that Paris—a competing capital for European business—is already much better served by modern public transport systems than London, and that we need the line to keep London competitive?

I concur with my hon. Friend's judgment. I am about to mention the importance of international competitiveness between capital cities.

The line will provide 11 new tube stations, nine of which will have a major rail interchange and three a major bus interchange. Four new crossings of the Thames will be created.

At Westminster, a station will be created which is appropriate in stature to the legislative and executive heart of the United Kingdom, a station which will reflect the importance of Westminster in the capital city. As Members of Parliament, we must be conscious of the throngs of tourists—especially at this time of year—who come to see the finest of our parliamentary and executive buildings and who find that the station at which they arrive is grossly inadequate for their numbers and for the prestige and importance of buildings in the vicinity.

My hon. Friends may not altogether understand that the development of Westminster station is a crucial part of the proposed phase 2 development of the parliamentary buildings. Our new parliamentary building depends on the reconstruction of Westminster station, as it will be built on top afterwards. As parliamentarians, we have a direct interest in the outcome of this matter.

By promoting the location of part of London's additional commercial activity away from the traditional and crowded central area, the Jubilee line extension will indirectly help to relieve congestion on the central London rail system. By shifting the focus of activity a little to the east, it will ease the problems of London, which has tended to develop in the centre and, since the second world war, has developed intensively in the west because of Heathrow. As a result, there has been a great imbalance in the development of our capital city.

London, along with New York and Tokyo, is recognised as one of the major world cities but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) said, its position is under the most intense pressure from two European rivals—Paris and Frankfurt, representing the axis between France and Germany.

The start of work on the Jubilee line extension would be a signal that the first step, to redress the common conception of London as a congested city lacking modern transport infrastructure, is being addressed seriously.

The Jubilee line extension has received Royal Assent, and contracts are ready to be let. Construction could be under way within weeks, which would enable the line to be opened by mid-1996. In connection with construction, I must mention my interest as parliamentary adviser to the Federation of Master Builders.

I entirely agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far. His mention of contracts reminded me that valuable contracts for train manufacture, as well as construction contracts, will depend on the extension of the Jubilee line. I do not know whether he will agree that that means that the extension is important not merely to London but to the national economy, and not least to my area, where many jobs depend on train manufacture. If the line does not go ahead, we will be lucky to maintain the train manufacturing industry in this country.

I am glad to have heard the hon. Lady's intervention because I also want to stress the national importance of the project, even though I speak as a London Member and am obviously concerned about the implications for London.

If the Jubilee line extension does not go ahead, London will have no significant underground developments until the turn of the century. No other scheme could be built sooner, and funds have not been allocated for any other scheme. There would be serious implications for transport and development prospects. Even with no further development in the Isle of Dogs area, transport to and from docklands would be seen as fragile. The whole area would depend on a single mass transit system—the docklands light railway—funnelling all access to the area through Bank and Stratford stations. That line has experienced considerable teething problems and is not out of them yet. Both those stations are overloaded and in need of upgrading.

Connections to important British Rail railheads at Waterloo, Victoria, and London Bridge, among others, are inadequate and would be seen as such by decision makers and prospective tenants. Firms which have moved in to the Isle of Dogs might well move out again. There has already been some sign of that since the collapse of Olympia and York. Existing buildings there would remain partly let, and the momentum for achieving full occupation would be lost. More importantly, the potential for remaining sites in the Isle of Dogs, Leamouth, the royal docks and Greenwich would be undermined. Those sites would certainly be restricted to users with low intensity transport requirements, severely limiting opportunities for east London where much-needed jobs would fail to materialise.

There is also the question of the amount of money already spent on the Jubilee line extension. It has cost London Transport more than £100 million to bring it to its present stage, and the contracting industry has spent nearly £20 million preparing tenders. The London Docklands development corporation has spent nearly £0·5 million on legal and other fees to secure an agreement with London Transport to protect the corporation's land interests and to ensure a good quality scheme through docklands. If the project were abandoned now, it is estimated that further abortive costs would range from £35 million to £85 million.

The issue of the Olympia and York contribution must be seen in the context of those established costs to the taxpayer. Any delays in starting the project would increase costs for rebuilding teams and mean higher bid prices. Each increase of 1 per cent. adds £15 million to the final cost.

Having stated all those factors in the equation, I would not wish my hon. Friend the Minister to conclude that I am suggesting that the Government should waive the private sector's obligation to contribute the sum agreed with Olympia and York. Of course that obligation must be met, for the reasons that I have already given, but the Government have the key role and responsibility for organising the collective act of will which is necessary on the part of all parties. The failure of Olympia and York to come up with the cash must be seen as a temporary impediment, something to be overcome with ingenuity, a degree of free thinking and negotiating skill. It is self-evidently in everybody's interest for the project to proceed without delay. The administrators of O and Y would be failing in their duty if they did not secure the potential value of their stake in the extension of the Jubilee line.

It is not simply a matter of the Jubilee line extension in isolation; docklands as a whole depends for its future on the rapid development of adequate infrastructure. New roads and rail links are imperative if the project is to reach its full potential. The pace of a private property development has outstripped the much slower provision of public infrastructure. As a result, spectacular state-of-the-art office developments stand surrounded by continuous road and construction works—an unattractive prospect for prospective tenants. At a time of high real interest rates, under-occupation of property constitutes a burden on the resources of the entrepreneurs who have opened up these new opportunities, as we have seen with the biggest of them, O and Y.

Canary wharf accounts for only 150 acres, as opposed to the 5,500 acres of docklands. The development of docklands is an immensely exciting project. From the start, the concept has been bold and imaginative. Our response to this setback over funding must be equally bold, equally imaginative. Docklands is our gateway to the 2Ist century. We must ensure that it succeeds.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on his success in initiating this debate and on drawing attention to the crucial importance of the Jubilee line extension for the whole of east London. The case is incontrovertible. The development of large parts of east London depends on this line above all extending proper communication networks and links into an area which is seriously lacking in them now.

I should like to say a few words about the specific implications for the London borough of Greenwich, which is badly served by public transport. Because of that, it suffers from acute problems of traffic congestion. The Minister is well aware of that problem, and I am grateful to him for taking time a few weeks ago to come to Greenwich to see at first hand the appalling problems of traffic congestion and pollution resulting from the inadequate public transport network. I know that he recognises the importance of improving the facilities for the Greenwich area and other parts of east London.

The hon. Member for Romford talked about the paucity of underground stations in south London—a mere 28. Greenwich has none, so even by south London's disadvantaged standards, it is particularly disadvantaged. The improvement in the network of underground trains and other links to the Greenwich area, such as the docklands light railway extension, are vital for the future well-being of the area.

The Jubilee line is particularly important because it is a link to the Greenwich peninsula—the largest single site available for development in the whole of inner London, comprising 296 acres of land, largely derelict, heavily contaminated and in urgent need of action. It is a real blot on that approach to London. The line is the key to the successful development of the area.

During the past two or three years, intensive discussions and negotiations have been proceeding, involving British Gas, which owns much of the land on the peninsula, the London borough of Greenwich—the planning authority, local authority and landowner of some sites in the area—and many other parties, including a consortium of housing associations that would play a crucial role in developing a substantial number of affordable homes for people in the area who face chronic problems of homelessness and bad housing.

The development must go ahead in the interests of the area as a whole and London as a whole, but it will not go ahead without a proper rail link into the area. As I said, there is no connection between Greenwich and the underground network. Although the Greenwich peninsula is central—it is across the river from docklands—it is isolated, with poor links and communications. Its development potential will not be realised without that extension. Only one station is proposed for Greenwich, but it is critical and holds the key to the successful development of the peninsula. Bearing in mind the considerable transport needs of the area and the development potential of the peninsula, I have no doubt that it is crucial that the Jubilee line extension, including the station at north Greenwich, goes ahead.

Labour Members have serious reservations about the Government's approach to infrastructure investment in London and their view that the development of underground links must depend on contributions from the private sector. The folly of that approach is demonstrated by the problem affecting the Jubilee line: the whole project has been cast into uncertainty because of the failure of Olympia and York to make its contributions. Having said that, I should stress that British Gas has made it clear to the Government that it is prepared to make a contribution to the north Greenwich station. There is no obstacle in the way of the Government proceeding with the line to Greenwich.

We look with real trepidation across the river at the disaster in docklands and the acute problems in the wake of the Olympia and York bankruptcy. We know that the vitally needed infrastructure development and transport connection that our area so urgently requires are in the balance simply because of an agreement reached some years ago by the Government, which required a contribution from Olympia and York as a condition for building the Jubilee line extension. In its absence, the whole project is uncertain.

I would not suggest that the Government should let Olympia and York or its successors off the hook. As the agreement has been reached, it is absolutely right that the Government should seek to hold the developers to account. I must stress, however, that the wider economic interests of east London and the communities so badly served now make an overwhelming case for proceeding with the development. It is essential that the development proceeds.

The Minister has been kind enough to meet a delegation of representatives from Greenwich and other local authority areas affected by the line. He has shown his support and sympathy for their view. That interest, support and sympathy is welcome, but the ultimate test for those of us in south-east London who are concerned about the future of the whole area and, in particular, the interests of the people of Greenwich is whether the Jubilee line extension proceeds, as it must. There must be no doubt that it must proceed as quickly as possible. The development of the area and its future depend entirely on that line.

I shall be brief, as I know that two colleagues wish to contribute to the debate. I shall try to facilitate that, and the Minister's reply. I hope that he has some significant comments to make.

I, too, welcome the persistence of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) in getting this subject on the agenda before the summer recess. The debate is timely because, in the judgment of many of us, a decision on this matter needs to be made before the House returns from the recess. There are all sorts of reasons why we cannot afford to wait until October or later. I think that the Minister will leave the Chamber today convinced of the completely generic view held across the House, and in political parties, constituencies and geographical areas, that this issue is important.

Having come nine tenths of the way towards going ahead with the first new and substantial underground extension for many years, we have shuddered to one of those temporary halts such as passengers experience when coming into a mainline railway station, when they are close to the platform but cannot get out and there is nothing to be done about it. What we need now is to restart, get to base, and continue the journey.

As the Minister is aware, this is a matter not just of economic regeneration, but of the social regeneration of isolated communities. The project would have an enormous impact in terms of increased mobility and accessibility to work, shopping and recreation. Those communities would then be part of the network of the capital.

The Jubilee line extension would also make an enormous difference to the quality of life of Londoners, because it would greatly reduce congestion in those parts of London where it is at its worst, and would speed up journey times in those areas where completing a journey is most difficult. It is also important to connect London Bridge and Waterloo. Those two mainline termini are on the same side of the river and not far apart, and it is absurd that one cannot get from one to the other with facility. That journey often takes a ridiculously long time. In fact, getting to London Bridge from other parts of central London, including this place, is extremely difficult. That terminus is used by millions of people, and it must be properly included in the transport system. The Jubilee line link would achieve that.

It has been reported that some Department of the Environment Ministers believe that the development corporations should be rolled back as soon as their development programme is complete. It would be inconceivable to roll back the London Docklands development corporation without confirming the Jubilee line extension. One of the preconditions of the regeneration programme was that the necessary infrastructure should be included.

The Minister and I were at Greenland dock pier recently, and I know that he will be pleased at the good news about the river bus. It has been given a lifeline for a further three months as it continues to improve its economic viability. It has now started to take passengers again from the Greenland dock on the Surrey quays peninsula. That is exactly the type of encouragement that we need for the community. It is a signal of the possibility of London leading the way out of the recession.

Nothing could be more encouraging for the capital city this summer than hearing the news that the Jubilee line extension has the green light. That would persuade people that the corner could be turned. If that happened, people in the boroughs along its route and in the City would believe that there is not only a vision for London, but the imminent prospect of realising it. There is a great opportunity to be grasped, and I am sure that the Minister will use all his ingenuity to ensure that that is achieved soon.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert), who is a fellow Essex Member—inaccurately described in Collins dictionary—on securing this opportunity to discuss the docklands. Our constituents have been involved in building the Canary wharf development, of which we can be rightly proud. It is an exciting combination of building and water. If we can overcome the present difficulties, it will be a great attraction for visitors, who will seek to copy that development in their own countries.

The worldwide economic slump that we have suffered in the past three years has impacted in a serious way on docklands. However, the Government's economic strategy is entirely right. We must do all we can to reduce inflation and to continue to reduce interest rates. Above all, we must keep a firm control on public expenditure.

The docklands development is important for jobs. It has already provided 26,000 jobs; if the buildings at Canary wharf are occupied, that will provide 62,000 jobs. In total, the development offers a potential 150,000 jobs. Therefore, it is extremely important that the docklands development is a success.

I have a real interest in docklands because I was born in the eastern part of it at Stratford and Plaistow. I can recall the way in which trading patterns altered as I grew up. It was sad to see the docks, which were once so busy, eventually decline and wasteland appear. I pay tribute to the developers for having the vision to undertake the development of docklands.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is committed to the docklands development, as is evident from his LDDC tie. I know that he wants the docklands development to be a success—and it must be a success. We owe it to the people who had that vision to go ahead with the Jubilee line extension. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, my hon. Friend the Minister and I will celebrate the year 2000 with a party on the top of Canary wharf, having enjoyed a speedy and efficient journey to the docklands.

I shall be brief, as I am keen to hear the Minister's reply. I shared the vigil of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) last week when he tried to debate this matter on the Consolidated Fund, but unfortunately his debate was not reached. I congratulate him on his persistence in achieving this debate today.

I wish to ensure that the project is not seen simply as a London issue. Often, London and the rest of the country, especially the north-west, are portrayed as locked in conflict. I must emphasise that many people in Preston are desperately keen on the Jubilee line extension. Obviously, what happens to the transport system in London is important to the capital, but it is also important in the day-to-day lives of Preston people, because we have a large factory which is desperate to bid for the substantial orders for trains which will immediately follow the go-ahead for the extension. With the privatisation of British Rail, railway orders will be subject to confusion and probably delay. I am worried that that privatisation, and the possible delay, if not abandonment, of the Jubilee line extension, could mean that, by the time orders for trains for the underground and the rail system are made, we shall not have a train manufacturing capacity left. That would be a disaster.

The problems are only too vivid for me, because on one side of the street I have a British Aerospace factory, which is in the process of closing, and on the other there is GEC, which is desperate to bid to build the trains for the Jubilee line. I hope that the Minister will bear that factor in mind. The Jubilee line extension is important for the national economy as well as for London.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) on securing this debate. In all sincerity, his speech was a masterly introduction to the subject. It rendered nine tenths of my prepared speech entirely redundant because he outlined exactly the implications of the Jubilee line in an extremely competent way.

I should also apologise to my hon. Friend for the fact that he did not reach his debate on Thursday. I know that, such is his assiduity in such matters, he was up all night, as was the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), waiting for his debate to come round. I replied to the debate preceding the one on the Jubilee line, so I bear some responsibility for the fact that we did not reach my hon. Friend's debate. I am delighted that he secured the debate today.

I acknowledge the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) and for Basildon (Mr. Amess). I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon gets a docklands tie from the chairman of the development corporation, Michael Pickard, who will appreciate my hon. Friend's support. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) spoke about the particular importance of Port Greenwich and the area that he represents.

In the Adjournment debate on 18 May initiated by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), we made a thorough review of the technical background of the Jubilee line and to some extent debated the benefits that the line conveys to individual parts of its route, so I hope that the House will forgive me for not going over much of that ground in the short time that we have for today's debate.

We should not lose sight of the fact that there is no doubt of the Government's firm commitment to the regeneration of docklands. About £9 billion of private investment commitments exist in Docklands. Over 28 million sq ft of new floor space has been built or is currently under construction there. To correct a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon, employment there was 27,000 in 1981 and is now 60,000. That shows the tremendous development that has taken place there.

I say that because we should not lose sight of the appalling condition of the vast majority of the area before this whole exciting and imaginative concept of regenerating docklands became a reality under Conservative Administration. In terms of the involvement of the Department of Transport, I remind the House that nearly 60 miles of roads in the area have been upgraded or built so far. We have completed schemes on the Royal Albert dock spine road, the Connaught crossing and the lower Lea crossing. We have under construction the Limehouse link—that scheme will be opened in 45 weeks' time, as we read on the sign that we pass on our way to God's own county at the end of a busy week in Parliament—the Poplar link and the East India dock link. There are to come substantial improvements to the A13, and the east London river crossing scheme will open up docklands in a tremendous way.

The first phase of the docklands light railway opened in the summer of 1987. That is a £77 million project involving seven and a half miles of light rail system. It has been a tremendous success in stimulating development in the Isle of Dogs. The Bank extension, which opened in November 1991, did much to expand the attractiveness of the DLR, and the Beckton extension, to be opened next year, will go a long way towards enhancing the attractiveness of the area.

Let us not lose sight of the social regeneration of docklands, and I underline the point that hon. Members have made about employment. Unemployment in the area has fallen since 1986 against the background of the regrettable rise that has taken place elsewhere. The number of residents has increased, from 39,500 in 1981 to 62,000 today, and 17,000 homes have been built or are under construction. Home ownership has risen from 5 per cent. in 1981—my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon knows from experience the type of environmental improvements that come from home ownership—to over 40 per cent. today.

About £122 million has been spent on social and community projects up to March 1991. A further £105 million has been spent on the Limehouse link housing programme. There is the new post-16 college and a 1,000-place city technology college in Rotherhithe. My hon. Friends in particular will warmly welcome that development. Over £13 million has been spent on listed buildings and conservation areas, and more than 100,000 trees have been planted in Docklands during the period of its regeneration. Our record in docklands, apart from the considerations of the Jubilee line extension, has been exceptional. It is a clear demonstration of the extremely substantial commitment by the Government to that area of London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford set out the broad parameters of the Jubilee line extension. It is a 10-mile railway, about seven and a half miles of it underground, and that is the key to the extraordinarily large amount of money that the line will cost. It is very expensive to undertake that amount of tunnelling in a major city such as London. I was interested to learn from officials that the crossings under the river are no more expensive than tunnelling under some of London's most expensive property, which the line must also do.

Three new stations on the route from Green Park to Stratford will be constructed at Southwark, Bermondsey and north Greenwich. There will be eight other stations, with many interchanges to London Underground and British Rail lines and, as we have heard from hon. Members who represent constituencies south of the river, there will be improved connections between the west end and docklands, improved access to those inner-city areas south of the river which are not at present served by public transport as well as they could be, reduced congestion on existing railways, and four new river crossings.

I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Preston said about the way in which, in addition to those immediate transport benefits, there are beneits to the economy as a whole—particularly for the construction industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romford pointed out—and for the railway industry. It was a fair point for the hon. Member for Preston to make, but, bearing in mind the substantial cost to the public purse that the scheme entails, the House will know that the traditional and classic cost-benefit case for the Jubilee line was not as strong as, for example, other major projects in London, such as crossrail or the Chelsea-Hackney line, which will also bring tremendous advantages.

Despite the fact that on a mechanistic, cost-benefit basis, the line was not particularly top of the list, the Government were prepared to proceed, recognising that there were substantial, if not quantifiable, regenerative benefits. On that basis, the Government's commitment was essentially of partnership—a concept recognised not newly in this debate, but three years ago, when the then Secretary of State made it clear that it was a partnership commitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford outlined the details of that partnership.

I come to the heart of today's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford said that we should regard the failure of Olympia and York as a temporary impediment, and I hope that that is exactly how it will be regarded. It is not inconsistent for us to seek contributions from the private sector when the public purse is being asked to disburse billions of pounds for projects that identifiably and specifically—as in this case, for the owners of Canary Wharf—convey substantial material advantages, in this case running into many hundreds of millions of pounds.

In those circumstances, I hope that I will be forgiven for injecting unfamiliar controversy into our deliberations, which have been commendably all-party so far. "You cannot have it both ways" is a phrase to be remembered. Either we recognise that there is a huge benefit here which is to be conveyed to whoever owns the Canary Wharf development, or, because of the temporary impediment to which my hon. Friend referred, we simply transfer that impediment, regardless of the impact, on to the public purse. Should not the Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, recognise that we have a responsibility and say that we shall, on behalf of the taxpayer, negotiate a contribution from those who will benefit so much, recognising a small proportion of the amount of gain to them?

Bearing that in mind, we must recognise that, as I said, one cannot have it both ways. In my view, we must continue to make it absolutely clear—as the Secretary of State has done repeatedly, and as I have reminded the House in other debates—that it is our clear obligation on behalf of the taxpayer to insist on that partnership agreement, which will secure a huge advantage to the developer and a contribution to the hard-pressed taxpayer. No one is more committed to the regeneration of docklands than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. To underline the strength of that point, all the Government's and London Underground's planning has proceeded on the clear basis that the private sector contribution to which I alluded will be forthcoming. We see no prospect of authorising the start of construction unless and until that contribution is assured.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey referred to a train that halted just a few yards from a station. Let us all hope that, in the ensuing weeks, the train will reach its destination and work on the line will proceed.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• Appropriation (No. 2) Act 1992.
• Finance (No. 2) Act 1992.
• Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992.
• Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1992.
• Protection of Badgers Act 1992.
• Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
• Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992.
• Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Disclosure of Information ) Act 1992.
• Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Act 1992. Ulster Bank Act 1992.
• Cattewater Reclamation Act 1992.
• River Humber (Upper Pyewipe Outfall) Act 1992.

The object of this debate is to draw attention to a report which the Minister has done his best to stifle at birth. Far from being stifled, it is crying aloud for action.

The report, by Meg Hubey and Gill Dix of the social policy research unit at York university, entitled "Evaluating the Social Fund", presents the findings of a major survey commissioned by the Department of Social Security. I presume that the Minister then responsible expected the survey to confound the social fund's many critics by showing that it had been a success. Sadly for the Government, the report reached them at a time when the social fund is under attack once again from all sides. It has no friends. Included in its critics are the Social Security Advisory Committee, which has called for radical changes in how it operates.

We do not know exactly how long the Minister sat on that report before allowing it to be published a week ago, but we know that it was a matter of months rather than weeks. When I tabled a question three weeks ago, asking what stage arrangements for publication had reached and for a copy to be placed in the Library, the answer that I received on 25 June was:

"The report will be published following examination by Ministers."—[Official Report, 25 June 1992; Vol. 210, c. 308.]

It is wrong that publication of an important research report, financed by public funds, should be held up pending examination by Ministers.

On receiving that answer, I wrote to the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, who is in his place today, seeking clarification. I asked him whether that meant that he was examining the report to see whether it needed doctoring before publication. If so, it was outrageous that academic research should be subjected to political censorship. Was publication being delayed so that the Minister could make policy decisions without first allowing an informed public debate to take place? Or had he deliberately delayed publication until the House rose on 16 July to prevent any possibility of parliamentary debate until the autumn? Those questions remain unanswered; I have had no reply so far.

Meanwhile, the report has been published. It was published last Wednesday in strange circumstances. It was published much to the surprise of its authors, who had been told that publication was to take place the following day. They learned of the change not from the Minister but from an unofficial tip-off two hours before publication. They also discovered that the announcement of publication was being tagged on to the end of a written parliamentary answer. The only indication of the York report's contents in that written answer was the Minister's final sentence, which said:

"I am pleased to note that the findings confirm the message of the Secretary of State's annual report that the fund has provided cash assistance for exceptional needs to millions of people; and also recognise the excellent job being performed by social fund officers."—[Official Report, 8 July 1992; Vol. 211, c. 224.]

Although those words are in the report somewhere, they are not obvious. But the report shows that the social fund totally fails in its objective of concentrating help on those in greatest need. It shows that, by any measure that the authors could devise, those whose applications to the fund were refused were in great need—sometimes in greater need than those who applied successfully.

The Minister's answer, reproduced faithfully in a DSS press release, was a gross misrepresentation of the findings of that major research project. I hope that he will dissociate himself from it.

It is impossible, in the time allowed for this debate, to do more than pick out some of the more striking findings of this important report. The survey, carried out in October to December 1990—allowing long enough for the social fund to bed down since 1988—investigated 1,724 people on low incomes, including 968 social fund applicants. It also involved a novel technique of in-depth interviews with a small number of applicants and simulated decision-making exercises in which 15 social fund officers took part.

The fundamental fact that emerges throughout the report is the inadequacy of the basic weekly rates out of which people are expected to meet the whole of their normal living expenses. As a result of the policy pursued since 1979—freezing the real value of benefit while other incomes rise—people living on income support find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

By an amazing coincidence, another report was published today giving damning new evidence of how the poorest in society have become relatively even poorer in the past 10 years. Is it not a strange fact that those reports are coming in a great rush at this time—the dog days of Parliament when Members are thinking of their holidays and the recess ahead of them? It is disgraceful practice that that flood of reports is arriving now.

Part of the evidence of that report is that, in the 1990s in Britain, even food is a problem to many families. The report states:

"The main problem facing all the families and particularly emphasised in households with children and by pensioners was simply providing enough food at each meal."

The in-depth interviews revealed that some families were economising on fuel

"by going without heating for parts of the day, not using the central heating at all, sitting in the dark in the evenings, or going to bed early."

Only four of the 15 applicants interviewed in depth had a telephone. The others, including people with disabilities, regarded a telephone as essential both for emergencies and to maintain social contacts, but it was

"an expense beyond their means."

Some had had to give up their telephones when their incomes fell.

Holidays were virtually unknown. Only 6 per cent. of social fund applicants reported spending anything on holidays, and fewer than one in three spent money on leisure activities of any kind. There was little possibility of saving. The report said:

"60 per cent. of survey respondents said that they never managed to put money aside for expenses that did not come up every week, and a further 17 per cent. said that they hardly ever managed to do so. Only 3·3 per cent. of respondents had any savings at all at the time of the interview."

In their attempts to manage, they left the less urgent bills unpaid, especially the poll tax,. Of the 15 in-depth interviews, only seven people had paid the poll tax in full, a few had made one or two monthly payments, and the rest had paid nothing. Given the choice between food, fuel and the poll tax, who can blame them?

These facts are shameful in themselves. In relation to the social fund, their significance is that, with weekly benefit rates as inadequate as this, any system of one-off payments for special needs is bound to come under enormous pressure, and the social fund tries to contain that pressure by screwing on the lid, imposing totally unrealistic cash limits, and placing increasingly rigorous restrictions on the purposes for which payments can be made.

As a result, most of the needs which the social fund was supposedly designed to meet remain unmet. One third of the lone parents in the survey and more than a quarter of the couples with children did not have adequate bedding. One in seven of all those interviewed did not have adequate floor covering.

Where help was forthcoming from the social fund, it was usually in the form of a loan, which people had to repay by deductions from their already inadequate weekly benefit income. The report states:

"Most respondents expressed very negative feelings about the experience of living on reduced incomes following loan deductions … over a third of loan recipients in the survey dealt with social fund loan repayment by cutting back on spending and going without other things."

The "other things" were most often food, clothing and the payment of fuel bills. They paid their debt to the social fund by getting in debt to the gas board.

Because social fund payments are discretionary, making an application is always a gamble. A lone parent said:

"They never give you any information as to what you are entitled to and not entitled to. They just give you the forms and tell you to send them in. That's it. Sometimes you come out feeling terrible."

There were twice as many negative as positive comments about the process of applying to the social fund. Some 34 per cent. of the comments described it as

"terrible, ridiculous, unfair, depressing, humiliating, degrading."

Applicants for crisis loans were particularly critical, 21 per cent. complaining that it took too long. That complaint was made recently by the Social Security Advisory Committee. In a chapter about young people in its latest annual report, the committee says that a 16 or 17-year-old who is awarded income support on grounds of severe hardship has to wait one to two weeks for it to come through. Meanwhile, they have to go through the additional hassle of applying for crisis loans. The committee fairly quotes the view of local office staff that that is

"a waste of staff time, social fund resources and an unnecessary difficulty for the claimant."

I asked the Secretary of State what it would cost to pay income support immediately instead of one to two weeks later and received a reply, not from the Minister but from the ubiquitous Mr. Bichard of the Benefits Agency, who assured me that, because wages and other benefits are paid in arrears, payment of income support in advance in these circumstances would not be possible.

It has been a revelation to many Back Benchers to receive letters from civil servants, because it lets us see how much civil servants take on themselves. If the Minister decided that such a method of payment was possible, I suspect that Mr. Bichard would find it perfectly possible. However, many of the replies show the supreme power of the civil service.

I watched a programme called "Target" on Sky television in which there was an extraordinary interview about new secrecy, the inability of hon. Members to see letters from the Benefits Agency and other agencies that are sent to other hon. Members. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that they could be seen in a publication produced by an admirable Member of Parliament. He said, "We have helped him." I presume that he means the Government. However, they have not raised a finger to help in the publication of the report to which I have referred. The publication in which the letters appear is an admirable document, and I hope that before long the Government will publish the letters in Hansard. The Government's claim that they are devoted to sweeping away the cobwebs of secrecy is gossamer thin. For over a year those letters have remained secret, but I am sure that they will soon be published in Hansard. That delay shows the increasing importance and power of civil servants, who seem to act outside the control of Ministers. After receiving odd information from Mr. Bichard and Mr. Fogden and other civil servants on several other issues, I appealed to Ministers, but my letters were not answered by Ministers: they were diverted to Mr. Bichard and Mr. Fogden.

The authors of the York survey attempt to establish by sophisticated statistical techniques the type of application to the social fund that was most likely to succeed. However, the attempt failed because

"the inability to predict probabilities of awards and refusals from general needs-related variables suggest that people who receive social fund awards are not in greater general need than those who are refused · we cannot show that those who got awards were in greater general need than those who did not; nor can we conclude that the social fund is meeting its objective `to concentrate attention and help on those applicants facing greatest difficulties in managing on their income.'"

That is a remarkable conclusion.

It is hard to imagine a more sweeping condemnation of the whole basis of the social fund. People with health problems at risk of needing institutional care, with damp accommodation, heating problems, and lacking cooking facilities and floor coverings, were no more likely than others to get help from the fund. Those lacking washing or drying facilities or sufficient beds were less likely to get help.

The impression that the social fund is a cruel lottery was confirmed by the exercise of having 15 social fund officers brought together and asked to make decisions on some hypothetical applications. They were not working in the pressure of an office with demands on their time. They were in a laboratory situation and had time to consider before deciding. The results are unbelievable. A single parent was in need of a washing machine and the application, made two years after the introduction of the fund, was placed before those 15 professional officers who are used to taking such decisions every day. Two of the officers said that the person should have nothing, 11 decided that he was entitled to a loan, and two said that he was entitled to a grant.

There was an application from a pensioner in need of clothing, and the decision could not have been more mathematically confusing. Five of the officers said that he was entitled to nothing, four said that he was entitled to loans, and six said that he was entitled to grants. The effects of the social fund cash limits were shown when 15 social fund officers were asked to decide in cases that were, first, subjected to their local office budget priorities, and then considered without budgetary constraints. When the constraints were removed, those experienced people decided that grant expenditure should go up by 49 per cent. and loan expenditure by 41 per cent. That is a telling finding. There were not just more payments, but bigger payments—up 28 per cent. on average for grants and up 24 per cent. for loans. Eight of the 38 loans were converted to grants.

The Minister will no doubt argue, as he always does, that the cash limits are generous, but that exercise suggests otherwise. When he announced the limits for 1992–93, he claimed with his usual sleight of hand that they were 30 per cent. above the April 1991 figures, which they were. What the Minister forgot to mention was that the April 1991 limits were so low that they had to be increased no fewer than five times during the year to keep the fund afloat. To maintain the level of spending, the 1992–93 budget would have to be £339 million instead of £302 million. There has been not an increase of 30 per cent. but a cut of 11 per cent.

It is not only claimants who would benefit from the removal of the cash limits. The job of social fund officers would be infinitely more satisfying if they could exercise real discretion. The report said:

During the exercise in which they had made social fund decisions in the absence of budgetary constraints, some officers reported feeling that a burden had been lifted from them. They felt a previously unknown freedom to interpret the Directions rather than to work with a tightly prescribed priority list. In a telling phrase, they would be 'able to fit things into the Directions as opposed to making things up to fit'."

The "tightly prescribed priority lists" referred to here are drawn up by each district office, and tell social fund officers what kind of thing they can make payments for without exceeding their cash limits.

In many parts of the country, the priority lists have become so restrictive that even the most basic needs can no longer be met. A typical example, recently reported to the Child Poverty Action Group, was provided by the East Lowlands district in Scotland, where last month the budget was 11 per cent. overspent. As a result, that district is no longer making budgetary loans for space heaters, pots, pans and crockery, essential home repairs and maintenance, removal expenses, push-chairs or prams, floor coverings, tables, chairs, and many other things.

To make matters worse, the guidance on priorities issued by district managers is often unlawful, either because it takes the form of directions rather than of guidance, or because it conflicts with the Secretary of State's directions and guidance, excluding payments to whole categories of people who ought not to be excluded. Surveys of local guidance and priority lists carried out by my office in 1990 and 1991 showed that this was happening in most areas.

Similar complaints are made each year by the Social Fund Commissioner in her annual reports. Her latest report, published last week on the same day as the York survey, says that many local office priority lists

"give cause for concern. This may be because they are mandatory, and prescribe the decision for the SFO to make, or because they seek to exclude cases from consideration under Direction 4(a)(iii)"—

which allows payments to ease exceptional pressures on the applicant and his family—

"or because they use client groups to determine priority without consideration of individual circumstances."

The commissioner makes it clear that such guidance must be ignored by social fund officers. But how can they be expected to distinguish between lawful and unlawful guidance issued by their district manager—and what would happen to a social fund officer who had the temerity to set himself or herself up as a judge of the legality of the manager's guidance?

There is a simple solution to these problems: do away with the cash limits and allow social fund officers to decide applications on their merits within a clear set of rules. Local priority lists, which are often artificial, would then disappear, removing the illogicality.

However, that suggestion implies that there is, in fact, a clear set of rules governing the social fund. There may be a place for discretion in the social fund, but there is also a need for clearly defined entitlement to payments for needs which are predictable and definable. That is the course advocated by the Social Security Advisory Committee in its report "The Social Fund—a new structure" published in March.

It is hard not to contrast the six Labour Members who have turned up today with the massed ranks of them who turned up earlier in the week to vote for a whopping rise in their expenses.

Did not the social policy research unit say that 50 per cent. of people agreed with the idea that loans were a fair system, that three quarters were satisfied with the level of the loans made, and that two thirds were satisfied with the level of repayments?

Come to any of our surgeries.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) will be relieved to know that the extra money that comes to my office will greatly assist in paying a proper London wage to those who worked on publishing the document that I have used, and on providing an alternative to the masses of civil servants on the Government side who provide fictitious press releases for them. The Opposition are woefully underfinanced for challenging the Government, with their virtually infinite resources. We make no apologies about the extra money.

I am about to finish my speech and I look forward to what the Minister will say. However, the information that the hon. Member for High Peak cited earlier was highly selective, and amounted to a distortion of the report. I encourage him not to dwell on a brief which has undoubtedly been provided by the Whips, but to read through page after page of the report, and then to read all the other reports on the state of the social fund.

The social fund is friendless now. Before it was introduced, the Fowler review, on which it was based, was universally condemned. Sadly, all the worst fears of those who attacked it have now been realised. It is a lottery. What matters is not what people's problems are or how serious their needs, but where they live, the disposition of the local social fund officer, or the current state of the budget in the office. Apart, possibly, from the poll tax, the social fund is the greatest failure that the Government have ever produced. It stands condemned by all.

I do not expect a radical response from the Minister this morning, or a commitment to a thorough reform of the social fund, but I ask him to spend some part of the next three months, while Parliament is in recess, studying the great mountain of unanimous evidence that the social fund does not work. My last word to him this morning is that perhaps he might think about the views of the people who use the system. They are the most vulnerable and the least articulate people in society—those least likely to complain. Yet, as recorded in the document, they found the experience of applying for a social fund grant or loan unfair, depressing, ridiculous, humiliating, terrible, and degrading.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on his success in obtaining the debate, and on his sustained interest in the social fund. That interest does not always make my life comfortable; nevertheless he pursues it with great assiduity. Although the social fund represents only a small part of overall social security provision, it is right that the system which seeks to provide exceptional help for people in exceptional circumstances should be subject to sustained interest and scrutiny.

I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said about the social fund. I disagreed with almost all of it, and shall try to respond to some of his arguments during the next quarter of an hour.

As I have made clear on several other occasions, we have before us the Social Security Advisory Committee's report on the fund, and the social policy research unit report, which has provided the opportunity for our discussion, has been published.

I shall first tackle the "conspiracy theory" about the publication and handling of the report. There has been no undue delay—I totally reject that suggestion. The Government commissioned the report and paid for it. The terms under which it has been handled are exactly in accordance with long-standing provisions for research contracts which, to the best of my knowledge, have been followed by Governments of both parties in recent years.

The process followed on this occasion is the same as that followed on other occasions. The precise day on which the report was published was a matter of the Government deciding on which days various announcements were made. We had to find a slot in the process, as anyone who has been in government clearly will recognise. There is nothing underhand or improper, and nothing that has not followed all other occasions on which such reports have been commissioned and produced. There is no mystery and no undue delay, and certainly no conspiracy is involved.

Since the research was carried out, a number of things have happened. First, substantial extra resources have been put into the Social Fund in recent years. Secondly, we have tackled some of the administrative shortcomings of the operation of the Social Fund to make it more responsive to the needs of our customers. If I have time, I shall come back to that in detail. The report must be seen in the context that time has moved on and policy has moved on since the research on which it is based was carried out.

We are familiar with the argument. Research has to be carried out over a long period and the Government then say, "Things have changed since then." That is why the conspiracy theory has many fans among Opposition Members. For how many months has the Minister had the report? Would it not have been better to publish it immediately? We could then have had a far more appropriate discussion because it would have been nearer the time at which the study was carried out.

We commissioned the report, and the normal process on such occasions is that a final draft of the report is sent to the Department. Officials consider that draft to see whether the researchers have fulfilled their commission. Various discussions then take place between our officials and the researchers. Any gaps that need to be filled are filled so that the report is a proper piece of work when it is finally published. I congratulate the social policy research unit at York on the competent and professional way in which it carried out the report. I make no secret of the fact that I shall study the findings carefully. I simply point out the valid fact that, since the research on which the report was based was carried out, a number of changes have taken place in the system.

I will talk for a moment about the principles behind the social fund. Schemes for making payments for unusual and exceptional needs are at the margins of the overall provision for social security. The social fund represents less than 0·5 per cent. of the social security budget which, as hon. Members will realise, is running at more than £70 billion for this financial year. Meeting individual, exceptional and irregular needs, which is what the social fund is about, is even more difficult and a great deal more sensitive than addressing the general problem of providing for regular needs.

Over the past 50 years, many attempts have been made to find a fair solution to the problem. Until the social fund came into existence, previous attempts under Governments of both political persuasions had ended in failure. I return to a point made by the hon. Member for Newport, West in which he fell into a trap. He failed to distinguish between the task of the social security system as a whole to meet regular needs, which can be met by a regulated pattern of provision through regular—normally weekly—social security benefits being paid to meet those needs, and the exceptional and unusual needs which occur infrequently and unexpectedly in relation to specific individual circumstances. Manifestly it is a more difficult and sensitive task to respond to those needs than to respond to the generality of need. When the hon. Member for Newport, West reflects on the contents of his speech, it is important for him to draw the distinction between the two distinct types of need in society.

We set off down this route in 1934 with the Unemployment Assistance Board establishing a principle of exceptional assistance. The problems of defining what can be legitimately classed as exceptional need and how payment should be made have been subjected to continuous scrutiny and debate ever since.

The hon. Member for Newport, West no doubt recalls that Beveridge in the 1948 reforms made provision for the payment of discretionary exceptional needs payments administered by the National Assistance Board. Like the single payment system that followed, payments under the scheme spiralled from one payment for every 10 people on benefit in 1949 to one payment for every three on benefit in 1979. That process showed clearly that the scheme was no longer addressing exceptional needs but was becoming part of a more general provision.

Opposition Members will be as familiar with this feeling as are Conservative Members. Many people who were in low-paid employment saw people who happened to be on benefit getting large grants for needs which may have been there but for which people in low-paid employment had to provide out of their earnings. Many people perceived that to be an unfairness in the scheme.

In 1977, the Supplementary Benefits Commission thoroughly reviewed the scheme. Its report makes good reading and I commend it to the hon. Member for Newport, West if he has not yet turned his attention to it. It covered the problems, the abuses, the anomalies and the basic inequalities which were being produced by the exceptional needs payments system of the time. Many proposals were made and many solutions were offered.

The regulated single payment system came into effect in 1980 and started with high hopes of remedying some of the problems of the exceptional needs scheme. By 1986, it was clear that the single payment scheme was wholly out of control and revised regulations were introduced. It became clear shortly afterwards that a more radical approach would be necessary.

I do not know the extent to which the hon. Member for Newport, West speaks for his party on the future of the social fund. If he intends to go back to a system analogous to the old single payments system, he should remind himself why that system fell into disrepute and had to be abolished. After 1980, the cost was doubling every two years in real terms, out of all proportion to the increase in the number of people on benefit, to the level of unemployment or to any other measure. The payments were unfairly distributed. Four fifths of the money went to fewer than one in five claimants in 1987. In 1985, the scheme cost only one twentieth of supplementary benefit decisions and for half of all appeal hearings. The system continued to be unfair to people on low pay who had to budget for many of the things that people on benefit were able to obtain with large sums paid for out of the taxes that employed people were paying.

The system was open to manifest abuse. Before the changes to the regulations in 1986, one local office, for example, serving 21,000 customers received 4,000 claims for bedding within a few weeks and 2,500 claims for furniture within four days. There was also frequent abuse of the help available for deposits to secure accommodation.

I did not mention the old system and my party's policy does not suggest that we go back to it. The right hon. Gentleman's attack on the old system is well known and well rehearsed and I have heard him deliver it at least 20 times. We are discussing a serious attack on the social fund. Will he now deal with it?

I intend to deal with it, but it is impossible to consider its future or any changes that we might make to it without first examining alternative schemes that have been tried before and the origin of their failure, which has been manifest. The Labour party manifesto seemed to have something along the lines of the single payment scheme in mind—a return to a total grant scheme in which all loans would be converted to grants. The distinction between that and the single payment scheme is only marginal.

I note that opponents of the social fund no longer speak of replacing it; they talk of restructuring it or of altering its balance—not of undermining the fundamental principles of the fund.

Does the Minister believe that those with equal need should have equal entitlement? If he does, can he refute the fact that equal entitlement is not available under this scheme?

I do not agree. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the principle behind a controlled, cash-limited budget——

I do.

Costs under previous schemes spiralled out of all control, so before the right hon. Gentleman commits himself to a return to them I advise him to have a word with whoever is shadow Chief Secretary to discover whether he or she is prepared to commit the party to uncontrolled provision in this area. All experience shows that such schemes are open to manifest abuse and to spiralling and uncontrolled costs.

I could go on talking about the failings of the single payment and exceptional needs payment schemes, failings which the social fund was designed to deal with and which it has dealt with largely successfully. One of the failings of the old single payment system was that those who fell one side or the other of the terms of a particular regulation received payment, or not, as the case might be. Introducing an element of human judgment and discretion overcomes that problem to a considerable extent. Of course, a limited budget means that some people will not get grants, perhaps because they live in one place and not another, but local budgets administered and profiled by local managers, and operated by social fund officers, add an element of discretion and of the ability to meet local needs in local circumstances.

The social fund is not so flawed as to need immediate replacement. Any careful reading of the SPRU report supports that analysis. The SPRU provided a complex, detailed, competent, professional and comprehensive report on the workings of the fund. It took more than two and a half years to conduct the work leading to the report. It interviewed more than 2,000 people, many of them in depth. It is impossible to summarise the findings of the report in a brief Adjournment debate. No doubt there will be opportunities when the House returns in the autumn to take a more careful look at it. I shall certainly spend a large chunk of my summer recess absorbing the report and learning what lessons I can from its authors. The hon. Gentleman analysed it in a rather superficial way—digesting the report requires days and weeks, not a single morning.

The report says that many people are being "substantially helped" by the fund; that there are high levels of satisfaction among many groups who receive awards—naturally there is rather less satisfaction among those who do not; and that, interestingly enough, there is a general acceptance of the idea of loans. When we launched the fund, not many of us expected such a high level of acceptance.

Not only have we improved the administration of the fund but we have put a great many more resources into it to reflect the pressures on it. In the next few weeks and months, I shall be examining with great care the conclusions of the authors of the SPRU report to determine whether we need to make any changes. On the fundamental principles of the social fund, I am unshakeable: it is far better than any of its predecessors, and it does a good job for millions of people.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This morning's Financial Times contains what appears to be a report of the Bingham inquiry which seems to have found its way not to Members of Parliament but to members of the press. Have you received any notice from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he is to make a statement about the report to be published by Lord Justice Bingham; or have you received any assurance from the Leader of the House that once the report is published, and if it contains the sort of information that appears in the Financial Times, Parliament will be recalled to discuss it?

When this matter was raised last week with Madam Speaker, she deprecated the way in which the Bank of England chose to send copies of its report to members of the press instead of to Members of Parliament in the first instance. Will you ensure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a copy of the Bank of England's letter is placed in the Library of the House? I understand that the Governor has apologised to the Speaker for the behaviour of the Bank of England.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order, but it is now too late for statements. I shall draw his latter remarks to the attention of Madam Speaker.

Religious education in our schools is in a crisis, despite the Government's efforts with the Education Reform Act 1988, when they battled to provide a framework ensuring that children receive a mainly Christian education in their religious studies. Frankly, that is just not working. Many children today are being cheated of their fundamental right to a Christian education, and the result is an appalling lack of basic knowledge of Christianity.

A MORI poll in 1991 found that 57 per cent. of the 18 to 24 age group could not say what happened on Good Friday, and 62 per cent. could not identify Pontius Pilate—yet between 80 and 90 per cent. of the population, or of those polled, regard themselves as Christians. All the polls found that barely 3 per cent. belonged to Hindu, Muslim. Sikh or Buddhist faiths, and I stress that it is not they who are asking for special treatment.

We find ourselves being apologetic for acknowledging the obvious—our Christian faith. The daily act of Christian worship is often a mish-mash of multi-faith worship, which in turn has become a secular religion of its own. Its themes centre on contentious issues such as racism, sexism and western exploitation of the third world—issues which have nothing to do with the heart and soul of Christianity.

Many RE lessons have shifted from traditional Bible study to a disproportionate emphasis on other faiths, with Islam, Buddhism and so on rendering Christianity a minority faith. The push for this has come from influential teacher trainers, RE advisers and local education authorities. As a result, children, together with their parents and teachers, are frustrated because they crave a balance.

A parent in my constituency, Mrs. Kay Reid, has a little girl who attends the Avenue primary school. She said to me yesterday:

"There is so much emphasis on other religions, like children performing a Hindu wedding, that I ask 'What is wrong with putting Our Lord first in Britain which is a christian country?' This liberal view that we should have a little bit of this and a little bit of that means that children end up with no clear picture of christianity. Because my daughter goes to Sunday School, she is able to tell her friends about Jesus."

Is that an incredible scenario? I am afraid that it is not. That is happening in schools all over the country.

The emphasis on multi-culturalism has left children bewildered. For example, I received a letter from a 14-year-old girl in Liverpool. She wrote:

"Please can you help me? I have been forced to learn the Hindu religion for three whole years now. Since I started first year seniors, I have learnt nothing about Christianity. My dad went in and complained and the headmaster told him that he taught a multi-faced religion at his school. My dad asked why Christianity was not included and the headmaster said that he did not want to offend the Muslims. All we learn about is Hindus, Muslims and the Vishnu religion. I don't mind knowing about other religions, but why can't I be taught about my own? Last week my class had to go to a Hindu temple to see how the religion works."

She included a circular from her school, the Childhall community comprehensive, which detailed arrangements for the visit to the temple. The circular included a note:

"The Hindus do not allow the wearing of shoes in their temples. Therefore, could you be sure that your child's socks cause no embarrassment? As this is a place of worship, I expect their behaviour to be extremely respectful."

That trendy liberalism has swamped us everywhere, but rarely have I found it so deliberate and disturbing as in religious education. It is hardly surprising that we are producing a rootless and restless society with no moral and spiritual benchmarks. Concern has reached such a pitch that parents, teachers and children are crying for help. They have become aware that children will be unable to answer my questionnaire that I am issuing through Christian Call. It contains basic questions on Christian knowledge, such as:

"Can you recite the Lord's prayer? Can you name any six of the 10 commandments? Have you studied the apostles' creed? Name the parts of the Trinity. Who betrayed Jesus? Why do Christians celebrate Christmas, Easter and Whitsun'?"

That last question often stumps people. It is:

"Have you read or studied the Bible?"

I regret to say that I have heard reports of teachers treating Bible stories as fairy tales. My questionnaire continues:

"Have you read the gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John? Have you studied or read the 23rd psalm'?"

I received a letter from an angry teacher who taught at the New Milton junior school in Hampshire. He complained bitterly that no RE appeared in the curriculum. Children were not taken to church. There were no harvest festivals and Christmas was not celebrated. When he asked the children what they knew about Jesus, he was told that Jesus was God. When he asked who his Father was, the answers included Julius Caesar, Henry VIII and George VI. When he asked where Jesus died, the answer was "Don't know." The answer to the question, "Where was Jesus born?" was "Don't know." When asked how Jesus died, one child said, "Tied to a cross."

That was a depressing litany and that teacher resigned from the school because he felt that he was unable to carry out his spiritual duties. It is hardly surprising that early-day motion 446 on Christian religious education has been signed by 52 hon. Members from both sides of the House.

It is also very worrying that some standing advisory councils on religious education—or SACREs—are being manipulated and others appear to ignore good advice. Resource material for teachers is highly questionable. One of the latest fads in RE is a teacher's handbook entitled:

"New methods in religious education teaching, an experimental approach by the RE advisor for Islington, three teacher trainers and two RE teachers."

One would laugh if it were not so downright dangerous. It contains barely a mention of a Christian God. There is more emphasis on dangerous mind-bending exercises designed to teach meditation, which I believe has no place in the classroom.

The handbook claims that its version of RE is

"Much more interesting than old-fashioned scripture."

It states that RE cannot be taught unless it also teaches about politics, society, exploitation, expression, sexism and racism.

The final result of such teaching is that it often causes anxiety in children who are confused by the views of partisan indoctrination. Meditation, guided fantasy and other mind-bending techniques are suggested for children from primary age upwards. For example, nine-year-olds at Woodborough school carried out an exercise entitled, "Who am I?" That was based on an "Alice in Wonderland" illustration of the caterpillar. The children had to imagine that they were something else. Answers like, "I am a brown rabbit," or a heavy, hairy very juicy peach have absolutely nothing to do with the teaching of the gospels of the Christian faith.

Exercises on meditation and breathing exercises for children, which are more widespread than we can possibly imagine, can be regarded only as highly suspect. How can local education authorities and the SACREs allow such abuses of RE to happen? This is a Christian country and we live by a Christian ethos. The Education Reform Act 1988 has provision for a daily act of collective worship which is meant to be wholly or mainly Christian in character. However, the evidence is that schools are failing in that regard.

The RE adviser in the London borough of Redbridge suggested a thematic approach for the spring term school assemblies last year. Apart from Christianity, themes included Elvis Presley, Rod Stewart, Raquel Welch and Brigitte Bardot and every conceivable faith from the martyrdom of the Sikh guru Arjan onwards. Other themes included when the first top hat appeared in London; when the first supermarket opened; the American militant black Muslim leader Malcolm X and Alex "Hurricane" Higgins; the snooker champion; and national days in Gambia and Nepal. A poem on Mahatma Gandhi's death was considered a useful topic for seven-year-olds, as was one about violent black South Africa.

Is that not a waste of public money on such resource materials? The local education authority in Dudley in the west midlands offered an alternative syllabus in RE—folk religion. That included astrology, hippie commune cults and the occult. I am glad to say that, as a result of the Education Reform Act 1988, Dudley is now scrapping

"non-religious stances such as Marxism and communism."

A parent in north London called Georgette Behar, a school governor at Robbinsfield infants school, told me that there was no religious education in her school because the headmaster had told her that he did not believe in anything and so did not believe that he could talk about Christianity or any other religion. Barely a year after the 1988 Act was passed, the chair of the education committee in Ealing, Hilary Benn, issued a press release stating:

"Multi-faith worship consists of a general religious, moral and ethical content which is not distinctive of any one faith or religion. Under this system schools will be able to use materials for worship from all faiths and take a thematic approach reflecting the values and experiences common to all faiths."

Does my hon. Friend recall that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in his excellent sermon at the start of this Parliament, made the case clearly that Muslims and those other faiths find it much easier to relate to a strongly expressed and firmly held Christian faith and worship than to some kind of mish-mash which poses as accommodating them?

I could not agree more wholeheartedly. In the 1987 general election, I was the parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Green and Stepney, where 35 per cent. of the community were Islamic and the parents were very positive about Anglican church schools. Their views were taken into account.

I refer to Ealing to demonstrate the projects that were suggested to be used in class. I have a teacher's outline which states:

"Use the South African situation."

Children are asked to sit on the floor, and teachers say to them:

"You are a black young person living in a country with a population of nearly 33 million, 24 million of those 33 million are black like you, nearly 5 million are white, but the 5 million have most of the power. Because of the Groups Areas Act, your family have to move into an African township. You are not free to live where you like."

The children must then give examples. They are then told to listen to a soundtrack of "Cry Freedom". That strikes me as far removed from Christian education.

Another difficulty is that parents find it extremely difficult to complain and to obtain a satisfactory response. That has certainly been the case in Ealing. A popular model for SACRE is based on the syllabus that has been adopted by the Rotherham local education authority. I am sorry to say that it has been adopted by my own LEA in Sutton. Significantly, the Diwali festival is featured on the front page, but not our faith, Christianity. Taken as a whole, Christ's teaching is barely mentioned.

A page devoted to the syllabus reads more like a social science course with key words such as "self-understanding, exploration, investigation, analysis, lifestyles, concepts, moral values, open-mindedness, critical mind" and so on. Christianity is included—in a shopping list of religions after Judaism and before Islam. There is no sign that Christianity has more significance than any of the other five religions. Clearly, it is not a mainly Christian syllabus. It is very much a matter of a child taking it or leaving it on the shelf in favour of another religion, perhaps with more amusing festivals.

Manchester LEA is no better. Its syllabus, "Multi-Faith Manchester", has an introduction which begins:

"We understand the term to include the normal meanings given to the related words 'spiritual' and 'ethical', including non-theistic standpoints."

It spells that out further by saying:

"No policy for multi-cultural education can avoid consideration of racial prejudice and racism."

The rest is a loose Cook's tour of world religions which is more obsessed with inter-faith dialogue than with any study of our own Christian faith.

Bradford's agreed syllabus for religious education is entitled "Living in Today's World", and, like the others, has little time for Christianity. Among its general objectives for four to nine-year-olds is a section on self-awareness and enjoyment. A detailed diagram of the inter-relationship between religions, using light as a theme, links a complete mishmash of ideas and religions, from Christmas lights to Florence Nightingale, birthdays, volcanoes, Diwali and Hannukah.

Our great and glorious 19th century hymns are under pressure. Teachers are advised to change words that might offend Muslim children, especially references to Jesus as the Son of God, and are warned that representations of the crucifixion are obviously sensitive issues for Jews and Muslims and need to be presented carefully.

What is to be done? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to include my suggestions in the Government's forthcoming White Paper and revised circular. Will he make the complaints procedure easier for parents who are unhappy about how RE is being taught in schools? Grant-maintained schools should be allowed to opt out of a local authority's influence and develop their own RE under the mainly Christian requirement of the Education Reform Act. That is not a licence to ditch RE, for that would come under the new inspectorate. The Government should consider giving a clearer guideline regarding what is put into RE and what should be left out. Is there not a case for the Department of Education warning against dangerous meditation techniques? Christianity must he given a clearly defined and fully recognised status. It is, after all, the established historical faith of Great Britain.

Religious education nowadays tends to put Mecca and Lourdes on the same level, but are they equivalents? That just reduces Christianity to a take-it-or-leave-it faith. Schools need to be reassured by the Department of Education that it is quite acceptable to spend 80 per cent. of their teaching time on Christianity. It is extraordinary that good schools now worry about that. The Department for Education must ensure that religious education is about genuine religious study and not political debates about western imperialism, feminism, gay rights and the allegation that Christ's teaching is little more than Eurocentric education. We must tackle the fact that two thirds of LEAs are clinging to their old RE syllabuses. Many of them deliberately undervalue Christianity. The time has come to bring them all into line with the provisions of the 1988 Act.

I should like to take heart from Sutton's education department. It was so stung by parents' complaints and criticisms that it has drawn up guidelines based on the Act for collective worship in schools. The document is not yet published, but it is a welcome start. I am encouraged that in that document there are more mentions of Christianity in its 20 pages than I have seen in years of Sutton's education materials. The crunch will really come when the Government's new schools inspectorate comes into operation next year. My concern is that the inspectors may not be wholeheartedly behind the spirit of a mainly Christian education.

Surely there must be room for the Churches to take some responsibility, especially in RE. I was encouraged to hear that the Archbishop of Birmingham's office feels keenly that the moral and spiritual elements of the curriculum should not be judged by a secular body, especially in Church schools. Would this not be an excellent opportunity for ecumenism to show its real strength? All Christian religions must co-operate in defining what is acceptable in schools today and perhaps supply inspectors who are committed Christians.

This is a cry for help from the bottom of the hearts of the people of Great Britain. The debate would never have come about if I had not had such a swell of information from all quarters. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take my words to heart and respond to the anxious parents of this country.

I apologise to the House for speaking on this matter.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright), I do not want to stop him speaking, but I do not think that he has come to an arrangement with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has made an arrangement with other hon. Members.

Order.

That is right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I put down my name at the beginning of the day. If the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) does not wish me to speak, I shall not do so except by intervention.

That is a matter for the hon. Lady.

I am at a disadvantage. I taught religious education for 20 years. The hon. Lady's remarks are offensive to people who teach religious education. My four children were taught absolutely splendidly. We did a not unreasonable job in our teaching.

I take particular issue with the hon. Lady's topics. There are two laws—love God and love your neighbour. Last week, "love your neighbour" was the Gospel at mass. It is an important part of Christianity and should be taught. Equally, other faiths have to be taught. I speak as a Catholic under the direction of the hierarchy and splendid guidance of Bishop David Constant. In Catholic schools, Hinduism, Sikhism and the Jewish faith are all rightly and properly instructed. I have taught those subjects. To suggest for one moment that they are a mish-mash is appalling.

The hon. Lady does not understand what education is truly about. It starts with the family. No one will know who Jesus is or know the gospel and epistles unless he or she is brought up with such teaching in the family. That is a crucial part of education. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) will bear out the fact that teachers of not only religious education but all subjects need the backing and willingness of the family if they are to succeed.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam mocked some of the subjects taught. I refer her to the beatitudes and the corporal works of mercy, which are an essential part of the Christian faith. The beatitudes say, "Blessed are the peacemakers". Does that mean making nuclear bombs and throwing them all over the place? Or do we teach a passive attitude? The teaching of the beatitudes is crucial, but when one does so, it is difficult to explain the selfishness, greed and determination to succeed at any cost and no matter whose cost which is rampant in our society and has been taught to us.

It is right that we should reach out to the third world. It is right that we should talk to our brothers and sisters there. The religious content of what we say is the heart and core of being a Christian. That is how we show that we love Christ and that we are trying hard to be Christians. We do not pretend to be perfect; we merely try. Christianity should he taught in the context of the home, openness, looking out and tolerance and understanding of others. In that way we shall succeed truly in being Christians.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for initiating this most important debate and for her interesting speech. I meant no offence to the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) when I said that I had arranged with my hon. Friend to speak in the debate. I did not want to miss the chance to do so.

The hon. Member for Hemsworth addressed the subject in a particular way. I went to a funeral the other day of an 18-year-old constituent whom I had know all his life. He was an immensely brave person who died of multiple sclerosis. He talked to me on his deathbed about death. The funeral was one of the most moving spiritual and religious experiences that I have ever had. The music of Elvis Presley was played at that funeral not to offend those of us who were keen on the Christian religion but because Elvis Presley was a love of that young man. The music fitted completely in the context of the Christian funeral. We must understand that such experiences can be translated into the classroom and real spiritual and Christian understanding can arise from them. That is an important point. It is important to get that point across as a basis for understanding how religion can be taught.

For many years, I took assemblies of more than 2,000 children two or three times a week, with 160 or 170 teachers on the stage with me. One must start with all those people where they are. One cannot take them out of the world in which they live and teach them religion in a vacuum. So it was with young Daniel. His funeral included the music of Elvis Presley because it had been part of his life. The lives of modern children in my constituency and many others are subject to pagan influences and pressures, which, unfortunately, are difficult to deal with. But if one starts where children are, one takes the right Christian approach.

After all, the great quality of Christianity and the difference about it is that Jesus came to people where they were. He did not bring down tablets of stone and say, "This is how it has to be." That is what we have to do with children today to put the subject across. I make no apology for saying that.

I agree wholly with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam about the Ealing syllabus. Is she aware that the syllabus, which has been withdrawn by the Tory administration, made no reference to Jesus, God or the bible? That was its basic problem. My hon. Friend put her finger on it. Unfortunately, acts of worship in schools have deteriorated for many years. In many schools they have ceased to be acts of worship. Assemblies are often simply programmes of announcements from the headmaster or headmistress, with perhaps a prayer if one is lucky. That is not good enough. That sort of thing can be tightened up. There is nothing to stop a sound act of worship taking place in all schools, whether large schools, such as those with which I have been associated, or small schools.

One must start with children where life is for them today and take them from there to some special teaching point. One might start with a football match or the fact that everyone has a birthday. But there must be a point with which every child and adult present can identify if one is to take people forward into a teaching experience. One cannot teach anyone in a vacuum from a position at which they are not. It is vital to start where they are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) wants to speak, so I shall curtail my remarks. Assemblies need to be rethought, and become acts of worship again, as they should be. The curriculum must be nationally organised and not left to local whim. The matter has not been resolved satisfactorily at local level, even though the syllabuses were well intended and aimed to take account of local social and religious differences.

Diocesan syllabuses are not drawn up at national level. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Catholic church should change its practice and draw up its syllabus nationally?

I am talking about maintained schools. Denominational schools have their own arrangements for religious education, and rightly so.

It would help if there were national guidelines. My hon. Friend the Minister might address that. Such guidelines would overcome the excesses that we faced in Ealing and other local authorities where the subject was allowed to go too far from the experience of the people of Britain. After all, our culture and that of our children is based on Christianity and nothing else.

The facts are absolutely plain. We are a Christian society and we should teach the Christian faith. We should teach an awareness and understanding of other major religions but only in an academic manner. We should be basically Christian. We should re-establish in all schools regular acts of communal worship with real hymns such as those which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and I remember singing when we went to school.

I do not know whether hon. Members are aware—perhaps not, because the attendance is not good—that even in the Palace of Westminster on a Wednesday morning at 12.45 pm there is an act of worship in the Crypt Chapel. I should be delighted to see more of my hon. Friends there with me.

Even in my constituency of Castle Point some schools are reluctant to engage in simple things such as acts of communal worship, singing real hymns and teaching the Christian faith. Such schools deny our children a sound moral basis and the opportunity to understand and love Jesus Christ. I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) introduced this important debate.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for bringing this undoubtedly important matter before the House and for giving hon. Members an opportunity to express their strongly held convictions on the subject, which they hold dear to their hearts.

Four years after the Education Reform Act 1988 and following much work on the national curriculum, it is appropriate that we should turn our attention to religious education, not least because widespread concern is developing about it at local and national level. I emphasise that the Government share that concern and I hope that my hon. Friends and hon. Members are aware of the personal interest and commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who made a point of ensuring that among the first people he met when he took on his new responsibilities were the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Hume and the Chief Rabbi. The Minister of State, Baroness Blatch, takes a close interest in such matters and gives them her personal attention.

In the context of what has been said, it is worth emphasising that, as many have pointed out, the Education Reform Act 1988 left responsibility for religious education at local level. The Act required the new agreed syllabuses adopted by local education authorities after 1988 to

"reflect the fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian, whilst taking account of the teaching and practices of the other principal religions represented in Great Britain".

The Act also introduced a requirement that daily acts of collective worship in county schools should be

"wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character".

In addition to these changes, local authorities were required to establish standing advisory councils on religious education known as SACREs and referred to by my hon. Friend to advise on religious education and collective worship. In addition to the curriculum and including religious education, the Act requires local authorities to set up local complaints procedures so that parents and others may complain if they feel that the curriculum is not being dealt with adequately in a school.

Notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam has said and the many graphic accounts that she gave of the system's shortcomings, some progress has been achieved since 1988. One third of local education authorities have reviewed, or are reviewing, their agreed syllabuses. The National Curriculum Council's recent analysis of SACRE reports noted that that represents, believe it or not, a level of curriculum development in RE unparalleled since 1944. Even that relatively modest progress is something that we have not necessarily seen before.

Local SACREs have been active in encouraging schools and local authorities to give more attention to religious education. That is a positive sign. We should also acknowledge the part played by representatives of the Churches and of other faiths in contributing to that work. However, that does not mean that we should he satisfied, because the corollary of what I have pointed out—the burden of what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam said—was that two thirds of agreed syllabuses have not been reviewed since 1988. I must admit that in some schools religious education is notable only by its absence from the curriculum.

I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that in the Department for Education we are actively considering what more we can do by encouraging local bodies to develop religious education or to bring their syllabuses more in line with what is required.

Under the present framework, decisions on the content of RE are a local responsibility. I agree with David Pascall, the chairman of the NCC, who said only last Friday that local responsibility is proper since RE must take into account the views and beliefs of the local community in order to meet the needs of pupils effectively. He correctly identified the root of the problem when he said that, if religious educaiton is being marginalised, this reflects a failure by individual schools and local bodies to meet their responsibilities. We must address those issues at that level.

In that context, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the fact that only a small proportion of the population are represented in ethnic or religious minorities. That is the case. Census results which will be published soon will verify the latest figures. My hon. Friend must take into account the fact that that proportion is much higher in many communities. It would be wrong for us not to acknowledge that the proportion of ethnic and religious minorities—those with religions other than Christianity—is very high in some schools, communities and local education authorities. That factor must he taken into account in our considerations during this debate and beyond.

I have emphasised that local authorities have the main responsibility for RE, but we must ensure that local education authorities and schools are discharging those responsibilities and statutory duties under the Act properly. The first and most important step, as my hon. Friend said, is inspection. In the Department for Education we ensure that we follow up cases where Her Majesty's inspectorate reports that the provision of RE at a school is inadequate, but one must accept that the number of schools inspected under the present regime is pitifully few. The new inspection regime that we shall introduce from next year will make a dramatic difference to the extent to which schools are inspected and to which the inspectorate will be charged to consider religious education and spiritual and moral values along with everything else in the curriculum, which will give us important new information to work on.

Together with inspection, there is a system of complaints. While I note what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties faced by parents in making complaints, nevertheless the procedure is there and I encourage as many people as possible to use it. The complaints system can be demonstrated to have been effective when it has been used by parents, and that is the key factor. Complaints are relatively few and far between. One might conclude from that that my hon. Friend's concern might not he shared as widely as she would expect, but I suspect that, as in so many other things, people who feel aggrieved are not aware of the complaints procedure or are not taking full advantage of it. I hope that the debate will help to bring the attention of parents to the fact that the complaints procedure exists. Parents who feel aggrieved and unhappy should take the opportunities available to them.

In addition to my hon. Friend, influential bodies are beginning to take up the debate on religious education. The Archbishop of York recently suggested that the Church of England and other faith groups should come together to develop model syllabuses that local authorities could consider adopting. Mr. David Pascall has offered the NCC's help in such a venture. That could be part of a wider range of work planned by the NCC, including a review of how the curriculum contributes to pupils' spiritual and moral development, an examination of agreed syllabuses produced since the 1988 Act to share best practice, work on the planning and delivery of religious education in schools, and work in consultation with the new office of Her Majesty's chief inspector in monitoring the curriculum. In those important respects, the NCC commitment to religious education is clear.

I note the concerns expressed so eloquently by my hon. Friend about the proportion of time devoted to Christianity. The Department has legal advice that in most cases the mainly Christian requirement referred to in the statute will be reflected by

"most attention being devoted to Christianity."

That advice was sent to all local education authorities in March 1991. That might go some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's reasonable request.

The view has been expressed that there may be some limit on the number of religions studied in schools. Although I am aware of the need to ensure that pupils are not confused by teaching that does not give them an understanding of the distinct nature of individual religions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) pointed out, it would be difficult to set limits on the number of religions to be studied. That is an area that should be considered carefully.

The Government and the Department are aware of the widespread concerns about this important matter.

My hon. Friend has just mentioned the Government. May I draw the attention of the House to the empty Opposition Front Bench for this important debate?

Indeed, but I want to emphasise——

May I point out that a spokesman in our education team asked me to speak on behalf of the Opposition?

The important conclusion to be drawn from the debate is the concern that is widely and deeply felt about this matter. It has been reflected by my hon. Friends who have attended and contributed to the debate. I want to leave them in no doubt that my colleagues in the Department and I are seized of the level of anxiety. The matter has been actively studied by the Department and will continue to be so. I can assure my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State and the Minister of State will continue to pursue these matters until they are satisfied, as I hope my hon. Friends will be, that this vital matter of religious education in schools in being dealt with properly and responsibly, and reflects the nature of society as we understand it.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you are jealous, as is Madam Speaker, of the privileges of this place. I should like to seek your advice on what seems to be prima facie a case of contempt of the House. The facts are briefly stated.

A senior executive of a nationalised industry, British Rail, came to see me in my office three weeks ago. I sought assurances from him about a part of my constituency. I got no satisfaction from him, but I made it clear that this was a major political interest of mine. I now discover that yesterday he had a meeting in my constituency with the leaders of the three political groups locally and has forbidden them to tell me about it, although it was about this very subject. I should be glad of your ruling Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Private meetings between individuals and chairmen of nationalised industries are not a matter for the Chair. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's comments will he noted.

Although this is not my maiden speech, I should like to begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Peter Archer, now Lord Archer of Sandwell—an honour richly deserved and widely appreciated, and worthy of a man who is held in the highest regard in this House, his constituency and throughout the country. I have often heard that he will be a hard act to follow, and I can only reiterate those sentiments.

I sought this debate because it is now self-evident that the problems created by wheel clamping on private land have, in the classic phrase, increased, are increasing and ought to be diminished. The cowboy dampers must be stopped. We cannot allow these outrages to continue throughout the summer, which is why we need to debate the subject here today before the summer recess.

I am pleased to see the Home Office Minister in his place. We missed our hour-and-a-half debate at an ungodly hour last seek. It is important that this subject is in the remit of the Home Office, because that is where the major decisions will have to be made.

I have already received a helpful letter from the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who highlighted two main reasons why we need a decision on this. The first is the increasing number of reports on the disturbing incidence of private clamping and the occurrence of outrages. There have been reports in the press, a campaign is being run by Today, and the matter has been raised elsewhere in the media, including "That's Life" and notably the Ed Doolan programme on Radio West Midlands. I should also like to pay tribute to the work being undertaken by the motoring organisations, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club. They have been campaigning on behalf of their members—not only on individual cases, but on the wider general issue.

Another reason that has made the subject pertinent for debate today is a recent decision by the Scottish courts. They have held that wheel clamping vehicles on private land and demanding a release fee is, under Scottish law, illegal extortion and theft. No one could have put it better. That is why I and more than 80 Members of the House have signed an early-day motion on wheel clamping. That is why I have a 10-minute Bill scheduled for when the House reassembles. Before then, I hope that the Minister can tell us of some progress in his discussions with other Departments and announce some action.

I accept that the Minister's task is not an easy one and that, undoubtedly, there are careless, thoughtless and dangerous parkers. The question is, what is the appropriate remedy? The car dampers are not normally the landowners—the work is sub-contracted to them—but they are the judge, jury and court bailiff rolled into one. They perform all those tasks at the same time.

It has been difficult to get this matter resolved in the courts. The AA and the RAC have taken up a number of cases on behalf of their members, but in every instance, either the money has been paid back before the case has come to court, or the dampers have gone out of business. The motoring organisations believe that some of them re-emerge somewhere else in a different guise to carry on the same business—M. Mouse wheel dampers become D. Duck wheel dampers. The motorists have never been recompensed for their frustration and inconvenience.

It is especially unfortunate that no case has come before the courts, because the legal opinion sought by motoring organisations suggests that even under current legislation wheel clamping is potentially unlawful in England and Wales, especially as it is rare for a parked vehicle to cause damage to the land. Some of the so-called legal backing for private clamping draws its authority from the old laws that enabled landowners to retain animals that had strayed on to their land and eaten their grass and crops. I know that some cars may be described as gas guzzlers, but that is taking things too far.

The nub of the issue is, what is the problem that private clamping—according to legal opinion, that is trespass on a vehicle—is supposed to solve? It cannot solve the problem of obstruction, because immobilising a vehicle must be the most inappropriate way of doing so. It comes down to the use of the land for parking. There may be problems with parking near offices and hospitals, but what about waste land? If owners want to restrict access to that land and charge for its use, they should erect a barrier or fencing. I am sure that the Minister would agree that we cannot tolerate land being leased or sub-contracted to clamping firms for the sole purpose of holding up a motorist and profiting from him by extracting a fee. The more they clamp, the more they make.

The Conservative party has always set great store by motivation and incentive. It should consider how those qualities work in this instance, because the basic incentive of the wheel damper is to make the parking problem worse and to extract more money. That money is not spent on trying to solve the problem. His sole purpose is to get fees from those who park on certain land. It has got so bad that, in many places, cars are left deliberately on waste land so that other drivers are enticed on to it. They are then trapped and have to pay a release fee. I understand that some dampers are even offering profit-sharing schemes to landowners. They are constantly on the lookout for new sites. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is a scandal.

It is worth considering some of the cases which have excited public interest in recent weeks and which have led to increasing demands from all sides of the House for some redress. Just this week a driver who found himself in a dead end went on to rough land to turn his car. He was immediately blocked in by a wheel clamping firm and his car was clamped while the engine was still running. In another case, someone picked up a friend from a station and dropped him off at a hotel. He parked on an empty bit of land in front of a disused shop opposite the hotel just long enough to put the friend's bags into the hotel and to emerge to go to a meeting. That car was clamped. In another case someone parked in front of a hotel on part of a private roadway, just as he had done many times in the past five years. When he left the hotel, he found that his car had been clamped. The hotel apologised and said that the firm was causing great inconvenience to its guests. It eventually managed to track down that clamping firm. Someone else parked on vacant land next to a coach station and left his car for a couple of minutes to see if a coach had arrived. In that time his car was clamped.

Those cases highlight one of the main problems—the rapid response of the wheel dampers. In many cases it appears that they watch land, ready to clamp anyone who parks on it. Some clamping firms advise their employees to get the money and to get the clamp off as quickly as possible because they do not want to discourage other people from parking.

I have been told about an hon. Member who, at 3 o'clock one afternoon, parked on land behind a trade union office and had his car clamped. He telephoned the clamping firm and was told that it would cost £50 to have it released. He said that he had to attend an urgent advice surgery session and needed his car immediately. The firm replied that for one of its staff to attend and release the car within two hours would cost another £50. Fortunately, the hon. Member knew enough to get the local police to deal with the matter, but he had to call the police twice to get the clamp removed. There are some disgraceful cases.

It is interesting to note the way in which the attitude of the police, and even of the Government, has changed in the matter. A year or so ago the police regarded it as essentially a matter between private citizens. Now, many police authorities and chief constables are becoming increasingly worried about the abuse that is occurring and the difficulties that they are having to face in the matter. That change of attitude should be noted generally.

A particularly worrying case involved a woman who parked her car on some waste land near a theatre in a town with which she was not familiar. At about 11 o'clock at night she came out of the theatre to find her vehicle clamped. I was informed by telephone today of a similar case in London. The lady who parked on some waste land was told that it would probably be a couple of hours before her vehicle could be released. Would we want any member of our family to be on waste land in an unfamiliar town waiting for a vehicle damper to turn up? We should not subject people, particularly women, to such treatment.

I was told of the amusing incident of an AA emergency vehicle which went on a breakdown call-out. The engineer could not find the vehicle, stopped to investigate on foot, and found on returning to his vehicle that it had been clamped. At least the AA was able to get one of its recovery vehicles to lift the clamped van on board, take it to the depot and have the clamp removed. That story highlights the absurdity of what is happening.

The charges are also outrageous, £50 a day being the going rate. If one does not have the money and must go and get it and return the following day, the charge is £100. That seems to be the bottom rate, and in many areas it can cost much more. The record that I have is £240 at Hebden Bridge. Lord Ingham may wish to go to Hebden Bridge, but that is a high price to pay for a visit.

I have information about a health visitor whose vehicle was clamped while she was visiting a convalescent patient. The stories are legion. Similar cases have been drawn to the attention of hon. Members in all parts of the House, and I am pleased to see in his place the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who hopes to take part in the debate to lend support to my case. This is a widespread issue and it is getting worse.

The Scottish courts have ruled that wheel clamping is extortion. I am not a legal expert, but I am advised that under English law the offence of blackmail is close to extortion, as is the law of trespass, operating not just against the vehicle owner but against the damper. The Home Office has sufficient legal experts to study the problem and reach the right answers.

I hope that before we rise for the recess the Minister will announce firm action against these modern-day highwaymen and will take action against cowboy dampers who are causing misery to motorists, our electors.

I strongly support the case made by the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar), and I am grateful to him for allowing me to take part in his debate. We are united in our view that the practice of wheel clamping on private land should be regulated by law.

The media have given wide coverage to some abuses that have occurred. There are widespread examples of wheel clamping firms which, frankly, have been trying to get away with murder by charging motorists extortionate sums to have their cars unclamped or to retrieve them when they have been removed. In the few cases where victims have challenged the charge in court, the firm has generally accepted defeat, ungraciously or otherwise, so that there are no judicial decisions which could provide guidance to motorists. Cases in which victims have fought back are undoubtedly just the tip of the iceberg. No one can know how many people have paid large sums without seeking to assert their rights.

I support the view that motorists are at least entitled to full information about the consequences of parking on private land without permission. Maximum fees should be laid down in regulations, and arrangements must be made for clamps to be removed within a reasonable period. Those whose vehicles are clamped should be informed what action they need to take to have their cars released.

In the past, the Government have been complacent about the issue. That is demonstrated by the response, in November 1990, to the RAC by the then Minister for Roads and Traffic, when he said:

"there is no obvious role for central government involvement".

There is a need for central Government involvement and for the law to be changed. As the hon. Member for Warley, West said, there is a case for wheel clamps to be used on vehicles parked on private land, but the need for the practice to be controlled is at least as great on private land as it is on the public highway.

Reputable firms exist—indeed, a firm in Keighley can make a claim to that status. It is in their interest that the cowboys should not be allowed to tarnish the reputation of that type of business. Above all, motorists should know where they stand and should not go on being mugged by some extremely unsavoury organisations.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West (Mr. Spellar) on raising this subject. I am glad to be able to participate in the debate. I am sorry that we did not meet at an earlier hour but the clock beat us on that occasion. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on his contribution. He has a long and honourable tradition of interest in transport matters in this House, and I am delighted that we have had a chance to look at those issues this morning.

I, too, am aware of the considerable concerns on the subject expressed by correspondents in the press. I congratulate both hon. Members on the fact that they have drawn the House's attention to specific examples of bad practice. They have done the House and the country a service in so doing.

It struck me that many of the attitudes displayed to the problem are akin to acts of piracy. Perhaps I could add another description: we may be dealing with parking pirates. Clearly, some important issues underlie what the hon. Member for Warley, West said and I shall try to deal with them.

The hon. Member for Warley, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned motoring organisations. I was much taken by the clear advice in the RAC's briefing to Members for this debate. I am sure that those legitimate organisations which my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley mentioned will take notice of the four-point advice steps that the RAC gave. They seem to be clear, good common sense about the right way to go about the problem.

The hon. Member for Warley, West rightly drew the House's attention to those practising in the wrong way, which is at the centre of our debate. I shall do my best to respond to the many interesting points that were raised.

It is important to clarify the scope of what we are debating. The issue relates to the practice of wheel clamping properly carried out on private property. The question is whether the owner of the private property should be allowed to immobilise a vehicle parked on his land without his permission and charge a fee for the vehicle's release. Our principal concern should be to satisfy ourselves that the right balance is struck between the legitimate interests of a private landowner to protect his or her property and the rights and reasonable expectations of the motorist. The hon. Member for Warley, West said that other motives may lie behind that exercise. I have taken careful note of what he said, and I assure him that I shall look carefully into the specific points he raised.

I cannot offer a firm conclusion on some of the issues this afternoon because they raise untested areas of the law. However, I underline my assurance that the concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed are being urgently considered. I shall come to further developments on that.

Hon. Members may be aware that some wheel clamping is legitimate on public roads. That activity is regulated by section 104 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the release fee of £38 for that legitimate exercise is properly prescribed. Such clamping has made a significant contribution to solving the problem of parking in and around central London.

The hon. Member for Warley, West spoke about the Scottish judgment, which has raised the profile of the issue. The question of the legality of this activity was answered by the Scottish Court of justiciary in the negative. It found that private wheel clamping amounts to extortion and theft under Scottish law, and we are currently considering the implications of that judgment for England and Wales. The position is not straightforward. As in so many other areas, the laws of Scotland and those of England and Wales are not the same. That begs the question whether private wheel clamping in England would amount to theft.

Under Scottish law, it is not necessary for a charge of theft to prove an intention permanently to deprive an owner of his property. The essence of the offence appears to be appropriation, by which control and possession are taken from the owner. English law, on the other hand, provides in section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 that a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

It is clear, therefore, that the finding of the Court of Justiciary has no direct relevance to the position in England and Wales. It would be a matter for a court to determine in any particular case whether the fixing of a wheel clamp to an improperly parked vehicle amounted to dishonest appropriation, or whether it involved any intention permanently to deprive the owner of the vehicle. It would not be proper for me to offer a view on the likelihood of such a charge being sustained, although hon. Members may feel that it would be straining the meaning of the Act a little if it were.

Will the Minister ask the Department to consider whether the offence of blackmail under English law might have an impact on these cases?

I carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said about that when he spoke about another aspect of this complex area of yet untested law. I shall evaluate what he has said, but I should now like to turn to other aspects of the law.

Theft is not the only offence that may be relevant. Other elements of the Theft Act 1968 offer a further perspective on this matter. Section 21 makes it an offence for a person, with a view to gain for himself or another, or with intent to cause loss to another, to make any unwarranted demand with menaces. Again, of course, it would be for a court to determine, but a court could find that an offence had been committed if, for example, a demand for payment was made against the threat that the vehicle would otherwise continue to be immobilised and, particularly, if the fee was deemed to be excessive. That applies even more so if no notice had been displayed warning drivers of the risk of clamping.

That brings me to the RAC advice on that matter. I am sure that the House will not need reminding that any assault against the person of the motorist or, indeed, the clamper would be an offence. The civil law may also be relevant. The act of fixing a clamp to a vehicle could amount to the civil tort of trespass to goods, which involves direct physical interference with goods without lawful justification. I understand that such a tort can be committed even without damage to the goods, although any damages recoverable would not normally be substantial unless there was physical damage.

Refusing to return a vehicle unless a fee is paid may also be actionable as an act of conversion under civil law. I am aware of at least one recent case involving that branch of the law in which a motorist was able to secure the immediate release of his vehicle. Clearly, some of the nuisance which hon. Members have described can arise if people employed by a wheel-clamping firm operate in an unpredictable or irresponsible manner. The hon. Member for Warley, West graphically described a number of such cases. If a court were to decide that a civil wrong or criminal offence had been committed, it would have to reach a decision on the facts of the case about where liability should rest.

It is clear that there is widespread and justifiable concern about the practice, but we should not overlook the real nuisance which can be caused by drivers who park their vehicles on private property without regard to any inconvenience they may cause to others. I appreciate that there is a legitimate need to prevent problems with access to land which may be needed, for example, to move vehicles on or off it. The examples cited by the hon. Member for Warley, West went further than that, and I shall consider what he said.

Owners of private property can, not unnaturally, become frustrated by people who regularly park on their land, sometimes blocking access for themselves, their families or their clients. Most of the concern expressed in the debate has been for the drivers whose vehicles have been immobilised, and the consequences that follow when they try to get their cars released. I share those concerns, but it is important to bear in mind that we are talking about someone who has parked on private property to which he has no right of access, sometimes in direct defiance of notices specifically identifying a plot of land as a private car park. As the hon. Gentleman said, there are examples involving the trade in clamping in which such strictures have not been followed—but I am glad that he raised that point.

Such actions do not necessarily give the owner of the property the right to take whatever action he wishes, however unreasonable, to deal with the nuisance. but I think that it is necessary to acknowledge that there are two sides to the issue. As the hon. Gentleman said, the owner of property may, of course, take other steps to prevent parking on his land—a barrier or a gate can be effective—but if those steps fail, should he necessarily be prevented from taking other remedial action?

If further remedial action is justified and within the law, what steps can the motorist reasonably expect the landowner and the damper to have taken? I sense from the debate that many of the complaints which hon. Members and others have brought to my attention concern the manner of clamping as much as the clamping itself. The posting of clear warning notices, and a sensible approach to the level of fee and the manner of its collection—including, as the hon. Gentleman rightly drew to the attention of the House, a regard for the particular circumstances of the motorist after his car has been clamped—are the kind of issues which must be high on the agenda for future discussions.

As I have outlined, it seems that in certain circumstances a court may find that wheel clamping on private land amounts to a criminal offence or civil wrong. It is unfortunate that, so far as we are aware, neither the civil nor the criminal law has been authoritatively tested in the courts on the broad issue. There are—as the House will appreciate—difficult legal questions here which the Government are urgently considering. I appreciate hon. Members' frustration that the situation is not clearer. Indeed, I share that frustration—I have seen some such situations for myself—but I assure them that we are considering the matter urgently, including the question whether any action is needed to prohibit or to regulate the use of wheel clamps on private property.

I shall take fully into account the examples which both hon. Members who spoke in the debate raised. If the hon. Member for Warley, West cares to provide more detailed information in correspondence with me, I invite him to do so, and it will all be considered. Once again, I congratulate him on raising the matter——

rose——

and before I finish my speech, I shall give way to him.

Will the Minister tell us when the deliberations are likely to come to a conclusion, and when he will be able to make an announcement?

One of the factors which has become clear during the debate is the complexity of the untested law involved. Something which has become clear to me in my short time at the Home Office is that sometimes to act in haste means to repent at leisure. We must carefully consider the implications of what has been said. In my speech I have tried to balance the needs of the legitimate private landowner who may say, "This is causing a nuisance; I have no option but to resort to clamping," with the considerations put before me by the hon. Member. He said that people were almost turning clamping into a business so that the legitimacy argument was lost. He also said that bad practice had come as people sought to make gains.

Our task must be to consider the full implications of both sides. Private people in residential areas may have a legitimate case for saying that clamping is the best way in which to deter people from blocking the entrances to garages, for example.

The hon. Member for Warley, West highlighted another matter which is a new aspect of debate in the House. I am personally delighted that he has gone so far in highlighting it. I give him the assurance that we will look at the matter with all urgency. I am aware that we must make quality decisions in the area if they are found to be appropriate. I should like a little time to study the matter to ensure that we can examine fully the evidence put before us. Clearly the Royal Automobile Club——

Order.

I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just two hours or so before the House rises for a very long recess, and to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents and to the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent North Yorkshire seats. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is in the Chamber to support me in this brief debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for finding time to respond to the debate. It is a great pleasure to see him in his post and he is clearly enjoying life in the ministerial ranks.

I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I am wearing the tie of the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust. More of those ties are being seen around the Corridors of the Palace. I was one of the first three guinea-pigs who entered the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust scheme which was introduced by the then Speaker and by Mr. Neil Thorne, who then represented Ilford, South.

I have found membership of the trust to be an extremely enjoyable and illuminating experience. One thing it has taught me is the importance of Ministry of Defence establishments in North Yorkshire, not least the importance of the Royal Air Force base at Linton-on-Ouse where I was placed for my year on the scheme.

North Yorkshire has a fine tradition of Ministry of Defence work. It is home to a number of distinguished regiments and armed forces. Apart from RAF Linton-on-Ouse, my constituency has the newly commissioned early warning station at RAF Fylingdales up on the moors. I visited the station some months ago to see the huge work load there with civilian jobs of some quality involved in the preparation of the station and now, thankfully, in its manning.

There are two Ministry of Defence establishments at Strensall—Strensall barracks and the Strensall Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers depot. I shall devote most of my remarks to that depot. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, our right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced on Tuesday the intention to close the REME depot at Strensall. Other matters have affected North Yorkshire Ministry of Defence establishments in recent months and have given rise to some concern.

The future of the support command for the RAF establishment at Harrogate, where more than 1,000 civilians are employed, is still not settled. I must tell the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), that many of us are still unconvinced by the Government's arguments for the removal of those jobs from North Yorkshire to Brampton and to RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind that we are still not convinced of the Government's case on that and that he will respond to our request for more information about the costings which do not seem to us to have been properly worked through.

There are, however, some bright spots, and it would be wrong to concentrate exclusively on the potential problems stemming from proposed closures. At Leeming and at Catterick there has been a substantial enhancement of armed forces and civilian personnel requirements—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks will refer, in the hope of some reassurance from the Minister on the future of Catterick following the announcement this week of the proposed transfer of the Royal Air Force Regiment from Catterick to Suffolk.

We are also grateful that at York, at the Imphal barracks in Fulford, the former north-east district headquarters is to have an enhanced role, following "Options for Change". The new eastern district headquarters will take on an even more important role than before, which is good news for many of my constituents in greater York who work at the Imphal headquarters.

Equally, it would be churlish not to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) who, as Secretary of State, piloted through the "Options for Change" programme, listened to our entreaties and retained all the Yorkshire regiments—a much-deserved retention because of their fine traditions and recruitment records. That action did not go unnoticed.

The latest string of announcements have nevertheless created the impression that much of the Ministry of Defence activity in North Yorkshire is being shut down. People want to know whether there are to be any more announcements, any more skeletons in the cupboard, or whether we now know the full extent of the changes, which will affect people's jobs, about which they are understandably anxious.

The announcement this week that the REME depot at Strensall is to be shut down has caused considerable dismay. Two hundred and fifteen civilians work there. The consultation document, of which I have a copy, makes but fleeting and almost dismissive reference to the reasons behind the decision. It offers no properly worked out argument for the closure, referring merely to only 25 per cent. of the work load coming from York and to the fact that the volume of its dependency is not expected to increase in the future.

There follows the sweeping statement that having reviewed the position there is a decision that 41 district workshop at Strensall should close on financial, engineering and operational grounds. That is the sum total of the Government's argument.

That argument does not bear much scrutiny, because 41 Command is the only workshop facility for telecommunications test and calibration in the Ministry of Defence. The closure of the workshop would have far-reaching effects on support for the British Army and all our armed forces establishments. What is more, if the depot is closed, no facility between Leicester and Stirling will provide the support that Strensall provides. About 141 Ministry of Defence establishments depend on Strensall; all would incur higher transport costs, although we are not told how much higher or what the collection arrangements would be.

There has been a suggestion that collection sites might be established. Who would man them? I suggest that there is a real danger of only small savings accruing from the closure going ahead. I do not dismiss the need to find savings in defence expenditure, but in this case those savings could be more than outweighed by the extra costs, because of the logistical difficulties that would ensue from the closure of this fine facility and the consequent dispersal of its professional skills.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us why he and the MoD believe that we can close Strensall and transfer the work to Catterick or contract it out when no case has been made to support that. I accept that it is about 50 miles away, but the Catterick depot supports the mainline infantry. It will also have extra work when it supports the 6th Armoured Brigade when it returns from Germany in due course. The Strensall depot supports the Rapid Reaction Corps, that jewel in the crown of the "Options for Change" programme.

The Strensall depot provides vehicle and communications equipment maintenance support. The facility at Strensall also provides the Army with flexibility. That was illustrated in May when I drove along the A6 autoroute in France during the last recess. Driving in the opposite direction was a convoy of white United Nations ambulances. They made an impressive sight. Being aware of the troubles and difficulties in Yugoslavia, my wife and I were much relieved by that sight. At long last, we were doing something about the problem. Little did I know then that those ambulances and vehicles were prepared, maintained and serviced for their journey at the Strensall depot in my constituency. In fact, I live round the corner from the depot and perhaps it was rather remiss of me not to notice that all that work was going on.

The Strensall depot was able to prepare those vehicles very quickly and at short notice. That shows the value of the depot to the British Army. We do not know when we will have to call upon our armed forces to respond in times of war, a subject which we had to discuss in this place not so long ago in respect of the middle east, or for relief operations. It would be a retrograde step to shut the Strensall depot when the argument in favour of closure seems so threadbare.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to my points and perhaps say whether we can come to some better arrangements about the proposal. As I understand it, the normal consultation period with the unions for a closure announcement of this kind is about 20 working days. That is not long enough at the best of times. However, given that the House is to go into recess and many people will be on holiday, it is incumbent on the Minister to respond to the not unreasonable request that the consultation period should be extended and that no formal decision to close Strensall depot should be taken at least until after the House returns after the recess.

I should like to go a stage further than that. In any event, it would be premature to close the depot until the market-testing initiative on contractorisation, referred to in the consultation document, has been carried out. It seems crazy to say that we think that we can settle some of the current work load through contractorisation and that there will be a market-testing initiative to discover whether that is feasible, but we will close the depot before we have the results of the market test initiative. I cannot see the logic in that argument and, understandably, neither can the work force.

We all want to save expenditure and cut waste, particularly in administration. The Strensall and Catterick depots are close to each other and closely interrelated, as has always been the case with the various barracks around North Yorkshire between Catterick, Strensall and Imphal. Given that they are so closely related, why cannot one depot remain as a satellite of the other? At this juncture, I should not like to suggest which way round that should be, because I understand that they are of a similar size, but my suggestion would prevent waste administration and it might lead to the satellite depot shedding some staff, particularly if the contractorisation experiment worked. Expenditure that is likely to be incurred on various military establishments having to send their work loads all around the country, with extra transport and collection costs, would be better spent on maintaining a depot, albeit slimmed down, at one or other site. I suspect that it might be in Strensall, given that Catterick is to expand its operations under the "Options for Change" programme.

I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. Friend the Minister that the proposal raises many questions and that we need more time to prove that Strensall depot, which has a fine history and fine traditions—I pay tribute to all the staff who have worked there—should be given an opportunity to show that it still has an important role in the support of our armed forces. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we should have more time to put our case.

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for raising this subject and for allowing me a few moments to make a contribution. Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is present.

I am prompted to participate in the debate by the announcement on Tuesday that the RAF Regiment is to move from Catterick, after a long association with the town, and be concentrated entirely in Suffolk. We in the Richmond and Catterick area are very sad to see the RAF Regiment go. It has had a long association with the area and it is well liked. Many generations have enjoyed working there. The regiment's relationship with, and contribution to, the local community have been extremely positive. However, we accept that the decision was taken after a long review. The decision is not a surprise. Difficult decisions must be made during the "Options for Change" process. Some battles will be won for North Yorkshire and some will be lost, but we accept that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have a difficult decision to make.

I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces earlier this week, stating:

"Everything possible would be done to avoid redundancies amongst the 75 civilian … employees at RAF Catterick. The Army is likely to have an alternative use for the base. This could provide job opportunities for the existing civilian employees, and there may also be opportunities for alternative employment in Catterick garrison."

I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that high priority is given to ensuring that those 75 civilian employees will be found alternative employment. I ask him also to make a decision as soon as possible about the future of the base, even though the RAF Regiment is not to leave until the end of 1993 or early 1994. The sooner my hon. Friend decides the future of the base and whether the Army will use it, the better it will be for all concerned and the sooner the local community will know how the matter will develop. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to.find an alternative use for the base by the Army.

In many ways, this matter is exceptional. Over the past few years, the extent of Ministry of Defence employment, the number of armed forces and the number of service men based in my constituency have continued to expand, particularly because of RAF Leeming being established as a major air base and the expansion of Catterick garrison. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is extremely welcome in the area. Notwithstanding a few problems of noise compensation that we still have to sort out at RAF Leeming, the local community and the armed forces work extremely well together and have a good relationship. That demonstrates my other point.

The north is an excellent region in which to locate a larger share of the armed forces. It has lower property prices. Money has greater purchasing power because the salaries of those who work in the armed forces are lower. Many people can work close to their homes. The north is an excellent place to locate an ever-increasing proportion of our armed forces.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for introducing this important debate. I have been much impressed by the concern that he has rightly shown for his constituents and by his expertise on military matters, which he kindly said was due in no small measure to his experience as a guinea pig, as he put it, in the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust.

I listened to both my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) with particular sympathy. I know their constituencies reasonably well. I once aspired to represent the Thirsk and Malton constituency which, following subdivisions, both their constituencies now include. Although my period as a prospective parliamentary candidate was not the most successful episode of my career, I formed a great affection for the people of Yorkshire and a love for the countryside of Yorkshire. Therefore, I have some feeling for the places that my hon. Friends described, such as Strensall and Catterick. So I reply to the debate with some local knowledge as well as on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

My hon. Friends were right to say that Yorkshire is a county of great military excellence and tradition. This is rather an all-Yorkshire occasion. Although the impartiality of your office precludes you from doing anything but listening to our debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that as the Member for Parliament for Pontefract and Castleford you concur with the kind tributes that were paid to the excellence of the various regiments and depots in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is present on the Front Bench in his silent capacity as a Government Whip, has also expressed great concern on behalf of his constituents who are affected by some of the decisions about Harrogate. He will also echo the good and justified tributes that were paid to the various installations and regiments in Yorkshire.

Some 17,500 Ministry of Defence personnel are based in Yorkshire. The county has the fifth highest number of MOD posts in the United Kingdom. Pro rata to population, that rises to third highest. In addition, the Ministry spends some £200 million annually on equipment in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, providing direct employment for about 4,000 more people.

Among the main defence establishments in North Yorkshire is the large garrison at Catterick. Of course, the city of York has been chosen for the headquarters of the new enlarged eastern district. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has already mentioned the various RAF bases and fine regiments, so we can safely say that Yorkshire is well represented in the order of battle of both the RAF and the Army. There are three county regiments—the Green Howards, the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment and the Duke of Wellington's Regiment—in addition to contributions from other regiments.

The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has rightly raised of some 189 jobs at the 41 district workshop in York must be seen from the perspective from the great pride that everyone feels about the wider defence presence in Yorkshire. The Ministry faces some difficult decisions as a result of "Options For Change". I fully understand and sympathise with the shock that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ryedale and his constituents must have felt when we announced that we proposed to close 41 district workshop in the constituency. I certainly appreciate his anxiety about the effect that the closure will have on employment in the area.

I welcome the opportunity to explain why we have to make reductions in the Army's static workshop organisation and why we propose that the workshop in York should be among those to be closed.

The Army's static workshop organisation now consists of a workshop in Northern Ireland, three base workshops in England, nine district workshops in England, Scotland and Wales, a small workshop at Long Marston and one base workshop in Germany. The organisation as a whole is working at well below capacity: overheads are high and greater efficiency could be achieved.

"Options for Change" requires a significant restructuring of the Army, and although the variety and diversity of equipment—will remain largely unchanged, there will be a considerable reduction in the volume of the repair load. It has been calculated, for instance, that the base repair load—that is, the in-depth overhaul of equipment, will reduce in the post-options era to less than 60 per cent. of the former requirement. We have therefore had to conduct a review to assess the number of workshops required to support the Army in future.

The district workshops, of which York and Catterick are examples, are located in areas of Army concentration throughout the United Kingdom. They provide first and second line support for Regular Army and Territorial Army units and undertake a limited amount of base repair work. The current in-house work load is of the order of 1·4 million man hours a year. In addition, some 800,000 man hours of work are carried out under contract. It has been calculated that the redeployment of units to the United Kingdom from the British Army of the Rhine will raise the annual in-house load to some 1·5 million man hours. However, even this will leave a significant amount of spare capacity in the workshops and we reluctantly, but inevitably, came to the conclusion that some should be closed, including, I regret to say, 41 workshop in York.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asked questions about a specific problem, to which I should like to reply, and he made certain requests. First, he asked, justifiably, whether 20 days was too short a period for meaningful consultations and whether we could do a little better than that, particularly when the House is in recess and some people are away on holiday. I can grant that request easily, because the Ministry's consultation period provides for a minimum of 20 days, which can be extended if the closure raises difficult issues, as we acknowledge it does, and if the unions or the local Member of Parliament asks for an extension. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that we have met him on that request.

My hon. Friend asked whether we could arrange for the necessary clearances for him to visit the workshop. We shall be pleased to make those arrangements for him.

I find it harder to grant my hon. Friend's second request to postpone the closure pending the outcome of the market-testing initiative. I cannot agree to that, because of the huge over-capacity in the workshop organisation, which will increase. There is simply insufficient work load to maintain the workshop organisation at its present level, and closures must be made. The market-testing initiative will be carried out only in the workshops that remain.

Next my hon. Friend asked whether the two workshops in Yorkshire could he retained, one as a satellite of the other. Again, I cannot see my way to agreeing to that. It simply would not resolve the problem of the great over-capacity that exists in the Army static workshop organisation.

My hon. Friend also asked whether we were worried that there would he no workshop capable of performing highly technical telecommunications work in the calibration field, particularly between Stirling and Leicester. I can confirm that there is no facility at Catterick. We expect to place specialised work out to local contract repair. There will he a good opportunity for many local telecommunications companies. In addition, where really specialised work is necessary, local collecting points will be provided to move the work, where necessary, to other Army workshops. We can give further details of that in the consultation period. I hope that I have dealt with the main points of my hon. Friend's plea on behalf of Strensall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks asked about the RAF Regiment and the changes affecting Catterick. I was delighted by his warm tribute to that regiment. Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced changes to the future size and shape of the regiment. The reorganisation follows an exhaustive study which has been an important part of our programme to create a more efficient structure for the RAF for the future.

I assure my hon. Friend that it is the required size and shape of the RAF Regiment, which was carefully examined, which will result in the announced move from Catterick. I believe that the majority of the affected RAF staff will be relocated to other RAF Regiment duties. Unfortunately, there will be some officer redundancies, but we hope that the alternative use of RAF Catterick by the Army will provide job opportunities for the existing civilian work force. It may also create job opportunities at the Catterick garrison. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I think that I am right to say that, in this case, the effect on his constituents and the local economy will not be great.

Difficult decisions have had to be made. I am afraid that I cannot please all my hon. Friends in their requests. Yorkshire has 17,500 service men. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the changes are fairly small and will not unduly affect the military situation and its installations in Yorkshire.

I am grateful for the opportunity on this last day before the summer recess to debate, albeit briefly, the current drought in southern Africa. It is no coincidence that this debate follows a substantial and significant one in the other place yesterday, because many Members on both sides in both places, as well as the Government, are aware of the enormity of the potential disaster facing Africa today. It is because that disaster could be so unprecedented in its scale that it is vital that the House should speak on behalf of the country and say what we should and could do to prevent it.

Two of today's earlier debates have centred on regeneration and job retention in docklands and in north Yorkshire respectively. Nothing that we debate about social security, employment security or the domestic security of our residents is in the same league as the debate on southern Africa. Many members of the public understand that; therefore, we must adopt a wholly different type of stance in addressing this issue.

My interest in southern Africa goes back a long time, but only a month ago today, at the invitation of the director of Oxfam, I had the privilege to touch down with him and four others in Zambia for a five-day visit, followed by a similar length visit to Zimbabwe. To be completely honest, I think that Oxfam originally hoped that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) would undertake the visit. He was unable to go, so I was asked to go in his place.

The new direct or of Oxfam, Dr. Bryer, accompanied me, together with Justin Forsyth of Oxfam, who is expert in southern African affairs, and its press officer, Liam Curran. We were also accompanied by an experienced BBC television crew, Bill Hamilton and Baz Solanki, who have visited Albania and elsewhere and reported vividly from other countries as they go through major crisis.

The purpose of our visit was clear. Reports had reached us that the sub-region of southern Africa was facing the worst drought in living memory. Oxfam is 50 years old this year, and throughout its existence it has taken up the challenge of trying to respond to disaster and famine throughout the world. It believed that the best way to respond to this drought was to send a delegation so that people could see with their own eyes and report back.

Within two days of returning from Zimbabwe and Zambia, we went to see the Minister for Overseas Development and her officials, who received us courteously. I believe that that meeting was effective. I had talks with the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), and her colleague the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). On the following Monday, I visited the Vice President of the European Commission, with the Oxfam team responsible for such matters. Oxfam officials have also had several discussions with officials in the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in Brussels.

We came back to present the message of what could and should be done. A great thing about the visit was the way in which it was planned. I take no responsibility for that, but applaud the way in which Oxfam thought it through. By taking an experienced and competent television crew, we could report back direct to the widest public in this country. People also saw the films in other countries across the channel. In the week that we came back there was BBC television coverage on four days—morning, lunchtime, afternoon and evening—as well as on children's "Newsround" later that week.

The result is that we have been able to contribute to what the debates yesterday and today seek to do—to raise the profile of the issue and to ensure that in this country we are not unaware of the severity of the crisis.

I do not want to go over what was said yesterday in another place, as those who follow our proceedings can read the report and it would be repetitious simply to go over facts. However, I urge people to refer to that debate and to view it alongside this one.

I want to describe the present picture, and to share some reflections on my visit. I am grateful that I had the benefit of an earlier conversation with the Minister on the subject, and I hope that we can identify new ways in which we can do something. The purpose of the debate is not merely to make people aware of what is going on, but to make them realise that we can do something as a country and we can use our influence at home and abroad.

Briefly, I shall describe the scale of the problem. It is not a cliché to say that it is the worst drought in living memory, and that is confirmed by the facts. The region is normally a net exporter of food to the rest of the world, especially grain and cereals, and it is the grain basket of Africa. It is a part of Africa that is normally self-sufficient and is not regarded as subject to this sort of crisis. Because there was no rain last year, and because in some parts of southern Africa there has been no rain, or below average rainfall, for the past 11 or 12 years—we were told that by some of the people that we visited—the crisis has not suddenly arrived but has built up over many years.

The figures have been identified by the United Nations, according to the best advice given to it. Potentially, 18 million people could die of famine. That is more than one quarter of the population of this country. People have already died because of the drought in southern Africa. Because of weakness through lack of food, they have not been able to survive. We visited villages in the eastern provinces of Zambia and the southern part of Zimbabwe where, within the preceding day or two, people had received their first food for weeks. They had been living on roots and berries, which have no nutritional value but give a little moisture and a semblance of food. In some cases they had rubbed the leaves of plants to make salt, which was the only other food for them to eat.

Water is the life source, and some people either have none or they find a little stagnant water left in the bottom of a pool perhaps a mile away. They might find a drop of water in an almost empty well or in a borehole in the back of beyond away from the villages. Rivers and streams are dry, and reservoirs that normally contain 100 ft of water are all but empty.

We visited places where the villagers, often women, had to walk 10 miles to borrow a bucket—because they had none—and walk another 10 miles to collect a bucketful of stagnant, polluted water from a source shared by wild animals, and then carry it back to their families. It will not surprise the House to hear that they face not just hunger and malnutrition but the diseases that follow, such as cholera, TB, malaria and dysentery. Already, there have been significant numbers of deaths among the elderly and children, and even the healthy middle-aged.

We were told by one family that it had 20 cattle last year. Fifteen had died through lack of water and food and the remaining five were too weak to be of any use. In many parts, people have no cattle to produce food for them, and their income and wealth have been destroyed through no fault of their own. Instead of acres, mile upon mile, of fields growing green, providing crops for the people of rural southern Africa and others, there is a brown horizon yielding nothing.

Relief agencies and Governments have been asked to respond and provide the grain needed immediately. But including the other crisis area of Africa, the horn, we are still about $550 million short of the money needed to buy the food and provide the aid needed to meet the immediate crisis.

The countries concerned are democracies which are grappling to cope with imposed, though agreed, terms for their economic development. Those terms were laid down by the International Monetary Fund. They are doing their best to turn old demand economies into capitalist economies. They are removing subsidies and thereby increasing food prices to their people. They are trying to balance their books and pay off their debts, and so far they have not defaulted.

In addition to trying to cope with incredibly difficult economic problems—far more difficult than we face in the present recession—they are facing additional hardships such as the prevalence of HIV and Aids and thousands of refugees coming over the border from countries such as Mozambique, where there is war as well as famine. So this is an accumulated crisis.

There has been a good response from Britain and the European Community, but we need a general awareness that more must be done. A part of the world that can normally look after itself—and look after us in large measure—is saying not that it needs handouts but that it cannot now do everything to help itself. Given the tools, it will do the job, but it desperately requires help to overcome the immediate crisis. It needs food and cash, and we must ship it quickly through the coastal into the landlocked countries in the centre of the region. We must ensure that it is distributed effectively. That will enable us to prevent drought from creating famine and disaster from becoming an unparalleled crisis in the history of the continent. We can also create the possibility of survival and restructuring thereafter. For that, many obvious things are needed: seed, fertiliser, tools, tractors, technical equipment, and so on.

To show how desperate the position is, may I complete the picture by illustrating the consequences? If there is no water, the hydroelectric scheme cannot produce as much electricity. Therefore, it cannot supply as much industrial production and industry will lay off people. Those people become unemployed and produce less, sell less and earn less. The country's balance of payments problems are therefore far more difficult to resolve. So the whole of the economy and everyone in the region are directly affected as a result of what may appear on the surface to be a crisis of the rural economy.

The agenda for our response should he as follows. First, as President of the European Community for the remainder of this year, it will be within our term of office to decide about this issue, and we must ensure that the shortfall in pledges is soon made up. Secondly, we must ensure that the pledges are converted into effective delivery, a point which my hon. Friends and I made strongly to the Vice President of the Commission, when we said that it was all very well making a pledge, but we must deliver the goods. Thirdly, to judge by Baroness Chalker's reply in another place yesterday, there will be an opportunity next week to see whether we can alter the terms of debt repayment—the Trinidad terms—so that Zambia, which is in a different International Monetary Fund category, does not have to repay its debt either at all or under such rigorous terms.

In much of the correspondence which the television programmes have generated for me, people have said that we must write off the debt once and for all to give those countries a chance of survival. Lastly, there are opportunities to alter what everyone in those countries talks about—structural adjustment. That means altering the structure of those countries' economies so that they are not required to be so economically and financially self-righteous that they cannot carry out their principal duty: to feed the people whom they are elected to represent.

I wish to finish with a personal comment. I make it only because I hope that it will give the debate the immediacy that it deserves. When I arrived back at Heathrow, I was greeted with the devastating news that an elder brother of mine had died, having caught malaria on his honeymoon. This has been reported in the press and I repeat it only for that reason. If the death of one person in one's own family can have such a personal devastating effect on so many, as other colleagues in the House have experienced in their lives, I hope that that will persuade us of the reason and urgency to do something about these 18 million people who are already suffering while we still have the time to do something about it. I hope that we will realise that, for many millions of people, what we decide this summer is nothing less than a matter of life and death.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on initiating this Adjournment debate. It is timely and he has spoken well and with great feeling as he described, in his closing words, the crisis facing southern Africa. I know of his visit to southern Africa with Dr. Bryer and Mr. Forsyth and of his discussions with my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker. If I do not manage to answer all his points in the few minutes left, I am comforted by the fact that he has had a full discussion with my right hon. and noble Friend.

The hon. Gentleman's concern is shared by everyone in the House. It is important to appreciate the scale of the problem and to give the threat of famine in the region its due place on the international agenda. The drought, both in terms of its geographical spread and its severity, may be—as described by the hon. Gentleman—the worst to affect the southern part of that continent this century. With regional production of basic food grains down to about 40 per cent. of the normal level, and with shortage of water leading to the widespread slaughter of livestock and to an increase in diseases among the most vulnerable groups, especially the elderly, up to 18 million people are at serious risk. A region which can normally expect to be largely self-sufficient in cereal crops is having to import more than 11 million tonnes of food.

These basic facts provide some measure of the problem. Lives are at real risk and, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is grave threat also to the processes of economic and political reform which have been making significant headway in the region over the past year or so. These are threats which the international community must recognise and act quickly and decisively to avert.

The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that Britain has taken a leading role in responding to the crisis. He had discussions with President Mugabe, who confirmed that. We provided an initial package of assistance for the worst-hit countries at the beginning of March and, since then, the Minister for Overseas Development has made bilateral commitments of aid which, so far, amount to more than £48 million. This aid has been balance of payments support to help cope with the burden of extra food imports, food aid, technical assistance and support for both local and British-based voluntary agencies.

The Government have also pressed for a generous response from the European Community. I shall say more about that later. On 4 May the Development Council approved additional food aid totalling 800,000 tonnes. Some 370,000 tonnes of that additional aid will go to southern Africa and we shall contribute more than £11 million towards the cost.

The drought appeal conference in Geneva in June—at which, sadly, my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was the only Minister from a donor county—produced a positive response from the international community as a whole. In terms of the specific categories of assistance covered by the appeal, pledges made at the conference, which came to about US$600 million, fell short of the appeal target of $850 million, but these included substantial commitments from some major donors, including notably the Americans and the Japanese. Other donors, including the Dutch, the Canadians and ourselves, have made substantial extra commitments since the conference. We shall continue to take every available opportunity, both in the European Community under our presidency and in other international forums, to urge others to join in responding generously to the needs of southern Africa.

It would be wrong to imply that the solution to the crisis is solely help from outside. The countries of the region have acted with commendable speed to put the machinery of co-operation in place. A regional task force of representatives from the member states of the southern African development co-ordination conference was set up in April. Six transport corridor groups have been established to supervise the importation of food, and they are liaising closely with national emergency co-ordinators and with the logistics advisory centre now operating in Harare with the support of the world food programme. It is encouraging to note that this co-operation transcends political differences, with the port and railway authorities of southern Africa playing a vital role in the massive logistical effort that is now under way. If there is a positive aspect to the drought, it is this readiness on the part of all the countries of the region to act together at a time of crisis. That gives some comfort for the future.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that, after discussions that lasted well into last night, agreement has been reached in Rome on secure corridors for the safe passage of relief supplies in and through Mozambique. That is excellent news not only for the people of Mozambique but for those in neighbouring landlocked countries, and it is a further step towards the peace that Mozambique so badly needs.

I said that I would say a few more words about the European Community response, which the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey mentioned. Given the nature of the procedure involved, I consider that the approval given on 4 May to a substantial programme of additional food aid was something of an achievement. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman also said, delivery is equally important. I assure him that the Commission is fully alive to the need for a proper delivery process.

Nearly half the Community's total food aid programme for 1992 had been shipped or was on the point of shipment by the end of June. Another enormously important factor, of which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware, is the vital necessity for food aid shipments from the Community and from other bilateral and multilateral donors to be managed and co-ordinated properly over the next few months so as to ensure an even flow of supplies between now and the next harvest, in March.

As the Minister knows, the House will be in recess for the next three months. We are told that the crisis will intensify in September. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us now that, if things get worse, every effort will be made by the Government and by the EC, and that all the machinery is in place, to ensure that emergency action is taken to send food to the people as soon as possible? As the Minister has said, pledges have been made and have not yet been delivered. That is a matter for great concern to the House.

In the four minutes remaining to me, I had intended to deal with some of those points.

My right hon. and noble Friend referred specifically to the drought at the meeting of the Development Council of the European Parliament yesterday. I have no doubt that the subject will be on the agenda at the next Development Council, and that both my right hon. and noble Friend and our colleagues in the EC will take it extremely seriously during the coming months.

The Paris Club is meeting next week and will consider Zambia's request for debt relief. That is the appropriate forum for the consideration of debt relief issues, and we shall continue to work there for the application of more generous terms on the lines of the original Trinidad proposals suggested by the Prime Minister.

The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey asked about Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is different from Zambia, in that it has been able to service its debts in full, and thus to maintain its creditworthy status. We understand that it has no plan to seek debt relief. Indeed, because it is anxious to maintain its creditworthy status in commercial and financial markets, it does not intend to change that approach.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the deaths of livestock, and recovery and rehabilitation problems. Of course, there is a severe impact on livestock. In Zimbabwe, for example, 40 per cent. of commonly owned and smallholder cattle may die. In the commercial sector, numbers are likely to fall by as much as 25 per cent. The threat to wildlife is mainly confined to the south-east of the country, where a major cull is being carried out to help to ensure that at least some of the animals survive.

We know that emergency humanitarian aid is not enough, and that we must consider recovery and rehabilitation. That must be the next step, and it will include helping to rebuild livestock holdings and ensuring that supplies of seed are available for the next planting season.

There can be no doubt that the people of southern Africa face great hardship over the coming months. The task of the international community will be to ensure that hardship does not turn into grave loss of life and widespread dislocation of the region's political and economic structures. That is the threat which must be faced and overcome.

I assure hon. Members that the Government will keep a careful eye on developments in the region in the coming months and will remain in close touch with their European partners and with other bilateral and multilateral donors. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit some of the worst-hit countries in September and will have the opportunity then to assess what more may need to be done.

I will conclude on a slightly more hopeful note on significant developments which are under way in southern Africa. We have seen progress towards the ending of long-standing conflicts in Angola and Mozambique, towards economic renewal and more open and accountable government, and towards a transition to multiracial democracies——

Order.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was announced a few minutes ago that the German central bank has rejected the appeal from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and has increased its discount rates by 0·75 per cent., which will clearly have a fundamental effect on British economic policy. May I ask you whether it would be in order for the Government, if they so wished, to make a statement during the next hour on the implications of this alarming decision for British economic policy?

I have received no notice of any Minister intending to make such a statement. I think it rather unlikely that there will be such a request.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate occupational pension schemes. The schemes have a membership of about 11 million people and are important in this country. Some 300,000 schemes are in operation. The debate on pensions over recent years is welcome. As our population ages and people can look forward to periods of retirment of 20 to 30 years, the need for properly funded retirement via occupational pensions and state pensions is increasingly important.

There has been a great deal of success in occupational pension schemes, and we should start on that basis. We should mention that, in 1979, 54 per cent. of pensioners had a second income from an occupational pension scheme. That figure has now risen to 69 per cent., which is very welcome. We should also recognise that, in addition to occupational pension schemes, the number of people who can supplement their income has doubled from savings during that period. That is most welcome. The number of people who own property as another asset has increased during the period. As the wealth of the nation grows, pensioners can participate in that wealth, which is to be approved of greatly.

I want to bring a number of points before the House. One of the first problems that the industry and Government may face in coming months is surpluses. The fact that surpluses have built up in pension funds over the past 12 to 14 years is a credit to the economic conditions that have existed for the principal part of that time. The key point is what to do with those surpluses.

Who owns the surpluses in pension funds? I suggest that ownership of pension funds must lie with the employees and with the members of the pension fund. That key point must be accepted. The argument is helped by recent judgments in the European Court. The case of Barber ν. Guardian Royal Exchange established that pensions are deferred pay. Deferred pay, by its nature, must belong to the person who has earned the salary. Ownership is very much in the hands of the employees.

I do not welcome the way in which, in recent years, the surpluses that have been built up in pension funds have been attacked by predators and over-enthusiastic companies. I approved of the Conservative social security legislation which was introduced with the principal objective of placing limitations on what such surpluses can be used for. That was an excellent initiative, but it has still to be applied. The sooner the new rules are applied the better.

Other tactics, perhaps not as overt as taking over company pension schemes and creaming off their assets or taking loans from them, also give rise to anxiety. I refer to certain subliminal activities which have come to my attention—for instance, the practice of placing directors in the membership of an employee pension fund and allowing them to take up and backdate their benefit entitlements in the fund, following which, six or nine months later, they are given a transfer out of the fund and into their own executive scheme, taking with them a high transfer value. This causes concern among members of pension schemes and it must be dealt with.

Some employers are over-enthusiastic about taking contribution holidays. Some of them take employer contribution holidays of between five and 10 years. Given the ever-lengthening period of retirement these days, there will be ever-increasing demands on pension funds, so they will require increased resources. That in turn will require increased contributions, so employers must not set a bad example by taking these contribution holidays.

The security of pension funds has been much on our minds, given the tragic circumstances surrounding the Maxwell pensioners, but we must be careful not to over-legislate and place too heavy a burden on the 300,000 pension schemes in this country which operate successfully and effectively on behalf of employees.

Much of the great debate, inside and outside this Chamber, surrounds schemes with large memberships—multinational pension fund schemes, for instance. However, as we know, the vast majority of occcupational pension schemes are run by small manufacturing companies and small chains of shops with 20 or 30 staff. It may be right to impose on larger schemes professional actuaries who have to attend board meetings and be subject to increased compliance with legal requirements—that may tighten up on the investment and management of the large funds. We do not want, however, to place an excessive burden on smaller schemes. After all, where would the money to comply with more legislation come from? It would have to come from the pension funds themselves, to the detriment of their members.

Much of the protection required is already in place. Trustees must be better educated to know their rights and what to look for as they attend trust meetings. They need to know more as they take on responsible positions in companies and in occupational pension schemes.

We also welcome the review by Professor Goode initiated by the Department of Social Security. Most of us were extremely impressed with the quality and expertise of that distinguished committee. We have a great deal of confidence in the quality, knowledge and expertise of those people to produce sensible solutions which will be for the benefit of pensioners.

We must also consider portability. The nature of employment has changed. In the 1930s and 1940s, it was normal to think that people would spend 30 or 40 years with one company in one job. That was particularly so in the north-east of England. People would work in a mine from the time that they left school until they retired, or they would stay with a shipyard for their entire working lives. However, the nature of employment has changed. People change the nature of their duties and their professions and jobs. They also change employment on many occasions.

Under current legislation and the operation of occupational pension schemes, people who are mobile and move between different pension schemes can be disadvantaged because benefits have to be left or frozen within a particular scheme or transfers must be taken from a scheme, but the transfers are not a full and accurate reflection of the true value of the contribution in that fund.

We must recognise that there is a greater need for portability and mobility in the work force. We must encourage that, because it is good for the economy and for business. We must make it as easy as possible for people to move between jobs and to secure and build up pension benefits. Some people might argue that that is the responsibility of the individual, that people should take that decision and on their heads be it. However, if people fail to make adequate pension provisions during their working lives, they will become the responsibility of the state, which the taxpayer has to fund. We can legitimately take an interest in ensuring that people make adequate contributions into pension schemes to secure adequate benefits in retirement.

One cannot mention portability without referring briefly to the position in the European Community. I should welcome comments from my hon. Friend the Minister about pension benefits in the European arena because it would be helpful to draw comparisons. As we head towards a single market, the picture that I drew earlier of increased mobility in this country will be increased many times over. People will take advantage of the tremendous opportunities available through a single market to move between different employers and to change their professions, not just within the United Kingdom, but within the European Community.

Such movement raises questions about the funding of those pensions. The original European communication issued in 1991 by the Commission contained a provision for portability of pension benefits and for securing pension benefits as people move between member states. That was very welcome, but that provision was not adopted in the final document and that was very disappointing.

One appreciates that there are problems with different tax structures and that it is difficult to allow tax benefits in different member states. It is difficut to achieve harmonisation in that area. However, if we want a true, single European market and true mobility of labour, we must address that problem. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would comment on that.

Many other things can be done for pensioners which relate not directly to pension schemes, but to the economic conditions that surround pensioners. We often hear from the Opposition the accusation that inflation is not the most important economic indicator. It is all right for hon. Members who will secure index-linked pension benefits, hut, for the vast majority of people—11 million—who do not have index-linked pension benefits, inflation and the control of inflation are of dire importance and are vital to their security and to maintaining the value of their pension benefits. We must bear that point in mind. We must imagine what it would have done to an occupational pension scheme in 1977, when the rate of inflation was 23 per cent. and a pension fund was limited to an increase of 5 per cent. Clearly, the Government have a duty, and the control of inflation for the benefit of pensioners is paramount.

The maintenance of low rates of taxation is another way of assisting occupational pensioners. The introduction of the 20p band for pensioners was a great assistance, particularly for pensioners receiving state and occupational benefits. The welcome increase in income support for pensioners is also a great assistance. There are things that the Government can do and I am pleased to say that they are doing them successfully.

If we want increased pension benefits, an adequate standard of living for an aging population and a decade of retirement, which is an excellent idea, we must strive towards flexibility of retirement ages. It is nonsense to suggest that everybody reaches an appropriate retirement age at exactly the same time. Individuals have different approaches to when they would like to exercise their retirement benefits. The ability to fund them is the key.

The individual must accept that it is his responsibility to fund pension benefits and pension schemes. Perhaps in the past we were used to getting our pension benefits on the cheap, certainly compared with other European Community states. Contributions by our employees are at the low end of the scale. The individual must say, "If I want to secure those benefits and to choose my date of retirement, those benefits need to be funded." That is the responsibility of the individual and the individual alone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), first, on obtaining the debate and, secondly, on the extremely lucid way in which he has made a wide range of points. His speech follows well on his excellent and well-acclaimed maiden speech on housing. My hon. Friend will be able to bring a great measure of judgment and expertise in serving his constituents. It is a tremendous pleasure for me to answer such interesting and thought-provoking thoughts. Given the time constraints, it is unlikely that I shall be able to address each of my hon. Friend's points, but I hope to be able to to respond to the most important.

My hon. Friend is right to welcome the review of trust law which the Government have implemented under Professor Goode. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear that a balance is to be struck between, on the one hand, protecting the members of pension funds and making sure that the law is sufficiently tight to protect their assets and future pensions and, as far as possible, to avoid the excesses that we have seen as a result of the Maxwell affair, and, on the other hand, not drawing the rules so tight that they make it impossible for small funds to function or that they provide a major disincentive for employers to set up occupational pension schemes. That is an important balance to be struck. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out.

The Government have always been aware that the security of pensions is a major issue. It was addressed in the Social Security Act 1990. Several measures in that Act have been implemented and we are still considering others. That is a tribute to the Government and a refutation of the frequent claim that somehow we know that problems were brewing in occupational pensions two years ago, well before any knowledge of Mr. Maxwell's activities, but did nothing about it. We were already implementing measures or consulting on measures to strengthen the law.

We took cognisance of the balance that my hon. Friend discussed when we introduced the self-investment regulations, because we wanted to limit self-investment because we recognised that it was in the interests of members of pension funds to do so. However, we did not want to limit it in such a way that we would cause funds and employers to wind up prematurely or make it impossible for them to function sensibly within whatever limits we introduced. Therefore, there was a period of consultation before we introduced the 5 per cent. limit. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that is evidence of our great desire to maintain the balance to which he referred.

My hon. Friend was right to put occupational pensions in the overall context of pensioner incomes and to assess how far occupational pensions have contributed to the welfare of Britain's pensioners. He asked me to make clear what pension benefits exist in the rest of Europe. In many of our European competitor countries highly developed occupational pension schemes such as we have here do not exist. Even in countries that have large occupational pensions schemes such as Germany or Holland, the schemes are not all run on exactly the same principles.

There is a healthy mix between private and public provision in Britain. Perhaps a good demonstration of that is the fact that the average income from occupational pensions is almost exactly the same as the state pension. The state pension makes a significant contribution to a pensioner's income. It is precisely that healthy mix which enables us to sustain an increasing pensioner population and maintain services for our pensioners which are not readily available in the rest of Europe.

I shall take the request of my hon. Friend to draw some comparisons with Europe. In much of the rest of Europe people already have to work much longer for their pension. For example, in Denmark the retirement age is 67. In the Netherlands people must have 50 years of insurance before they even qualify for a pension. The pension received by people who live in France or Germany depends on how much they have earned. Low earners end up with extremely low pensions.

In Britain a basic state pension is available to all with a contributions record. In both France and Germany people pay health insurance out of their pension. In Britain national insurance contributions stop when people retire. They simply draw their pension. Only Britain provides a separate pension for a spouse who has not worked. As that represents some 60 per cent. of the basic pension, it makes an enormous difference in any European comparisons.

In other countries, assessments for income support or its equivalent take account of children's income as well as that of the pensioner. In this country, we consider solely the income of pensioners. As my hon. Friend pointed out, half our pensioners own their homes and those at the poorer end of the scale can receive help with rent of up to 100 per cent., whereas housing costs are a major drain on pensioners' incomes abroad.

In France, pensioners pay £4·50 a day for the first week in hospital. In this country pensioners have no deductions for the first six weeks. In Belgium, they pay up to 10 per cent. of the cost of their treatment and in some other countries there are no automatic free prescriptions for pensioners or there is a system, for example as in France, where pensioners are entitled to free medicine but have to pay and claim back the cost. In most other countries, the cost of living is higher. That puts into context the good deal that pensioners have, if we look outside the narrow provisions of the state pension.

In the past 13 years, there have been significant improvements in pensioners' average incomes. Our policy to encourage such improvements has been in two strands. First, we have pledged—and have succeeded in ensuring—that basic state pensions provide a secure foundation for retirement, by increasing them in line with the movement in prices. Secondly, we have encouraged private provision for retirement, both through personal and occupational pension schemes, and by aiming to create a stable economic environment in which savings and investments can grow and maintain their value.

It was important that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh drew attention to the role of the control of inflation in promoting pensioners' incomes. He was right not merely to rely on the automatic uprating of occupational pension schemes but instead to point to central economic policy.

As there is no Opposition Front-Bench spokesman in the Chamber it might be rather ungenerous to draw the obvious comparison with the 1970s, when many pensioners' savings were effectively wiped out and when few of them—or far fewer than today—enjoyed the comfort of an occupational pension in addition to their state pension. Since 1979, pensioners' incomes from savings have more than doubled, whereas under the last Labour Government they fell by 16 per cent., and average income from occupational pensions has nearly doubled over the same period. The number of recently retired pensioners receiving income from occupational pensions has increased from 54 per cent. in 1979 to 69 per cent. today.

Hear, hear.

That is a tribute to the success of our occupational pension strategy, and I am glad to have that sign of support from my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), whom I welcome to the Chamber.

While it is true that many pensioners rely on benefits for much of their income, during the past decade private incomes have become much more important. Social security now accounts for only about half of pensioners' average incomes, compared to three fifths at the end of the 1970s. That important shift in emphasis from state to private provision has given us much-needed flexibility in the way that we manage the wide range of pension provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh referred to.

Real benefit expenditure on the elderly has risen by one third since 1979, but we have been able to target that towards poorer pensioners. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the previous Secretary of State for Social Security, who is also in the Chamber in another guise, was firmly of the opinion and managed to carry through with great success the focusing of extra help on those pensioners who are generally regarded as being less well off. As a result of those measures, we have been able to reduce the proportion of pensioners among the poorest fifth of the population from 40 to 28 per cent. during the Government's term in office. Even among that group, the extra help that we have been able to give through increased income support pensioner premiums has contributed to a 15 per cent. real increase in their average incomes.

In the remaining minute of my time I shall turn from the general state of pensioners' incomes and European comparisons, on which my hon. Friend invited me to comment, and assure him on an issue on which he touched at the end of his speech when he called for a flexible decade of retirement. Contrary to speculation in the press and from the Opposition, the Government have not yet reached a view on how to equalise state pension ages. We are wholly committed to equalisation, but we have not decided on any one method. I can assure my hon. Friend that a flexible decade or flexible period of retirement in any one of a number of forms is under consideration. It is one of four principal options being considered by the Government. When we finally reach our conclusions we shall have taken into account the expert advice that we have received from him. I conclude by again thanking my hon. Friend for raising this important subject.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is fortuitous that the Leader of the House is by your right hand, which is where he should be. Have you had any indication from the Government that there will be, even at this eleventh hour, a statement about the plan to confiscate Scottish water? I note from yesterday's proceedings that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did the decent thing and made an important statement to Parliament about the proposals to privatise Parcelforce. We learn from the newspapers that the Government plan to steal Scotland's water. It would be an outrage if Parliament were to break up for the longest recess in living memory without our knowing what the Government plan for that most precious of natural resources, Scottish water.

I have received no information that any Minister intends to make a statement, and I think it highly unlikely.

Further to that point of order—

Is it on the same point of order?

It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am sorry, but I have ruled on that.

The subject of this debate is the closure of a long-stay, continuing care ward for elderly patients in my constituency. The closure was carried out without any statutory consultation procedure. The issues involved far transcend the closure of one ward; they go to the root of the whole policy of the district health authority on long-stay, continuing care in the three constituencies of Bolton.

The Minister may not be aware that, following a debate in 1981 that I initiated to get the Bolton hospital centralised on one site, money is only now coming forward to build the remainder of what is to be the new Bolton general hospital, updated into a facility ready to deal with the care of the people of Bolton.

Bolton district health authority does not seem to have thought through a policy for beds for the long-stay elderly in need of continuing care. The proposal was that one block in Bolton general hospital, H block, was to be used for continuing elderly care until the elderly patients can be transferred off the main site which was to be used for acute patients.

There was a broad-brush approach to consultation in Bolton concerned with the Mereworth exercise. It was intended that patients should then be transferred to another hospital off site. It was to be Hulton hospital. It is an old hospital and lacks modern facilities. It lacks privacy, space in bathrooms and space in dayrooms to give the dignity that elderly people require and quality of life they should have. The district health authority had promised that H block on the Bolton general hospital site—I should tell the House that the different sites are some miles apart—should be maintained until the older hospital some miles away was updated.

We need a clear policy statement from the health authority about how it intends to care for elderly patients. Although it has talked generally about improving the facility at Hulton Lane hospital, to date, that facility has not been upgraded. Now we find that some of H block will be closed despite the promise to maintain it until the other facility was upgraded and ready.

I am not arguing against the proposed new use of the vacant wards, but one should not rob Peter to pay Paul. If the district health authority has a sincere policy for long-term, continuing care for the elderly, it is vital that the facilities for them are updated in line with those in the newer hospital.

One problem is that the district health authority has never appeared to determine how many long-term continuing care beds are required at the hospital. A notional figure of 120 has been bandied about, which appeared in a discussion paper by an eminent consultant. It has never been incorporated into the district health authority's policy. An additional concern is that the health authority has taken no note of the fact that by 2001 the number of people over 85 in Bolton will have increased by 47 per cent.

From April 1993 the local government authority will be responsible for community care. Long-stay continuing care beds in hospitals will be affected by the provisions made by the local authority. People will be aware that those authorities are concerned about whether they can provide the facilities in the first place. Working parties have only just been set up between the district health authority and the local council to consider the number of beds required. It is high-handed to close wards before those discussions have taken place.

What adds to the local community health council's concern is that on 6 February 1992 health officials in Bolton assured open meetings of the community health council that H block would remain in operation until new developments were completed at the general hospital. They also said that money would be spent on the development of the Hutton Lane hospital. On 5 March, just one month later, it was confirmed, by telephone, to the community health council that H1 ward would close by the end of March. That was done without consultation and the staff were redeployed into other disciplines. A belated consultation exercise is now taking place, but that will do nothing to restore the morale of the staff who have seen a specialist team broken up overnight and dispersed into other specialties.

We used to allege that such arrogant bureaucracy occurred only in eastern European states. Offering consultation once a ward has been closed, the staff redeployed and the patients reallocated is like offering a man who has been hanged a fair trial by those who hanged him.

Consultation must take place when proposals are made about the elderly because they are among the most vulnerable in the community. For physical or mental reasons, many of them cannot put up a fight on their own behalf, and many of their relatives cannot do so because they are elderly.

Guidance is given in the Community Health Council (Amendment) Regulations 1990 about the need for a consumer-orientated strategy among authorities, and it says:

"The principle of making the NHS more responsive to the needs of the consumer is central to the reforms announced in 'Working for Patients'."

It goes on:

"True consumer involvement is more than just a consultation exercise to 'rubber stamp' a decision that a DHA has, in effect, already taken. It involves DHAs in taking the initiative in forging links with their local communities in advance, before there are controversial plans in the offing; this will be best achieved by developing a shared understanding"—

among other things, there being consultation on substantial developments or variations in services. I support that Bolton district health authority argues that the change was not substantial, and, no doubt because it is a grey area, it will try to avoid the responsibility of acting in the way suggested. But if we are to build up confidence in the NHS, we must go further than simply following what might be described as the legal regulations. A body—such as the district health authority in this case—that has acted with such arrogance does much to destroy the faith in the NHS of the people of Bolton.

I would not have pressed for today's debate but for the fact that we are due to recess for the summer, and some important questions must be answered. As there is no allocation in this year's estimates for the upgrading of Hulton Lane hospital, we must be told what the upgrading will involve and how much will be spent. Blair hospital in Bolton, another continuing care facility for the elderly has been closed and about £500,000 is expected from its sale. Will any of that money be used for upgrading Hulton Lane hospital? As a result of the premature closure of H1 ward, £280,000 was saved by the authority. Will any of that be used for the upgrading?

Precisely what proposals does the district health authority have? All the goodwill and sympathy in the world will not provide one bathroom in Hulton Lane hospital. Answers to such questions are vital because it has only recently been announced that Bolton hospitals will be going for trust status, and trusts vary from one part of the country to another. The key point is that they are commercial enterprises. Their aim is to be profitable, and once an enterprise changes to a commercial basis, its facilities move along those lines. Even if that does not happen immediately, as the years pass pressure for that activity grows.

Beds for the elderly in need of continual care are a financial liability. It becomes increasingly necessary to ask, now that applications are being made for trust status, what will be the position of long-stay elderly people in Bolton? Those key questions transcend the closure of just one ward. We must ask whether the closure of Blair hospital and H1 are the beginning of a movement, which began without statutory consultation, to remove continuing elderly care from the people of Bolton. If not, what are the district health authority's detailed proposals for the facilities that they will provide? What will they be and how will they be financed? What assurances do we have that, if the NHS trust is approved, it will carry over commitments and obligations made by the district health authority to the people of Bolton? What machinery exists to ensure that those commitments, if made, will be honoured?

It is important to know how the directors of the trust will be appointed and paid and where they will come from. Will their remuneration and position depend on making the hospital profitable or looking after the health of everyone in Bolton, whether young children or long-stay elderly patients?

Those questions must be asked because they go to the fundamental conception of the health service provided in Bolton. Will the remuneration of directors depend on the profitability of the hospital or the hospital's service to the people of Bolton? It is important that, in a free and democratic society, we have adequate consultation so that people's views can be taken into account. The citizens of Bolton should have as much say in the future of their hospitals as any official or board of directors.

Ultimately, the most vulnerable people are the elderly, many of whom had no chance to contribute to private insurance schemes. Most of them contributed during all their working lives to the national health service. They expected—not unjustly—that at the hour of their greatest need the state would provide the facilities to look after them when they could not look after themselves and have no relations who could look after them. Those ideas are, unfortunately, changing, but that is all the more reason for requiring discussion and consultation and explanations before arbitrarily deciding to close a ward or hospital facility. Above all, we depend on the dedication of our nursing staff and doctors.

It is worrying that many consultants and nurses say that they should not talk to Members of Parliament because their jobs could be in jeopardy. My district health authority never refuses to give me information—provided I phrase the question correctly and, in effect, know the answer before I ask it. There must be much more consultation. I am arguing not along political lines but for the best future of the people of Bolton. To that extent, my speech may be highly political, but all hon. Members owe their constituents the best and most caring health service possible, and that requires open consultation with the community and its elected representatives.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) and to congratulate him on bringing before the House the proposal to change the use of ward H1 from continuing care for the elderly to gynaecology services at Bolton general hospital. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in securing the welfare of all his constituents and is concerned about the frail elderly. I agree that they are among the most vulnerable members of society. I am also aware that the hon. Gentleman has had a personal involvement with Bolton general hospital in recent months.

I have listened to him with interest and recognise that he has much local knowledge. He shares with the chairman of Bolton health authority, Tom Taylor, a concern that Bolton gets the best available care from the national health service. The health authority is striving to improve the health care of all Bolton residents.

The proposal at issue is part of a process completely to reshape hospital services in Bolton. At the heart of the process is a massive investment by the Government in the local acute hospital that will take it into the next century in the best possible shape.

The broad strategy in Bolton is based on spending £45 million on a regeneration of Bolton general hospital and on concentrating long-stay continuing care for the elderly at Hulton hospital, which is also in Bolton. The genesis of the proposals goes back to November 1988 when the North Western regional health authority asked every district health authority in the region to carry out a strategic planning exercise covering the following 10 years. That exercise was known as Mereworth and Bolton's document was accepted by the regional health authority. As a consequence, the major development at Bolton general hospital costing some £45 million was approved.

For elderly services, the strategy had two aims: first, to provide some 120 beds for continuing care; and, secondly, to locate these in a single hospital. That would benefit elderly patients because they would not be competing for acute services on the same site, and the services could be managed more effectively. There seems to be a broad consensus in support of that overall strategy, which includes the local community health council. Hulton hospital has been chosen to accommodate these elderly patients. It is against that background of broad agreement that we are debating the important step of implementing the strategy.

As I have explained, the health authority aims for 120 continuing care beds. There are presently 146 such beds—72 at Bolton general hospital and 74 at Hulton hospital. Figures from the health authority's consultation document suggest that, for some time, many of these beds have been empty, suggesting, of course, that there are more beds than patients who need them. The proposal to change the use of H1 ward would reduce the number of continuing care beds at Bolton general hospital by 24, leaving a total of 48 beds on that site.

With the 74 beds available at Hutton hospital, the overall total of continuing care beds within Bolton health authority would be 122, which is broadly in line with the long-term target. I understand that continuing care patients already at Bolton general would not be moved but that new admissions would be made to Hulton hospital. I understand that plans are now in hand to upgrade the facilities for continuing care patients at Hulton.

I hope that that makes the background clear. I assure the hon. Gentleman that money has been allocated both this year and next year for upgrading at Hulton. As he said, there is to be a meeting tomorrow at which the longer term allocations are likely to be discussed.

The hon. Member made some remarks about the consultation on the changes. The process of consultation is fundamental to the Government's health strategy, and extensive consultation has taken place elsewhere on the establishment of national health service trusts and also when larger district health authorities are created to improve the ways in which the health needs of patients are assessed and met. Similarly, the guidance issued by the Department of Health makes it clear that the consultation must be a real process. Adequate time must be provided and there must be a wide opportunity for local interests and users to express their views.

Consultation is therefore an integral part of the management process. Many people could speak with knowledge about the situation in Bolton. As the hon. Member has demonstrated today, the House is also one of the arenas in which local issues can be aired. The process of making the health service more responsive to the needs of its consumers is central to the Government's reforms.

Setting up national health service trusts to run hospital services allows health authorities to concentrate on obtaining the best possible services for the residents of their area. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman encourages local people to support the health authority's expression of interest in becoming a fourth wave NHS trust. The trusts remain within the NHS; they are not commercial operations, although they must be efficient and businesslike, in the interests of the patients whom they serve.

There is a well-established process for scrutinising applications for trust status, and the health authority retains a statutory duty to provide for all the health needs of the population. The departmental guidance is clear. Consumers and community health councils, which act as consumers' representatives, must be consulted about any controversial plans. I share the hon. Member's concern that consultation on the change of use of ward H1 took place after the patients were transferred. That is outside the spirit of the consultation process. I shall write to the chairman of the health authority stressing how imperative it is that every effort is made to secure local agreement for the changes.

There has been an element of misinterpretation. A good deal of discussion took place following the publication of the broad strategy document in 1989, and following that discussion there was a consensus among interested parties that the proposed strategy was right for Bolton residents. The health authority took that to mean that component changes within the overall strategy would not be subject to formal consultation procedures. That, I believe, was a mistake—but it has been corrected and a consultation document was issued in April.

Since then the community health council seems to have acknowledged that the proposal to close the beds is consistent with the strategy. The consultation paper was issued to 49 individuals and representative bodies, and I understand that nine responses have been received.

I sympathise with the sense of unfairness when a change of use takes place before the outcome of consultations is known. That is unsatisfactory. However, the process has now been completed. On the whole, decisions on levels of service should be made locally. Occupancy levels for long-stay beds for the elderly are apparently low, and it is not in the best interests of patients that such a situation should continue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the health authority has a record of careful planning.

As I have said, the community health council is not pressing for the ward to be reopened, but its acquiescence to the proposal is contingent on the introduction of a clear plan for upgrading Hulton hospital. I understand that the health authority has such a plan, which will be considered tomorrow.

If, after tomorrow, the CHC presents an objection to the change of use, that must be referred to the regional health authority. If the regional health authority supports the district, the matter will come to the Secretary of State for consideration.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are now almost in the final minute of the Session, and the Government continue to treat Scotland and Scottish Members of Parliament with contempt, refusing to make a statement to the House on the privatisation of Scottish water.

As representatives of Scottish constituencies, we appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to use the office of the Chair to protect the interests of our electors by insisting that a Minister comes to the Chamber and makes an announcement to Scottish Members about what the Government intend to do about Scottish water. Otherwise we, as ordinary Members of the House, will be forced to do whatever we can to ensure that the House does not adjourn until the Government have made a clear statement of their intentions on the privatisation of Scottish water.

rose——

Order. The occupant of the Chair is in no position to insist that a Minister comes to the House. As I have already explained to the House——

rose——

I have already explained the position to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I have received no information to the effect that any Minister intends to make any such statement, and I think that it is unlikely to happen now. Mr. Yeo.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not possible, even at this eleventh hour, for you to send for a Minister to come and make a statement, bearing in mind the contempt which the Government obviously have for Parliament and for the people of Scotland? The Government did not even receive a mandate from the people of Scotland, especially not for the proposal to privatise Scotland's water——