Commons Sitting of 4 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL

    BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL
    Orders for consideration read.
    To be considered on Thursday 7 December.

    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 7 December.

    SEAMOUNT LTD.
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give direction that there be laid before this House a Return of the report of Mr. Stewart Boyd QC into the affairs of Seamount Limited.—[Mr. Hurd.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Licensed Motor Vehicles
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of licensed motor vehicles on the roads today; and what was the number in 1979.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): A census taken at the end of September showed 24 million licensed vehicles of all classes on the roads in Great Britain. The comparable figure for 1979 was 18·6 million. This substantial increase can be attributed to the improvement in personal prosperity caused by the success of Government policies.
    Mr. Ashton: If there is such prosperity, why are extra motorway miles not being built to accommodate the increased traffic? Is the Minister aware that it now takes an hour longer to drive here from Bassetlaw, or Yorkshire, than it did 10 years ago? Is he further aware that some of the horrendous accidents that took place in the fog recently, were caused by dangerous overcrowding on the motorways? When will we have the kind of motorway standards and systems that are operated in France and Germany?
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman supports our policy of improving and extending existing roads and building new ones. That is the policy which we intend to implement. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, there is to be a substantial increase in the moneys available to do the very things that he wishes. The present Government are doing that, but the Labour Government supported by the hon. Gentleman were unable to provide that sort of resource.
    Mr. Higgins: Given the enormous increase in traffic levels, especially in central London, will my hon. Friend examine seriously the so-called traffic management

    3
    schemes which in many places—for example, the Aldwych and south of Westminster bridge—are unnecessary, counter-productive and extremely expensive? Will my hon. Friend reconsider whether the Government should not reallocate responsibility for the overall control of London's traffic to the Department of Transport?
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend is extremely knowledgeable in these matters and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach. I assure him that I will consider the matters that he has raised as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Despite the Minister's main answer, and despite his interest in the A 19 problem, there are persistent problems which need urgently to be resolved. Will the Minister tell us, perhaps not today but later, the cost of the flyover on the A1 at Middlesbrough and the number of months of work already attributed to it? How long will that project take to complete?
    Secondly, will the Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question is enough.
    Mr. Atkins: I am delighted to tell the House that my Department is committed to improving a number of roads, one of which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I will write to the hon. Gentleman in response to his detailed question.
    Mr. David Howell: My right hon. and hon. Friends must be congratulated on the enormous amount of work being undertaken, but is it not true that most of the roads in the south-west and south-east of this island are jammed most of the time, especially during peak hours? Has not the time come for a comprehensive statement on strategy, perhaps in a White Paper, setting out exactly how we are to develop high-speed links, dedicated transport, inner city restrictions, a vast increase in tunnelling and sub-service provision, and new car designs to make life possible in the next 10 years?
    Mr. Atkins: In a very short question, my right hon. Friend has raised enough matters of substance for a major debate. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I—indeed, all the Ministers in the Department—are spending a great deal of time and money trying to address the problems to which he refers. I hope that in due course he will be able to accord us the plaudits which his experience will allow us to receive with considerable gratitude.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that, whatever the size of the programme, his Department's projections of an increase in road traffic of between 83 and 142 per cent. in the next 25 years will result in a massive increase in emissions of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide? Will he tell us today whether he accepts the advice of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who said that
    "such growth would wreck any attempt to control pollution"?
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I are entirely in agreement with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the problem of emissions must be addressed. We have already taken a number of steps, not
    4
    least through our support for the Commission directive which aims to do something about catalytic converters by 1992.
    I remind the hon. Lady that the figures to which she has referred are forecasts and not the Department's targets. I for one am not prepared to be a member of a Government who would not allow individuals to be free to buy the cars that they want, but apparently that does not apply to the hon. Lady.

    Railways
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for increasing spending on the railways over the next three years.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): This Government are making possible investment in the future of our railways on a scale not seen for 25 years. Investment in British Rail is planned to rise to £3·7 billion over the next three years, a 75 per cent. real increase over the previous three.
    Mr. Irvine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great concern in Ipswich about the service on the railway to London—both the overcrowding and the bad timekeeping? Can he assure me that a reasonable proportion of the welcome increase in spending on railways that he has announced will be devoted to improving the standard of service on the Ipswich to Liverpool Street line?
    Mr. Parkinson: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. The programme includes £60 million to be spent on improving the signalling system on that very line.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recognise that although improved investment in British Rail is welcome, his responsibility relates to the whole country? Will he give particular attention to the electrification of the east coast line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh, especially in view of the need to develop industry and commerce because of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, I want to see that fast east coast link electrified from London straight through to Aberdeen. The electrification to Leeds has already been a great success and we wish that to be carried further.
    Mr. Adley: No one with the interests of the railways at heart could do other than warmly welcome the Government's investment in the new railway, and in railway modernisation. Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that cleanliness, punctuality, safety, the length of trains and, indeed, the overcrowding to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) referred, must all be dealt with through the public service obligation grant, which the Government have cut in half—and boast about having cut in half—since 1983? Should we not look at PSO grant and investment in new railways simultaneously?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry if my hon. Friend is going to join the Opposition in measuring the Government's commitment to the railways by the amount spent on subsidy. We believe that our objective should be to have not the most subsidised but the most efficient and modernised railways, and that is what we are seeking.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State aware that he does not know what he is talking about? He has no plans to increase spending on the railways; indeed, as his hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has just told him, he plans to reduce the public service obligation grant—already reduced by 50 per cent.—even further in the next three years. All that he is doing is allowing the railways to borrow more money, which will have to be repaid through higher fares, more overcrowding and even wider passenger dissatisfaction. The Secretary of State should stop trying to kid his hon. Friends that anything has changed.
    Mr. Parkinson: It is a great disappointment to the hon. Gentleman that we are making sure that our railway system is modernised. Last year more money was invested in modernising the railways than for 25 years. In the next three years we shall spend 75 per cent. more in real terms. That is bad news for the hon. Gentleman, but good news for the railways.

    British Rail
    Mr. Madel: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail before 31 December to discuss reopening of existing lines closed to passenger traffic; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Parkinson: The reopening of freight railway lines to passenger services is a matter for the British Railways Board. British Rail will generally look favourably on any opening where there is a commercial case or where others are willing to give support.
    Mr. Madel: As motor traffic congestion is now so serious in the Dunstable-Luton area, with no sign of early relief, will my right hon. Friend join me in urging British Rail to reopen the Dunstable-Luton railway line to passenger traffic at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, a number of proposals, ranging from a light railway system to the reopening of the line, are under consideration. I understand that a decision will be announced in January.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Minister draw the attention of British Rail's chairman to the need to reopen the railway line in north Wales from Bangor to Caernarfon? Before he does that, however, will he make sure that after 11 years of Conservative rule there is enough rolling stock? In Wrexham we have buses instead of trains and more trains cancelled than ever before.
    Mr. Parkinson: I know of no plans to reopen the line that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but if he cares to write to me I will put the matter to the chairman of British Rail. As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, at the end of the next two years more than 80 per cent. of all the rolling stock on provincial lines will be less than five years old. There is a massive programme under way to modernise all the rolling stock on the provincial lines. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is good news, as his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) does not seem to agree.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is essential for the prosperity of the northern half of the country that there should be through freight and passenger
    6
    trains from the Channel tunnel at the earliest possible time? Does he also accept that British Rail management has assured us that it is essential that the international station at King's Cross should go ahead without any delay and that initially, whatever the route through Kent and the south-east, we should use the existing lines under London?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend knows that the King's Cross development is a matter for this House. There is a Bill before the House, on which the House will take a decision. There is a later question on the Order Paper about the link to the Channel tunnel. We believe that it is essential for all the regions to have good access to the Channel tunnel. British Rail will be coming forward with proposals before the end of the year.

    River Severn Crossing
    Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what date he has set for the invitation of tenders for the second crossing of the River Severn.
    Mr. Atkins: Tenders for the second Severn bridge were invited on 27 April and were received on 2 October. The assessment process is well under way.
    Mr. Wardell: I welcome the fact that at last there is to be a second crossing of the River Severn. It will get rid of the dreadful bottleneck that has strangled the Welsh economy. However, even at this late stage in the tendering process, is the Minister able to say whether the day has gone when a combination of energy generation and the road crossing would still be possible? The advantage of generating 7 per cent. of Britain's electricity combined with road crossing seems a sensible option which the Government should pursue.
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that questions about energy are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. However, my Department is committed to going ahead as quickly as possible with the second crossing. My right hon. Friend and I assure him that we shall do our level best to ensure that it is brought into being as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Stern: Is my hon. Friend aware of the success of the recent exhibitions in Pilning and Avonmouth in my constituency on the southern routes for the second Severn crossing? Will he do all in his power to reach a final decision on the route as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend frequently raises this matter to protect his constituents' interests and I know how deeply he feels it to be at the forefront of his political agenda. I assure the House that I shall do what I can to speed up the process.

    British Rail
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the new chairman or chairwoman of British Rail.
    Mr. Parkinson: I expect to announce the name of the new British Rail chairman shortly.
    Mr. Rooker: Is not the Secretary of State at all worried about the long delay in making this announcement? The right hon. Gentleman must accept that that cannot be good for the management and future of British Rail, its

    7
    workers and employees. Can he give an assurance to the House that the Department's advisers and the headhunters who are responsible for finding someone to carry out this top management task have had a trawl of the incredibly mature, experienced, good top management females in British industry and commerce, and that they are not to be excluded from consideration because it might be thought by some males that just because one woman cannot run the country a woman is not fit to run British Rail?
    Mr. Parkinson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the person whose name I announce will be a man.
    Miss Widdecombe: When my right hon. Friend has appointed the chairman, or preferably chairwoman, of British Rail, will he undertake to ask that person to exercise wide discretion about the restrictive compensation rules for those suffering due to the Channel tunnel rail link?
    Mr. Parkinson: That is a matter not for the new chairman of British Rail but for the House.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Speaking as a mature woman, may I ask the Secretary of State whether in his talks with the present chairman he has been told that the constant cutting of the public service obligation grant is putting at risk the safety of the railways and that whoever is in that position must make that his or her first absolute priority?
    Mr. Parkinson: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about safety. There is absolutely no truth in the newspaper report yesterday that the Government were not prepared to contribute to the costs of meeting the recommendations in the Hidden report. I have not had any discussions of the kind suggested with the chairman of British Rail.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: When my right hon. Friend appoints the new chairman of British Rail, will he urge the chairman to look again at the Channel tunnel rail link proposals and consider the alternatives which centre on Stratford, which provides far more direct and better access for the whole United Kingdom than King's Cross does? The Ove Arup route, in particular, envisages King's Cross as one of the London destinations.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend has noticed that a recent poll shows that a substantial majority of the Members polled prefer the BR Eurorail option.
    Mr. Snape: Is the Secretary of State surprised that he has had to hawk the job of chairman of British Rail around the City when accepting the job means waiting years for his Department to allow British Rail to spend its own money and when the new chairman or chairwoman will suffer constant interference in terms of how that money is spent, whether on safety, cleanliness, modernisation or punctuality? When it comes to implementing the Government's impossible rail policies, one Bob Reid will be just like another.
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. He is incredibly ill-informed. We have had no shortage of candidates. In fact, I am surprised at the number of people who have written to me commending themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."] There are too many to name, and none is in the House. I believe that we have found an excellent chairman, and I look forward to informing the House shortly of his appointment.

    School Buses
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to make school buses more recognisable.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): We attach high priority to improving the safety of school children. Among other points, school buses should be easier to recognise. We are proposing that they should be marked with a distinctive sign and we shall shortly be consulting in the usual way. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives a copy of that document.
    Mr. Braizer: That will be welcome news to many of my constituents, whose children have to travel a considerable distance on busy roads to school. What is the Government's attitude to seat belts on school buses?
    Mr. McLoughlin: We already require seat belts to be fitted to the front seats of coaches and minibuses, and we aim for that provision to be extended to all seats on minibuses and coaches. However, it is mainly a matter of education and in some ways, it is up to parents, too, to emphasise the importance of taking care when using public transport.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister accept that it is not good enough for his Department to attempt to shuffle off safety considerations on to teachers or parents? Will he accept that there is mounting concern about the safety of children—who often pay fares on school buses—arising from the absence of supervision or seat belts? Will he announce at the earliest opportunity legislation requiring supervision and seat belts for children riding on such vehicles?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The operation of supervision on those coaches is surely a matter for local authorities, as it falls wholly within their remit. The hon. Gentleman implied that we were trying to push the subject off on to parents. It is every parent's responsibility and duty to ensure that children understand safety procedures. The Department of Transport cannot do that, so parents need to do it.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: A child in my constituency named Lee Kelly died while alighting from a school bus and crossing the road. As a result, I went to see my hon. Friend the Minister and I am grateful for his speedy understanding and sensitivity. I am delighted to say that on 1 January Devon county council is to initiate a pilot scheme with clear bus signs and flashing lights to see what the effect will be on traffic. My hon. Friend will know that I have put to him a 10-point school bus safety code, which I urge all hon. Members to back and the Department to adopt.
    Mr. McLoughlin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which she led the campaign. I and the Department also congratulate Devon county council. There is nothing to stop county councils taking such imaginative intiatives as Devon has already taken and we shall watch that experiment with great interest.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that in the United States, most school buses are yellow and that there is a regulation that those buses should not be overtaken by drivers who come up behind, so that the kids can cross in

    9
    safety? Having heard about the success of the experiment in Devon, will the Minister consider extending that experiment, or encouraging its extension, and will he look with an open mind at the similar scheme in the United States?
    Mr. McLoughlin: The answer to all three questions is yes. To require traffic not to overtake when a school bus is stopping would mean a major change in driver understanding of roads, but we shall look at the possibility of introducing such a measure.

    Stansted Rail Link
    Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the adequacy of capacity on the Liverpool Street/Cambridge line before the commencement of the Stansted airport rail link.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The efficient operation of the railways is a matter for British Rail, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his concerns and those of his constituents.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Will my hon. Friend in his own responsibility for aviation share the concern of our hon. Friend the Minister of State to ensure that the airport rail link gets off to a good start? Is there not some cause for worry when the resignalling of the Bethnal Green to Stansted section will not be in place by 1991 and there is no provision for any extra tracks? Is my hon. Friend aware that the service currently offered by British Rail within those constraints is not good? How can he expect it to be successful unless further action is taken?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to provide an efficient service from Stansted. The development there is most impressive and I congratulate the British Airports Authority on that project. I hope that my hon. Friend's points can be covered in his meeting with the Minister of State.
    Mr. Batiste: Before work on the Stansted rail link commences, will my hon. Friend ensure that British Rail is as receptive to proposals for rail links to regional airports?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I am sure that every case that comes before British Rail will be judged on its merits.

    London Regional Transport
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much spending on London Regional Transport will be increased over the next three years.
    Mr. Parkinson: Investment by London Regional Transport is at a record level. It will rise to £2·2 billion over the next three years—up no less than 93 per cent. on the three years to April 1990.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: I welcome that statement by the Secretary of State, but is he aware that it is generally felt in London that massive capital expenditure on the London Underground is required if London is not to come to a stop? Is he aware that people of all political opinions are weary of delays, breakdowns, inaudible announcements, the greatest concentration of broken-down escalators in discovered space, beggars, tramps and children selling lavender, all of which are a disgrace in a national capital?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted that until four years ago London Transport was controlled by the Labour-run GLC. During that time, subsidies rose to a record level, investment plummeted and the net result was a declining system in which there was inadequate investment. We have been putting that right and in the next three years massive investment will take place. The Central line will be renewed, with new trains and modernised stations. There are also plans afoot to start work on the Northern line and that work should be completed towards the middle of the next decade.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Secretary of State aware of the considerable concern among London pensioners that the extent of their concessionary travel arrangements may be reduced as a result of the current negotiations with London boroughs? In view of the obvious benefits of the present scheme, not only to pensioners but to London Regional Transport, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the scheme will be continued after next April, and without damaging cuts?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point because there has been quite a lot of scaremongering about it. Negotiations are indeed taking place, but there is no question of that scheme being threatened.
    Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people who travel on the Underground find it overcrowded, unpleasant and at times unbearable? We welcome wholeheartedly his commitment to improve the Central line and the announcement about the Jubilee line, but those who come from my part of the world hope that, in time, improvements will also be made to the District line.
    Mr. Parkinson: I think that the whole House agrees that the London Underground system is in need of massive investment. The difference between London Underground in the past and London Underground now is that it is now receiving that investment, and the travelling public can look forward to a better service in the years ahead.
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that even if spending on the London Underground is at record levels, dissatisfaction with the London Underground is also at record levels? When will the Government put aside their doctrinaire aversion to investment in the public sector and spend the money that is required to give the people of London the public transport system that a capital city deserves? In particular, when will he introduce schemes for investment to make possible the Chelsea-Hackney line and the building of a tube station in my constituency—the only London constituency that lacks its own tube station?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that it will be a matter of pleasure to the hon. Lady that, in the eight years that end next April, £8 billion will have been invested in the transport infrastructure as a whole—that is to say, in rail, underground and roads. In the next three years, more than £6 billion will be invested in the public sector alone. The investment for which the hon. Lady calls will thus be made under this Government.
    A Chelsea-Hackney line is one of two lines being considered with a view to relieving congestion in central

    11
    London. As I have already said, all being well, London Underground will be introducing a Bill this time next year to make possible one of the lines.
    Mr. John Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a previous chairman of London Transport described the Northern line as "an abomination" on which trains are dirty, infrequent and regularly graffiti-ridden? Will my right hon. Friend speed up investment in the Northern line so that improvements can be made before the mid-1990s?
    Mr. Parkinson: London Transport is working hard on those plans. I have just inaugurated the modernisation of Angel station at a cost of £55 million and that work is now in hand. Plans will be introduced for the full modernisation of that entire line and I recognise that the House wants to hear about them as soon as possible.

    London Underground
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his plans to relieve current levels of congestion on London Underground.
    Mr. Parkinson: As I have recently announced, I have already put a great deal of action in hand on the recommendations of the central and east London rail studies. With my approval London Regional Transport has just deposited a Bill for the extension of the Jubilee line; subject to the outcome of further work I expect to authorise a Bill for another major new line next year; and a good start has been made on a major upgrading programme of the existing underground network.
    Ms. Ruddock: Has the Secretary of State forgotten that his central London rail study suggested that the extension of the Jubilee line was the least likely option to relieve congestion in central London? Surely his main tool for relieving overcrowding is the increase in fares? Will he acknowledge that his Department is predicting a 46 per cent. increase in fares on the Underground in the next 11 years? Does he agree that that will simply put people on the roads, add to road congestion and lead to further traffic accidents in our capital city?
    Mr. Parkinson: I am not sure that the hon. Lady really meant what she said about 46 per cent. over 11 years. If that were so that percentage would represent the lowest increase ever and probably lower than that in any one year under the Labour party. During the past 10 years London Transport fares have not increased in real terms. Investment in the London Underground system is massive and we have already announced the extension of the Jubilee line. I hope that the hon. Lady, whose constituents stand to benefit from that line, will not complain about the fact that south London will get a decent Underground service in the years ahead from the Jubilee line, as will east London. We are coming forward with a proposal for another line. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady, but we are tackling problems which she and her friends just moan about.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there would be no extra congestion on London Underground if travel passes for the elderly, the disabled
    12
    and blind were confirmed at their present level—that is, at no cost to their holders? Can he tell me when pensioners and others can expect an announcement to be made?
    Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the date, but I can repeat the assurance that I gave earlier—that the travel concession is not threatened. The negotiations are simply in hand between the parties. It is not the elderly or the disabled who are the cause of London's congestion—no one would suggest that. The plain fact is that, in the past five years, the number of people using the Underground has increased by 35 per cent. in the rush hour. and by 85 per cent. at off-peak times. There is a massive demand for the service that Opposition Members say that we should subsidise.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Fearn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve transport facilities for the disabled.
    Mr. Atkins: Our plans are set out comprehensively in the document "Transport and Disability—a Statement of Aims and Priorities".
    I pay great attention to my disablement advisory committee, which represents many disabled organisations that perform excellent and independent work.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that 6 million disabled people are potential travellers on public transport and that we should do a great deal for them? No disabled person can travel across London by bus because of the steps, bars or barriers, nor can he go down to the Underground. It is absolutely appalling that no disabled person can be allowed down on the Underground because, I believe, of disasters. Is he also aware that in rural areas, as a result of deregulation, the bus services have gone for the cheapest option and, in the main, they do not cater for disabled persons? In the Minister's answer—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Fearn: What immediate action will the Minister promise as a result of his answer?
    Mr. Atkins: As I said, my Department has a great deal of interest and concern in matters affecting the disabled. There have been many changes to benefit disabled people in all aspects of transport, but there is always room for improvement. As I said, I pay great heed to my advisory committee which is very independent. It tells me exactly what needs to be done, and I endeavour to do it.
    Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister conduct an inquiry into the transport of the disabled to and from day centres? The special bus that collects my constituent Mark Horrocks takes more than three and a half hours each day for a four-mile journey. Will he give guidance to local authorities about how to improve such grossly inadequate services?
    Mr. Atkins: I am not familiar with the details of this case. My hon. Friend is known for his concern and interest in these matters. If he will be kind enough to write to me with the details, I shall be more than happy to see what I can do to help.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: When can we expect a definitive statement on the future of the orange badge scheme which

    13
    grants parking concessions for disabled drivers and passengers? Is any consideration being given to increasing the penalties for abuse?
    Mr. Atkins: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a wide variety of topics related to this issue are being considered. We are endeavouring to prevent abuse so that those who need the orange badge scheme are able to use it, and to do so more effectively. I am considering all the points that he has raised as matters of considerable urgency and I hope to be able to report in the near future.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Court Hearings
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Attorney-General what percentage of court hearings in 1988 were unable to proceed on the day for which they were listed as a result of (a) prisoners not delivered to the court, (b) police officers not in court to give evidence, (c) probation service reports not available and (d) Crown prosecution service delays.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Crown prosecution service and the Home Office have carried out a number of surveys into causes of delay in the criminal justice system. While the precise statistics sought by my hon. Friend are not available, responsibility for adjournments is spread amongst a variety of agencies in the system and the Crown prosecution service is certainly not the major cause of such requests.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable concern among lawyers and lay people at the delays taking place in hearing cases, and the fact that the administration of justice is being hindered as a result? What action are the Government taking to try to speed up hearings?
    The Solicitor-General: The Crown prosecution service tries to liaise with the different agencies—my hon. Friend referred to the police, the probation service and the courts—to ensure that the system speeds ahead as much as possible. Inevitably, its review duties cause some extra time, but the interests of justice make this well worth while.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman share my concern following last Thursday's publication of a report into the operation of the duty solicitor scheme? Does he accept that the scheme's operation is just as important as the operation of the Crown prosecution service and court delays in terms of the proper administration of justice? What additional resources are the Government prepared to put into the operation of the duty solicitor scheme? Are they prepared to step back and allow the scheme to be destroyed?
    The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is studying the report with great care. We attach great importance to the proper working of the duty solicitor scheme which, among other things, puts great pressure on solicitors. My right hon. and learned Friend will keep the matter closely under review.
    Mr. Hind: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the case of Mr. Lorrain Osman who has been awaiting extradition proceedings while in custody for the past four years? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is
    14
    a great strain on our British justice system? Will he look into the matter with a view to involving the official solicitor so that this man may be released pending proceedings?
    The Solicitor-General: I have had the opportunity to look in some considerable detail at the background to Mr. Osman's case. My hon. Friend will wish to bear in mind that Mr. Osman, who is an extremely wealthy man, is entitled to exhaust every one of his legal remedies in this country before my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary can take the decision on whether to extradite him to Hong Kong. Inevitably, those legal remedies take time to pursue, but my hon. Friend should also bear in mind that the question of bail in the interim is a matter for the independent judiciary and has been before it on several occasions.
    Mr. Archer: To revert to the original question, is it not false economy to leave these services under-resourced? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that delays involve loss of time for the judiciary, the court service, defence witnesses and the other services involved? Would it not be sensible to fund a proper legal system in the first place?
    The Solicitor-General: It can be false economy to leave services under-resourced. The problem faced by the criminal justice system is by no means solely, if indeed largely, due to financial resources. It is also a question of human resources. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, at the moment the pool of lawyers is seriously overfished by a number of different agencies, such as the City and large firms of solicitors. As I emphasised earlier, it is important that the different agencies work carefully together to make the best use of resources and that we should seek to recruit to bring the Crown prosecution service up to strength.
    Mr. Barry Porter: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the big company firms do not recruit people who are involved in criminal law? Does he accept that the Crown prosecution service is under-resourced in human and financial terms? Does he agree that it is quite unacceptable that simple shoplifting trials in Merseyside should take between six and nine months to come before the courts? That cannot be right for the law or for the people who are being charged. I am not a great public expenditure man, but it is clear to me that we have to get the proper people in the Crown prosecution service and that they must be properly rewarded and have a proper career structure in a properly funded service.
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend has great knowledge of the scene on Merseyside. I urge him to look carefully at the statistics on who is asking for adjournments. In a significant proportion of cases it is the defence that asks for repeated adjournments.

    Civil Servants (Disclosures)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to institute criminal proceedings against any civil servant who improperly discloses the advice given by the Law Officers to the Government.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): No, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Attorney-General believe Sir Leon Brittan when he asserts that Mr. Powell and Mr.

    15
    Ingham quite improperly abused his letter? Why do they remain so powerful in the government of Britain unless, as probably on Rover and certainly in the dismissal of her Chancellor and the nature of the Chancellor's leaving the Government, the Prime Minister did that which if I were so indelicate as to mention it, Mr. Speaker, you would suspend me for five days?
    The Attorney-General: I responded to a similar question on 8 May and on subsequent occasions, and there is nothing that I can usefully add to what I said to the hon. Gentleman then. Nothing that I can say will influence the hon. Gentleman, but I question whether there is anything to be gained by sending his pitcher to that well again.
    Mr. Latham: Is it not about time that we had a statute of limitations on this question?
    The Attorney-General: A statute of limitations is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, but the statute of limitations has been amended so often that it is almost incomprehensibly complicated as it is.
    Mr. John Morris: In terms of criminal proceedings, will the Attorney-General consider the application of the law of corruption and bribery as it may apply to the giving of concealed sweetners on the authority of an ex-Government Minister? Bearing in mind that corruption does not mean dishonesty but merely doing an act which the law forbids as tending to corrupt—including the offering of an inducement for doing or forbearing to do anything in respect of a transaction in which a public body is concerned—and that the Attorney-General's consent is necessary for a prosecution, will he refer to the Director of Public Prosecutions the involvement of any person in the giving of concealed incentives to British Aerospace to ascertain whether there is a prima facie case for prosecution?
    The Attorney-General: I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman who asked such a carefully prepared and learned question, but it does not arise out of the question on the Order Paper. If it did, I should deny every one of the premises upon which it is based.

    Serious Fraud
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss serious fraud; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: Matters of serious fraud are generally the responsibility of the independent serious fraud office, whose own director I frequently meet for discussions.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Attorney-General meets that officer, will he tell him that it is high time that the serious fraud office investigated the sweetner from the Government to British Aerospace in order to get rid of Rover? Will he also say—as the Attorney-General of this country ought to say—that he believes that the Government are guilty of fraud and that they have probably been fiddling certain tax concessions and subsidies? There should be one law which applies to the Government in the same way as it applies to an old lady in the supermarket who might get away with a tin of
    16
    pilchards. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman were a real Attorney-General that is the way that he would address the Director of Public Prosecutions and the serious fraud squad instead of covering up for his friends on the Government Front Bench.
    The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a full statement on Thursday and there is nothing that I wish to add to that. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—I will not say shot his fox in his previous question—but slightly peppered it. Questions of this nature are not made any more persuasive, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) does not make his case, by yelling.

    OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
    Mr. Speaker: Question No. 107.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer this question and question No. 113 at the end of Question Time, as you have so advised.

    Third World
    Miss Widdecombe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of whether more funds could be provided to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations for work in the Third world; and whether any such increase is planned.
    Mrs. Chalker: On 26 October I announced an increase in our joint funding scheme, under which we support non-governmental organisations' agreed long-term development projects by 25 per cent. next year to £20 million. I am also increasing support for the United Kingdom volunteer recruiting agencies—most notably the Voluntary Service Overseas—by 10 per cent. to £14·3 million. We will also consider sympathetically requests for assistance from non-governmental organisations for disaster and emergency relief measures.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those increases. Has she suggested that special attention should be paid to small projects, which in return for a modest outlay—such as the installation of water tanks—can have tremendous consequences for the welfare of women in the Third world?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend knows, we are keen to use not only the joint funding scheme for the non-governmental organisations, but the heads of mission gift scheme and the heads of mission small projects scheme. Those three ways can help women in development, particularly through the provision of water storage, so saving them the awful problem of carting heavy water urns for many miles.
    Ms. Armstrong: I recognise the important contribution of VSO. I should like to thank the Minister and ask whether she will have discussions with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that the implementation of the student loans scheme does not affect the financial ability of young people to work for at least two years in the Third world with VSO and to work when they get back?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, Sir.
    Sir Charles Morrison: Although the Government have a good record, does my right hon. Friend agree that more should be done to assist NGOs with population programmes? Is it not a fact that at the moment less than 1 per cent. of all aid is used on population programmes? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if that percentage were increased, the effectiveness of the rest of the programme would be greater? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if that percentage were increased the effectiveness of the rest of the programme would be greater?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. At the meeting that we had with Population Concern in Harrogate on 14 November, we agreed on how valuable those contributions that we are already making, and those that we shall make, to Population Concern and other agencies concerned with population planning are in the general development of those countries.
    Mrs. Clywd: In the league table of all 18 western aid givers, why has Britain dropped to 14th place when we were in sixth place in 1979?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady knows that the cuts made in the overseas aid programme under the last Labour Government had to go through. We are now increasing our aid programme and intend to go on spending it wisely and getting the best value for money out of every penny of taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this welcome increase. Will she join me in paying tribute to the send-a-cow scheme? What further steps can she take to give that excellent organisation and endeavour more money?
    Mrs. Chalker: I shall look into what my hon. Friend says. While send-a-cow is a good scheme, many other schemes deserve our support.

    E1 Salvador
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of United Kingdom support for El Salvador.
    Mrs. Chalker: British bilateral aid to El Salvador is running at about £40,000 to £50,000 a year. In addition, we contribute to European Community assistance: in 1988 our share was about £240,000. We also provided £300,000 recently in emergency aid—£100,000 through the International Committee of the Red Cross and £200,000 as our share of European Community emergency aid.
    Mr. Clarke: In view of those contributions, have the Government responded to the El Salvadorian Government's request that they should provide a specialist commission of inquiry to consider the killings of the six Jesuits, their cook and her daughter? If that commission reaches the conclusion that the Salvadorian military was responsible for this dastardly act, will the Government influence the United States Government to stop military aid to El Salvador forthwith?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we condemned the murder of the six Jesuit priests, their cook and her daughter and appealed for restraint on both
    18
    sides. Resolving this problem is very much a political question and one for the Government of El Salvador as well as those in America concerned with the issue.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Should not the Government be commended for giving emergency assistance to El Salvador, particularly at a time when the democratically elected Government of that country are having to cope with insurgency, which is causing considerable difficulty to the civilian population?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's position is that the FMLN guerrillas should end their offensive and negotiate. For obvious reasons, we would not be able to add to United Kingdom personnel deployed in El Salvador, but we hope that the task that the Red Cross is undertaking will be facilitated, that the wounded will be evacuated, and that supplies to hospitals and the follow-up of those captured on both sides will now take place.
    Mr. Foulkes: It is all very well expressing concern about the horrific murders of the six Jesuit priests, but does the Minister accept that she could have some effect by making British aid conditional on bringing the killers to justice, and on an improvement to human rights in El Salvador?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I believe in human rights, wherever they may be at risk across the world. He will also know that humanitarian aid for those who are wounded and those who are without facilities such as medical facilities should not be conditional on such premises.
    Mr. Barry Porter: I welcome the aid that has been given to El Salvador, but should we not take into account those countries that are greater friends of the United Kingdom and especially, in west Africa, the small but very friendly country of Sierra Leone?
    Mrs. Chalker: We send about 70 per cent. of our bilateral aid to the poorest 50 countries in the world. We help the country that my hon. Friend mentioned and we are doing better than other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development donors in that respect.

    Hungary
    Mr. Geraint Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic aid is currently given to Hungary.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) announced assistance of £25 million over five years for Hungary in October. The programme now being planned gets under way substantively next April.
    Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Does the Minister envisage neighbouring countries within the eastern bloc applying to Britain for further financial aid? What plan does she have in mind if they do?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may be right. Countries other than Poland and Hungary may in due time want assistance from western European countries. However, it is not solely Britain which should give that assistance. Discussions with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are taking place in Washington.

    19
    We are aware of the needs developing in eastern Europe as it moves towards democracy, which we hope will happen with all speed.

    Horn of Africa and Ethiopia
    The following questions stood on the Order Paper:
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss the situation in the Horn of Africa with other Governments and non-governmental organisations.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the light of reports of famine in rebel-held areas of Ethiopia, how Her Majesty's Government will ensure that food supplies they provide will get through to those who need them.
    Mrs. Chalker: Discussions with other Governments and non-governmental organisations are continuing. First, I will explain the actions which have already been taken.
    As the House is aware, well over 3 million people are threatened by famine in northern Ethiopia. It is estimated that about 600,000 tonnes of food aid will be needed, especially in the early months of next year. The House also knows that this appalling problem is the result of crop failure, worsened by the continuing civil war.
    The Overseas Development Administration constantly monitors the food situation in Ethiopia. On 31 August I discussed our deep concern with non-governmental organisation and then on 26 October with the Save the Children Fund, by which date it was clear that famine would result from the lack of September rains. I had already announced in August 6,850 tonnes of food aid for Eritrea.
    A senior ODA official reported directly to me on 31 October on his return from Ethiopia. Immediately I stepped up our continuing diplomatic efforts with the United States, the Soviet Union our European Community partners, certain Arab countries, the Ethiopian Government and both the Eritrean People's Liberation Front and the Tigre People's Liberation Front.
    Our overriding priority is to get food to the starving. To do this we must first persuade the Ethiopian Government to allow the passage of food across the lines. Secondly, we must work for an end to the conflicts in Ethiopia.
    On 14 November, in Rome, I discussed our assessment of need with representatives of the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the world food programme, and received their latest estimates from the early warning system of the likely severity of the famine.
    On 21 November in Brussels I underlined to our Community partners the severity and urgency of the situation, and on 27 November at the Foreign Affairs Council the Commission and our partners agreed to my request to reinforce our diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. The £2 million of relief aid that I announced last week brings to nearly £13 million Britain's help for those in need in Ethiopia this year.
    The aid that we continue to make available will meet real humanitarian need, but there can be no lasting relief to suffering in Ethiopia unless there is an end to the civil conflict. This requires a negotiated solution involving all parties. We have been, and will continue to be, very active in every possible forum to bring that about. I shall be
    20
    raising the whole issue at the OECD in Paris tomorrow and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will also be doing so with the EC presidency.
    Let the House and the nation be in no doubt that we are doing all that we reasonably can to get food to the starving and to bring peace to the people of Ethiopia.
    Mr. Shaw: I am sure that the Whole House welcomes my right hon. Friend's statement. I hope that, as a result of it, there will be great relief over the long term for the people of the Horn of Africa, and of Ethiopia in particular. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that she has recently attended talks in Washington on this subject? Can she give us some detail of what was discussed there?
    Mrs. Chalker: Last week I met the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Canadian Affairs and the acting Director of United States Aid for International Development, to discuss the problems in Ethiopia. I sought their assistance on contacts with the Soviet Union and anyone else who can bring the right sort of influence to bear on the Ethiopian Government and the rebel movements so that we may get the food supplies which are being donated to the people who need them so urgently. I cannot say that we have yet received the responses we want, but I assure my hon. Friend that we are in constant touch with all those who might be able to bring about a free passage of the food to the people who really need it.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend think that there is any hope of establishing a food corridor through which this food can be transported to those who need it?
    Mrs. Chalker: I would love to be able to give my hon. Friend a positive response to that question. The difficulty is that the Ethiopian Government have refused to discuss the free access of food. To get a corridor such as we all want will obviously take much more diplomatic discussion, in which we are fully engaged.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the most appalling thing in Ethiopia is the continuing conflict? Would it not be helpful if all of those who supply arms to either side in the dispute were persuaded to stop doing that? What steps are the Government taking to bring pressure to bear on those who supply arms? Is it not appalling that we should be sending arms while humanitarian aid is desperately needed to save lives?
    Mrs. Chalker: Those who supply arms know that that can only prolong the conflict. I have no doubt that all the representations being made at a variety of levels across many Governments are to the effect that we need peace in Ethiopia before there can be any long-term solution for the starving people there.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the £2 million that was allocated, or so-called allocated, last week is geared towards the open-roads policy, which the Minister herself says is extremely hard to establish? Does she agree that the Government simply ran a high-profile public relations exercise last week, although they have been told about the problem repeatedly this year and have repeatedly refused to go to the Soviet Union, who are the only people capable of moving the Ethiopian Government?
    Mrs. Chalker: I do not think that the hon. Member can have listened to a word of my statement, It is difficult, and it will be difficult, to establish an open-roads policy. The most efficient and direct route to take to provide food for the people of Tigré and Eritrea would be through the established channels of distribution from the Government-held ports, but that will happen only when the Ethiopian Government listen to all those to whom we have made representations, not just in the past week but during the past months. We shall go on making representations. Whether it be to the Soviet Union, the United States or any of our European partners, I hope that the Ethiopian Government will respond so that starvation can be stopped.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: In contradistinction to what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) said, is it not true that my right hon. Friend has taken very early action to try to provide food for the millions of people who are in danger of starvation in Ethiopia, and that she has made real contact with the Soviet Union, which has a great deal of influence in Ethiopia? I am sure that the whole House and the nation join me in congratulating my right hon. Friend on the actions that she has taken.
    Has the European Economic Community, which supplied much of the food aid when there was last starvation in Ethiopia, taken adequate and good action to provide food? Is there any chance of getting the Ethiopian Government to agree to open one of the two ports, without which we shall have great difficulty feeding people in the Asmara-Wello corridor?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. We shall be extremely grateful for the efforts of all our Community partners and, indeed, the European Commission to get food to the people of Ethiopia. So far we have not persuaded the Ethiopian Government to open either of the ports but it is an urgent matter on which we are working.
    Mr. Mullin: Given that the overriding priority is to get food to the starving, and in view of the intransigence of the Ethiopian Government, would it not be best to send food by the overland route through the Sudan and to provide aid to the NGOs capable of using that route? Is that not the key?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am sure that the best way to send food to the people who need it is through the NGOs. They have good experience and seem to be the best channel. Resources sent through them and other international agencies seem to assist people. We are working on that.
    Mr. Harris: As an hon. Member who represented you, Mr. Speaker, at the opening session of the national assembly in Addis Ababa, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no hope for Ethiopia unless and until the wretched civil war is brought to an end? Will she give an assurance that the Goverment will continue to play their part along with other powers to bring about a settlement and, in particular, to pursuade Russia, which probably holds the key, to bring the utmost pressure to bear on the Mengistu regime?
    Mrs. Chalker: We are already doing that. We shall continue to do everything necessary through every channel open to us to persuade the parties to the conflict to end it.
    Mr. Michael Welsh: I agree with the Minister that the war is causing starvation. If the war ceased, we could get
    22
    food to millions of dying people. Some children in Ethiopia die even before they reach the age of one. Something must be done. Does the Minister agree that, even though an open-roads policy is not possible at present because of the fighting, we must continue to seek such a policy so that even if the war continues we can get food to the people? Has she considered the supply and use of lorries? Is she aware that Tigré is short of lorries to take food from A to B? Will she consider whether aid is needed to help provide lorries?
    Mrs. Chalker: It is likely that the additional £2 million that I announced last week, bringing our total aid this year to £13 million, will be used for urgent transport requirements. As the hon. Gentleman knows well, one has only to hold in one's arms a small child who is just skin and bone to know how bad the position is.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that 60 per cent. of the fertile land in Ethiopia is not under production and that the gross domestic product of all the sub-Saharan African countries is equivalent only to that of Belgium? Does she agree that we must for ever continue to try to help the unfortunate people in those countries and not seek the immediate solutions that some Opposition Members believe exist?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right to refer to the need for sustainable development. We must put in place agricultural schemes that can produce food for the future on a long-term basis. Until the conflict is brought to an end we have little chance of moving ahead with any agricultural scheme in Ethiopia. Only in countries which are prepared to undertake considerable agricultural production can we povercome future famine.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister know whether President Bush discussed this matter with President Gorbachev last weekend?
    Mrs. Chalker: I regret that I do not know, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I raised the matter with two Assistant Secretaries of State in the State Department in Washington on Thursday before they left, together with the President, for Malta. I believe that the message may well have got through.
    Mr. Baldry: As former chairman of the Anglo-Ethiopian Society, may I tell my right hon. Friend that no one who has any knowledge of Ethiopia could dissent from her analysis? May I support the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and others who have said that there are two tragedies in Ethiopia the famine and the civil war? Will my right hon. Friend do what she can to support the NGOs' efforts to get food aid to the various areas of Ethiopia in the knowledge that it is not only the Ethiopian Government but others who have used food aid as a political and military weapon in the past? May I inform my right hon. Friend how sad some of us were that some NGOs were taking her to task? In fairness, in recent months she and the Government have been making considerable efforts to help Ethiopia.
    Mrs. Chalker: Food aid should never be used as a weapon of war. Regrettably it often is. It is remarkable that we saw a letter from Save The Children Fund last week when the discussion which led to a whole series of new actions took place in the office of the director of Save The Children Fund in October.
    Mrs. Clwyd: May I say how pleased I am that the Minister is back, as the whole of last week I was trying to get a Government statement on this important issue?
    Does the Minister accept that as we speak people are dying in Ethiopia? Will she explain why, despite being repeatedly warned by the aid agencies of this potential danger back in July, it took last week's dramatic television pictures to propel the Government into giving a paltry £2 million in food aid, which is only 1 per cent. of the total food aid required? While we accept that it must be right to attempt through international pressure to persuade the Ethiopian Government to open up roads to rebel-held areas, does the right hon. Lady accept that meantime, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) said, there must be co-operation with the two local organisations that can effectively and quickly distribute the food to the people in need?
    Mrs. Chalker: If I had not been in Washington last week for talks with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the State Department, I would not have
    24
    got through to a number of people whom the hon. Lady's hon. Friends keep asking me to contact. We are concerned that people, especially small children, are dying. It was not in July that we started action. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), worked continually when he was at the ODA to get the right preparations taken should the crops fail, as they were known to have failed after the September rains were known to have failed. It did not take a Michael Buerk film to bring the Department into action. I have been in action since the first day I arrived at the ODA and my right hon. Friend before me.
    The hon. Lady may think that £2 million is paltry. I made it clear that that was on top of nearly £11 million which we have already given this year. Since the beginning of 1987 we have spent some £54 million and since the beginning of 1984 £139 million in direct aid to Ethiopia. We shall ensure that assistance in this terrible disaster goes through the NGOs and that the food and transport that are required will be available to the people who need it so badly.

Points of Order
3.48 pm
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who were here on Friday and listened to an interesting debate on eastern Europe are rather surprised to see that the Official Report has missed out from the report at least three speeches. One was an interesting speech by the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) in praise of Leon Trotsky. Is there a Stalinist in the Hansard office who has declared the hon. Gentleman a non-person?
Mr. Speaker: I have received an apology from the Editor of Hansard to say that a technical malfunction of Hansard Press resulted in most of the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) all the speeches of the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Wall) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) being omitted. A correction will be made in the text of Hansard today. The Editor expresses his regret.
Mr. Pat Wall: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Saturday morning, Radio 4 referred to my speech as odd. I thought that I had given an even-handed description of both Stalinism and capitalism. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether my speech exists—I understand that all our speeches, interventions and even interjections are reported in Hansard. If my speech does not exist, is there a technical case for saying that Radio 4 is in breach of privilege?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's speech exists. Hansard Press made a mistake. I am glad to know that the hon. Gentleman's speech was referred to on the radio.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a speech was reported in Hansard in my name although it was made by another hon. Member, can you advise me what to do when in the second paragraph I am supposed to have waxed eloquent on Balkanisation? Far worse than that, I am supposed to have said:
"It is wonderful to be able to quote a statement from the present political leader of Bulgaria."—[Official Report, 1 December 1989; Vol. 162, c. 977.]
What can I do to safeguard my reputation, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the mistake was made. New technology in Hansard caused the malfunction. I think that the hon. Gentleman has now put the record straight.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not related directly to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—it is more general than that—but earlier this afternoon, in a question to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the
26
hon. Gentleman referred to a loyal and devoted civil servant. It was one of the seemingly endless occasions on which he has done so on the Floor of the House on an issue which surely has had its day. Is it correct, and if it is not, what can be done about it, for the names of senior civil servants to be mentioned in this way? Would it be possible for the House to examine whether there is a better way of handling these matters?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it would be wrong for anyone to stop my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), or anyone else, raising important matters in the House merely because a long time has passed since the issue arose. We all remember the case of the Guildford Four and the 15 years which followed, during which hon. Members asked questions about the case. Tory Members could have said that that should stop. It is a good thing that it did not stop. Another example is the Rover sweetner. The questions about that will run on and on and on.
Hon. Members: And on and on and on.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that these points of order will not run on and on and on. There is an important debate to follow.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could not the matter which I raised be brought quickly to an end and cleared up if the deputy Prime Minister were to tell us from the Dispatch Box whether he believes that Sir Leon Brittan, his friend and protegé, was right or not right in saying that Mr. Charles Powell and Mr. Ingham quite improperly approved the disclosure—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Government Front Bench and not for me. I say in answer to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) that we must all calculate the use of names of those who are not Members of this place and the impact on them when mentioning them. However, hon. Members have freedom of speech in the Chamber, and that cannot be rationed.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Census Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Human Organ Transplants (Unrelated Persons) Regulations 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Documents Nos. 8520/89 and 8521/89 on Air Transport be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Orders of the Day

  Coal Industry Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Energy to move the Second Reading of the Bill, may I say that once again there is a great demand to take part in the debate, and I therefore propose to place a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. I hope, however, that hon. Members called before that time will bear the limit in mind in the interests of others.
  3.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is of major importance, not just to the coal industry but to the framework of our energy policy over the next five years. It may be helpful, therefore, if I set it in perspective before going on to introduce its detailed provisions.
  The coal industry's performance over the past five years has been remarkable by any standards. British Coal has done well to maintain its United Kingdom sales. Between 1983–84 and last year, in spite of the damage done to customer confidence by the strike and in spite of large falls in the price of competing fuels—particularly imported coal and oil—British Coal lost only 4 per cent. of its business. It was able to fend off the competition only because of very large gains in productivity and improvements in cost.
  Since before the strike, productivity has risen by over 75 per cent. and operating costs have fallen in real terms by 30 per cent. That is a success story that outstrips even the large gains in productivity seen elsewhere in industry during the past 10 years.
  In the past four and a half years, more than 90 pits have closed. The number of employees has more than halved, from some 220,000 to a current total of fewer than 90,000. There has been virtually no recruitment from among communities that hitherto, to a greater or lesser extent, depended on mining, and I for one do not wish to play down the human consequences of those changes.
  Each pit that has closed, however, has been subject to a detailed review procedure like that of no other industry, and each man who has left has done so voluntarily. British Coal has been able to offer alternative jobs to any men who wanted to remain in the industry; for those who wished to go, substantial amounts of redundancy pay have been made available, as well as counselling and retraining. To help bring alternative jobs to mining communities, British Coal set up British Coal Enterprise. I know that many hon. Members will have seen the exhibition that BCE set up last month nearby, and I for one have been most impressed by its contribution to the creation of new employment where mines have closed.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman so early in his speech. He said that miners had been able to exercise their rights under the colliery review procedures. In the summer, men at the Merthyr Vale colliery and pit in Aberfan wanted to exercise those rights, but were told that unless they agreed to the closure by the following Saturday
  28
  they would lose every redundancy payment. They were therefore unable to exercise any rights under those procedures to assess what they considered to be an act of vandalism by British Coal.
  Mr. Wakeham: I have heard about that. The detailed operation of the scheme is, of course, a matter for British Coal and not one for me.
  Mr. Peter Hardy rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it is probably better for me to deal with one intervention before I start giving way to others.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), but the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) have risen to their feet. In a minute I shall have to ask the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney to repeat his question, because I will have forgotten what it was.
  Our policies—voluntary redundancy, the colliery review procedure and job creation through British Coal Enterprise—amount to a package that is unrivalled in any other industry. By and large, these policies are working extremely well, but I recognise the strength of the point made by the hon. Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney. As circumstances change the policies will have to evolve, but they are widely recognised as being a fair and effective mix. We shall encourage British Coal to continue to pursue them.
  Mr. Hardy: Does not the Secretary of State condemn British Coal's attempt to influence events in a dishonourable, outrageous way by casting aspersions on or writing critical letters to the review panel because it had the audacity to appear to criticise British Coal for its rather doubtful approach to redundancies?
  Mr. Wakeham: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's question meets the circumstances of the case. Some views have been expressed by British Coal and by the chairman who presided over the independent reviews, but it is not for me to comment on them at this stage.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: A mine in my constituency closed two years ago. The case went through the review procedure and the colliery won. However, on Coal Board instructions, the colliery was closed.
  Mr. Wakeham: Implementation of decisions is not a matter for me; nor was it a matter for my predecessors. I cannot defend every single action by management; it will have to defend its own actions. However, the Government have played their part by providing additional resources and a system that is generally acceptable and working very well.
  Within the 100 million tonnes a year of sales, the bulk goes to power stations. For the past four years, British Coal has had a joint understanding with the Central Electricity Generating Board under which it has supplied around 75 million tonnes a year at a price which fell year by year, in real terms, and which since November 1987 has in fact been frozen in nominal terms. Negotiations have been going on between British Coal and National Power

  29
  and PowerGen on the terms of the contracts that will replace the joint understanding from vesting day at the end of March 1990.
  As some hon. Members may have heard, British Coal has today announced that it has successfully reached agreement with each generator on the outline terms of interim three-year contracts.
  For the first two years of the new contracts, British Coal will supply an aggregate of 70 million tonnes a year. In the third year it will supply 65 million tonnes. Prices will continue to fall each year in real terms. There is nothing in the contracts which prevents British Coal from bidding to sell additional spot tonnages where that makes financial sense.
  These are, I emphasise, interim settlements. Negotiations will continue with a view to reaching longer-term agreements covering the period beyond the next three years. At the same time, the two sides will be working to flesh out the details of the three-year agreements.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: If the agreement is allowed to continue on that depreciating scale, does the Minister not realise that Britain will have to import more coal? It may cost less now, but who knows what its future price will be? With a £20 billion balance of payments deficit, does the Minister not understand that it is economic lunacy to import more coal and thereby to add to the balance of payments deficit? The answer is to keep pits open and to use British coal. The Government ought to pay attention to our long-term energy needs.
  Mr. Wakeham: The contracts which are freely entered into by British Coal and the generating companies are very good for both. The hon. Gentleman may cast doubts on this, but, according to Sir Robert Haslam's statement today,
  "The new contracts are a firm rebuff for the Jeremiahs and their gloomy forecasts for the future of coal. It is evident that the 'scare stories' of further massive contraction of the industry have been seriously overstated."
  It is good news for the coal industry, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who seeks to represent it in the House, should take credit for his industry when the opportunity presents itself.
  Mr. Tony Benn: Is it right for the Secretary of State to shield himself behind British Coal? Nuclear power is up to three times as expensive as coal, and the Government have supported it. Opencast mining is desperately damaging to the environment, and the Government have supported it. The importation of coal, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) referred, deepens the balance of payments deficit. Those are Government decisions. They are not matters on which the Minister can shield himself behind the chairman of British Coal.
  Mr. Wakeham: The Government have provided very large resources for British Coal and, by and large, in recent years British Coal has taken great advantage from that and has substantially improved its position. I paid proper credit to that at the beginning of my speech. The right hon. Gentleman is deluding himself and the House if he believes that the coal industry can be protected by Government intervention to stop, for example, coal imports. The competition that British Coal must face—it will face it successfully—is from competing fuels—for example,
  30
  natural gas and oil, both of which are available in this country. Unless British Coal can compete against those fuels—I believe that it can—the future will be bleak. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's analysis or his remedy are right.
  Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I must not stand here and answer questions. My task is to make my speech in support of the Second Reading of the Bill. I have given way many times, and I may well give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have made progress.
  Those agreements are important steps forward for both industries. They will allow the contracts between generators and distributors to be put in place according to the planned timetable. The prospect of further reductions in real terms in the cost of coal in each of the next three years is good news for the electricity consumer.
  The contracts are also good news for the coal industry. They remove much of the uncertainty that has overhung the industry in recent months. They give British Coal a large tonnage to go for and time in which to adjust its capacity and costs. But British Coal's ability to retain this business in the longer term will depend upon its own efforts to get its costs down even further over the intervening period. The remarkable productivity trend over the past few years must continue, and I believe that there exists within the industry the will and the technical skill to achieve it.
  Mr. Mullin: I represent part of Sunderland, where 1,700 people are employed in the Wearmouth pit. One of the most disastrous things to happen is that, through our port and others along the coast, large quantities of coal are imported from cheap labour economies, including South Africa, Colombia and places with which no level of productivity can ever permit our miners to compete. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that that is disastrous for the 1,700 men at Wearmouth pit and that, if it continues, it will lead to the closure of that industry, which is one of the largest remaining industries in Sunderland?
  Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has not been the policy of this Government or of the Government whom he would support to restrict the import of coal into this country. Levels of coal imports have not substantially altered in recent years. British Coal is capable of meeting a substantial portion of the needs of the British generating industry for a long time to come.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I thank the Secretary of State, who has been generous in giving way. He has informed the House about increased productivity and the agreement that has been reached today. He has confessed that he will not be opposed to the import of coal and he has announced that gas will be a great competitor. Is he aware that an energy group of hon. Members had a lecture by the chief executive of British Gas and that he told his assembled audience that British Gas expects to have between 2 GW and 7 GW of gas-fired power stations in 10 years' time? Will the Secretary of State concede that he is misleading the House to some extent about the long-term prospects for coal if the policy of the importation of coal goes ahead and if gas-fired power stations become the order of the day?
  Mr. Wakeham: I cannot be certain about the future pattern of fuels for generating, but I know that a substantial number of power stations will be gas fired, as is right and proper. That will add to the diversity of fuel and we know that gas is an environmentally satisfactory fuel. I must add that I was not one of those who were most anxious that the flotation of the nuclear industry should not proceed, but I made a statement to the House when I felt that it was the right course of action. Ten GW of electrical generation capacity were going to be filled by nuclear power, about which there is now considerable doubt, so there will be plenty of markets for which British Coal can aim, if it is competitive and able to seize those markets. I am doing all that I can to enable it to achieve that.
  The Government's view is that there should be a diversity of sources of fuel. We should like to maintain our level of nuclear power, but nothing that I have done in my time as Secretary of State has damaged the prospects of British Coalrather the opposite.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I must get on with my speech.
  Mr. McKay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: No, as I have given way considerably. If I make progress, the hon. Gentleman is next in line and I shall keep him in a corner of my mind. If he sits nicely and quietly, I may be able to give way to him a little later. I have much more to say, so if I give way again hon. Members will complain that I have gone on for too long.
  Clause 1 provides for a new deficiency grant which will enable me to reduce or extinguish British Coal's accumulated losses as at the end of this financial year. It differs from the deficit grant, which was available to British Coal until 1987, in two respects. Whereas deficit grant was paid out in respect of each year's losses, the new deficiency grant relates to the accumulated losses in the corporation's balance sheet, rather than to the results of any one year. The second difference is that deficit grant was an ongoing grant and a continuing subsidy. The new grant deals with the overhang of the past, but it is not available to cover any losses that British Coal may incur beyond March 1990.
  Apart from restructuring grant, to which I shall return in a moment, we do not envisage offering any grant subsidy to British Coal for the period beyond March 1990, for the simple reason that, taking the next three years as a whole, we expect British Coal to make a profit. As Sir Robert Haslam told the Select Committee on Energy last month, British Coal does not want a subsidy and it does not need a subsidy.
  However, it is essential and urgent that we address the massive distortions that are now appearing in British Coal's balance sheet. That is because, on the basis of the balance sheet that we expect to see by March, there would be no prospect of British Coal being able to service and repay its debt. In those circumstances, it would be neither proper nor legal for me to continue to lend money to the corporation and the corporation would no longer be in a position to discharge its statutory functions. Let me spell out what those distortions are.
  First, until this year, British Coal's borrowings, at around £4 billion, were broadly in line with the value of the
  32
  fixed assets shown in the balance sheet. But the growth in borrowings this year will lift the corporation's debt to nearly £5 billion. Meanwhile, it is becoming clear that pressure on British Coal's margins has left its fixed assets substantially overvalued in terms of their true earning potential. I cannot at this stage tell the House the extent of the write-down that may be necessary. That will depend upon a detailed review of the industry's prospects, and I shall naturally wish to satisfy myself that they are based on demanding output and productivity targets.
  Secondly, under a new accounting standard applicable this year, British Coal is expected to provide in its accounts for its concessionary coal liabilities—primarily to ex-employees—instead of charging them on a pay-as-you-go basis. The corporation also has potential liabilities in respect of ex-employees' industrial deafness claims. Over the past four months I have learnt just how painful such long-term provisions in the energy sector can be, and I am afraid that these are no exceptions. The concessionary coal provisions are likely to amount to nearly £2 billion at today's prices and the industrial deafness provision is around £0·5 billion.
  Finally, there are the bottom line losses that British Coal has recorded over the past three years, including £200 million last year and perhaps double that sum this year. British Coal's balance sheet has no reserves against which those losses can be offset.
  Altogether, the losses over the past three years, the provisions in respect of concessionary coal and industrial deafness, and the write-down of colliery assets could amount go more than £5 billion; they represent the accumulated deficiency with which I propose to seek powers to deal by means of deficiency grant. I foresee a substantial part of such grant being paid immediately on Royal Assent, provided that the Bill receives Royal Assent before the end of the financial year. That will allow British Coal to repay an equivalent amount of its borrowings so that its debt can be brought into closer alignment with the true value of its colliery assets. The remainder of the deficiency grant will be paid over time as British Coal's longer-term liabilities fall due.
  Clause 2 raises the ceiling on restructuring grant from £750 million to £1,250 million, increasable by order to £1,500 million, and extends its availability by one year to March 1993.
  The increase in the ceiling is urgently required because the existing £750 million has been fully committed. Indeed, there are unreimbursed costs outstanding at present as a result of this year's redundancies. I appreciate the concern felt on both sides of the House about what is implied in terms of further manpower rundown. The proposed increase in the ceiling is a broad-brush figure and is not based on a specific view of what the manpower rundown will be.
  I think that it is generally recognised that the number of jobs will continue to fall as collieries exhaust their economic reserves and as manpower-saving investment comes to fruition, but I shall certainly not predict the outcome of individual colliery reviews or whether individual mineworkers will wish to remain in the industry or take voluntary redundancy. Similarly, I am not in a position to judge whether British Coal will find it profitable to sell more than the minimum contract tonnages to the power stations or to develop alternative profitable markets for its coal.

  33
  However, I am not disguising the hard truth that the industry will have to reduce its manpower costs further over the next three years, and the grant is vital if British Coal is to be able to afford appropriate redundancy terms.
  Clause 3 makes a technical amendment dealing with loans to British Coal. Its purpose is to enable me to take temporary deposits from British Coal so that I can offer revolving credit facilities as well as term loans.
  Because of the weakness of its balance sheet, British Coal has had access over the past two years only to short-term loans, and this has meant a great deal of volatility in the interest rate it faces. Once its balance sheet has been strengthened, I intend to consider how the maturity of its borrowings could be adjusted to a more conventional medium-term structure. There will, however, still be a need for temporary loan facilities, and clause 3 will allow a more straightforward way of providing those.
  Finally, the Bill provides for an increase in the limits on licensed mining and other consequential changes.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wakeham: I must outline what the Bill contains, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if I have time after I have given way to his hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
  Mr. Peter Rost: rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I have not given way to any of my hon. Friends and, in fairness, I shall do so when I have concluded the point about licences.
  Private sector coal mining under licence from British Coal, which owns all coal reserves in Britain, produces between 2 and 3 per cent. of our total output. Those mines are limited in size, under legislation from the 1940s and 1950s which has never been revised, to 30 underground employees in the case of underground mines and 25,000 tonnes in the case of surface—that is, opencast—mines.
  Mr. Rost: I am sure that many of my hon. Friends will welcome the relaxation of the artificial and outdated restrictions on private mining. Will my right hon. Friend accept, however, that there will not be fair competition unless he alters the licensing system? It should be taken from the patronage of British Coal and transferred to the Department of Energy so that, in common with oil and gas licensing, it is open to tender. In that way, genuine private enterprise competition would be achieved.
  Mr. Wakeham: I note what my hon. Friend says. I suspect that improvements could be made to the licensing system, but they must wait, I fear, until a major Bill to privatise British Coal is introduced. That will not happen until the next Parliament. In the meantime, I thought it right to introduce the modest proposals I have outlined to assist, but they are not a substitute for the more fundamental review that my hon. Friend would like.
  Mr. Allen Mckay: The Secretary of State has said that manpower in the small mines will increase from 30 to 150. I hope that he will consider carefully the question of health and safety, especially when the rules and regulations are altered. There is a difference between a private mine that employs 30 men and one that employs 150, as such a work force means that the mine is fairly large.
  Mr. Wakeham: One of the purposes of the changes is to improve safety in private mines. With the present number of 30 employees, it is difficult to use modern technology and equipment, but the safe operation of mines largely depends on using modern equipment. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that safety is an important consideration.
  Mr. Jimmy Hood: rose—
  Mr. David Ashby: rose—
  Mr. Wakeham: I must make some progress.
  It is important to put our proposals for increasing the size of opencast mines into perspective. The smallest British Coal mine has about 250 underground employees; and while there are a few British Coal opencast mines with tonnages of less than 250,000 tonnes, they account for a tiny fraction only of the corporation's output.
  We have made it clear that we would seek a mandate in the next general election to hive off British Coal's operations from its licensing functions and to privatise them once they have become fully competitive. The decision when and in what form the coal industry will be privatised is one for the next Parliament, and we do not want to pre-empt this decision by major changes now in the statutory framework.
  Mr. Ashby: When we have such extended opencast mine facilities, will my right hon. Friend please ensure that they are not concentrated in one area as they are in my constituency? We have to suffer opencast mining on top of opencast mining. Will consider the local people so that only one opencast mine at a time is operated and no more?
  Mr. Wakeham: I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, but I am not the planning authority which settles these matters. No doubt those with the authority will take note of what my hon. Friend said.
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: If my right hon. Friend is saying that at this stage it is not reasonable to transfer licensing arrangements from British Coal to the Department of Energy, will he at least give the House an assurance that he will look carefully at the royalty paid by private mining operators to British Coal? It seems to many Conservative Members that an £11 per tonne advantage in what is supposed to be a free and fair competitive market is not reasonable in the private sector.
  Mr. Wakeham: I have no plans for doing that, but my hon. Friend has asked a question and I shall certainly look at the matter. However, I do not give an undertaking that he will necessarily have a favourable reply.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Wakeham: I had better make a bit more progress. I have given way a great deal and I merely wanted to redress the balance.
  Several Hon. Members rose
  Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of the hon. Members now seeking to intervene have also stated that they wish to participate in the debate and their interventions take up time.
  Mr. Wakeham: We see merit in raising the licensing limits to take account of developments in mining

  35
  techniques since the 1940s, to allow the working of deposits which are too small for British Coal to consider but too large to be worked by licensees under the present limit. Some of these deposits are of special qualities such as anthracite where British Coal's own local output may be insufficient to meet demand and the market would otherwise be supplied by imports. The increase will therefore open up the possibility of increasing employment and investment in the small mines sector.
  I am aware of the concern felt in the House about the safety record of small mines. I am glad that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who raised this issue, is still in the Chamber. However, the overall accident rate in licensed mines has in fact fallen in each of the last three years. I accept that it is higher than in British Coal's mines, but we are dealing with a small statistical population. My worry is that the existing limits condemn licensed mines to work with the equipment and techniques of the 1940s.
  Investment in safer and more efficient equipment and techniques is likely to be forthcoming only if the mines can be worked more intensively, which means increasing the manpower ceiling. Indeed, contrary to claims by some Opposition Members, the measure is designed to offer the prospect of greater, rather than less, safety in licensed operations. In the opencast sector, the higher limit now proposed will greatly reduce the piecemeal working of small opencast deposits, and encourage investment in larger and more efficient machinery. Licensed workings will continue to be subject to planning approval and proper conditions of operation and land restoration.
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on the important issue of the safety of the mines and the individuals who work in them. The increase in miners is not great, but it is more than 500 per cent.; therefore, percentagewise it is large. There will be a tenfold increase—which is large—in the opencast extraction from the pit top. How many more safety inspectors will be employed in the industry to ensure that the extra miners working in the pits are well looked after and their safety, which is supreme and should come before any production, given top priority, with production coming second?
  Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should ensure that we have the right number of inspectors, as we have. They are up to establishment levels, although there are fewer inspectors now than there used to be. But there are substantially fewer miners than there used to be and the ratio of inspectors to miners has risen substantially. When we came to power in 1979, there was one mine inspector for every 3,185 miners employed by British Coal. The ratio is now one inspector to every 1,998 miners. That is an improvement of 52 per cent. The hon. Gentleman is right: that aspect of matters should not be a subject of controversy between us.
  Much has been accomplished over the last five years since the miners' strike. That was a watershed in the industry's history. The Bill, together with the agreement reached with the generators, marks a further crucial landmark for the industry as it adjusts to a changing environment in which its two main customers for power station coal move into the private sector.
  36
  By addressing the losses and liabilities of the past, and by recognising the true value of its assets, we are providing the industry with the opportunity to compete in the market place of the future. The Bill is the measure of the Government's support for the industry, and I commend it to the House.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The Opposition welcome those parts of the Bill that are intended to improve the financial position of British Coal. However, we are opposed to the Bill as a whole, especially because it permits more people to go underground in private pits whose safety record, whatever the Secretary of State may say, is quite deplorable.
  The main financial provision of the Bill is to write off the debts of British Coal. We welcome that decision. The Government are doing the right thing but for the wrong reason. It is being done only as part 1 of the Government's usual three-stage procedure for privatisation which can be summarised as write-off, sell-off, and rip-off. That is what the Government intend.
  Another clause increases the Government grant towards the cost of redundancies in the coal industry. If there are to be job losses, generous severance payments should be made, but it would be better still if we did not have all the pit closures that will lead to redundancies on the scale that is indicated in the Bill. As I have said, we are totally opposed to the proposal to permit more people to work underground in private mines. The safety record in private mines is dreadful, with fatal accidents running at between two and four times the rate in the pits run by British Coal. With that sort of record, we should be exposing fewer people to that sort of danger and not more, and we shall vote against the Bill for that reason.
  We are also opposed to the tenfold increase in the size of private opencast workings. The record of private operators is bad enough already, as communities living near them can confirm. They do not take enough care, they do not try to protect local communities, and some of them have failed to restore old workings to agricultural use. The Government should have used the Bill to honour their undertaking to improve the arrangements for compensation for damage caused by mining subsidence. They said that they would do that as soon as there was a legislative opportunity. This is that legislative opportunity, and we shall press for the inclusion of that in the Bill.
  We cannot look at the Bill in isolation. We need to look at the current position of British Coal and its financial situation. We need to look at its past, present and future relations with its major customer, the electricity supply industry. We also need to look at it in the context of the Government's general policies on energy, the environment and privatisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has said, we need to look carefully at the Bill's likely impact on our ever worsening trade deficit.
  The Government have many questions to answer. How does the Bill tie in with the coal contract that was announced today? What will it do to electricity prices? Will it promote energy efficiency and conservation? Will its effects on the environment be good or bad? What future does it offer the coal industry? Will it make mining safer or more dangerous? How will it affect communities living near mines and opencast workings? What has the Bill to do

  37
  with the proposed privatisation of the coal industry and how is it tied up with the privatisation of the electricity industry?—[Interruption.] We have had some instant answers from Conservative Members, but I am afraid that I cannot claim to have their intellectual grasp. Time does not permit me to deal with all those questions as swiftly as they do. However. I am sure that those questions will be seriously pursued by my hon. Friends, unlike the hon. Member for Ashby who, by the way he is behaving, apparently thinks that the idea of a new opencast working in his constituency is a joke. However, those questions will he pursued by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. William O'Brien: While my hon. Friend is asking questions of Conservative Members, will he include the protection of the fuel allowance to miners, retired miners and miners' widows? In my constituency, there is grave concern over British Coal's attitude in denying retired, redundant, sick and injured miners and miners' widows their fuel allowance. They fear that that practice will escalate and that those people will become a target for taking away that allowance. Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to give an assurance that those benefits, which have been fought for by miners, will be protected?
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend has put his question effectively; I could not have put it any better. That is one of the many serious questions that Opposition Members will ask about the future of the industry and how it will be affected by the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will deal in particular with safety, opencast working and subsidence and he will want to know why the question of subsidence is not covered in the Bill. I should also like to thank him and my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) for the help that they have given me since I became the shadow Energy Secretary. I should like to pay tribute also to the effectiveness of my predecessor. In doing so, I am doing something that the Secretary of State could not do, at least not whilst keeping a straight face.
  Throughout this decade the Government have been shortsighted, wasteful and environmentally backward. Nowhere has that been more obvious than in energy. Britain's use of energy has been profligate, expensive and harmful to the environment. Instead of carefully husbanding our energy resources, the Government have allowed them to be squandered. Through the period of this Government, coal-burning power stations have provided the bulk of the nation's electricity supplies. They will continue to do so into the foreseeable future.
  A sensible Government would have recognised that and concentrated effort on improving the efficiency of coal-burning power stations. They would have invested in the research and development of more efficient techniques such as fluidised bed combustion and would have promoted coal-fired combined heat and power stations. They would have put an end to acid rain by cleaning the sulphur from the flue gases. Sadly, they have done none of those things and, as a result, the coal-burning stations—the mainstay of the system—are less efficient, more expensive and more environmentally damaging than they need have been.
  A real commitment to those coal-fired stations could have made them cleaner and more efficient and could even have made their electricity cheaper. Instead of that
  38
  commitment, the coal industry and the coal-fired stations have been derided and deprived. They have been derided by allegedly distinguished people in the electricity industry who were supporters of nuclear power and by the advocates of burning oil. They have been deprived of the research and development necessary to improve their competitiveness.
  Instead, money has been poured into nuclear research and that truly bottomless pit, the AGR programme. That is the biggest technological foul-up in British history. Common sense and cheapness have had to take second place to the Prime Minister's obsession with nuclear power. That continues to this day. This year, less than 1 per cent. of the Department of Energy's research is going into coal, while more than 80 per cent. is going into the nuclear industry.
  In view of all the official propaganda, it is hardly surprising that few people realise that supplies of cheap British-mined coal have been the foundation of success for the electricity industry. Coal-fired stations have kept the show on the road. The cost savings in the British coal industry have been used by the generating board to mask the uneconomic operation of nuclear power stations. If the coal industry and coal-fired power stations had got the credit that they deserved, and were to get it in the future, the coal price contract announced today would not have involved a reduced burn of British coal, nor would the Government face the alternative of increased fuel imports and a further worsening of the trade deficit.
  I have to warn that when it comes to the balance of trade in energy the situation is not as bright as at first appears; trends are moving in the wrong direction. At the moment, Britain is self-sufficient in energy because we have an oil surplus. This is fortunate, because without it our trade deficit last year would have been not £14 billion but £22 billion, and the figure would be far worse this year. The Government should take care when they talk of alternative sources of fossil fuels, because Britain's fuel surplus has been whittled away from a surplus of 29 million tonnes in 1983 to one of just 9 million tonnes last year. That is partly because our oil surplus is coming down, but also because Britain imported on average 17 million tonnes of natural gas during each year of the 1980s.
  On top of that, last year we imported 12 million tonnes of coal, so this is hardly the time for the Government to be promoting more coal imports or new power stations that will burn natural gas. It is bad enough that the Department of Trade and Industry does nothing about the trade deficit, but it is even worse that the Department of Energy appears to be contemplating making that deficit worse.
  The contract announced today between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen is closely related to the Bill, but its real significance is that it signals an about-turn by the Government on electricity privatisation. Privatisation was supposed to secure competition between National Power and PowerGen. This contract means that there will not be any competition. Both have been told by the Secretary of State or his officials how much British coal they will burn between them for the next three years and how much they will pay for it. That agreement has about the same relation to open competition as Eric Honecker had to open government.

  39
  In February this year, the former Secretary of State for Energy, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson)—the living embodiment of the triumph of hope over experience—said to the Adam Smith Institute:
  "We are devolving to Lord Marshall, to Bob Malpas, to the Area Board Chairmen, to the private generators, accountability for the industry. And we are devolving to them the power to run their business without sovereign interference … I myself look forward to an electricity industry in which managers are free to manage, and have to meet the demands of customers and competition, not of Ministers and civil servants. That is the principle of privatisation and I am sure it is one that Adam Smith would approve of. It is certainly one that I intend to uphold."
  A little later, he left the job, but before doing so he made a speech in the debate on the Report stage of the Electricty Bill in which he summarised his approach by saying:
  "We want to get away from political influence and political impositions."—[Official Report, 5 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 279.]
  During the past few weeks, the Secretary of State has made nonsense of all the arrangements made by his predecessor and particularly everything that he ever said as Secretary of State for Energy. The new Secretary of State has withdrawn nuclear power stations from the sale, but announced that they will provide the baseload on the system and that he will decide the price to be charged for nuclear power. He has now laid down the terms of the biggest contract that National Power and PowerGen will ever sign. So much for the industry being "free to manage" and not having to meet the demands of Ministers and civil servants. The case for electricity privatisation is in ruins and he knows it. His actions speak louder than his predecessor's words; and they both confirm Labour's case for leaving these natural monopolies in public hands.
  The terms of today's contract are made possible only by the Bill. The proposed cuts in the price of coal are possible only because of the write-off proposals. Unfortunately, the cuts in price are not the only cuts in the contract. The new contract signals a reduction in coal sales to the generating companies from 75 million tonnes a year to 65 million tonnes a year—a reduction of 10 million tonnes—over three years. That reduction must lead to further substantial redundancies—there is no way round it. These job losses will come on top of the 12,000 jobs that the leaked Cabinet paper predicted would result as newer pits like Selby move to full production.
  What of the price to be charged for this coal? We are told that British Coal will have to sell it at a price that absorbs the first and probably the greatest part of any inflation in each year of the contract. In other words, the cost of coal supplies to the generating companies is to be partly inflation-proofed by the coal industry, and that is a price cut in real terms every year. Will this price cut be passed on to the electricity consumers? Will electricity consumers face electricity prices lower than the rate of inflation, and, if not, why not?
  If it is not the miners who are to benefit from their increased productivity and not the books of British Coal and not electricity consumers, whom does the right hon. Gentleman intend to benefit? Is it all part of the fattening up process? Surely, whatever else he does, the least that he can do is to make sure that low-income families and pensioners are protected from any unnatural price increase and his proposed nuclear levy.
  Mr. Ashby: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that in the other industries that have been privatised price increases have been below the rate of inflation? Will that not apply to electricity as well?
  Mr. Dobson: I was talking about low-income families. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why it was that, in the first two years after British Gas went into private competitive hands, the number of people cut off for non-payment doubled and it had to be forced by a publicity campaign to do something to protect people. In any case, I cannot recall, before the privatisation of any other industry, people from the London business school predicting a 50 per cent. increase in the price of its product within the first few years, because that is what the new private owners would want. I will take more notice of them than of the hon. Member for Ashby.
  Mr. Ashby: My constituency is Leicestershire, North-West.
  Mr. Dobson: I apologise. It is all the Zouche that does it.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) was talking about something but could not get his mouth round the words. I think that he was talking about Rover, and about water privatisation, which will cost the taxpayer about £1·3 billion. However, he dare not speak the words because he is frightened of offending the Prime Minister and she may think that he will finish up voting for the other fellow.
  Mr. Dobson: The price charged for Rover was so low that there is some suspicion that Lord Young thought it was a dog.
  As I have already said, the main financial provision of the Bill is to write off British Coal's debts. That will require a contribution by the taxpayer of more than £5 billion to join the £5 billion that they have contributed to the water write-off and the £5 billion that they contributed to the British Steel write-off prior to privatisation.
  The write-off is intended mainly to further the Government's privatisation programme, and it is the first stage of their three-stage procedure. I admit that this case is unusual, because the Bill applies the technique to two industries at once. The write-off will make British Coal more attractive to potential buyers, but the debt is also being written off to help pay for the cut in coal prices to National Power and PowerGen which was announced today. Without the write-off, British Coal would not be able to reduce prices as it is intended that it should.
  It is not the first time that the benefits of coal reductions in the pits have been passed directly to the electricity industry. According to a press statement already quoted by the Secretary of State today, this year the generating board has already benefited to the tune of no less than £850 million. During the past three years the fuel cost to the generating board has come down by 6 per cent., its charges to electricity consumers have gone up by 12 per cent., and its trading profit has gone up by 90 per cent.
  Over the past decade such cost savings have found their way into the profits of the Central Electricity Generating Board rather than being passed on to electricity consumers. In the elegant words of the leaked Cabinet paper, all the benefits of the savings on coal prices were kept as higher profits.

  41
  In all justice, the taxpayer, should not have to foot the bill for that write-off; the generating board should pick up the tab. Therefore, the write-off proposal in clause 1 is not intended just to help the privatisation of British Coal. A lot of the money to be written off has already been spent to help fatten up the electricity supply industry for privatisation.
  That is not all. Cheap electricity generated at coal-fired stations has been used to cross-subsidise the expensive electricity generated in the nuclear stations, or, as the Cabinet paper states, allowed revenue to be moved into the nuclear business without leading to large overall increases in price. In other words, it financed the nuclear cost cover-up.
  Much of British Coal's debt arises from the CEGB's profit and the cost of keeping nuclear power stations going, when that could not be justified by the price of the electricity that they were producing. Unfortunately, that will continue as the new Secretary of State has decreed that, no matter how much it costs, nuclear stations will provide the baseload. The consumers will be forced to pay for that privilege through the nuclear levy, the coal industry will pay for it through reduced sales of coal, and the miners will pay for it through job reductions in the pits.
  I understand that it has been announced that the new nuclear company will be called Nuclear Electric Plc. A buzz word these days in energy circles is transparency. I think that a more transparent and accurate title for the new company might be Irradiated Loss-Makers plc. It will leave the consumers to pay for the losses.
  If the CEGB were forced to repay the money that it has misappropriated from the savings on coal and bunged into its profits, and if the coal-fired stations were to take over the base load function of nuclear stations, much of the proposed write-off would he unnecessary and there would be much less need for British Coal to draw on the £1,500 million in redundancy subsidies in clause 2.
  Before moving on to clause 2, we should consider the other aspect of the write-off provisions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover mentioned. The write-off is intended to be a precursor to the sell-off. We need to try to ensure, at least in the case of British Coal, that it does not turn into the usual rip-off. So, will the Secretary of State tell us his latest valuation of the assets of British Coal if the debts are written off? I hope that he will not tell us that he does not know, because if he does not know the value, how can he claim that he is getting value for money? Has he assessed the value of the land and the non-operational property of British Coal? If he has not, it proves that he is as ignorant and negligent as those people who sold off Royal Ordnance and Rover.
  Mr. Wakeham: I think that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that the write-off might be as much as £5 billion, but that I was not in a position to say what it would be until we had agreed with British Coal and the auditors what it should be, for precisely the reason mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It would be foolish to agree a write-off until one knew the value of the assets remaining. The necessary valuations will be made on 31 March 1990, the date on which the write-off will take place. I think that the hon. Gentleman is misguided.
  Mr. Dobson: I am always willing to accept that, from time to time, I may be misguided. However, 1 am not as misguided as the Government's privatisation policy has been.
  As the provisions allow for the debts to be paid off, or to be written off, over a lengthy period, many Opposition Members and people in other places are suspicious that the Government and the chosen auditors may find that a write-off is justified if privatisation is to proceed but somehow it will not be justified if British Coal were to remain, quite rightly, in public hands.
  Clause 2 doubles the amount of grant which the Government may make to British Coal to cover the cost of redundancies during the period of the new contract. The Cabinet paper estimated that job losses would equal one third of the collieries, or about 30,000 jobs.
  Time has certainly passed since that paper was prepared. Will the Secretary of State tell us his latest estimate of the job losses? Since that paper went to the Cabinet, I am informed that the total work force in British Coal's collieries—and I emphasise the word collieries—has fallen from 80,000 to about 66,000, and that more definite closure proposals are being implemented.
  Will the Secretary of State tell us how many closures will take place and which pits are most at risk? Last week I published a list of pits, based on information made public by British Coal. The list suggested those pits that might be most at risk if the Government were to press ahead with 30,000 job cuts. In response, British Coal flannelled but never denied what we said.
  The trouble is that the provisions in the Bill undermine any claims made by the Government or British Coal about job security, because the maximum grant for redundancies permitted in the Bill is clearly set at a level which is designed to meet redundancies on the scale referred to in the Cabinet paper. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that it is unusual for the Treasury to agree to back expenditure that it does not expect to take place. Suspicions are also raised because the period covered by the redundancy provisions is extended for one year, so that it will coincide with the third year of the three-year contract which has just been announced.
  One other factor underlines the plausibility of any Government claim to a new-found commitment to the British coal industry.
  Mr. Allen McKay: One thing comes to my mind, and perhaps my hon. Friend will probe it further. The present redundancy scheme caters for weekly payments for people until they reach retirement age. As the average age in the mines is now much lower, do the Government intend to carry on that scheme, or are they going to tell us that they will alter it?
  Mr. Dobson: Once again, my hon. Friend, like his colleagues from Yorkshire, has put the question clearly, and perhaps the Minister will answer it in his reply. We will pursue the matter in Committee.
  There is also the problem of coal imports. National Power and PowerGen have already signed contracts, so we understand, to import as much as 6 million tonnes of coal. Those supplies are clearly intended for the Thames-side power stations, which already receive coal by sea from Northumberland and Durham as they are equipped to deal with colliers. The pits in the north-east are among the cheapest and most efficient in Britain. Some have recently

  43
  received substantial investment, and some have the most enormous workable reserves. Surely it makes no sense for the generating companies to try to replace that source with cheap coal from South Africa and Colombia, which until recently was known better for its coke exports than its coal exports.
  There are proposals, moreover, for new coal handling facilities in ports all around Britain. Their total increased capacity is well in excess of 30 million tonnes a year. Some of the proposals come from close friends of the Tory party; some require private Bills, which are being pushed through the House with Government support.
  I tell the Secretary of State that, if he wants people to believe that he backs British coal, the least he can do is withdraw Government support from the proposals for new coal handling facilities, particularly those proposed for Humberside. If he does not, we will know where he really stands and why he wants to double the redundancy money in the Bill.
  The write-off and redundancy provisions in the Bill have been made necessary by a decade of neglect of the mainstay of our electricity system and its customers. Similar provisions will be required in future unless the Government change their policies. Energy efficiency, conservation and the needs of the environment have been ignored. Electricity prices have been pushed up to fatten the industry for privatisation and to cover up the nuclear losses. The consequences of these short-sighted policies are not some academic matter. In Britain, with its abundance of indigenous supplies of coal, oil and natural gas, the Government have contrived to bring it about that more of our old people shiver and die in a cold winter than in any of those countries in western Europe who do not have our natural advantages and envy our supply of fuel.
  The financial provisions of the Bill should put British mined coal in a strong position to provide the bulk of Britain's heat, light and power, but that is no reason to sell it off. The Secretary of State has inherited this threat of privatisation from his predecessor. In view of his problems in sorting out the mess that he inherited in the electricity industry, he should recognise a shambles when he sees one coming. He should abandon the privatisation proposal while he can still blame Cecil. Then he could leave the people in the coal industry to concentrate on their proper job, which is to produce coal efficiently, cheaply and safely to the benefit of themselves, their communities and the whole nation. That is their real job, and he should let them get on with it.
  15.3 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: It is quite amazing to hear speeches with as many inaccuracies as we heard from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We get them year after year. One would imagine that we have not put any money into the coal industry. One would also naturally assume that we have not previously had a write-down in capital. In 1965, we had a write-down of £415 million. In 1973, we had another of £450 million. Revised to current figures, that works out at £5·9 billion.
  The nation should understand that we are not paying for an economic industry. I happen to be strongly in favour of it. I have never said whether I am in favour of
  44
  denationalisation, but it is a loser. If we examine British Coal's assets, we see that the company is rapidly going bust and would be insolvent tomorrow but for the fact that the Government are putting money into it.
  Mr. Hood: I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. Did he use the same multiplier when he argued in the Standing Committee that considered the Electricity Bill that the nuclear power industry should be kept in public ownership? He then supported public ownership of energy.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Member was a member of that Committee and may have listened to my speech on that subject. I shall not anticipate my arguments on the denationalisation of mines. He will have to wait until another occasion to see whether I subscribe to that idea. I am dealing with the Bill which the Government have presented. It is exceedingly good, and I congratulate them on it.
  Write-offs in the industry since 1947 work out at something like £10·5 billion. That is roughly half of the United Kingdom's health budget or equivalent to the turnover of our aerospace industries. The money could have been used much more profitably elsewhere, although I agree that if one has a local industry it should be supported.
  We learned some time ago that, with nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide in flue gases, the polluter pays, but on this occasion the taxpayer will pay—it certainly will not be the mighty industry. That is a very unfortunate form of expenditure.
  Mr. Eric Illsley rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Other hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, wish to make their own speeches, but as the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Electricity Bill, 1 shall give way to him.
  Mr. Illsley: How does the hon. Gentleman equate his statement that the polluter pays with British Nuclear Fuels plc's discharges from Sellafield and the problems that will occur because of nuclear waste disposal?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: There are many forms of nuclear waste disposal. Some proposed by BNFL and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority are extremely complicated. I am not drawing any parallel when I say that the Government are again coming to the rescue of the coal industry. They have consistently vouchsafed the industry.
  Members of the Opposition Front Bench tell us that everything in the garden is lovely, but United Kingdom coal costs about £41 per tonne, whereas the spot price on international markets is roughly £27 per tonne. Are we to tell electricity users in the United Kingdom that they must pay higher electricity prices because of the higher cost of British coal? Electricity users want cheaper electricity and thus cheaper coal. Opposition Members are saying something entirely different. They are saying that we should keep the price up to benefit coal miners and make the public pay.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: No. I shall not give way.
  I shall give some figures. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that we import coal from Colombia, and it is true that we import a small amount from there at

  45
  $38 a tonne. If it is stripped down, it comes to £30 per tonne, which is much less than the price charged for United Kingdom coal. I agree that the coal industry is doing the maximum to bring down prices, but it has not been able to bridge the gap. I congratulate the Secretary of State on having negotiated an agreement for three years on supplies of foreign coal which will enable the mines to bring down their costs further to compete in the international market. What is wrong with that philosophy?
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe rose—
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I wish to say a little more first—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I want to make a few more observations because I want to get the facts right. It is always a tragedy when a colliery closes down, whether through exhaustion or because it is uneconomic.
  Mr. Hood: Or through Government policy.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: It was through Government policy under the Labour Government. They closed more pits than anybody else.
  Mr. Hood: That is not clever.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Mr. George J. Buckley rose —
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman may say that that is not clever, but it is accurate. Under the Labour Governments, 294 collieries were closed, but under Conservative Governments only 157 were closed. One cannot quarrel with those figures. The greatest number of closures was from 1964—65 to 1969—70, when there were 262 closures, all under Labour Governments. That is not a matter for congratulation. The Labour Government had to face the inevitability that coal was becoming completely uneconomic and had to do something about taxpayers' resources and adjust the number of mines to the correct figure for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The Labour Government faced reality. Now the Conservative Government are telling British Coal to face reality and it is prepared to do so. I do not think for one moment that the Bill is a precursor of denationalisation of the industry. Far from it: it is the infusion of a certain common sense, given that we cannot expect British Coal to continue paying interest of £570 million per year. That is a burden on the industry and the Bill is a way to relieve that burden.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Mr. Allen McKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: No, I shall not give way.
  Under the planned cuts, I am told that another 30 pits could be closed. That will be a matter of considerable regret. By 1993 manpower in the industry could be reduced
  46
  to 50,000. With 50,000 mineworkers the industry will be thoroughly economic, capable of competing with other industries, and completely independent of Government subsidies.
  Mr. Hood rose—
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I shall not give way. I have the Floor at the moment. The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech later.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that the average age of miners is about 47 years. That worries me. Even if it is 47, it is low. I hope that the Government will bear that factor in mind when they draw up the redundancy arrangements. In giving redundancy payment to a man of that age one must take into account that he has a long life ahead of him and ensure that he can be retrained for a different purpose in life. He must be given a good payment and be properly resettled.
  Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. He has just come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has been suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has not been in attendance for the whole debate. He has been here since the debate began and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his allegation.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I am very much obliged.
  Mr. Illsley rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: As I said, the Government must consider two factors with regard to redundancy payments. The low average age of miners poses great problems. The other factor is job opportunities in the coal fields. British Coal Enterprise has done a remarkable job in Ebbw Vale and in other parts of the United Kingdom. A great deal of money could be made on land sales. Colliery areas will come up for sale which could be made available to property development companies which could dispose of the land and charge a substantial rent. Indeed, a report in the Financial Times on 27 November said that British Coal was doing just that. I congratulate British Coal on that.
  Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: No, I wish to finish making my point. The hon. Gentleman can make long speeches in Committee.
  The second factor is diversification, which is important. Everyone knows about the Dutch State Mines, now DSM, in the Netherlands. It does not run coal mines, but operates chemical works. It has diversified completely away from coal. I do not recommend that in the United Kingdom, where we have vast reserves, but diversification into other fields could be profitable and would be useful to mineworkers.
  Another matter which has been accommodated—Lord Ezra is keen on this—is the purchase of power stations to broaden outlets for coal. I understand that several smaller stations could be developed for coal. That would be useful. RWE in the Federal Republic has been successful on this

  47
  score. Another project in conjunction with BP would use heavy fuel oil with water or coal dust turned into an emulsion. Those are simply suggestions.
  I come to my last point, because I do not want to hog too much of the time.
  Mr. Illsley: Hog is the right word.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: It is important to view the position not through rose—coloured spectacles but in the clear light of day. Power stations absorb 80 million tonnes of coal per year in the United Kingdom. However, there have been problems. West Burton has been deferred, Fawley B has been cancelled and we have heard nothing more about Kingsnorth B. Projected capacity totals 5,400 MW. It is possible that the three nuclear power stations at Hinkley C, Wylfa B and Sizewell C which could produce 3,600 MW will be shelved at least until after the review.
  The Government, PowerGen and Natonal Power favour combined cycle gas turbines. I have the figures in front of me. Between them, National Power and PowerGen will use gas turbines to produce 4,223 MW or 5,000 MW under current plans, which is a considerable figure. If that is the case, what are the prospects for the coal mining industry? What opportunities will it have? If everyone goes for small power stations, which will mostly be gas-fired, and if there are to be some small coal-fired power stations, where is the justification for the manpower and the number of pits in the mining industry today? That is the question that hon. Gentlemen must ask. If they do not, they will reach the wrong conclusions.
  Imports from Electricitê de France work out at 5,000 MW a year. Coal imports from abroad will be modest and kept modest. I accept that coal production may come down to 65 billion tonnes, which was the figure mentioned by Professor Robinson about five years ago. He was a man of great vision. He saw what could happen to British Coal. Labour Members seem to be completely misled. They have not taken any of these matters into account.
  Mr. Hardy: I should like to challenge the hon. Gentleman on a whole list of points, but I hope that he will comment on two. First, he called on British Coal to engage in land sales. Is he aware that the changes in derelict land grant which the Government inflicted on coal-mining areas brought a blight on any question of developing substantial areas? The hon. Gentleman should have been aware of that problem, but he seems to be out of touch. Apparently he still thinks that Lord Ezra is chairman of the British Coal industry.
  Secondly—this is a serious point—the hon. Gentleman pretended to have considerable knowledge of the industry and referred to importations from Electricite de France to Sellindge in Kent. Does he accept that the appalling secrecy surrounding the price of that importation will have to end as we approach 1992? Will he join me in hoping that, during the Bill's passage, we may establish the true price?
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is acute to ask three or four questions which I have no intention of answering now.[Laughter.] The price of electricity from France works out at about 11/2 per kWH. That is comparatively cheap. We cannot produce if for that in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hardy: The price is secret.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: The hon. Gentleman says that the price is secret. Perhaps he can find the answer for himself and understand that it is cheap. It is profitable for Electricitê de France and for the United Kingdom, which is why we import it. If the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to go back to university, he might learn something about economics and understand some of these problems.
  I do not think for a moment that we have seen the end of nuclear power in the United Kingdom. If all Europe, except Spain and the Netherlands, and particularly France can run nuclear power stations profitably—[HON. MEMBERS:"That is not true."]—if the United States can run nuclear power stations profitably except in areas close to the coalfields, if Japan can run them profitably and if throughout the world more than 20 per cent. of electricity production is generated from nuclear power stations, there is no reason why we should not run nuclear power stations profitably in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Hood rose —
  Mr. Buckley rose —
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Hon. Gentlemen can listen to me for a change.
  The privatised sector wants both to write off the capital of the power stations, not in the life of the plant but over a shorter term. That creates one difficulty. Another is that they demand an increased rate of return because all private companies will be quoted on the stock exchange. That is understandable. If one is preparing a package for the market, it is not unreasonable to take economic considerations into account.
  Mr. Buckley rose—
  Mr. Hood: Come on.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Don't tell me to come on. I happen to be on my feet at present.
  The swifter write-off which we have been able to bring about and the opportunity for more people to work in small mines in the United Kingdom will be a godsend for miners. The valuable, profitable, opencast workings will be substantially acceptable to the private sector and, indeed, the coal industry. This will lead to greater profitability which the industry could never otherwise achieve.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I find it strange to listen to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet), who is joint chairman with me of the all-party minerals group. I listened to his statistical slug-out—something of a lecture—and never cease to be amazed that he is not a Minister for the fuel industry simply because of his highly technical knowledge, which the House has just experienced. Indeed, I recommended him for that several years ago to the majority party. His knowledge is in balance, but highly technical.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has left the Chamber. In every energy debate that we have had, Conservative Secretaries of State have all quoted Government energy policy. Since 1979, the Government have never had the framework for a sensible, planned, energy policy. Their philosophy denies that. The Government have a pricing policy, today more than ever.

  49
  Their philosophy has always been to leave everything to market forces, and every Secretary of State, whether at the Department of Energy or another Department, has been subservient to free marketeers. Today we are back on that same avenue.
  For the first time ever, a Conservative Government have embraced in a Bill pure state intervention. Intervention has always been a dirty word in the Conservative party. Tory Members think that it should not be mentioned, but it glares from the Bill. Why? Certainly not because of Conservative Christian charity to the mining industry. It is there for selfish financial motives. It is to provide a financial base for privatising the whole of the British mining industry, and the return of another Conservative Government depends on it. That is the basis. We shall talk about the coal debt write-off later.
  I pay tribute to the mining industry. I worked in it all my life and I have represented a mining constituency all the time I have been in Parliament. As the Secretary of State partly acknowledged today, there has undoubtedly been a phenomenal reconstruction of the mining industry. It is now one of the most streamlined, efficient and effective fuel industries in the world. I do not want to dwell on the industrial trauma that took place. We are now in a settled period—although unfortunately not for industrial relations—with British miners producing some of the highest outputs per man shift in the world. I pay tribute to them for that achievement.
  During that reconstruction, 90,000 jobs vanished in four and a half years, the number of collieries was halved and 98 collieries were merged or closed. Coal output from the 74 producing collieries is magnificent. No one, not even the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North, could be glad to see literally thousands of miners lose their jobs in the past 10 years or to see the vast mining fraternities, which were the bases of family life and tradition, disappear. That is sad and is a matter for regret. The Bill will do nothing to console the mining fraternities about job security.
  The pit lads, who have achieved magnificent productivity levels, will be demoralised when the Bill is enacted and far more than the 30,000 to which reference is made in the leaked Government document lose their jobs. That will result in many mining communities disappearing.
  British Coal is providing cut-price coal to the Central Electricity Generating Board for about £850 million a year. Coal prices have been reduced over the past four years to the tune of about £1,000 million. The achievements of the miners and British Coal are now to be frittered away and the speculators, City investors and other sharks will be waiting for the subsequent rip-off. The Bill will fatten the goose prior to the privatisation of the coal industry. That will be the reward for services rendered.
  We know now that the British nuclear industry is not competitive with British Coal because its costs are so very much higher. We know that the Magnox stations are the white elephants of the nuclear age. There has, of course, been cross-subsidisation. The market mechanism has not been operated. There has been no free competition. The Secretary of State says that the Government will have to impose a non-fossil fuel levy. It seems that this will be done to support the nuclear industry. That is unprecedented. The nuclear industry is already ring-fenced to the tune of about £12 million. It is protected because of its high costs. There is state intervention and protection, and a levy of
  50
  about £1·4 billion a year is paid, in effect, by the British miner. It is the coal industry which has to pay the major part of the levy. In effect, the coal industry is subsidising electricity prices. This is a classic example of unfair competition.
  The British mining unions have for years told the Government about the high cost of nuclear energy. We were told, however, that it would be cheaper in the long run. It was claimed that it was the fuel of the future and would solve the energy supply problems faced by industry generally. That has been proved to be a myth, and it seems that the miners are expected to pay the price of the nuclear industry's failure.
  Since 1980, about £1·2 billion-worth of price cuts have been extended to the customers of the coal industry. The industry is told that it will have to produce more if it is to remain competitive, and it seems that miners will have to work harder and harder. In doing so, they will know that the profits that they produce at their pits will be hived off to subsidise the electricity industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, there would be a 6 per cent. reduction in electricity prices if account were taken of the subsidised prices that British Coal charges the electricity industry.
  There has been talk of incidentals, such as the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and import licences, within the general debate on the future of British energy generally and the British economy. The free marketeers argue that, with the development of port facilities and with a private coal industry, we could import about 30 million tonnes of coal a year. With existing facilities, we can import 10 million tonnes. That means the loss of another 35,000 miners' jobs. The Government would have no scruples in taking that course. They know that eventually they will be able to attract speculators into a privatised electricity industry.
  Third-world countries and undesirable countries, such as South Africa, export coal. It is considered that any import surge is highly unlikely. Why? The answer is that there is a security problem. Overseas suppliers are grappling with major difficulties. For example, China, the USSR and Poland are preoccupied with the decline of their exports. China could become an importer of coal. I represent a constituency which produces some of the most advanced mining equipment in the world. There is tremendous mining technology in the Wigan and Leigh areas, and the products of it are sold to China. The export achievements are acclaimed.
  I know, however, that in due course the machinery will be used to compete with the British miner. That I understand, but I do not understand how the market economy can be linked to countries that are politically unstable. Surely it would be too great a risk to have links of that sort. British industry would never fall for that. The racial tensions in South Africa, for example, are still unresolved and there is violence in Colombia. Australia is still beset with industrial relations difficulties.
  The leaked document tells us that another 30,000 miners will lose their jobs for economic and financial reasons and not as a result of supply and demand considerations. The Government believe that they can intervene and cause British Coal to provide cheaper and cheaper coal for privatised industries. I and many others believe that this will result eventually in a suicidal supply of coal.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cunliffe: The hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene in his speech. I shall give way to him, however, as I have every reason to believe that he will be a member of the Committee that considers the Bill.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: If countries such as Germany, France and Italy can import coal in measured quantities and—as in the case of Germany—utilise their own, why cannot the United Kingdom operate a similar arrangement? The hon. Gentleman mentioned China. If its annual production is roughly 1 billion tonnes and if it is a "third country", could we not help some of the teeming millions to survive by accepting some of its imports?
  Mr. Cunliffe: I should have thought that what I have said was pure Conservative philosophy: charity begins at home. Certainly it should.[Interruption.] I do not intend to deprive the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North of an opportunity to speak, but we have listened to him lecturing the Chamber for 20 minutes or so. He has asked for answers, so let me give him some.
  I am not suggesting that we should erect barriers against Third-world countries; I am merely arguing for conditions of fair and honest competition, based on all the costs that can be amalgamated to provide the cheap coal to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. That will require reasonable working conditions, a fair living wage and pure trade union practice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, many of those countries do not meet such criteria. South Africa is a classic example. We have never run away from such practices, and it should be remembered that we operate different pricing in parts of the British coalfields as well: there is a degree of competition there.
  That seems to have stopped the hon. Gentleman from intervening. Let me now deal with the question of safety.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Cunliffe: Does the hon. Gentleman's point concern safety?
  Mr. Porter: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to that subject, I feel that the House is entitled to know the answers to a few questions. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the mining industry should receive a subsidy, I think that we should know how much it will be, the levels of employment and production that will be involved and whether the subsidy will be a cost to the Exchequer. If the answer to the last question is yes, I think that we should know where it is to be met. Will it be substituted for some other form of expenditure, or will it be additional thereto? That is a reasonable question, is it not? Incidentally, I have no intention of serving on the Standing Committee.
  Mr. Cunliffe: I do not know that that is a reasonable question; it is a bit of a mixed grill. I shall give the hon. Gentleman his answers in writing. I can say now, however, that we believe in a degree of protection for our industries —why should we not? Nevertheless, I do not hesitate to add that a future Labour Government would introduce selective import controls if the economy ever returned to its present state. I have no scruples about recommending such action. As for subsidies, they should be provided according to need, not want, and Labour will take account of that.
  52
  Now let me return to the important subject of safety.[Interruption.] I am ot interested in whether anyone is looking pale or anaemic. Hon. Members who look pale should leave the Chamber. In the past seven weeks, there have been three deaths in the Lancashire coalfield. That is a sad fact; it is not a subject for jest. I concede that British Coal has tried to improve its safety record and techniques, and the lessons that have been provided have helped, to an extent, to avoid potential accidents, but we are still far from achieving a 100 per cent. safety record, and I doubt that we shall ever achieve it. Certainly we shall not do so without the professional concern and expertise that is imperative in extractive industries such as mining.
  The pit safety union has expressed grave concern about the Government's proposals, and the chairman of British Coal has already voiced his surprise at the Government's announcement that they intended to liberalise the limits of privatised licensed mines. He was, he says, somewhat taken aback.
  "We had assumed",
  he says,
  "that any changes in the statutory limits on licensed mining had been overtaken by the decision to privatise British Coal early in the next Parliament."
  Clearly a degree of unpredictability has been involved.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said earlier, unless a clear instruction is given for an increase in the number of coal mine inspectors, and unless deputies and overseers in private licensed mines are educated, trained and given clear responsibilities dictated by coal industry legislation there could well be many more accidents in such mines than there are now, while the coal corporation has such responsibilities.
  The essence of the Bill is that it is a basis for the privatisation of the British mining industry. Its only saving grace is that that may never come to pass. We can, I believe, legitimately claim without boasting that, if the current Gallup opinion polls are correct about the political disposition of the British people, the legislation will never be enacted.
  Essentially, privatisation means piratisation. It plunders the nation's assets; it paralyses our public services and lowers their standards; it pursues and promotes private greed, which I believe Conservative Members equate with godliness. A future Labour Government will ensure that those who produce the wealth of the British mining industry—let alone that of the nation—will become the possessors as well as the creators of wealth.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: Today's debate marks a new beginning for British Coal. The Bill is simple, having only four clauses, but it lays the foundation for a secure and prosperous future for the industry.
  The miners of this country deserve a new dawn. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, which promised so much for so many, could be seen as a political fraud because it delivered so little to everyone—until 1984, when the Nottinghamshire miners, through the ballot box, cast off the shackles of union dictatorship, and introduced democracy at the coal face.
  The results have been spectacular. Productivity is up by 100 per cent., an achievement unmatched by any other industry. Coal prices to the main customers are down by 30 per cent. in real terms that too is unmatched by any

  53
  other industry. Modern industrial relations between men and management, involving conciliation rather than strife, provide an example that other industries could follow.
  This remarkable turnaround, spearheaded by the Union of Democratic Mineworkers and achieved in such a short time, is the principal reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is so confident about introducing his Bill. Let me offer my congratulations and thanks to my right hon. Friend, who, in his short time at the Department, has recognised the strategic and important role of the British coal industry, and has acted accordingly.
  Today's announcement that contracts have been agreed between British Coal and the new generating companies, National Power and PowerGen, for more than 200 million tonnes of coal, at fixed prices, during the next three years will be widely welcomed in the coalfields. That will remove the cruel deception created by the Labour party, which purported to have received a leaked Cabinet paper stating categorically that the future coal requirements for the new power-generating companies would be 60 million tonnes per annum, and that 30,000 men would be made compulsorily redundant.
  Mr. Alan Meale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No.
  Why the Opposition stoop so low as to spread despondency and dismay among the miners of Nottinghamshire, only they know.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Stewart: No, I do not intend to give way. Our speeches are limited to 10 minutes.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Stewart: Opposition Members can bawl as much as they like, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am not giving way.
  I believe that they stooped so low because of the Socialist inferiority complex of being unable to accept that successful contracts were in the offing.
  Clause 1 wipes out British Coal's accumulated debt to the taxpayers of £5 billion. In view of the Labour party's concern about taxpayers' money, one might legitimately ask why it is not making a fuss about it today, remembering its view last week about the sale of Rover to British Aerospace. To remove the debt burden, which is an annual charge of £5·70 on every tonne of coal mined, will lead to British Coal having a realistic prospect of viability, without continuous interference by politicians. Those written-off losses will be more than justified by the success of British Coal and its staff and the benefits gained by industrial and domestic electricity users.
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) does not intend to give way. He should therefore not persist in asking him to give way.
  Mr. Stewart: I am an optimist by nature. My optimism about the success of Britain's coal industry is well known
  54
  in Nottinghamsire, compared with the daily prediction of doom and gloom by Opposition Members. Nevertheless, my constituents' jobs in deep mines will be put at serious risk by the electoral self-interest of the Labour party, which is opposed to any opencast coal mining. Those of us who work in the interests of the industry know that in today's green environment the future of our deep mines is dependent on output continuing at our opencast sites. Without coal from opencast sites, we should be faced with two choices: either to close the deep mines or to import coal that is low in chlorine content. To accept either choice would be totally unacceptable.
  My hon. Friends and I who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies believed that we should oppose the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, for the reasons that I have just outlined and to protect our constituents' jobs. However, because of its policy on opencast mining, the Labour party recognised that low chlorine coal would have to be imported in order to keep the deep mines working. Therefore, it decided on a sham during the Second Reading of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill on 23 June 1988—that Labour Members would make synthetic speeches during the debate, and 180 Labour Members were advised to be absent when the Division was called at 8.20 that evening. That deception has not gone unnoticed in Nottinghamshire.
  Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) ought to be less disingenuous when he accuses Opposition Members. He told us that the Bill will be good for Nottinghamshire miners. However, it would lead to the closure of the Annesley, Calverton, Cotgrave, Gedling Rufford, Silverhill, Creswell and Clipstone pits.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I remind the hon. Gentleman that my impression is that he is seeking to catch my eye during the debate.
  Mr. Stewart: This might be an opportune moment to remind the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) that in his usual calm, quiet voice during the Queen's Speech debate he went over the top of the slag heap in his condemnation of the opencast coal mining industry. No fewer than 13 of the 18 Nottinghamshire collieries produce coal with excess chlorine. That is unacceptable to power stations and other commercial customers. The hon. Member for Ashfield might, when away from the glare of the cameras, explain to Nottinghamshire miners how he expects to protect their jobs without the sweetener of opencast mines.
  The importance of British Coal's opencast operations must be fully recognised. Last year, 50 per cent. of the corporation's profit of over £400 million came from that source. In addition to blending the deep-mined coal that was delivered to our power stations, it sold 10 million tonnes to commercial users such as Bowaters and ICI. If low chlorine coal was not available to them, they would have no alternative but to turn to foreign suppliers.
  Clause 4, which frees small coal reserves of up to 250,000 tonnes, to be worked by private operators, can only enhance the future of our deep mines. However, I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment that all new sites will still have to abide by planning regulations.

  55
  We cannot have industrial expansion and keep a rural economy. Unfortunately, all developments affect communities. That is the price that we have to pay for a modern, industrial society. Nevertheless, we can minimise the length of time of extraction at opencast sites and restore them as quickly as possible. During the summer recess, I spent some time with British Coal's opencast executive. I looked at its operations in the east midlands, in particular at its restoration work at Morrells in Derbyshire, which is now recognised by environmentalists as an outstanding landscaped restoration. Speedy extraction and sympathetic restoration must be a pledge that we give to those who are affected by opencast mining. Nothing less will be acceptable.
  Clause 4 will also foster diversity by increasing the manpower limit in private mines from 30 to 150 men. That change reflects the fact that the existing limit was set many years ago and that it has inhibited investment to improve productivity and safety. It has therefore militated against the creation of new jobs in depressed mining areas. However, in the light of the experience that we had last year in my constituency at Blidworth, will my right hon. Friend consider in Committee making exemptions to the clause when British Coal has announced a pit closure, due to it being uneconomic?
  Blidworth colliery, with 30 million tonnes of reserves, received £10 million of new investment but failed to perform. When the closure came, 350 men were convinced that it was viable and, given a chance, they would have proved it. Their judgment was confirmed by a feasibility study that was carried out by a major British company which was prepared to take over the mine at no cost either to British Coal or to taxpayers. However, because of the existing rules it was not allowed to do so. That is an example of why I wish consideration to be given to an exemption rule.
  Safety in the mining industry will be frequently mentioned during the debate, and rightly so. If coal is king, then safety is lord paramount. Therefore, let us remember the lessons from the past and build that knowledge into our mining and quarries safety legislation. One life lost is one life too many.
  Although I have welcomed the Bill, my constituents will share one great disappointment with me—that it contains no mention of help to overcome the problem created by mining subsidence. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of that problem. I realise, nevertheless, that subsidence legislation is complex and needs to be carefully considered. Could my right hon. Friend therefore promise that in the next Session of Parliament a Bill to deal with subsidence will be introduced? That would go some way towards reassuring my constituents that that problem has not been forgotten.
  The Coal Industry Bill has been drafted by a listening Secretary of State. It wipes out a debt of £5 billion, provides generous restructuring grants of £1·25 billion and introduces a small measure of flexibility which will protect and create new job opportunities. In all, it is a generous package in recognition of the commitment made by British miners to their industry. I cannot imagine that anyone in his right mind would vote against the Bill. I commend it to the House.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I concur with the concluding words of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). It is extraordinary that the Labour party proposes to vote against the Bill, which increases funding for the coal industry. One can only assume, if the debate continues in that format, that we are seeing the ideological gulf on coal translated to a point where Members vote against anything that comes from the opposite side, regardless of the contents of the proposal.
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: If the hon. Gentleman wants to clarify the way in which Labour will vote, I shall give way.
  Mr. Dobson: Does the hon. Gentleman, who represents the Liberal Democrats, believe that it is an ideological matter to oppose shifting more people into pits that are between two and four times as dangerous as British Coal pits?
  Mr. Bruce: I intend to address that point. The essential point is that the Labour party proposes to vote against increased funding for the coal industry. I cannot see how that makes good sense.
  Having served on the Committees on the Electricity Bill and, before that, the Gas Bill, I have heard the argument a few times. One of the problems with debate in the House is that there are so many ideological divides on coal industry issues that it is difficult to address the changes and how best we can plan for the future and ensure that the industry develops in a sensible, economic way taking account of strategic long-term interests and environmental considerations. Regrettably, those points tend to be overlooked or forgotten in the heat of the argument.
  The Bill is essentially about the financing and restructuring of British Coal. Points have been made about the preparation for privatisation. The Secretary of State said that that may or may not come down the track, but there is no doubt that British Coal is charged with preparing for privatisation. The Conservative party has said that it is committed to privatising the coal industry. Consequently, British Coal is forced to aim for short-term maximum profitability to prepare the industry for a sell-off. That affects the way in which it approaches management of the industry. It raises legitimate questions as to whether the actions of British Coal are in the long-term interests of the country, whether British Coal is compromised by short-term commercial considerations and whether we should review the basis of organisation of the industry.
  I stress those important points. It is interesting to note from the comments of the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and some other Conservative Members that there is, at least on the Government Back Benches, recognition of the fact that British Coal's monopoly of coal licensing is not satisfactory and should not continue indefinitely. It is strange that the assets of oil and gas are owned by and administered on behalf of the nation by the Department of Energy. The assets covered by the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 were transferred to the National Coal Board, now British Coal, which in moving into a commercial world must take account of considerations that did not apply when the NCB was created in 1946. I give notice that my colleagues and I will support the Bill

  57
  but will propose amendments to transfer ownership of the coal assets from British Coal to the Department of Energy, thereby making significant developments possible.
  British Coal has a vested interest in preventing potential competitors from moving into its market place. It has the power to prevent them from doing so. That is an extremely dubious position for British Coal to be in. The hon. Member for Sherwood quoted an example from his constituency. I have been slightly involved in two recent examples, in Scotland and in Kent. Bilston Glen colliery in Scotland was closed at short notice, although British Coal had announced that it had substantial reserves and considerable potential for investment. There is interest in forming a miners' co-operative to take over and operate that pit as a private venture, using private finance. It is interesting that the Labour party opposes miners getting together with private capital interests to reopen a mine that British Coal has closed. The interests of the miners and the communities should demand at least proper and fair examination of those matters.
  I made representations to the Scottish director of British Coal and was told that he was not prepared to allow a representative of this potential co-operative access to information or to the pit. He had determined that the pit was not viable and did not want anyone else to have access to information that might be used against British Coal. That is wholly unsatisfactory. It is inappropriate that there is no right of appeal to the Secretary of State and no alternative way of getting a licence.
  Mr. Eadie: How deep was the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the pit which he mentioned, which is in my constituency? I did not hear of him being involved in any way. It is customary for a Member to have the courtesy to inform another Member of involvement in his constituency. Can he tell us the names of all the people in that community who were involved in the co-operative? Can he tell the House what private finance bodies were so anxious to be involved? We did not hear about it. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has information that we do not have.
  Mr. Bruce: My information was in a circular letter written to all Scottish Members by representatives of some of the miners who wished to gain access to the pit. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not read his post. I did and responded to it. I spoke to the people in question and this is the information that they gave me. I accept that in the end they may not have been able to put together a viable proposal, but British Coal should not determine the matter. It should be determined independently.
  The same thing is happening at the Betteshanger colliery in Kent. British Coal is determined to take out machines over the next four weeks, resulting in the pit being abandoned and flooded, and at least 30 million tonnes, possibly 100 million tonnes, of workable reserves will effectively be lost for ever. Both cases involve low sulphur reserves of coal, which will be valuable when we pursue a low-sulphur electricity generation policy. In these circumstances, we are operating against the interests of our long-term strategic needs and of miners in pits who are exploring the possibility of saving their jobs and communities.
  I have been advised by union representatives that they have made an offer to British Coal to pay to keep the machinery in, pending negotiations on the possibility of a workers' buy-out, and have been told that British Coal has
  58
  no intention of allowing them to do that. The union representatives have told me of the possibility of another private interest taking over the pit. British Coal has said that it is not interested in holding discussions on that matter.
  These examples reinforce the case for changing the basis on which licences for coal are issued. They underline the idea that British Coal is not a fit and proper custodian of all the nation's coal assets. It may well be the right custodian of the majority of those assets and it should be the major producer of coal in the foreseeable future, private or public. To have a more commercial approach and the possibility of exploring different methods of extracting coal and different approaches, we must remove control over licensing from British Coal as a matter of urgency. I was disappointed when the Secretary of State seemed to say that this could be left until later. I have given examples of what is happening now. Later will be far too late, because the pits will have been abandoned and irretrievably lost.
  Coal reserves are not monitored on a dynamic basis in the way that oil and gas reserves are monitored. Every year, the Department of Energy produces an oil and gas Brown Book with a statement of probable and possible recoverable reserves from the North sea. Yet the stated recoverable reserves of Britain's coal industry have not been altered in many years in spite of the fact that many pits have been closed and that, realistically, many of those pits can never be reopened commercially.
  It should be a requirement for British Coal in its annual report to say how many reserves that could have been viable have been abandoned irretrievably. That would enable us to make a strategic decision on whether we should find some other way to keep some pits open while ensuring that the industry operates competitively. It may be worth while to say that we shall pay a subsidy, as a separate fund, to maintain pits because the long-term value of the reserves will become apparent in five, 10, 15 or 20 years and there may even be private investors who are prepared to take a long-term risk on that. We should not simply allow British Coal to decide that it will abandon reserves irretrievably because they do not suit its short-term requirements.
  The possible expansion of opencast mining is another important issue. It is clear that there is cross-party controversy on the matter. Opencast mining in a densely populated country such as ours is environmentally damaging and causes great opposition in the areas in which it takes place. We should not cheerfully say that we should go ahead with opencast mining because we must compete with the Australians and with the Americans. They have far more extensive areas of remote land where opencast mining can be carried out cheaply and with less immediate environmental impact. The upgrading from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes is a big bite, and if substantial conditions are not attached it could lead to considerable devastation. We shall pursue that point in Committee. The Government should give us some idea of how opencast mining will be regulated.
  I have had discussions with representatives of the mining industry, and I have also witnessed the rather tribalistic way in which opinions divide. In Scotland, we have faced the virtual destruction of our mining industry over the past few years. Before the miners' strike, there were 18,000 miners in Scotland, whereas there are now only 1,500. Almost all our pits have closed and one or two

  59
  have been mothballed. To insist that we do not change the basis on which we operate the industry against a background of enormous reserves of low-sulphur coal in which British Coal is not interested is a travesty for which a future generation will not wholly forgive us.
  The Bill should be passed, but it should be amended radically. It is unfortunate that, in introducing the necessary financial restructuring of the coal industry and in recognising that the licensing rules should be changed, the Government did not take the necessary radical step of transferring ownership back to the Department of Energy and ensuring that private developers, miners' cooperatives or any interest other than British Coal could feel that they could apply for a licence on a fair and competitive basis and not in circumstances in which they would effectively be done by British Coal which, with its short-term planning, has no interest in allowing competitors to enter the market.
  6.13pm
  Mr. John Hannam: The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) supported the Bill, but he made some important points which should be considered carefully in Committee. I support his point, especially about the need for change in the licensing arrangements, which is valid and necessary. Like him, I welcome the Bill as a necessary step towards creating a coal industry which will be properly equipped to compete in the energy supply market in the next 20 years. Whether British Coal is a public sector corporation or a private sector public limited company is not relevant to today's debate and, like other hon. Members, I am amazed that the Labour party has chosen to oppose the Bill on Second Reading.
  I hope that the time is near when our coal industry will be a successful private sector extractive industry, selling good coal at competitive prices throughout Europe, but as we come to the close of the 1980s we must be careful not to draw a complete energy picture which looks too far into the future. I have been involved with energy matters throughout my parliamentary career, and I have seen oil prices quadruple, then double, then collapse. I have seen nuclear power suddenly become the least favoured electricity generating source recently and I have seen gas become the most favoured source for electricity generation. I have, therefore, become a staunch supporter of Murphy's law—that if anything can go wrong, it certainly will.
  I have been a member of Committees on successive Coal Industry Bills in the past 15 years during which time various Ministers have proposed increased grants and borrowing limits for British Coal. I recall the general theme of speeches made by Front Bench Members from both parties, which was that this was the last time that we should see such huge increases in subsidy.
  It is not all that long ago that we were told that oil reserves were running out, that electric cars would take over and that gas was so scarce and expensive that it should be reserved and not used as a fuel for the generation of electricity, but only as a direct premium fuel. Coal was fading from the scene, its primary role in electricity supply being taken over by cheap, clean, safe nuclear power. That was the picture not many years ago.
  60
  Finally, we were also told that bigger meant better and that the bigger the power station, the more efficient and less expensive its electricity output. All those shibboleths have been tipped up and destroyed one by one. As a result of the electricity privatisation programme, the role of nuclear power is being re-examined in the light of new market costings, replacing the previous system of public sector discounts and write-offs.
  We approach the next decade seeing the emergence of a new programme of smaller generating stations using gas, coal, oil and wind power, rather than the large nuclear pressurised water reactors and the large coal-fired stations. However one looks at all the energy equations, it is becoming certain that we are changing from a producer-led energy market to a consumer-led energy market. There lies a rub in that for coal. The world has also now woken up to the dangers to our environment if we continue to burn fossil fuels in the inefficient and polluting ways that we do at present. We are having to reduce the use of a generating system which is comparatively clean—that is, nuclear power—and we are left with a reliance on fuels which, if we do not find methods of cleaning them, will produce acid rain and greenhouse gases at an ever-increasing and destructive rate.
  We must consider two alternatives ahead of us. One is to burn coal only in power stations fitted with flue gas scrubbers and control systems to reduce sulphur and nitrogen emissions, and to use the fluidised bed coal burning system. The other is to increase energy conservation dramatically. Either alternative will involve increased costs and increased prices because, as we know from experience, cleaning systems are expensive and conservation works only if there are substantial price incentives.
  The increased reliance on gas, oil and coal as our main feedstocks will inevitably result in rising prices as those fossil reserves are depleted. Some time in the next decade or so, nuclear power will inevitably come back into its own as a comparatively cost-efficient fuel.
  In the context of the Bill, however, we are considering the future of coal. I welcome the realism that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has introduced into the energy policy debate with his decisions on nuclear ordering, his requirement for reasonable contracts for coal burn after privatisation and his enthusiasm for energy efficiency. British Coal is close to becoming a profitable, competitive industry after several decades of contraction. There have been huge investments by the Government, running at some £2 million every working day, and firm and positive leadership of the industry has resulted in a near doubling of productivity. But in the light of the accumulated losses, now approaching £5 billion, which is more than the corporation's total assets, it is essential that the financial restructuring proposed in the Bill should take place.
  Clause 1 provides for ad hoc deficiency grants to eliminate British Coal's accumulated historic losses as at 31 March next year. If that were not done, the annual debt interest would amount to nearly £600 million, to add to the basic insolvency of the corporation. That is why I welcome clause 1.
  Clause 2 extends and increases the grants available for continued restructuring and redundancy payments. The fact that the industry has been able to slim down its work force and make vital productivity improvements in recent

  61
  years is largely due to the generous redundancy schemes being offered. It is important that we continue with voluntary redundancy efforts.
  As we know, the contraction of the coal industry is a Europewide phenomenon. More than 1 million jobs have been lost in the European industry in the past 30 years. The European Commission has now recognised the need to help coalfield communities to adapt to the changes and is creating a new initiative known as RECHAR which will make £200 million available to help areas such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Gordon.
  Clause 4 deals with the licensing of private mines and open-cast production. I welcome the employment prospects that that will produce, especially in declining coalfield areas such as Scotland and south Wales. The smallest mine that the Coal Board operates employs 250 men. The gap between that figure and the maximum of 30 men hitherto allowed in a privately licensed mine is far too wide. The new limit of 150 men makes much more sense, and 1 welcome it as a job-creating measure to help areas where big pits will inevitably be closing. I agree with those who argue that the Department should become the licensing authority in place of the Coal Board.
  I believe that the Bill will be of great help to the coal industry as it faces up to the future. The main challenge will be the challenge of meeting environmental requirements. In that context, I hope that every support will be given to cleaner and more efficient use of coal, using combined heat and power schemes and the fluidised bed systems. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regards energy efficiency as one of his top priorities. The Bill will lay the basis for a competitive industry but will also give the Government the main responsibility for providing a framework for the best use of our coal reserves. I hope that the House will agree to give the Bill its Second Reading.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I was a miner for 27 years, and I am surprised by some clauses in the Bill. I do not, of course, oppose the writing off of British Coal's debt. I am sure that if that were the only purpose of the Bill all of us would support it. But the Bill is a double-edged sword, and it has some clauses with which we disagree.
  We must ask ourselves what the future holds for the coal industry. We have watched the Bills promoted by Associated British Ports go through the House with the Government's support, and we have witnessed an increase in coal imports, especially from South Africa. We know of the interests of some hon. Members who have been involved with those private Bills and of the trips that they have made to South Africa, ostensibly to see how the South Africans mine their coal.
  Those imports pose a threat to the north-east of England, where I was a miner for many years. Among the mines in the leaked list are Murton, Dawdon, Wearmouth, and Westoe, where some of the threatened 30,000 job losses may take place. Those losses will result as South African coal is brought up the Thames, and the north-east will suffer once again. If any area has been hit hard by pit closures and job losses, it is the north-east. Our mines and miners in the north-east are the most efficient in the country and produce the cheapest coal, but that makes no difference to this Government, because they have a
  62
  one-track mind. They want to help their friends in South Africa and elsewhere to produce cheap coal, irrespective of the jobs that will be lost in this country.
  We must ask ourselves, "What is cheap foreign coal?". It will be a problem not only in the north-east but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). He, too, will find foreign coal coming up rivers in his constituency and his pits being closed. Is the cheap foreign coal subsidised? When we ask the civil servants, they cannot tell us, and the lads in the Library cannot tell us. We even telephoned the South African embassy and asked what subsidy the coal coming into this country attracted. It does not come from South Africa to Britain direct but goes first to the Netherlands, but we know full well that it is South African coal. Because the subsidy on South African coal is a hidden subsidy, we are fighting in the dark. Australia does not subsidise its coal; we know that for a fact, because it is mainly opencast coal. We know, too, that Colombia subsidises its coal and that its industry is heading for economic trouble.
  Because the Government encouraged the proposals in the Associated British Ports Bills and this so-called cheap foreign coal, our coal imports are unstable. We are relying on unstable countries for our supplies. Once the Government have closed pits in my constituency and in Nottinghamshire, the coal will be lost. The pits will not be reopened—unless, of course, a private entrepreneur wants to open them as private mines. Once a mine has gone, the coal is lost. The pit can never be opened again because the cost would be enormous. When that happens the Government will then carry on bringing in the foreign coal. Their policy towards the industry is two-faced. On one hand, they boast how good they are being to the British coal industry, while on the other they allow the port Bills to be passed and let in foreign coal.
  In my constituency, we went through the new review procedure. Ours were some of the first collieries to do so. We have a pit called Bates colliery. It had about 29 million tonnes of reserves of the low-sulphur coal to which the hon. Member for Gordon referred; the coal was tested and its nature was confirmed. It is true that we have a few other problems there—for example, with water. But we went through the review procedure.
  We put our case to the independent chairman and we won it. We were the first pit to win. We were overjoyed. We had a good drink that night, and I shall never forget it. A week later, MacGregor decided to close the pit—so much for the review procedure. Does the Minister intend to do the same with other collieries that win their case? Will he allow those pits to close? The Coal Board closed that pit when the review procedure had concluded that it should stay open and we do not know why. That question has never been answered by any Minister or top-level Coal Board official.
  There is a private mine in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr Thompson). A lot of my lads who worked with me in the colliery got a job there when our mine closed. I have heard some stories that make my hair rise. When the pit closed I never went down a pit again, let alone down a private mine.
  One story related to the visit of a mines inspector, Mr. Sellars, to the private colliery. He was down the colliery half an hour and then he came running out and threw his hat on the manager's table together with a list of things to be done. He said that, unless the requirements on that list

  63
  had been dealt with by the time he visited again the next week, he would close the colliery. It is deplorable that a mining inspector should go to a pit, know the state of that pit and know that he could close it there and then, but not do so. Instead, he ran away saying that it had to be put right before he came back the next week. That is what happens in private mines.
  Mr. Paterson was killed in a private mine in the north-east. The report on his death said that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The rope snapped on the haulage, the tug ran away and killed him. When the inspector studied the rope he discovered that it had been condemned for more than six months. He then found out that the rope had not been changed because its replacement would cost more than £4,000. The miners of the north-east are on the dole, so they are fairly cheap. A pit can get another one of them at no extra cost.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): The matter of deaths in pits is a difficult subject. The hon. Gentleman is making a coherent and good speech and surely he would not let himself argue that people are killed only in private pits.
  Mr. Campbell: I was a miner for 27 years and no one was killed in my pit because the rope had been condemned for six months. That is the point I am trying to make.
  Two weeks ago the manager of a private mine went up to the fitter and said, "I'm finishing you this week." That is how they do it in private mines: people get no notice, they are just finished on the spot and out they go. He was finished not because he was not doing his job but because the manager said that he could phone another fitter 30 miles away. The fitter asked what would happen if one of the lads got fast in a machine or got his leg or arm stuck. The manager replied, "Ah, we'll manage. We'll get him out." That is the attitude of the entrepreneurs who run private mines. They are not worried about the miners because there are any amount of miners on the dole, but there is not any amount of equipment available. That is the reality of safety in private mines. The Minister should look at the private mine legislation and at the mining inspectorate to ensure that the inspectors do the same job in the private mines as they do in the mines of the nationalised industry.
  There are big opencast mines all over Durham and Northumberland. They are spoiling the countryside and the environment. Obviously I know that opencast mining must take place. I worked in a mine that was always being "sweetened" from opencast mining. The Bill means that more and bigger opencast mines will be allowed. That has already happened in Durham and Northumberland, but once the Bill goes through there will be even more such mines elsewhere.
  Mr. John Cummings: In common with my hon. Friend, I worked in the industry for 29 years. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that west of Durham is an area of great outstanding natural beauty. If there is a proliferation of opencast sites and private mines, a most beautiful area will be pillaged by an army of carpetbaggers who will descend on the west of the county. Fifteen miles away we have four of the most modern coal mines in the world. My hon. Friend has referred to two, Dawdon and Murton. I worked at Murton. Productivity at those mines
  64
  has never been higher. My hon. Friend should reflect on the comments made by the Prime Minister in 1985 when she spoke about the enemy within. Does my hon. Friend agree that the enemy within is sitting on the Conservative Benches?
  Mr. Campbell: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course the British miner is not the enemy within. We know who it is; she lives down the road at No. 10 Downing street.
  All my life I have been concerned about safety in mines. I have made a number of points about safety in private mines, but I could make many more. It is the Government's intention not to bring the standard of private mines up to that of the mines of British Coal, but to bring the standard of those mines down to that of the private mines.
  The Bill will go through, but I must warn the Minister. If there is a disaster in a private mine employing 150 men I will hold him responsible, whether he is on the Front Bench or on the Back Benches. I will hold him responsible if anyone is killed. In this Chamber we often talk about the IRA and the thuggery, killing and butchery that it is about. I must say this to the Minister: "Don't put your head on the block and become like it."
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: 1 welcome the Bill and the happy coincidence that enabled my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to include in his opening remarks the details of the contract that has been made—or perhaps I should say allowed to be made —between British Coal and the power generators. I do not know whether the contract was made by British Coal or through the Secretary of State, but I welcome it.
  As I understand that contract, British Coal will supply 70 million tonnes in the first two years and 65 million tonnes in the third year. Those supplies will preserve the size and structure of British Coal very much as it is now. It will also give British Coal the breathing space it has earned and deserves to plan further ahead. I hope that the Minister can confirm that those figures relate purely to the contract between British Coal and the power generators and that it is still open to British coal to add to that turnover with spot price contracts and with any marginal cost production which it feels is commercially worth while in terms of its long-term plans.
  If the contract and my reading of it are correct, the compliments of this House are due to the new Secretary of State. The Opposition's whingeing—we have heard whingeing of the worst kind from the Opposition today—is merely opposition for its own sake. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) was absolutely right when he said that he was appalled that the Labour party could vote against the Second Reading of this Bill which gives so much to the coal industry. The Bill contains clauses which the Labour party would wish to oppose in Committee, as is its right, but to vote against the Bill in principle—a Bill that helps British Coal's finances—is absurd, and opposition for its own sake.
  I agreed with one part of the opening speech of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) —his comments about the lack of provision for subsidence in the Bill. That comment has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am told that subsidence was not included in the measure because it is primarily a financial one. I do not need to stress too strongly that my

  65
  constituents know only too well that it is a financial problem for them. They have been seeking redress because of the subsidence problem for a long time.
  In my constituency within the city of Nottingham two pits have been closed for 20 years, but the arguments about subsidence still continue. I still receive correspondence from constituents whose properties suffer subsidence because they are on top of the old Wollaton pit. The Coal Board has a strange way of granting assistance to some, but not to others. Since this House and this Parliament often provide financial compensation for a raft of matters which have their origins in the past and were the fault of no one in particular, it seems strange that there is no provision in the Bill for public funds to support British Coal in dealing with problems, some of which it has had to duck by pleading the statute of limitations. It deserves help with this matter.
  We should compliment the Secretary of State because the terms of the contract seem to ensure that the price of electricity flowing from it after the privatisation of the electricity supply industry will be lower under the Bill than it would otherwise have been. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point. It seems as though, happily, there may be a negative movement in the retail price index in terms of electricity pricing. I accept that prices will always rise, but if the deal will help us to keep those rises below inflation, that must be good.
  The Minister and others of my hon. Friends have mentioned the number of pits closed. It would certainly be wrong for Conservative Members to seek to duck the fact that pits have closed during this Government's lifetime. It is not enough simply to say that they were also closed under the Labour Administration. We are very conscious of the social distress brought about by closures. If the contract, to which the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks, gives the industry breathing space and allows British Coal to slow down the closure process, the mining industry has deserved that breathing space. It will take a little pressure off pits which might otherwise be at risk. Such stocktaking is right on commercial and moral grounds.
  Conservative Members are conscious of the personal sacrifice made by miners in the east Midlands during the terrible time in 1984 when many of them, at great personal cost, stood out for democracy against what were rightly described as the Scargillian mobs. That is why there are Conservative Members who, against their natural instincts for commercial investment, have consistently opposed the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and will continue to do so. We recognise that we owe a large number of people in the east midlands a debt of honour.
  I know that this always produces roars of disapproval from the Opposition, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said, the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill would not have received its Second Reading if Opposition Members had been here that first night. For Opposition Members to say that they were slipped that night and given the night off by their Chief Whip was a quick bit of backfilling when they realised what had happened. It is absolutely disgraceful that, ever since then, to put right the damage done that night, Opposition Members have blocked a private Bill which had nothing whatever to do with—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Perhaps we can return to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Member is as bad as the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet).
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I take that as a compliment.
  In beautiful parliamentary terms, clause 1 takes 19 lines simply to say that we shall take powers to write off the accumulated debts and burdens of the past. That is great, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North said, we should not lose sight of the fact that in 1989 terms, £5 billion was written off once before and £5 billion is being written off again in this Bill. If that figure of £10 billion is correct, the argument put forward by Labour Front Bench spokesmen that coal has been subsidising electricity in the past few years, falls down. The public purse has been subsidising coal. I am not arguing whether that is right or wrong, but simply that coal has been massively subsidised for many years.
  Clause 2 gives us powers to finance change for the next couple of years, which is right and proper. The Labour party disagrees with clause 4. I find it contentious due to one omission, referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost), the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and others. I refer to the asset.
  The coal under the ground, not British Coal, is the public asset. Just as with oil or any other mineral, a licence should be given to extract coal, but it should not be restricted to British Coal. The licence should be in the gift of the Secretary of State, acting on behalf of Parliament. This place, not British Coal, should give the licence to extract coal. I should not be at all surprised if British Coal also felt that this was reasonable. If Parliament rather than British Coal issued the licences, we would get a fair price from British Coal or from private and opencast operators. That seems the right thing to do. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up the debate he will comment on the possibility, if nothing else, of the creation of an independent coal commission, the function of which would be precisely to control the issue of licences.
  There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the environmental impact on people living close to opencast mining is appalling. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) gave the technical, chemical and price reasons for the necessity of opencast coal. If the advantages of opencast coal are to be made available to the public through lower electricity prices and through the preservation of some of our deep mines that would otherwise close, then some of the price differential between the cheap opencast and the more expensive deep mining should be used generously as compensation for the small percentage of our people who have to put up with the environmental hassle, the dirt, the smell and the noise of opencast mining. The beneficiaries of that cheap coal should be prepared to pay something towards compensating people who suffer the nightmare of disturbance.
  It would be quite wrong for the Opposition to imagine that no Conservative Member is worried about safety. Whether it is private-sector or public-sector mining, safety is paramount. Hon. Members have spoken about raising the numbers in private mines to 150. All hon. Members want absolute assurances that that will not result in a diminution of our priorities about safety.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo), because it would not be appropriate to make a long speech. The hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and other hon. Members have expressed surprise that my hon. Friends and I are critical of the Bill. I recognise that it provides money for the coal industry, but in essence it is a dishonest Bill, because although the word "electricity" does not appear anywhere in it, the Bill is more concerned with electricity privatisation than with anything else.
  The Bill tries to persuade people overseas that electricity shares are a good bet because the Government will make sure that coal is supplied at a reasonable price. At first sight, the Government seem complacent about the enormous trade deficit, but they know that they have got the economy into such a mess that they will have to get rid of our current assets to meet current need. They therefore appear to be generous to British Coal.
  Having persuaded British Coal to get rid in a very short time of a substantial part of what was its capacity three or four years ago, it is perfectly reasonable that the Government, having forced a situation in which capital assets are virtually sterilised or destroyed, should make some contribution towards making sure that that is reflected in British Coal's finances. They are not taking any great risks, because while they may be concerned to sell off electricity to meet current need, they are quite willing to take only the most short-sighted view and allow Britain to develop a dependency upon imported coal which currently appears cheap. As the incompetence with which the economy is being managed continues, sterling will fall and the price of imported coal will rise. It certainly would rise if we ever developed a dependency upon it. Perhaps the Bill is the beginning of a glimmering of understanding by some members of the Government who accept that point.
  I am sorry for the Under-Secretary of State for Energy. The previous Secretary of State has gone to fresh pastures and a new one has been brought in. He, like the river, keeps rolling on. Unfortunately, he was in the Chamber about a year ago when some of his hon. Friends put down questions urging the privatisation of British Coal and the extension of opencast mining and private mines. I asked the previous Secretary of State whether he accepted that the Government had no mandate to privatise coal in this Parliament. I asked whether he agreed that the Government had deliberately eschewed such a mandate and suggested that it was matter for the next Parliament. I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State agrees. I asked the Secretary of State to assure the House that since the Government had no mandate there should not only be no privatisation but no significant steps towards it. Some of my hon. Friends will remember that the Secretary of State immediately got up and said that he gave me and the House the assurance that I was seeking. The Bill is quite some evidence of consistency!
  I strongly oppose the Bill because I represent and have many close friends in the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, the trade union of those charged with statutory responsibility for safety in the mines. The House should note that NACODS is absolutely opposed to clause 4 of the Bill because it recognises, as some hon. Members have recognised, that that part of the Bill will cost lives and limbs, and probably
  68
  a significant number. Hon. Members may think that all that we are doing is increasing the work force of a private mine from 30 to 150, but if they look closely they will see that the 150 refers to the number down the pit at any given time.
  Mr. Michael Spicer: I am sorry to keep interrupting on the subject of safety, but the hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Will he take it from me that, sadly, there have been 18 deaths this year in British Coal alone? It is not a question of the private or the public sector but the fact that mining is a very dangerous business.
  Mr. Hardy: The Under-Secretary of State will be aware that I do not need to be reminded that the coal industry is dangerous and that there have been too many fatalities and serious injuries in British Coal. It is a disturbing trend. Perhaps the Minister would like to consider the proportion of fatalities and serious injuries which occurred when contract labour was employed. That is an important aspect and deserves serious consideration. I do not suggest for a moment that the Minister is queueing up to kill miners, but the provisions of the Bill will lead to more people being killed and maimed in the new expanding private coal mines.
  I should be happy to serve on the Committee which is to examine the Bill, but I should like to make one suggestion to the Minister which I hope that he will consider seriously. It is that before the Committee embarks even upon the sittings motion it should look at a film made by Yorkshire Television about safety in private mines. That was a carefully documented programme and a serious one. Every hon. Member should see it before discussing private mine expansion. It may be a revolutionary proposal, but I suggest that Conservative Members who will no doubt be clamouring for more opencast and private mines should be educated before they join in any decision making.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I do not wish to pursue the matter of safety, although I agree that it is vital and should be a factor in any change relating to private mines. How do the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues react to the idea of miners' co-operatives wishing to take over their own pits and using private capital? The Bill will enable them to do that in a way that they cannot do at the moment. Is the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues against that?
  Mr. Hardy: I do not think that that is realistic. I have studied the mining industry for a long time and there have been a number of similar initiatives, few of which have ever come near to fruition. Also, I would be worried about the terms on which private capital was available.
  Another aspect of the Bill which I find threatening concerns the proposed extension of opencast mining by a factor of 10. In the original nationalisation of coal, the limit of 25,000 tonnes appeared so that small-scale development did not permanently sterilise small areas of coal. That was a reasonably modest provision. However, we have now reached a proposal for 250,000 tonnes, which is a much larger matter. As the fortunes of farmers decline, I have noticed the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) becoming more sympathetic towards opencast mining. Perhaps his farm is on the list and he might make more out of coal than potatoes. Perhaps that is why he is optimistic—he is the only farmer I have met who is.

  69
  At the moment, despite the care and competence of the opencast executive, opencast mining is a nuisance and a danger. It causes congestion of local roads and a great deal of noise and disturbance. The opencast executive may seek to minimise that, but I wonder whether those Conservative Members who have been eager for some time to see this step taken would be prepared to see their profits curtailed so that those who live near the opencast sites shall not suffer nuisance and disadvantage. That provision in the Bill is a real threat to those living in close proximity to areas where coal lies near the surface.
  This is not the occasion for a long and detailed speech as we shall have to look at these matters exhaustively, and no doubt repeatedly, in Committee. I am concerned that the Government have suddenly decided to provide support for British Coal. There is now only one colliery left in my constituency. When I entered the House, there were 19 collieries in the old south Yorkshire area, which has now disappeared to join the Doncaster area. There are only half a dozen of those 19 collieries left. We have suffered a devastating experience in a concentrated time scale.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) talked about land sales, but we cannot begin to improve the hundreds or thousands of acres of derelict land because of the way in which the Government have changed the rules for derelict land grant. That is another aspect that should be considered.
  With regard to the Government's energy policy, the example of Kent has already been mentioned. I promised a friend that I would mention the Kent coalfield in the House at the first opportunity. My friend Frank Redman became national president of my association just a few weeks before British Coal decided to close his colliery. It was decided to close the colliery when men did not turn out in full numbers on a Saturday and Sunday, less than 48 hours after a promise of weekend working. That was not a great deal of notice.
  However, the point that was made to me, which should also be made to the House, is that even if those men had turned out in full numbers on the Saturday and Sunday, they would not have been able to produce one cobble of coal more due to equipment malfunction. British Coal was looking for an opportunity to end mining in Kent. I believe that it was looking for that opportunity because the Prime Minister wanted an end to mining in Kent, presumably because Conservative Members based in south-east England do not like mining and do not want it on their doorsteps. In Labour areas, we can have opencast mining and private pits and be used as a simple instrument to allow the privatisation of electricity now and the privatisation in a few years of that part of the mining industry which remains because it is profitable.
  That is no way to run an industry or a country. The sooner the present Administration's biased and bigoted incompetence is ended, the better. For the Government to pretend that the Bill is something for which we should vote when it represents a profound danger to our constituencies and profound disadvantage to our environment is to insult our intelligence, and it will not work.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker announced earlier that between 7 and 9 pm speeches should be limited to 10 minutes.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) must have had difficulty keeping a straight face during his loud opposition to the Bill. It is an excellent Bill, and I look forward to explaining why.
  I am sure that we all enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), whom all hon. Members came to like and respect in his previous job. He too has a brass neck to raise the question of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and claim that the Conservative party is behind it. Many of my hon. Friends joined me in the Lobby to vote against that 13ill. Approximately 180 Labour Members did not turn up to oppose it. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not have made those comments in his opening remarks.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many Conservative Members turned out to support the Bill?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to answer that question. The remarkable statistic is that 265 Conservative Members either did not support the Bill or did not vote for it. The hon. Gentleman knows those facts as he was here on that night whereas many of his party were not. The people of Nottinghamshire are aware of that.
  The Bill underlines the strong support that the Government have given to the mining industry. It also underlines the two important obligations that remain with the coal industry—that of providing £2 billion for the concessionary coal obligations and £500 million for industrial deafness. A number of former miners in my constituency will be pleased to hear that.
  I want the coal industry to mirror British Steel and the progress that has been made there. Far from opposing the Bill, many Conservative Members will ask how we can justify the payment of £4 billion of taxpayers' money enshrined in the initial clauses of the Bill. The justification for that lies in the massive reconstruction that has taken place and the enormous increase in productivity, which has doubled in the past four and a half years. That has been achieved with a reduction of 66 per cent. in manpower, yet the output has been reduced by only 15 per cent. Since 1985, we have seen a reduction of £1 billion in the price of coal to customers at a time when the cost of international coal has increased by no less than 70 per cent. That is a remarkable achievement.
  One does not have to look only at the national scene. In my constituency, Gedling colliery has made remarkable progress. It will never make a large profit and has always performed on a wing and a prayer. Anyone who knows the Nottinghamshire coalfield knows how difficult the Hazel seam is. Earlier this year, it was under grave threat of closure. The work force has been reduced from 1,100 to 610 and we now have at the pit an enthusiastic and skilled work force with an average age of 30.
  Following the reconstruction, the management set a target of 12,500 tonnes per week, which has been comfortably exceeded. We are now performing at the rate of between 13,000 and 15,000 tonnes per week, and the figure has been as high as 18,000 tonnes per week. Those show that substantial progress has been made locally as well as nationally. That is the justification for the major restructuring enshrined in the Bill.
  Anyone who looks at the state of the coal industry and the fact that this year it will have to pay £570 million in

  71
  debt-servicing arrangements will understand how difficult it is to run a business under constraints of that sort. I welcome the major restructuring involved in that.
  I want to welcome the interim deal announced today by British Coal in respect of its arrangements with the generators. The Government are to be congratulated on their enabling rather than enforcing role. I hope that it will not be too long before we see much longer contracts of up to eight years, because that is what is required. It is noticeable that this deal will ensure that it is not necessary to leap into another closure programme. British Coal is not talking about closure, and nor are the Government. Only from Labour Members do we hear about closures. No one else says that British Coal is to launch a major closure programme.
  Mr. Illsley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry, I will not give way because I am under a time constraint. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
  The generators also have an excellent deal. Effectively, prices have been frozen over the past two and a half years and now prices will be frozen for another three years, so they will have five and a half years of fixed coal prices on 400 million tonnes of coal. In other words, the generators have managed to secure a great benefit which only British Coal can deliver—fixed-price coal in sterling.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked whether the generators will pass on this massive saving to the electricity consumer. We all know that coal is 50 per cent. of the cost of generating electricity and electricity prices should therefore come down in real terms. I calculate on the back of an envelope that they could come down by 2 per cent., and I should be interested to hear whether my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees with that calculation. This is also of key interest to British Coal. In the midlands, British Coal remains the largest customer of the East Midlands electricity board, which is to be found in my consitituency, so it too stands to gain a great deal in the reduction in the real cost of electricity.
  It is interesting to look at the cost of producing electricity. At one time I spent a lot of time reading the evidence of the Sizewell inquiry. It was something of a masochistic experience. We now know that electricity produced by Sizewell will cost up to 10p a unit. We know that electricity produced by an AGR, based on historic costs, is about 7p a unit. The new small, environmentally friendly, privately financed—with up to 85 per cent. debt —ventures will produce at a cost of about 3p a unit. In other words, there will be a significant advantage for coal.
  We hear the advantages of heavy fuel oil mentioned, but there has been a 70 per cent. increase in the price of that fuel over the past two years. The only heavy fuel oil available in quantity and at low prices is high in sulphur. When looking at international coal prices, I urge people to be careful.
  Those of us who, in the early 1980s, did work on international coal prices know how difficult it is to predict the variables, because we invariably got them wrong. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will not put his faith in foreign coal. We have seen this year
  72
  alone how much has changed in the provision of American, Chinese, east European and Australian coal. We should note that important point.
  Although British Coal continues to produce at above the supposed international market rate, it has made colossal and effective progress. That is why the Government are right to adopt a carrot-and-stick approach to the coal industry. The Bill recognises the importance of the carrot.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned his support for new coal technologies and that too must be right. We must support and develop advanced coal technologies and new coal technologies. These can raise efficiency of generation from coal by 20 per cent., improve the economics and reduce carbon dioxide and consequently the gases contributing to the greenhouse effect. We have to take a sensible and sensitive approach to the environmental effects of the industry.
  I am an unashamed believer in the privatisation of the coal industry. I want to see the industry follow the same path as British Steel because that is in the interests of British Coal, the employees, the management and the consumer. I suggest that Labour Members talk to employees of British Steel and see what they think about the matter.
  The coal industry encapsulated all that was worst in British adversarial labour relationships. Privatisation will give those who work in the industry a real interest in how well it does. The men who work in the industry used to be alienated from the management, and that is the hallmark of the nationalised sector. Privatisation, by involving all the employees in the ownership of the business, will bring far greater identity with the commercial interests of the business and, a greater acceptance of the reality of the market place and will encourage the work force to work hard when times are good and to work themselves out of trouble when they are bad.
  Above all, there are real opportunities for smaller operations such as Bilsthorpe in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). Everyone employed there will be able to own shares, commercial money will be involved, there is new technology, it is small and clean, and, above all, the Union of Democratic Mineworkers—to which the country and the industry owe a great deal—is involved.
  In support of ventures such as that taking place at Bilsthorpe, I support the Bill strongly and look forward to catching the eye of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection so that I may serve on the Committee which considers the Bill.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Terry Patchett: I am pleased to he called to speak in the debate because, even today, my constituency relies heavily on the mining industry. However, in my constituency 29 per cent. of the under-25-year-olds are unemployed as a result of the Government's pit closure programme since the miners' dispute. I concede that some young people have been involved in such projects as the youth training scheme. For the uninitiated, these schemes allow the Government to present their entrepreneurial friends with cheap labour and to maintain their Victorian values in their attitude to work. They expect these young people to be grateful to the Government for finding them a job. We must tolerate that

  73
  on top of 25 per cent. unemployment. This from the Government who told us repeatedly during the miners' strike that there was not a pit closure programme. History has proved that the House was misled.
  I welcome the Bill's intention to write off some of British Coal's debt, but I remain suspicious of the Government's motives. It is ironic that a great deal of the burden of debt placed on British Coal was created by the Government forcing on it the pit closure programme. British Coal has to find 30 per cent. of the cost of every redundancy created by that programme, as well as carrying the reduction in the value of its assets. In some cases, so-called unproductive pits have been written off while British Coal is still paying off the interest on money borrowed from the Government to invest in those pits. How stupid can one get?
  I would like to think that clause I was a result of the Government having a conscience over this matter, or perhaps suddenly becoming interested in the future of British Coal. I fear that neither could be further from the truth, as they have not shown any interest in writing off the debt on the many occasions when we have appealed for that. The truth is that they are using taxpayers' money to prepare the industry for privatisation, making it more attractive to their friends on the stock exchange.
  The Bill cannot be taken in isolation from other aspects of the Government's energy policy. Electricity privatisation is an example—it is an absolute shambles. The Government had the audacity to try to con investors—their friends on the stock exchange—into taking over the nuclear power industry by guaranteeing them a share of the market when, at the same time, they were singing the song of free competition. However, realising that they could not con their old pals, they withdrew that part of the industry from privatisation. Someone suddenly realised that nuclear energy was costly. Labour Members have been telling the Government that for years, but the Government consistently and happily pursued their policy. That will cost the country dear for generations to come.
  We then had leaked documents on the privatisation of the electricity industry. The Government are opening the gates to a flood of imports of cheap foreign coal, and that may cost 30,000 jobs in the British coal industry.
  Now we know why the private Bill procedure was so misused by the unofficial whipping of the Associated Ports Bill. Now we know why some Government Back Benchers have been swanning around South Africa as guests of the South African mining industry. Those are the reasons why we must not consider the Bill in isolation.
  The Government have shown, by their record of inept bungling and their deceit of the House, that they are not interested in the future of British Coal. It is a scandal that millions of tonnes of coal reserves are being thrown away while the Government flirt with cheap imports.
  I thought that we had a huge problem with the balance of payments deficit. I find that difficult to believe, as the Government are working hard to contribute to that deficit by seeking to import coal. Do they have such short memories that they have forgotten the terrible problems that we had when world oil prices shot up, after we had placed reliance on cheap middle eastern oil for our energy resources? We were in a right mess. I thought that we had learnt a lesson from that shocking experience, but the Government are taking us down a similar path again. That is madness.
  74
  We cannot rely on the get-rich-now-and-to-hell-withtomorrow philosophy of the Government for Britain's energy demands. The House should have a long debate on the gambit of the Government's energy policy before it is too late.
  I am concerned about the growing tendency for deregulation in coal mining, and its effect on safety. Several of my hon. Friends have also mentioned the subject. Most of our present regulations were established because of loss of life and limb, and not by convincing someone in this House in a debate. I can give a personal example of that.
  In 1975, in my own colliery, there was an explosion. During the 24 hours that we spent looking for missing lads, in the hope that they might be alive, we received expressions of condolence from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. We were grateful for that, but we were more pleased when legislation was changes as a result of a public inquiry into the accident and the problem of degassing the headings. Some of my hon. Friends will be familiar with that.
  I would be angry if someone came to the House and talked about changing that regulation on degassing. Every regulation has been changed by a disaster and a public inquiry. We will never convince Conservative Members that they should spend money on safety. Conservative Members have already demonstrated by their watery words that they are intent on deregulation and cutting corners and safety. I have worked in mines and I have seen what happens if one cuts on safety.
  I regret that there has been a change of attitude by the management. They think that they are at the top of the tree, supported by the Government, or perhaps local management are frightened by Hobart house.
  A few weeks ago there was a fire at Grimethorpe colliery. The work force and the management worked long and hard to contain the fire and thereby saved other reserves. Everybody was full of compliments for the work force that week, but within three weeks the same management was fetching the men in saying, "Your pit's in danger. The reserves are there, but we don't think you've been pulling your weight." People with that attitude would be happy to short cut on safety.
  If we allow the tendency to deregulate to continue, I am fearful of the consequences for the safety of miners. Therefore, I beg the Minister to consider carefully what I have said.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: I have always argued in coal debates for the need for a diverse energy policy, in which the coal industry plays the major part—and by coal I mean United Kingdom coal. I see no reason to change my view because of the Bill. I certainly see no reason to change that view as a consequence of the major shifts in the energy industry in recent times—quite the contrary, a's I believe that the central thrust of the Bill is important to the development of our nation's industrial base. A diverse energy policy requires coal as its major ingredient. Where I depart from the views of the Opposition is in their belief that one can dragoon customers into taking coal. Customers will come only if the price is right and supplies are secure.
  One of our problems is the Scargill legacy. Most people who want to switch to coal would be more likely to do so

  75
  if there were dual or triple sourcing for their supplies, rather than depending upon a union which they believe is renowned for its militancy. It makes no sense for a country as rich in natural coal reserves as Britain to depend on imports to any significant extent. However, one can only resist imports if one makes one's own industry as efficient, capable, productive and profitable as the alternatives. Otherwise one would pass the problem down the line to other industrial users of electricity, who would themselves become competitively disadvantaged.
  I believe that the Bill will receive widespread support in the House and in Britain because it is a vitally important step towards getting our act together, and helping to set up a coal industry with a secure and viable future based on the fact that it makes a profit, which is a central part of our industrial strategy.
  I am amazed that we have heard only words of criticism from Opposition Members so far. During the years that I have been in the House, since the 1983 election, in debates on coal Opposition Members have always said that the coal industry has not enjoyed a level playing field compared with other industries. This Bill will give £5 billion to the coal industry, on top of the £6·5 billion already been put in. Yet the Opposition say that they will oppose it. How can it make any sense for the industry to be relieved of £570 million per year in debt interest payments and for the Labour party to oppose this solution? How can it make sense to those who work in pits where viability is threatened to see the Labour party voting against the money which would make them viable?
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Batiste: I will not give way, as I have only 10 minutes. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman had a chance to make his speech.
  Refinancing is an important first step. I hope that what will emerge from it—and I hope that my hon Friend will consider this carefully—is consequent restructuring to ensure that British Coal does not close off any of the options for future privatisation. I make no secret of the fact that I believe that privatisation will better serve the interests of all those who work in and depend on the coal industry. Nor do I make a secret of the fact that I want British Coal to be broken into regional components when it is privatised, so that we shall have Yorkshire Coal plc, as well as Yorkshire Water and Yorkshire Electric. Our regional economy is already beginning to reflect the fact that major industrial players and their headquarters are inextricably bound up with the success of our regions. I want coal to contribute to that as well.
  We have all talked of the United Kingdom coal industry as though it consisted only of British Coal, but the British coal industry mines more coal in the United States than here. None of the big companies which mine in the United States can operate here, however, because of the obscure, irrelevant and outdated restrictions on investment by private capital in our domestic coal industry. We have companies which control up to 14 per cent. of United States coal production and would like to invest in a big way here. We also have small companies which could restore profitability to some of the small pits which are closing but the rules introduced on nationalisation mean that they cannot contribute to our
  76
  national prosperity. The Bill marks an important first step towards putting that right. Areas where coal mining jobs have been lost recently could have the opportunity of new jobs.
  Safety is not an issue, as safety standards will be exactly the same following liberalisation. There will be the same procedures, the same restrictions, the same type of prosecutions of the guilty and even tighter enforcement.
  Mr. Hood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Batiste: No, I have already said that I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already made his speech.
  With all other privatisations, the regulatory framework which have been put in place have been far more effective in terms of safety and the environment than what preceded them—and coal will be no exception.
  There is a great deal of commonality about opencasting among those in the House who have experience of it. I do not think that any of them look with enthusiasm on the prospect of 10 times the present area of land being put to use for opencasting. I accept that opencast coal is needed as a sweetener for deep-mined coal. Anybody who denies that is being hypocritical, as he is denying that coal should be a major ingredient of our energy policy. If we argue the need for coal, we have to accept that a certain amount of opencasting is necessary, but—it is a big but—environmental issues must be considered carefully in any planning application.
  Tipping in opencast sites has not been mentioned, but exercises most hon. Members' minds. Gamblethorpe tip is in my constituency. After years of opencasting, people now face the prospect of years of disruption to the environment as a result of tipping. If a statutory authority were to set down a timetable when an opencast mining application is made, stating what restoration work will be done, when the coal will be extracted and what the community will gain from the facility, so that there is no possibility of someone coming along later and saying, "What a lovely hole—I should like to tip something in it for a few more years," there might be a very different reaction. At the moment, people look out across wasteland knowing how they would like it to be restored so that it can be of benefit to the local community, but facing the prospect of years of disruption, noise and damage to the environment.
  Planning for opencast mining is rather like planning for every other major infrastructure programme in that our compensation policy is absurd. It lays down that we shall be niggardly with compensation for those whose environment is disrupted for the greater good of the community, and then we are surprised when they fight like mad to prevent it and plans are deferred for years due to determined resistance. If, like some other Community countries, we were more generous with our compensation, recognised that there would be disruption and that the communities concerned had a legitimate claim to have something put back to compensate for the disruption, we might have a more balanced approach to opencasting and major infrastructure, planning applications.
  British Coal's monopoly in relation to opencast licensing merely restricts further the resources available to operators to use for the benefit of the community. However, all the signposts in the Bill are good ones for the future of the coal industry, and I warmly commend it.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Alan Meale: We have been told that the Bill will be good for mining communities. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who unfortunately is not here at the moment, said that Labour's opposition—
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it is the general view of the House that we want the public to see what is happening in the House. Can you rule whether it is in order for hon. Members to move around the Chamber according to who happens to be speaking? The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is so intent on getting his photogenic face on camera that, every time a Labour Member speaks, he moves—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the Chair. I am neither Whip nor shop steward in the House.
  Mr. Meale: I hope that, like a good referee, Madam Deputy Speaker, you stopped the watch during that point of order.
  The hon. Member for Sherwood said that Labour's opposition to the Bill is a cruel deceit of the miners. The reverse is the case. The Bill is a cruel deceit of mining communities throughout Britain. The Government have changed the way in which the number of unemployed people are calculated 28 times already. Since June this year, 11,500 miners have been made redundant because of Government policy, but they have not been included in the number of unemployed. The Government are planning another change in the calculation of the number of unemployed people, so unemployed or redundant mineworkers will not be included in any calculation of unemployment after December.
  Deceit is the Government's number one priority. Since the last general election, they have moved away from the coalfield communities and denied them even the right to show how bad their plight is. Hon. Members from Nottinghamshire should be honest enough to argue for the correct figures to be given. District councils in Nottinghamshire, such as Ashfield, Bassetlaw, Mansfield and the area represented by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) are trying to get funds from Europe to support their endeavours to get development under way and to reduce unemployment. Because unemployment figures are not being calculated properly, the funding that councils can get from the EEC is put at risk. I hope that Conservative Members will be a little more honest.
  I also wish that Conservative Members would stop suggesting that it is only because of the parliamentary Labour party that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill is still proceeding through the House. No hon. Member has a better record than me when it comes to voting against that Bill, but half a dozen Conservative Members—
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Your predecessor in the Chair ruled me out of order when I mentioned that subject. I trust that the rules will be the same for hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Meale: I have made my point, and I hope that Conservative Members will not deceive the electorate any more.
  The Government have tried continually to deceive mining communities, especially those in the area that I represent. Before the last general election, the previous Secretary of State for Energy said that he had no intention of privatising the coal industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) said, the Government went to the country at the last general election on that basis and came away victorious. Therefore, they have no mandate for legislation to privatise the industry. The Bill represents privatisation of the industry, pit closures in the coalfield communities and another rip-off of the mining communities by the Treasury.
  Mr. Hood: My hon. Friend mentioned the word "deceit" earlier and referred to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). I do not want to make too much of whether the hon. Gentleman was deceitful, but is it not the case that the Bill, which the hon. Member for Sherwood supports, will close the pits at Clipstone, Annesley, Calverton and Rufford in the Sherwood constituency?
  Mr. Meale: The Bill is nothing more than a fattening-up exercise for privatisation of the coal industry. It will benefit only one set of individuals, who are a minority in our society. It will fatten up the people in the City who have already ripped off an enormous fortune from British taxpayers.
  The Bill means extensive job losses in the coalfield communities. As my hon. Friend said, it is calculated that the Bill will probably result in another 30 pit closures. Some of those at risk are in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood. He is a fool to support the legislation because it will cost hundreds, indeed, thousands, of jobs in Nottinghamshire.
  The Opposition Front Bench has obtained a leaked Cabinet document which shows that the figures calculated by Opposition spokesmen are correct. The document was prepared not by the Labour party but by the Cabinet. It got into the hands of our Front Bench team and I commend them for having obtained it. It suggests that the Bill will lead to 30,000 job losses. Conservative Members have said how wonderful it is that the Government have tied up a contract for all this coal, but nothing has changed. The document also states that a three-year agreement is part and parcel of the contract. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sherwood is making signs to the effect that three years will take the Government beyond the election. If he believes that the Government's mandate will be extended, he is living in cloud cuckoo land.
  The Bill offers nothing to the coalfield communities. I was saddened when the Secretary of State spoke about the terrible deficit debt that British Coal currently carries. He spoke of a debt of £500 million, but that is not a debt in monetary terms. It is a scandal that British Coal has calculated the figure of debt as a whole, taking into account items such as concessionary coal for widows and retired miners. Do Conservative Members not realise that that coal was negotiated in decades gone by, by working miners, who gave part of their coal concessions and put it into a pool to keep widows and retired miners in fuel? It

  79
  is not negotiable because it was negotiated in years gone by. It is a disgrace for British Coal to include it in its calculations.
  I am sorry that the Minister of State is not present. I wished to raise with him coal mining subsidence damage about which there is serious anxiety among hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. The Minister of State has misled the House. Earlier this year he said:
  "We are reviewing this matter as part of our total appraisal of Waddilove and we have said that we will look at it again before 1990. We shall bring forward the review of the way in which adjudication is conducted and shall review the criteria by which the distinction betweeen the two types of arbitration is made.—[Official Report, 16 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 1272.]
  This Bill was the only real opportunity to do that. The Minister misled the House because he has not come back with legislation before the end of 1990. It is incumbent on him to state why he has not brought forward legislation on subsidence. On the same day, the Minister said that he was interested in setting up independent legal advice centres in coal mining areas but the Bill makes no provision for that.
  Problems are still occurring with subsidence in my constituency. My constituents are having problems with British Coal. Yet another letter came to me recently from some of my constituents saying that they had a letter from British Coal threatening that unless they accepted £150 to redecorate the whole house—inside and outside—it would close the file.
  The Bill is a disgrace. It is yet another rip-off by the Government in favour of their friends in the City. In no way, shape or form is it good for the coal industry. I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will stick to their commitment to repeal the Bill when we return to power.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: I am disappointed that Opposition Members are so vehemently against the proposals in the Bill. To write off British Coal's debts and, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, help it to become more competitive with other fuels such as gas and oil is surely a good thing for all workers in the coal industry, whether in deep mines, private mines or opencast mines.
  There seems to be a general adverse feeling among both Opposition and Conservative Members about opencast mining. I deplore that because, as several hon. Members have said, it is the only activity that has made a profit for British Coal during the past few years. The percentage of opencast coal as a proportion of British Coal's output has risen from 13 per cent. 10 years ago to almost 20 per cent. now. It is an important activity if British Coal is to wipe the slate clean, balance its books and make a profit after its massive debt has been written off.
  As we have heard, opencast mining can produce coal with a low chlorine content which has to be mixed with deep-mined coal. I am massively opposed to the Coalfield Communities Campaign, mainly financed by local authorities, which states that deep mining is a marvellous activity which produces jobs in the coalfields. It completely opposes opencast mining. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that opencast mining damages the environment. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said that people did not take care or look after the interests of the residents of the area and that it spoilt the environment. That is not
  80
  necessarily the case. I have seen opencast mining in the east midlands, the west midlands, the north-west and south Wales. I have probably visited many more opencast mines than any other hon. Member here tonight.
  I know that the Minister of State has visited many opencast pits. I am not aware that the Secretary of State has done so, but I should implore him to visit such pits. He will find that the workers are not from the National Union of Mineworkers or the Union of Democratic Mineworkers: They are either in the Transport and General Workers Union or are subject to a loose trade union arrangement. It is not a mining but a civil engineering activity. It is a massive earth-moving operation.
  The United Kingdom does well on opencast mining, especially when one contrasts our difficult working conditions with seams only a few inches thick it is a bonus if they are 4 or 5 ft thick—with the 20 m to 50 m thick seams in Australia, America and Canada. We can get the coal out, deliver it to customers by conventional coal lorries, and more than compete with imported opencast mined coal.
  Mr. Allen McKay: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments on opencast mining, but he has not yet mentioned the people who are affected by it. He talked about councils and the Coalfield Communities Campaign. They are local councils, Labour and Tory, which are concerned about the environment.
  Mr. Dover: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated exactly what I was about to say.
  Thirty years ago my constituency had six mines near the villages of Coppull and Charnock Richard and thousands of workers in deep mines. Since then we have had a great deal of opencast mining. Some parish councils, local authorities and, indeed, the county council are opposed to that. We have mined 500,000 tonnes from Ellerbeck west and 500,000 tonnes from Ellerbeck north. Now we have the opportunity of a further phase at Ellerbeck west to mine 1 million tonnes in five years, and the 100 or so local residents who live near the potential mine want it to be developed. They know that they live on a coal reserve which will eventually be mined. They know that until it is mined their life will be uncertain, and that mining it will provide minerals, wealth and jobs.
  Opinion in the area is split. The two parish councils are opposed to the development. I wholly support the application. We have a bad swamp—there is a little wildlife in it—which will be completely drained and made into a super lake. We have old colliery workings, barbed wire, shafts, old metal and brick work and slag heaps. It is a disgrace. I have heard comments about derelict land grant rules being changed, but we have no chance of doing away with all that unless the opencast opportunity proceeds.
  I welcome the new rules that will help opencast applications to win approval. I note that some people are massively opposed to the misuse of the holes in the ground for refuse disposal, particularly if four or five years of mining are followed by three years of refuse disposal. I am fully in favour of local residents having their say. In my area they are in favour of the opencast operation.
  I am delighted that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that local residents should receive some form of compensation, as they already do.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the hon. Gentleman find serious transport problems in his constituency involved in collecting opencast coal? Is he in favour of railway lines being built to opencast sites so that coal can be moved in railway wagons?
  Mr. Dover: Certainly heavy lorries bearing large loads travel to and fro, but much of the earth is moved from one part of a site to another. In many areas the disposal point is an eyesore, but I could take hon. Members to a site in Leicestershire almost as large as the Chamber, yet nobody driving along the road within 5 in of it knows that it is there because of sensible mounding and grassing. Indeed, sheep graze on the site.
  I support the Bill wholeheartedly. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has tabled a sensible amendment. I hope that hon. Members will support changes in granting licences. The Bill provides an opportunity for the development of small areas of opencast mining and for British Coal to make a profit. The Bill writes off debt. I see nothing but good coming from it for the coal mining industry as a whole, particularly small private mines which should be allowed to compete with British Coal. In the past opencast developers and site owners have operated only as civil engineering contractors, winning the coal on behalf of the opencast executive.
  I pay tribute to the opencast executive. It has asked me to lay on an exhibition in the tipper Waiting Corridor to show what opencast mining is and what environmental improvements people can expect. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity of visiting it from late January to late March.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Eric Insley: Like many of my hon. Friends, I welcome the major proposal in the Bill —the restructuring of the coal industry's finances—but some clauses cause anxiety.
  The principal clause seeks to relieve British Coal of its huge debt of £4·5 billion. All hon. Members will welcome a reduction in that, but we have not heard how much it will be. The Bill does not state how much of the debt will be removed and the Secretary of State did not mention the exact sum. It remains to be seen how warmly we can welcome the clause and the reduction.
  Although British Coal has shown an operating profit over the past two years, it is unprofitable on the bottom line because it finances that debt. The interest charges in the forthcoming year will be £575 million. The recent increases in interest rate have done nothing to alleviate that burden. Indeed, British Coal has been prevented from achieving the financial targets imposed on it because of interest rates and exchange rate changes. The figure of £4·5 billion is high. Tory Members tell us of previous reconstructions within the recent past, but we should remember the wealth that British Coal has generated since the war. The whole story has not been simply squandering taxpayers' money.
  Since 1980 British Coal has been required to give up £1·2 billion in artificial price reductions to customers. Since 1985, £850 million has gone to the Central Electricity Generating Board to bolster its profits. The 1989–90 CEGB trading profit was well over £1 billion. Money has also been used to fund our nuclear programme or, to be more accurate, the shambles of what is left of our nuclear
  82
  programme. It has been used to provide an excuse to run down the coal industry since 1985 so that now it is a small runt compared with its previous state.
  The one thing that the money was not used for was a reduction in electricity prices to consumers. In the past two years the Secretary of State has imposed increases, although electricity generators were calling for price reductions. If those price increases had not been forced on the industry, British Coal would now be looking at an operating profit of about £1·4 billion. The electricity industry forced price increases on British Coal for tenuous reasons. World coal prices are low. The 4 per cent. of coal which is traded internationally is at artificially low prices.
  Had the Central Electricity Generating Board opted for imported coal, prices would have increased quickly—assuming that the CEGB could have imported it. We have already heard about the effect that that would have had on the nation's balance of payments deficit, which is already at a record level. As I have said, however, the facilities were not available to enable substantial imports to take place. Conservative Members have referred to the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. I merely say that if the Government were not prepared to vote for it, we would not have it.
  The price reductions that British Coal has been required to make have been used to fund the nuclear programme, the costs of which are far higher than was ever suggested previously. Price cuts were demanded even though it was clear that the comparative generation costs of coal-fired electricity and nuclear electricity were in favour of the coal industry.
  Over the past few years, the costs have been substantially misrepresented to the industry and to the House. Privatisation has initiated a re-examination of the decommissioning costs of nuclear power. Consequently, the true costs are now becoming clear. The different policy for nuclear decommissioning which has been implemented by the nuclear industry has brought a sharp increase in decommissioning costs, which has exacerbated the problem. The difference between the costs of coal-fired generation and those of nuclear generation will result in a nuclear levy of about £1·4 billion. That levy will be imposed upon the coal industry, thereby adding to the costs of British Coal.
  The restructuring of the finances of British Coal is a welcome part of the Bill. It is interesting that it is designed to enable concessionary coal to be protected and to enable British Coal to meet the costs that it incurs in industrial deafness cases. I hope that the Government will continue to fund concessionary coal, which is an important issue in constituencies such as mine. Concessionary coal is provided for many retired mineworkers, and has been for many years. It is essential to maintain concessionary coal in areas such as mine, with high unemployment, low wages, few job opportunities and a large retired population. It is important that the scare stories about concessionary coal being bought out for a few thousand pounds should be knocked on the head.
  If the financial restructuring takes place and the debts of British Coal are wiped away, British Coal's products will be competitive with imported coal and with other fuel sources. We have heard that technically British Coal will be bankrupt because its assets are worth less than its current liabilities, but why has British Coal been left in such a position for so long? Why has it had to have a £4·5 billion debt hanging round its neck, with interest charges

  83
  of £400 million or £500 million a year and the electricity industry pointing the finger and demanding further price reductions? Coal mining constituencies have suffered closure programmes, massive redundancy programmes, all the misery of job losses and the knock-on effects on the local economy, so as to subsidise the nuclear industry and the electricity industry's profits.
  Even now, despite the removal of a proportion of British Coal's debt, the industry is still threatened. There are the shadows of privatisation. At the same time there is the removal of nuclear power stations and also a lack of independent generation, although that is supposed to come forward. There is still pressure for further colliery closures. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) poured scorn on the leaked document and the reference to 30,000 redundancies, but the Cabinet Sub-Committee document states:
  "It would be almost impossible to shield UDM areas from further closures given that British Coal has already fallen over backwards to maintain in existence relatively high-cost pits in Nottinghamshire."
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. A time limit has been imposed on speeches during this stage of the debate, and I must call the hon. Gentleman to order.
  8.5 pm
  Dr. Mike Woodcock: I welcome the Bill, but as my hon. Friend the Minister probably expects, my welcome is somewhat qualified. I welcome the Bill because it is the necessary prelude to what I hope will be the privatisation of British Coal. The former Secretary of State for Energy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), who is now Secretary of State for Transport, referred to that as the ultimate privatisation. That is a long overdue measure that will lead to greater efficiency, to a better deal for industry and domestic coal consumers. It would represent the great change that has taken place since the time that the country was held to ransom by the defence of inefficiency in the coal industry. With the advent of privatisation, miners will own part of their industry and trade unions will negotiate with owners who put the customer first.
  As I have said, I welcome the Bill with some qualifications. I feel that the Government have once again missed the opportunity to reform many of the practices of British Coal that are unfair and anti-competitive. In my view the Bill should go a good deal further.
  Clause 4 relates to coal production and exploration licences. It will permit British Coal to grant licences to work deep mines with up to 150 employees and to grant licences for opencast operations where total production is not likely to exceed 250,000 tonnes. On the face of it, the clause seems to offer a great improvement, but in reality, even with 150 employees in a deep-mining operation, the private sector cannot take on British Coal on the same commercial basis. The limit of 250,000 tonnes for opencast production can hardly improve competition when British Coal never exploits reserves at that level. The proposals may be gestures to competition but they fall far short of the ideal.
  Clause 4 raises the more fundamental issues of royalty payments and licensing. British Coal receives about £11
  84
  per tonne royalty payment from private mining operations. Even though British Coal has the best sites, it enjoys the further advantages of an £11 per tonne royalty payment and an £11 per tonne subsidy. How is that fair or reasonable? How can it be anything but anti-competitive? In addition, British Coal has the power to decide whether an operator should be licensed. As the law stands, British coal is in a position to say, "We shall decide whether you are entitled to compete with us. If we decide that you can do so, we shall start with an £11 per tonne advantage, and you will pay us an £11 subsidy on top of that." I find it difficult to understand how the Government can justify that anti-competitive approach to the mining of coal. In my opinion, clause 4 should have gone much further.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said, clause 4 should have removed the licensing responsibility from British Coal. It is a matter of regret that the Bill does not do that, so I ask the Minister whether he will give one relatively minor assurance. Will he say that when private mining operations increase as a result of the Bill, British Coal will not be allowed to contract for the production that then ensues from that mining, so further stifling competition in the marketplace? If my hon. Friend is serious about wanting to increase competition, he will surely give that assurance.
  Competition is a subject about which many sections of the coal trade feel very strongly. I say "sections" because, from what hon. Members have said so far, it might be assumed that the coal industry consists entirely of British Coal. Of course it does not: there are several thousand coal merchants in this country, employing several thousand people. There are many wholesalers; there are importers and exporters of coal, producers of smokeless fuel, private deep-mine operators and opencast operators.
  The people who work in those sectors are firm believers in competition, as are most Conservative Members. Even the Government believe in free competition. In the main, I think that we all accept that it is a guarantee of efficiency and a driving force for change. It seems strange, therefore, that a Government committed to privatisation and free market forces should stand by while a nationalised industry is allowed to engage in back-door nationalisation and anti-competitive practices.
  For example, British Coal recently introduced loyalty rebate schemes, intended to restrict merchants to obtaining their supplies from British Coal; yet, as we all know, British Coal is regularly unable to supply the highest-quality coals. While British Coal makes deals to restrict the import of coals by independent importers, and while many—Opposition Members in particular—campaign to restrict coal imports to protect British Coal's position, the corporation itself is a major importer, and not only from the EEC. How many hon. Members realise that British Coal now imports and distributes Chinese and Vietnamese anthracite, while attempting to stifle imports by others? I ask the Minister to take a close look at whether the signing of such loyalty agreements contravenes GATT regulations.
  There is also the question of concessionary fuels for retired miners and widows.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose—
  Dr. Woodcock: I will not give way, simply because I have not time to do so.

  85
  The Secretary of State has told us today that he will underwrite that commitment with taxpayer's money. Why, then, does he not insist that the distribution of the fuel is put out to open tender, as so many local-authority services have been? Why is distribution carried out exclusively by National Fuel Distributors Ltd—which is a subsidiary of British Coal—rather than being open to competition?
  Then their is the question of incursions into private trade. In the past year or so, British Coal has acquired a 50 per cent. stake in British Fuels Ltd. At the time, British Coal gave assurances that an arm's-length relationship would exist. and the Minister gave me the same assurance. We now find that the commercial director of British Coal has been appointed chairman of British Fuels Ltd. How can that be describe as "arm's-length", and how can it be in the interest of free competition? Why does the Minister stand by while all that is happening? I ask him to give an assurance that, if National Fuel Distributors is put up for sale—as rumour has it that it will be—it will be offered on the open market?
  There is widespread concern about preferential treatment with regard to British Coal projects for depots, pre-packed plants and land-sale operations, and about pricing tranparency. All that creates the impression that British Coal is manipulating the market. British Coal also intends to introduce a "master merchant" scheme, requiring merchants to hand over the names and addresses of customers. That is yet another attempt by British Coal to manipulate the market and take complete charge of it. In Ulster, British Coal regularly makes fuel available at £6 to £16 per tonne cheaper than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Why are prices being offered in Ulster that are not available to merchants in this country? How can that be a free market?
  In every area of British Coal's involvement in the market, there is evidence of anti-competitive practices—so much so that many believe that an investigation by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission would now be appropriate. On the basis of what I have said, will the Minister make a referral to the commission in the interests of the private coal trade, the consumer and the nation?
  I welcome the Bill as a step towards the privatisation of British Coal. My wish, however, is to see the privatisation of the state sector of the coal industry, rather than the nationalisation of the private sector. I ask the Minister to think hard about what I have said, and to ensure that, as he restructures British Coal, he increases competition and market forces rather than reducing them. If he is unable to influence British Coal by persuasion, he should use the mechanism provided by the Bill to compel the corporation to come to heel.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: When opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) welcomed the clause in the Bill that gives British Coal some financial assistance. Let me make a brief plea for some of that assistance to come back to the anthracite coalfield of west Wales in the form of investment.
  My constituency and Carmarthen contain at least 50 million tonnes of mineable anthracite reserves. Apart from the dwindling pocket of anthracite in the West German coalfield—which will dwindle further if the European Commission starts having a go at the way in which the
  86
  German coal industry is financed—there is no anthracite between Llanelli and Poland. The potential for development of the anthracite coalfield and its reserves in Britain and Europe is enormous; yet despite that, and despite the potential markets, British Coal has walked away from the anthracite coalfield, and especially from deep mining it. It has closed the largest anthracite pit in Britain—indeed, in western Europe—and has mothballed a drift mine into which it had itself put £18 million. My area has only one deep-mined anthracite pit left.
  There is plenty of opencast, however, and if the Bill is passed there will be a good deal more. Apart from its awful, damaging effects on the environment, opencast mining—at least in the anthracite coalfield—sterilises the coal beneath, which the opencast machines can reach and mine. When the earth is put back, anyone wishing to drift-mine or slant-mine the coal beneath it must incur all the costs of digging through the earth to get to it.
  There are a few small producers, but they are very small, and they are finding it difficult to make a living. Anthracite is sold mainly to the domestic consumer market, and I am told that the current price for best west Wales anthracite "run of mine"—that is, as mined—is between £27 and £29 per tonne. My constituents, many of them elderly, are paying £155 per tonne; moreover, they cannot obtain the anthracite very often, because British Coal has closed the mines. We are forced to import Chinese anthracite, which is of inferior quality.
  I understand that coal must be washed, sifted and distributed, but does a mark-up of 500 per cent. make any sense? A cartel is operating. It is not a cartel of miners—they are not benefiting from it—or a cartel of elderly consumers, but a cartel of private factors in south Wales. Someone is receiving the difference between £27 or £29 arid £155 per tonne. I do not know whether that is a matter for the Office of Fair Trading, but it certainly does no good to anthracite production or anthracite consumers.
  The market is enormous, but, over the years, British Coal—whatever it has done in other parts of the country—has not paid much attention to the market in anthracite. First, there is the market in power stations. British Coal has said that anthracite cannot be burned in power stations, although it can be mixed with other coal. That is not true. Very clear fluidised bed technology has operated in Finland and the United States for years, burning not only the anthracite but the anthracite dust which is a cheaper component of it. Thereby a market is being provided for the better-class and better-priced anthracite.
  Apart from the domestic consumer market, schools, hospitals and other public institutions constitute a market for the use of anthracite for central heating. The competition is intense. Certainly gas is a great competitor. I have been told that there are only two British manufacturers of small anthracite boilers for central heating. One of them is too small to engage in research and development. The other is not interested. I am certain that it is possible to burn anthracite in schools and hospitals on the continent. British Coal, however, is not interested in it.
  British Coal should reopen the drift mine in my constituency on which it has spent £18 million. It should open small slant and drift mines to replace much of the opencast mining and get together with boiler manufacturers to try to sell anthracite to power stations. In addition, British Coal should get together with the smaller

  87
  boiler manufacturers and ensure that anthracite can be used for the heating of schools, hospitals and other public institutions.
  The miners in my constituency have shown loyalty and dedication to the mining industry and to British Coal. It is time that British Coal repaid their loyalty and dedication by investing in our coalfields.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Richard Alexander: Since I became a Member of Parliament I think that I have attended virtually every debate on the coal mining industry. I seem to recollect that there has been a constant cry for more support for the mining industry. I recollect too the Opposition's total ignorance of the fact that £2 million a day has been invested in the mining industry since the Conservative party came to office. I am astonished by the Opposition's lack of generosity of spirit in their comments on the Bill. One would never think that an enormous debt is to be written off and that consequently British Coal will be profitable and able to compete with imported coal, about which the Opposition are rightly worried.
  During the last five or six years the coal industry has undergone massive restructuring. Coal is now competitive with most other fuels. Since 1983–84, about 84 pits have closed. Only 86 collieries are now left, but they produce virtually the same amount of coal as was produced five years ago. The number of employees has virtually halved, to the current 86,900. That reduction has taken place without any compulsory redundancies. Productivity has increased by over 90 per cent. during that period, and it is still increasing.
  To reach those figures, everyone in the coal industry has played a part—often a difficult part. I pay particular tribute to the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in Nottinghamshire and to its president, Mr. Roy Lynk.
  The industry is basically profitable, but year after year what would otherwise be a profit is turned into a loss because of the huge interest payments that it has to make to the Treasury. That is what the Bill is about. It is not about imported coal or about fattening up the industry for privatisation.
  A healthy coal industry plays a vital part in our national economy. Both sides of the House recognise that fact, despite the invective that we some times hear. If it is not healthy, costs rise, there are expensive imports and the industry cannot offer long-term contracts, based on certainty of supply and price, to the electricity supply industry. It makes sense, therefore, as Opposition Members have argued for a long time, to write off the accumulated losses. British Coal is entitled to say to the Government, "We have done what you asked, we have restructured, we are now profitable and we have played our part. The Treasury must now play its part." I know that my constituents in Nottinghamshire will be very happy with the Bill, in particular with the writing-off provisions that are fundamental to it. They will also find it astonishing that Opposition Members think so little of the Bill's provisions that they intend to vote against the Bill.
  Without this help, the industry will find it very difficult to restructure. It will also benefit from the proposed increase in the restructuring grant that will rise to £1,500
  88
  million by 1993. The Government's policy has always been to try to ensure generous redundancy terms and, if possible, no compulsory redundancies. With the increase in grant, British Coal can offer generous redundancy terms without eating into annual profits.
  There must surely come a time, however, when the redundancy process will cease. The industry seems to be run by accountants, not by entrepreneurs. Accountants decide whether a pit is uneconomic. Engineers and visionaries should play a major part in that decision. Pits which produce fine, excellent coal are in danger of closing because they verge on the margins of profitability. They cannot satisfy an accountant's eye if he looks only to next year's balance sheet figures.
  Apart from aiming at a high-wage, high-profit industry that produces coal that is attractive to the consumer, industry and the electricity supply industry, we must do more than just make it the supplier of choice. We must go to the young colliery manager, the young pit deputy and the trained young worker and ask them what they see as their future. They are getting good coal out of pits that have considerable reserves, yet they fear for their job security. They have no conception of what British Coal's accountants have in store for them and their pit in even a year's time.
  The opportunity should be taken to draw up a new plan for coal, otherwise the industry will drift, with each Secretary of State having a greater or lesser commitment to it. What does my right hon. Friend think the coal industry will look like in five years' time, yet alone by the end of the century? My right hon. Friend will not be there in five years' time; he will have moved to a different job. However, will his successor be able to look back and say, "This is what we planned five years ago; we have achieved it", or will he be living from day to day?
  We have one of the finest indigenous industries in the country, with a dedicated work force at all levels and a product which is the envy of the world. If we want young mining engineers and coal face apprentices with ambition to come into the industry, they must surely feel that someone, somewhere up there has a commitment to their future. Does the board ever tell them what its vision of the future is, what its enthusiasm and commitment are and the obstacles to achieving those ambitions? Paring the industry down to the lowest sustainable economic unit until someone takes it off the taxpayers' hands is not a plan for coal.
  Mr. Cunliffe: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making a genuine, sincere contribution to the debate. He recognises the human and fundamental elements of the industry which we are debating. I put it to him that the theme of his address supports what I said—we must get out of the market force arena and free-for-all and away from the free marketeers who indulge in cost per unit price production and instead get back to a planned fuel economy, where each industry knows what it is expected to produce under a planned energy policy. Does the hon. Gentlemen agree?
  Mr. Alexander: I cannot take up the hon. Gentleman's comments because I have virtually a few seconds left in which to conclude.

  89
  Perestroika for an industry is not a banner under which young people can come in and work. We must give them more than that—a vision. I should like that to come out of the Bill.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Allen McKay: The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) talked of a vision, but that vision was seen in the mining industry only as a result of nationalisation. Before nationalisation, the industry had no future, no hope and no vision. Only since the industry moved into public ownership has that vision been created. Judging by the Bill, however, I am afraid that that vision will disappear, for a number of reasons.
  I have been proud to work in the coal mining industry for more than 30 years, both as an electrical engineer and as an industrial relations officer. I have been proud and privileged to watch it come from nothing to one of the finest highly technical industries in the world. I have been proud and privileged to work among and with the people who have brought the industry through that era. The British coal miner stands second to no one anywhere in the world in terms of his workmanship and adaptability to anything that comes before him. That is why the British miner has always been prized outside the industry, when anyone has been able to get hold of him.
  The miners worked for the industry because they worked for the vision of which the hon. Member for Newark spoke—a blue flag flying over the winding gear, proving that the British coal industry belonged to the British people. That is what it has all been about.
  The Bill marks the end of that vision, and the beginning of the end of an era. The next election, which the Conservatives will not win, will decide how the coal industry proceeds. The Bill is an enabling and paving measure for the privatisation of the coal industry. Conservative Members say that they cannot understand why the Opposition intend to vote against it, but that is the answer in a nutshell—we want a nationalised coal industry.
  Although many of my colleagues and I approve of the £4·5 billion or £5 billion write-off, we must recognise what it will mean. We should not hide from the fact that this is a subsidising Bill for the electricity industry. In a way, it is a crafty Bill. The Minister will say, "Although we are aiming for the privatisation of the British coal industry we shall not bring that about until we win the next election." The Government have had two bites of the cherry. They have provided the means of achieving privatisation should they win the next election, but in their current term of office they have provided the means for subsidising the electricity industry. By the write-off of £4·5 billion or £5 billion, British Coal will be able to compete with any coal industry in the world—not for its own benefit, but to provide cheap energy for the electricity industry.
  There is nothing untoward about that. It has happened in the past. The coal industry has always been used as a milch cow for private industry. In the era when coal could have been sold on the open market, as it was highly profitable and a bank balance 'had been built up, it was not allowed to be sold. The National Coal Board directors patted us all on the head and said, "You should not ask for a wage increase because it will cause the closure of the pits and raise the price so that we cannot sell coal." The pits have closed anyway, and coal has been sold at a cheap
  90
  price to the electricity industry. That is why the coal industry has always been a milch cow. Through the Bill, the electricity industry will continue to be provided with cheap coal, especially through the nuclear levy.
  The history of the coal industry is not surprising. Over all these years, the industry has carried out research and development through its electrical and mechanical engineers—for example, into the hydraulic systems which the aeroplanes use, coal-burn research, and mine support systems which had not previously been developed. The industry has provided electrical and mechanical engineers for mining industries throughout the world.
  The hon. Member for Newark talked about electricians and mechanical engineers for the future. There has never been any other apprenticeship scheme like that provided by the NCB for its workers. Anyone who worked for the board could join its mechanical and electrical schemes. It put the workers through its technical schools and sent them on to the universities to get degrees. The NCB provided this country not only its fuel and with expertise in many subjects, but with its wherewithal. That is where the expense came in.
  I should like to talk about concessionary fuel and cash in lieu. Historically, the coal belongs to the miners. I used to get 13 tonnes of concessionary coal per year. It was part and parcel of our wage agreement. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not have seen a Yorkshire grate. One used not a shovel but two buckets, and the ash from Yorkshire grates has provided miles of pathways through allotments. That concessionary coal was included in the negotiations as part of the wages. We gave it up, tonne by tonne, to provide a pool of coal for the widows and retired mineworkers.
  Who will pay for redundancy once the industry is privatised? I asked the Secretary of State about that earlier. As the Minister knows, redundancy has been paid in two ways—a lump sum payment and a weekly payment until the age of 65. Each time the age of redundancy has dropped, the ceiling on the money has dropped as well. Under the Bill, people in the mining industry under the age of 45 or 46 will be made redundant. Will the redundancy payment scheme be such as to provide the same benefits as people receive now? Will there be a lump sum payment based on age, wages and the number of years worked for British Coal, and then a weekly income until people find work or reach the age of 65? It is important that we should know.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned small mines and licensing, but they did not mention that licensing was a bond. British Coal gave out licences, which were also bonds because so many private mines left areas of dereliction when the operators had finished getting out the coal. British Coal had to put matters right and it provided the expertise. If there is any alteration in the licensing system, we must ensure that the bond remains so as to ensure that the environmental problems created by private mines are dealt with.
  Clause 4 raises the permitted number of workers under licensing from 30 to 150. Can the Minister tell me now whether the management structure under the health and safety rules will be the same as now? Will there be a manager, an under-manager and an over-manager? Will there be mechanical and electrical engineers? At present, they are not found in the small mines and most of the small mines, which run at the periphery of the large mines, have

  91
  used British Coal's technical engineers for their work. It was supposed to be a free service for small mines, although it was in fact a charge on British Coal.
  All those developments will be halted by the Bill. A lifetime of progress—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Neil Hamilton.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), who is one of the most respected hon. Members. I share with him an emotional bond with the coal industry because my family has been involved in it for many generations. Both my grandfathers were coal miners, my father spent more than 30 years in the industry, and I was myself briefly an employee of the National Coal Board at Hobart house. I am happy to say that I have now mended my ways.
  I greatly welcome the Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his work in bringing it before the House. I mean no disrespect to his precedessors in saying that he has been the most forward-looking and effective Minister for coal since I have been a Member of Parliament, and I pay tribute to his work. I especially welcome clause 4. I was sorry to hear that the Labour party rejects clause 4. It is a proposal to which it is not accustomed, but I hope that it will grow on the Labour party with some experience and that the Labour party will extend its new attitude into other areas of policy as well.
  Clause 4 proposes a liberalisation of the opencast regime, which I welcome. The Government have belatedly accepted the recommendations of many who have gone before. In 1983, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that the limit on opencast sites that were operated by licensed operators should be increased to 100,000 tonnes, and in 1986 it reiterated that in a report on the South of Scotland electricity board. In 1986–87, the Select Committee on Energy recommended that the statutory limit should be removed altogether. I am glad that the Government have gone part of the way in raising the limit to 250,000 tonnes.
  Under section 1 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, British Coal has a duty of
  "making supplies of coal available, of such qualities and sizes, in such quantities and such prices, as may seem to them best calculated to further the public interest in all respects".
  The Bill is one of the means by which that primary duty of British Coal can be fulfilled.
  There is, of course, a conflict of interest for British Coal because it is the licensing body. It is extraordinary that the primary producer in the industry is responsible for licensing its competition. That does not seem fair, and the results have been nothing other than we might have expected. British Coal has the power not only to license competition, but to saddle it with royalties. The average royalty now paid by licensed opencast operators is a tonne and the figure was as high as £16 until recently. In effect, at various times, the royalty has been greater than the profit that the opencast executive has made on its own opencast operation. If the opencast executive had had to pay a royalty to the Crown on its production, it would not
  92
  have turned in any profit in many years. Yet it is only the notional profits that the opencast executive has produced that have made British Coal's recent results acceptable.
  Private producers have been very much the creatures of British Coal. They have not had the freedoms that they could have expected to find elsewhere in the private sector, but have been wholly controlled by the nationalised monopolist. They are controlled not only on the supply side, but on the demand side. The Central Electricity Generating Board has been the almost monopolistic purchaser of the coal that we produce and there has been an agreement between British Coal and the CEGB that has greatly affected the private sector.
  In the 1986 supply agreement, it was announced that 50 million tonnes of coal would be taken from British Coal at nearly £47 a tonne, 10 million tonnes at £34 a tonne, and 12 million tonnes at £30 a tonne. The average price of that coal was just over £42 a tonne, but the price that has recently been forced on the private sector is not the average price, but the marginal price of the third tranche of the coal—£30 a tonne—out of which it is paying to British Coal £11 in royalties. The private sector has to make its profit and cover its costs out of a fraction of the revenue that British Coal derives from its own operations.
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Declare your interest.
  Mr. Hamilton: The private sector does pay its interest, unlike British Coal. It does not have the taxpayers' cheque book behind it to cancel debts. It not only pays interest, but contributes to the revenue of the Treasury by paying tax on the profits that it makes. That is a major difference between those two sections of the industry.
  The private sector has been operating under severe difficulties. It is an astonishing achievement that it has made small-scale production profitable in spite of the arbitrary output limits and royalty levels that have been set above the average profit of the coal that is produced by British Coal.
  What on earth is the logic of restrictions? I agree entirely with the Select Committee on Energy in its 1986–87 report that there is no logical basis for a tonnage restriction on opencast production. Competition is good for British Coal—or it would be if it was exposed to it —just as it is for everybody else. I should like the mineral rights of the coal to be vested in the Crown. Let British Coal pay royalties on the coal it extracts in the same way as the private sector and let it compete for the right to exploit the coal.
  It was a Conservative Government in 1938 who nationalised royalties and gave them to the Coal Commission. As a result of the 1946 Act, the bounty that was supposed to be provided for the taxpayer has been channelled into the coffers of British Coal, not to the taxpayer. It has been a disguised form of subsidy all along, which has helped to mask the real disaster of British Coal's finances.
  The changes are most welcome. In any case, they only keep up with technical developments in opencast mining over the past 30 years or so. In 1958, a mechanically driven dump truck of maximum size was about 20 tonnes, whereas today it is 10 times that—200 tonnes. All the machines are much more productive. Equipment is now available to licensees which in 1958 was not available even to the National Coal Board. Equipment improvements

  93
  now permit extraction down to a level of 100ft, whereas the maximum 30 years ago was 10ft to 20ft. In 1958 a site with 25,000 tonnes of coal would take two to three years to complete, whereas today the process would take less than six months. The two to three-year period would now be long enough to permit the extraction of 250,000 tonnes of coal. In increasing the amount from 25,000 tonnes to 250,000 tonnes, the Government are only taking account of those technical developments.
  The hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone said that bonds were required because British Coal had to clear up the mess following the involvement of the private sector. I have yet to discover a company that has given a bond that has had to be called upon to fulfil the obligation to which it has exposed itself. No business that wants to stay in business and make profits over a long period could afford to behave in the way that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone hypothesised.
  The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) talked about the safety record of the private sector. The mines and quarries inspectorate imposes a very tough regime —rightly so—upon all mining and extractive operations, and the private sector is subject to that regime in the same way as British Coal. It has no reason to fear investigations into its safety record. It is arguable that the safety record of the private sector will be enhanced and improved by the changes because it will now be in a position to have large enough operations to take advantage of larger and more expensive equipment and to spread the cost of investment in it over a larger area. That should lead to an improvement in conditions in the industry as well as to cheaper coal.
  The overall benefits of liberalisation are many. This is not an anti-coal Bill but a pro-coal Bill, as a result of which the lot of the mining communities will be much improved.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. George J. Buckley: We have had a far-reaching debate. The Secretary of State opened by referring to the praiseworthy results achieved by the British mining industry in the past three or four years. He commended the 70 per cent. increase in productivity that miners have achieved. He also outlined the continuing closure programme that has taken place over the past four years and said that 90 mines had been closed as a consequence of the rundown of the industry. As a result of the Government's policy, manpower has been reduced by 130,000.
  The tragedy of the Government's policy is that it has had a devastating effect on mining communities. The Secretary of State congratulated British Coal Enterprise Ltd. on the regeneration of jobs. I can tell him that he is under an illusion. A considerable number of jobs have been lost in my area but British Coal Enterprise Ltd. has provided little of the available alternative employment. Ackton colliery was sold to a private developer on the basis that it was not the job of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. to promote and generate employment. I thought that that was the whole purpose of British Coal Enterprise. Surely its role was precisely to inject money and regenerate employment. I have to inform the Secretary of State that little alternative employment has been provided in Hemsworth, 75 per cent. of whose male population has traditionally depended on coal mining for employment.
  94
  The Minister said that clause I was intended to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to wipe away British Coal's debts, which he estimated were £4·5 to £5 billion. Many hon. Members have referred to the Government's generosity in writing off British Coal debts. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Sir T. Skeet) claimed that the Government had repeatedly written off the industry's debt. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) gave us the answer to that argument. In the 1950s—the era in which the Government are supposed to have written off millions of pounds' worth of National Coal Board debts —the board was prevented from taking advantage of the very market forces by which the Government set so much store. In the 1950s, coal was fetching a price on the international market well above the price paid to the NCB by the generating industry. In effect, British Coal and the British miner were subsidising the Central Electricity Generating Boad. Had the NCB been able to command the world price for solid fuel it would not have needed to borrow from the Government or obtain Government grants; it could have reinvested the capital that it had accumulated. The Government would then not have needed to write off the accumulated debt.
  The Minister referred to the rundown in manpower, and Opposition Members envisaged a further rundown as a result of the Bill. A leaked Cabinet document suggests that 30,000 jobs will suffer as a result of the Government's present policy. That would reduce the number of jobs in the mining industry from 90,000 cited by the Secretary of State to 60,000. I suggest that the main reason why the industry is beginning to be economic is that the number of miners' jobs has been reduced.
  The burden on the British coal industry has been an accumulation of capital debt incurred in the restructuring of the mining industry over a number of years which has made it a highly productive industry comparable to any deep-mining industry in the world. That debt has been paid for mainly by the reduction in manpower in the industry, yet the Government have the audacity to suggest that the Bill provides the opportunity to write off £5 billion of debt. [HON. MEMBERS: "It does."] I accept that. The most honourable contribution from the Conservative Benches was that made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock), who said that the Bill is the prelude to the privatisation of the coal industry. That is why £5 billion will be wiped off, as it will fatten up the industry for privatisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has described the other debts carried by British Coal, as a result of subsidies, contracts and price reductions, which amount to £800 million. British Coal and the miners have subsidised the generating industry. The subsidisation of the electricity industry is paramount to the Government because they must sell the electricity industry on the stock exchange and at a price that the stock exchange is prepared to accept. We take careful note that the stock exchange and investors are interested in electricity generation from solid fuel only and it is that solid fuel which will subsidise the future generation of electricity.
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North asked what was wrong with importing Colombian coal if it is cheaper than that produced by British Coal. If the hon. Gentleman believes in competition, why did he advocate in the

  95
  Committee considering the Electricity Bill that the nuclear industry, which is not efficient, should be kept in the public domain? He believes that the management of private enterprise is more efficient, so why was he afraid to put the nuclear industry into the private sector?
  In comparison with the mining industry, nuclear power is not competitive and that is why he was anxious to keep it in the public domain, subsidised by the taxpayer. The leaked papers from the Cabinet suggest that the Secretary of State withdrew the nuclear industry from the electricity sale because private investors would not take on the liability of that industry. The generation of electricity from nuclear power is twice as expensive per unit as the electricity produced from coal.
  The Secretary of State made great play of the contract made between British Coal and the generating powers. British Coal will provide 70 million tonnes of coal in the first two years and 65 million tonnes in the third year. Why was that contract struck? The answer is simple. The importation of large tonnages of foreign coal through the ports that were the subject of a Bill that we opposed cannot begin for three years. That is why the CEGB has bargained with British Coal. It is unable to import the necessary coal to make up for the shortfall that would result from forcing down still further the supplies that it receives from British Coal. The CEGB has a monopoly on demand and therefore can blackmail British Coal, as it has done recently in terms of the prices negotiated.
  My hon. Friends have already stated why we will oppose the Bill. Clause 4 is a recipe for disaster and a danger to our miners. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) wants to make a contribution. I represent a mining constituency and every hon. Member representing such a constituency must make a contribution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has already said that clause 4 is dangerous as it will allow private companies to extend opencast and other mines. The Bill will allow the expansion of private mines, so the danger of injuries in those mines will increase. Parallel to that, however, is the fact that the regulations governing mine safety are to be reviewed, much to the consternation of people who work in the industry. Regulations are being liberalised as a consequence of improving profitability in the industry. I foresee that the number of people injured and the number of fatalities in the industry will escalate as a consequence of changing the regulations. Every hon. Member who represents a mining constituency must take that into account before going into the Lobby tonight.
  The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) has constantly badgered us about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. The Nottinghamshire miners and other hon. Members representing Nottinghamshire should know that he supports opencast mining. Such mining usually takes place in areas where deep mines have been closed and, as a consequence, many jobs lost.
  Opencast mining is no substitute for the large reduction in employment in mining communities, and local authorities will show greater and greater resistance to it —as they do now, even to the small scale currently permitted by legislation. There will be greater resistance as a result of expanding opencast mining to 250,000 tonnes.
  96
  Local authorities will demand public inquiries about why opencast mining on such a scale should be permitted, and those inquiries will be the order of the day in mining communities.
  Hon. Members should deeply consider the factors inherent in the Bill, and I hope that Opposition Members will oppose it when we divide.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Brown: The Bill is one—
  Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With the exception of 45 minutes, I have attended this debate since it started. Is it not an abuse of the procedures of the House that an hon. Member should be called who has scarcely been in the Chamber at all? [Interruption.] It is monstrous that many of my hon. Friends who have attended the whole of the debate have not been called.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I hope that before the winding-up speeches begin I shall be able to call another hon. Member who is seeking to catch my eye.
  Mr. Brown: When I listened to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) earlier—I cannot recall whether the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) heard that speech—
  Mr. Eadie: I made an intervention in it.
  Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman was listening to the hon. Member for Gordon as intently as I was, he will recall that the hon. Member for Gordon had some worries regarding clause 4. Those concerns have been expressed elsewhere in the House today. I remind not only the hon. Member for Gordon, but Opposition Members generally and even my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), whose speech I had the privilege of hearing from beginning to end, that clause 4 benefits the British coal industry. It is no coincidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, the hon. Member for Midlothian, who raised the interesting point of order, and the hon. Member for Gordon have been opposing a private Bill with which I am associated.
  Clause 4 enables the British coal industry—both the private and the nationalised sectors—to compete against foreign coal. All hon. Members who have a view about the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill must take into account what they are doing when they face the House and speak as eloquently as they have in opposition to that Bill and then express their opposition for clause 4 of the Bill before us. In doing that, they are saying that they want to keep cheap, foreign imports of coal out of this country. Yet when legislation is presented to the House enabling the United Kingdom's coal industry to compete on fair and equal terms, they are anxious to reject the clause.
  It is fantastic that the hon. Member for Gordon should say as glibly as he did that we must recognise that Australia, Canada and South Africa have massive supplies of opencast coal, but that we in this country have environmental considerations and thus could not possibly allow ourselves to do the same as they do. He said that by rejecting the clause he was prepared to expose this

  97
  country's coal industry to more unfair foreign competition than anything that the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill could do.
  I can tell Opposition Members and those of my hon. Friends who have opposed the private Bill with which I have had some association that if they want effectively to scupper the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill the best way to do it is to support this Bill and especially clause 4. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) could scupper it even more effectively than that.
  I was amazed when I heard that the Opposition opposed the injection of £5 billion of taxpayers' money as proposed in the Bill. The Opposition will rue the day they opposed the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill, this Bill and, in particular, clause 4.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Frank Haynes: I understand why the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) made such a speech. He is only a young lad and he has not lived yet. I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), and I should like to respond to his comments. He is a farmer's boy who knows nothing about coal mining. I spent 35 years underground before I came here. I went into the pit in 1944 and came out in 1979 to come to this marvellous place. I had three years under private enterprise before the industry was nationalised and I know what the privatised mining industry was like. The hon. Member for Sherwood should not scowl like that.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Haynes: I am putting an honest point of view and I did not butt in when the hon. Gentleman was speaking. He does not understand what he is talking about.
  I have a friend in the other place who was 94 in September. He was victimised for 11 years by the private coal owners. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows all about that. His family also know about it because they suffered under private ownership of the mining industry all those years ago. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman keeps bawling, but I listened to him and I want him to listen to me.
  I can tell the Minister that we shall have a whale of a time in Committee and that he and the Whip will have a rough time. The Government Whip cannot speak, but the Opposition Whip can—and by God I shall make good use of that when I get upstairs. There was a recent pit closure in my area but there was no argument about it because the trade unions agreed. British Coal wants to sell the land for housing development.
  Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: People want houses and they will get them.
  Mr. Haynes: The hon. Gentleman has just walked in. The people had a public meeting because they wanted industry. There is nothing there for a population of 4,500. Where are the youngsters to go? Youngsters who want to go into the mining industry are turned away from apprenticeships and training. The Secretary of State for Employment talks about the kind of training that exists in the nation, but that is a load of rubbish. We want a proper system of training. We had that in the mining industry until the Conservative Government got in in 1979 and ruined everything. The Bill will ruin things even more.
  98
  We had 13 pits in my constituency, but we are now down to three. The leaked document says that two more are to close, which will leave only one. Where is everyone to go? Industry is not coming into my constituency, but opencast mining is rolling in thick and fast. My constituents have had a bellyful of that and they do not want any more. It is all right for the hon. Member for Sherwood—the farmer's boy—to talk about opencast mining being the saviour of the industry but I can tell him that it is not the answer to the problem. He should listen to some of his colleagues who have already said that they are against it.
  Mr. Michael Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Haynes: No, I am not giving way—sit down.
  While I was working underground at the coal face the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) was pushing a pen in Hobart house—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes is bawling and shouting and not listening to what is being said. When I was underground, we used to talk about the pen pushers in Hobart house not giving an ounce towards the production in the mining industry. The hon. Member for Tatton made a contribution about opencast coal, but he did not declare an interest as an adviser to the body involved with opencast mining. He declared his interest in the Register of Members' Interest but not in his speech. He is two-faced as well—[Interruption.] I have taken worse from the hon. Member for Sherwood, but I do not bawl and shout about it. He is a stupid beggar.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am shocked. I so enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes)—
  Mr. Skinner: When did you come in?
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: About 26 minutes ago.
  Are we allowed to call hon. Members two-faced without saying which face we are talking to? It is outrageous and appalling to talk like that.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I would rather not hear such expressions in the House, but I have no authority to ask the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) to withdraw them.
  Mr. Haynes: I suggest that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) should walk down the Corridor, buy himself an aeroplane ticket and fly off to where he usually goes. I have been here all the time.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If the House would settle down, we could all hear one another.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I have never been so saddened as to have to rise again. I thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what you said was holy writ. I thought that you asked the hon. Member for Ashfield to withdraw "two-faced". If he does not do so, where do we all end up?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If the House had been a little quieter, hon. Members might have heard what I said. I said

  99
  that I would rather not hear such comments in the House but that I had no authority to ask the hon. Member for Ashfield to withdraw them.
  Mr. Haynes: If the hon. Member for Selly Oak would listen to what is being said from the Chair and keep his mouth shut, we might hear what is going on. I have lost my time. The hon. Gentleman wanted to squeeze me out of the debate by raising stupid points of order. He is a stupid man with a stupid point of order. He should buy a plane ticket and fly away—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that Second Reading debates are wide, but this one is becoming elastic.
  Mr. Haynes: I will sit down and give the Floor to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron).
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) in debates on energy. I am not sure that I should give advice to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), but perhaps next time he will do the House the courtesy of reading the Bill that the Whips tell him to speak to because the Government are running out of speakers. I suggest that he takes it home tonight, reads its four clauses, and gains a knowledge of its contents in case, if the Bill is passed, he is involved later.
  Mr. Michael Brown: I accept the hon. Gentleman's injunction. I ask him to read the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill.
  Mr. Barron: I have read it several times. Unfortunately, it is unamended, but I hope to look at an amended copy one day.
  I enjoyed the contribution of the Secretary of State for Energy. It was interesting that most of the Government Back Benchers who spoke in the debate said how much they welcomed the Bill as a way forward to privatisation of coal. I have here an official press release from the Secretary of State for Energy on the day that the Bill was published, in which he says:
  "However, this is not privatisation by the back door."
  We can safely assume that it is privatisation by the front door.
  The Secretary of State found himself in a situation that is never very nice for a coal miner—alone down a mine when the lamp goes out. He tried to defend the independent review body procedure and the way it looks into pit closures and said that each pit goes through a "detailed procedure before closure". I shall give him a brief lesson on what happened at a colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett), Barnburgh colliery, which is now closed.
  In November of last year, British Coal introduced a new scheme for redundancy payments, with a nine months lifetime. One had to leave the industry on or before 26 August this year. In February this year, the mine manager at the colliery sent a letter to the work force saying that the colliery had to close. In March this year, the work force, in a ballot that was far more independent and private than the ballot to be held in Committee Room 12 tomorrow afternoon will be, and that had more independent scrutineers, decided against the closure of the colliery and
  100
  in favour of an appeal to the independent review body. On 8 May, an area memorandum sent to the colliery was suspiciously leaked to the workers. It said that if they did not accept redundancy by 3 June they would forgo any payments under the redundancy scheme. Consequently, in another ballot shortly afterwards, it was decided to close the colliery.
  The National Union of Mineworkers complained about what had happened to the independent review body, set up many years ago to take decisions about whether a colliery has to close, and consisting of three eminent Queen's counsel. Its decision on that complaint has not yet been published, but I have it here. In the preamble it says:
  "(c) It follows from this that we take the view that the apparent change in dates affecting the eligibility to enhanced redundancy did interfere with the IRB procedure. If this were to occur again it would undermine our function as an Independent Review Body and thus put the whole review procedure in jeopardy.
  (d) Should a similar situation occur again we can see no reason why British Coal should not suspend the operation of the scheme during the period between the IRB reference and decision for the colliery concerned."
  At this stage there has been no debate in the industry about the report. British Coal has not gone to any meetings convened about the report. In June, British Coal refused to give evidence to a meeting of all parties concerned that led to the report.
  I have a letter signed by Mr. Kevin Hunt, employee relations director for British Coal, dated 26 October 1989, about a letter from one of the QCs involved in the independent review body. Mr. Hunt's letter says:
  "As you may know, British Coal are now entering the most intensive phase of negotiations for coal contracts following privatisation of the electricity supply industry. The outcome of these negotiations will have profound implications for the future shape of the industry; and in these circumstances it seems to us sensible that any discussions about the future of the IRB should wait until this matter has been resolved."
  If it is true that the matter has now been resolved, and that there is a bigger future for the British coal industry than people thought, I ask the Secretary of State for Energy to contact British Coal and to ask if it is going to introduce another redundancy scheme for the industry. Will the Government support the proposal that any scheme introduced now will run to the end of the financial year 1992–93, which is mentioned in clause 2, so that we do not have the blackmail to close pits that we have had for a number of years in Britain?
  Mr. Hardy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that episode. Would he suggest to the Minister that it would be appropriate for him to advise British Coal that letters of the sort Mr. Hunt sent to the independent tribunal are improper and should never be repeated?
  Mr. Barron: That goes without saying, and I hope that the matter will be investigated by the Minister with direct responsibility for British Coal, which is a wholly public company, and that we ensure that it does not happen again with any future colliery closures.
  I do not often say this about Conservative Members, but the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) made a good speech about the future of British Coal and how its employees see the outlook at the moment. In an intervention in the speech of the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) asked about the likely effects of an increase in electricity

  101
  generation using gas. The Secretary of State said that he was sorry that he could not predict the future. That is exactly what we have been saying for many months—we cannot predict the future.
  I thought that the Secretary of State was telling us that the British coal industry had a rosy future when he was talking about the coal contracts signed today. However, one cannot predict the future when short-term market reactions take the decisions in the coal industry and as a consequence, a lot of damage is done.
  Mr. Neil Hamilton: I am most impressed by the hon. Gentleman's scathing indictment of nationalisation. Does he not regard it as ironical that he is complaining about what is happening in a monopoly controlled industry? Does he not see the opportunities that privatisation opens up for the people who work in the industry? They may claim that a pit has a commercial future, but at the moment there is no means of countering British Coal's view because no one else can take over a pit. With privatisation, that would be a possibility, and that is the ultimate test.
  Mr. Barron: I shall comment on that later in my speech.
  Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have said that there is nothing in the Bill to put right the wrong caused by coal mining subsidence damage throughout Britain, and we have offered our full co-operation on that. All those involved with the issue say that they want the Government to take action and to introduce comprehensive legislation to ease the predicament that is faced by many thousands of people.
  It is typical that the major contents of the Bill are confined to enhancing privatisation prospects or profits of private mines rather than solving subsidence problems throughout the British coalfields. Those people whose homes are in a state of disrepair and who are struggling to cope with the results of coal-mining subsidence have a right to feel badly let down by the Tory Government. There is nothing in the Bill to get over that problem, although it would have commended support from both sides of the House. This is yet another example, if we needed one, of the Government putting the interests of profit for private investors before people's lives and livelihoods.
  Much has been said about clause I and the allowances in it for the coal industry's debt. We have often debated the historic debt that British Coal carries. It would be carried by no other industry. We are not opposed to any write-off of debt. I must correct Conservative Members in that respect. They say that we refuse to write of £5 billion of debt. Clause I says that it may be written off. We shall give the Government an opportunity in Committee to replace "may" with "shall" to see whether they are as enthusiastic about it as they seem to be today.
  The Secretary of State said that the increase in the ceiling of money to be allowed for redundancies and restructuring of the industry was a broad-brush figure. I have heard it called many things, but that belies his earlier statement about there being no danger to the industry and there not being the redundancies that we have talked about. The British Coal press release belies it too when it speaks of a £1·5 billion ceiling for redundancies and restructuring during the next three years.
  It seems that there will be further pit closures, and more than the Government are prepared to admit. My hon.
  102
  Friend the Member for Barnsley, East spoke of the high youth unemployment in his constituency. I think that he said that it is 29 per cent. That figure is repeated in other mining constituencies because of the lack of recruitment, which many hon. Members have highlighted. It is no use talking of restructuring and redundancies and people being left with plenty of money in their pockets when they leave voluntarily or otherwise because the damage is being done by lack of recruitment in the industry. The industry is losing its ability to teach skills, as those who can teach are being lost.
  Dr. Kim Howells: Perhaps I can reinforce my hon. Friend's argument by quoting a British Coal letter which has gone out to all concessionary coal recipients. It says:
  "We have to acknowledge that there is a shortage of Welsh Housecoal".
  That is because we do not have enough Welsh miners or Welsh mines. It continues:
  "For example, concessionairs will find English coal easier to light and it will be more 'free burning' than its Welsh counterpart. Some English coals have a slight tendency to 'cake' in the firebed and this requires gentle poking, once is usually sufficient, to enable the coal to burn right through.
  One particularly important feature is that, because English Housecoal produces more smoke than Welsh, it is recommended that more cleaning of chimneys is undertaken to keep the flues clean."
  That is a disgraceful state of affairs. We have to burn this awful English coal because we do not have enough Welsh miners or enough Welsh pits.
  Mr. Barron: I do not know whether to thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I do not think that any coal mined in the Rother valley in any way resembles that description. We heard earlier about the lack of anthracite coal being mined in south Wales.
  I now come to what the Opposition most strongly oppose. Clause 4 reveals the Government's values in terms of the British coal industry. It is primarily designed to increase the private sector's stake in coal. I am curious to know how the clause came to be in the Bill. At the Tory party conference in 1988, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) gave his historic pledge to privatise coal after the next election. At the next Department of Energy questions on 7 November, the hon. Member for Erewash (Mr. Rost) asked him if there would be some liberalisation of the private sector by amending the nationalisation Act. The Secretary of State said that he knew that several people were promoting that idea but that he would prefer to tackle the problem as a whole in the next Parliament.
  When the Bill was about to be published, a press release was issued by the chairman of British Coal saying that it was "surprised" at the announcement about clause 4. Like the right hon. Member for Hertsmere, British Coal assumed that the changes had been overtaken by a decision to privatise British Coal. However, that was not the case. The chairman of British Coal also said that the clause would cause operational problems for the coal industry and that British Coal proposed to discuss with the Department of Energy the implications of the proposals. I ask the Under-Secretary why the Government did not discuss the implications and effect of clause 4. Was it because he knew that he would be opposed by British Coal

  103
  before the Bill was published, as he was opposed by the previous Secretary of State on liberalisation of the private sector?
  Private pits have a deplorable safety record. In 1987–88 there were about three deaths and 27 major injuries in private pits with a work force of about 4,000. In the same year, there were nine deaths and 718 major injuries in British Coal with a work force of about 89,000. In 1988–89 there were two deaths and 25 major injuries in private pits, while the 80,000 work force of British Coal suffered 18 deaths and 684 major injuries. Private pits have a terrible record when compared with public sector pits.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) mentioned a television programme on Yorkshire Television called "Dangerous Lives". It was shown in August this year. It made a comparison between public sector mining in the United Kingdom and private mining in the United States of America. More enlightening was the section on the private licensed sector, which will be expanded if the clause becomes law.
  In the television programme, the chairman of the Federation of Small Mines was asked to comment on accident figures in the United States, which were more than three times the figures for British pits. He said:
  "I don't think the figures show it has a bad safety record."
  He went on to say that the sector compares well with the National Coal Board when it operated in the same manner —that is, in a non-mechanised form. It is precisely the move away from non-mechanised mining that has greatly reduced the rate of accidents in the public sector. We cannot have a sector of British coal mining that has a safety record that claims comparison with mining methods used when three to four miners are killed each day.
  In defence of the Secretary of State, may I say that he said that lifting the limit would make modern methods available. I do not think that he has yet talked to the private sector about clause 4. I should like to read to the Secretary of State an extract from an article in the South Wales Argus of 4 December this year. It contains a quotation from Crispian Hotson, the chief executive of Ryan International, one of the bigger private companies in this country and a worldwide concern. On the Government's limit he said:
  "The government has indicated that it is considering raising the limit to 150 but that would still not have been enough to enable us to operate the pit."
  The pit in question was Marine colliery, which had been kept in mothballs by British Coal because it was trying to put together a package to save it. The idea that raising the limit from 30 to 150 will change deep mining methods in private mines is nonsense. Everyone knows what will happen. It cannot be done.
  The same television programme reported on a death at Wrytree colliery when a steel cable snapped. The mines inspector said that it was not an accident as the cable had not been properly lubricated, was badly corroded and should have been found by routine maintenance. The owners were prosecuted under the Mines and Quarries Acts and fined £3,000. Many more similar accidents have occurred in the private sector, with prosecutions and owners fined small sums.
  How many more deaths and major injuries must there be before the private sector learns its lesson? How many more inspectors will there be to control the sector? There
  104
  are 160 private mines, but the number who work in them is unknown. What is the Department's estimate of the expansion of private-sector and opencast coal mining? Where will the coal go when it comes on to the market from the expanded private sector? My hon. Friends and I think it is likely that the Government will close more public mines than they have closed already.
  The Government are always consistent when it comes to the British coal industry. They are always looking for a way of turning it back to the good old days when profit came before the people who worked in the industry, and safety was balanced against the need to cut costs. The Labour party has consistently fought for public ownership of this national resource and for the safety, health and welfare of its work force. We shall carry on doing so and try to stop the privatisation of the British coal mining industry.
  9.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): Tonight, the Opposition have gone over the top of the slag heap, to borrow the colourful imagery of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). On the day when we introduce a measure to spend yet another £6 billion to £7 billion on the coal industry, on top of the £10 billion that we have already spent—the cost is still running at £2 million every working day—the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has the brass neck to talk about us neglecting the coal industry. The mind boggles at what we would have spent had we been looking after the industry.
  The sad truth is that the Labour party is beginning to turn our coal debates into a ritual war dance around the totem pole. Perhaps one day we should all strip off our clothes and paint our faces. Then the television cameras would have something on which to focus.
  Since the hon. Gentleman was promoted to his present office we have learnt that if the Labour party were ever returned to office and he were Secretary of State for Energy, the coal industry would be not just neglected but abolished. In his first few weeks he has come up with a brand new idea for energy policy to which he referred again tonight—that electricity generators will run on a merit order based on environmental costs. Presumably, the greatest polluter will be at the bottom of the pile.
  In those circumstances, we would not need a nuclear levy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) implied. Nuclear energy would be the only source of power that we would be allowed to have. Coal would disappear from sight, overtaken by nuclear energy, gas and oil, even allowing for the clean coal technology to which the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is so committed. Indeed, we, too, are committed to it. We have just spent a further £8 million of taxpayers' money on it. At least we can agree on one point: we are in favour of the coal industry and the Opposition are against it for environmental reasons.
  The hon. Members for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) and for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood, for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Dr. Woodcock) asked why the question of subsidence has not been addressed in the Bill. I am tempted to give the answer which my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) has just whispered in my ear

  105
  —because this is a subsidy not a subsidence Bill. That sums up the position, but I suspect that the House will want me to say more about the subject than that.
  Mr. Ashby: Can my hon. Friend say when we shall have a Bill that reflects the Waddilove report? Such a measure is long overdue.
  Mr. Spicer: We intend to legislate on the basis of the White Paper as soon as possible. It is for others to decide when the Bill will he introduced. I can tell the House—
  Mr. Meale rose—
  Mr. Spicer: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's question first. It deserves an answer.
  When legislation is introduced, it will be quite complex. We do not think that it is suitable to tag on to this financial measure—it is designed to support British Coal, and we hope that it will pass through all its stages by early spring because it is necessary to provide moneys to British Coal —a complex measure to deal with subsidence. A considerable amount of work is under way, and it will have to be completed before legislation on subsidence can be introduced. We are reviewing the dispute procedures, which will form a crucial and complex part of any subsequent legislation. We are reviewing also British Coal's early notification procedures. We are considering the results of certain trials and undertaking various analyses. Our aim is to get subsequent legislation right.
  I can tell the House that half the Waddilove recommendations have been implemented. In 1983–84, there were 52,000 unsettled claims, and now there are 31,000. British Coal has made provision of £260 million in its accounts and is spending about £50 million a year on subsidence. That shows that the matter is being treated seriously.
  Mr. Meale: The Minister said during a debate in June that half the recommendations were being implemented. It is the other half that we are bothered about. Fourteen hon. Members from both sides of the House have raised the matter. We have had Adjournment debates, other debates and early-day motions, and dozens of written and oral questions have been asked. I have introduced three Bills on the subject, all of which have been objected to in the Chamber. That has happened on 26 occasions. When will the other half of the recommendations be implemented? That is what we are waiting for.
  Mr. Spicer: I have said that we shall introduce legislation that will be based on the White Paper. We have produced a White Paper and the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported, never dreamt of producing such a document in their day. That must be put on the record. We are committed to introducing legislation on subsidence, but we are not prepared to tag it on to the Bill, which we require to be enacted rapidly.
  I shall move on. I have been allowed only 20 minutes to respond to the many issues which have been raised during the debate. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who made an interesting speech: it is strange that the Labour party should be voting against a Bill that will provide for further financial assistance for the coal industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) described Labour Members as a whingeing Opposition. I think that he spoke of opposition for opposition's sake. It seems that
  106
  they like some parts of the Bill, and it is surprising that they did not table a reasoned amendment. Instead, they will vote against the Bill lock, stock and barrel. That is an extraordinary step for an Opposition who are apparently committed to preserving and developing the coal industry.
  The justification for the Bill is simple. It has nothing to do with the phantom of fattening up for privatisation that is favoured by the Opposition. The Bill has been introduced because British Coal's finances have reached a point where, unless something is done about them, its ability to meet its financial obligations might increasingly be called into doubt. In particular, its debt-to-asset ratio now places a question mark over its ability to service this debt. That is one reason why, since August 1988, British Coal has been financed entirely through voted sums, rather than through borrowing from the national loans fund.
  Yes, we wish to privatise British Coal after the next general election; yes, we believe that that will involve the licensing issues raised directly by the hon. Member for Gordon and others; yes, British Coal must make a proper return on its capital. Far from fattening up the industry, however, clause I will merely prevent it from dying on its feet from consumption and emaciation. More particularly, it provides for deficiency grants to be paid to British Coal, with the effect of allowing it to trade while remaining solvent.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Speak up.
  Mr. Spicer: Hon. Members are making it important for me to do so, as I have a good deal of interesting stuff to get on the record.
  During the debate, understandably, hon. Members have asked whether the deficiency grant payments are commitments will be open-ended—understandably, because this so-called uncaring, coal-neglecting Government: have already put £10 billion of my money and yours into the industry—[Interruption.] I imagine that you pay your taxes as I do, Mr. Speaker: indeed, I am convinced of it.
  That money is invested at a rate of £2 million for every working day, so it is only natural that some of my hon. Friends should raise a sceptical eyebrow or two when the Government ask the House to allow them to spend another £5 billion or so. I can assure them that clause 1, which deals with deficiency grants, will cover only the accumulated losses and deficiencies incurred at 31 March 1990. They will comprise three broad categories.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Spicer: I have an awful lot to get through and I have been given only 20 minutes, but I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) very quickly, because there is always some fun when I do so.
  Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Most of us understand that the House and the country have considerable respect for the miners, whether they be from Wales or from Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the £10 billion that we suggest should be invested in the mining industry is composed of two parts? We believe that mining has a future in this country, and we want as few people as possible to have to go down the mines. We also want those who do go down them to be well remunerated, and we want privatisation—if it happens—to make them better off rather than worse off. Is that not a fair guarantee to give the mining industry?
  Mr. Spicer: Yes, it is.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Spicer: I am beginning to run out of time. I will give way if I have an opportunity to do so, but I think that hon. Members will enjoy the next part of my speech.
  Clause 4 has clearly been of considerable interest to Labour Members. It has received a good deal of hostility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), in a brilliant speech, claimed was an unusual reaction from them. It is only fair that I read out a letter received by our office and headed "Office of the Leader of the Opposition". The letter is dated 26 June and has not, I think, met the public gaze before. It reads as follows:
  "Dear Secretary of State,
  You will be aware that discussions and assessments have taken place involving British Coal and private concerns such as Ryan International Ltd. about the feasibility of private companies working collieries or parts of collieries that have been closed. The present regulations would of course prevent the establishment of any private colliery that employed more than 30 workers."
  So far, so good.
  "Could you please tell me"—
  the Leader of the Opposition says—

  "(a) are you contemplating any changes in the law that would have the effect of altering the present arrangements;

  (b) how you view the prospect of part-collieries being worked?;

  (c) whether you take the view that even within the terms of the existing laws it would be possible for different operations in different parts of closed collieries to be regarded as different private mines?

  Yours sincerely"—
  squiggle, squiggle—
  "pp Neil Kinnock, MP."
  The House must form its own judgment about the contents of the letter, but it is at least open to argument that what lay behind the questions that the Leader of the Opposition put to my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Energy was his concern that jobs might be lost because the private sector would be unable to work mines that British Coal did not wish to maintain.
  If that is what the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting, he seems first to be out of step with his new Front Bench energy team and secondly to be correct. We certainly know of small specialist mines which under the terms of the Bill will be able to be opened and will sell their products in competition not so much with British Coal as with imports.
  One example is a proposal to open a mine at Pentreclwyde in south Wales. It would employ over 100 people in an area of high unemployment and would produce tens of thousands of tonnes of anthracite that would otherwise be imported. That is precisely the point that was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in his excellent speech. Even the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said that British Coal has not done much about anthracite.
  The point has, quite rightly, been made time and again that British Coal has a licensing role. After the next general election, we shall certainly take away British Coal's licensing role, but so long as it has it, I hope that it will bear the ability to displace imports in mind when granting licences and setting royalties for the private sector. I hope that that answers the question asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Tatton.
  Mr. Skinner: The Minister has referred to the Leader of the Opposition's letter. Will he shed light on recent meetings between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers, together with or without the last Secretary of State for Energy? Were these meetings held with a view to providing finance for the UDM? If so, what form did that sweetener take? Has that money been paid to the UDM? If he cannot answer those questions now, I hope that he will answer them in Committee.
  Mr. Spicer: I can answer precisely the hon. Gentleman's question. The Union of Democratic Mineworkers, unlike the National Union of Mineworkers with which the hon. Gentleman is closely connected, is interested in pits being developed and worked for the benefit of its members and the country. The future of British pits was discussed by the Prime Minister and the UDM.
  If Parliament agrees to this measure, it will be up to those who manage and those who work in the coal industry to make full use of the assets which have been placed in their hands. In stark contrast to the tone of many of the speeches we have heard tonight from Opposition Members, we believe in the future of the British coal industry. This Bill is the plainest possible manifestation of that commitment.
  What we are doing today is putting British Coal on its feet, lean and hungry for business—not fattening it up. Once it has been placed on a proper financial footing, it will be able and required to trade without taxpayers' support. This will apply whether it is in the public or the private sector. That is the answer to Labour Members when they talk about fattening up the industry for privatisation.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 184.

  Division No. 7]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Allason, Rupert

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

  Alton, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Cran, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

  109

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gow, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mellor, David

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hayward, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heddle, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Norris, Steve

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  110

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Squire, Robin

  Wallace, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Doran, Frank

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek

  Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blair, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Buckley, George J.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, D N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Crowther, Stan

  Janner, Greville

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Darling, Alistair

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  111

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  McAllion, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McFall, John

  Radice, Giles

  McGrady, Eddie

  Randall, Stuart

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McLeish, Henry

  Reid, Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Richardson, Jo

  McWilliam, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Madden, Max

  Robertson, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Gavin

  Murphy, Paul

  Straw, Jack

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  112

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Coal Industry Bill

    COAL INDUSTRY BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorize—
    (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required to enable the Secretary of State to make grants to the British Coal Corporation of amounts not exceeding in aggregate—

    (a) the amount identified in the consolidated accounts for the financial year of the Corporation ending in March 1990 directed to be prepared under section 8(1) of the Coal Industry Act 1971 as the accumulated group deficit at the end of that financial year regarding any such grants, or

    (b) in the case of grants made in advance of the preparation of those accounts, the amount that the Secretary of State is satisfied will be so identified in those accounts; and

    (2) any increase in the sums so payable resulting from—

    (a) increasing to £1,250 million, with power to increase by order to £1,500 million, the limit imposed on the aggregate amount of grants made under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1987, and

    (b) enabling such grants to be made in respect of costs falling to be charged to accounts in respect of financial years ending March 1992 but not later than March 1993.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
On this occasion, the House is being asked to approve a Supplementary Estimate to cover additional funds for two particular votes—the Department of Economic Development vote 2 and the Department of Health and Social Services vote 4. The Department of Economic Development's vote 2 includes expenditure on local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, while the Department of Health and Social Services vote covers expenditure on those social security benefits which are not dependent on national insurance contributions—contributory benefits are not covered by this order. The draft order is seeking in total an additional £95·7 million over those two votes. The Estimates booklet giving full details of the additional expenditure is, as usual, available from the Vote Office.
The Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Economic Development, on which an increase of £61·3 million to the 1989–90 provision is sought, taking the total expenditure on the vote in question to some £434 million, covers expenditure on local enterprise initiatives, assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, grants to small and medium-sized firms, capital grants, industrially related research and development and the development of tourism. However, only two of those areas —local enterprise and assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries—require extra funds.
The most significant increase is the £58 million required to meet further costs associated with Short Brothers plc up to 3 October 1989. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who was responsible for this matter at the time, introduced the draft Appropriation (No 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 on 20 July 1989. He referred then to the requirement for the Government to fund the losses incurred by Shorts from 1 April 1989 until the completion of the sale to Bombardier on 3 October. The Department of Economic Development has also retained the financial liabilities and obligations associated with aircraft sold in the past by Shorts, and funding is also required to cover those costs within this financial year. Those costs could not be determined in time for the July draft order, and consequently provision is being taken now, following the completion of the sale.
Hon. Members will also be aware that the privatisation of the shipbuilding business of Harland and Wolff was completed in September. Under the arrangements for the sale, the new company, Harland and Wolff Holdings plc, will receive from Government repayable loan stock, rationalisation grants and intervention aid on new merchant orders. The old company, Harland and Wolff plc, will no longer trade but will continue to be responsible for certain pre-sale commitments, including redundancies and ship-financing arrangements.
There is, in consequence, a reduction of £45·9 million in the amount of funding required for Harland and Wolff plc, the old company, but extra funding of £79·9 million is needed for the new company, Harland and Wolff Holdings plc. In addition, an increase of £741,000 is needed to cover
114
costs incurred by the Department of Economic Development on the privatisation. The Estimate now before the House accordingly provides for an increase of £34 million, to just under £94 million, for assistance to shipbuilding during 1989–90. This will be offset by appropriations in aid of £28·5 million, representing the payment for the assets and business by Harland and Wolff Holdings and the repayment of grants by the old company.
It may be necessary to draw advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund before this order is approved in the Privy Council. If so, these advances would be repaid to the Contingencies Fund under this Supplementary Estimate, in the usual way.
I hope that the House will acknowledge that the successful privatisation of Shorts and Harland and Wolff was a notable achievement. We fully recognise the importance of those two companies to the economy of Northern Ireland, and we are convinced that their return to the private sector affords them the best opportunity of commercial success. The capital restructuring required, and the packages of assistance offered to the new owners, involve a cost to Government, but we were determined that the two companies should be returned to the private sector adequately financed to promote their future success. I believe that the Government's financial contribution in each case is adequate and appropriate to meet our objectives, and that Harland and Wolff and Shorts will flourish in the private sector.
The other area for which additional funding is required under this head is the Local Enterprise Development Unit, LEDU, Northern Ireland's small business agency. An increase of £365,000, partly offset by savings of £265,000 from economies elsewhere in LEDU's budget, is required to enable it to continue its work of encouraging the development of small businesses in Northern Ireland. The additional funding is mainly required to enhance LEDU's involvement in the special initiatives for Belfast and Londonderry.
Finally, in this vote there is a reduced requirement of £3 million on capital grants. This results from a continuing decline in the number of firms seeking assistance under the capital investment grants for industrial development scheme. As some hon. Members will be aware, the scheme has been abolished but applications for grants for expenditure up to 3 March 1988—when it stopped—can continue to be made up to 31 March 1990. The scheme was always quite separate from industrial development boards and LEDU's selective industrial grants which are the main instrument of industrial support in the Province, and will continue.
The other vote involved in the order is for the Department of Health and Social Services, where an increase of £34·4 million is sought for the social security programme. Hon. Members will appreciate that expenditure under these heads is very largely demand-led, and that it is fairly routine for the estimates to be adjusted during the year.
The largest element of the increase sought—£33·1 million—is for income support, due mainly to average payments to claimants being higher than originally provided for. Similarly, higher average payments account for the increases of £1·4 million for housing benefit—mostly for rent rebates. Additional provision of £3·6 million for attendance allowances and £1·7 million for child benefit is sought because of increases in the numbers of claimants.

115
Two new subheads have been included in the vote. The provision of £200,000 sought at section F in the vote will enable the Department to extend transitional compensation to hostels for loss of revenue resulting from the changes in the rules governing income support payments to claimants in such accommodation. In section G, the other new subhead, provision is sought for £10,000 for residual payments to claimants in line with adjustments to the retail price index.
The additional requirements that I have outlined are partly offset by estimating adjustments of £5—9 million elsewhere in the vote, and £5—6 million of this relates to family credit, where the uptake is lower than originally anticipated despite a strong and ongoing publicity campaign to encourage applications. The remaining £300,000 is due to a revised estimate of requirements for rates rebates reflecting lower than anticipated take-up.
I have been brief in outlining the order so that hon. Members will have time to contribute to the debate. I shall do my best to respond to any points raised by hon. Members. I commend the order to the House.
10.25 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I note that there are substantially more hon. Members here for the debate than is the custom on such occasions. I notice a cluster of hon. Members behind the Minister and I am tempted to believe that that may be because of factors other than the order that is before us. If I am proved wrong, I hope that Conservative Members will maintain their interest in Irish affairs throughout the remainder of the Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is here because he always likes to hear what I say to ensure that it is in line with his views and those of the parliamentary Labour party.
The Minister has taken us clearly through the details of the order and we are all delighted that he has managed to do it so concisely. I hope to follow his example. He rightly told us that the order is in two parts. Vote 2 continues the Government's commitment to the privatisation of Harland and Wolff and Shorts. Vote 4 deals with various changes in social security.
The order is quite narrow but fortunately for the House the two votes which have been chosen allow a brief discussion on economic trends in the Province and on the consequences of the Government's recent social security changes.
Hon. Members will notice that such debates are becoming somewhat ritualistic. The Minister stands up and expeditiously takes us through the details of the order and usually, though not on this occasion, pats himself and the Government on the head for increasing public expenditure and achieving an economic miracle in the Province. I am sure that that was not a deliberate omission by the Minister and that it will be rectified when he winds up the debate. The ritual then continues and I congratulate the Minister, but everything is not as it would seem from the Minister's remarks. It is always my duty on such occasions to introduce a note of realism and caution, and it will come as no surprise to the House that that is my role today.
Repeatedly we hear from the Northern Ireland Office that the Province's economy has been transformed and
116
that Northern Ireland faces a viable future led by the flagship of privatisation. That view is wildly optimistic and flies in the face of all the available evidence. I should like to cite three examples of the danger facing the economy in the Province. The Minister will be aware that the Economic Council recently published its report for the year to 31 August 1989. It said:
"Despite significant improvements in the Northern Ireland economy over the past year, these are primarily a reflection of unusually rapid growth in the United Kingdom economy as a whole and do not suggest a fundamental change in the performance of the local economy."
It concludes by saying:
"It will be difficult for the Province's economy to build upon the gains made over the past year."
The second example comes from a recent survey of the construction industry for the third quarter of 1989—that is, July to September. It was carried out by the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors. If anything, it was even more pessimistic. Its report shows clearly that output and activity are falling and that the number of firms reporting less work has increased by 21 per cent. to 44 per cent. In other words, nearly 50 per cent. of construction companies in the Province are reporting less work than they had earlier in the year. It also shows that the number of firms expecting to operate at less than 50 per cent. capacity has increased by 6 per cent. to 16 per cent. of the total number of building firms in the Province.
The third example is a study of manufacturing performance which is reported in volume 23·5 of the 1989 regional studies document. It shows that the low average productivity level in Northern Ireland is persisting and shows little sign of increasing. It is still hovering around 80 per cent. of that in Britain.
Those three example show beyond a shadow of doubt that, despite the Government's claims to the contrary, there has been no economic miracle in the Province. If we are to maintain the slight improvement that has been achieved in the past five years, there is still a need for indicative planning in the north of Ireland and for continued public expenditure on economics as well as on social matters.
The Minister mentioned both Harland and Wolff and Shorts. I am a little concerned about Harland and Wolff. I know that the Minister has the excuse of saying that he is not responsible for the future of the company now that it has been privatised. We warned against that situation prior to privatisation. Nevertheless, I hope that he will attempt to answer the questions that I put to him.
The Minister will know as well as anyone that currently there is only one ship in the yard and that all steel work on that ship has been completed. The three ships ordered by Fred Olsen have still not come on line. I am informed that the steel for those ships is not readily available. I am not aware of all the reasons for that. I understand that there is some problem with the ordering of it. If those three ships do not come on line quickly, there is a strong possibility that up to 500 steel workers could be laid off by the end of this year. If there is a problem, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what it is and the likelihood of resolving it before the end of 1989.
Although the Minister is new to the Northern Ireland Office, he will be aware that under the old management there were regular meetings between the management board and the work force and its representatives. I should have hoped that that would continue after privatisation. However, my understanding is that Harland and Wolff has

117
now restructured itself into five operating units, and the holding company is insisting that discussions and negotiations should be with the five operating units and not with the holding company board. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is not the best situation for developing good relationships between the new company and the work force and its representatives. I hope that if the Minister continues to have influence with Harland and Wolff he will urge the management and the new holding company to have direct discussions about all the issues which will affect the new company and thus its work force and its future. I hope that the Minister will provide answers to those two specific questions.
My party condemns the two bomb outrages at Shorts some days ago. Despite the differences that we have had with the Government about the privatisation of Shorts, in no circumstances are we prepared to accept bomb attacks on Shorts, which will further undermine the weak economic base in the north of Ireland. All parties are united in their determination to ensure that, despite terrorist attacks and atrocities, prosperity will come to the north of Ireland and all communities—the majority and the minority—will be free from threats of terrorism, from whatever quarter, and will be able to achieve full economic wellbeing. Beyond any shadow of doubt, we condemn those attacks on Shorts.
I say that also because Shorts represents a toehold for the Province in the high technology industries which will provide the wealth of the future. It would be to the lasting shame of each and every one of us if that toehold were lost as a result of terrorist activity. It is ironic that the Provisional IRA should pick on Shorts. The new owner of Shorts, Bombardier, is as firmly committed to fair employment opportunities in the Province as are all of us who supported the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. I am sure that Bombardier, and through it Shorts, will actively implement the provisions of that legislation.
The Minister will think that 1 am being churlish and uncharitable about the increases that he has announced in social security payments. If he thinks that, so be it, but my role is to point out the financial hardship that many people in the Province are facing. If the Minister reads back copies of Hansard in the relatively small amount of spare time that he may get, he will see that in previous debates on appropriation orders I have repeatedly warned that the Government's changes in the social security system would increase financial hardship and indebtedness in the Province. It gives me no pleasure to say, "I told you so", but that situation has come about.
The Minister is probably aware of a recent survey conducted by the Andersonstown citizens advice bureau which shows that indebtedness per person in west Belfast is approximately £1,814 compared with a national figure of £350. That is a colossal amount of debt per individual. To my mind, and I think to all fair-minded people, it is a sign of the financial hardship that many people in the Province experience. They are unable to make ends meet with social security payments, and they are unable to get money from the social fund, so they are driven to increased indebtedness, many of them into the shadier side of loans. I urge Ministers to press their colleagues to change the system, not back to what it was before, but to something that offers universal benefits and assistance to people in need.
118
The Minister will also be aware that electricity disconnections have increased by almost 30 per cent. in and around Belfast. That also shows the extent of financial hardship in the Province. The order will do little or nothing significant to improve economic or social conditions for the least well off in the Province. For that reason, if for no other, it is to be regretted.
10.41 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is right that we should voice our concern about the economy and the social services of Northern Ireland. My first remark must be that, once again, we protest at the way in which Northern Ireland business comes before the House. We protest that, at this hour, we have to deal with matters that are relevant to the basic needs of the whole community of Northern Ireland. How different it would be if we were discussing legislation or administration matters for any other part of the United Kingdom.
It is only right that, as we come once again to appropriations, we, as representatives from Northern Ireland, voice our indignation that the rulers of the House have not given us long since what is ours by right—the right to deal with legislation like any other part of the United Kingdom.
Seeing your unease, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not pursue that topic further, but I thank you for your condescension in giving me the liberty to make my protest I trust that Ministers will take heed of what I have said, and that right hon. and hon. Members on the other side of the Chamber will support me.
I think that I discerned a tinge of jealousy when the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) rose to speak because nobody was behind him, but I noticed that, after the first part of the Minister's speech, his companions fled because there was no more image of them to be seen in the debate. I am not fond of images, so that will not affect the type of speech that I shall make.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South was right to call attention to our deep anxiety about the Northern Ireland economy. We are not convinced that the coming days will witness any significant change in the economy. I do not want to be pessimistic. I want to be optimistic because Northern Ireland representatives have the most to lose. It is our business to see that Northern Ireland prospers, that the economy is in good shape and that the prospects will help all sections of our community. It does not help us in the least to draw attention to worries, but it is our duty and we must do it as ably as we can.
The Minister mentioned the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Far be it from me to cast aspersions on what it is enabled to do. Most Northern Ireland Members would say that on the whole it has done a reasonably good job. I trust that it will be able to continue to do so. But some of us are concerned about its present policies. I was naive enough to think that LEDU was involved in supporting all small industries that could give employment and seemed to be viable; indeed, that it was to help those that have been giving employment and need further aid to extend their business. According to LEDU, that is no longer the proposition.
When we assist applicants to make their case we are told that LEDU is not tied to such guidelines and that certain small businesses cannot obtain grants under any circumstances. I am thinking of local newspapers. I do not

119
understand why a newspaper that is putting out the news in a community and providing employment cannot be supported. It is beyond my comprehension. I know of a newspaper in Banbridge in County Down that in the past days has had to pay off about 16 employees. It is amazing and alarming that LEDU says that it cannot support that newspaper. I cannot understand why community newspapers that are circulated freely in particular areas and paid for by advertisements cannot be assisted. I trust that the Minister will shed some light on this matter and tell us what LEDU's guidelines are and what we are voting money for. Is it for certain businesses only or for all sections of the community that are endeavouring to provide employment?
I trust that when I leave the House tonight I shall understand what the Minister understands the money for LEDU is for. I do not want to go into the details of further cases because I intend to meet the directors of LEDU once again to put these cases. I think that it needs to be highlighted in the debate.
I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to deal with Shorts and Harland and Wolff, which are in his constituency. I shall leave it to him also to deal with the matters which were raised by the hon. Member for Leicester, South from the Opposition Front Bench.
There is a great need for respite facilities for the families of the profoundly handicapped. I am sure that their position will strike a note of sympathy and support with all hon. Members. It is a great affliction when one member of a family, or two members, are profoundly handicapped. As a minister of a congregation for over 40 years, I have some pastoral experience of the effect of that on a family. One sees manifested immediately the care, the love and the compassion of both parents and the other members of the family for the disabled person. In many instances, the entire family revolves round the one person, or two persons, who needs, or need, careful care and attention.
That brings a strain on family life. It brings a strain for father and mother and for mother and the other members of the family, but these parents do not want to be rid of their handicapped children. To suggest otherwise is a slander on their compassion. They want to be able to care for and have the child for as long as possible, but they need respite facilities.
I know that the Minister will tell us that there is fostering, that fostering is good and that there are those who are dedicated to it. We all remember the terrible calamity when the British Midlands Airways plane crashed. One of the victims was a foster parent of profoundly handicapped children. Her loss was one of the greatest losses experienced. Parents were able to call upon that lady at a time of tension, and she was always willing to give them the benefit of the care that their children needed. The parents said that her death was a calamity for her own family and a calamity for the entire community in which she lived.
I do not want the Minister to say that fostering should not be spoken against because I am not doing that. However, a foster parent cannot always be called in a moment of intense need and pressure, because that person has commitments like everyone else. Sometimes there is a
120
crucial moment when help must be given, and if it is not available the result can be the breakdown of the family. There can be a colossal effect on the entire family.
I accept that helpers can be sent into the home. It is not always the best help, but it provides some relief for the parents. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that on the western side of the Bann, the Stradreagh part of the Gransha hospital, in Londonderry, is used to give respite to parents by caring for profoundly handicapped children. The Minister will know of the very successful pilot scheme that operated last summer at Harberton house in Londonderry. A unit was set up in which four children could be placed under supervision for a week or a fortnight, allowing complete respite to their hard-pressed parents—especially the mothers. It was, however, only a pilot scheme. Such units are needed throughout Ulster, across all the various board areas: I am not speaking only for the area east of the Bann. That would enable us to launch a three-pronged attack on the problem, adding the units' work to the help provided through fostering and assistance in the home.
The advantage of such a unit is that its existence is evident to parents, who, whatever the circumstances, can arrange for their children to be taken in at times of crisis, thus removing pressure from themselves.
I am told that it would cost £90,000 a year to set up a unit serving approximately 30 to 40 children. That is not much in terms of the Government's budget. I understand that the Government's policy is that the old and infirm should not be isolated, but should be related to the community so that the community can make every effort to help them. I am asking for the same kind of community care to be provided for those profoundly handicapped children.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that it is in his power to designate allowances granted to the various boards. I ask him now to designate certain sums for such care, and for respite for parents. I want boards to be told that they cannot use the money for any other purpose. I make that plea on behalf of children who cannot speak.
A dear mother who came to my church had two handicapped children, one aged five, the other three. One took a virus and died; five days later, the other took the same virus and died as well. I had always known what was in a mother's heart for such children, but now I saw that mother place on the shrine of her little boy a note that read, "I know you could never see me or understand, but I did love you." She went to the grave with a little parcel, saying, "This was his Christmas gift: bury it with him."
That illustrates how mothers feel about their handicapped children. I may be termed emotional, but I do not mind; this is an emotional subject. If the Minister were to designate sums as I have asked, I believe that he would bring honour on himself and the Government. People would know that he was a man of feeling, and that he felt for those who really need help.
I am worried about the proposed cuts in the home help services. They should be extended rather than diminished. Northern Ireland has a large number of elderly people who need help.
I am concerned about the privatisation of the health and social services. I fear that it will lead to a grave reduction in the standard of service.
Pensioners need realistic pensions. They should also be able to travel free of charge on public transport. Free

121
television should be offered to those pensioners who still live in their own homes. If they live in sheltered accommodation where there is a warden, they pay practically nothing for their television. Pensioners who still live in their own homes should not therefore have to bear the burden of a large television licence fee.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I appeal for brief speeches in a brief debate.
11 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I join the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in condemning in the strongest possible terms this unacceptable and undemocratic system of bulldozing Northern Ireland matters through the House without meaningful debate or powers of amendment.
My leader, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), succinctly and clearly expressed the views of our party in a debate on the Queen's Speech. He said:
"only minor amending legislation would be required to sweep away the monstrous colonial rule Order in Council procedure which was introduced as a temporary device when Stormont was abolished in 1972. Its perpetuation for 17 long years constitutes a standing reproach to this Mother of Parliaments and arguments for its retention have lost any validity that they ever had. If the Poles and East Germans are entitled to parliamentary democracy, there can be no justification for denying it to the parliamentary representatives of a part of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 21 November 1989; Vol. 162, c. 53.]
I am sure that everyone in Northern Ireland who wishes some degree of democracy to be restored to the Province agrees with those sentiments. Their implementation could be a first step in the slow process of building meaningful relationships between the communities. I hope that the Government will see the sense of redressing that imbalance. Perhaps the next appropriation order will benefit from the application of the same parliamentary structures as apply to the rest of the United Kingdom. We cannot amend the order, but at least we can make our views known, in the hope that action will be taken later.
As for vote 2, needless to say the Northern Ireland community is incensed by the terrorist outrages carried out by the IRA against our aircraft industry. Those barbaric acts are obviously designed specifically to cause suspicion and dissension among the work force. I hope that there will be no lack of Government resolve to take whatever action is necessary, for the benefit of all, to protect one of our largest employers from the murderous attacks of those whose goal is to promote anarchy and disruption through their evil intention to undermine the efforts of those who wish the Province to prosper.
I refer also in the same vote to the excellent efforts by our tourist board to promote the Province. The tourism awards, sponsored by British Airways, are highly commendable and go a long way towards enhancing Northern Ireland's image by making it a more attractive proposition to the outside world. It is important to realise that tourism can flourish only in a settled community. It is gratifying to know that the industry transcends all boundaries and religions, which is generally recognised as the reason for its richly deserved success. In this connection, it is imperative that the world should be aware
122
that the fight against terrorism will be the Government's first priority and that there will be no ambiguity in this commitment.
One of the greatest tourist attractions in the Belfast area, of which the citizens in the north and west of the city are justly proud, is Cave hill, which is a landmark for travellers, whether they enter Belfast via Aldergrove or from the Belfast lough. Cave hill, with its beautiful wooded slopes, is appreciated by nature lovers and conservationists alike. The Belfast zoo is also situated on the hill, and there are plans afoot for a development of a further 700 acres on behalf of the citizens by Belfast city council.
The proposal to grant a prospecting licence for exploration of the hill was, understandably, received with great trepidation and anger and prompted bitter reaction from all strands of political opinion. The public and their representatives were unanimous in their condemnation of such a proposal and, following meetings with the Minister, I understand that they have been assured that, irrespective of the outcome of the test drilling exploration, mining is definitely out of the question. Although I accept the Minister's word that there will be no desecration of this wonderful tourist asset, I am naturally concerned that permission was given to allow test drilling when subsequent mining was not to be considered.
Further to vote 4, I pay sincere tribute to the work of the Northern Ireland hospice, which caters for the terminally ill in the Province—a function which could not possibly be matched by the general health service. Only those who have witnessed the traumas affecting the terminally ill can really appreciate what the dedicated and caring staff in this hospice can do for such unfortunate people in making their lives more bearable in their final days on earth. I am worried that, although promises have been made by the Government that help is on the way, such help has not yet been translated into hard cash. We need a commitment now from the Government that the necessary cash will be made available immediately to put this great caring facility on a sounder financial footing.
I draw a comparison with the Scottish Office, which is giving £1 for every £1 raised, up to 50 per cent. of the running costs of a unit. As far back as 1985 when the matter was raised, the Government stated that they recognised that the hospice movement could not be expected to bear its costs alone. The public have been very supportive—that is a tribute to the efforts to the hospice's director, Mr. Peter Quigley—but it is unrealistic to expect it to raise running costs of nearly £1 million per year. I trust that the Minister will take the necessary action to enable it to continue its great work on behalf of the terminally ill in our community.
I welcome the additional funding for the Housing Executive. The Government should be more involved in determining how these funds should be allocated. I criticise the Government and Ministers for staying aloof from the executive's activities in its commitment to the Province. Many activities under this autocratic umbrella are not being addressed. Scarce resources have been wilfully wasted in many hare-brained schemes which have little bearing on housing requirements. The Government auditor has exposed many of these anomalies, but little seems to have been done to redress the examples of gross mismanagement.
In my area, I am concerned at the lack of progress in the executive's maintenance and improvement schemes. The

123
cut-off dates for grant applications are leading to a serious deterioration of housing stock. Tedburn estate in Ballysillan is a striking case in point where a cowboy builder sold substandard housing to an unsuspecting public who cannot now obtain grants to keep their homes wind and water proof.
I also condemn the lack of progess in the provision of defensible space for the elderly. Those members of the population are receiving grants and housing benefits, and are involved in support schemes, but they are living in terror of the vandals who are systematically defacing and destroying their houses which, incidentally, are run by the Housing Executive. The executive should now look realistically at social needs and the provision of housing in north Belfast. That area has suffered more than most from deprivation over the years. Many of the houses there are more than 100 years old, so a programme of planned renewal is required urgently for the benefit of that community, which has had the tenacity to remain and to subscribe to that neglected part of the Province.
The proposals for the establishment of area committees would bear closer examination when considering the management structure of the Department of Health and Social Services. There is consternation in Northern Ireland that the decision to replace the present district health and social services committees with four new area committees will not accomplish what the Minister intends. The National Health Service review stated that the area committees would represent consumer interests in the services and focus on the quality and standards provided for patients and clients. There is some doubt about the realistic function of the proposed area committees as the new management boards will wholly exclude local government representatives, professional bodies and other interests. In those circumstances, there is a vital need for a strong advisory body to provide consumers and clients with real say and influence. Such a body would have to have meaningful responsibility, and to be truly representative its membership would have to be drawn from the community and from voluntary organisations to ensure a proper mix. Secretarial and adminstrative support would have to be of the highest order and to be associated closely with management functions. Members' expenses would have to be commensurate with the responsibilities of the job.
There have been many responses to the proposals from responsible groups which are intensely interested in the proper administration of the Health Service and I hope that the Minister will give due attention to those submissions. There must be no suggestion that the new committees will have a low priority in terms of consultation and democracy, or the whole exercise will be of little consequence and will lead inevitably to more insecurity and chaos in the Province.
With regard to vote 4, under the new social security order which comes into operation on 9 October applicants must satisfy the Department that they are taking active steps to find a job if they are to qualify for unemployment benefit, income support or national insurance credits. Those steps can include applying for a job, contacting employers and taking part in schemes designed to help people to return to work. The job seekers will need to show what they have done in their search for work. They are
124
expected to keep a record and progress may be reviewed from time to time. They should also keep all letters from prospective employers to prove that they have applied for jobs.
Apart from the general point that such legislation is wholly inappropriate to Northern Ireland, where applications per job vacancy far outnumber the ratio in the rest of the United Kingdom, the legislation also fundamentally contravenes the new fair employment legislation for Northern Ireland. The Fair Employment Commission specifically outlaws contacting employers directly, which is called "speculative application". It prefers employers to recruit personnel by placing advertisements in places which are generally available to both Protestant and Catholic communities, such as central job markets and advertisements in the local newspapers. The Department of Social Security directive to claimants to contact employers directly drives a wedge through the fair employment legislation by encouraging speculative applications.
In practice, the legislation is a charter for pestering employers, who will have to give refusal letters to all the claimants who contact them direct. It will also mean large numbers of unemployed people applying for jobs for which they are unsuitable and, in some cases, for jobs that they do not want, just to obtain an employer's letter of refusal so as to satisfy the Department of Health and Social Services. In some instances, claimants have already stretched the resources of the Department of Health and Social Services by applying for jobs in the Department itself. Replying to such applications takes up staff time and makes the work of the Department—administering benefits—much more difficult.
I am concerned that top management at the Fair Employment Commission has not complained about the new legislation, which encourages speculative applications. By that omission, the managers are inviting the accusation that their own lucrative jobs were obtained by that method of application. I ask the Minister to examine those allegations carefully. It would be extemely difficult for some people to conform to the instructions, which would be detrimental to their right to benefit. It is also wrong, in my opinion, to expect such draconian measures to be implemented by the unemployed, especially given that jobs are so scarce.
11.15 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: It is pathetic that so few hon. Members are present for this important appropriation debate and deplorable that we have so little time.
The time available to me is extremely limited, and I must therefore dispense with all that I wished to say about employment and industry in Northern Ireland, except to comment briefly. There is no doubt that the economy of Northern Ireland is fragile, that the image that Northern Ireland presents abroad and the campaign of terror waged by the IRA deter people from investing in the Province and that we need investment. It is the policy of the IRA to bomb the employed—Protestant and Catholic—on to the dole heap. That is a policy that we all condemn, and in that respect I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) who opened the debate for the Opposition.
I repeat to my hon. Friend the Minister that it would help the cause of reconciliation in the Province if a

125
delegation made up of Nationalist and Unionist politicians went abroad—particularly to the United States of America—to seek investment, although I am not too sure whether all hon. Members would get on with members of another party. I believe in the cause of reconciliation and that Ulster Members ought to he heavily involved in the task of bringing people together and bringing money and jobs to the Province.
As time is limited, I propose to confine my remarks to the vote for the Department of Health and Social Services. Last week during our debate on the Queen's speech, I paid tribute to the devoted service provided for our senior citizens by home helps in my constituency of North Down. Those elderly people have given a lifetime of service to the community. I was disappointed to learn, therefore, that the Eastern health and social services board had refused permission for a deputation of home helps to speak at its monthly meeting a week ago. I am perplexed that the board should deny such a dedicated body of workers an opportunity to comment, from their own direct experience, on the home help service in their area. I urge the board to change its mind; perhaps the Minister will induce it to do so. The home helps wish to show that cuts in the service are having a detrimental effect on elderly people in my area. I endorse that view.
I have lodged a protest with the board relating to the new restrictions imposed on the service. I have also protested to the Minister responsible for the Department of Health who sits in the other place. The bureaucracy emphasises that there are no cuts, but that is not so. I had a letter from the board which stated clearly that the board is in the process of reviewing the existing provision of home help services to reduce the hours available to the elderly and, in some cases, to stop that service. The reason is lack of finance. The letter also said that the board would not be able to offer home help services to most new applicants. That is an extraordinary and disgraceful state of affairs.
My constituency has a higher percentage of retired people than elsewhere in the Province and that number is increasing as more people retire to live in my constituency because it is so delightful, as I am sure the Minister knows.
I shall illustrate the scale of the problem by quoting one example— one of many—of a lady called Elizabeth who is 84 years old. She has been in hospital for heart treatment and suffers from arthritis of the spine. She must wear a surgical corset, is unable to stoop and also suffers from diabetes. Because of her medical condition she desperately needed home help to clean her home and to change the bed clothes during the week. She had made arrangements with her home help to do that cleaning, but that came to the notice of the Eastern health and social services board which said that the home help could not clean her dwelling. Even though she is unable to stoop, the board concluded that the cleaning was desirable, but not essential. The help provided to that lady has been restricted to one hour a week for laundry alone. That example shows the callous face of the social services, which should be there to help the elderly to enable them to live out their remaining years in dignity and comfort. I made that point in the debate on the Queen's Speech.
Yesterday I attended the annual christingle service at the Clifton special care school for the handicapped. I attend that service every year and yesterday, as usual, the church was packed with relatives and with mentally handicapped people. The young people at that school
126
performed much of the music for the Christmas service of carols and lessons. That service speaks volumes for the dedication of the principal and the staff of the school and also makes one aware of the tremendous demands on the parents. For them there is no respite and, for some, looking after their mentally handicapped offspring is a 24-hour vigil.
I urge the Government to recognise the service performed by parents. Although it is a labour of love, none the less it causes sheer physical and mental exhaustion. There is an overwhelming need for more places in North Down where the sons or daughters could stay for one or two weeks to give some respite for their hard-pressed parents.
I know of a case in which the parents were told that their daughter was too much for the specialised staff of one unit, and were asked to take their daughter home after she had been there just one night. Surely this should not have happened. I appeal to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, to intervene in this case. I know that it does not fall within his Department, but I hope that he will ensure that my words are carried in the right direction.
Reference is made in the appropriation order to cold weather payments. Pensioners are already suffering from the cold and we are only at the beginning of December. There is a need to consider their sorrowful condition. Many reduce the heating in their homes because they cannot afford to pay large electricity bills. We can best judge our society—as I am sure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would agree—by how we look after the vulnerable groups in our community, of which the elderly are one. Heating is essential to them.
Some elderly qualify for the heating cold weather payments when the weather is extreme. But should they have to wait until then? Many are on the border line and do not benefit at all. Therefore, I urgently appeal to the Government to ensure that more elderly people receive payment to enable them to heat their homes in the winter.
11.26 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in protesting against the methodology of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. I renew the offer to him, and the other Northern Ireland Members who have spoken, to sit round a table and discuss new ways and means of providing new institutions that would enable us not only to debate legislation, but to frame it in such a way that it is tailor made to the needs and the people of Northern Ireland.
We have a limited debate tonight on votes 2 and 3. Time, of necessity, makes me brief. The Minister said that the substance of vote 2 was substantial moneys for Harland and Wolff and Shorts Brothers and enterprise in the towns of Belfast and Derry by way of additional funding. That is welcome and will be of great benefit to those for whom it is intended, but it will not give a great: deal of impetus or heart to those in the rural communities of Northern Ireland who will not substantially benefit from the announcements that the Minister has just made.
The industrial development boards and their sub-. agencies, the local enterprise development units, should concentrate more of their research and development on the base industries which make up Northern Ireland: the produce of the land and sea. Agriculture and fishing are not producing the jobs or values for their labours by way

127
of enhancement of value before exportation, which they could. They are renewable natural resources of nature, fertility and the sweat of the brow for both the farmer and the fisherman.
I draw particular attention to the plight of the fishing industry in the harbour of Ardglass, which seems to have been left behind in the provision of docking facilities for the three main fishing harbours in Northern Ireland: Ardglass and Kilkeel in my constituency and Portavogie in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). A small amount of money is required to make the harbour of Ardglass safe. It has been promised for many years, but has yet to be put into effect or to give safe anchorage to the enormously increased number of boats anchoring there. Over the years, the number has increased from three to 21.
Enhancement of value and diversification are methods of stabilising the rural populations and giving them a better standard of living. I was disappointed at the poor way in which the Department of Economic Development handled the funding from the international fund for Ireland and its budget for diversification.
The other matter that must be dealt with is that of packages that are often talked about for rural development in various guises. I do not have time to go into that now, but it seems that we are chasing around in circles about providing a basic infrastructure of rural development for farmers, the tourist industry and the crafts industry which will sustain the rural population of Northern Ireland and prevent the drift to the cities which creates housing, transport and environmental problems in the greater cities.
I urge the Minister or people in his Department to take a look at the structure, ideas and hopes of a small community group in my constituency, the See Connell community committee. That is the embryonic method by which a vital renewal of the rural population can take place and provide sustainable incomes to keep people in the place where they are most happy—their home towns.
Vote 4 contains many issues demanding attention, such as the paltry pension increases to the over— 75s, the continuing insult to pensioners of the £10 Christmas bonus, and the poor allowances for people in need of care and to people caring for those in need. They are the subject of legislation and I should like to speak about matters that have to do not with legislation but with its administration. There is a crisis in community loans and on how the scheme is being administered in Northern Ireland. From my constituency work and some brief research, there seem to be differing approaches to people who are entitled to crisis loans. Such people are suffering enough from deprivation and need and should not he put off by administrative bureaucracy over the application of the loans.
There is definitely a dichotomy in the attitudes of the DHSS offices in Belfast and those in the rural areas. That is certainly the case in relation to my constituency. There is leniency in Belfast and harshness towards those who apply in rural areas. I ask the Minister to ask his colleagues who cannot answer in the House to have an urgent review of attitudes before Christmas.
My final comment on vote 4 is about family credit. In opening the debate, the Under-Secretary of State
128
expressed a concern about the low uptake. The reason for that is simple. It is that the forms are grossly bureaucratic. They are far too complex and the only people who can render them with some ease and get family credit are people on a straight wage or salary. Our community is built upon small farmers and workers in the building industry, almost all of whom are sub-contractors and therefore self-employed.
Farmers and self-employed building workers are in the low-income sector and have to provide accounts or statements of earnings. The bureaucracy that that incurs and the questions that the Department asks have to be seen to be believed. People are being turned away by the dozen or put off by the gross and insensitive bureaucracy. That means that small farmers, sub-contractors and small self-employed people are not benefiting from the rights to which they are entitled under the family credit legislation. I again ask the Minister to review that in the next few weeks if at all possible.
There was a bottleneck on or about 8 October when allegedly new regulations were introduced by the Department of Health and Social Services. I and no one else to my knowledge has been able to obtain a copy or even find out the content of those new regulations. I do not think that they exist but are a bureaucratic reason for stalling on the payment of family credit to people who richly deserve it.
Now that the fibre optics links are in place, in the so-called start programme, with the nodes of that system in many towns and villages, the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland should take a positive initiative and locate rural areas which would be suitable for low level, sensitive office development so that jobs could be imported from Europe and America, as has happened successfully in some places, so providing more employment.
A well trained, intelligent work force, updated in technological matters, is waiting for jobs to be provided. The Minister should urge the task force, which he has set up, to take a more practical approach. In that way we could greatly reduce the number of unemployed, particularly among our young people.
I hope that the Minister will give urgent attention to the points I have raised, and in particular before Christmas that he will examine the issues of family credit and crisis loans.
11.36 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I join the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) in protesting at the despicable way in which hon. Members who represent Northern Irish constituencies are obliged to deal with extremely important matters. I shall leave the matter there because if I protested at greater length I should not have time to comment on the issues under discussion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the way to deal with these matters is not simply to debate them in a Committee of this House, as is our right, but to have them dealt with properly in an Ulster forum, powers having been devolved to Norhern Ireland giving us our own institutions. I hope that that will happen before long.
I wish to raise two points. The first concerns vote 4 and the Department of Health and Social Services. A few days ago a constituent told me that having attempted to fix a neighbour's car he had been informed by the Department

129
that because he was doing a task for which a reasonable employer could be expected to give him remuneration he would be taken off benefit and he might even be taken to court. He said that, although he was not receiving any finance for doing that job, that was not the Department's criterion.
I was surprised to hear that a certain individual in Northern Ireland who is an elected Member of this House —although he has never come here—is to be forced to go on a training scheme if he wishes to continue to receive benefit in Northern Ireland. I was shocked to learn that that individual—the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—is in receipt of state benefit. If the criteria being applied to my constituent were applied to that hon. Gentleman, he would receive no such benefit. After all, he is telling the people of Northern Ireland that he is doing a job, being a Member of this House. By doing that, and by doing the constituency work of an hon. Member, according to the Department's criterion he would not be able to receive state benefit.
May we be assured that there will not be two laws applying in Northern Ireland—one for the hon. Member for Belfast, West and one for my constituent? After all, the electorate offered that hon. Gentleman the job of representing them, and his position and salary are waiting for him here. Because he does not want to take the oath to Her Majesty he will not darken the door of this Chamber, though perhaps that is to our advantage.
My second point concerns Shorts' premises on Alanbrooke road in east Belfast. The Minister must be holding his breath, knowing what I am about to say. I refer to a decision over which the Minister has abused his powers in an atrocious manner. He has given Shorts authority under the emergency powers to close Alanbrooke road. Anyone else wishing to take such a step would have to apply to the Department, advertisements would be placed in local newspapers, the providers of all local services would be asked if they had any objections and all concerned, including local residents, would have their say and be able to raise objections. The Minister has bypassed that whole procedure on what he claims are security grounds. I understand that the Royal Ulster Constabulary headquarters has not objected, but there are objections at a local level. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the fire services will be affected because they are close by and an entire industrial estate will be jeopardised. Will the Minister tell my constituents who have premises on that industrial estate what recompense they will receive? They took 20-year leases on the basis of having access to their premises, which the Minister has flagrantly closed off. Will the Minister inform residents of the area what compensation there will be for them as he has cut off access to many parts of my constituency?
The Minister's communication suggests that there is to be a pedestrian approach through the area. How does it enhance the firm's security to have a pedestrian route through the area after the road has been closed off? Security in the road is a sham. If the premises were secure, there would be no need to close off the road. Will the Minister explain the security advantages of his action? Why is additional security required for the firm? Is a stockpiling of missiles taking place? The firm tells me that that is not so. Does the Minister have some other information that he wishes to divulge to the House?
11.40 pm
Mr. Cope: Hon. Members have packed many diverse points into the debate, not least the complaints about the system of holding debates such as this. I understand fully the views of hon. Members, many of whom mentioned the way in which Northern Ireland business is dealt with. There are arrangements for conducting other Northern Ireland business in the House, but I should warn hon. Members that debates on appropriation orders take place in additional time which applies only to Northern Ireland. Therefore, although hon. Members may have a point in respect of other matters that come before the House, debates on appropriation orders provide an additional opportunity to raise issues about Northern Ireland expenditure. However, such time is not available to hon. Members representing English, Scottish or Welsh constituencies.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Cope: I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind, but I will not give way as I have little time and I want to do my best to answer the debate.
Generally, I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are willing to meet hon. Members to discuss these matters to see whether we can improve the system. However, hon. Members should be careful about the appropriation orders in any proposals they advance to my right hon. Friend for his consideration.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) spoke about the economy generally. I did not do so because I thought that somebody else would and that I could then respond. I was anxious to concentrate on the order. The hon. Member for Leicester, South can always spread gloom, but he did admit that there had been a slight improvement in the economy. I can always produce some optimism. For example, the Province has the lowest level of unemployment for almost seven years and there has been a steady increase in the number of people in employment. That is the other half of the coin, and it is extremely important, particularly in the Province where the demographic time bomb is not as acute as in other parts of the United Kingdom. The latest annual figures —up to June—show that manufacturing output rose by 12 per cent. and construction output, to which the hon. Member for Leicester, South referred specifically, has risen by 9 per cent. However, I do not want to overdo it.
One hon. Member was right to mention the fact that terrorism and the image of the Province are important in trying to attract jobs to the area and improve the economy. I agree with hon. Members who mentioned the recent appalling and outrageous attack on Shorts.
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 4) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 14th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

PETITION

  Deaf Television Viewers
  11.44 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I have a petition from 958 constituents and others living in Greater London, who say that the broadcasters are not providing complete access for deaf television viewers, for example, with subtitles or sign language. At least 4 million deaf viewers are affected, and they say that, as equal members of the general public, they are entitled to equal access to television programmes. In their prayer they ask
  that legislation be passed placing an obligation on television channel operators to make their programmes more accessible to deaf people by using Teletext subtitles, sign language or other means and to reach complete coverage by a fixed date.
  I have the honour to be the president of the Harrow deaf club, and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), know that its work helps deaf people to feel less lonely and isolated. Accessible television for the millions of deaf people will make an enormous difference to them.
  To lie upon the Table.

Open Air Music Festivals
Moton made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
11.45 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the extent and range of problems which are undoubtedly associated with the holding of large open-air music festivals which last for two or three days. This is not a new problem. In 1972, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) introduced a Night Assemblies Bill, and I served on the Committee which considered that Bill. It contained provisions which received wide support on both sides of the House but regrettably it was talked out on Report, largely as a result of civil liberty arguments. That was a pity, because many of the difficulties that many of my Friends are experiencing in their constituencies might have been curtailed if that legislation had been passed.
I appreciate that these events are not solely a phenomenon associated with south-east Cornwall. A number of colleagues have contacted me in the past week to express their concern about the holding of such events. The holding of these large-scale gatherings attracting people from all over the country is not a new development there. For many years an event known as the Elephant Fair was held annually at St. Germans, organised by my noble Friend the Earl of St. Germans. By and large, it was well contained. It was attended by local people as well as visitors. However, it is not without significance that the holder of that event stopped it some five years ago as a direct consequence of the activities of a small minority of people who were attracted to the function but whose behaviour could only be described as sordid.
This year, in my constituency, a local farmer decided to hold such an event at Treworgey, a small hamlet just two miles north of the market town of Liskeard, over the weekend of 28–30 July. At least three weeks before it, individuals of a certain type, euphemistically described as travellers, began to arrive in the vicinity. The men dressed distinctively, in a way that I can only describe as having a certain commonality with paramilitary denim uniforms. They wore army boots without laces. Their method of transport was varied, and included converted buses—single and double-decker—old ambulances, lorries, vans and even a pony and cart. Inevitably, they owned dogs. Their behaviour in the three weeks before the Treworgey tree fayre, in Liskeard and a neighbouring village called St. Cleer, can only be described as provocative. Local residents, particularly elderly people and those with young children, were genuinely frightened and appalled by their behaviour and as a consequence their presence required enhanced high-profile policing.
Of the 40,000 or so who subsequently attended the Treworgey tree fayre, the group of travellers who came in advance formed only a small minority of about 1,000. Unfortunately, because they came early, they set the tone for the event and conditioned local reaction and attitudes to the event. It is not without significance, as I represent a law-abiding electorate who are conservative with a small "c"—and, I hope, with a big "C" at election times—that they were horrified that such people could openly flaunt around Liskeard, with state benefits probably their only source of income. I do not intend to labour that point as

133
I hope that the revised regulations introduced a couple of months ago may have the desired effect and that benefit entitlement will be tightened up for such people.
The source of the problems at the event was, I believe, lack of preparation and organisation. I said that 40,000 people attended. The vast majority of them were young people who wanted to spend a few days at a music festival in a lovely part of the world but, because of the lack of organisation, it displayed the usual characteristics—no running water and inadequate toilet facilities. I spent three hours at the event incognito on the Saturday evening. The few inadequate toilet facilities were not working. They were all blocked up. There was no running water and there were virtually no refuse collection facilities. There was also a lack of car parking areas. I could continue.
The weather was dry and dusty, and the effect of having 40,000 people in a confined area could only be described as squalid. At the time, I described conditions as those that one would associate with a shanty town on the edge of some Third world capital, and that was no exaggeration.
How does such a situation develop? I have no doubt that it reflects the lack of adequate, and clearly defined, procedures governing the holding of such events. At present, we have a system of entertainment licences which are administered by district councils according to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I understand from colleagues in local government that there is confusion about the procedures, let alone their effectiveness. In addition, there are powers under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 which the police may use not to prohibit but to control public assemblies. Section 16 of the same Act defines a public assembly as being
"of 20 or more persons in a public place which is wholly or partly open to the air."
If 40,000 people descend on a particular location for a specific purpose, no one has a chance of imposing public health regulations, public order or public safety should the need arise.
The effects of the event on our local community in south-east Cornwall were considerable. Again I provide a factual and not an exaggerated or subjective account. First, enhanced policing was required over the two-month period. During the event, 280 police officers were involved. To put that in perspective, that is the same figure, purely fortuitously, as the total police establishment for the whole of the eastern half of Cornwall. The additional cost of policing before, during and after the event over and above normal policing levels for the area was £191,000. That was the estimate provided by the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall.
The second effect was that the travellers came early and remained long after the event. That led to subsquent problems of trespass and illegal camping. Naturally, when they were obliged to leave the site in question, they found the point of nearest weakness, which was either an adjacent farm or a common moor on the southern margins of Bodmin moor. Livestock and property were damaged. More than 60 animals had to be slaughtered in advance of the event, largely due to the activities of the dogs owned by the travellers. A couple whose home was right in the middle of the area were obliged to leave for about a week. When they returned to their home it was filthy.
There were legal consequences. Some 310 arrests were made, 180 of which related to drug offences and 50 to
134
public disorder. Finally, but not least, there was the inconvenience, annoyance and disturbance caused to the local population.
It is insufficient to say that local authorities have powers to lay charges against an organiser after the event. Caradon is doing that.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am well aware of the problems that my hon. Friend describes. Does he agree that those of us with constituencies on the M25 have similar difficulties with acid house parties? Is he aware that I support everything that he says about the need for act ion on public order and criminal justice legislation?
Mr. Hicks: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. Although he represents a constituency with entirely different geographical characteristics, the nature and extent of the problems are identical.
The Government need urgently to clarify and define procedures governing the control of the issuing of licences before an event. It should be mandatory on local authorities, before granting a licence for an event, to insist on adequate public health provision and conditions which will allow public order to be maintained and public safety ensured.
Furthermore, local authorities could and should require the payment of a financial bond in advance to cover additional costs to public authorities and damage o property. In the light of experience in the part of the country that I represent, the local authority should ensure that the cheque is cashed before it issues a licence. In the case to which I have referred, a cheque for £10,000 was written in advance, but it bounced.
With that requirement there is a need also to examine the law of trespass and its enforcement. The problem of trespass is linked intimately to the other problems that I have described, given the character of the minority who are attracted to pop festivals.
It does not worry me too much how the Government go about realising these objectives. I have submitted some ideas this evening. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to all the detailed points that I have raised, but I expect a commitment that Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the range and extent of the problems and are prepared to act.
12.1 am
Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) has done a service by raising an important matter, and especially for the county which he and I have the honour to represent. The problem stretches, as he acknowledged, from his constituency to my constituency at the other end of the county, in the west.
There was a pop festival in my constituency about a year ago. It was not on the dramatic scale of the one to which my hon. Friend referred, but it caused untold irritation and damage. There was intimidation, especially of elderly people, and I believe that some of the police were fearful of the people who came to the festival.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East is right to call for a complete review of the law. I believe that the Public Order Act 1986 is insufficient. The provision that there must be 12 caravans before the police can act is far too onerous.

135
The law of trespass needs to be examined and reviewed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East said, many of those who come to pop festivals stay on. In west Cornwall, there have been many examples—they are still to be found—of people trespassing on private land and causing untold damage and many other problems, especially for landowners. I beg my hon. Friend the Minister to carry out the review which has been called for tonight. Let us put an end to a scourge which has extended beyond Cornwall to many other areas.
12.2 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) for setting out his case so clearly. I recognise the genuine concerns which he has expressed and the great disturbance and inconvenience that some of his constituents have suffered. He is not alone in voicing concern, and that was demonstrated by the brief but welcome interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) and for Esher (Mr. Taylor).
The essence of the problem is control of very many people at open-air gatherings. The congregation of large numbers of people is not a new phenomenon but it is, perhaps, becoming more common. It is easier today than it was in the past to publicise events to wider audiences, and it is easier for people to travel considerable distances from their homes. Moreover, it is a fact of life that young people like to congregate to listen to music, to dance and to enjoy themselves.
Large meetings are not a matter for concern as such, although they may pose significant administration problems. They usually create traffic difficulties, but it is particular difficulties arising out of particular circumstances that cause the trouble. A mass meeting to hear the Pope is unlikely to result in disorder, but there are security problems. Son et lumiere may not create excitement leading to almost mass hysteria, but that could happen at a pop group meeting. A boy scout jamboree does not lead to expectations of drug abuse but an acid house party carries that risk. An acid house party does not normally lead to alcohol misuse, but a jazz festival may do so. What is needed, I suggest, is flexibility for the police and the local authorities to impose beforehand such conditions as they think necessary, and for them to react to the particular circumstances as they arise. I think that the law already provides for that.
The law—described accurately by my hon. Friend—which governs the licensing of public entertainments outside Greater London enables district councils to take powers to control pop festivals and other outdoor musical entertainments. If they choose to do so, a licence will be required for any event of that kind that is held on private land. The controls are limited to private land because other methods of control exist for public land.
A licence must be obtained in advance from the district council concerned. Applicants for licences must give notice of their intention to seek a licence to the police, the fire authority and the local authority itself. The grant or renewal of an entertainments licence is at the discretion of
136
the district council, but in reaching its decision it must have regard to any observations submitted by the police and the fire authority.
The legislation empowers the district council to attach terms, conditions and restrictions to a licence for certain specified purposes. Those are to ensure the safety of performers and others present, to secure adequate access for emergency vehicles and the provision of adequate sanitary appliances—that covers particular concerns expressed by my hon. Friend—and to prevent unreasonable noise disturbance to people in the neighbourhood.
If a pop festival takes place without a licence on private land in a district where those licensing arrangements have been adopted, the organisers of the event, and anyone allowing his property to be used for it, are liable on summary conviction to a fine of up to £2,000—as they are if there is any breach of the conditions of a licence. We have recently been considering—in the light of the development of so-called acid house parties, which my hon. Friend mentioned—the need for substantial increases in the penalties for offences against the entertainment licensing laws, and the possibility of confiscating the profits made by offenders.
My hon. Friend wanted the organisers to pay the extra costs of policing, and I sympathise with his view. Under section 15 of the Police Act 1964 a chief officer of police may provide, on request, "special services" at any place within his police area, subject to payment to the police authority of such charges as it may determine. If, for example, the organisers of a pop festival want police officers to maintain order inside the ground where the event is being held, they can request a police presence for which they will then be charged. A charge for "special police services", however, can be made only when officers are provided at the request of the organisers.
The review of public order law that led to the White Paper of 1985 considered the possibility of making demonstrators meet all or some of the costs of policing their own demonstrations, but the potential restrictions on police operational flexibility, and the difficulties of apportioning costs, were found to be too great for the idea to be pursued. It is, however, possible for local authorities to stipulate as a condition of a licence that the organisers should themselves provide adequate stewards: that is open to them now.
The phenomenon of acid house parties is a recent one and has produced much debate, because such parties have provided opportunities for drug trafficking. The police are alert to the risks and have powers to deal with such offences, but the problems that concern those who are in the vicinity of the parties are more to do with noise and nuisance. Such gatherings as the one described so graphically by my hon. Friend may not be held without a licence under the entertainment licensing laws, and local authorities may impose conditions to prevent noise and nuisance. But—and here I come to my hon. Friend's justified concern—the penalties for failing to obtain a licence, or for breaching its conditions, are at present far too low to provide a positive deterrent. My right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment will be making statements tomorrow in which they will explain what steps the Government believe should be taken. I do not wish to pre-empt what they will say, but it will be clear from what I have said that the

137
Government believe that to strengthen penalties is the right way to proceed. At the same time, profits should be at risk, to ensure full and proper observance of the law.
In the meantime, the police have established a central intelligence unit to obtain advance information about such parties. They are developing tactics to assist in dealing with them and prosecuting offenders. I believe that the
138
existing law, in addition to the increased penalties, will provide the effective sanction for which my hon. Friend and his constituents are rightly looking.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock.