Sitting of 7 June 1984

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

    CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered upon Thursday 14 June.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 14 June.

    TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Mr. Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

    DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)

      PIECE HALL (HALIFAX) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
      Orders for Second Reading read.
      To be read a Second time upon Thursday 14 June.

    GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 12 June at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULUTRE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Drainage
    Mr. Yeoasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department expects to produce a review of drainage.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will complete his current review of drainage policy.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The preparatory work in connection with the review has now been completed and I and my colleagues intend to issue a consultation paper during the summer.
    Mr. Yeo: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Is she aware that there is great concern at the non-appearance of the review at a time when some of the country's finest
    430
    wetlands, such as Halvergate marshes in Norfolk, are under threat, and that it is unacceptable to envisage the destruction of those wetlands with the use of public subsidies?
    Mrs. Fenner: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I can only assure him that the review has taken some time to complete because of the complex issues involved, but that we seek to publish the consultation document this summer.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: When the review appears, will my hon. Friend ensure that the cost-benefit analyses for large drainage schemes are at last subject to public scrutiny? Does she accept that it is very seldom that truly confidential material is revealed by these analyses, and that when scarce habitats are being drained using public money, public interest demands disclosure?
    Mrs. Fenner: Officials have considered the possibility of limited disclosure of the results of cost-benefit assessments, and their conclusions will also be included in the consultation paper.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend comment on the general charge that there is little point in draining scarce wetland at public expense in order to produce agricultural surpluses?
    Mrs. Fenner: Very often, the lands drained are not involved in producing the surpluses of the moment.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the hon. Lady specifically consider the problem of Wakefield? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) is in major difficulty, as the process of draining upstream is causing tremendous damage in the city.
    Mrs. Fenner: We have arranged a number of meetings on the matter. We are very conscious of the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and will keep the matter under review.

    Daisy Products
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Minister of Agriculture., Fisheries and Food if he will estimate by what amount the diary product quotas for the United Kingdom recently negotiated with the European Economic Community could be increased if no special arrangements were made for imports of New Zealand dairy products.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The guaranteed quantities for milk under the supplementary levy system are based on. past production levels. No account was taken of imports.
    Mr. Nicholls: I accept what my right hon. Friend says, but will he in turn accept that the mere fact that this country imports dairy products from New Zealand must undermine our position in quota negotiations? Even those who, like myself, are not in favour of breaking off our historic links with New Zealand have to accept that the small dairy farmers, who are facing grave financial hardship, might not see the force of that argument.
    Mr. Jopling: The full quota for New Zeland butter in 1984 was not decided in the midst of other decisions that were taken in Brussels in March. Indeed, the matter is still progressing. To put it in perspective, my hon. Friend might like to note that the 1983 quota represented less than 4 per cent. of total Community butter production.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the Minister is aware that British dairy producers produce only 66 per cent. of the butter required by our consumers. Will he tell the House and dairy producers from which country or countries he will import the nearly 40 per cent. required in the next 12 months?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman should examine the milk board's latest book on statistics. He will see on page 185 that the United Kingdom was 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butter fat in 1982.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: To what extent have imports of New Zealand butter been cut since Britain joined the Community, and what plans are there for further cuts? I believe that there is a lack of appreciation of the realities.
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right. New Zealand producers have had to take large cuts which make the cuts faced by our producers seem comparatively modest. My hon. Friend might like to know that when we joined the Common Market New Zealand was sending us 165,000 tonnes of butter. Last year it sent 87,000 tonnes, and this year it is intended that New Zealand will send us 83,000 tonnes. That figure will decrease over five years to 75,000 tonnes.
    Mr. Deakins: For how long must the process of degressivity in New Zealand dairy produce imports to Britain continue? When will it end?
    Mr. Jopling: The present Commission proposal—about the details of which I have just told the House—is for the first time, for a five-year period. That proposal is welcome to the New Zealand Government. There are no proposals beyond 1988. In the Dublin agreement there was an understanding that the Community had to give part of its market to New Zealand butter. That agreement had no end date.
    Mr. Cockeram: Although I accept our obligation to New Zealand, will my right hon. Friend accept that Britain's milk industry would find it more acceptable if there were a long-term pledge to accept that New Zealand imports will have to continue to be reduced during the next decade?
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Jopling: We should be extremely careful before making such statements. I strongly believe that we owe an immense debt to New Zealand and I am not prepared to see us pull the rug from under New Zealand at this or any other time.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister recollect and confirm that when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was Prime Minister he gave certain pledges and guarantees to New Zealand that, when we joined the EEC, New Zealand's position would be respected and protected as far as possible? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we fully support the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup in that commitment? Will the Minister stand firm and not allow any further reduction in imports of New Zealand's dairy products to the EEC?
    Mr. Jopling: The undertakings given by the Community when we joined in the early 1970s have been fulfilled. The Commission's most recent proposal, which I have just explained to the House, is one which the New
    432
    Zealand Government are prepared to accept. We should continue to do our best to fulfill our obligations to New Zealand.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Campbell-Savoursasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet placed in the Library complete details on the operation of the European Economic Community milk quota scheme.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress being made towards the implementation of milk quotas and the accompanying European Community and United Kingdom regulations.
    Mr. Andrew Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he now expects to be able to make a statement concerning special cases of hardship resulting from the agreement in the Council of Ministers on quotas for the dairy industry.
    Mr. Jopling: A number of the detailed arrangements relating to the operation of the supplementary levy arrangements have still to be worked out. These include those relating to direct sales, the outgoers scheme, and the reallocation and transfer arrangements for quotas. However, I intend to submit shortly for the approval of Parliament draft regulations under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. These regulations will, among other things, lay down the arrangements for implementing the special case rules, including provision for appeals to an independent tribunal and local panels. Producers will be receiving preliminary guidance on the special case rules in the next few days.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do details on the operation of the scheme include proposals to deal with the problems being confronted by the milk processing industries and the Milk Marketing Board in particular? Is the Minister aware of a statement made by Mr. Geoffrey Barr, chief executive of the Milk Marketing Board, to his 13,000 employees, that they need to make a 20 per cent. cut in their operating costs? Does that not imply that there will be substantial redundancies, and do the Government intend to help in any way to avoid those redundancies?
    Mr. Jopling: The effects on processing plants of the supplementary levy arrangements that have been agreed in the Community are a matter for the milk board, because they come under its control. The board is an independent organisation which looks after its own affairs.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Is not my right hon. Friend only too well aware that the present situation is by no means the end of the story? Does he agree that it is of the utmost priority that we avoid a sudden introduction of measures to do with the dairy sector, cereals or anything else? Does he not think that that is all important for farmers' confidence?
    Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend will recollect that from July until almost the end of last year I was arguing—this was referred to in the House last night—that much the best way of dealing with the catastrophic surplus of milk in the Community was through the discipline of price, and that we did not wish to deal with that as a first priority through the supplementary levy scheme. I hope

    433
    that we shall have no more of these schemes and that we shall deal with individual commodities through the discipline of price.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the Minister realise that individual farmers, not least those in Northern Ireland, are unable, three months into the year, to plan their milk production and operations?
    Mr. Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman may recall that in the middle of April we gave to the vast majority of milk producers who deliver wholesale to the milk boards provisional quotas on which they have since been working. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman may have seen that in May the deliveries of milk were 4·2 per cent. down on the same month last year.
    Sir Peter Mills: In this difficult situation of guotas and price restraint, is my right hon. Friend aware of the almost disgraceful statement by the alliance that it would increase the price of milk to the farmers? Is that not disgraceful, cynical and wholly unfair? Will he utterly condemn such misleading of my farmers?
    Mr. Jopling: I have noticed statements that have been made by spokesmen for the alliance parties. All I can say is that if we had such policies they would be sure-fire recipe for even more catastrophic surpluses, overspending and bankruptcy than we are already experiencing.
    Mr. Strang: Is it not clear that these measures will discriminate adversely against the British dairy industry, and is it not a scandal that farmers from the Republic of Ireland are coming here to buy our cull cows?
    Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentlman should recall that in Germany and the Netherlands farmers are having to make larger cut-backs in milk production than farmers here. Therefore, his question is based on a fallacy.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some parts of Britain the base year 1983 was a bad year for milk production? When he lays down the criteria for assessing special cases, and when he re-allocates the spare quota, will he bear those areas very much in mind?
    Mr. Jopling: I am well aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers and I am also aware that Somerset is in particular difficulty. However, if one compares the milk production figures for 1983 with those of 1982, one sees that Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire were 2·3 per cent. up.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister be as prompt to condemn violence and criminal damage by dairy farmers protesting against Common Market policies as his Prime Minister has been to condemn violence on picket lines? Will he bear in mind that the £600 from his scheme to pay small farmers to take cows out of production and send them to the knacker's yard is £600 more than fishermen got when they were made redundant by the Common Market?
    Mr. Jopling: I am sorry that the hon. Member is not able to be a little more welcoming to the scheme, which has been widely welcomed throughout the country and which will assist a very small minority of milk producers who want to go out of production to do so, so as to bring the bulk of small milk producers back to the level of production which they enjoyed in 1983.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that perhaps the worst feature of the situation is the continuing uncertainty? In his proposals for quotas, will he pay particular attention to producer-processors?
    Mr. Jopling: In regard to the direct sellers to whom my hon. Friend has referred, we hope to be able to send guidance to them in a very short time. We have had a major difficulty about this because the Commission's figures were inaccurate. It did not translate its own figures into the regulations. We sorted this matter out finally only last Monday and we hope that in a very short time we can give guidance to the direct sellers.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: When I was visiting a cattle market in Wiltshire recently, some of the farmers said that the scheme the Government were introducing was simply an attempt to buy votes. That is not so, is it?
    Mr. Jopling: It is only the right hon. Gentleman who could have such extraordinary thoughts. All I can say to him is that if we succeed, as we intend, in bringing 40 per cent. of milk producers—those with 40 or fewer cows—back to their 1983 patterns of production that will be much more important than anything to do with votes.
    Mr. Farr: While I welcome the fact that the House will have the opportunity to discuss my right hon. Friend's proposals, may I ask whether he is aware that there they will be of critical importance to many producers? Will he consider tabling them, not as an order which cannot be amended, but rather in the form of a discussion document on which sensible suggestions from both sides can be made, because a number of important cases will have to be debated?
    Mr. Jopling: I understand perfectly my hon. Friend's point, but there is a real dilemma, which I am sure he will understand. It is very important that at the earliest moment we get the forms and the final details of the scheme to milk producers so that they know the position. I think the House would wish to proceed by the quickest method so that we can clarify the situation and let all milk producers know their position.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has said frequently from the Dispatch Box and in letters to me and others that his decision on milk quotas has been a long time in the making. Why, then, were his officials, speaking through the Milk Marketing Board, saying to farmers in Somerset as late as February of this year that they should produce as much as they could?
    Mr. Jopling: I notice that in a letter which the hon. Gentleman sent me dated 31 May he accused me personally of having said that. I had no recollection of doing so. I am interested to hear him say today that it was some nebulous official. Therefore, it would be better if he got his facts right.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Since it is now more than two months since the regulations were supposed to apply, from 1 April, is it not disgraceful that there should be so much confusion and so little detail about the application of the scheme? Since we apparently share an objective in trying to protect small producers, why did the Minister not accept the scheme which I put to him, that they should be allowed to produce up to their 1983 quotas and that there should be re-allocations on a sliding scale to larger producers? Why did the Minister not do that instead of introducing a

    435
    half-baked scheme which he has said is widely welcomed, although I have no record from the farming press of that being so? It has been condemned as Jopling's milksop scheme turned sour.
    Mr. Jopling: I urge the hon. Gentleman to read a good deal more of the farming press. If he reads the reports of the statements made by the president of the Farmers Union of Wales, he will find that it would not have been possible to give a warmer welcome to the scheme. I did not take up the hon. Gentleman's scheme because I thought that my scheme was much better. I was prepared to put £50 million where my mouth was.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on conditions at cattle markets and animal sales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: The council is still engaged on its comprehensive review of the welfare of farm animals and horses at markets, and it is not yet possible to say when its report will be available.
    Mr. Greenway: Bearing in mind the cruelty by neglect that is suffered by calves, foals, horses and other animals in transit, will my hon. Friend extend the inquiry to the transportation of animals and use that as a lever to achieve a similar inquiry throughout the EC, bearing in mind that Russia and Poland export about 1 million horses to western European countries for slaughter every year? These horses are in transit for about 1,000 km without exercise, food or water over many days. That is disgraceful and cruel, and something should be done to prevent it.
    Mrs. Fenner: We already have legislation that bears on the transit of live animals. In our negotiations and talks in Europe we constantly seek and, indeed achieve, harmonised directives so that our extremely good regulations shall hold sway throughout the European Community.

    Cod Quotas
    Mr. John Townendasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is considering putting forward proposals for cod quotas for specific regions of the North sea to be allocated to local fishermen.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The revised quota arrangements for North sea cod announced on 30 May include sectoral quotas for recognised groups, including producer organisations, which show the ability to manage a block allocation.
    Mr. Townend: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers' Organisation feels that it has not been treated fairly by his Ministry? Following a meeting in May it was given no indication of the specific action that it would have to take to ensure that it was allocated a quota. When the quotas were announced, it appeared to be the only FPO that had not been granted one. Will my hon. Friend instruct his civil servants to state specifically what the Yorkshire and Anglia FPO needs to do and urge them to co-operate with
    436
    the fishermen in this FPO area to the same extent as civil servants in the Scottish Office are co-operating with Scottish fishermen?
    Mr. MacGregor: We are having thorough discussions with the Yorkshire and Anglia FPO about the measures that are needed to enable it to manage a block allocation satisfactorily. I shall be meeting members of the United Kingdom federation of FPOs on Monday on that and many other subjects. It is important to ensure that the information-gathering procedures are satisfactory and that there are disciplinary powers to enable the allocation of quotas to be carried through. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of the discussions, but I can assure my hon. Friend that discussions are taking place.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister accept the gratitude of Grimsby pair fishermen for the quotas, which represent an enormous improvement for them? Bearing in mind that Grimsby depends essentially on cod and that cod is the fish stock which has been cut in this year's allocations, will he attempt to obtain a greater allocation from Norway to compensate for the decline in our catches? Secondly, will he urge that the same tough quotas be imposed on our European partners as are imposed on our fishermen?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing the gratitude of Grimsby fishermen. He will know that when I was in Grimsby I discussed sectoral quotas and said that I was thinking actively about them. I am glad that it was not long after those discussions that I was able to take specific action. The hon. Gentleman may know that two of the three company groups with sectoral quotas in the United Kingdom are based on Grimsby. This flexibility will greatly help Grimsby.
    We have raised constantly with the Commission and the Council of Ministers our discussions with Norway for the allocation of herring this year, and possible compensation.
    The quotas apply to the other member states as well and it is important that they are all enforced properly. That is why we have constantly put strong emphasis on the importance of the European inspectorate, which is now in place.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Following from the question, is my hon. Friend aware that some fishermen may not be able to take up the additional cod quota because they fish for other species? Will my hon. Friend consider further the possibility of transferring the cod quota system to other species?
    Mr. MacGregor: That depends on the species that my hon. Friend has in mind. We are talking about pressure stocks. It is important that we meet the quotas for cod this year, not least for conservation reasons. How one reaches quotas in other pressure stocks will depend on how the scheme works during the year.

    Surplus Food and Wine
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of total European Economic Community spending on all activities, including agriculture, related to the disposal, destruction and storage of surplus food and wine in the most recent annual period for which figures are available; and what was the cash sum involved, expressed in £ sterling.
    Mr. Jopling: Expenditure by the European Community on export refunds, internal disposal subsidies and public intervention storage for commodities in structural surplus — cereals, sugar, wine and milk products—amounted to approximately £4,750 million in 1983. That represented about 33 per cent. of total Community expenditure.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a performance in a private industry would probably lead to the imprisonment of the directors? Does he further agree that so long as the Community spends such vast sums within this total on subsidising the Soviet and east European war machine there is no reason to increase own resources?
    Mr. Jopling: I had hoped that my hon. Friend would applaud what happened this year regarding the price settlement, in which we took steps to reduce surpluses. We extended the guarantee thresholds and introduced quotas for milk production. That settlement is important in the long term, not just for this year, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it credit.
    Mr. Hugh Brown: Does the Minister accept that the general agreement of this Government, or any other Government, to reduce expenditure on a wasteful facility such as storage would receive support from all hon. Members? Does he think that on 14 June the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will vote Conservative?
    Mr. Jopling: As an ex-Chief Whip I can say that I was totally satisfied with my hon. Friend. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the rate of growth of common agricultural policy spending, I remind him that between 1973 and 1979 it rose by over 19 per cent. a year, whereas between 1979 and 1984 the average increase was only about 10 per cent.
    Mr. Higgins: What reform of the CAP would my right hon. Friend consider to be sufficient to justify an increase in own resources?
    Mr. Jopling: I am concerned with what the CAP should do. We should rely more on the discipline of price to avoid the growth of unwanted and unusable surpluses.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Torneyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the effect of the European Economic Community milk quota scheme on the numbers of (a) bankruptcies among dairy farmers, (b) redundancies among farm workers and (c) redundancies in the dairy processing and distributive industries.
    Mr. Jopling: The effects of the quota system on producers, farm workers and the processing and distributive industries will depend to a large extent on how producers and dairies decide to adjust to the new arrangements.
    Moreover, since production beyond the level of individual quotas is not prohibited it is not possible to say what will happen to production levels until the individual decisions taken start to work through the system.
    Mr. Torney: In view of the Minister's inadequate answers about the milk quota scheme, does he agree that the Government have not thought through properly the effect on all sections of the industry of this milk quota
    438
    scheme, not only regarding bankruptcies and farmers going out of production, but the fact that gross unemployment will result in the distributive and processing industries, including those arising from the closing down of creameries? Is he aware that it has already been announced that some creameries will close as a result of the scheme? What will he do about it? Will he compensate the distributive side of the industry as well as the farmers?
    Mr. Jopling: The effects of the quota system for milk must be dealt with by each group to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We have no plans at present to provide compensation.
    Mr. Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend introduce a provisional quota as a matter of extreme urgency to deal with those unfortunate farmers in my constituency who have been happily producing milk for years but who, because of a bureaucratic technicality, have been given no quota by the Milk Marketing Board? They have no hope of surviving until all the rules about special cases are finalised and published.
    Mr. Jopling: We are moving forward very quickly and I hope that within the next few days we can give much more detail about this scheme. However, if my hon. Friend has any special cases in mind, he should have a word with me about them.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister at least confirm that there will be no bankruptcies or redundancies in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have been excluded from the milk quota scheme? Why is that?
    Mr. Jopling: As I am going to the Isle of Man tonight, I shall be in a better position after the weekend to answer that question.
    Mr. Body: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Smallfarmers Association appreciates the way in which he listened to its representations and the way he acted? Will he bear in mind that from now on, when listening to representations about milk quotas, the National Farmers Union may not necessarily be speaking for the majority of dairy farmers, and that the Farmers Union of Wales and the Smallfarmers Associaion may have views very different from those of the NFU?
    Mr. Jopling: I was glad to meet a delegation led by my hon. Friend and to hear those farmers' point of view, as I am glad to hear the views of any organisations which represent groups of farmers who wish to visit my Department.
    Mr. Evans: Interposing a voice on behalf of the consumer, may I ask the Minister whether the British housewife can expect the price of a pint of milk to decrease as a result of the milk quota scheme?
    Mr. Jopling: If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics he will share with me much pleasure in the fact that during the past five years the cost of food has increased more slowly than have prices in general —[Interruption]—It is no use the hon. Gentleman scoffing. It is one reason why the Labour party lost the last election.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that 1983 was an especially bad year for dairy farming in Derbyshire, and will he consider the case for giving

    439
    Derbyshire special treatment? Will he accept the gratitude of farmers in my constituency for the fact that he has agreed to meet a delegation to discuss this matter?
    Mr. Jopling: I shall give my hon. Friend a reply similar to the one I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). In 1983, milk production in Cheshire, Derbyshire and Staffordshire was 2·7 per cent. more than it was in 1982.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Can the Minister give one of my farmers a simple answer to a question? He has farmed milk for 20 years, but, unfortunately for him, he sold his farm 12 months ago and moved to a new farm. He has 70 cows and no quota. What is his position? How many cows will the Minister allow him to keep?
    Mr. Jopling: We hope to give guidance in the near future to farmers who have changed farms.
    Mr. Walden: Although I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the help that he announced for smaller dairy farmers, does he accept that many small to medium-sized dairy farmers fall between every conceivable stool in sight? This applies especially those who cannot diversify because their land is fragmented.
    Mr. Jopling: I am especially worried about those farmers who do not have alternative enterprises. That is why I thought it right, as I said to the House yesterday evening, that we should give the first priority to farmers with fewer than 40 cows. To return them to 1983 production levels will take rather less than 1·5 per cent. of the quantity of milk produced, and after that we can examine our second priorities. I suspect that the farmers described by my hon. Friend would come within that consideration.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: In answer to an earlier question the Minister accepted that he has responsibility for what happens in agriculture. As the right hon. Gentleman has signally failed consumers and producers, will he do the right thing and resign?
    Mr. Jopling: During the period when the Labur party was in power the cost of food more than doubled. Bearing in mind that, during the past five years, the increase in the cost of food has been less than half the increase during the period of the Labour Government and that food prices have been increasing more slowly than prices in general, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has a real cheek.

    Pesticides
    Dr. Twinnasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the availability of imported pesticides so that the standards applied by United Kingdom manufacturers under the pesticides safety precautions scheme can be applied to all pesticides used in the United Kingdom.
    Mrs. Fenner: All pesticides intended for use in the United Kingdom, whether imported or home-produced, are subject to clearance under the pesticides safety precautions scheme — a formal but non-statutory agreement between the Government and the pesticides industry. However, the scheme has not been fully effective in regulating the import of uncleared pesticides, and for this reason the Government have decided to introduce statutory arrangements for ensuring the safe and efficient use of pesticides.
    Dr. Twinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which I believe will be widely welcomed. There is growing concern about the indiscriminate use of pesticides. If a voluntary scheme is to work, it is clearly important that it should work for all pesticides. I hope that my hon. Friend shares that concern.
    Mrs. Fenner: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's suggestion that there is indiscriminate use of pesticides. Already, our policy to contain use levels to the minimum consistent with efficient food production has enabled us to give priority to developments by ADAS of integrated pest control systems, better application methods, disease resistant crop varieties and better forecasting of pest and disease outbreaks.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that my hon. Friends and I welcome the proposals to legislate on this subject for the United Kingdom as a whole?
    Mrs. Fenner: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is correct.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the voluntary scheme has been unsuccessful? Will she bring forward proposals in the near future to promote safety, to reduce environmental pollution and to protect the position of United Kingdom manufacturers of pesticides?
    Mrs. Fenner: We hope that it will be possible to bring forward proposals early in the next Session. I fully understand the viewpoint of firms which believe that uncleared imports have been undermining their position.
    Mr. Mark Hughes: Will the Minister confirm that the regulations will apply to Northern Ireland, because there is some doubt about that? Will she make every effort to ensure that they are introduced before the end of this Session, because there will be every support from the Opposition for their immediate implementation?
    Mrs. Fenner: I have said already that I believe they will be introduced at the beginning of the next Session. If the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will forgive me, I shall confirm or otherwise the application of the regulations to Northern Ireland.

    Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Marlowasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what areas of agricultural policy he is seeking powers to obtain discretion for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Jopling: The Government will continue to pursue the policies, both domestically and in the European Community, which are in the long-term interests of our agriculture industry and beneficial for the country as a whole.
    Mr. Marlow: As I believe that some time next week there is to be an election, will my right hon. Friend do himself a favour by giving an undertaking to our dairy farmers that if, at any stage, there is a risk that we will be forced to import liquid milk from the Irish Republic, he will unilaterally increase our quota?
    Mr. Jopling: Already there are arrangements, which have been going for a long time, for milk and milk products to be imported from other parts of the Community

    441
    and outside it. As, I believe, something is happening next week, my hon. Friend might like to know that since we joined the Common Market our agricultural output has increased by 14 per cent. in volume, our agricultural productivity per person has increased by 49 per cent., our agricultural exports have increased by 77 per cent. and our self-sufficiency in temperate foods has increased by 24 per cent. That sounds like pretty good medicine.

    Potato Marketing Board
    Mr. Evansasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the workings of the Potato Marketing Board.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Potato Marketing Board is a producer organisation and it is for registered producers themselves to say whether they are satisfied with the way in which the board carries out its functions.
    The Government act jointly with the board over the market support arrangements and I announced on 29 February the Government's proposals for a revised system of support to take effect from the 1985 season.
    Mr. Evans: I have noted with interest what was said in the Minister's speech during the Adjournment debate on Monday night. Can he explain to a layman like myself how the housewife and the British farmer benefit from potato acreage restrictions imposed by the board when, at the same time, thousands of tonnes of potatoes are imported from all over the world? Do not the actions of the Potato Marketing Board constitute a restraint on trade?
    Mr. MacGregor: There is freedom of imports, so it is not a restraint on trade. The hon. Member will be aware that many of the imports are of early potatoes, which come in when we do not have them ourselves. The potato area has, indeed, declined by some 27 per cent. since 1970, although it must be borne in mind that there has been a trend of rising yields. Yields have increased by even more—30 per cent. over the same period.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements on Thursday 7 June.
    The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I have been asked to reply.
    This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. This afternoon she will be receiving Heads of Government in preparation for the economic summit meeting.
    Mr. Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have been justified in having a fully-manned and fully-equipped police force, which has enabled it to strengthen and maintain public order throughout the country? Does he further agree that in the face of violence and intimidation the police have done a marvellous job and are ensuring that Scargill and his travelling storm troopers do not succeed in bringing down the Government?
    Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the valuable measures which the Government have undertaken is to enable resources to be available to secure
    442
    an increase of 14,000 in the number of police since 1979. All those who watch their televisions night after night will realise what a highly professional task they perform in securing one of the most socially worthwhile objectives—freedom under the law—and ensuring that those who wish to work may do so.
    Mr. Mason: In his official capacity as protector of the House of Commons, will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister constantly misled the House about her involvement in the miners' dispute, a fact of which he must have been completely aware? What will he do about it on our behalf?
    Mr. Biffen: I will, of course, convey to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the point that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, which shows just how shallow and completely — [Interruption.] — bankrupt are the Labour party's comments in this context. The revelations of the Daily Mirror show that in these matters the Prime Minister and the Government have paid proper and prudent regard to the national interest.
    Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend have time to explain by what logic it is folly to win coal at twice the world market price but wisdom to carry on winning it at one-and-a-quarter times the world market price?
    Mr. Biffen: I do not know whether I would have time, but much of my audience would be wholly unappreciative. All those who are contesting the National Coal Board's proposals are contesting what I believe to be the only strategy for prosperity — that of an industry is concentrated upon low-cost production.
    Mr. Shore: The Leader of the House ought to be ashamed of the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). Is it not absolutely clear that, quite contrary to all the assertions that have been made again and again in the House, not only the Prime Minister but others of her colleagues have been intervening continuously in the pay negotiations conducted by nationalised industries? Far from having been left alone, the chairman of the British Railways Board has been treated like a puppet on a string. Is it not now time that the Leader of the House put to the Prime Minister the urgent need for her to come to the House and make a candid and honest statement about what the relationships are, because this has great relevance to the settlement of the coal dispute?
    Mr. Biffen: Neither Mr. Reid nor any of his predecessors merits the term puppet. Certainly the correspondence reveals that Mr. Reid put to the Minister, for information, plans that he was proposing, and had them endorsed. There is no question whatsoever of this Government trying to sit on the shoulders of the managements of nationalised industries, as Governments did of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and in which he personally tried to arrange for legislation which would supervise in every jot and tittle the payment of the public sector.
    Mr. Shore: Is it not the case that the letters published yesterday reveal that the chairman of the Railways Board was actually instructed—[Hon. MEMBERS: "No"]—to keep in touch with the chairman of the Coal Board, and, further, not to approach the Attorney-General, presumably on whether he should use the 1982 Employment Act and its procedures?
    Mr. Biffen: I certainly do not think that the correspondence bears that construction at all. What it shows is that this Government, having responsibilities to the public interest, the taxpayer and the industries where there is an enormous public financing content, have a very proper and prudent regard to the level of pay settlements.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ross: In the absence of the Prime Minister, can the Leader of the House confirm that it is still Government policy to support free collective bargaining and unfettered arbitration in pay claims? If that is the case, what is the Government's policy where pay disputes arise in the public sector? Is it all just left to diktat from 10 Downing street?
    Mr. Biffen: It is absolutely absurd to suppose that anything that has been revealed in the last few days indicates diktat from 10 Downing street. The freedom of collective bargaining in the current condition is there for all to see and contrasts with the statutory pay policies that were endorsed by the Liberal party.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no miner is currently facing compulsory redundancy as a result of the National Coal Board's plans and that the most immediate threat to miners' jobs is the irresponsible action of Mr. Arthur Scargill, which is putting at risk no fewer than 15 pits. Because of geological faults?
    Mr. Biffen: I readily confirm that, and in my judgment the vanity and intransigence of Mr. Scargill are the major factors in the present situation.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Leader of the House recall that he has a duty to the House and come clean on one matter? Will he confirm that the Government issued an instruction to Mr. Reid, the chairman of the Railways Board, not to approach the Attorney-General's office, and, if so, for what purpose did they want Mr. Reid not to get the Attorney-General involved?
    Mr. Biffen: I have already commented upon that, and
    I cannot add to it.
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 June.
    Mr. BiffenI have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Atkins: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, despite the protestations in support of agriculture from members of the alliance party, they, along with members of the Labour party, voted in Committee on the Rates Bill in support of the rating of agricultural land? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would my right hon. Friend like to take the opportunity now of stating unequivocally that this party and this Government will not take such a course?
    Mr. Biffen: I am glad to give that confirmation to my hon. Friend. There is no question of this Government rating agricultural land, and our commitment to farming remains as firm as ever.
    Mr. Foulkes: Under what authority has the Home Secretary authorised the tapping of the telephones of Mr. Peter Heathfield and Mr. Arthur Scargill?
    Mr. Biffen: As I am unaware that that has taken place, it would not be appropriate for me to answer.
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howells: Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Prime Minister to introduce the milk quota order before the Euro-elections next week, so that dairy producers in this country may know whether they will be adequately compensated for loss of business?
    Mr. Biffen: The early and full exposition of the plans of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would, I am sure, be of immense electoral advantage — [Interruption]—I shall, therefore, bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman is requesting; but there may be some technical difficulties.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister has seen a reported statement by the chairman of a committee of the Greater London council to the effect that the Crystal Palace sports centre would be deprived of its grant if a certain athlete did not make a statement of political policy agreeable to the GLC? Is that not fascist in any sense of the word——
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Withdraw.
    Mr. Stanbrook—and contemptible by any standard?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend may find that the original remarks gave rise to expectations of policies that will not now be pursued, and I believe that there will be general happiness in the House that that is so.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House comment on a lottery organised by police officers in which officers involved in policing the mining dispute contributed £1 to a kitty, to be awarded to the policeman who arrested Arthur Scargill? [Interruption.] That is perfectly true. Did Inspector Nesbitt, who arrested Mr. Scargill on a trumped-up charge, benefit financially from that dubious act?
    Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to dignify our proceedings. He asked a number of questions to which, clearly, I am totally unable to reply. Indeed, I sidestep his questions cheerfully because they are all part of a policy of disparaging the police force at a time when the police need all our support and help.
    Mr. Nichollsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in its understandable desire to achieve a settlement of the mining dispute, the NCB should not lose sight of the fact that the stand that it took in the first place was correct? Does he accept that any settlement which ignored that fact would mean that the battle which we are now having to

    445
    fight would have to be fought next year and in the years to come? Does he agree that this is an issue which must be settled once and for all and which cannot be fudged?
    Mr. Biffen: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that in this House and outside there are those who can see no satisfactory end to this contest other than in beer and sandwiches and the white flag—[interruption.]—borne not so much out of love for the mining industry as of a detestation of this Government.
    Mr. Benn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that at an early stage in the dispute I asked him whether he would give an assurance that the armed forces had not been put on alert? Has he seen the letter from the Prime Minister to me in which she admits that the facilities of the armed forces have been put at the disposal of the police? Will he say whether he or the Prime Minister were misleading hon. Members in the matter?
    Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter.
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 June.
    Mr. Biffen: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hirst: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in this morning's papers that the Bolsover colliery, which is still working, has won a contract to replace gas with coal as the principal fuel for an ICI cement works? Is this not precisely the sort of commercial opportunity that Ian MacGregor has been striving to win for the industry? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind prejudiced Labour Members that the best thing that they can do this afternoon is to remind the lobbying miners that it is the customer and not the taxpayer who can give them security of employment?
    Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is right. The future of the industry will be secured by sound economics and not by bad politics.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: Will the Leader of the House state the business for the coming week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 11 JUNE — Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
TUESDAY 12 JUNE — Second Reading of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc. Bill.
Consideration of Lords Message on the Housing and Building Control Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 13 JUNE — Remaining stages of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [Lords] .
THURSDAY 14 JUNE—There will be a debate on the arts and heritage on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 15 JUNE — Remaining stages of the Parliamentary Pensions Etc Bill.
Remaining stages of the Food Bill [Lords]of the Mental Health (Scotland) Bill [Lords]and proceedings on the Road Traffic Regulation Bill [Lords]which are consolidation measures.
MONDAY 18 JUNE—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227, which will be concluded on Tuesday 19 June.
Mr. Shore: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. In view of the great importance of the debate that is to follow, I shall be brief.
The Leader of the House will know that we regret that it has not been possible to accede to our request for a debate in Government time on the London economic summit. Therefore, there is all the more reason for the Prime Minister to make a full statement on the outcome of what is a most important conference. I hope that the Leader of the House will give us that assurance.
Secondly, I ask the Leader of the House to put it to the Prime Minister that a statement is most urgently required in the light of the disclosures in the press, which have had a most serious effect on the negotiations that are to be resumed tomorrow between the National Coal Board and the NUM. It may be that a separate statement is needed — no doubt this can be discussed with the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General—by the Attorney-General in view of his special constitutional importance and the specific reference to him in the correspondence.
I hope that the Leader of the House will press both matters.
Mr. Biffen: I confirm that there will be a comprehensive statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the economic summit, and it is likely to be made on Tuesday. I realise that there is a widespread interest in this topic and I share the regret that we cannot have the debate, such were the exigencies of time. As to the statement in the Daily Mirror, associated with Mr. Paul Foot, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend provide an early opportunity for a debate in the House on the aspects of the European Community affecting the growing of raspberries, and the problems that have resulted from the dumping through Holland of eastern European raspberries in this country? There should be an early debate on this important subject.
Mr. Biffen: Heroically, I shall resist all temptation to indulge in schoolchild humour. I know that this subject is a real problem in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I shall convey his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Ms. Jo Richardson: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the privatisation of the National Health Service, which is growing rapidly? Will he note that 92 women who work in the domestic service at Barking hospital have been on strike for 13 weeks because their private contractor has cut their wages by 40 per cent.? The hospital is becoming dirty, unhealthy and unhygienic. That is what privatisation does for the NHS.
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Lady, who is a fair controversialist, will recognise that recently the House had a day's debate on the National Health Service. Therefore, I cannot offer an early prospect of a debate in Government time on the subject. I wish her success in any quest she may make to have the specific constituency point raised on the Adjournment.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Following yesterday's celebrations of the 40th anniversary of D-Day, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on disarmament and foreign affairs? Should we not remember that the nations of western Europe were liberated by the allied armies, and the nations of eastern Europe, including Poland and Czechoslovakia, for whose freedom we went to war, were conquered by the Red Army and remain in bondage?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly raise that point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. However, I must say at once that there is no immediate likelihood of a general debate on foreign affairs.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: As the Daily Mirror revelations clearly show that the Government have an incomes policy, although it is not explicitly stated or debated in the House, will the right hon. Gentleman provide an early opportunity to debate the reports of the review bodies on nurses' and midwives' pay and the others apparently being published today, together with the whole of the Government's incomes policy, so that we may have the policy in the open and agreed properly?
Mr. Biffen: I must repudiate at once the premise on which that question was based. Of course, I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's point to the attention of the relevant members of the Government.
Mr. Timothy Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend not be too hasty in resisting the Opposition's request for a debate on the Prime Minister's recent correspondence on public sector pay? Would not such a debate provide an outstandingly good opportunity to show that the Government are exercising the proper level of concern for public sector pay settlements, but falling well short of excessive interference?
Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My dilemma is that, while my hon. Friends can adduce the most formidable arguments, alas, I have to provide the time.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that an oral statement will be made in the House next week about nurses' pay and related matters?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of the relevant Ministers to the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern of millions of our fellow citizens, who are confused by the fact that one man can raise a private army in excess of 6,000 people that can set about to prevent people from going about their lawful duty in such a way that scores of people are arrested and injured, but that that person is not subject to criminal action? Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that we should review the law in such a way that that person is arrested and put behind bars?
Mr. Biffen: The best thing that I can do is to advise my hon. Friend to try his luck in trying to participate in the debate this afternoon.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me some guidance on parliamentary language? Does he recollect that he moved a resolution suspending me for five days for using an unparliamentary word? What is the safe and polite term that we should use for a lady who said one thing about the miners' dispute but, as has been revealed in the Daily Mirror, acted very differently? How should we describe that in parliamentary language?
Mr. Biffen: I have always understood that you, Mr. Speaker, were the guardian of what constituted appropriate and orderly parliamentary language and that you had no wish to share that responsibility with anyone else; and I must say that I have no wish to share it with you.
Mr. Richard Holt: The Leader of the House will recall that for many months I have been requesting a statement on nuclear waste dumping at Billingham. Since the unfortunate accident at Abbeystead, which no one could have foreseen, the fears of people in the Billingham and Cleveland area have grown. Will he now expedite a debate on the subject?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind. As it is very much a constituency matter—and no less serious for that—I hope that he will also try to use that time of the House which is not necessarily allocated to the Government to obtain a debate on the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have a very important debate today on an Opposition motion. No fewer than 29 right hon. and hon. Gentlemen and Ladies have expressed the wish to take part. I propose to allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. If questions are short, it may be possible to accommodate most hon. Members.
Mr. Denis Howell: Has the Leader of the House had the opportunity to study and discuss with the Prime Minister early-day Motion 790 in my name?
450
[That this House notes with concern the statement made to the Sports Council by its Chairman on 12th December 1983, to the effect that he had required the resignation of the Director of the Sports Council because the Minister for Sport believed that the Director was in close association with the then Opposition Spokesman on Sport; recalls that the Minister for Sport has answered questions in the House declaring that he had no involvement in the resignation of the Director and notes that this statement has been directly confirmed to the Right honourable Member for Birmingham, Small Heath, by the Minister; further takes note of the statements made by the Minister to the Right honourable Member containing the information that the Chairman of the Sports Council intends to make a suitable apology and withdrawal at a forthcoming meeting of the Sports Council and learns with regret that the said Chairman has now declared that he has nothing to apologise about or to withdraw; and in these circumstances calls upon the Prime Minister to inquire into these direct conflicts between the Minister for Sport and the Chairman of a body directly responsible to that Minister, and also into the ramifications of this situation so far as Parliamentary accountability is concerned, as well as having regard to the rights of a distinguished public servant to protect his reputation and integrity.]
If he has not already done so, will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the extraordinary situation in which the chairman of the Sports Council required the resignation of the director, saying that this was at the behest of the Minister with responsibility for sport, on the ground that the director had too close links with the Opposition. As the Sports Council receives all its money from the House that suggestion was grossly improper, but, as the Minister has denied it, the chairman and the Minister are now in conflict with each other, and questions arise about parliamentary accountability and the answers given by the Minister. Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister to inquire into the matter?
Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to refer the points to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As he has made that request, I shall certainly carry it out.
Mr. Roland Boyes: At a time when liberty and freedom in Europe are being mentioned a great deal, is the Leader of the House aware that three coaches carrying miners were stopped outside Hanley, the drivers threatened with arrest if they went any further and the passengers turfed off seven miles from their destination? Does he agree that the House deserves a. statement on the erosion of freedom and liberty in Britain?
Mr. Biffen: Wishing to keep the temperature as low as possible, I think that the most helpful comment that I can make is to suggest that the hon. Gentleman should seek the opportunity to make his point in more expanded form in this afternoon's debate.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall any previous occasion when a Prime Minister, presumably fit and well and in London, has not appeared to answer questions on a Tuesday or Thursday? Although the occasion that has led to the absence of the Prime Minister may be unique, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to her our anxiety that he should not have to substitute for her too often?
Mr. Biffen: I cheerfully accept that analysis. I am here at the call of duty and not out of overweening ambition, so I will certainly pass on that message.
Mr. Peter Pike: In view of the concern of housing authorities throughout the country about the shortage of housing allocations for this year and continued rumours of a moratorium on housing allocations, will the Leader of the House consider arranging for an early statement or debate on that important subject so that the position can be clarified?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly bring that point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Stephen Ross: May we have an assurance that the various reports on Northern Ireland will be debated before the summer recess? May we also have a debate on the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1984 which controls the sale of chemicals to Iraq and Iran, which I am sure he will agree is an important subject?
Mr. Biffen: I should like to consider the second point raised by the hon. Gentleman. On the first point, although I have not been able to give a date for a debate on Northern Ireland, I hope that one can be arranged in the not-too-distant future.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not the fact that the Government have chosen to hold a debate on the arts and heritage on the day of the European elections a measure of how slightly they regard the importance of the arts and heritage to our national life?
Mr. Biffen: For an awful moment, I thought that the hon. Gentleman's question would be the other way round. What the timing reflects is the difficulty of composing a timetable acceptable to all.
Mr. Michael J. Martin: Could the Leader of the House make time for a debate on British Rail Engineering? British Rail is proposing massive redundancies which, if they were to take place in my area, woukld kill off communities such as Springburn and many other workshop areas.
Mr. Biffen: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, and I realise the important constituency connotation that the matter has for him. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. John Evans: Has the Leader of the House seen that the International Labour Organisation, following its condemnation of the Government for their handling of GCHQ, has now condemned them for cutting the number of wages inspectors to the point at which a minimum wage policy
452
can scarcely be carried out? Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available in the immediate future for a debate on that vitally important subject?
Mr. Biffen: The subject is indeed very important, and the hon. Gentleman does the House a service by raising it. I cannot guarantee a debate, but I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Employment to the points that have been made.
Mr. John Fraser: The Housing and Building Control Bill is to be considered next Tuesday. Will the Government now accept their defeats in the House of Lords, and keep accommodation for 200,000 elderly persons available for letting?
Mr. Biffen: I do not wish to ruin the hon. Gentleman's sense of expectation. We must wait and see what happens on Tuesday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that today and yesterday, on Derby day and Coronation cup day, fewer than 200 Tory Members have been present in the House — fewer than 200 out of nearly 800 Members of Parliament? [Interruption.] Yes, two days together. That number is roughly equivalent to the number of miners who have gone to Bolsover pit to work, without producing any coal.
Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Gentleman feels rather unwell about Bolsover pit, but there must be a better case than that to be made and I wish him luck in today's debate.
Mr. Robert Litherland: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 573 in my name?
[That this House sympathises with the plight of the loyal workforce of Phillips Rubber Co., Dantzig Street, Manchester, and supports their efforts to obtain a decent living wage; recognises that £48 for a basic wage for a 40-hour week is an insult to workers who have devoted their working lives to this company; condemns the board and management for its intransigent Victorian and brutal attitude towards the 100 workers now in dispute for the past three months; and urges the management to resolve the situation by accepting the procedure of mediation.]
The motion is about the dispute between Phillips Rubber Co. in Manchester and its work force. The dispute has been going on since last November. This is a classic case of low wages. The workers receive £48 for a 40-hour week. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that all aspects of low pay were debated?
Mr. Biffen: In all candour, I cannot offer the prospect of Government time for such a debate. The hon. Gentleman may try to use an Adjournment debate to bring this constituency matter to the attention of the House.

Question to the Prime Minister
3.49 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I regret that you were unable to accept the question that I tabled for the Prime Minister on Thursday 21 June. I sought to ask the Prime Minister whether she would take steps to acquire a copy of the book by Mr. Bruce Arnold entitled "Margaret Thatcher. A Study in Power" for the library of No. 10 Downing Street. I understand that you refused to accept the question from myself and 25 other hon. Members under paragraph 54(17)of the Manual of Procedure, which states:
"Questions which raise matters of policy too large to be dealt with in the answer to a question, which are multiplied with slight variations on the same point, or which are trivial, vague or meaningless, may not be asked"
The question refers to the Belgrano. You will know, Mr.Speaker, that the Prime Minister has shown extreme reluctance to answer any questions in the House on that matter or on the Oman scandal, and that in the past couple of days she has done a bunk over the Daily Mirror disclosures. If you find one question tabled by 26 hon. Members unacceptable — remembering that it is extremely difficult for any question that is not in the first six to be answered and that therefore hon. Members always have the incentive to table more than one question in the hope of one being answered—I should be grateful if you would say what number of questions on one subject you would find acceptable. That would be helpful to all right hon. and hon. Members.
I am sorry to delay the House on this matter, but I and many other right hon. and hon. Members regard the circumstances of the sinking of the Belgrano as extremely important. We are deeply worried that for many months the Prime Minister, on this as on many other issues, has treated the House with utter contempt and refused to answer questions. This is our only opportunity to ask questions, and I should appreciate your guidance about your future actions in this regard.
Mr. Speaker: The authority under which I disallowed those questions was that, in my judgment, they constituted "a campaign". I considered it to be grossly unfair to other right hon. and hon. Members who wanted to table questions to the Prime Minister. It seemed unacceptable to me to have 26 questions on the same subject.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind the fact that Hamish Hamilton Ltd., the publisher of the book, has reputable ——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into the merits of the situation.
Later——
Mr. James Lamond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that an important debate is to follow.
Mr. Lamond: I want to ask for guidance on your earlier ruling Mr. Speaker, that the 26 similar questions were out of order because they appeared to be a campaign.
454
First, I was not one of the 26 who tabled any of those questions. However, I have noticed that 57 out of 60 questions to the Prime Minister today are exactly the same. Why were they not ruled out of order as a campaign?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman fully understands the situation. The 26 questions which were submitted were substantive questions on exactly the same. matter.
Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate to follow.

Jubilee Gardens, London SE1 (Meeting)
Mr. David Ashby: On a. point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of a meeting that is taking place within one mile of the House of Commons. The matter is dealt with on page 224 of "Erskine May", which says:
"not more than fifty persons shall meet together within the distance of one mile from the gate of Westminster Hall … to consider or prepare a petition or other address to both Houses, or either House of Parliament, on any day on which those Houses, shall meet and sit."
In Jubilee gardens, which is within one mile of this building, there has been a meeting that has been addressed by someone called Mr. Arthur Scargill. I submit that the meeting is intended to intimidate the House and incite some of its Members. As that gentleman could be in control until 2004, this is an important matter. I ask for your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker, because such meetings are most unfortunate.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of his point of order. He will observe that the Acts of Parliament to which he referred are closely tied to the purpose of presenting a petition or address to Parliament. I am not aware that that is the objective of the persons at present assembled in Jubilee gardens. Furthermore, enforcement of the law is a matter for the police, not me. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police acts under directions given by the two Houses at the commencement of each Session to keep free and open the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament to ensure the access of Members of Parliament to them. As far as I am aware, that is happening today.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that, at the end of your statement, you referred to the free access of hon. Members to Parliament because one of our number, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), was making his way to the House a little over one and a half hours ago in accordance with what you have just said when he was obstructed by one of the Prime Minister's private army—the police—and arrested. In view of what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I think that you have a duty to make inquiries into that matter to see under what pretext my hon. Friend was arrested while coming here to represent his constituents.
Mr. Speaker: I shall of course look into that matter.

Questions to Ministers
Mr. Roland Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter which arises from Question Time. In reply to a question, the Leader of the House implied that 20,000 miners who had been made redundant could find jobs in——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to do what all hon. Members would agree should not happen and that is to have elucidated an answer given during Question Time.
Mr. Boyes: No.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is. He must make a point of order to me.
Mr. Boyes: I think that it will be a point of order. I have a letter in my possession from the director of the NCB in the north-east. When a pit was under threat in my constituency——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot possibly answer that sort of question. It should be put to the Minister. If the hon. Gentleman felt that he had an inadequate reply, he has other remedies.

Opposition Day
[15TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Coal Industry Dispute
  Mr. Speaker: Before we start the important debate on the mining dispute and the Government's policy on the "Plan for Coal", may I remind the House that no fewer than 29 right hon. and hon. Ladies and Gentlemen have applied to speak. I have no power to control the length of speeches, but if hon. Members, particularly right hon. Members, limit their speeches to about 10 minutes, most hon. Members who wish to speak can be called.
  3.57 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move,
  That this House strongly condemns the Government for its mishandling of the coalmining dispute and the way in which severe hardship has been inflicted on miners, mining families and communities and for its abandonment of the principles and objectives of the "Plan for Coal"; calls for the withdrawal of the plan to lose 20,000 jobs and close over 20 pits in the corning year, which was a unilateral decision of the National Coal Board; and believes that the Government should then call a tripartite meeting to project the "Plan for Coal" forward based on investment and an expansion of the coalmining industry which will be essential for Britain' s needs.
  After 13 weeks of a major dispute in one of our vital industries—incidentally a dispute not about wages but about jobs—we have had confirmed in the past 24 hours that the Government have been seeking not a negotiated settlement based on the "Plan for Coal", but a political victory over the miners. The Tories have been planning an orchestrated attack on the coal mining industry since the 1978 Ridley report. The revelations in the Daily Mirror confirms that the Government have been leading that attack.
  I put it to the House and the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister should have found time to come to the House yesterday to answer questions on the letters published in the Daily Mirror yesterday. In her absence, will the Secretary of State confirm that those letters are authentic? The fact that the Prime Minister has set up an inquiry into the leak in effect makes them authentic. Therefore, will the results of the inquiry be published? The House has a right to be informed about that.
  We have it on record that on 11 May at the Scottish Tory conference the Prime Minister said:
  "We are not going to intervene in the coal dispute."
  That is obviously an untruth. We demand that the Prime Minister comes to the House and makes a statement at the earliest opportunity.
  I have referred previously to the Ridley report and I shall have more to say about it shortly. The present Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), has taken an untoward interest in defeating the miners. In fact, his involvement in the dispute seems to have been greater than that of the Secretary of State for Energy. That is perhaps to be expected because the right hon. Member is one of the masterminds behind the Government's attack on the miners.
  I hope that Conservative Members will listen carefully. In a report in 1978 the right hon. Member for Cirencester

  457
  and Tewkesbury pinpointed the coal industry as being the most likely battlefield for a future Tory Government. To prepare for this he suggested that a future Tory Government should build up coal stocks, particularly at power stations, make contingency plans for the import of coal, encourage hauliers to recruit non-union drivers, introduce dual coal-oil firing in all power stations, cut off the money supply to strikers and make the union finance them, and establish a large, mobile squad of police to deal with picketing. Every one of those points has been followed by the Government.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Ten out of 10.
  Mr. Orme: Yes, it is 10 out of 10. I am glad the hon. and learned Member recognises that.
  The dispute has serious consequences for the economy and for many communities in the United Kingdom. That is why I deplore the action of the Government in backing the Ridley report, as has been confirmed by the leak in the Daily Mirror. I find the inactivity of the Secretary of State for Energy during the past 13 weeks unbelievable. After 13 weeks of a major strike he has not yet spoken to both sides. All we have had from him is an unhelpful interview in last Sunday's News of the World.
  We made an attempt not to negotiate but to get talks going on a proper basis between the two sides. I invited Mr. Scargill and his colleagues to come to the House to see me, which they readily did. [Interruption.] I see nothing funny in that. The Secretary of State should have done it. Mr. Scargill explained the case of the National Union of Mineworkers. A couple of days later I asked to see Mr. MacGregor, to which he readily agreed. He put the National Coal Board's case. Following those exchanges and recognising the gap that existed between the two sides — I am not underestimating that— I felt that there was a basis for talks, and I said so. Talks have now started. [Interruption.] I shall let the public decide.
  Talks are proceeding and I wish them every success. The point is that they are taking place against a threat from the Government because they are trying to implement a victory over the miners, not a negotiated settlement. That is central to the whole issue.
  The 1978 blueprint for action by a Tory Government is being carried out to the letter, as confirmed by Conservative Members. The events of 1981 make it clear that since they came to power in 1979 the Government have been preparing to take on the miners. In 1981, as now, it was the Labour party who stood by the commitments in "Plan for Coal". It has repeatedly called on the Government to continue security of employment for mineworkers implicit in that programme for growth. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the 1960s, yes, we closed pits and we made mistakes. We learnt from that. There were jobs for people to go to in those days. The Government have learnt nothing from that period.
  In 1981 the National Coal Board, spurred on by the Government's financial targets laid down in the Coal Industry Act 1980, produced a pit closure programme that was not within the agreed specifications of "Plan for Coal" and was unacceptable to those working in the industry. Then, as now, the Government changed their mind. They began by refusing to accept their responsibilities both in terms of their general duties towards a nationalised industry and of their obligations to the tripartite nature of
  458
  "Plan for Coal". Then, as now, they stood aside from their duties and obligations. Yet, in 1981 the Government had an attack of realism under pressure and arranged a tripartite meeting with the National Coal Board and the unions. They relaxed their financial targets and the NCB withdrew its closure programme.
  The right hon.Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was then Secretary of State for Energy, was able to reaffirm his Government's commitment to "Plan for Coal" and to
  "emphasise the Government's view of the vital importance of the coal industry to the country".
  However, by the time this dispute began, the Government had set the scene for a long and bitter struggle that they were determined to win, irrespective of the cost to the nation or to the workers in the industry. By then they had been able to adopt the Ridley blueprint and they were ready to take on the unions in the coal industry. By 1984 they had been able to build up coal stocks at power stations and pits.
  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle rose——
  Mr. Orme: They have enabled the CEGB to buy coal and stock it in Rotterdam for importation. They have kept expensive oilburn power stations on stream. During the dispute the CEGB has been able to expand its oil-burning capacity at short notice, despite the additional cost of £20 million per week.
  Mr. Carlisle rose——
  Mr. Orme: They have used the social security legislation to ensure that striking miners and their families suffer great hardship if they take industrial action.
  Mr. Carlisle rose——
  Mr. Orme: I shall give way when I get to the end of this point.
  The fiction of £15 a week strike pay is one of the Government's most vicious moves against working people. Other benefits have been denied in an attempt to starve the miners back to work. but because of the support of their families and communities the financial intimidation has not worked.
  Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Member has said that he is concerned about the members of the industry and their families. If that is so, would he not support the view that those people should have had a chance to vote on whether or not they should have a dispute?
  Mr. Orme: That is an internal matter for the National Union of Mineworkers. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all the miners are opposed to the MacGregor proposals. They responded to the overtime ban throughout.
  It is clear that the build-up to the events of this year has been planned and orchestrated by the Government. The Coal Industry Act 1984 left us in no doubt that pit closures were on the cards with the reintroduction of short-sighted fiscal measures which again set a break-even target for the National Coal Board. Mr. MacGregor produced his plan for a further round of pit closures to meet those targets. The dispute began because of the high-handed manner in which the chairman of the NCB has planned for the future of the industry. His plans have been presented as a non-negotiable edict. That approach was guaranteed to create dissention and bitterness.
  "Plan for Coal" was a tripartite agreement, and three months ago one of the parties, the NCB, unilaterally tore

  459
  it up. The future promised to miners at pits such as Cortonwood was flung aside. It was said that Cortonwood had five years of life and miners moved from other areas to live near it. However, it was given five weeks' notice to close. That is what the MacGregor proposals mean.
  On 6 March the trade unions were presented with a formal statement by the board which, while invoking the principles set out in "Plan for Coal", in effect tore the plan to shreds. The unions were being presented with a plan for the rapid contraction of the industry and not one based on expansion, agreement and investment. It was then that the NCB admitted that the plan would mean the loss of 20,000 jobs this year and a cut in output to 97·4 million tonnes. Mr. MacGregor said that it would produce a baseline below which production would not need to fall. That statement is reminiscent of statements that he made when chairman of the British Steel Corporation. Unfortunately, the baseline continued to fall while he was in that position. It should have caused no surprise that Mr. MacGregor produced such a plan for the coal industry bearing in mind what happened during the three years when he was chairman of BSC. In 1980, BSC reduced its orders for coal from the NCB by 25 per cent. Meanwhile, Mr. MacGregor increased British Steel's consumption of imported coal from 14 per cent. to 24 per cent. of its total consumption.
  The Government have achieved their objective. The demand for coal has shrunk. There has been a fall in electricity consumption of 30 per cent. since 1979. There has been a significant fall in consumption even outside the steel industry. It has taken place in a range of manufacturing enterprises, and at the same time there has been a levelling off of domestic electricity consumption. The consequences for the coal industry and its finances have been catastrophic and, in certain places, disastrous.
  The result is there for all to see. Consumption of coal in power stations, which in 1978–79 was 89 million tonnes, fell dramatically to about 80 million tonnes in 1982–83.
  Mr. Tony Marlow rose——
  Mr. Orme: No, I shall continue for a short while.
  The decline in car production has led to a decline in steel producion, which has led directly to a decline in power station and coking coal. This has all been the result of the Government's policy. At the end of the line are miners' jobs and the future of entire communities. The Government have no clear idea of where they are going with energy, as in other areas, beyond their short-term, balance-sheet approach.
  What do the Government envisage when there is an increase in energy demand? Shall we have to import more coal when that happens, or use expensive oil to generate electricity and push up the price of electricity even higher? The report of the Select Committee on Energy has confirmed that the price of electricity is too high and that there should be a reduction in price instead of another increase. The Committee is of the view that a price reduction would assist both industry and low-income consumers.
  Mr. Marlow rose——
  Mr. Orme: Cuts in the coal industry can only mean higher fuel prices in the long run.
  Mr. Marlow: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is a very important point. The right hon. Gentleman has just said that he would like lower electricity prices. I am sure that we would all like lower electricity prices. The right hon. Gentleman is well informed on this issue and he is no doubt aware that the 20 most expensive pits in the country are producing coal at the cost of £89 a tonne. If the money that is invested in those pits were invested in new capacity, we would be able to get coal for electricity at below £20 a tonne. Will the right hon. Gentleman say at what cost he thinks it is worth mining coal?
  Mr. Orme: I shall deal directly with uneconomic pits and the cost of closing pits as well as keeping them open. "Plan for Coal" did not overlook the fact that there might be some short-term difficulties. It provided:
  "The Government will if necessary provide assistance to counteract the effect of any adverse fluctuations in demand … They will also, if necessary, be prepared to provide assistance in those cases where certain products may be essential in the national interest."
  However, the Government are trying to squeeze capacity to meet current consumption. They appear to be planning on the assumption that the world supply of coal will be plentiful forever. Even now Britain is almost entirely dependent on imported coking coal.
  Mr. Richard Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Orme: No, I shall not give way.
  It seems that the Government believe that it is in the national interest to close pits and to lose thousands of jobs in the mining industry. "Plan for Coal" states:
  "every experienced and trained man who leaves the industry represents a serious loss".
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Orme: No, I shall not give way. The Government are prepared to see over 20,000 serious losses this year alone. Such a programme breaks all the agreements that have been made during the past 10 years. It is designed to leave the coal in the ground and the miners idle above it. It is economic, financial and social folly of the worst sort. We know from our experience of the 1960s that it is economic folly to close pits before they are exhausted. I have already confirmed that that is so. Pits that are now economically viable could prove to be uneconomic tomorrow because of the Government's policy. The policy of the Government and the NCB is not confined to closing pits that have been worked out for it extends to pits which have many years of working life left in them.
  "Plan for Coal" is based on investment in an expanding industry. It accepts that pits will close through exhaustion and possibly through exceptional mining difficulties, and no one denies that possibility. The plan states that an average loss of capacity of 3 million tonnes a year is likely through exhaustion, but that was never considered to be a target to strive for; it was an expectation and even a fear. The plan stressed the need for replacement capacity to compensate for exhaustion and to allow the industry to maintain growth. In the 1960s pits were closed when it was believed that our energy future was in oil. That wrong assumption has taught us that we must not close our options, and that means not closing unexhausted pits.
  As the war in the Gulf escalates, are the 1960s to be repeated in an age of recession and high unemployment?

  461
  A crisis in oil is on the cards. As the stockbrokers Simon and Coates argue, if the Gulf were blocked and even if other OPEC producers made up half the shortfall, about 5 million barrels a day would be lost. Simon and Coates comment:
  "In 1979–80 a 5 per cent. shortfall in supplies produced a 150 per cent. increase in official prices …This time a 5 million barrel a day shortage would represent almost 15 per cent. of OECD demand, or 10 per cent. of total world demand, and so heavy speculative pressure on the spot oil markets could quickly allow 'hawks' in the OPEC cartel to put upward pressure on official/contract prices."
  The Government have miscalculated the cost of their strategy, the mood of the miners and the effect on the economy.
  The Prime Minister says that we cannot continue to subsidise miners to produce uneconomic coal, but if pits are closed, taxpayers will pay more, not less. We would have to replace lost capacity with imported coal from, for example, Australia, which might produce a saving for the NCB and CEGB, but the loss in taxes and the costs of unemployment and social security benefits of cutting 20,000 miners' jobs would more than wipe out that saving. In addition, the indirect effect on jobs in mining communities would be twice as great—doubling the cost to the Exchequer. The cost of lump-sum redundancies would be hundreds of million of pounds. Even the costs of the present dispute are so excessive that it would be cheaper to keep the miners in work.
  The weekly cost to the Government of the coal dispute is about £70 million. The loss to the coal board, the additional expenses to the CEGB, the lost taxes from the striking miners, the revenue lost to British Rail, and the cost of the massive police operation present the Government with a serious economic crisis. That has already had an effect on the public sector borrowing requirement. In March production fell by 1·5 per cent. because of lost coal production. The position can only get worse as the effects are felt throughout the country. Even the City realises how dangerous the Government's strategy is—resulting in fluctuations on the stock exchange.
  A further indicator of the severity of the dispute is seen in the latest balance of payments figures. The figures for April show the worst monthly deficit ever. The balance of trade in oil deteriorated by £400 million because the CEGB burned oil to conserve coal stocks. Last month the Government used our oil not to pay for unemployment, but to fight the miners.
  Such facts usually move the Government into action, and they should do. The Government should realise that the cost of pit closures and redundancies will be most severe and long lasting for the individuals and communities involved. Coal mines are not like offices or factories. When they close the entire community closes with them. In Kent, Scotland, south Wales, the north-east, Lancashire and even the midlands the loss of income to miners' families will create ghost towns of their communities.
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Orme: Many hon. Members wish to speak and therefore I shall not give way.
  The closure of a pit causes unemployment for today's mineworkers and affects future generations. Unemployment is high, so there is little chance of alternative employment for those who are made redundant or for those entering the job market. What opportunities
  462
  will there be for young people to gain the necessary skills to become the mineworkers of the future? The policy of the Government and the NCB sentences thousands of miners to long-term unemployment, and their communities to death. That could be prevented if the Government returned to "Plan for Coal" and implemented its policies instead of talking about the level of investment.
  Investment is high because expenditure on new coalfields, such as Selby and the Vale of Belvoir, is high. All hon. Members agree that that expenditure is necessary. If we subtract expenditure on new coalfields and major new workings, we find that investment has fallen by 30 per cent. since 1979. That decrease in modernisation and new equipment is the centre of the problem. If there had been investment in what are described as uneconomic pits, they would not be uneconomic.
  Government investment in coalmining increases every year, but since 1979–80 all increased investment has been in new pits, which are not yet productive. Other investment has been cut substantially. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission Report said:
  "The NCB's capital expenditure on new mine prospects, principally Selby, has increased as a proportion of total capital expenditure from 4% in 1976–77 to almost 21% in 1981–82".
  The report also envisages that capital expenditure on major projects at existing mines will decline from approximately 32 per cent. of total capital investment in 1981–82 to 12 per cent. by the end of the decade. Yet "Plan for Coal" specifically states that a main point of new investment is to extend the life of existing pits. The failure to upgrade the productivity of existing pits spells decline and disaster for many coalfields. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but they laugh at people who are losing their jobs and at whole communities that are being closed down.
  Mr. Hickmet rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
  Mr. Orme: To meet the needs of the future through expansion, investment of a higher order must be made in the great traditional coalfields as well as in new pits. I do not apologise for reiterating that.
  In south Wales, where money has been put behind miners, all production records have been broken. Already there are shortages of Welsh coal such as anthracite, coking coal and prime domestic coal. The south Wales coalfield has a market for more than 9 million tonnes. Mr. MacGregor's plan will reduce production in that once great coalfield to less than 7 million tonnes, and then to less than 6 million tonnes.
  The concentration of investment in new pits means that miners have been working with aging plant and equipment and have been unable to meet productivity increases targeted in "Plan for Coal". But the plan was based on a different distribution of investment. Where there has been investment in existing pits there have been significant productivity increases. Investment is supposed to be about growth, yet the Government invest millions in industry to cut it to the bone.
  The "Plan for Coal" still holds good today. The Government must revert to its principles and its targets. The way forward for the coal industry can be based only on expansion, modernisation and investment. The Government should make positive moves to improve markets for coal and ensure that the industry expands.

  463
  They should consider capital reconstruction, seek to prevent the influx of coal from outside the United Kingdom, and plan conversion to coal-fired power stations instead of retaining expensive oil-burn capacity. That would be a long-term saving, which would benefit the coal industry and energy consumers. They should plan and construct new coal-fired stations instead of wanting the pressurised water reactor at Sizewell. They should be wholeheartedly committed to expenditure on new uses for coal, such as gasification and liquefaction. They should proceed rapidly with a programme for combined heat and power. They should introduce a massive extension of the boiler conversion scheme for industry.
  Those are part and parcel of achieving wider markets for coal and a secure future for the industry. Investment in the nation's most important natural resource is not a waste of taxpayers' money either today or in the future. The expansion of the coal mining industry can only reap benefits for the entire country and ensure a future for the miners, the industry and for our ability to provide an energy source for the people of Britain for many generations to come.
  In February 1981 the Prime Minister told us that it was important to secure a bright future for the coal industry and that the Government would honour "Plan for Coal". What does she say today? The Government have presented the industry not with a vision of growth, development and expansion, but with one of contraction and closure. We call on the Government today to accept their responsibilities as a party to "Plan for Coal", and to move towards a settlement of the dispute along the lines stated in our motion, beginning with the withdrawal of the closure programme. We call on the Government to stop their secret manipulations to score a political victory over the miners and to start acting in the interests of the nation. Britain needs ever tonne of coal and every miner to dig that coal. That is what this debate is about.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.31 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  `confirms that the future of the coal industry will depend on the industry's success in deploying its assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels; welcomes the action of the Government in providing more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government in order to achieve a successful future for the industry, noting that their investment of over £3·9 billion has not only far exceeded investment in the industry by the last Labour Government, but has substantially exceeded the scale of investment envisaged in the "Plan for Coal"; welcomes the steps taken by the National Coal Board and the Government to ensure that, in areas where a reduction in uneconomic capacity is being considered, miners affected will be treated more generously and with greater understanding than in the past, to the benefit of mining communities; notes that the early retirement and voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those of any other industry, and have helped create a situation in which the National Coal Board can assure any miner now employed that he will be able to continue working as a miner if he desires to do so; welcomes also the action of the National Coal Board to assist mining communities by creating a new enterprise company; and calls upon all those in the industry to co-operate to achieve the higher productivity essential to keep coal competitive and secure the future prosperity of the industry and its employees.'.
  464
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) was remarkable for its total departure from a true analysis of the position. He said that it was important for the Government to stick to "Plan for Coal". If one decided to adhere to "Plan for Coal" and tried to bring into the coal industry what was envisaged by that document, as updated by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and by the previous Member of Parliament for Chesterfield, the only thing one could do would be to slash the investment programme and to close many more pits.
  The Government have substantially exceeded the proposals on investment in "Plan for Coal". That was deplored by the right hon. Gentleman because the investment was in new pits, collieries and coal faces. During the past 20 years the work force in the industry has been reduced by 290,000–190,000 of those under 10 years of Labour Government and 100,000 under 10 years of Conservative Government. Labour Governments have a remarkable record of closing pits. Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that they learnt their lesson from the 1960s and that when they came to office in 1974 and prepared "Plan for Coal" they decided that in future they would close only those pits that were completely exhausted?
  Mr. Orme: Or unworkable.
  Mr. Walker: That is the new definition, but it was not the definition used by the then right hon. Member for Chesterfield in the last year of the Labour Government when nine pits were closed, including one pit with two to three years' reserves of coal in it and another pit with 1·5 million tonnes of coal in it.
  The first "Plan for Coal" states:
  "However, like most extractive industries, the NCB 'has to run fast to stay still'. Over the period up to 1985 it appears that a broad average of some 3–4 million tons capacity a year is likely to be lost, mainly through exhaustion of mines and possibly also through exceptional mining difficulties".
  Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the NUM, the NCB and the then Department of Energy, under a Labour Secretary of State, calculated that 4 million tonnes of coal production would become completely exhausted during that period? Of course he is not. Unless all the Ministers at the Department of Energy, the NCB and the NUM were completely ignorant about the mining industry, they could not have meant the word "exhausted" to mean exhausted of all coal. They meant pits that were exhausted from the point of view of economic coal production.
  If one wants evidence of that, the same document stated later:
  "But inevitably some pits will have to close as their useful economic reserves of coal are depleted."
  Perhaps we should examine the Labour Government's final Green Paper on energy policy, prepared by the then right hon. Member for Chesterfield, in which the Labour Government refused to put a target on coal production. There was no target for coal production in any of the documents produced at the time. They put in its place this conclusion in the Green Paper:
  "The coal industry has in its own hands the opportunity to shape its long-term future. It has the reserves and the technology to make a major contribution to meeting our long-term energy needs. How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in future will depend on the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels."

  465
  Are Labour Members now suggesting that the way to secure that is to say that no matter how uneconomic it is to produce coal from a pit, provided that there is still coal there, we should continue to produce it?
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East tried to glide over the position on capital investment. The Labour party's view is simple. When, during five years, a Labour Government invested £1,472 million in the coal industry, that was building the coal industry to a great future; when during the next five years, the Tory Government invests £3,858 million, that is destroying the coal industry. It is a remarkable way to destroy an industry to have the most fabulous investment programme that that industry has known, and one that far exceeds that in "Plan for Coal". If we had kept to "Plan for Coal" by now we would have invested £6,700 million in the industry. However, as a result of large increases under Conservative Governments, we have already invested £7,600 million in the industry and, as a result of our acceleration of the capital investment programme, the investment that was envisaged by "Plan for Coal" to be completed by 1985 was completed by 1983.
  Opposition Members have referred to comparisons with the coal industries of other countries. They should compare the capital investment programme of the Conservative Government with that of other European Governments. Last year Britain invested in the coal industry almost exactly twice the amount invested in the entire coal industry in the rest of the European Community and 2·5 times more than was invested in Germany. As for Socialist France——
  Mr. Neil Kinnock: Ugh.
  Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman may well say, "Ugh". We shall all be watching to see the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman follows their example, because we know that, as a leader, he is good at following but never good at leading.
  In France, a Socialist Government came in on the policy of increasing coal production by 50 per cent. That same Socialist Government have announced that they will cut coal production by 50 per cent. This Government have delivered to a greater extent than was envisaged by "Plan for Coal". The Government have invested twice as much over the same length of time as the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On the subject of comparisons, I point out that the other day the Secretary of State said in his statement that the industry is subsidised to the tune of £130 per week per miner. What would happen if, for instance, the miners were subsidised at the same rate as people such as farmers, like the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues? According to the Think Tank report of November 1983, if the miners were in the same position as the farmers, with each farmer receiving £20,000 per year, there would not be a single uneconomic pit in Britain. If miners received the amount of money that the Government are giving to Nissan—that is equivalent to £400,000 per job—they would be living in the lap of luxury. Those are the comparisons.
  Mr. Walker: As this is an important day for the hon. Gentleman, I am pleased to say that, since the dispute started, more miners are working at Bolsover than before. Contrary to his earlier remarks, I am glad to say that
  466
  yesterday more than 300 miners were working there. I suggest that, if the miners compared the record on investment and pay under the Tories with the record under the Labour Government they would find a big difference.
  Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, this has been an orderly debate.
  Mr. Walker: Perhaps we have a situation—this is very interesting—in terms of miners' conditions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer, farmer."] Alas, I do not farm. That is just another inaccuracy.
  Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made his point. I hope that he will refrain from making any further comments from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Hickmet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely staggering that the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) dare not answer this question: what will happen to the 6,000 miners whose jobs depend on Scunthorpe, if the steelworks there close and 10,000 steel workers are put out of work?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members not to make speeches which may be made later if they are called. Interruptions only delay the proceedings and make it more difficult for the Chair to call hon. Members.
  Mr. Walker: I point out also that the interpretation of the right hon. Member for Salford, East that the dispute was started by the Government or the Coal Board is a totally inaccurate presentation of what took place. The right hon. Gentleman knows what happened because he went along, as he said, and had a discussion with the chairman of the NCB. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the chairman explained to him that he had never laid down any programme of pit closures. He had never refused to have negotiations with the National Union of Mineworkers.
  It is suggested that the right hon. Gentleman persuaded both sides to have talks. I was delighted to note that, after the right hon. Gentleman had talks with both sides, for the first time in the dispute the National Union of Mineworkers agreed to have talks without preconditions. Previously, the NUM had always laid down the precondition that talks would take place only if the NCB said it would abandon all pit closures. The reality is that those talks have now taken place and, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they will be continuing tomorrow. I hope that careful consideration will be given by both sides to the reality of the marketplace and the potential for increasing the production and consumption of coal.
  As the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows, because he was at the meeting, at that first meeting the NCB presented to the NUM a substantial paper about marketing and the future marketing prospects for coal. He will know also that at that time the NUM wanted neither to question nor to discuss that matter. That is an important element in considering the future prosperity of the industry.
  I believe that many miners who are working in pits in Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Staffordshire,

  467
  Nottinghamshire and Lancashire are well aware that damage is being done to the industry's prospects by the present industrial action.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: I intervene because the right hon. Gentleman mentioned my name in connection with a meeting. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman of the NCB was about a quarter of an hour late in coming to the meeting? No one could find him in the building. When he was asked about his attitude to the industry, "Plan for Coal" and the 20,000 men in 20 pits, his answer was, "No comment." He practically walked out of the meeting.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, following a demand by the NUM that all proposals to close uneconomic pits should be withdrawn, the NCB chairman replied, "No comment." The hon. Gentleman knows full well also that the chairman of the NCB has not listed any pit closures. He has listed production targets for each area. He has made it clear that those were targets requested by the NUM. He is perfectly prepared to discuss those targets with the NUM.
  Throughout the situation, the NCB has been willing to discuss all those points, without preconditions. Until about a week ago, the NUM imposed a precondition that the union would discuss the matter only if all proposals for future pit closures were withdrawn. In fact, that has not been done, and talks have started without preconditions. It is vitally important that the talks succeed.
  Mr. Alan Rogers: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Mr. Ian MacGregor's proposal for limiting overall production to certain areas is exactly the same as the quota system applied to farmers? Obviously, the same response would come from miners as would come from farmers, such as the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Walker: In its whole history, the coalmining industry has shown targets and budgets on an area basis. This is nothing new for any industry and nothing new for the coalmining industry. The Opposition talk about butter mountains, but the coal mountain, worth £2 billion, which has been built up during this period, has been another way in which we have endeavoured to see that investment in the industry continues.
  I shall deal with other measures, of which there was no mention by the right hon. Gentleman. The first is pay. He pushed that aside, and said that it was not an issue, and that the overtime ban and the present dispute were not caused by the pay offer. I am pleased to hear that he now says that pay is not an issue, because the Government decided to see that the finances were available to make a good and reasonable pay offer to the miners. It has been available since last November, and compares rather dramatically with the Labour Government's record towards miners' pay. The previous Labour Government boasted enthusiastically about how they had looked after miners' welfare but for two successive years there was a substantial reduction in miners' pay in cash terms. In 1976, in cash terms, there was a reduction of £13 a week and in 1977 a reduction of £15 a week. If any Tory Government did that, the demand for strike action would be complete.
  The Government are described as trying to destroy the coal industry but we have doubled the Labour party's
  468
  investment in it. Miners have better wages than they had under a Labour Government and, despite the industry's present difficulties, we are providing the finance to ensure that capital investment and good pay for miners continue. That is a record for which the Government make no apology. They should not be accused of destroying the coal industry.
  The other area where there has been a dramatic change and which, again, was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is the manner in which the Government have provided the finance to see that, when uneconomic pits are closed in the interests of the industry's future, those affected by the closure of such pits will be treated far more generously than they were by the Labour Government.
  During the period that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield was Secretary of State for Energy there were 17,000 voluntary redundancies. I bet that those 17,000 miners wish that they had available to them what is now available to those affected by uneconomic pit closures. In the last week of the Labour Government, a miner aged 55 who volunteered for early retirement would have received no capital sum, and £46 a week for three years. As a result of the changes that this Government have made he receives a capital payment of £7,800 and £60 a week guaranteed for five years. That is dramatically different from anything provided by the Labour party. Even more dramatic is the fact that if one of those 17,000 was aged under 50–49 for example—he would have received a capital sum of £1,450, whereas he will now receive £33,000.
  Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Secretary of State accept that during the time about which he is talking many people over 55 were employed in the industry? How many are there now over 55? Where are they? Are they at pits which will close? The miner may take £30,000, but does the Secretary of State accept that a person aged 49 will not draw social security until the £30,000 has gone? Therefore, it is only advance social security.
  Mr. Walker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, with the early retirement provisions the miner will also draw unemployment benefit. A typical married man will draw £104 a week. As a result of changes that the Government have agreed to finance, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he has considerable experience in the industry — any miner who wishes to continue to be a miner will be able to do so.
  It is difficult to defend major, disruptive industrial action doing maximum damage to the industry, when the Government are financing the biggest investment programme in history and a pay offer that everyone agrees is reasonably good, and ensuring that not one miner will be made compulsorily redundant. That is a remarkable background against which to encourage people to strike. It is also a remarkable background against which anyone should support the use of so-called mass picketing of the type that we have seen during the dispute. We were pleased, at long last, having seen on television policemen being kicked as they attempted to rescue miners from the damage and injury done to them by other miners, to hear the Leader of the Opposition condemn such violence. It was long overdue and we hope he will maintain his position as he sees violence continue, unlike his position over a ballot about which he remained silent until he heard that Mr. Scargill was about to change the rules. He

  469
  assumed that, as Mr. Scargill was changing the rules, he might be having a ballot and therefore the Leader of the Opposition came out in favour of a ballot. Since then he has been completely silent on the issue.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: The Secretary of State and I have known each other for some considerable time in the House. If the Government's case is as perfect as he is trying to make out why has he not used his energy to bring the National Coal Board and the miners together in a much more meaningful way?
  Mr. Walker: Because if we create the financial conditions in which the Coal Board can continue with by far the biggest capital investment programme envisaged by the country, even bigger than "Plan for Coal", give the coal board the finances to make a decent pay offer, and to ensure that not one miner is made redundant compulsorily, it is reasonable for us to expect that the coal board and the NUM should work out the detail and the manner in which the policy should be pursued. I am glad that, after a total reluctance to do this, the National Union of Mineworkers has at last decided to enter such talks, and obviously I hope that they will succeed.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Surely the test of threatened redundancies and alternative jobs is real, not theoretical? Before the present dispute started, Herrington pit in my area was under threat of closure, and it had been to the final appeal stage. I wrote to the director of the National Coal Board in the north-east, and asked what was going to happen to the men. He wrote to me towards the end of 1983, and said that he would not guarantee every miner under the age of 50 in that pit an alternative job in a long-life pit. I then had a meeting with the industrial relations man from the NCB. He, in front of lodge officials, confirmed that he could not guarantee men alternative jobs. If he could not guarantee jobs for a few hundred men, how are jobs going to be found for 20,000 men?
  Mr. Walker: I will tell the hon. Gentleman, very simply. When that letter was written, there may well have been such a position, but, because of the terms of voluntary redundancy for the men aged 50 and over, and for the under-50s, the situation in 1984 is unlike that in 1983, when there may not have been people wanting to take early retirement to make way for people who wanted to continue to work. I am delighted to say, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to hear, that this Government decided to provide several hundred million pounds to make sure that the fears expressed in that letter would never come to reality. Therefore, we can say to any miner anywhere in the country that, if he wishes to continue to be a miner, he will be able to do so. That is a remarkable change.
  The only opportunity for the industry is to take advantage of the good coal reserves that we have, and to develop them in an efficient and effective way. With the coal industries of other countries in western Europe in sharp decline, and, in some cases, virtually disappearing, there is a good opportunity for the industry in future. However, unlike what the Labour party practised when it was in power in the past, the new policy of the Labour party seems to be that, no matter how uneconomic the coal production in a pit, that pit will remain open, and therefore the money will not go into investing in pits for the future
  470
  and in existing pits with better equipment and better coal faces to provide better working conditions for miners, greater productivity and much better pay in the mining industry, to give an expanding and not a contracting industry. That is the option that the Opposition reject. This is a fundamental issue in the mining industry.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Before the Secretary of State comes to the end of his speech, with this continual fairy tale, would he spare a couple of minutes to deal with one of the central issues in the debate that he has so far ignored, the extent to which the Prime Minister has been involved in manipulating the dispute for her own political ends? He has said nothing so far about this matter, which is deeply embarrassing for the Government. Does he believe that the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister to the effect that she was not interfering in the dispute can stand up in any way against the revelations from No. 10 that she has clearly been orchestrating the dispute from day one?
  Mr. Walker: I can understand, particularly knowing the normal attitudes of the hon. Gentleman, that he would far prefer to play around with matters concerning a letter about railway pay than to face the basic issues affecting the coal industry. The Government have intervened. The Government intervened in the dispute to ensure that the capital investment programme continued, that money was available for a decent pay offer, and that not one miner would be made redundant. That is the intervention of this Government, which the Prime Minister and the entire Cabinet supported, and which is, I believe, in the basic interests of the future of the mining industry.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Walker: Therefore, we are seeing a situation in which the industry is employing the best capital investment programme of any coal industry in Europe. It has potentially a good future. Opportunities of export and of coal conversion by industries in the country are being destroyed by the industrial action, which is obviously being supported by the Labour party.
  I believe that, when the history of this period is written, it will be judged that, in this situation, a Conservative Government had put the resources behind the industry to give it a good future, and irresponsible industrial action had done damage to that future.
  Mr. Dalyell rose——
  Mr. Walker: That is why I say that there is nothing in the amendment proposed by the Government with which the Labour party can disagree. It cannot deny that we are investing twice as much as the last Labour Government did, and more than under "Plan for Coal". It cannot deny that we have been generous to all those who have been adversely affected. It cannot deny that the only future for the industry is one involving high productivity and low-cost coal, with expanding markets. That is why I ask the House to support the amendment.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: One of the purposes of the debate, in my judgment and, I believe, in the judgment of all Opposition Members, is that the debate should be used to try to seek an end to this grave industrial dispute in which the country is now caught. I had hoped that the House might hear a speech from the Secretary of

  471
  State to assist in that purpose. I can hardly say that that is the case. He has merely reiterated the figures and the claims that some Conservative Members have made throughout the period of the dispute. He said not a single word to suggest how we should get back to the negotiating table. He said a few kind words to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who has been discharging the responsibilities that the right hon. Gentleman and Ministers should have been seeking to discharge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may laugh, but we want to get back to the negotiating table. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman does.
  It is significant, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that throughout his speech the right hon. Gentleman did not refer to the developments of the last few days, which refer directly to the question of how we are to get a negotiation going, and whether the Prime Minister really wants a negotiation.
  It is a disgrace that the Prime Minister has not come to the House to make a statement on this subject. She should have done so yesterday. She should have done so today. Eventually, she will have to come. It is no use anybody suggesting that these issues will not affect the future of the industry, the settlement of the dispute, and, indeed, the honour of the Government.
  I quote from a newspaper that commented upon the situation this morning. It happens to be a newspaper that has given steadfast support to the Government, but it represents a part of the country that knows something about the coal industry. The Western Mail says:
  "In this light, the Government was badly advised yesterday to try to deny that it had intervened in any public industry pay negotiations. Its claim that Ministers only kept in touch with heads of these industries to remind them of their overall cash limits is a blatantly inadequate reaction to what has been revealed in the 10 Downing Street document."
  It continues:
  "What is more damaging, the document makes it clear that Mrs. Thatcher's repeated claims that the Government was not taking any direct intervention in the mining dispute can be regarded as true only by stretching the meaning of words beyond breaking point. Her private secretary's reference to the NCB pay offer undoubtedly points to intervention which was certain of its effect. If that is not 'direct intervention,' then the phrase on Mrs. Thatcher's tongue was so commodious as to be meaningless."
  In other words, on this important question, both inside the House and outside the House, the Prime Minister has misled the House and the country. On a series of occasions—I shall not weary the House by repeating them, but the House is familiar with them—the right hon. Lady, inside the House and outside the House, has said that there has been no intervention by the Government in the dispute, and that there will be no intervention in the dispute. We now have a clear indication that that is not the case but that the Prime Minister has intervened in the dispute.
  I am not surprised that the Secretary of State did not refer to that. Probably he was not consulted on it. Possibly the only Minister who was consulted about that aspect of the right hon. Lady's policy was the Minister of State, Department of Employment — the chairman of the Conservative party — who has entered into the correspondence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Yes, he should have been present for the debate.
  Many of us protested at the time of his appointment because we thought it most invidious that a newly appointed and newly salaried chairman of the
  472
  Conservative party should be put into the extremely sensitive Department of Employment, which would surely be dealing with these matters, especially, as is now revealed, when that Department, which should have much wider responsibilities, has been dealing with the specific question of intervening to try to stop successful negotiations. That is what it has been doing, when from the beginning it should have intervened to prevent the dispute ever taking place.
  I served at the Department of Employment for several years. [Interruption.]I do not know whether Conservative Members think that this is a matter of importance for the nation. We are concerned to get the dispute settled. I do not know whether they are. They are on trial in this debate; we want to see whether that is their aim.
  At the Department of Employment we used to follow every potential dispute to see what were the possibilities of a dispute arising and to see, before one arose, whether we could avoid it becoming a dispute. Large numbers of disputes were avoided on that account. We set up ACAS partly to put that system on a wider basis. But never did the Department of Employment surrender its right and duty to look at each major dispute to see how it could be avoided.
  This dispute could have been avoided in advance if the Government had been doing their duty instead of playing politics with the coal industry. They could have avoided it by taking seriously what was said by the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers. I have long experience in the House of what they have said on many subjects. I remember many of the arguments when closures were taking place under Labour Administrations before 1970. I opposed those closures because I came from a mining constituency and thought at that time that the NUM was not only looking after its own interests but had a wiser understanding of the interests of the nation at large than did many of the people who were supporting the oil and other industries.
  I learnt from that, as did the Labour Government—[Interruption.] The laughter of Conservative Members, who know so little about this subject, will not be welcomed in the country. It will merely confirm what the Prime Minister has revealed in the documents, which is that she is much more concerned with the political battle than with getting a settlement of the dispute. We learnt from what happened over the years. That is why we produced "Plan for Coal" and why that plan is reiterated in our motion.
  It is absurd for the Secretary of State — with a rigmarole that we have heard many times in recent weeks — to say that he is faithfully carrying out "Plan for Coal". A part of that plan managed to ease the problems of the industry in the 1970s. The right hon. Gentleman knows something about that because he was partly responsible for the industrial disputes that occurred in the 1970s, when he was a spokesman for the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In those years the Conservatives made a mess of things because they would not listen.
  A central part of "Plan for Coal"—perhaps its most important feature—was that all questions affecting the future of the industry, including investment, closure programmes in general and individual closure programmes, should be settled not by diktat, not by decisions by one party, not by the NCB, not by the Government separately and, worst of all, not by some

  473
  conspiracy between the Government and the NCB. I see the right hon. Gentleman smirking. He should not smirk. The appointment of MacGregor to the job was part of the conspiracy. Anybody who goes to the steel areas of this country will be aware of what happened there, and for the right hon. Lady to appoint MacGregor to the NCB was a provocation and was part of the way in which the Conservatives abandoned the principles of "Plan for Coal". We must get back to them as speedily as possible—that is why our motion is right—not only to resolve the immediate dispute but to govern the industry in the years ahead. We must get back to discussions without preconceptions and——
  Mr. John Townend: Give in.
  Mr. Foot: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say, "Give in." It is clear that Conservative Members who make such interruptions when we are discussing such important issues have no comprehension of the strength of feeling in the mining areas of Britain. They have no comprehension of how bitter is the feeling about the way in which the miners have been forced into this dispute. They have no comprehension—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Foot: —of how that bitterness will be increased when they read how the Prime Minister has lied to the House — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The sooner they get back to the negotiating table the better.
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Andy Stewart: It was quieter on the picket lines than it has been in the House for some of the debate. I am grateful for having been called to speak because we are discussing the country's greatest industry. It provides the material for a civilised society's most imperative need, energy. Originally, coal was used to give the human race one of its primary requirements, heat, but in the future, with our vast reserves, it will be used to replace the other carbon fuels which, as we know only too well, are finite.
  Last year, when I made my maiden speech on what was then the Coal Industry Bill, I said that it was a great privilege and honour to be the Member for the country's largest mining constituency, Sherwood, with its 10 collieries, two area workshops and two area headquarters employing 60 per cent. of the Nottinghamshire coalfield's 35,000 employees.
  Today, I am prouder than proud to be that Member. What politician, even in his most exaggerated dreams, could have predicted then what my constituents have had to endure in the last 13 weeks? They have suffered mass intimidation reminiscent of that meted out to the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. There have been threats and actual violence to innocent people, including children. Such threats could come only from the gutter.
  Before families can go to bed, every curtain must be made secure with furniture to give protection from flying glass as a result of bricks being thrown through the windows. If I were to relate all the horrific crimes that have been committed in my constituency, our marathon Sitting of a fortnight ago would seem short; all this misery because they believe in democracy. It is ironic that this debate is being held on the anniversary of the landings which brought to an end the last Bohemian corporal who tried to destroy our freedom.
  474
  I speak for the entire work force of the industry in my constituency when I say that we are not interested in arguing about the past, about which party closed the most pits, or even about that disastrous period of inflation in 1977, when Arthur Scargill, in one of his saner moments, said that his men would have been £25 a week better off under the Tories. That was true then and is true today.
  It is the future that matters to our miners. "Plan for Coal", the industry's bible, has this Government's complete commitment and more—some£1,400 million. Politicians have never been in the past, and will not be in the future, successful in running any industry. That is for management and that is what we support. Nottinghamshire's successful record did not happen by accident but by co-operation and commitment by everyone. The old attitude of "them and us" is dead. During this dispute, it has taken on a new meaning. "Them" are the political wreckers, and we know only too well who they are—the synthetic sick and the skivers who use the industry as a gravy train. If they never returned to their place of work, production would probably increase.
  When I visit the collieries in my constituency, the last item on the agenda is a working lunch with the area director and local management, which includes all the union representatives, at which the investment programme for the future is endorsed. We talk about investing billions of pounds, but it is at the local pit that this is translated into reality, meaning jobs.
  We hear that this dispute is about jobs for our children and grandchildren. Are those people saying that in the year 2020 we shall be sending more people down holes in the ground than we are now? What a Luddite vision! Have they not heard of technology, or are they so blinkered that they have not noticed the disappearance of the pit pony? Technological revolution has arrived in the industry, and its secure and prosperous future lies with the young techonocrats being recruited. If every miner's wife had one wish, it would not be for £1 million, nor would it even be wasted on the demise of Arthur Scargill. It would be that her children would never have to go down the pit to earn a living. The coal industry holds the key to that wish, with unlimited reserves mined at a cost that would give industry energy at a price that no competitor could match. This is the hope for 3·5 million unemployed.
  Every day we hear of the sunrise industries. The greatest of these is the coal industry. It will be here when the others have gone, and anyone who disputes that is disregarding the scientific evidence. To replace the current oil requirements will require 105 million tonnes of coal, to replace gas will require 75 million tonnes and to replace the many other derivatives from oil, 25 million tonnes. That is the potential for the future. No miner need fear nuclear power. The present opportunities for new markets in this country and abroad are unlimited.
  I can give a specific example. Nottingham university makes its own supply of energy and has recently converted three of its four oil boilers to coal at a total cost of £750,000. As the university does not fit into a recognised category, no grant was available. Nevertheless, the cost will be recovered in three years. It has left one oil boiler as insurance, and the cost of the premium is £80,000 a year. If only the university had a guarantee of a continuous supply of coal, it would convert the fourth boiler. There are many such examples all over Britain. To meet this demand, the Nottinghamshire miners are demanding

  475
  action through the ballot box, when every Scargill mouthpiece will be voted out of office, and then he who pays the piper will call the tune.
  I remember only too well that, during my maiden speech, when I said that I was the first hon. Member for Sherwood, "Not for long" was the snide remark from the Opposition Benches. I have news for them. Some 15,000 Nottinghamshire miners have withdrawn the political levy and more will follow as soon as the forms are available. The salvation of the industry and the union is in the hands of the men themselves, supported by the necessary investment from the Government. Then we shall see our coal produced by men who put their country and their families before anyone's political philosophy.
  I feel it my duty to inform the House of what every Nottinghamshire miner repeats as he goes through the lamproom on his way underground. He says, "I am glad I am British, I am glad I am free, but I wish I were a dog and Arthur a tree."
  5.27 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I am the new Member for Cynon Valley and will be the Member for a long time. My constituency was represented loyally and with distinction by loan Evans, who was its Member from 1974 until his untimely death earlier this year. Before that, he sat for the Birmingham division of Yardley from 1964–70. I know that the House would like to pay tribute to his great service to it. He was Front Bench spokesman on European and Community affairs. He held various posts, including PPS to several former Ministers. He served on the Council of Europe and his interest and expertise in foreign affairs is evident throughout his career. He was a director of the International Defence and Aid Fund, vice-president of the Parliamentarians for World Order and chairman of the parliamentary Labour party foreign affairs group. I believe that loan Evans would best like to be remembered for his passionate interest in peace, justice and human rights throughout the world, and as a Member of Parliament who was popular and respected. Wherever I went in my election campaign, the same phrase was used—"He was a good man".
  My constituency is still very much a mining constituency. There are three pits in the valley, and miners also travel to work at 12 pits outside the valley. Thousands of jobs depend on coal, directly in the pits and in the Phurnacite smokeless fuel plant. Part of my constituency is bordered by the Brecon Beacons national park, and the spectacular scenery continues along the length of the valley. The great warmth and hospitality of its people was noted even by my Conservative opponent.
  However, according to one of the bodies nominated by the Secretary of State for Wales, the Wales tourist board, my constituency does not even exist. In a new tourism report containing a map of the south Wales valleys, the Cynon valley does not even appear. Instead, the whole area, in which 67,000 people live, appears to have been replaced by a large forest. I realise that at one time, before the industrial revolution, a squirrel could jump from tree to tree from the Brecon Beacons to Cardiff. Are we to glean from this omission that the Government intend to continue their savage policy of de-industrialisation? Have
  476
  they a secret plan to reclaim the Cynon valley and extend the boundaries of the Brecon Beacons national park? If they have, they must think again.
  The area is, of course, crippled by unemployment. Almost 19 per cent., or one in five people in the valley, have no work. The area has lost its special development area status, and even the CBI is protesting about the cuts in regional aid. The by-products of the Prime Minister's Victorian values—despoiled landscape and inadequate housing—abound. Half the houses in the valley were built before 1919, and the number without baths is three times the national average. Half the land of the valley still shows the scars left by the old coal owners.
  One devastating health statistic in the valley is the rate of deaths from respiratory disease. In England and Wales as a whole, the rate is 50 per thousand, but in the Cynon valley it is almost 73 per thousand. We need proper compensation for those suffering from emphysema and chronic bronchitis as a result of working in dusty industries. It is a heartbreaking experience—I wish that Conservative Members could share it—to see a miner gasping for breath even while using an oxygen mask. Yet, because he has not been diagnosed as suffering from pneumoconiosis, he does not get a penny in compensation. That is more than wrong, it is cruel and unjust.
  Those living in the Cynon valley today are the inheritors of a strong, radical tradition. One former Member of Parliament, Henry Richard, was known throughout the world as the apostle of peace. Keir Hardie, both a pacifist and a Socialist, once represented the same area. Aberdare, the main town in the constituency, was one of the two largest and most influential centres of literary and musical culture in Wales. The output in printing and publishing was prodigious. The brass bands and the choirs that are found throughout the valley today are part of our heritage, as is the Welsh language. It is not surprising that those who have struggled together in adversity are today once again struggling for the future of their communities.
  I suppose that there must be some nice, concerned and intelligent Conservative Members, but they have not been obvious this afternoon. The point made by my hon. Friends was valid. Why is it right to subsidise food surpluses but not right to subsidise coal? But then, one quarter of the Tory candidates in the European elections are farmers. How can we expect any reform of the CAP when the leader of the European Tories is no less a person than Sir Henry Plumb?
  Thousands of jobs in the Cynon valley depend on coal, either directly in the pits and the phurnacite plants or indirectly in the engineering workshops and factories. Hundreds of small businesses are already feeling the loss of the miners' custom. But the support given to the miners is unstinted and generous. The valley will ensure that the miners will not be starved back to work as they were in 1926—although it must be said that the Government are doing their utmost to do that. Miners and their families are being forced to live off friends, bags of potatoes and the odd £10 from relatives. They are having to cash their insurance policies, raise second mortgages, sell their cars and furniture and live on tick—but the determination to see it through is in no doubt at all.
  Miners' wives are not only providing meals for those in need, they are on the picket lines. Those women feel that their communities, lives and families are under attack. The media image of working-class wives whose husbands

  477
  are on strike has, in the past, been one of urging them back to work and reviling them for not bringing home the pay packets. But the women today are shoulder to shoulder on the picket lines and there is a powerful new image, supportive and as determined as the men.
  The miners are seen as fighting for us all. It is a symbolic fight, a fight against the two Britains — the haves and the have nots. It is a protest on behalf of a lost generation of young men and women who have never been able to find a job in the valleys of South Wales. Mining is still a dirty and dangerous industry, but we have been offered no alternative. We are not prepared to be bought off with the offers of fool's gold from Conservative Members this afternoon. The steel workers already rue the day that they took redundancy pay. The miners will not be in the same position.
  We need investment in coal, not cuts and closures. South Wales is the only producer of anthracite in Britain. Britain is short of 1 million tonnes of anthracite a year, yet the NCB is closing anthracite mines in south Wales when it should be expanding them and opening new mines. Port Talbot steelworks is situated next to the largest untapped reserve of prime coking coal in western Europe. While the Government and the NCB aim to cut our coking coal pits and refuse to invest in the new mine at Margam, they import into Port Talbot 1 million tonnes a year of foreign coking coal.
  Only south Wales and Durham produce those quality coals, yet they are precisely the two areas most discriminated against in new investment in major capital projects. Last year, while the pits of Nottinghamshire and Yorkshire enjoyed new projects under construction to the value of £2·5 billion, South Wales and Durham were scratching along on less than £42 million—less than 2 per cent. of the Yorkshire and Nottingham totals. In other words, despite knowledge of massive proven reserves in untapped coalfields such as Margam, the Government are being guided by the same short-sighted advice that caused them to massacre the coal industry in the early 1960s, leaving the United Kingdom to the tender mercies of the international oil companies and OPEC.
  The Government are engaged at this very moment in what amounts to nothing less than industrial sabotage. The country needs coal, and we can provide it. The NUM's case is not a plea for charity. Closing 74 pits and making 74,000 miners redundant — that is Mr. MacGregor's ultimate plan—would cost £45 billion. To keep them open, producing coal, would cost less than half that, with or without new investment. Success for the miners would preserve their jobs, for the benefit of us all. We want the investment, we want recruitment, we want new technology. There will be no compromise in south Wales.
  5.38 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). I take great pleasure in congratulating her on her maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more well argued and presented speeches. I welcome her to the House.
  I am pleased, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have decided to call Members of Parliament who do not necessarily represent coal mining areas. I am an Essex Member, but I was born and brought up in Nottinghamshire. I am very proud of my schoolfriends who work in the pits of my native county.
  478
  As an Essex Member, I am mindful that in my county 270 people have been arrested during the dispute, mainly at the ports and docks where there has been heavy picketing against imported coal. As a county, we have made a major contribution to the policing of the midlands coalfields. The present dispute thus effects the whole country because the cost of social security payments to support the miners' families is a burden on us all, the loss of equipment in neglected pits is a burden on the taxpayer and the cost of policing the coal mining areas is a burden on ratepayers, whether the policing is carried out by the local force or by forces from other areas. Moreover, communities throughout the country are greatly disturbed at the number of police taken away from their home areas and the possible decline of law and order as a result.
  What is the dispute about? It has gone on for 14 weeks, but it is still not clear what it is about. It cannot be about pit closures, which have been going on for more than 10 years. The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) admitted today that the Labour Government closed many pits in the 1960s. The dispute cannot be about redundancies, as 17,000 volunteers are prepared to accept the NCB's redundancy scheme. It is becoming increasingly clear that the National Union of Mineworkers and its president, Arthur Scargill, are using the NCB's need to balance demand and output as an excuse for a political strike.
  There is a clear imbalance between output from the mines and demand in the country at large. Between 1979 and 1983 coal stocks have doubled from 29 million tonnes to 58 million tonnes. If those stocks are to be reduced, we must either increase demand or reduce output. Demand can be increased in a number of ways. We can try to export more coal. I have just returned from a visit to Israel where I saw a coal-fired power station. When I asked where the coal came from, I was told that it was from Poland and Australia. When I pointed out that this country produced very good coal and would like to sell some to Israel, I was told that its quality was well known but that it was far too expensive. We must reduce the cost of coal so that we can export more.
  As Opposition Members have said, we also need to increase the number of coal-fired power stations. We need to spend more on research so that we can get gas and liquid fuels from coal and learn how to exploit fluidised bed combustion. All those developments require coal to be competitive in price and delivery from the coalfields to be reliable and not constantly subject to disruption as at present.
  If we cannot increase demand as we would wish, output must be reduced as a short-term measure. We can do that by closing the uneconomic pits and in so doing reduce the average cost of coal. That will eventually stimulate new demand which can then be met by coal from the new pits and coalfields in which massive investment is now being made.
  The Opposition contend that if we had stuck to the "Plan for Coal" we should not have the present problem. The 1974 "Plan for 'Coal" was based on three premises—first, an increase in investment; secondly, substantially improved productivity; thirdly, and perhaps most important, a constant rise in energy demand.
  The promised investment took place. Between 1974 and 1979 the Labour Government invested £1·4 billion in the coal mining industry—the total envisaged in "Plan for Coal" for the period 1974 to 1984. Between 1979 and

  479
  1984, the Conservative Government have invested £3·3 billion and it is intended to invest a further £3 billion in the next four years. The investment promise in "Plan for Coal" has clearly been kept.
  The plan was to increase productivity by 4 per cent. per annum, but it has increased by only 4·7 per cent. in the entire 10-year period under review.
  The biggest disappointment, however, has been the lack of demand for energy nationally. In 1974, we expected total energy demand in this country to rise to 430 million tonnes coal equivalent, but it has risen to only 310 million tonnes coal equivalent. Just as total demand for energy has fallen, so has demand for coal, which is now 101 million tonnes—about 30 per cent. below the 135 million tonnes that was envisaged. That drop in demand has made it even more imperative to match output to demand. If by reducing output we can also reduce average costs and increase productivity, we can begin to stimulate increased demand for coal.
  The present dispute, however, will not achieve that result. Many people wish to burn more coal in power stations and to use it in process and chemical industries, but they are now frightened to do so because confidence in the industry has fallen away. The dispute does nothing to help the industry. It puts at risk the market for coal and steel plants such as those at Llanwern and Ravenscraig. Moreover, even if the strike ends now, 15 pits are threatened with closure due to the danger of spontaneous combustion resulting from lack of maintenance, putting at risk 20,000 jobs and 10 million tonnes of coal capacity. The dispute also puts at risk some of the very communities that the strikers claim to be trying to protect.
  The dispute also puts at risk democracy in this country. Massive numbers of union activists are behaving like bully boys in the midlands coalfields. Those activists are acting in that way without any national ballot and ignoring the decisions taken in the coal mining areas of the midlands.
  The dispute puts at risk the lives and limbs not only of the police, but of the pickets themselves. As we know, 315 police have been injured as a result of paint stripper and ball bearings being thrown, trip wires across roads and other attempts to maim them. Sadly, too, one picket has been killed and many injured.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman find that so sad?
  Dr. Clark: Why should I be less sad to hear that a picket has been hurt than to hear that a policeman has been hurt? I do not want anyone to be hurt. I want the dispute to be stopped.
  The dispute also puts at risk the rule of law in this country. It is turning the midlands into an area similar to Northern Ireland in terms of the violence and the number of the police. Let us hope that we can curb the violence before it develops into riot and civil disobedience which is impossible to control. People outside the mining areas are beginning to fear that law and order will break down because 7,000 policemen are permanently drafted into the areas affected by the dispute. Police from 13 forces—7,000 of them—are there every day.
  I hope that as a result of the dispute the Government will consider bringing forward legislation to ensure that when unions organise picketing on such a scale they will
  480
  be subject to financial penalties, unless the dispute is authorised by a ballot of the members of the union concerned.
  I have itemised all the things that are put at risk by the dispute. Two things will not be put at risk: the strategy of the National Coal Board, which will be carried through despite the violence and intimidation in the midlands, and the life of the Government, who will see the dispute through and come out on top in the end.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: My first task is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on a most remarkable maiden speech. She spoke with great knowledge, passion and feeling, and represents an area where support for the miners is far greater than Conservative Members begin to understand. They will win the vote in the Division Lobbies tonight, but I venture to tell Conservative Members that they will be defeated by the National Union of Mineworkers and by the people who support it, for reasons that I shall give as briefly as I can.
  The hon. Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) referred to the police. What the hon. Gentleman said encourages me to read a letter that I have received from someone who was present at the Mansfield rally a few weeks ago. The writer says:
  "I saw two men bedecked in N.U.M. stickers actually pick up a stone each and throw them at the police lines, inciting other miners to do the same, and as in all large rallies there is a hooligan element, some followed suit, as they did so, the first two turned round and announced that they were plain clothed police officers and tried to arrest one of the miners, but he escaped after intervention by other miners, and the officers were assaulted, not only did they deserve it, but it is they who should be charged with inciting a riot, not the miners."
  Conservative Members may not have seen what has really been happening. The press reports of what has been happening on the picket lines have completely left out of account the deliberate police provocation of miners. The coverage has been such that people have not realised what has been happening.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State has gone. One had to listen to his speech very carefully to understand that he has made three major changes from the policy of the "Plan for Coal". First, the production targets are to be cut from 130 million tonnes next year—rising to 170 million to 200 million tonnes at the end of the century—to less than 100 million tonnes, which is what MacGregor wants. To make a lot of speeches in the House and indulge in point-scoring while failing to tell the House that the Government are planning to cut the production of coal in Britain is totally misleading.
  The second thing that Ministers have not yet been honest enought to admit — we may have to rely on another leak — is that they intend to sell off the profitable pits. That is why they are investing in Selby. They want to pour public money into Selby and some of the Nottinghamshire coalfields so that when they have beaten the NUM—as they think that they will, but they will not—they can sell off the pits into which they have poured public money. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] The hon. Gentleman says, "Rubbish." But it is Government policy to sell off the oil, BT, the airways, the railways and the pits. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to say, "Rubbish," let him say it to his own Front Bench.
  The third point which was not made plain in the Secretary of State's speech—and I am not surprised

  481
  about that — was that the whole objective of the Government is to isolate and defeat the NUM. Everyone knows that throughout the time when Labour was in office there was the closest consultation between the NUM, the NCB and the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I were all involved. The present Government have excluded the NUM from any meaningful discussions about the future of the industry.
  That is why there was an immediate response at Cortonwood. When the Secretary of State says that there will be no compulsory redundancies, how can anyone believe him? Those who moved to Cortonwood were told that there would be five years' work there. They were then given five weeks' notice of the closure. The miners do not believe a word Ministers say, and they are absolutely right.
  I turn to the economic argument. We produce the cheapest deep-mined coal in the world. If subsidies in Britain were the same as those in the Common Market, the NCB would make a profit of £2 billion a year. Agriculture is subsidised up to the hilt. Indeed, the dairy farmers—including all the dairy farmers in the House—are up in arms if their subsidy is temporarily and momentarily eroded by a Government which has poured money into uneconomic land. Candidly, I am in favour of keeping our land in use for food production, just as I am in favour of keeping our pits in use for future energy for the nation.
  People talk about cheaper South African coal. What about the wages of the South African miners? Mr. Botha—that friend of Hitler who was invited to Chequers to celebrate, no doubt, the 40th anniversary of D-Day — represents a coal industry which will not allow unions to exist and pays the miners a pittance. Yet we are told that we must be competitive with that industry.
  Mr. Marlow: What about Australian coal?
  Mr. Benn: When the present Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), was in charge of the industry in 1973, he ordered Australian coal. When we were in power in 1974, the Australian coal arrived. It was so expensive that the Central Electricity Generating Board sold it at a loss to Electricity de France, because it was more expensive than British coal. I remember that very well.
  We are told about the necessity to be economic. What about nuclear power? No private financier has ever put a penny into nuclear power. It has been subsidised from the beginning. The reason why a pressurised water reactor is to be built and why the Government, in advance of the Layfield inquiry, have authorised the spending of £200 million is that the Americans want the plutonium for their cruise missile warheads. It has now been admitted in the newspapers, after reports in Congress, that the American Government cannot persuade their own people to build nuclear power stations and are therefore relying on British plutonium to maintain their warheads.
  Those are the realities of the economics. The costs of the closures are greater than the costs of investment, and the cost of the strike makes economic nonsense of the Government's case.
  The other argument is that the Government's policy is a continuation of Labour policy. Our investment programme under the "Plan for Coal" was for 170 million to 200 million tonnes by the end of the century. The target
  482
  is now to be under 100 million tonnes. Every item of policy, including closures, was discussed and agreed by us with the NUM. As Secretary of State for Energy, I offered the NUM executive a veto on all closures in order to be sure that the NUM, the NCB and the Government would be able to agree to produce the coal.
  There has been a great deal of hypocrisy about the Government not intervening. They are deeply involved. The police are preventing peaceful picketing. They have set up road blocks, introduced curfews in the villages and provoked on the picket lines. There have been cavalry charges against unarmed pickets. That is a disgrace to the British police, for which the Government are responsible. This afternoon I asked in the House about the use of troops, and the Leader of the House was very evasive. At the beginning of the dispute, I asked the Leader of the House whether the armed forces had been alerted, and he gave a categorical assurance that they had not. Now the Prime Minister has written to me. I had asked her whether the troops were involved. She used a very skilful phrase. She said that there has been no authorisation. She did not say that the troops were not being used, and she admitted that the army and the armed forces are supplying facilities and transport as part of a joint police and military operation. Either the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister was misleading the House.
  The magistrates have come in and introduced bail conditions that amount to a sentence — a sort of exclusion zone—for those who have been convicted of nothing. Much has been made of the crudity of they way in which the Government have turned off every source of funds, including social security. to starve the miners back to work. They have "deemed" that the miners have been getting strike pay when in fact they have not. They have cut maternity grants and excluded from strike pay workers who have been only indirectly involved and were never employees of the NCB. One case that came to my attention was of the Government stopping a retired miner benefiting from the redundancy payment scheme because, for a short while, he was on the NCB's books before the strike began. The Government think that by starving the miners, or bribing them with thousands of pounds, the miners will respond.
  Mr. Alistair Burt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Benn: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman and I shall tell him why. If he wanted to make a point, he should have demanded a debate before today.
  The miners know that the large sums of money that are given to them are not real money. They are a lump sum payment for future social security benefits as they will not get those benefits until the redundancy pay has been spent. Neither the tightening of the screw through the Department of Health and Social Security nor the attempted bribery through redundancy pay will affect the miners.
  The most remarkable thing that has occurred in the coalfields is that the miners are fighting the present policy and will go on doing so and the Government can do nothing whatever to stop them. Young miners know full well that if, at 29 or 30, they take the money that is offered, there will be no work for them, their children or their grandchildren in the areas in which they live. They will not accept it. It is a most vivid example of the non-nuclear defence strategy. When people are fighting for

  483
  something in which they believe, they will make many more sacrifices than the policemen waving their £600 a week pay slips at the picket lines to provoke the miners. The women are supporting the miners as has never happened before and many have been arrested.
  I believe that the leadership of Arthur Scargill and the NUM executive has been brilliant throughout the dispute. The Secretary of State has returned. He lost his job as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by mishandling the miners and he will lose his job again because he is up against a National Union of Mineworkers that has been warning people for years about what the NCB and the Government want. I heard Arthur Scargill at the Durham miners' gala three or four years ago describing the hit list of pits. Even Joe Gormley, who is now in another place, denounced what he said, but every word that Arthur Scargill said was true. That is why miners support him. They are also getting enormous support——
  Mr. Marlow: Why not have a ballot, then?
  Mr. Benn: Conservative Members destroyed trade unionism at Cheltenham without a ballot and intend to take away votes in metropolitan counties without a vote. They cannot suddenly pretend that they are in favour of a ballot in a national dispute. Eighty-seven per cent. of the miners are on strike and will remain on strike until the dispute ends. The financial and other support, such as food, that is being given to the miners and mining areas is on a scale of which there is no parallel in any industrial dispute in living memory. The money and the food are pouring in.
  I have attended 10 or 20 meetings on the European elections and every one of them has concerned the miners. No one should think that when 14 June comes it will not be the miners who are in people's minds when they vote Labour against the Government and all that they stand for. I believe that the miners are getting such support because they are fighting for all of us. They are fighting to preserve local government, for public services and for the women at Greenham common in such a way as to attract the support of the overwhelming majority of the Labour movement.
  The Government were wrong in 1926. They were wrong again in 1972 and capitulated. They were wrong in 1974 and were defeated. This miners' strike will send the Secretary of State into his final retirement because they are fighting for the country's future and its energy supplies, which are now threatened once again by the Gulf war and are not to be entrusted to the private oil companies. When the House divides, I do not doubt that it will carry the Government's amendment. However, the Government will not carry the support of the British people who are overwhelmingly behind the NUM in its struggle.
  6.5 pm
  Mr. William Cash: It is with a sense of awe of this great Parliament and its history that I make my maiden speech in this debate. I shall try, as far as possible, to be non-controversial. I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her excellent maiden speech.
  It had not been my original intention first to address the House until some time after my election, but the subject matter of the motion and the issues that it raises played a considerable part in my by-election campaign and I have
  484
  a significant number of constituents who are miners with mining families in mining communities. There are many others in the constituency of Stafford who are directly or indirectly affected by the motion. I spent much of my childhood in the years immediately after 1948 in a mining community near Sheffield and I saw at close quarters how they had to live.
  Another compelling reason why I wish to speak now is to pay, in the House, a deeply felt personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Hugh Fraser. He was a gallant and greatly respected Member of the House who was many times a Minister. He was greatly loved in the constituency of Stafford, which he represented with such distinction for 39 years. It is a great privilege to follow him in representing the constituency.
  It was only yesterday that we commemorated the 40th anniversary of D-day. My father was killed in action outside Caen. For my part, it was the freedom which Sir Hugh and my father fought for in Normandy and after Arnhem at Pegasus, with many people from all walks of life, including the mining community, that underpins what we are debating today. It was not simply an abstract ideal of freedom for which they fought but the reality of freedom for ordinary men and women of the country and for the constituency of Stafford. I shall return to that point later.
  My constituency comprises the town of Stafford and countryside largely towards the Shropshire border to the west and the Cheshire border to the north. Since 1983 and the boundary reviews, the constituency has included three wards of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which were substituted for the area of Stone. The town of Stafford, though tracing its origins to Roman times and earlier, is first readily identifiable as being settled in 913 during the wars against the Danes, when it became the county town. Ever since then it has held that position as the administrative and trading centre of the county.
  In the 18th century it developed an important footwear industry which led to the modern inter-related industries of machinery, grindstones and adhesives, now represented by the famous companies of Dormans, Universal Grinding, Evode and Lotus Shoes. It has excellent communications; the railway first came to Stafford in 1837.
  In 1900 Siemens became established in the town. In 1919 that company was acquired by English Electric, which merged with GEC in 1968. That company now employs about a quarter of the entire work force of Stafford. In 1926 British Reinforced Concrete moved into Stafford and Taylor Woodrow has a significant presence in the constituency. The country areas, with their beautiful hamlets and villages, provide a substantial agricultural industry, much of it in the dairy sector. It is a well balanced constituency of town and country, rich in heritage and medieval churches, with many new industries already deeply involved in the newly developing and fast expanding technologies such as computers.
  In the public sector we have a new district hospital, officially opened only a few days ago by her royal highness the Duchess of Kent. We have the county police headquarters and the county and borough civic offices. We also have one of the largest maintenance store units for the RAF. A unique feature of the borough of Stafford is that James I was so impressed by the magnificence of its mace that he granted the burgesses special dispensation to carry it vertically.

  485
  Stafford first returned a Member of Parliament in 1258. Among my predecessors was Richard Sheridan, who represented Stafford for 26 years from 1780. Those were times of great international tension, revolution, great change, reform and extra-parliamentary agitation. It was at that time that the beginnings of real democracy in this country began to emerge, which culminated in the great Reform Bills of 1832 and 1867 and later, through which my great-grandfather's cousin, John Bright, with his friend Disraeli, brought the vote, and with it democracy, to the ordinary men and women of Britain.
  Following Sheridan's maiden speech he asked the opinion of the parliamentary reporter, Woodfall, who replied, "Oratory is not in your line. You had better cleave to your literary pursuits." Disappointed Sheridan replied,
  "It is in me, however, Woodfall, and by Heaven I will have it out",
  and that he did. I have much to learn both from him and from all those in the House. I can only promise that I shall do my best to follow the traditions, customs and conventions and to defend and protect the interests of the constituents of Stafford whom I have the honour to represent.
  I said earlier that I would seek not to be controversial. I appreciate that that may be difficult in a debate on this subject. I only hope that what I am about to say about the mining dispute will be construed as being no more than an attempt to present a reasonable sense of perspective in the context of those freedoms to which I referred earlier and for which so many have fought and died. The main point that I wish to make is that we must uphold the freedom of people who choose to work and there must be no intimidation of those who make that choice.
  The mining dispute is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for the miners themselves, for their families, their communities and the country. Miner has been set against miner. Violence has been substituted for democracy within the union and has disturbed the peace and good order of Britain. I have always believed, and said so in my campaign, that a national ballot should have been called. Then, at least, there would have been an opportunity for the consent of the miners to be properly sought one way or the other. In the midlands area of the NUM, which includes Staffordshire and my constituents, 73 per cent. of the miners there voted against a strike. I cannot believe that it is fair or right for their consent and their right to work to be subordinated to the wishes of the militants, or that those who wish to work should be intimidated from trying to do so.
  While I was out canvassing in the by-election I had direct first-hand evidence of intimidation. I heard it from miners' wives and from miners themselves. Consent is the true foundation of our freedom and of our liberties. It is the essence of democracy in a union no less than in our Parliament. It is my duty and that of Parliament to uphold the right to that consent.
  The denial of that consent is not the decision of the Government. The challenge which that denial represents is a threat to democracy. Nothing is more dangerous in a free society than the use of freedom in order to destroy it. The object of the law is to protect the reasonable use of freedom for all citizens and that object must be upheld. That law includes the right to belong to a union, the right to picket peacefully and the right to work.
  I am reminded of the struggle for freedom in Poland—a country where the freedoms which we enjoy do not
  486
  exist. Lech Walesa is engaged in a completely different struggle from that of the miners' leaders here. He has been fighting for freedom for his workers without the freedom to do so. I ask most earnestly that the miners' leaders remember what he said of his union colleagues—"Our greatest danger is ourselves. We must learn restraint and patience or we will tear ourselves apart." While miner is set against miner, severe hardship is being inflicted on miners, on mining families and on communities, but not by the Government. We seek a prosperous, secure and expanding mining industry. That is our plan and our hope in the future.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: In following the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), it falls to me to pay him a compliment. When he was not referring to the more controversial elements—the mining dispute and so on—I compliment him on his humour. I am one of those who believe that that is worth a guinea a box, and if the hon. Gentleman develops it, it will hold him in good stead.
  I also agree with the hon. Gentleman to some extent about his predecessor, Sir Hugh Fraser. When he stood for the leadership of the Tory party against the Prime Minister way back in 1976 after the other bloke made a mess of it, I was not altogether sure who he was. He came in from the outside. I was told that he was an anti-Marketeer and I thought that that was a bit of a start. So I did what little I could to encourage him. I did not dare to do that overtly because it would not have helped. I called him Mr. Quality Street because I thought that he might go down well in the Tory ranks.
  Having dealt with that, let me get on with the more important aspect of the debate—the dispute. Nearly all the Labour Members who are in the Chamber today, and many who are not, have been calling for the debate for several weeks. But there was another fellow who was constantly calling for this debate. Not a week passed without a little bloke at the back of me shouting, "What about a coal debate, Mr. Speaker?" Where is he today? I refer to the leader of the Social Democratic party. He has been clamouring for a coal debate now for about two months and when we get it he goes missing. Where has he gone? I was told that he has gone to Portsmouth. I made some inquiries and asked what he was doing down there. I was told that he was either supporting the Social Democratic candidate or the Liberal candidate there. They have one of each. The media have not told us about that. It is very encouraging. There are two candidates. Sally Thomas is making a great show of things down there.
  I want to restore the balance on intimidation. Only yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) came along with the information that two police agents provocateurs had gone to the community kitchen where food was being provided for the striking miners, the wives and all the rest. Who has been taking the food? Two coppers. They have been stealing. At Creswell in my area a lady, a pensioner, Mavis Seals, was out collecting one Friday night. She is in a wheelchair, having been on sticks since she was a young girl. She went out collecting for the miners who are on strike and when she came back her front door had been smashed in. The television cameras and the media do not care tuppence about Mavis Seal's smashed door. There are plenty of examples like that.
  The same is true down in Kent today where Malcolm Pitt, a miners' leader, has been released after many days

  487
  in prison. Part of the Prime Minister's gestapo, the police, are down there filming all the pickets who have gone to try to pay a compliment to Malcolm Pitt on his release.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: Before my hon. Friend leaves that subject, will he tell the House about the Friday when we had the freedom ride in my constituency and I, as the local Member of Parliament, was detained for 40 minutes and not allowed to travel in my own constituency? I was not arrested but detained by the police until I threatened to go to the Speaker of the House about breach of privilege and then they released me.
  Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is right. When I met him that night he had been stopped by the police at countless places in his constituency. We can all recall such instances.
  In Stoke only the other day the buses that had brought down the Durham miners to picket were not allowed to stay. They were sent away and several score of Durham miners were left without transport 150 miles from home. That is the sort of carry-on that is taking place.
  The Minister talked about investment. I wish he would tell the House the whole story about the National Coal Board accounts. According to the last figures that we got officially, out of the so-called subsidy to the NCB and to the miners, which is much less than is going to the farming fraternity, £366 million has to go on interest payments. The Minster calls that part of the subsidy to the coal board. There is £200 million for stocking charges. This is all part of the so-called subsidy.
  When the Prime Minister has been bragging in the past about investment she has never said that in 1979 6,300 young men entered the mining industry. What are the figures now? As a result of all the glorious investment that the Prime Minister has talked about, there are fewer than 1,800 jobs for young men in the pits. Where is the investment going? As my hon. Friends have said, it is going on interest payments. They are like an albatross around the coal board's neck. The board has to get £2 million at evey pit in Britain before it starts making a profit. The first £2 million goes on interest charges. I have been told that, in the latest set of accounts, well over £400 million goes on interest charges before they turn a cobble of coal. I shall not speak on the subsidy because I have dealt with that before.
  I want to turn to the Government's plans. The Secretary of State got a bit excited and was trembling and shouting. Among all the verbiage, I spotted something, as one or two other hon. Members did. He said three times that the coal board and the NUM are not engaged in talks with preconditions. He emphasised it once; he emphasised it twice. What he is really saying to the board, as we all know because we are on the victory trail, is that it can start afresh tomorrow. The miners that my hon. Friends and I have been marching with today know the result. That is why the Government panicked over the DHSS guidelines. Can hon. Members imagine a football manager, whose team is winning two-nil with five minutes to play, telling his players to kick the full backs' legs off and get sent off? That is what the guidelines mean. The Government have panicked. When they start taking bread out of the mouths of miners' kids, what does it mean?
  Why have the Government panicked? It is partly because of the Gulf war. We have nowt to do with it.
  488
  Arthur Scargill has not been on the phone. I have not been on the phone. My hon. Friends have not been on the phone. They started it on their own on those Benches. I have started to listen to the world service to hear what is happening in the Gulf.
  In 1926 when the miners went back to work they found that their shovels, hammers and picks had rotted and rusted. In 1972 my dad said to me, "It is a different story now. It is their tackle that is down the pit. It does not belong to us. It belongs to them. It belongs to the coal board and the insurance companies will have to pay up." All the stuff that is down the pits is deteriorating. Dowty Props and all the rest of the firms went running to Mr. MacGregor last week and said, "Hi, hold on, it is all right shouting and bawling about the strike, but it is hitting my pocket and my Caribbean holiday." So they are running for cover and the managers who are on £30,000 a year are beginning to say, "I am fighting for my job."
  Some of the pits that are deteriorating are the ones they want to keep open. It is a bit of luck, but we need a bit of luck. The Prime Minister has had plenty during the last five years. The balance of payments is in a mess, £838 million in the red. That makes one feel a bit better. Interest rates have stopped going up for a while because of the economic summit and the Common Market election. They have rigged the money supply. All these problems are on one plate at one time.
  No wonder the Government are in trouble. They have the world debt to think about as well. The Prime Minister has got people here to talk about bailing out Brazil, the bankers, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico and all the rest. She is bailing out the farmers. After the Common Market election she will bail out the Common Market, but she cannot look after a British industry like coal mining. That shows where the Government's priorities lie.
  What about the demands? Hon. Members will remember what happened when roads were blocked in Nottinghamshire. We read in the Daily Telegraph last week that farmers were blocking roads at Aberystwyth during the milk race. They blocked every main road with Land Rovers and tractors. There was a little piece on the front page of the newspaper. I made inquiries and sent a letter to the Home Secretary. Not a single arrest was made. That is the kind of double standard and hypocrisy that the Government practise to try to beat the miners, but they will not win, because we are on the victory trail.
  We have never been more confident. The coal board conceded Cortonwood last week and Polmaise. We have a list as long as one's arm that it will have to concede before this is settled. We will call for the writing off of the debt. We will call upon the miners to make sure that when they put in a pay claim in November, when there is hardly any coal at the pit top, that claim will cover all the money that they have lost, every single penny. We shall get rid of the evil bonus scheme as well so that every miner is made the same and the bonus moneys are incorporated in the day wage. We shall get rid of the massive overtime that has been worked and then we shall demand a four-day week so that we can obtain more jobs for young miners in all mining constituencies. Before we go back to work—listen to this carefully — we shall demand that every miner who has been sacked by the NCB during the dispute is reinstated.
  This will be a historic victory for the miners, make no mistake about that. It will change the entire industrial—economic power base of Britain. The rest of the working

  489
  class will remember the dispute. They will remember the sacrifices made by 150,000 miners and their families. We shall smash the myth of the Prime Minister's so-called industrial invincibility. The miners united will never be defeated.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Before I deal with the inimitable rendering of Alice in Wonderland by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), it is my pleasant duty to be the first Conservative Member to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on his fine maiden speech. His depth of knowledge of his constituency, his lucidity, and his humour will ensure that he has a receptive audience when he speaks in future and will ensure also that his constituents have a powerful voice in Parliament.
  The debate has inevitably aroused strong passion and it is important to consider the basic principles which underlie the problems. Tragic and perilous events are taking place in Iraq and Iran and in the Gulf and they underline the basic lesson which we had to learn so painfully in the 1970s. That lesson taught us that we must have our own dependable sources of energy. The lesson will be rubbed home again and again in the years to come as the world's appetite for energy increases and as the reserves of oil begin to run out. It is a lesson that underlies "Plan for Coal" and the strategic importance of domestically produced coal to the British economy.
  That was recognised in "Plan for Coal" in Sir Derek Ezra's preamble. Sir Derek made an equally important statement at the end of his preamble when he said:
  "Of course, the size that we can make Britain's mining industry rests ultimately on our ability to remain competitive … That means improving our performance in tons and productivity."
  The two factors inevitably go hand in hand.
  Four years later, in 1978, the then Labour Government echoed the sentiments expressed by Sir Derek Ezra when it produced a Green Paper that stated:
  "How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in the future will depend upon the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive."
  The report identified four basic ingredients for a successful coal industry: willing customers, investment, productivity, and competitive prices.
  The customers are there, or they were until the present industrial action started. More and more companies were thinking seriously of switching to coal as their source of energy. More British companies were looking to local pits to meet their needs. It is right that tribute should be paid to the marketing arm of the National Coal Board for its great success in the work which it has undertaken. As recently as March a major order was signed which would have brought about 50,000 tonnes of coal demand to pits in my constituency. Export markets are improving also. It is right to recognise the great skills of Mr. MacGregor in exploiting his wide knowledge of the world market for coal.
  Investment is there also. The Government have invested many billions of pounds more than "Plan for Coal" demanded to make our coal industry truly effective. That is not the action of a Government who, as Labour Members suggest, are seeking to butcher the coal industry.
  It is the productivity of the mining industry which has failed to live up to "Plan for Coal". We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) that
  490
  in the decade from 1972–73 the mining industry achieved an increase in productivity of only 4·7 per cent. when the target was 4 per cent. a year. It is only in the past year that the 4 per cent. increase in productivity has been achieved, when the Government's policies were beginning to bite.
  Mr. Allen McKay rose——
  Mr. Batiste: I shall give way later.
  From the lack of productivity has come increasingly uncompetitive pricing with a crippling knock-on effect on the remainder of British industry. Steel, enginering and many other industries have suffered heavily from high electricity costs caused by the high cost of coal. Those of us who are committed to the development of coal must not be blind to the problems that high coal costs cause to other industries. To subsidise coal prices is not to provide the answer. Other industries will have to pay taxes to provide subsidy support for the coal industry. Productivity increases are the only realistic answer to energy problems.
  It is a tragedy that the strike has come when the light was beginning to be visible at the end of the tunnel. In my constituency in west Yorkshire there are three pits. The circumstances facing the pits clearly illustrate many of the problems which have been discussed this afternoon Allerton Bywater is an older pit in which there has been heavy investment to give it access to large long-life reserves. It is a pit which serves industries in the area. It employs 1,000 and it is especially at risk when customers who seek to use their coal., weigh the prospects of dependability. The protracted strike that we are suffering will mean lost production for that pit, lost markets and. inevitably, less security for the future of the pit.
  The two other pits in my constituency provide a contrast. These are the pits of Ledston Luck and Saville. Saville is in the process of closing, and Ledston Luck is scheduled for closure in two and a half years. Those who wish to remain in the coal industry will all have jobs in Selby as it develops or in other adjoining pits. The complaint that I receive from miners at Ledston Luck and Saville is that they are not being moved quickly enough to new pits such as Selby and not that their pits are being closed. In those circumstances, it is especially depressing to hear the dismissive comments of Labour Front Bench spokesmen about the investment in major new pits, which will be the life-blood of areas such as mine and of the mining industry as a whole.
  All the investment is being put at risk because the investment which has already taken place is being dissipated.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse rose——
  Mr. Batiste: No, I shall not give way.
  There is little advantage for a British industrial manager in subsituting the fanatical ranting of the Ayatollah Khomeini for that of Arthur Scargill. There is no advantage to my constituents to hear the hon. Member for Bolsover delight in and joke about the damage that is being caused to the fabric of their pits. They are the ones who will suffer and it is no laughing matter, although the hon. Member for Bolsover seems to think it is. Mr. Scargill has forced a strike by use of procedures that deny the honourable and democratic traditions of the National Union of Mineworkers.
  All the miners who want to stay in the industry have been guaranteed a job, and those who volunteer for

  491
  redundancy are treated with unprecedented generosity. The Government are heavily committed to a massive investment programme. The fact that Mr. Scargill has forced a strike against that background demonstrates that his motives are political and not industrial. To do that when the vital customers on whom the industry depends for its future have alternatives to choose from is the height of folly. To do that when large numbers of miners will not follow the lemming-like path to suicide is to compound folly. To use intimidation and violence such as we have seen on the picket lines in Nottinghamshire, Orgreave and elsewhere is unacceptable in a democratic society and equally unacceptable to miners and trade unionists.
  Equally deplorable are the hysterical attacks on the police by union leaders and leading members of the Labour party — I refrain from defining them as "leaders". We are fortunate to have a superb police force upon which we can rely. When the mass pickets go to Bolsover to intimidate miners who are returning to work, I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will support the police while they protect his constituents.
  The prospects for the mining industry are outstanding, despite its present problems, if saner and more rational counsels prevail. Miners must accept that increasing productivity is the solution and is as much to their advantage as it is to that of the country as a whole. They must repudiate the policy of violence and intimidation which has been the hallmark of the present leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers. That will restore the confidence on which the coal industry can be rebuilt.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Jack Thompson: I listened carefully to hon. Members' speeches and to the apparent expert mining knowledge of Conservative Members. I have had 40 years' experience in the mining industry almost to the day. Therefore I can speak from what we in the mining industry describe as the pit point of view. I worked in the mines before they were nationalised. I may not look so old, but I am. I started in 1944 and worked in what was regarded as one of the best private coal companies—even it was savage. The mining industry has developed, especially since nationalisation in 1947. I experienced the ups and downs of various Government policies and the various attitudes of the different chairmen and members of the National Coal Board. Therefore, I have first-hand knowledge from the receiving end. That gives me authority to speak on behalf of the miners, especially those in Northumberland, with whom I have spent much of my lifetime.
  One of our major worries since 1944 had been about the uncertainty in the coal industry. We were never confident about our future and were never happy about pay levels. That culminated in the 1972 dispute and the Wilberforce report, which lead to a reasonable pay level.
  During the 1974 dispute it was claimed, as it has been since then, that the NUM brought down the Government, I do not believe that. The Government capitulated to public opinion. Following the publication of "Plan for Coal" there was new enthusiasm and confidence in the mining industry.
  Many Conservative Members will tend to think that miners are people who work underground for a time, come out again, but who do not think. That is not the case. They
  492
  study, read and understand matters put to them. They understood "Plan for Coal" and what it meant for the coal industry. They were confident in it until 1979, when they saw signs of what was to come. They saw manufacturing industry begin to collapse, the demand for fuel, both coal and electricity, being reduced, and their livelihoods and the opportunities for their children slipping away. Anxiety in the mining industry started about 1979 with the decline in manufacturing industry and the beginning of huge stockpiles of coal at power stations.
  One of my responsibilities is to represent my constituents. In the mid-1950s we had about 22 mines in my constituency but now we have only one. That reminds me of the question often bandied about in the Chamber: what is an economic and what is an uneconomic pit? Who is responsible for the classification of pits? The coal mine in my constituency started in the 1800s. I worked there for 23 years, and when I visited it last year it was classified as uneconomic. Management had a question mark over its future. They questioned whether reserves would last for five or 10 years. The men who worked in the pit, and some members of junior management, said that the machinery on the coal-producing faces was not right for the job. They argued and argued, and finally someone either in London or in the local headquarters in the north-east conceded that the machines should be changed. This year the pit is economic because the machines were changed—not on the advice of senior management, but on the advice of the men who operate the machines.
  We talk about mines closing because they are uneconomic but we tend to think that the miners are responsible for the present problems and furore. The general attitude of the media suggests that the miners are responsible for the problems in the coal industry. In my neighbouring constituency —I am sorry that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not present — is the Lynemouth pit, which, before the boundary changes, was part of my constituency. Many of my constituents worked there. In 1966 senior management decided to operate a new mining practice. The colliery operates under the North sea for about four miles. That makes Tory Members prick up their ears because they did not realise that there are massive coal reserves under the North sea. The method of mining used supported the sea bed. They used a special technique which had been popular for many years for such conditions. In its wisdom the board decided to change the operation and started a longwall system. That resulted in broken coal being left in the works when the machinery moved on. Such conditions, which are well known in the industry, lead to spontaneous combustion and the possibility of a serious fire.
  In 1966 the major part of the colliery had to be permanently flooded and coal reserves written off, not because the miners did not produce coal, not because of a lack of coal reserves or because the pit was unprofitable. The whole economic set-up was correct, but somebody decided to operate a system that was totally irrelevant to that mining operation. That resulted in our losing the colliery in 1966.
  The board decided to put a tremendous amount of money into that mine to get it operational again. It combined it with Ellington colliery next door, although they were still separate operational units. The pit re-opened in 1968, but it closed completely in 1983. In 1965 it provided 2,000 jobs; at the beginning of this year there

  493
  were fewer than 400 workers salvaging material and carrying out maintenance. Not one miner in that pit was responsible for its closure, but it has gone—a colliery which the chairman of the coal board in 1964 said had 80 years of life in it. That colliery and the one next to it are now flooded, and many millions of tonnes of coal under the North sea cannot be excavated because of the board's decision at the time. The closure had nothing to do with the miners, but much to do with management, and 1,500 jobs have been lost that could have gone to the young people of my constituency.
  Who in the present dispute has questioned the board about such matters? To my knowledge, no one has. We should remember that in the north-east most of the pits on the Northumberland and Durham coasts are under the North sea and depend upon the right operation and the right management.
  There is an example in my constituency of what can be done to assist the mining industry. In the late 1960s, when Labour was in power, an aluminium smelting company applied to come to Britain. With Government encouragement, financial support and special arrangements, a smelter was established in my constituency, which is now one of the most profitable parts of that company's international operation.
  The smelter is fuelled by coal; it has its own power station, which uses 1 million tonnes of coal a year. It provides 1,100 jobs and the workers are almost entirely ex-miners. The managing director told me—his claim is correct—that it probably supports another 5,000 jobs in the area. That is what the mining industry needs. We should have such operations in all mining areas. No one is hell-bent on keeping open pits that are exhausted or where the conditions are such that one could not expect people to work in them. We want a combination of the pits from which coal can be extracted being kept open together with the introduction of new industries to use that coal.
  Although I have concentrated on my area, I am certain that the conditions there are reflected in Durham and in parts of Yorkshire. I was interested to read a document produced last year by the Nottinghamshire NUM, which talked in detail about pit closures in Nottingham. I am happy to see the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) back in the Chamber— [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been on television."] I hope that he donates his fee to the miners' cause. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Nottinghamshire. I understand the position there, because in the 1960s many miners from my area went to work there.
  Mr. Andy Stewart: And from Scotland.
  Mr. Thompson: I bet that the miners on strike in Nottinghamshire are those who came from my area and from Scotland, because they know what happened there and they know that it could be repeated in Nottinghamshire. The hon. Gentleman also talked —perhaps facetiously—about there being no pit ponies now. I assure him that one colliery in Northumberland has 45 pit ponies, and one pleasure I had before I left the industry was to see the pit ponies in their stalls. When I look across the Floor of the House I see that things have not changed much.
  I have lost count of the number of chairmen of the Coal Board since 1947. There have been various degrees of criticism of those men and the job they did, but for most
  494
  of them there was some respect. Some were good, some bad and some indifferent, but none were like the man who is now in charge of the Coal Board. During our debates on the coal industry many Conservative Members have said that the miners should have a national ballot. There was a national ballot to elect the president of the NUM, who got a 70 per cent. majority. I would recommend that the NUM hold a national ballot to determine whether the miners have confidence in the chairman of the NCB.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned the tripartite arrangement among the Government, the NCB and the NUM. There is another tri-partite arrangement now among the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Energy and the chairman of the Coal Board. That arrangement is to destroy the National Union of Mineworkers.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I pay tribute to my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and welcome him to the House. His was a noble speech, and we all look forward to hearing more from him. It is significant that he was elected with a substantial majority one year into a new Parliament. We have been entertained by that comic turn, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who had to make up for the appalling performance by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), who made one of the most incompetent speeches from the Labour Benches. However, the hon. Member for Bolsover brightened our day, and for that we should thank him.
  This is about the third time that we have had a debate on the coal industry in this Parliament, but it is the first one in Opposition time. Apart from a squalid little debate that launched an attack on the police force, this debate represents a moment of despair for the Opposition on two counts. They are on a hiding to nothing, first, on "Plan for Coal", because, as we heard so eloquently and convincingly from speaker after speaker from the Conservative Benches, and as was so ably presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Government have implemented "Plan for Coal" as far as it is their responsibility under that plan.
  The only exception is output, which has shrunk. Are the Opposition seriously suggesting that output should be increased from 100 million tonnes to 135 million tonnes? What will we do with the stockpiles? Only today the president of the NUM said that he will never again allow stockpiles to be created. What will happen to that extra 35 million tonnes? Is it to be poured back down the pits to be pulled out again by young miners to allow them to become ill with pit diseases? Perhaps that is what the Opposition want.
  As regards the argument about agricultural surpluses, the hon. Member for Bolsover will know that all Conservative Members are opposed to surpluses, but it is this Government who have taken the initiative in the EEC and brought about the first reduction in agricultural surpluses. That is a substantial achievement.
  Mr. Allen MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should tell that to his dairy farmers.
  Mr. Howarth: I will say that to my dairy farmers as well.

  495
  Thanks to the arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made, the worst cases will be alleviated. This Government, as they always do, have tackled the problem. They have not flinched from difficult decisions.
  The Government have kept their Bargain, as we have heard, with record investment. The previous Labour Government provided about £1,500 million. I refer to thousands of millions because billions are confusing. People might think that billions are small figures. Thousands of millions puts the matter in perspective. This Government invested £3,889 million of taxpayers' money between 1979 and 1984. A further £3,000 million is planned for the next three years.
  At current prices, investment between 1974 and 1983 has totalled £7,150 million. That has exceeded the target of £6,500 million. On pit closures, "Plan for Coal" assumed a 3 million to 4 million tonnes reduction in capacity. Only 1 million to 2 million tonnes was achieved — only half the target. The Opposition are trying to make out "Plan for Coal" to be a bargain — almost a binding contract, except that they do not believe in binding contracts when it does not suit them.
  There was supposed to be a 4 per cent. increase per annum in productivity but it was only 4·7 per cent. in 10 years. In 1983 miners' pay was some 26 per cent. above the average pay for manufacturing. On redundancy——
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will not be there for long.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Member for Bolsover should not make remarks like that. I intend to represent Cannock and Burntwood for many years. He can turn up in my constituency as many times as he likes to do a comic turn.
  We have again received assurances that there are to be no compulsory redundancies. That must be evidence of a Government who understand the difficulties faced by mining communities. The redundancy payments for those who are prepared to accept them are massive. The terms offered to the miners are the envy of people in the private sector who have been made redundant. Opposition Members should ask their constituents who have been made redundant in the private sector.
  The Government and the taxpayer have fulfilled their bargain. With the funding of £130 per man per week there is no doubt that the Government have done their bit. I shall give the Labour party some advice. They should become more concerned with the efficient use of public money.
  "If the public sector as a whole had been less apparently self-serving, less complacent, and more efficient then the climate for cuts and privatisation would have been altogether far less favourable."
  Those were the words of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  That brings meneatly to the second reason why the debate is a disaster for the Opposition. It has been put off for 13 weeks. The Opposition have ducked the issue. They have not wanted a debate in their own time, but today we have it, and it represents the triumph of extremism over the Left. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke of puppets on a string. [Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen listened they might learn something.
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: My hon. Friend talks about a disaster for the Opposition. That was perhaps epitomised more than ever this afternoon by the arrest of 120 miners outside the House of Commons for trying to cause a riot.
  Mr. Howarth: We have already heard that they were much encouraged by Opposition Members participating. Perhaps that was the reason. The Opposition Front Bench have become puppets on a string. It is a string pulled by one of the most offensive and dangerous demagogues that the country has seen for many a long year. Their dilatoriness and half-hearted attitude towards some of the most disgraceful scenes on the picket line has encouraged some of the worst excesses.
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Has the hon. Gentleman been?
  Mr. Howarth: I have not, and I shall say why. I do not believe that it is the job of responsible politicians to inflame difficult circumstances, and I have stayed away deliberately.
  We have read today that paint stripper has been thrown at policemen, three of whom have suffered substantial burns. Those of my constituents who are miners — [Interruption.] That is why I am here. They, not a Labour Member, voted me here. The hon. Gentleman had better become used to the idea that the Conservative Benches represent more miners than do the Opposition Benches, and will continue to do so.
  Those of my constituents who work at Littleton Colliery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) have had bags of urine thrown at them. That kind of behaviour does not constitute peaceful picketing. The NUM does not want peaceful picketing; it wants the right to impose its views on those who disagree with it.
  We have been subjected on television to pictures of many hundreds of our policemen, drawn from small communities, which are denuded of protection while the police have to maintain the Queen's peace. The police are not participating in an industrial dispute. They are there to uphold the rule of law, and hold the ring to allow the conflicting interests to be reconciled peacefully. I, and 99 per cent. of the people, believe that they have done a magnificent job.
  I should like to pay tribute to those miners in my constituency and elsewhere who are still working. I have described some of the abuse to which they have been subjected. We are all familiar with some of the examples. They run a gauntlet every day. Just as Opposition Members suggest that we may find it hard to understand matters, I do not believe that they understand the feelings of those men as they approach in their coaches protected by our police to go through those picket lines manned by their own colleagues. They have to run the gauntlet and possibly suffered injury. The Opposition do not understand what it is like for the wives at home, perhaps hiding behind the curtain.
  The good news is that every day more and more men are returning to work. I have not received a green card today because most of my constituents are at work and not down here. They are looking after their families and helping to build the future of a great industry.
  About 70 per cent. of my constituents who work in the mines are back at work. It is interesting to note that that

  497
  figure reflects the way they voted when given the opportunity to vote. They have since been denied that opportunity.
  Bitter resentment is felt by many miners throughout the country at the total and abject failure of the NUM to give them what they want — a national ballot. They might even vote—odd though that sounds to the Opposition—for a strike, simply to get it out of the way. They might have done so a few months ago, but I do not believe that they will now, because they feel very bitter about what has happened.
  In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), 20 pickets at the Lea Hall colliery came off the picket line and went in to work. We have all heard the story of how the pickets said to the chaps going in, "Just you wait until we get back." After the 20 pickets had gone underneath into the mines, the resentment was so bitter that they were sent to Coventry and came out again, despised by those colleagues who were working.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) said, 15,000 miners are contracting out of the political levy. What an indictment it is for the Labour party to see that those who are supposedly the backbone of its support are contracting out. The miners want nothing to do with the Labour party, so long as it is run by men such as those we see today—the extremists. Miners are even leaving the Labour party.
  In my constituency, 250 miners at Littleton colliery signed a petition — not against the police and about police brutality but thanking the police for what they have done. I am told that the relationships between the striking pickets and the police are so good that many striking miners contributed to the police fund for WPC Fletcher, who was shot dead in London.
  When the Opposition talk about getting around the table and a settlement, they are talking about appeasement. They want the coal board to give in, because they know that Arthur Scargill has no intention of discussing anything. He has said that pit closures are not up for discussion. Scargill knows that this is a political strike. He wants revolution. Every hon. Member has put himself before the people in the electorate, whether they are miners or not. We have gone around the streets putting ourselves before all our constituents. If Arthur Scargill wants to change the laws of the land, the way for him to do it is to put himself up for Parliament and take a seat, if he can win one.
  For the sake of those who are abiding by the law, for the sake of those who are working and for the sake of democracy and the rule of law, I hope that the NCB and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not doubt that the people of Britain expect them to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that the NUM, led by Arthur Scargill, does not usurp the powers of the House. They expect them to stand firm in this battle.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Secretary (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that, at the beginning of the debate, Mr. Speaker asked for 10-minute speeches. Only one hon. Member so far has met that request. Hon. Members who speak for longer than 10 minutes will prevent other hon. Members, who have strong convictions and points to make, from being called.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The House has just heard a bitter and vindictive speech from the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), which has done nothing towards helping to resolve the dispute. The hon. Gentleman has spoken for the Conservative party on as narrow and as vindictive a political basis as possible. I shall pick up a few of his points.
  In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and that was his privilege. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who also made a maiden speech. Both hon. Members were making maiden speeches and both deserve credit. The hon. Member for Stafford will have a difficult job in following Sir Hugh Fraser, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley will have a difficult time in following our friend, Joan Evans. I pay tribute to both hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, when speaking about redundancy payments, showed that the Conservatives are good at discussing what they will do when people have lost their jobs. The Labour party wishes to preserve jobs. Instead of spending time talking about what they wish to do about people who are kicked out of their jobs, there should be more discussion about the preservation of jobs. The hon. Gentleman's speech vividly illustrated how the Conservative party views the strike when he spoke about "my dairy farmers". Labour Members like to speak about "our miners", whom we represent and who are suffering severely.
  When Conservative Members speak of us ducking the issue of the mining strike, they should bear in mind that the Labour party has been demanding this debate. When they talk about my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) making a comic speech, they really mean that my hon. Friend's speech hit home hard. That is their way of trying to mock him and belittle a magnificent speech which, in may ways, demolished what the Conservatives say.
  We have reached this disastrous state of affairs largely because of a series of miscalculations by the Government and the National Coal Board. They are directly responsible for the immense damage that has been done not only to the mining industry, but to the cohesiveness of our society. We are facing serious unrest. That unrest will percolate and spread if we are not careful. More provocative speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood will make people angrier.
  There is a catalogue of cardinal errors. The Government have regarded the miners as enemies to be beaten, and that is a major error. Because of the Government's obsession with anti-trade unionism, their failure to understand the legitimate anxieties of working men and women and their belief that force settles everything, the Government are largely responsible for the strike and its consequences. The Government can no longer hide by saying that the coal board is responsible, because, with the revelations of the past few days, the Government stand exposed as hypocritical and as lying in the face of all the facts. They should be ashamed of the way they have behaved in the House of Commons.

  499
  Sooner or later, the Prime Minister must stand at the Dispatch Box and say why she said to hon. Members that she is not interferring in the dispute. The right hon. Lady must answer to the House. The answer will be damaging to the Prime Minister and to the Government. Even more regrettably, it will be damaging to the House of Commons, because it will lower our standards. As Mr. Speaker keeps on reminding us, we are all hon. Members, and we should not tell lies in the House.
  The second mistake is for the coal board and its chairman to adopt the 19th century overbearing attitude of saying, "This is what I am going to give you, take it or leave it, and if you don't like it, well, that's just too bad." That attitude has created more anxiety and anger among the miners than practically anything, apart from the Government's attitude.
  The third mistake is for Ministers to assume that the miners can be starved out. The miners cannot be starved out. That is a basic error of judgment. Ministers should recognise that not everyone in society is motivated by pure profit and loss accounts. We do not believe in that kind of simple balance-sheet judgment. We have better values, and the miners have better values, than that. That is why the miners cannot be starved out by this or by any other Government.
  A further error is for the Government to assume that they will weaken the resolve of the miners and the rest of the trade union movement. Earlier this week I was at the annual conference of my own trade union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union. David Basnett, the general secretary, spoke of the miners' strike. David Basnett suggested on Monday that the TUC should set up a fund, long overdue, to help the miners, and he asked for substantial support. I believe that that substantial support will be forthcoming.
  The Government have also made the cardinal error of hitting the miners' families by pretending that they receive £15 a week, which we all know they do not receive. To pretend in that way, and to starve miners' wives and their children of £15, was disgraceful. It is what I can only call the height of hypocrisy for the Government to say that they were not intervening in the dispute, and then to clobber miners' wives in that fashion. Even lower than that, if one can go lower than that, is to take account of the pitiful gifts given to miners' wives, who have an abysmal living standard, and to reduce their social security payments because of those gifts. Do the Government in their hearts want to justify that kind of policy? Do they appreciate what is happening in this dispute, all dressed up with fancy phrases, lovely sentences and clichés by the Secretary of State, by Ministers and by some Conservative Back Benchers?
  I have a great deal more to say, but I shall not say it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I respect your request for short speeches and I want my hon. Friends to be able to make their contributions.
  The Government have divided the country: some are pro-miner, some are anti-miner. The dispute has caused grave divisions. The Government have divided the police force, because the police are fighting among themselves about how the should behave towards the miners. Some police spokesmen have said that they are unhappy about the way that the police are behaving under the Government. I wish to ask this question of the Minister
  500
  who will reply to the debate: did the police who stopped the miners in Stoke-on-Trent the other day observe the law, or did they break the law? If they observed the law, would the Minister please tell me under which law they were working? If they broke the law, would he please tell me what action is being taken against them? I am not saying that they broke the law; I merely ask.
  What is needed now is a negotiated settlement—no preaching, no bulldozing, but a negotiated settlement, a little bit of good will, a little bit of understanding, a little bit of co-operation—but do not try to kick miners or anybody else around. Given good will, the dispute can be settled tomorrow.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Hickmet: I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House, whether it likes it or not, that I speak on behalf of 10,000 men whose jobs depend upon the steelworks in Scunthorpe. I was elected as Member of Parliament for Glanford and Scunthorpe. I come to the House equipped with all the constitutional rights that our constitution gives us, and one of them is to speak for my constituents, whether the Opposition like it or not. In addition to the 10,000 jobs in my constituency that are dependent upon the steelworks in Scunthorpe, several hundred jobs are dependent upon the steelworks at Orgreave. Of the five major integrated steel plants, we are the only one to burn 100 per cent. British coal, 51,000 tonnes per week, to produce 60,000 tonnes of some of the finest quality steel in the world. Eleven pits supply us with that coal. Six of those pits are in Yorkshire—Silverwood, Binnington, Thurcroft, Hatfield, Grimethorpe and Treeton. In addition to the jobs that depend upon the steelworks in my constituency, 6,000 miners owe their jobs to Scunthorpe.
  As we know, because we watch it day after day on television, Mr. Arthur Scargill is inciting his members to try to starve Scunthorpe of coke and coal. I ask the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I endeavoured to get him to give way to me when he opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition—what is the message from the Opposition Benches to my constituents? What has the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say to the steelworkers of Scunthorpe? What the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Salford, East and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) have to say to the steelworkers of Scunthorpe?
  Mr. Peter Hardy rose——
  Mr. Hickmet: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Salford, East, but not to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy).
  At present, Mr. Scargill is trying to put those 10,000 men out of work. I hope that I do not need to tell hon. Members what will happen if we do not get coal and coke for those glass furnaces. My constituents will be sacrificed on the altar of the political ambitions of Mr. Arthur Scargill.
  Mr. Hardy rose——
  Mr. Hickmet: I will not give way to the hon. Member for Wentworth. I will give way to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) or the right hon. Member for Salford, East to answer the question. They have ducked the question for 13 weeks. I do not expect an answer from

  501
  the Leader of the Opposition, because he has no guts, I cannot expect an answer from the right hon. Member for Salford, East for a similar reason, and I do not expect an answer from the hon. Member for Midlothian, because the question is unanswerable. If we do not get that coal, and if we do not get that coke—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recall that a couple of days ago Mr. Speaker gave a ruling in the House that the way in which a particular word was used was to be taken in the context of its usage. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) referred to the Leader of the Opposition in a term that was clearly derogatory and intended to incite, which must surely be unparliamentary in its context. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to request the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I deprecate some of the aggressive language that has been used, but I would not say that it has been unparliamentary. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet) should contribute to the debate. He is, of course, responsible for his own speech.
  Mr. Hickmet: If we do not get the coal and coke that the steelworks require, the plant will become irreparably damaged. If the coke ovens at Scunthorpe are damaged, it may take 18 months to replace them, at vast capital cost. In addition, it will take at least four months to reline any blast furnaces that are damaged. One of our four blast furnaces was taken out on Monday due to an insufficient volume of coke. Other furnaces are in difficulty.
  When that damage occurred, the NUM was asked urgently for further supplies of coke, but it refused to answer that request. On Wednesday, the coke run from Orgreave commenced. Hitherto, the coke and coal provided to us under an agreement between the ISTC and the NUM had been insufficient in quantity and quality. If coal and coke does not reach the steelworks and if, as a result, my constituents lose their jobs, there will be no alternative work for them. Alternative employment is not being offered to them. They will not receive large sums in redundancy payments. There will be no treatment for them similar to that being offered to the miners.
  Mr. Boyes rose——
  Mr. Hickmet: I will give way only to one of the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, but I do not anticipate them endeavouring to rise.
  I thank the police, on behalf of my constituents and the town of Scunthorpe, for saving the jobs of the steelworkers there. The scenes of violence on the picket lines have been a disgrace to the whole trade union movement, to the NUM and to the Labour party. On occasions, in an effort to prevent coke reaching Scunthorpe, as many as 6,000 pickets have tried to prevent the coal lorries from leaving the plant.
  Police officers have been subject to attack by a hail of stones, bricks, smoke bombs, ball-bearings, nail-studded potatoes and paint stripper. A telegraph pole was uprooted and used as a battering ram against the police lines, a building was overturned and set on fire and officers have been hauled from the police line and beaten up. Meanwhile, the police have stood between the gates of Orgreave and the pickets so that the coke could go to Scunthorpe.
  502
  On the day when I visited Orgreave, two pickets had to be given the kiss of life by two police officers. They had sustained their injuries by bricks which had been thrown from the back of the picket line or by the crush of the pickets. While the kiss of life was being given, the hail of stones continued. Yet Opposition Members dare criticise the police for the use of horses. They were used to save pickets' lives.
  Mr. Christopher Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an Opposition Member, from a sedentary position, to repeat the word "bastard" to the hon. Member who is addressing the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that were the case, it would certainly not be in order. However, I did not hear the word used. Let us proceed with the debate.
  Mr. Hickmet: Many officers have been put in hospital with serious injuries, including broken bones and, in one case, a dislocated shoulder. On behalf of my constituents, I praise the police for their self-discipline, courage and restraint, and I congratulate their senior officers on the superb way in which they have acted. If the police had not been at Orgreave, my constituency would have been in a very difficult position indeed, for the jobs of my constituents could have been in jeopardy. It is as simple as that: the police have been standing between the NUM and my constituents' jobs.
  I cannot see any justification for the attempt by the president of the NUM to close the steelworks in my constituency. Again, I invite the right hon. Member for Salford, East to say what justification he can offer for that. I think I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head in dissent, which must mean that he has no answer. In that case, will the hon. Member for Midlothian address himself to that question?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have reminded hon. Members of the need for speeches to be kept brief. The hon. Member is getting near to tedious repetition by challenging the occupants of the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Hickmet: The attack by the president of the NUM on the steelworks of Scunthorpe may have come about because he needs a victory of some sort, and the closure of those works would have been such a victory. However, the ISTC has refused to join his suicide pact; a triple alliance is one thing but a suicide pact is another. The greatest issue between the ISTC and the BSC in my constituency is the use of BSC logos on private contractors' lorries, the reason being that the ISTC believes that its members are in danger should the NUM believe that they are driving those lorries.
  The president of the NUM made it clear, both before and after the general election, that he would, if necessary, take to the streets. He declared:
  "We will have to consider political strikes-political action as well as industrial action."
  He warned that if the Conservatives won the election there would be bloodshed in the streets. The general secretary of the TUC, speaking on 1 July of last year, condemned Arthur Scargill for his words and efforts and was reported as having said:
  "Their brand of extra-parliamentary action was giving trade unions a bad name."

  503
  The most remarkable aspect of this attack by the NUM leadership on my constituents and others has been the silence of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues.
  In view of the number of steel workers who have been made redundant in the last four years, I cannot represent a constituency such as mine without having sympathy for members of the NUM who fear for the future. But it is the duty of the Opposition and of the leadership of the NUM to guide their members, not to take them, as it were, to the barricades. I invite Opposition Members to search their consciences in considering whether the leadership of the NUM has helped its members one jot or tittle.
  7.40 pm
  Mr. Michael Welsh: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech, as I do the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The choice of the discipline in which hon. Members can make their maiden speech is varied. To have selected a coal debate shows how very important such debates are to Back Benchers. I hope that both my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman will make many similar contributions in the future.
  Many individuals have been arrested a number of miles away from pickets, sometimes when they have not been going to pickets. That leaves much to be desired. I know a number of people who have been arrested, who have pleaded not guilty. I shall not name them because their cases are coming up. They have been arrested in Yorkshire, where they live, accused of going to Nottinghamshire to picket. This must be worrying for anyone who believes in a free society, particularly when one thinks of what happened in other countries in the 1930s.
  It is worrying that people can be arrested anywhere in the highways and byways, and taken to a gaol or police station. Members of the public say that such people may have been going to cause trouble. It is terrible that a large majority of the country is not unduly disturbed by this. That is frightening because the regime in Germany started like that. When the authorities there started taking people away, the people said that they must have deserved it. The authorities may have come and taken a trade unionist away. A Jew may have said that the trade unionist was probably going to cause trouble, and he may have been taken away himself next. What is going on in our country is terrible and frightening for anybody who believes in civil liberties.
  We are fighting and arguing. In Hong Kong we are guaranteeing the freedom of the people to walk where they wish, but certain sections of our society are losing that right. That is frightening to any serious-minded person. That should be borne in mind, and the police should be accountable to someone. Section 413 in part of New Scotland Yard does not appear to be responsible to anyone, and chief constables do not know to whom they are responsible. The Home Secretary has said that he is not responsible for them. If a policeman is convicted of an unlawful act, one cannot object to the chief constable of the area in which the deed is commited. One has to go to the chief constable of the area to which the policeman belongs. The sooner that the Government examine this issue in detail, the better all round.
  504
  In "Plan for Coal" it was promised to increase new capacity to 42 million tonnes, and 9 million tonnes of that was to come from the extension of pits. The Government declare that they support "Plan for Coal". "Plan for Coal" envisaged closures running at 2 million tonnes over 10 years, with a total of 20 million tonnes. This is on target. As there has been 21 million tonnes loss of capacity through closures, if this is balanced against the 42 million tonnes of increased capacity, there should be an overall increased capacity of 21 million tonnes. However, that has not taken place. Therefore, the Government cannot say that they are implementing that part of "Plan for Coal".
  In March 1982 there were 200 pits and in March 1983 there were 191, so we have lost nine pits in a year. Those are the figures that I have from the coal board. We are still losing more pits, and, although we are implementing our part of "Plan for Coal", there has not been the increase in capacity. Nowhere in "Plan for Coal" did it say that closures should take place to justify investment. It said that there would be closures of 2 million tonnes of capacity a year and that has been done. However, one cannot justify investment through "Plan for Coal" by the closure of uneconomic pits.
  The EEC documents on coal published in 1979 asked Britain to produce more coal, and supported British coalfields. I asked the Prime Minister a question about this and she said that that meant that coal production should be increased in other areas but not in Britain. She said that that was not her intention, but it was the intention of "Plan for Coal" and that is important.
  The Government and MacGregor want to get rid of 40,000 jobs and start by losing 21,000 in one year from uneconomic pits, but that in itself is uneconomic. There are no uneconomic pits—there are unprofitable ones. Andrew Glyn of The Guardian wrote an article called "Coal not dole, the best choice" a few days ago. In it, he pointed out clearly that all pits are economic because it would cost a lot more to close them. The Government have no right to close pits, as this will cost taxpayers more money, but that is what they intend to do.
  If MacGregor gets rid of the 40,000 miners that he wants to get rid of, that will mean the loss of 75,000 jobs in total. It is the multiplier in reverse. It is wrong for the Government to do this, and they should drop this idea and keep the pits open. The dispute is about the Government's desire to close pits, and that will cost taxpayers' money. The coal should be used by the CEGB. How can it be burning oil at the ridiculous price that it is when there is coal? It should use our coal everywhere.
  MacGregor is ruining the industry. The Government may desire that, but they should realise that he is also ruining the British economy. They must be bothered about that. It is vital to recognise that for each month of the strike electricity prices to industry will rise by almost 2 per cent. It will be more difficult for industry to export because unit costs will increase.
  It is the absolute duty of the Government to ensure that the dispute is settled and that the lads and lasses in my constituency get back to work. It should be settled on reasonable terms, and that means a halt to pit closures. Common sense should prevail, and we should try to get the country back on its feet. We can do that only if all the mines work at full production.
  The choice is the Government's. Either the country is ruined economically or it becomes more successful. The Government should grasp the nettle now.
  7.50 pm
  Mr. Alistair Burt: I echo the remarks of many hon. Members and congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). It is never an easy task to come to the House and make a maiden speech, but both hon. Members made a fine contribution. No doubt we shall hear more from them in the coming years.
  The consequences of the coal mining dispute extend far beyond the boundaries of those constituencies with close mining interests. Perhaps it is appropriate for me to draw attention to some of those consequences. I represent a constituency of traditional manufacturing industry. It is of great sadness to my constituency that, once again, the vital life-blood of industry — the supply of energy — is a political battlefield. Energy, above all things, is a subject that demands a consensus policy for the 21st century. The coal industry needs to lose its reputation as a repository of the most bitter and most cynically inspired class warfare of our times.
  The largest single industry in my constituency is the paper industry, one of the seven major energy-intensive industries in the country. Energy costs can account for an average 18 per cent. of a mill's manufacturing costs, and in certain cases that proportion can rise as high as 30 to 35 per cent.
  The effect of rises in energy costs, from whatever source, are clearly most important. During the past two years the town has lost three major manufacturing mills. The loss of those jobs, together with the jobs in the engineering firms that depend on the industry, now represent in numerical terms more than 50 per cent. of the total male unemployment in my constituency. The position of coal in the supply of electricity is clear to everyone, and with the best will in the world it is not possible to separate the link between the cost of coal, the cost of electricity and the cost of energy to our industry.
  For years my constituents have been suffering from matters over which they have had no direct control. One of the likely consequences of the dispute is that, yet again, energy costs will rise. My constituents will be faced not with voluntary but with compulsory redundancies—and compulsory redundancy not cushioned by the generous terms in the package offered to the miners. It is about time that those who seek to exert pressure on manufacturing industry to support their own ends had a thought for the impact on the families who will suffer as a direct consequence of the increased energy costs that their action will bring about.
  It would be easy for my constituents to resent the huge sums of money put into the mining industry, but they recognise— as I do—the need for a balanced energy policy that should include a bright future for coal. But they do resent the laughable suggestion that not enough money has gone into that industry. They would have been well content with a fraction of the investment put into the coal during the past five years. But they live in a world where the sales of their products are not protected, as the coal sales from the NCB to the CEGB are protected. If they cannot sell what they produce, they either make the appropriate changes in their business or they go out of business. They see no reason why the coal industry should not face the same economic facts of life.
  506
  "Plan for Coal" was considered by House of Lords in its report on the European Community. I want to quote from part 6, paragraph 97. I shall read it in full because it makes a number of points. It states:
  "By March 1983, £4·5 billion had been invested in the coal industry compared with £3·2 billion (at comparable prices) envisaged in the Plan. While the NUM have been disappointed with the number of new pits sunk, a total of 160 investment projects of over £0·5 million had been completed, providing 17·5 million tonnes annual capacity. Over the same period, the number of collieries was cut from 259 to 191 … While investment had broadly kept pace with the plan, closures fell behind the projected figures and productivity had not improved at the expected rate."
  Paragraph 99 stated:
  "The NCB is producing more coal that it can sell, much of it at costs far in excess of what can be realised from sales. Closure of the highest cost pits would remove over-capacity and would cut losses."
  Much is said in those two paragraphs.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned encouraging more sales for coal, but he failed to deal with the problem that the Government face which is to encourage industry to move from oil-fired to coal-fired boilers; a plan sabotaged by the miners' strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It has. From where will the new customers come? They are not there. All projections have disappeared under the strike.
  I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman and also the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did not make any reference to the problems of violence and intimidation. I doubt very much whether they could have done the same justice to that subject as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who made by far the most exceptional contribution to the debate.
  We abuse the energy industry at our peril. It is singularly abused by the perpetuation of the myth that some Opposition Members and some leaders of the mineworkers want to foster—that the coal industry has no friends on the Conservative Benches and that the nation has no interest in coal as a future energy source. It suits their political purpose to put that over, and to encourage others to believe it. It does not benefit the coal industry. The fact that it is palpably untrue is proved by the Government investment that was capably set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his speech. Many of my colleagues share his belief that an efficient, productive and useful coal industry has a worth and a benefit far beyond its own boundaries by the benefit of the country as a whole. The industry has friends on the Conservative Benches, but it is making it very difficult for our voices to be heard.
  The smokescreen of political involvement that Opposition Members have sought to latch on to cannot. disguise the fact that the political content of this strike was engineered by the president of the NUM right from the start. He had failed on three previous occasions in his stated aim to seek to overturn an elected Government through the use of a miners' strike. In this dispute, he saw a final opportunity to do that. It is a disgrace that a moderate and decent work force should have been abused to such an extent for the political purposes of that president and his Marxist supporters.
  No legislation produced by a Conservative Government could ever have produced the number of miners going through the picket lines that Arthur Scargill's immoderate leadership has produced. No legislation of a Conserative Government could have forced so many miners down the

  507
  pits to work at such a time. No legislation produced by a Conservative Government could ever have induced miners in Nottingham to doubt the wisdom of their membership of the NUM and to consider withdrawing their subscriptions from the Labour party. They are seeing through the man in the chauffeur-driven car searching for the £80,000 house, who manages to dribble his socialism out of the other side of his mouth and talk about the fall of capitalism while he enjoys its benefits.
  The Opposition motion is an abject and inept attempt to disguise their embarrassment at their treatment of the coal industry over a period of years. It is an attempt to gloss over their record of pit closures and investment. It is an attempt to curry favour with the more extreme element of their party — with the extremists who hurl abuse even in the House of Commons at those hon. Members who have dared to criticise violence on the picket lines.
  The Opposition motion is an attempt to paper over the yawning cracks in the labour movement which the parliamentary Labour party now represents. Above all, it is a forceful reminder of the craven attitude of deference to the bully boys, the retreat into economic unreality and the desire to avoid trouble at any cost which would be the hallmarks of any future Labour Administration.
  8 pm
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I very much agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on two points. First, I join him in congratulating the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Stafford (Mr. Cash) on their maiden speeches and look forward to hearing more contributions of such a high standard from them. I join, too, in their tributes to their predecessors. I worked with loan Evans for many years. I knew his dedication and sincerity and the impact that he had on the House and his passing was a matter of great sadness. Sir Hugh Fraser, too, made a major and characteristic contribution to our debates and in his constituency. I knew him well and very much regret his passing.
  It is clear to anyone who stands back and takes an independent view, as regrettably few hon. Members have done in today's debate, that there will be no great victory for anyone when the dispute ends, as eventually it must. There will be no victory for the miners, for the National Coal Board, for the Government or for the country because the stoppage in the industry will damage everyone, and it is in no one's interest that it should last a day longer than necessary.
  That brings me to the second point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bury, North. He said at the beginning of his speech, but unfortunately did not continue in the same vein, that the mining industry would benefit from a far greater consensus about its objectives and its position in the country. For too long, like so many of our industries, it has been a political football. That has been detrimental not just to the mining industry but to many other industries which depend on the energy industry.
  First, I wish to consider the Government's position in the dispute. They clearly play an important role. I in no way support the criticisms of the Government expressed by some of the more raucous Opposition Members. Nevertheless, the Government's lack of a clear energy
  508
  policy has not helped the climate and the background against which the dispute has been debated and against which Mr. Scargill and his supporters have discussed these matters with their members. It is a scandal that in a country such as this there has been no comprehensive statement of Government energy policy since the Labour Government's Green Paper of 1978. Equally incredible is the fact that we are discussing future plans for the coal industry on the basis of a plan agreed in 1974 and drawn up before the impact of the first oil crisis in 1973 had hit the world, before the second oil crisis, before North sea oil came on stream and before the drop in demand in the 1970s. None of those factors has been taken into account except in occasional reviews. It is dreadful that there has been no truly co-ordinated plan for coal since the Labour Green Paper of 1978.
  Mr. Ashby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it may take six or eight years to get a pit into being? That is why one must have long-term plans and that is why the 1974 plan is relevant.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Of course I realise that, but no good business simply makes a corporate plan and then just leaves it without reviewing and adjusting it each year to take account of new circumstances. The Government have failed by not getting round the table with the miners and the NCB to draw up a plan so that the miners could have confidence in the future of their industry. I appreciate that statements have been made by Ministers, but there has not been any agreement of the kind that was reached in 1974 on "Plan for Coal". Such an agreement would have provided encouragement for the miners and much less fertile territory for Mr. Scargill and his friends.
  The second factor that has undermined the Government's position has been the horrific level of unemployment caused by their economic policies. The miners would not fear so much for their jobs if there were not 3·5 million people unemployed. That is one of the reasons why they are so worried about their position and about pit closures. The Government must take responsibility for the present economic circumstances. They keep telling us that the sun is shining around the corner and that the upturn is coming, but we merely see the dole queues getting longer. As our debates on industrial and economic policy have shown, all parts of the country are now suffering from the effects of the Government's economic policies. The upturn has not materialised and the miners, like everyone else, are worried about their job security. The Government are thus responsible for having created fertile territory for the militants in that way, too.
  The revelations in the Daily Mirror in the past 48 hours have shown that the Government, despite their protestations to the contrary, are extremely involved in the public sector industrial relations scene. That comes as no surprise to me and I am somewhat amazed at some of the comments that have been made in the House. I should be very surprised and rather disappointed if Labour Ministers were not involved in the same kind of way when pay negotiations, disputes or other difficulties arose in the nationalised industries, the Civil Service, the teaching and nursing professions, and so on. Nevertheless, it is no use the Government complaining that they have a "hands off' attitude and no responsibility for what is happening in the industry when the contrary has been proved, and everyone knows it.

  509
  That brings me back to the necessity for the Government to acknowledge their responsibility for the industry and to get round the table with the people concerned to discuss the future of the industry with them and to reassure them about it.
  Mr. Roy Mason: Ministers not only have that responsibility. Secretly, they have accepted it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Prime Minister has consistently misled the House, saying that she would have no truck whatever with the miners' dispute when, secretly, behind the scenes, she and some of her Cabinet colleagues —the Secretary of State for Energy must certainly have been aware of all that was going on—have formed an alliance and deliberately manipulated other nationalised industries and trade union disputes to ensure that the miners would be on their own so as to defeat them.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: The right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has put it much more clearly than I shall try to do. As he says, Ministers are involved. They should acknowledge their responsibility. They should get round the table with the miners and the NCB and reach an agreement on the future of the industry. In a moment, I shall consider the possible ways in which that could be done. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Government have accepted their responsibility.
  Mr. Hind: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: If I give way again, I shall prevent others from speaking.
  The NCB chairman has not employed the most felicitous phrases or the most delicate handling of the dispute, and that has made the dispute even more rancorous and bitter than it would otherwise have been. His withdrawal from the discussions demonstrates that that was so. I am also critical of the coal board for not responding long before the dispute began to the suggestion by some of us—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who has made the point very vigorously—that some job creation agency should be established, equivalent to that in the steel industry which has been doing good work for years in the steel closure areas. That agency is called BSC (Industry) Ltd. We suggested that another agency should be set up, to be called NCB (Industry) Ltd. The coal board has belatedly accepted such a proposal. We understand that that proposal is on the table in the discussions now taking place. I hope that it will give the mining communities some reassurance, and I hope that the Government will act in partnership with the coal board as with the steel industry. I hope that the Minister can clarify that point tonight.
  The Government have backed BSC (Industry) Ltd. in Consett, Hartlepool and Corby in helping to bring new jobs to areas devasted by closure. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will back that initiative by the coal board.
  The police have the difficult job of standing between the two sides. I travel through the country every week on my way to my constituency. No-one can take any joy in seeing the dreadful convoys of police going up and down the motorways, lights ablaze, looking like army convoys, as though we were in a state of emergency. Of course, in the areas where the so-called picketing is taking place, there is an emergency. But it is regrettable that in some
  510
  instances—the Dartford tunnel incident was the most widely criticised example — the police have stopped people well away from the pits. That is unacceptable in a free society, and an intolerable infringement of civil liberties.
  However, I yield to no one in my praise of the police for the way in which they have handled a difficult situation involving thousands of pickets., particularly near the coke ovens but, more recently, in other parts of the country too. If 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 or 6,000 people mass together to carry out what is called picketing but is in fact intimidation, there will be trouble. The police cannot avoid that trouble. Inevitably, there will be accusations and counter-accusations. I hope that the sympathy of the House will be for the police. They are, in a sense, the innocent parties. They are doing the job for us. They should be supported in doing their difficult job.
  Finally, who is the main actor in this dreadful dispute? Who are the main cast? I am pleased that there have been speeches from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who have both eloquently demonstrated to the House what the dispute is about. It is about the class warfare and the divisions in British society which have done damage over the decades to our political, social, industrial and economic system.
  The House must face the fact that the dispute is about the desire of the leadership of the NUM to pursue their own political ends, using the miners as the poor bloody infantry in their battle. What the NUM leadership is doing is deplorable. The country owes a great deal to the miners and has a great admiration for their work. I share that admiration, and the sympathy for the miners evoked by the. dreadful nature of their work. To see them manipulated for party political ends, as they have recently been, is deplorable. I hope that the House will condemn the way in which the miners have been used.
  Why did not the president and vice-president, and executive of the NUM call for a national ballot if they wanted national industrial action? It is a tradition of the NUM—one that has gained it a great deal of support—that there is a national ballot if industrial action is proposed. In this case, the reasons put forward for the dispute were obscure, and the rules and procedures were fiddled in a terrible way so that a national ballot should not take place.
  The most deplorable aspect of what the leadership has done is that it has divided miner against miner, husband against wife, father against sort. It has divided the mining communities. I remember previous disputes in the steel industry and the Post Office. I know that the scars that are created will last for generations. What the leadership has done is a dreadful thing for a union to do to its own members. Mr. Scargill, Mr. McGahey and their supporters on the executive are causing strife and bitter divisions among their members.
  Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the hon. Member give way?
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: No, I must not.
  There will be no victory in this dispute. The miners will become a less effective work force. They are damaging the future of their industry. As a result of this dispute, there will be uncertainty about the supply of coal. The memory of the dispute will remain with people for years, in

  511
  company after company and industry after industry. They will not use coal or transfer to coal. They will use alternative forms of energy.
  The Government may well think on the same lines in considering, for instance, nuclear power. Inevitably—although the Minister will not admit it—the Department of Energy will ensure that there are alternatives to coal. In a sense, it would be irresponsible for the Government not to do so. My constituency is on Teesside. My whole family worked in the steel industry. As well as damaging their own jobs and their own industry—which they may do if they wish—the miners, through this action, are threatening to destroy permanently jobs in the steel industry. I do not think that some miners or people outside the steel communities realise how vulnerable the steel industry is to the stoppage of supplies from the mining industry. It took ages for Llanwern and other coke works to recover from the damage that the corporation suffered before. I could give chapter and verse from the words of the BSC chairman. The industry is suffering again now, and losing jobs as a result of losing markets. If damage is done to the coke ovens and the blast furnaces, works may face permanent closure. There are five steelmaking centres in the country. We probably need only three to cope with present demand. The position is being threatened by the coal industry. I hope that the dispute will be resolved quickly, for everybody's sake. There can be no victory. What is happening is damaging everybody.
  The motion and the amendment to it do not reflect the true interests of the industry. They perpetuate the battles—the class and industrial battles between one side of the House and the other and one side of the industry and the other—that we have seen during the debate. It is extremely unfortunate that the procedures of the House do not allow third party motions to be considered and voted upon. We shall not have an opportunity to vote on the alliance amendment which advances our policy, which is distinct from those of the Conservative and Labour parties and which I believe will be supported by the vast majority of English people.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Long speeches are made at the expense only of other Members' time.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. David Ashby: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said. I agree with his point about a National Coal Board (Industry) Ltd. and the need for close relations between the NCB and local authorities to develop areas that have often hitherto been left devastated. I raised the matter with a Minister some weeks ago when I took him to my constituency where mines such as Snibston are closing.
  One of the problems that arises when mines close, as has happened in my constituency, is that the local authority has been mine orientated for many years. It has tunnel vision of what the area requires. It might for many years have examined applications for planning permission and if the businesses concerned have not been mining orientated, permission has been refused. Those who face mine closures should examine what has happened for the
  512
  past 30 years, examine planning consents and see whether industry has been encouraged to the area concerned. Local authorities have been at fault in the past 30 years. Such local authorities are almost always Labour-controlled and they bear the responsibility for the failure of jobs in areas of pit closures. The Labour party certainly bears responsibility for that in my area as, until recently, it has been in control for a long time.
  I also agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South that we have witnessed a tragedy for Britain and mining areas. Communities have been set against each other. It is also a tragedy for the National Union of Mineworkers. It has prided itself on being one of the most democratic unions in the country. It is not widely known that its national ballots are conducted and supervised by the Electoral Reform Society. Until recently the union required a 55 per cent. majority to call a national strike. It is not always realised that a union is a federation and, as such, is fragile. The blatant gerrymandering of the rules makes that federation look all the more fragile. Knowing that it could not get a national majority for a strike, the NUM executive left it to each autonomous area, with its own rules, to make its own decision. Some decided to strike and some decided not to strike. In that regard, democracy prevailed. It was only when Arthur Scargill got to work — he is an avowed activist — and used the weapon of mass picketing to bully those people who democratically and by their union rules had elected to work that the trouble began. He has deliberately pitted miner against miner and autonomous union against autonomous union. He has flouted the rules and his people and is trying to impose his will by intimidation.
  Why does Mr. Scargill do that? If the NUM had a good case for not closing old, uneconomic pits that turn in heavy annual losses, there would be no need to employ the tactics that I have described. The union could have argued its case before the Monopolies and Mergers Commission last year when it examined the NCB's costs, efficiency and production.
  Mr. Nellist: It did.
  Mr. Ashby: No it did not. Twice the NUM was invited and twice it refused to go. Why? Most of the reasons have already been mentioned. It knew it did not have a case. It knew that the NCB had lost a great deal of money and that the Government were pouring money into the industry. It knew that the Government had paid some £1·11 billion to cover the deficit of the past decade and that £964 million of that was attributable to deep-mine pits. The union knows that, since 1979, the Government have poured more than £2 million into the industry each day as a measure of their long-term support for coal mining. The union knows that any sensible and rational person agrees that propping up pits that lose between £30 and £100 for every tonne of coal mined is a waste of money that could be better spent on newer and planned coalfields at Belvoir, Selby, north Warwickshire and north Oxfordshire. It is small wonder that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report called for closure of the worst loss-making pits. That report was endorsed by a Select Committee of the House.
  It is clear that we are witnessing the bare-faced desire of Mr. Scargill to force the Government out by undemocratic means. If that is his wish, he must make his bid through the ballot box that he does not seem to like,

  513
  in 1988. However, we must wait until 2004 to get rid of him. We are witnessing a triumph of restraint by the vast majority of people, especially my constituents who have been faced with pickets that are led by a man who has refused to condemn violent mass picketing but rather preferred to call the police the trouble-making element. Such words strike a hollow chord in my constituents who were faced with rampaging pickets in early May who wrecked houses and shops. Those words also strike a hollow chord in my constituents who have had cars damaged and windows broken and who are being followed home, having their homes identified and their children intimidated.
  My constituents have freely elected to work—in the absence of a national ballot. They hold that freedom most dear and they are extremely grateful for the support that they have had from the police. My area has suffered more than any other from pit closures. I tell Yorkshire miners who sit pretty in their cosy jobs, knowing full well that they have productive pits with plenty of coal, that they should see the positive and sensible way in which my constituents are dealing with the problem and go back to work in their own pits because they have never had it so good.
  My constituency's message to the NUM is, either make out a case through a national ballot or shut up and leave us alone. My constituents are satisfied that the Government are looking after their best interests through generous redundancy terms and ensuring the long-term future of the industry through investment at Asfordby in the Vale of Belvoir. They know that the NUM does not have a case and that that is why Scargill will not dare call a ballot. We in Leicestershire will not give in to bullying or intimidation; nor should the rest of the country.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: At one stage the Secretary of State declared that it was fairly obvious that the NUM and the Labour party's energy team never really understood the realities of the "Plan for Coal".
  First, let me declare my interest. I am a sponsored member of the NUM. I worked 30 years in the mining industry as an engineer. I was a consultant to the last president of the NUM, and I have been involved as a trade union official for the NUM for some 15 to 20 years.
  Let me analyse the tone of the debate. My experience in the trade union movement, in industrial circles and as a parliamentarian, leads me to believe that the major blunder in this dispute was caused by the Government's inability to understand the issue at the beginning. It was not simply a question of long-drawn out negotiations on the wage norm. That took a secondary position for the miners and the NUM.
  Ninety four per cent. of the employees of the NCB—including the management and the rank-and-file workers — opposed the appointment of Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. A referendum of opinion within the industry said that it did not want him and did not need him. There were men of long, wise and prudent ability, expertise and technique within the industry who could well have done the job. It was perfectly clear to the miners that this was a deliberate and calculated appointment. I knew something about the chairman of the NCB before he came to Britain. He was known as the strip mining king in open-cast mining—the quick easy-to-get stuff, fast turnover,
  514
  into the wagon, onto the market and into the bank. Thai is his economic outlook. That is what the miners read into the situation and it has come true.
  There was an abysmal failure by the NCB and the Government to see what was sacred within our industry — the tripartite agreement that worked for the Government in 1980 when it solved the dispute of the 22 pit closures—could have worked in the same way one this occasion. But that was never intended by the Prime: Minister and the Cabinet because they were out to tame: the miners once and for all. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), said, the Ridley report was printed and carried out from A to Z. The recent revelations have shown the trickery and deception that has been involved. Other unions have been manipulated to accept wage increases over and above the general entitlement to other employees throughout the British economy. There is no doubt that that was done deliberately. The Prime Minister does not see fit to be present in the House today. How does she reconcile the present situation with the fact that when dedicated pro-marketeers were working out Europe's future and the seven great industrial nations came together and produced the Venice declaration, she made a commitment to supply the European economy with between 130 million and 140 million tonnes of coal in 1989? Will the heads of state at the economic summit today be told that the Government are now deliberately reneging on that agreement into which they entered?
  Whether in coal, oil or nuclear energy the average lead time is a decade. The indictment against the Government is that not one colliery has been sunk since the Government took office. Developments were planned under the previous Labour Government a decade ago. Even though the Government have had to find some capital, it would be untrue to say that they were responsible for that kind of foresight in planning a viable coal industry.
  Where will we be in another decade if the energy scenario changes as quickly as it has in the past 20 years? The situation is hazardous and unpredictable. I see that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) has moved rapidly from his seat. There is always collusion in the House. That has been evident between the coal board, the Social Democratic party, the Conservative party and other elements here who claim to be democrats. It is almost impossible to plan an energy programme. That is why tripartite agreements and talks on review procedures, systematically and consistently taken, are the best option for a planned energy policy. That is what we need, not someone who is instructed by the Prime Minister to say that the industry simply needs a plan for the future based on narrow, short-term financial gain. That is wrong. Energy needs cannot be planned in that way.
  For 25 to 30 years various leaders of the NUM, from the Sydney Fords of this world to the Will Paynters, the Arthur Homers and the Joneses of Yorkshire, right through to the present, have been telling the House and the country about the unpredictable situation in the middle east. We are seeing another demonstration of that. Instead of Opec I want Copec. I know that there will be a security of coal supplies for 300 years. The gas board is already saying that it has only 13 years of real deposits of North sea gas left. Oil prices have ricocheted backwards and forwards and have increased. The choice is security of supply against uneconomic pits. I know pits that were closed in 1970, 1971 and 1972. One was an £80 million project in my

  515
  constituency. If the productivity per miner on that project then were compared with costs today, that pit would be making £3 million a year. Pits can be top of the pops in financial terms and bottom of the league in the relegation zone six months later. It is as simple as that. The nature of the industry lends itself to that.
  If we need a realistic, sensible and proven fuel policy we must be absolute in our endevours to ensure that we have a strong and viable mining industry with security for our lads in the pits. We need the necessary manpower training for the future. As sure as day follows night, the nation's security of supply must be protected.
  For God's sake let no one say to the British miner that he is responsible today for the state of the industry. It is the Government's suicidal economic policies which have destroyed the electricity and gas markets by the savage destruction of our manufacturing industry. It is not their responsibility, and I refute the allegation made by certain hon. Members that it is because coal is uneconomic in terms of pricing that the industry is contracting. That is cant and hypocrisy and it deserves contempt.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) in one of his rare emergences from his enforced silence. I am sorry that as someone with such a detailed background knowledge of the industry he chose to say so much that would bear so little detailed logical scrutiny.
  One of the interesting things about the debate is the way in which the mining dispute has been talked about. It has been talked about as though it is a dispute between the miners and the National Coal Board. That is the first fallacy which is demonstrated throughout the midlands coalfield and particularly in the Warwickshire coalfield. The whole of the Warwickshire coalfield is contained in my constituency; there are four mines, all of which are working at nearly full capacity.
  When Opposition Members talk about the miners and their determination to stand up to the coal board they should understand and recognise that in every coalfield, bar one, where the miners have been allowed the opportunity of a ballot to express their views they have decided to carry on working. Even in the pit at Bolsover, for which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke earlier today, the miners are working, having expressed their wish and determination to work.
  Even at this stage the vast bulk of miners in the whole British coalfield wish to work. I call in aid facts to support that. First, no one can possibly doubt for a moment that if Mr. Scargill thought that the miners, given the chance, would vote to strike, he would already have called a ballot. He is far too smart an operator to have missed that opportunity if it was open to him. He knows that he has a very bad hand to play and that if he played that hand he would lose. That is why he has not called a ballot. That is why he has rejected the democratic approach and sought the approach of the thug and the bully boy.
  I am not talking now just about picketing. We heard a lot about picketing in the early part of the dispute but, by and large, that problem has been resolved. There are not many miners who wish to go into the coal mine who are prevented now by picketing. For that, much praise is due
  516
  to the police who have played their hand very well. They have policed sensitively and carefully and have done their first duty, which is to uphold the law.
  I am complaining not about picketing but about the intimidation and thuggery behind the scenes. There is an appalling degree of that in the Warwickshire coalfield. There have been stories reminiscent of Berlin in the 1930s of people being followed to their homes, of crosses being painted on the doors of miners who are working, of threats to them—"We will get you when it is all over." There are threats not just to the miners but to their wives. There are obscene and threatening phone calls, bricks thrown through windows, doors beaten down and paint thrown upon cats. One of my constituents has a son on a kidney machine. Threats were made to that miner that just because he was exercising his right to go to work the dialysis machine would be damaged.
  Mr. Nellist: That was not done by striking miners, and the hon. Member knows that.
  Mr. Maude: What I am prepared to say is that I am sure it was not done by Warwickshire miners.
  Mr. Nellist: That was not done by striking miners.
  Mr. Maude: It may have been done by people brought in by Mr. Scargill's thugs. It was the most appalling display. I know that the whole House will join me in condemning that appalling act. That is only one example of the history of intimidation and thuggery.
  That is the only weapon Mr. Scargill had. He knows that it is not a miners' dispute. It is not even an NUM dispute; it is a Scargill dispute. If he had the cards in his hand to play he would have played them by now. However, he knows that this is the last throw of the dice for him. He has nothing more to play for after this.
  The hon. Member for Leigh referred to the chairman of the coal board, Mr. MacGregor. He talked as though what was happening was something new that had not been done before. That is not so, as the hon. Member knows. Indeed, what Mr. MacGregor and the coal board proposed for this year was nothing more than was done last year. It is proposed that 20 pits should be closed and 20,000 jobs lost, not through compulsory redundancy by people being sacked but by voluntary redundancy with people willingly accepting generous redundancy payments to leave the industry.
  When he opened the debate the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) referred to his three aims for the industry—expansion, modernisation and investment. I want to deal with those in reverse order. Since the "Plan for Coal", the agreed amount of investment by the Government in the industry has been exceeded. At today's prices it has been exceeded by £650 million. The bulk of that has been since 1979 in the currency of this Government. Therefore, let no one complain about lack of investment in the industry. Investment there has been.
  The complaints one hears are not that there has been too little investment but, if anything, too much. The hon. Member for Leigh criticised the Government for not having invested in new pits. He asked how much of the money had gone into new pits and how many pits had been sunk since 1979. It is interesting to compare his remarks with those of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends who complained that too much money had been put into new

  517
  pits and not enough into existing pits. There is a little sorting out to be done by the Opposition before they start criticising us for lack of investment in the industry.
  The second aim of the right hon. Member for Salford, East was modernisation. How we need that in the industry. The last thing I want, as a Member representing a mining constituency, is for my constituents to have to continue to serve in Victorian and archaic conditions. We want a modernised industry.
  Expansion was the third aim of the right hon. Member. Again, how we should like to see that. He wants expansion of the industry by digging coal that no one wants to buy. One begins to wonder when the lesson will be learnt that there is only a point in digging coal out of the ground, in manufacturing goods or in providing any sort of goods or service when somebody wants to buy the product. It is worse than useless to manufacture a product or to dig it out of the ground when all that will be done with it is to allow it to sit on the surface. That is destructive. I want to see properly organised expansion, expansion through demand. There is only one way to get a demand for coal—by providing the coal at a price at which people want to buy it. If any Opposition Member really believes that a massive disruption of supplies is doing a service to the industry to win markets and customers he wants his head testing. I want to see expansion. I want a Government who are committed to the expansion of the industry, but that must be expansion through investment in profitable and productive coalfields. Madness lies in any other way.
  Labour Members have failed to recognise that the miners agree generally with the Government. They do not agree with the arguments that have been advanced by Labour Members. By and large, they agree that real security for the future lies in developing the profitable and productive coalfields. It is perhaps a forlorn hope, but when we divide this evening I hope that Labour Members will reflect on the wording of the Opposition's motion. I believe that the motion would take us backwards, and I want to see the industry go forward. I know that it has a future, and I want to see it going forward as soon as possible.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), as you have asked us to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I crave the indulgence of the House briefly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech. My hon. Friend succeeded Joan Evans, who was a good friend of mine. His death was a sad loss to the Co-operative party. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being elected to this place. I say that with no disrepect to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who also made his maiden speech earlier this evening.
  We meet today in rather peculiar circumstances. In effect, we are the shareholders of the mining industry, for we represent the nation. The speeches of some Conservative Members have suggested that we are discussing a clapped-out industry that has no future— [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members have only recently entered the Chamber, but they are bellyaching already. I agree with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North that the industry has a future, but we are the
  518
  custodians of that future. The Secretary of State has a responsibility to intervene over Mr. MacGregor as the representative of the executive, as it were.
  The Opposition do not complain about intervention in industry, but we are entitled to question the nature and purpose of intervention. The most disastrous intervention in the mining industry was the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor. Anyone who thinks differently from that has not met him or has not been involved with him in an argument and discussion about a pit in his constituency. I have met Mr. MacGregor twice to discuss a pit in my constituency with my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill).
  When meetings of that sort take place, Mr. MacGregor says, "Listen, boy, we are running a decentralised industry here and it is management-down-the-line responsibility."' When he is questioned further about the effect of that form of management on Bogside he washes his hands of the matter and says, "That is a matter for the management and the National Union of Mineworkers and not for politicians." I have a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), which is graphic and significant when set against the reports that have appeared in the press over recent days. In his letter the Minister states:
  "It would be quite inappropriate for the Government to intervene in these arrangements."
  However, we know that the Government have intervened in the dispute. The Government's backstairs intervention had an effect on the attitude of management right down the line. Management in various areas is trying to establish a position whereby it will teach the men a lesson. That is reflected in threatened pit closures and how management chooses to colour the situation, real or imagined, in the pits.
  I have checked on pits in my constituency that are supposed to be under threat because they are dangerous. According to the press, the Cornrie pit is in danger of being closed. I have spoken to my NUM colleagues and they have said, "Dick, the pit is sweet." Miners will understand what is meant by that term. I have checked on the Castlehill pit and the same description applies. The same applies to Solsgirth pit. The attitude of management is to teach the men a lesson and the Secretary of State has a responsibility to bring that to a halt. That attitude will not produce cohesion in the industry.
  We are fighting for the survival of communities, and that has been graphically illustrated in the demonstration in London today. I do not expect Conservative Members to appreciate that, but I expect them to try to understand that if a pit closes, especially in the present economic climate, there is no other work.
  Mr. Maude rose——
  Mr. Douglas: No, I shall not give way, as time is limited.
  If a pit closes, there is no other work. Some of the young men I met when I was elected in 1979 have not worked since that general election. We are producing a generation whose members will be unemployed for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister does not appreciate that.
  Mining communities are close knit and it is wrong for Conservative Members to say that Labour Members are prepared to condone violence on the part of miners. Our people have a vested interest in good order, especially in close-knit communities. The Scottish experience is that

  519
  there is concerted action by the police. I witnessed scenes on the streets of London today that I did not imagine would ever take place. I saw a police officer kick a lady. Why was she kicked? She was kicked because she was collecting for the miners. The officer said, "No street collections here." I would not have believed that that could happen.
  The Secretary of State has a responsibility to intervene. What are his intentions? Does he intend to leave the dispute to management and the NUM and to let them try to resolve it, or will he intervene in the national interest? That is a straight question and I hope that it will receive a straight answer when the Minister replies.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)rose——
  Mr. Douglas: No, I shall not give way. I gave an undertaking that I would be brief and I want to keep to it. I have asked the Secretary of State a straight question. How does he and the Government see the national interest in terms of resolving the dispute?
  Mr. Peter Walker: We have intervened by providing the money to introduce the largest ever capital investment programme in the mining industry, a decent pay agreement and not one compulsory redundancy. That is a considerable intervention.
  Mr. Douglas: The Secretary of State should know better than to think that that will bring about a resolution of the dispute. To play the same record from the Government Front Bench, or to allow the needle to become stuck in the same groove and to express the same view, will not resolve the dispute. Any resolution will demand initiative. As the custodian of the nation's interests, the House should be given an answer at the conclusion of the debate. Is it the Minister's intention to allow the dispute to continue for months and months at a ruinous cost to all concerned, or will he do what has been done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and see the two parties either individually or collectively to try to bring about a resolution? The nation demands an answer. We cannot abrogate our responsibility, although the Secretary of State might want to do so.
  At the end of the debate, the nation will want to know how we treated the mining industry, which has a future. It may be that the nation will call us all to account when the next general election takes place although I hope that the dispute will not continue for that long. The Secretary of State should respond positively tonight.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said that Conservative Members did not appreciate the effect of the reduction in coal capacity asked for by the Coal Board on those communities that will be affected and on the loss of jobs. Hon. Members who represent areas of high unemployment appreciate the problems that may have to be faced. Therefore, to bring the matter down to the level of fighting a class war in this Chamber or outside it, does neither the dispute nor the industry any good.
  Three important matters arise from the dispute, and all miners should take notice of them. First, it is a great industry with a future, but much of what is going on will
  520
  do that future no good. There is the question of balance. If you are going to buy coal and build your industrial future on it——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member please refrain from bringing me into his speech?
  Mr. Hind: I apologise, Sir. A consumer or purchaser is entitled to request that the National Union of Mineworkers follows the normal rules for industrial relations and seeks the support of its members before going on strike, and then follows the normal channels for negotiations. If the consumer is given that security, he will buy the product, which in this case is coal. Mr. Arthur Scargill must ask himself what he has to fear by taking the matter to a ballot of his union's members, if his case is just.
  Mr. Nellist: What about the Greater London council?
  Mr. Hind: If Arthur Scargill fears democracy, he is leading his members up the garden path. That he will not call a ballot shows clearly that he is fighting a battle with the Government. He is not interested in long-term benefits for the members, whom he claims to represent. He should seek benefits for them and not a personal political gain from attempting to bring down the Conservative Government, which was properly elected through the ballot box on 9 June 1983.
  The miners must put their house in order and bring that man to book. If there is no ballot and the miners return to work in dribs and drabs, they will be a demoralised work force with little hope for the future. That may result in 12 months time in our debating the next miners' strike. Some Conservative Members believe that unless the dispute is settled sensibly by negotiation and unless the NUM executive are realistic, the problem will remain a festering sore for many years to come.
  Secondly, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said that we were the shareholders of the company. If the miners believe that they will win the support of the general public by offending the rule of law, as they have done at Orgreave, and by standing outside coking plants with 6,000 pickets, they believe in the rule of the mob and not the rule of law and are leading themselves in the wrong direction. They are convincing themselves that they are right and are shutting their minds to right-thinking people who want to run society in an orderly manner. There is a correct way of proceeding, negotiating and picketing.
  The third and most important factor is energy. I, with many other hon. Members, represent a manufacturing constituency. We are the consumers of the energy that comes, via the CEGB, from the pits. We are asking for a reduction of 4 million tonnes of coal, which represents less than 4 per cent. of total production. That will not close the' coal industry by any stretch of the imagination. We are simply asking the industry to cut the areas of expensive production and to bring prices to a more realistic level that is comparable with prices in other parts of the world. Can the mining industry, which produces coal at £46 a tonne, compete with American coal at between £23 to £27 a tonne, or with some European coal at between £16 and £19 a tonne?
  If energy costs too much, manufacturers will have to cut employment opportunities. In the long term the miners will not do themselves a favour by pursuing the dispute and ignoring the logical economic arguments that cannot

  521
  be denied if one examines the statistics. We cannot produce coal at £78 a tonne and expect the country to continue to write a blank cheque for the mining industry. I sympathise with Opposition Members, but we cannot allow one industry to have a blank cheque written by the taxpayer if that means that the other industries in which our constituents work will suffer. The House must consider the more than 20 million people who are working and must balance against that figure the 40,000 miners who are in danger of losing their jobs during the next two years.
  The miners should also compare the amount of investment in Britain with that in France and Germany. The British mining industry has had unprecedented investment and Government after Government have shown their willingness to invest in, and expand, new, profitable pits. We want a modern industry producing low-priced coal, which will benefit us all. The miners should know that with the dispute they are upsetting the future of their industry and putting off those who might have changed from oil-fired to coal-fired power. They should also consider the coal board's programme to assist them to set up in business and the marvellous terms for redundancy — [Interruption.] Opposition Members should talk to people in other industries who would give their eye-teeth to have similar redundancy payments. The miners should know that the opportunities being given to them are not being given to employees of other industries. They should realise that if they go back to work and sensibly ignore that man Scargill, who is interested only in his personal ambition, they will do well for their industry.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Hardy: Since I became a Member 14 years ago, there have been three strikes in the coal industry. History clearly demonstrates that the 1972 strike could easily have been avoided. It is obvious that the 1974 strike could easily have been avoided. A consideration of the 1984 coal strike will, I believe, bring the same conclusion.
  The 1984 strike could easily have been avoided without any settlement that could be described as one-sided, but there is another difference between the 1972 and 1974 strikes and this one. The 1972 and 1974 strikes had an element of good humour. There is little good humour about this strike, because this dispute is accompanied by an appalling level of hardship.
  That fact was presented to me the other day by a junior schoolmaster in my constituency. He told me that he was walking along a corridor of his school when he saw a little eight-year old boy. He asked him how he was. The little boy said—(Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. The scars that result from this type of experience will bring bitterness and grief to another generation of Conservatives. The boy said that he was not pleased with life because his mother was always crying.
  I shall not give the name of the headmaster, because the Secretary of State for Education and Science wants to get rid of headmasters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, he does. There are 10,000 people waiting to take their jobs.
  The Rawmarsh headmaster felt that he had to tell me that story because it was important. Labour Members are in the House of Commons because of the experience of their parents. One should have thought that people could have learnt a little more 30 or 40 years later. It is no
  522
  wonder that, when the Government seek to inflict the most desperate hardship and compound it by taxing generosity and the sense of responsibility in the community, there is a degree of bitterness because they have not pursued the important matters.
  The Secretary of State is aware that I have sought to encourage a settlement. I have urged him to take action to avoid the dispute. In December, I warned him about the fragility of industrial relations, and he has ignored that warning. The right hon. Gentleman talked about investment. I referred him to the position at Cortonwood. The miners will take his comments on investment with a pinch of salt. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the amount of investment in the industry. There was investment at Cortonwood, with refurbished pithead baths, a brand new methane unit, and the drive to a new area of coal, which would have seen a new pitface in operation within four days of the Coal Board deciding to close Cortonwood. That pit will close in five weeks time. Enormous sums were invested at Cortonwood. Any miner at Cortonwood will take any comment by the Secretary of State with a pinch of salt. They need a greater sense of security.
  At the beginning of the dispute—my constituents are well aware of this, if other hon. Members are not—I urged miners not to be involved in violence, because I could see what the national media would do with that. There has been violence, despite the fact that the vast majority of the members of the NUM have had nothing to do with violent actions. Responsible members of the NUM who share my anxiety have complained that the police have been turned into a national party political force in a way that is bound to bring grave danger to the community for a long time. If the Secretary of State wishes to contribute to peace in the mining industry, he should ask the Home Secretary when he will reply to letters containing detailed evidence of individual activity by police officers—it is only a minority of police officers —which does not justify the Home Secretary describing every miner's complaint as a lie or a smear.
  I have sent statements to the Home Secretary from members of the NUM with whom I live and whom I believe and trust. They are deeply concerned about what they have seen. After nine or 10 weeks of such a situation, it is time that we had a reply. I have asked the Home Secretary to give me a guarantee, not that he will take action now, but that he will agree to an investigation when the dispute is eventually over.
  The Secretary of State has told the House of confidence in the mining industry and the vast amount of money that the Government have invested in it. If the Secretary of State has taken an interest—I believe that he has, even though it be a quiet interest—he will be aware that vast: sums of money have been invested in many scores of colleries. He will know, far more than any Opposition Member, how much damage has occurred in colleries since the dispute began and how many scores of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been put at risk, and perhaps how much taxpayers' money has been put at risk at individual colleries. If he is the custodian of the nation's investment, as a responsible custodian he would take some note of the consequences of his inaction upon the taxpayers' investment.
  There are rumours in the industry that it is not old., losing pits which are now at risk; it is vast modern ones upon which the country will have to depend for the next

  523
  30, 40 or 50 years. Whether they be loss-making pits, or profitable ones, most of our colleries are in areas where unemployment is at a deplorable and obscene level. In my constituency, 85 per cent. of the school leavers could not get a job last year. The strike and the effect of the Government's policy on the coal board will make that figure at least 90 per cent. this year.
  Miners are right to be worried about their position and whether they should snatch the money that the Secretary of State is dangling before them and thus ensure that their children or their neighbours' children never obtain work. The Secretary of State ignores that aspect of the matter. It may be difficult for Conservative Members to begin to understand those human factors but somehow within the next few days they must begin to penetrate the consciousness of the Secretary of State.
  Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) to speak, may I say to the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) that it has been drawn to my attention that in the concluding part of his speech he said:
  "They—"
  that is, hon. Members—
  "have no comprehension of how that bitterness will be increased when they read how the Prime Minister has lied to the House."
  I know that that was probably said in the heat of the moment, but I ask the right hon. Member to withdraw that phrase.
  Mr. Foot: I expressed myself in extremely strong terms because I believe that it is deeply offensive to the House that the Prime Minister has not come here to answer the charges about how the House and the country have been misled by her statement on the matter. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, if you tell me that I expressed those strong feelings in unparliamentary language, I withdraw it on your instructions.
  9.17 pm
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The House would wish me to compliment the two maiden speakers. I should probably refer to the Conservative Member first. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) paid a right and generous tribute to his predecessor. The hon. Member showed that he will be articulate enough to espouse his party's case, and no doubt we shall hear more from him. It is, of course, another pleasure for me to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her maiden speech. Coming from the Rhondda valley, in south Wales, she made it clear that the miners and the people of that area have found a champion to espouse their cause. I am sure that we shall hear more from her. We were pleased that she was so articulate, and I compliment her on behalf of the House.
  I have had the great privilege and pleasure of occupying these Benches now for about 12 years, and to speak on behalf of my party from the Front Bench. During those 12 years I have never listened to a debate of such major importance and significance in which senior Members were so noticeable by their absence. I think it is rather strange that that should happen. One wonders what is happening on the Government Benches for this to be so.
  524
  In response to the debate, I think it has to be recorded that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) who got the present talks going between the National Union of Mineworkers and the NCB with a view to settling the coal dispute. It is unpredecented that the initiative in such a major crisis affecting our country should have to come from the Opposition.
  My right hon. Friend talked to both sides in the dispute. In the debate, Opposition Members—and any other hon. Members can join us—are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he talked to both sides involved in the dispute. Indeed, we are entitled to ask what initiatives, if any, he has helped, or tried to help, to resolve the dispute. I hope that we are not going to be told that the Government's policy is one of non-intervention. How is it possible to compromise apparent neutrality by talking to both sides involved in the dispute in this serious crisis that affects the nation? I say this "apparent neutrality", for that cover has already been blown for the Government, because they have been in contact throughout the dispute with the National Coal Board, and, I know, with Mr. Ian MacGregor.
  It is essential tonight that the House be told what the Government strategy has amounted to. I submit that it can be described in two aspects. First, it has been a response for public presentation or public consumption. The policy of non-intervention has been trailered in the House, and trailered across the media. That is the word that has tripped gaily from the lips of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. Anyone who has some knowledge of the machinery of Government knows that the meaning of non-intervention is to conspire to bring about the defeat of the miners. I suggest that the word non-intervention is now a bit word-soiled. I know that my old mother of 85 years, who was secretary of the Spanish civil war relief fund, remembers the policy of Tory Government non-intervention.
  The second aspect of this so-called strategy by the Government is allied to the first. It is a political strategy to starve the miners and their families into submission.
  I have news for the Government. They will not succeed in starving the miners and their families into submission. As a strategy, it is bound to fail because in this debate we are appealing to the fair-mindedness of the British people, and they will not allow any Government to starve any section of industrial workers into submission. If that is Government strategy, they will succeed only in escalating the dispute because the trade union movement will not allow the miners to be starved into submission.
  Every Government and every Head of Government has a responsibility to bear in an industrial dispute of this magnitude, and it is clear that the Prime Minister can be identified with the origins of this one. I refer to the appointment of Mr. Ian MacGregor as chairman of the NCB. The Prime Minister cannot wriggle out of that responsibility, for he was her appointment. It was the single most provocative political act of 1984.
  It was made clear by the press corps at 10 Downing street that the right hon. Lady was full of admiration for Mr. MacGregor and was proud of what he had done to the steel industry, in which he was detested by management and workers alike. Based on that, there can be little doubt that his terms of reference were seen by the people working in the coal industry as an instruction that he should do to coal what he had done to steel.

  525
  It added insult to injury when we were informed at the time of the appointment of Mr. MacGregor that a fee of £1·5 million had to be paid to his firm in America for his secondment. It was a disgrace when the present Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared on television and said that it was cheap at the price. Later in my remarks I shall show how cheap it has been.
  We are entitled tonight to question the advice that must have been given by Mr. MacGregor at the outset of this dispute, which was to the effect that it would have little effect on the economy of the country because of the high stocks of coal. A servile and captive media also played the tune that the high stocks of coal would cause little or insignificant damage to the economy. In view of some of the speeches that have been made in this debate about the economic damage that the dispute has caused, that takes the biscuit.
  It reeked of complacency when the chairman of the NCB a few weeks ago, from the cosy comfort of NCB headquarters in Hobart house, described the miners' dispute as
  "a little temporary difficulty outside of town".
  I do not know whether it will be, or will be considered to have been, temporary, but it is certainly not a little difficulty. It is a whopper of an industrial dispute.
  There is a growing realisation among the electors as a result of the dispute how much they have been diddled by the Conservatives, who campaigned on the basis that they would safeguard the public purse.
  "Your money is safe in our hands"
  was the slogan of every Tory politican at two general elections.
  Unemployment and the Falklands war have been debated at great length because of their enormous expense, which is still growing. The miners' dispute looks like becoming a strong competitor in the expenditure of the nation. No wonder that the dispute is being captioned in every mining and industrial area as the Prime Minister's folly. There is good reason for it being named as such. If one adds it to the expenditure in the Falklands and the colossal cost of sustaining unemployment, we undoubtedly have the most irresponsible and extravagantly expensive Government ever in peacetime.
  The miners' dispute is probably costing twice as much as the Falklands war. I restrain myself with great difficulty from going into details about — [Laughter.] —Conservative Members should not laugh, because there is nothing to laugh about—the misery and suffering that miners and their families are undergoing. That is nothing to laugh about. The dispute must be costing nearly £2·5 billion. That is why I refer to it as one of the most serious crises that we are undergoing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, we have the largest trade deficit ever in our balance of trade. The value of stocks and shares has been chopped since the start of the dispute, although not many miners will suffer from that.'
  There is another factor, which is again no joke—it is serious. I calculate that about 700 places are standing idle all over the British coal fields. If this dispute lasts much longer, I estimate that about £1·75 billion worth of equipment underground will be at risk, but in Mr. MacGregor's words, this is a "little temporary difficulty".
  I put it to the House in all seriousness that, because of his monumental incompetence, Mr. MacGregor should be
  526
  sacked immediately. [AN HON. MEMBER: "And the Prime Minister."] Yes. There will be a little more difficulty about that, but it will come.
  As Mr. MacGregoror has withdrawn from the negotiations, he may wish to do the honourable thing and resign. The Minister's cover has been blown, and he must reply, as must the Minister of State, Department of Employment, to the statement in the Daily Mirror, which was somewhat echoed in The Observer last Sunday, that the Government are insisting that there have to be no agreed terms that could be interpreted as a victory for the NUM president. We are entitled to know whether those are the terms of negotiation given to the negotiators of the NCB. If that is so, that is the road to hell and disaster, and we will not bring this dispute to an end.
  The miners' case in this dispute is overwhelming. The speeches of some Conservative Members illustrate that the miners' case has not been presented fairly. It has been polluted by picket line scenes on television and in the media. Never in living memory in an industrial dispute have the police been used as they have been today.
  The second betrayal has been conservative talk of the gladiatorial battle between Mr. Ian MacGregor and Mr. Arthur Scargill. That certainly pollutes the argument. The issue is simple. The NCB made a unilateral declaration to get rid of 20 pits and 20,000 men this year. Mr. MacGregor said that it was based on an over-production of 4 million tonnes of coal. If there is any doubt about "Plan for Coal", that unilateral declaration was the first shot fired in the betrayal of that plan. The way that it has been presented to the public—as though the NCB had to take action to slim down the manpower and close the pits—ignores the fact that during the past three financial years, through pit closures, exhaustion and other factors, the coal industry has shed 43,000 men.
  In my native land of Scotland, there have been six pit closures during the past 15 to 16 months, and two of them are the subject of dispute. We have lost 3,000 jobs, yet our unemployment rate is an absolute scandal. In some areas it is 70 or 80 per cent. among the youth.
  The case for development of coal is overwhelming. It is the only fossil fuel that we have in abundance. There is sufficient coal to last us throughout the next century. As, has been pointed out by some of my hon. Friends, oil and gas are wasted assets. Some sources of energy will. disappear before the century is out. We know that by 1988 oil from the North sea will begin to dwindle. We also know that when we talk about coal and its future, we are talking about the industrial strategic importance of the nation. It is strategically important that we have a strong, thriving coal industry because of the problems in the Middle East, which is a cauldron of political uncertainty. If we contract our coal industry, we shall place the nation in industrial peril. We will need to make oil from coal.
  The Secretary of State spoke of investment in coal. The House must be aware that the Government have not sunk one pit since they were elected in 1979. That is a betrayal of "Plan for Coal". As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said, if we look at global investment we see that the Government are operating a policy of contracting the coal fields in Durham, Scotland, Northumberland and south Wales. The right hon. Gentleman cannot deny that 81 per cent. of investment goes into Nottingham, the Midlands and Yorkshire. The other areas are left with 19 per cent. If that is not a policy of contraction, I do not know what is. We need new pits. Unless we sink new pits,

  527
  the industry will contract. The country is rich in coal, and we know the areas with potential for new pits—Wales, Scotland and so on.
  It is not the miners who are on the rack tonight—it is the Government. That is why we will go into the Division Lobby and vote against the Government. Their policy is not just industrial suicide for the mining industry; it is industrial suicide for the nation as a whole.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, it is my pleasant duty to join those who have welcomed and congratulated the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on her speech and I share entirely her view of her late predecessor, loan Evans, who was much liked and admired by many Conservative Members. We wish the hon. Lady well in her time here. I am sorry that Cynon Valley seems to have been taken off the map temporarily, but it looks as though she will be putting it back. I very much welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) and congratulate him, not just on the quality of his maiden speech but on his kind words, which we all endorse, about our late colleague, Hugh Fraser. We see in our new colleague the sense of style and dedication that characterised his predecessor and welcome him with the best of good wishes for the future.
  Today's debate has had a most extraordinary character, not least because there are now a substantial number of Tory Members directly representing miners and there are more Tory Members than Opposition Members present for the winding-up speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), for Stafford (Mr. Cash), for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), and for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) have all contributed to the debate with personal knowledge of their constituencies in which miners are represented. That is a major change which has overcome the House since the last general election.
  Mr. Lofthouse: Does the Minister realise that those very miners have said today that they are now more determined then ever as a result of the Prime Minister misleading the House and deceiving them? Is he aware that he and the Secretary of State have completely lost the miners' trust and are regarded as bearing the same responsibility as the Prime Minister because they supported her in deceiving the House, which is what miners would call lying——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that word should not be used—not even by attribution.
  Mr. Lofthouse: In that case, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Shaw: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has to get his point in, but the incredible thing about the debate has been the silence of the Opposition about the 45,000 miners who are at work. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the kind of intervention to which he was used to at the Department of Employment. He would have difficulty now to know what to do with a trade union of this nature, using its rule book
  528
  as it has, deciding not to have a national ballot, and with an enormous split within it. That is a major difference today, whatever may have been the case in the past.
  The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) wound up in his characteristically generous style and we welcome him back to the Dispatch Box, but the Opposition cannot have it both ways. The hon. Gentleman asked when any new pits had been sunk. He seemed to have forgotten Asfordby, but as that pit is in Leicestershire he probably does not know of it. He called for new pits to be sunk, but his right hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Orme) said in opening that there was far too much investment in new pits and wanted investment in existing pits. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend clearly need to get together. I ask myself whether we should intervene in getting them together. Perhaps I could write a letter to the hon. Gentleman with a little footnote that he might care to carry out. We shall get the two sides together.
  I can give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to his question. In terms of investment in existing mines, since the Government came to power in 1979 the figures for projects worth more than £500,000—and the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that those are substantial projects—are as follows: in 1978–79, £136 million; in 1979–80, £174 million; in 1980–81, £212 million, and in 1981–82, £229 million. There is no shred of evidence to suggest that investment policy has been biased towards excluding the development of existing pits. Far from it.
  Mr. Orme: When the hon. Gentleman looks at the Official Report tomorrow, he will see that I welcomed the investment in new pits, and said that there should be more investment in the older pits too.
  Mr. Shaw: The record will be studied. My hon. Friends will draw their conclusions and the right hon. Gentleman will draw his conclusions.
  Many points have been made in the debate. I respect the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood voiced the interests and importance of the Nottingham miners. He rightly drew attention to the massive intimidation that there has been in his constituency. To his credit, my hon. Friend says that the future is all that matters. The miners of Nottinghamshire are just as dedicated to that future as anyone else. They are demonstrating their faith in the future.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that 87 per cent. of the miners are on strike. That is just not so. One can give or take a few percentage points at around 75 per cent., but certainly 25 to 27 per cent. of the miners are currently working, and I trust that that number will continue to grow, as it is steadily growing each day.
  The right hon. Gentleman talked about ratting on "Plan for Coal" by abandoning the volume target. He should recall his own Green Paper on energy. The volume target was not accepted by the Government of the day, and it was deleted from the eventual proposals.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we were penalising the men on strike by withholding redundancy payments. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government and the NCB are determined to ensure that men who take redundancy and who have agreed terms of redundancy will receive their redundancy pay. The arrangement that was announced last week, as the right hon. Gentleman should know, is that a change will be

  529
  made to enable the recovery to take place. That should ensure that the vast majority of the moneys outstanding will be paid out under the redundancy arrangements that have been made. We intend to see that that is done at the earliest convenient opportunity.
  There was a magnificent demonstration of spontaneous combustion from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who was in very good form. He pirouetted gracefully on most of the aspects of the dispute. He prayed in aid the Ayatollah Khomeini — a new diversionary tactic for him. He did his standard stuff, and it was of the best quality. We wish him well in his discussions with the two or three people who share his points of view.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Hickmet), rightly drew our attention to the problems of the steel industry and the way in which the industry was being treated by the miners. It would be more than a tragedy, it would be an economic disaster of the first magnitude, if such action were taken in relation to this dispute. We wish it well in sorting that problem out as well.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) was concerned to keep every pit open, and at full production. If that happened, because of the average price of British mined coal, there would be nothing but increases in stocks and lower sales. At the heart of the dispute and the debate lies one theme—how the mining industry can find a stable and viable future. Closures have always been part of the discussions on mining policy. The documentation is clear on that. We find that in the earliest documents of the Government in 1974, when examining "Plan for Coal" in its coal industry examination committee. Time and again that committee returned to the point. It said that the transformed outlook for coal was dependent on the fact that costs should remain competitive overall and that those costs must bear in mind the cost of uneconomic pits where they exist. The energy policy document of 1978 said on the key issue of productivity:
  "In order to make the most effective contribution to meeting demand for energy the coal industry will need to operate at the highest possible level of production and lowest level of cost. The cost of coal production from existing capacity is rising as … operations take place further from the pit bottom."
  Cost is at the heart of the discussion about the problem in the coal industry. It came into most prominent relief in the exposure given to it by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 1983. I appreciate that that report is not always the best reading for Opposition Members so I shall refer to the Energy Select Committee's report of December 1982. It examined the problem of pit closures and took evidence from the NUM and others. In conclusion (xv) it said:
  "There can be no doubt that the very high cost of the Board's marginal and at least in the short term, surplus capacity unfavourably distorts the coal industry's financial position, and imposes a considerable drain upon public funds."
  Conclusion (xvii) says:
  "In sum, to judge by their evidence to us, the NUM appear to believe that, in order to maintain employment in mining, the industry should be encouraged and financed to produce as much coal as it possibly can, and that the country somehow has an obligation to find ways of consuming it."
  It was therefore inevitable that the Committee should conclude in conclusion (xix) as follows:
  "The Board must take steps to bring its capacity more into line with existing and expected demands for coal."
  530
  That is what the problem is all about. The problem has been deflected for month after month and for year after year.
  Mr. William O'Brien: I am grateful to the Minister for enabling me to say what the dispute is about. It is about job opportunities and the loss of them. Will he give us an assurance that there will be job opportunities in the mining industry for school leavers and unemployed people in mining areas? That is what the dispute is about and that is the assurance that we want.
  Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the prospects for job opportunities in an industry that cannot sell its product are virtually zero. Restructuring is therefore essential for such prospects. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if the board is able to put the industry on a viable and sound footing, there will undoubtedly be jobs for youngsters. That is the board's intention.
  I accept entirely that severe community hardships are being suffered in areas where pits are closed. The Government have taken some steps in relation to RMPS payments, which I recognise that some may not regard as sufficient. However, those steps are immensely greater than any taken by the previous Labour Government. In addition, the board has announced—I trust that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) knows—that an NCB enterprise company will be set up with the specific task of aiding and assisting in the development of businesses in areas where closures take place and helping to bring together the various services that can help create new jobs. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that measure had Government support and I said that the Government fully support the NCB in what it does. He will be aware that the board will be making the initial investment but he will equally be aware that every penny that the board currently spends comes from the Government's account.
  Mr. Douglas: We have been treated to the Government's view on a range of aspects but we have not been given what many have asked for — the Government's view on how the present dispute will be resolved. Can we have that?
  Mr. Shaw: Negotiations are now taking place between the NCB and the NUM. I welcome the meetings between the right hon. Member for Salford, East, the chairman of the NCB and the leader of the NUM. I am not so certain that it is because of the sugar plum fairy that they are taking place. Those negotiations have come about after many months of waiting for the NUM and we wish those negotiations success. The hon. Gentleman would not expect any further comment a s the negotiations will be resumed tomorrow.
  The future of the coal industry——
  Mr. Mason rose——
  Mr. Shaw: I have given way enough.
  Mr. Mason rose——
  Mr. Shaw: No. I shall not give way.
  Mr. Mason rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Mason rose——
  Mr. Shaw: I shall now give way.
  Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that there has been a conspiratorial alliance of secrecy by Ministers and Government Departments while the Prime Minister has been deliberately misleading the House week after week, denying involvement by the Government and Ministers while at the same time the Government have been manipulating unions to isolate the NUM. Why has the Department of Energy, which must have known more about the matter than any other Department, gone along with the Prime Minister in misleading the nation, being guilty of terminological inexactitudes——
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Shaw: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should abuse an intervention in that way with all the experience that he commands. It was made abundantly clear at Question Time today how that matter should be viewed.
  In conclusion, let me establish beyond doubt that the Government have provided the vast resources necessary to enable the industry to have a viable and substantial future. Within the industry at present there is a major dispute in that a large proportion of the NUM is working and a larger proportion is on strike. It is absolutely absurd for hon. Members to suggest that that is a situation that can be solved by any means other than by the union itself. It is absurd that no ballot has taken place.
  Finally, in so far as the country can have a secure and viable coal industry, it will be because the price of coal fits the market. That is the way in which we look forward to a strong and viable future for the industry.
  I call upon my hon. Friends to support our amendment in the Lobby.
  Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 272.

  Division No. 357]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Clay, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Clwyd, Ms Ann

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Cohen, Harry

  Ashton, Joe

  Coleman, Donald

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Barnett, Guy

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Cowans, Harry

  Benn, Tony

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crowther, Stan

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blair, Anthony

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boyes, Roland

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Deakins, Eric

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dixon, Donald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Douglas, Dick

  Buchan, Norman

  Dubs, Alfred

  Caborn, Richard

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Eadie, Alex

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Eastham, Ken

  Campbell, Ian

  Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellis, Raymond

  Canavan, Dennis

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Ewing, Harry

  532

  Fatchett, Derek

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Nellist, David

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, William

  Flannery, Martin

  O'Neill, Martin

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Forrester, John

  Parry, Robert

  Foster, Derek

  Patchett, Terry

  Foulkes, George

  Pendry, Tom

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Pike, Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  George, Bruce

  Prescott, John

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Radice, Giles

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Randall, Stuart

  Golding, John

  Redmond, M.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Robertson, George

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rogers, Allan

  Haynes, Frank

  Rooker, J. W.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Ryman, John

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  John, Brynmor

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Snape, Peter

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Spearing, Nigel

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Strang, Gavin

  Lamond, James

  Straw, Jack

  Leighton, Ronald

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Litherland, Robert

  Thome, Stan (Preston)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Tinn, James

  Loyden, Edward

  Torney, Tom

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wareing, Robert

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Weetch, Ken

  McKelvey, William

  Welsh, Michael

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  White, James

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wigley, Dafydd

  McTaggart, Robert

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Madden, Max

  Wilson, Gordon

  Marek, Dr John

  Winnick, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Woodall, Alec

  Martin, Michael

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Maxton, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. John Home Robertson.

  Meacher, Michael

  Michie, William

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Benyon, William

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Best, Keith

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Amess, David

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Ancram, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Ashby, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bright, Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Brinton, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Beggs, Roy

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Bellingham, Henry

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  533

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hind, Kenneth

  Burt, Alistair

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Holt, Richard

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hooson, Tom

  Cash, William

  Hordern, Peter

  Chope, Christopher

  Howard, Michael

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Coombs, Simon

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cope, John

  Irving, Charles

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jessel, Toby

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Crouch, David

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Key, Robert

  Dover, Den

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Robert

  Knowles, Michael

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Farr, John

  Lester, Jim

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forman, Nigel

  McCusker, Harold

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Maclean, David John

  Forth, Eric

  Maginnis, Ken

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Maples, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gow, Ian

  Moore, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mudd, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Murphy, Christopher

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholson, J.

  Ground, Patrick

  Norris, Steven

  Grylls, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Parris, Matthew

  Harris, David

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Harvey, Robert

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Pawsey, James

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Porter, Barry

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Hayes, J.

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powley, John

  Hayward, Robert

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Heddle, John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Henderson, Barry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Hickmet, Richard

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hicks, Robert

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  534

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Ryder, Richard

  Thurnham, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Nicholas

  Trippier, David

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Waddington, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Silvester, Fred

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sims, Roger

  Walden, George

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Waller, Gary

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Ward, John

  Spencer, Derek

  Warren, Kenneth

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Watson, John

  Squire, Robin

  Watts, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Stanley, John

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Steen, Anthony

  Wheeler, John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stokes, John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Ian Lang and Mr. Michael Neubert.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Questions, That the proposed words be three added, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).
  The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 178.

  Division No. 358]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bright, Graham

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brinton, Tim

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Amess, David

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Ancram, Michael

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Burt, Alistair

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Cash, William

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chope, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Benyon, William

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Best, Keith

  Colvin, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coombs, Simon

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Cope, John

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Couchman, James

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Critchley, Julian

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Crouch, David

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  535

  Dorrell, Stephen

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dover, Den

  Knight,.Gregory (Derby N)

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knowles, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Lang, Ian

  Durant, Tony

  Latham, Michael

  Eggar, Tim

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Fallon, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Farr, John

  Lester, Jim

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Forman, Nigel

  McCusker, Harold

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Maclean, David John

  Forth, Eric

  Maginnis, Ken

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Major, John

  Fox, Marcus

  Maples, John

  Franks, Cecil

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Freeman, Roger

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Fry, Peter

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Galley, Roy

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gorst, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Gow, Ian

  Moore, John

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Greenway, Harry

  Mudd, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Murphy, Christopher

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Neubert, Michael

  Grist, Ian

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Ground, Patrick

  Nicholson, J.

  Grylls, Michael

  Norris, Steven

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Oppenheim, Philip

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Osborn, Sir John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Page, John (Harrow W)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Harris, David

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Harvey, Robert

  Parris, Matthew

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Pawsey, James

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Hayes, J.

  Porter, Barry

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)

  Hayward, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Powley, John

  Heddle, John

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Henderson, Barry

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Hickmet, Richard

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hicks, Robert

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hind, Kenneth

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Holt, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hooson, Tom

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hordern, Peter

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Howard, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Ryder, Richard

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hunter, Andrew

  Scott, Nicholas

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Irving, Charles

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Jackson, Robert

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Jessel, Toby

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shersby, Michael

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Silvester, Fred

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Sims, Roger

  Key, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  536

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Trippier, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Trotter, Neville

  Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Spencer, Derek

  Viggers, Peter

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Waddington, David

  Squire, Robin

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Stanley, John

  Walden, George

  Steen, Anthony

  Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

  Stern, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Waller, Gary

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Ward, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Watson, John

  Stokes, John

  Watts, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Sumberg, David

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Raymond

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Wood, Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Yeo, Tim

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

  Tracey, Richard

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Deakins, Eric

  Ashton, Joe

  Dobson, Frank

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Dormand, Jack

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Douglas, Dick

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Barnett, Guy

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Eadie, Alex

  Bell, Stuart

  Eastham, Ken

  Benn, Tony

  Ellis, Raymond

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ewing, Harry

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fatchett, Derek

  Blair, Anthony

  Faulds, Andrew

  Boyes, Roland

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Fisher, Mark

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Flannery, Martin

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Forrester, John

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Foster, Derek

  Buchan, Norman

  Foulkes, George

  Caborn, Richard

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  George, Bruce

  Campbell, Ian

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Clay, Robert

  Hardy, Peter

  Clwyd, Ms Ann

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Cohen, Harry

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Coleman, Donald

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Conlan, Bernard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Corbett, Robin

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Home Robertson, John

  Cowans, Harry

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Craigen, J. M.

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Crowther, Stan

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  537

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Redmond, M.

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  John, Brynmor

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Robertson, George

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rogers, Allan

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Rooker, J. W.

  Lamond, James

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ryman, John

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Loyden, Edward

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Short, Mrs H.(W'hampfn NE)

  McKelvey, William

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Snape, Peter

  McTaggart, Robert

  Spearing, Nigel

  Madden, Max

  Stott, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Strang, Gavin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Straw, Jack

  Martin, Michael

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Maxton, John

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Meacher, Michael

  Tinn, James

  Michie, William

  Torney, Tom

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wareing, Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Weetch, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Welsh, Michael

  Nellist, David

  White, James

  O'Brien, William

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Neill, Martin

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, Gordon

  Parry, Robert

  Winnick, David

  Patchett, Terry

  Woodall, Alec

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Prescott, John

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Don Dixon.

  Radice, Giles

  Randall, Stuart

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  'That this House confirms that the future of the coal industry will depend on the industry's success in deploying its assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels; welcomes the action of the Government in providing more capital investment for the industry than any previous Government in order to achieve a successful future for the industry, noting that their investment of over £3·9 billion has not only far exceeded investment in the industry by the last Labour Government, but has substantially exceeded the scale of investment envisaged in the "Plan for Coal"; welcomes the steps taken by the National Coal Board and the Government to ensure that, in areas where a reduction in uneconomic capacity is being considered, miners affected will be treated more generously and with greater understanding than in the past, to the benefit of mining communities; notes that the early retirement and voluntary redundancy provisions are more generous than those of any other industry, and have helped create a situation in which the National Coal Board can assure any miner now employed that he will be able to continue working as a miner if he desires to do so; welcomes also the action of the National Coal Board to assist mining communities by creating a new enterprise company; and calls upon all those in the industry to co-operate to achieve the higher productivity essential to keep coal competitive and secure the future prosperity of the industry and its employees.'

  Dairy Industry (Northern Ireland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
  10.27 pm
  Mr. James Nicholson: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the difficulties facing Northern Ireland dairy farmers and producers. Farming at the best of times can be a difficult occupation, no matter what enterprise might be pursued by the farmer.
  Farming is hard enough when one has to battle against the elements, without having to defend oneself against those whom one would expect to be on one's side. I must place the responsibility on the Minister because when the final negotiations were over we had and still have complete chaos. At times I doubted whether even the Minister knew to what he had agreed. The farmer must live with decisions made far away in Brussels.
  All the assurances that were given by the Prime Minister and the Minister about Northern Ireland, before and after the negotiations, quickly disappeared once it was realised what the agreement was and what was supposed to happen in Northern Ireland.
  In recognition of the Northern Ireland farmers' dependence upon the grass-based sector they were to receive an extra 65,000 tonnes. That would have meant a cut for the dairy industry but one that could perhaps have been much more easily accepted. What happened was that Northern Ireland farmers did not receive the whole of the extra allowance to which they were entitled. I do not propose to deal with that in any depth. It is a burning issue in Northern Ireland, and has given rise to serious concern. It has been denied repeatedly by the Minister. the Secretary of State and others. I have to be frank, fair. firm and straight, because, no matter what has been said, it has not been believed.
  When allocating the United Kingdom quota to the various regions of the United Kingdom, the Government decided to equalise the level of hardship in each region by giving England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland a quota equal to the 1983 milk output minus 5·82 per cent. Not only did this clearly deny Northern Ireland the special treatment that we rightly expect to receive, but in my view Northern Ireland will be more harshly treated than England and Wales or Scotland. This can be supported by an examination of the United Kingdom 1983 December census figures on milk and milk production for the first three months of 1984. It may be enlightening to the House to hear that the increase in cow numbers in December 1983 in England and Wales was 1·8 per cent., in Scotland 1 per cent. and in Northern Ireland 7 per cent.
  As to milk output, in January 1984 in England and Wales, the figure was minus 1·6 per cent., in February, minus 1·1 per cent., and in March, minus 2·8 per cent. In Scotland, the figure was minus 0·3 per cent. in January, minus 0·1 per cent. in February, and minus 0·2 per cent. in March. In Northern Ireland, in January, the figure was plus 3 per cent., in February, plus 3·9 per cent., and in March, plus 3·9 per cent. Northern Ireland dairy farmers had, therefore, made a much greater investment in terms of cattle housing facilities and stock than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. A quota of 1983 milk production minus 8·5 per cent. will have a much more serious effect on produce in Northern Ireland.

  539
  I fully accept that the quota system will bring hardship to producers in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am satisfied, after giving serious consideration to the figures, that the level of hardship will be that much greater in Northern Ireland.
  The aid proposals recently announced by the Minister will most certainly be of great assistance, but they still do not give enough to help the Northern Ireland farmer. The amount allowed will not cover the hardship cases. Let us examine what the aid proposals will mean to the farmer. The 3 per cent. reserve held back, as part of the 9 per cent. cut in production will mean approximately another 8,500 cows. The buy out scheme, if a sufficient number of farmers decide to make use of it, will mean another 13,500 cows in Northern Ireland, approximately 22,000 cows in total.
  At present, I am reliably informed that we have over 2,000 development plans in Northern Ireland. Those schemes are already in operation, and farmers are in the middle of developing and pursuing the schemes. It is nowhere near sufficient to meet their needs, never mind the needs of those who have other special circumstances to meet in the year such as disease, illness in the family or some occurrence that seriously affects milk production in the course of the year.
  The proposals presented by the Minister for Northern Ireland mean only a redistribution of the existing quota, and not one litre more to farmers in Northern Ireland. It means that small farmers must get out to make way for larger ones.
  In that respect, the sale of quotas has been advocated in some quarters. We must give serious consideration to that before going too far down that road. How will a young man starting out in agriculture stand a chance if, in addition to purchasing land — or, in this part of the United Kingdom, perhaps renting land—and building a herd, he must first, before even beginning to build up his milk production, buy a quota?
  The trouble with this whole scheme is that it has been ill-considered, and, in my view, the buy-out scheme has been rushed through when it deserved far more consideration. Farmers with fewer than 40 cows are being hit the hardest. They must be safeguarded because they have no alternative means of surviving. Further, they have not been responsible for the massive surplus of milk.
  Many such farmers depend totally on milk production for their livelihood, and we must bear in mind that the Northern Ireland herd average is 38 and that 65 per cent. of Northern Ireland's dairy farmers have fewer than 40 cows. The average herd size in England and Wales is 65 while in Scotland, I am reliably informed, it is 88.
  It is interesting to note the average herd sizes in each of the six counties of Northern Ireland. These figures show how affected are farmers in hill areas and small farmers generally. In county Antrim, the average herd size is 41; in county Armagh, my home county, it is 30; in county Down it is the largest, at 53; in county Fermanagh it is 20; in Londonderry it is 40; and in county Tyrone it is 32. The average for Fermanagh, Tyrone and Armagh — the counties with the smallest herd sizes — would be 27 cows. These figures show that Northern Ireland deserved more consideration than it received when the Minister was allocating the quota.
  540
  The Northern Ireland dairy industry has suffered because of its price disadvantage and as a result of the much lower proportion of our total output used in the liquid market, and it is worth comparing milk production in Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  In England and Wales, 45 per cent. of milk goes into the liquid market; in Scotland, the figure is 42 per cent.; whereas in Northern Ireland, 14·5 per cent. goes into the liquid market. In England and Wales, 55 per cent. goes for manufacturing, 30 per cent. for butter, 15 per cent. for cheese, 6 per cent. for fresh cream and 6 per cent. of other products. In Scotland, 58 per cent. goes to manufacturing, 21 per cent. to butter, 21 per cent. to cheese, 6 per cent. to fresh cream and 10 per cent. to other products. In Northern Ireland, a massive 85·5 per cent. of production goes to the manufacturing end of the milk industry, 55 per cent. goes to butter, 20 per cent. to cheese, 1·5 per cent. to fresh cream, and 9 per cent. to other products.
  The Northern Ireland dairy farmer also receives on average 3p per gallon less for his milk than his counterpart in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is all very well for the Minister to speak of equalising the burden, but the Government must learn that they cannot say when it suits them that we shall be treated in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom, but when it suits them, say, "Ah, but you are different." We are not different when it comes to this and it suits the Government to equalise the burden throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Then we had to have equal rights. On every other occasion, we are told that we are different. That is the crunch issue in this debate.
  If the Minister wishes to equalise the burden, he must also be prepared to equalise the price, because Northern Ireland milk producers receive much less than their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a galling exercise to watch the Republic of Ireland with its extra quota—ill negotiation again. On every farming programme on television, and every agricultural newspaper, the leaders of the Republic of Ireland's farmers are warning them that they may not be able to produce the extra quota, and they are encouraged to produce more, while other farmers throughout Europe and the United Kingdom are being told to cut back. That is an indictment and shows the unacceptable face of the European Community. That will either have to be changed drastically, or we shall have to get out.
  Why should Northern Ireland be treated any differently from any other part of the United Kingdom? I hope that I have outlined the reasons why I believe that Northern Ireland should have had better, more reasonable and fair treatment, such as the small average size of our farms, which are mainly owner-occupied and run by family units that depend totally on the production on their land. The problem also has social aspects, as anyone forced out of milk production by the quotas—as some will be—has few alternatives.
  I can give an example of a producer whom I know well. He is supporting himself, his father and his mother on 18 cows and 25 acres. He is happy with his living, which he has had for the past eight years, during which he has not had one cow extra. However, he has been told that he must decrease by 9 per cent., just like everyone else. Is that not wrong? How does one justify that?

  541
  Since the entry of the United Kingdom into Europe, and the demise of the intensive sector, farmers in Northern Ireland cannot, and have not, any way in which they can change to alternative enterprises.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, with 120,000 persons unemployed, there is no alternative for the small farmer who may be put out of business?
  Mr. Nicholson: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Many will be put on the dole queue. Some will have to apply for family income supplement or other assistance. We have to look at it the other way as well. The farmer with 18 cows who cuts by 9 per cent. the size of his herd will be left with only 15 cows. He will miss those cows terribly, but the producer with 200 cows who cuts the size of his herd by the same percentage, by about 20 or 30 cows, will still make a good living while the other gentleman has no chance of making a living. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  The farmers were encouraged to expand, to build new facilities, new silos and new milking parlours, and to produce more and more milk. They did so most efficiently and effectively — so much so that they are now being punished for it. Many farmers who are now suffering most from the quota are those who listened to the Department's advice. Many of them are producing milk not knowing what their quota will be and what price they will receive for that milk. Some are having to provide housing for their additional cows. They have no alternative—they have bank overdrafts and are wholly committed. The scheme was introduced too hastily and without proper and effective thought.
  Agriculture's importance to Northern Ireland is paramount. It must be sustained and allowed to grow gradually. The Government must accept that our dependence on agriculture must receive due and proper consideration and the recognition that it deserves. The Government will not be allowed to run away from what they were responsible for creating.
  I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by Lord Lyell during a recent speech to the Ulster Farmers Union annual general meeting. I accept that the noble Lord is new to the position of responsibility for agriculture in Northern Ireland, but he showed a great lack of understanding of the needs of the industry. He suggested that the super-levy would cut 1983 production by 6 per cent; it would reduce our milk sales accordingly; it would demand marginal adjustments for many milk producers; would cause excruciating pain for others; and that it was not the end of the world.
  I suggest that the Under-Secretary tells his noble Friend that it will be the end of the world for some of the producers in Northern Ireland if there is no improvement on the present position.
  I congratulate the Department on the effective way in which it informed the farmers of the quota. It said that farmers would be given individual advice with computer models representing their farms. What a load of nonsense when men are losing money hand over fist. The Government are taking away their livelihoods and telling them that they will have computer models.
  I welcome the Under-Secretary to the House tonight. I appreciate that the subject is not part of his usual duties. I wait with great interest to hear what he has to say.
  542
  Finally, I plead with the hon. Gentleman to inform the Secretary of State and the Minister of State that farmers in Northern Ireland and indeed throughout the United Kingdom need to know where they are going and what they are getting very soon and not in August, September or October when it will cost them even more. They have big bills for the milk that they have already produced and they need to know now. The sooner the Minister knuckles down and faces the problem that he has created, the better.
  10.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): Following the comment of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Nicholson), I must confess that this is indeed the first time that I have taken part in a debate on agriculture. I apologise for the fact that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), cannot be here to reply to the debate as he is in North America trying to encourage industrial investment in the Province. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's original Adjournment debate was the victim of the all-day, all-night discussions on the future, or lack of it, of the Greater London Council. Having put his coin in the slot again he has unfortunately got three lemons. My hon. Friend the Minister of State would have replied incomparably better and more knowledgeably, given all the work that he has done for Northern Ireland agriculture and industry. I hope that if I fail to answer any of the hon. Gentleman's points today that he will have an early reply from my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  I think that most hon. Members agree that something had to be done to curb overproduction of milk in the European Community and to reduce the crippling cost of the CAP milk regime.
  Mr. Beggs: I apologise for interrupting the Minister so soon, but will he make it clear that there is still not overproduction of milk in Great Britain as a whole?
  Mr. Patten: I hope to come to the general scene in Great Britain later in my remarks.
  We could not allow the continued production of massive surpluses which were a drain on the European Community budget and the United Kingdom taxpayer. In 1983 alone, disposal of milk surpluses cost £3,000 million of which Britain's share would have been about £600 million. We should not forget that the United Kingdom also contributes to the stocks of butter and skimmed milk powder in intervention stores and must play its full part in cutting the overproduction of milk. As the House knows, a supplementary levey was not' he Government's preferred: means of dealing with the problem, but we have had to accept it and it is important that we all work together to ensure that it is successful in bringing milk production throughout the Community under control.
  It is well known to the House that the allocation of quotas among member states was, with some exceptions, on the basis of 1981 production plus 1 per cent. For the allocation within the United Kingdom it is clear that a 1983 production basis would have been favourable to Northern Ireland but disadvantageous to producers in England and Wales. On the other hand, an allocation based simply on 1981 production levels would have been entirely unacceptable for Northern Ireland, giving a 15 per cent. cut in output as against 1983 or a cut of more than 10 per

  543
  cent. after taking account of the 63 million litres allocated to Northern Ireland from the special Community reserve. A simple 1981 base would also have been hard on Scotland. That is because deliveries in Northern Ireland and Scotland increased proportionately more between 1981 and 1983 than deliveries in England and Wales. Therefore, a compromise had to be reached and adjustment was made to reflect the trend in deliveries in different parts of the United Kingdom. As well as the full benefit of the 63 million litres from the Community reserve, a further allocation was made to Northern Ireland so that the reduction on 1983 deliveries would be no more than in other regions of the United Kingdom.
  As the hon. Gentleman made clear towards the end of his speech, a 6 per cent. cut in milk production will of course cause the Province many difficulties. That is a matter of common concern to us all and I put on record how vigorously and eloquently the hon. Gentleman has brought those difficulties to the attention of the House in the presence of and with the support of so many of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
  Other regions of the United Kingdom, however, will also face problems. It may be exceedingly small comfort for Northern Ireland, but it is certainly true that the situation could have been a lot worse. To put the Northern Ireland position in perspective, the hon. Gentleman should look at the quota in comparison with production in previous years. It represents an increase of 12·5 per cent. on 1981 and 2·5 per cent. on 1982, whereas England and Wales will take a cut of over 3 per cent. on 1982.
  However, I do not want to minimise in any way the problems faced by the Northern Ireland industry. I fully appreciate the difficulties that the new situation will create for both producers and processors. They have been pointed out to me, even though I have no direct ministerial responsibility, on a number of my visits to district councils including my visit the other day to Omagh.
  The Government recognise that the supplementary levy scheme presents special difficulties to small milk producers who have no alternative to milk and little scope to adapt to a lower level of production. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) announced on 25 May the arrangements for an
  544
  outgoers scheme to pay compensation to farmers who wished to give up milk production. Strong representations have been made to the Secretary of State by the Ulster Farmers Union and the Northern Ireland Assembly's agriculture committee, and above all by hon. Members, for emergency aid for the industry. The Government accept that there are likely to be a proportionately greater number of special cases in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain, as well as a higher proportion of small dairy farms. I am glad to say that the outgoers scheme reflects the representations made to us—not least by the hon. Gentleman — and recognises the potentially greater problems in northern Ireland.
  Up to £8·5 million will be available for Northern Ireland over five years, allowing up to 5 per cent. of quota to be bought up in the Province compared with 2·25 per cent. in Great Britain. There will be sufficient flexibility in the Northern Ireland arrangements not only to enable the quota raised through the outgoers scheme to be used to help small producers but also to assist special cases, assuming that there is sufficient take-up of the outgoers scheme. Compensation payments will be offered to eligible applicants at the rate of £650 per 5,000 litres of quota and payable in equal instalments over five years. Those accepting compensation payments could be required to give an undertaking that they will give up milk production for at least as long as the quota scheme, or any successor scheme, continues, and will not directly or indirectly return to milk production.
  We are consulting the interests concerned on the detailed arrangements for the implementation of the scheme, and the necessary legislation will be sought as soon as possible. Detailed arrangements on how the scheme will operate, and how to apply, will be announced shortly.
  The Community regulations make provision for two main categories of special situation to be taken into account when milk quotas are being allocated. First, there are those producers whose milk production during the reference year——
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Body Belt Restraints
  Body Belt Restraints
  Immigration Rules
  Immigration Rules
  Police (Training)
  Police (Training)
  Police
  Police
  British Courts (Jurisdiction)
  British Courts (Jurisdiction)
  Political Refugee Status
  Political Refugee Status
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Imprisonment)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Imprisonment)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Council of Europe (Madrid Conference)
  Council of Europe (Madrid Conference)
  Parole
  Parole
  Magistrates' Courts (Sentencing Powers)
  Magistrates' Courts (Sentencing Powers)
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  Mentally Disturbed Prisoners
  WPC Yvonne Fletcher (Memorial)
  WPC Yvonne Fletcher (Memorial)
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Anti-apartheid Demonstration (Police Deployment)
  Anti-apartheid Demonstration (Police Deployment)
  Police (Anti-corruption Squad)
  Police (Anti-corruption Squad)
ENERGY
  Radiation Protection
  Radiation Protection
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
  North Sea Oil (Licences)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Agriculture (Budget)
  Agriculture (Budget)
  Charities
  Charities
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Economic Statistics (International Comparisons)
  Economic Statistics (International Comparisons)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Duchy of Cornwall
  Duchy of Cornwall
  Public Expenditure Plans
  Public Expenditure Plans
  EC (Finance Council)
  EC (Finance Council)
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  VAT Registration
  VAT Registration
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Pirate Radio Stations
  Hard Drugs (Illegal Importation)
  Hard Drugs (Illegal Importation)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Cambridge University Medical School
  Cambridge University Medical School
  Barnett Janner Trophy Competition
  Barnett Janner Trophy Competition
WALES
  Young PersÓns
  Young PersÓns
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
PRIME MINISTER
  Pay Review Bodies
  Pay Review Bodies
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Turkey
  Turkey
  European Community (Heads of Government)
  European Community (Heads of Government)
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
  Atomic Explosions (Western Australia)
  Atomic Explosions (Western Australia)
  EC (Budget Refund)
  EC (Budget Refund)
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
TRANSPORT
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
  London-Riyadh (Scheduled Air Services)
  London-Riyadh (Scheduled Air Services)
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Traffic Management (London)
  Traffic Management (London)
  Station Modernisation (London)
  Station Modernisation (London)
  Integrated Fare System
  Integrated Fare System
  Public Transport. Policy (London)
  Public Transport. Policy (London)
  British Registered Shipping (Persian Gulf)
  British Registered Shipping (Persian Gulf)
  M25 (Reigate-Leatherhead)
  M25 (Reigate-Leatherhead)
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Dairy Industry
  Dairy Industry
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  Mining Industry Dispute
  Mining Industry Dispute
  Greenham Common
  Greenham Common
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Libyan People's Bureau
  Mr. Adem Kuwiri
  Mr. Adem Kuwiri
  Indonesia
  Indonesia
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.
  Kearney and Trecker Marwin Ltd.
  Jobs and Exports
  Jobs and Exports
  Silica Sand
  Silica Sand
  Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
  Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd.
  Ship Wireless Licences
  Ship Wireless Licences
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Copperclad Aluminium Cables
  Copperclad Aluminium Cables
  Union of Communications Workers
  Union of Communications Workers
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
ENVIRONMENT
  National Mobility Scheme
  National Mobility Scheme
  Building Research Establishment
  Building Research Establishment
  Housing Expenditure (London)
  Housing Expenditure (London)
  Housing (Fire Escapes)
  Housing (Fire Escapes)
  Royal Docks (Industrial Relocation)
  Royal Docks (Industrial Relocation)
  LDDC (Grant-Applications)
  LDDC (Grant-Applications)
  Royal Albert Docks
  Royal Albert Docks
  Royal Docks (Demolition)
  Royal Docks (Demolition)
  London Docklands (Public Open Space)
  London Docklands (Public Open Space)
  Royal Docks (Shipping Access)
  Royal Docks (Shipping Access)
  Royal Docks (Connaught Swing Bridge)
  Royal Docks (Connaught Swing Bridge)
  Sewerage Schemes
  Sewerage Schemes
  London Borough of Barnet (Central Government Funds)
  London Borough of Barnet (Central Government Funds)
  Woodlands
  Woodlands
  Unitary Development Plans
  Unitary Development Plans
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  Greater London Development Plan
  Greater London Development Plan
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Seaside and Country Homes Scheme
  Seaside and Country Homes Scheme
  Environmental Protection
  Environmental Protection
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Consumption
  Milk Consumption
  Pig and Poultry Producers (Feed Prices)
  Pig and Poultry Producers (Feed Prices)
  Cereals
  Cereals
  Common Agriculture Budget
  Common Agriculture Budget
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Agricultural Surpluses
  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Coal Mining Subsidence
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Lobsters
  Lobsters
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Monetary Compensatory Amounts
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Prawn Fishery
  Prawn Fishery
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Milk
  Milk
  Dairy Herds
  Dairy Herds
  Dairy Farms
  Dairy Farms
  Calf Prices
  Calf Prices
  USS Sam Rayburn (Collision)
  USS Sam Rayburn (Collision)
  GATT
  GATT
  Scotch Whisky
  Scotch Whisky
EMPLOYMENT
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages)
  Manufacturing Industry (Wages)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Homeworking (London)
  Homeworking (London)
  Women Workers
  Women Workers
  "Occupational Exposure Limits 1984"
  "Occupational Exposure Limits 1984"
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Electric Breast Pumps
  Electric Breast Pumps
  General Practice (Vocational Training)
  General Practice (Vocational Training)
  Benefit Claimants
  Benefit Claimants
  Hospitals (Staffing Levels)
  Hospitals (Staffing Levels)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  Benefits (Take-up)
  NHS (Manpower Reductions)
  NHS (Manpower Reductions)
  St. George's Hospital
  St. George's Hospital
  Furniture Grants
  Furniture Grants
  Social Security Regulations
  Social Security Regulations
  Health Authorities (Merger)
  Health Authorities (Merger)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Patients (Travel Costs)
  Patients (Travel Costs)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Thalidomide
  Thalidomide
  Giro Payment Books
  Giro Payment Books
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
  National Audit Office
  National Audit Office
SCOTLAND
  Forestry Assets (Sale)
  Forestry Assets (Sale)
  Oak Wilt Disease
  Oak Wilt Disease
  Ash Die-back
  Ash Die-back
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Rural Development Areas
  Rural Development Areas
  Special Development Areas
  Special Development Areas

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Chichester.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that, with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the Folketing in Denmark to attend a conference of European Speakers to be held in Copenhagen on the 15th and 16th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Thursday 14th June and Friday 15th June.

British Leyland: Output and Investment
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the average output of cars per man-year at British Leyland in 1983–84 compared with 1978–79, what was the capital investment in the same period, and how much of this investment came from taxpayers' funds.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, for Austin Rover, which is the volume car division of BL, average output per man-year was 12.1 cars in 1983 compared with six in 1979. Over that period, capital expenditure by BL on tangible assets, mainly plant and machinery and special tools and jigs, amounted to £1,221 million, and additional equity subscribed by Government amounted to £1,430 million. Separate figures for Austin Rover are not available.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that these figures are very encouraging for all those concerned in the British Leyland enterprise? They show that the vast investment that the taxpayer and the Government have put in is paying off in increased productivity not least because there are now much better industrial relations and better co-operation on the production line. Will this continue so that British Leyland can regather some of the market both here and overseas? If my noble friend has figures for overseas sales, can he give these to the House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. We must all take satisfaction in the progress that has been made by British Leyland which is a tribute to the workforce and to the management and which also reflects substantial capital investment. The company—British Leyland as a whole—last year exported £917 million worth of vehicles. Over 94,000
766
Austin Rover motor cars were sold in Europe. More than 15,000 Jaguar motor cars were sold in the United States; nearly 4,000 were sold in Western Germany. I am sure that we all wish the company well and hope that these figures will be improved upon in the coming year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in view of the fact that substantial progress has been made while the company is largely under public ownership, is there any good reason to disrupt that progress by changing ownership and going through a privatisation process?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the progress has been made in anticipation of privatisation and will, we hope, continue at an accelerated rate when that happens.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, my noble friend has given the output figure of 12.1 cars per man-year. Can he give an example of how Japanese figures compare and say whether the BL figure is good on a world scale or whether there is still room for improvement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I cannot quote figures offhand for productivity in Japan. The figure is substantially higher than that in the United Kingdom. It is important to bear in mind, however, that the Japanese motor car industry buys-in a much higher proportion of its total components than does the manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, bearing in mind the enormous success story that has just been related to us by the noble Lord the Minister, and also bearing in mind that public enterprise and public capital rescued British Leyland and the British car industry from bankruptcy under private enterprise, is it not an absurdity and is it not cheating the taxpayers of this country to suggest that all this has been done merely to return to private enterprise?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will be the last to expect me to agree with the views that he has expressed. Although we must all take satisfacton in the progress that British Leyland is now making, it has been a story of very great difficulty over a large number of years. The British taxpayer has now invested over £2,000 million in this company in all, and it is only just now, for the first time, coming into profit.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is a fair description of cheating the elector if the Government carry out what they put in their manifesto and for which they got their majority?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the privatisation of important parts of British Leyland was included in our manifesto.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, although this Question refers to cars it refers also to British Leyland. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would care to repeat to the British Leyland workers in Bathgate and in Leeds what he has just said. Could he tell us—I will understand if he has not got the figures—what is now the waiting time for the Land

767
Rover, which is such an important export to countries of the third world?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that the vehicles manufactured at Bathgate are lorries, whereas the Question relates to passenger cars. But so far as Bathgate is concerned, a Statement was made on 22nd May by by right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I repeated it in your Lordships' House, and at this stage I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to that Statement. In regard to the waiting period for the delivery of Land Rovers, particularly to the third world, I do not immediately have that information, which of course does not arise in any way out of the Question on the Order Paper. But the noble Lord will himself be well aware of the fact that great difficulties have arisen because of the problem of payment by many of these third world countries.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the past troubles of British Leyland stem primarily from the folly of the Labour Government in creating a disparate and entirely uneconomic conglomerate out of various sections of the British motor industry?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend's analysis. I was carefully refraining from going back over these historical matters, which reflect very badly upon the party opposite.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the reason why British Leyland came into public ownership in the first place was because it went "bust" under private ownership and the Government had to step in to bail it out?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, circumstances do exist in which a Government have to bail out an industry in the way the noble Lord has mentioned. Nevertheless, this is not the right way of dealing with industrial problems of this sort. The experience of British Leyland ought to have taught everybody how totally unsatisfactory is that kind of procedure, and many years of great effort and thousands of millions of pounds have had to be invested to put the matter right.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the figures he has given us this afternoon, showing that the long-suffering taxpayer has provided some £2,600 million of new capital expenditure in order to get British Leyland off the ground, so to speak, make it plain that it is going to be greatly in the interests of the taxpayer to sell this company to the public, if the public is willing to buy it, so that in the future it will be private capital which will be provided, and not the taxpayers' money?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with the point made by my noble friend. But the really important issue is that experience shows that companies of this sort can be managed much more effectively and profitably in the private sector than in the public sector.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that at the end of the day it was a Labour Government which saved the only wholly British motor car firm?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the point is that at the beginning of the day it was a Labour Government which created the difficulties which later had to be resolved.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, for the record, would the Minister care to put right the statement of his noble friend and his corroboration thereof, in that in fact the unwieldy conglomerate was created under private enterprise? I well remember the statement made by the managing director of BMC when they took over Rover. He said the advantages of scale would overcome everyone else. Would the Minister not agree that that was a correct statement?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, we can spend a great deal of time going back over the history of this. The person who provided the impetus for these great amalgamations, which ultimately led to the sort of troubles we are talking about, is somebody who is now a Member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, would the Minister agree—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the Minister has endorsed the point so wisely made by his noble friend—I am talking about the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who asked the Question—drawing our attention to the connection between investment and increased productivity. I should like to ask him whether he regards this as a good example of Government investment, wisely directed, creating additional productivity and therefore additional employment.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is always right and, indeed, necessary that investment should be directed wisely, and clearly that is true in the public sector as well as in the private sector.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many parts of British Leyland, such as Aveling Barford, welcome being hived off and sold to private enterprise?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it has been the announced policy of the board of British Leyland that the various parts of the organisation should be privatised when the opportunity arises, and experience shows that this is supported by the management of the units concerned.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree—
Lord Kaldor: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Lord Molloy!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would your Lordships not agree that there was bound to come a time when I would win? Would the noble Lord not agree that, if the last answer that he gave had been included in the first answer that he gave to his noble friend, then all the acerbity that has arisen would not have arisen? The noble Lord has made no contribution whatever to either the management or the workforce of British Leyland by his inane and banal statement that the whole idea of this action was to get more money to provide an excuse not to resuscitate a great industry, but to pay off political friends. Is the noble Lord further aware that, when we hear talk of the long-suffering taxpayer being relieved, there has been no evidence yet over the past three years of the lower form of taxpayer having any relief? The relief has only been for the better off.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not think that any of the comments made on either side of the House deserve the kind of epithet that the noble Lord is endeavouring to apply to them. The noble Lord began by asking, "Would I not agree?" I should have thought that, after all these years, he at least would have realised that I never agree with anything that he says.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Lord criticised my noble friend for taking British Leyland into public ownership. But is he aware that in the House of Commons 150 of his honourable friends voted against taking British Leyland into public ownership, in which case it would have gone bust and we would have had no British car industry at all?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it does not necessarily follow that if an industry goes—as the noble Lord describes it—"bust", we are left with nothing, because a great deal then depends upon whether the industry can be restarted. British Leyland faced a situation of very, very great difficulty in 1979 and 1980. We took at that time very difficult decisions which experience has shown were in fact the right decisions. I hope that the noble Lord will pay tribute to the wisdom of the Government in following the policy that they have followed.

Trading Codes of Practice
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the support given to proposals made by the Director General of Fair Trading for the strengthening and extension of trading codes of practice.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, in his discussion paper on home improvements in March 1982 the Director General of Fair Trading raised the idea of a general duty to trade fairly as a means of
770
strengthening and extending voluntary codes of practice. Following publication of his final report on home improvements last June, the Director General is looking further into this concept on which he plans to publish a discussion paper in due course. The Government await this paper with interest and will consider carefully any proposals from him which may result.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply which is much better than I had expected. However, would he agree that there is particular concern about the enforcement of codes of practice? Moreover, would it not be helpful in general if there was an extension of such codes of practice negotiated with trade associations? Would not that then lead to a more general consideration of the concern felt about traders who are not members of trade associations?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, both of the points which the noble Baroness has raised—namely, the extension of codes of practice to traders other than those who are members of associations and also the question of enforcement—are, we understand, both specifically matters into which the Director General of Fair Trading is looking, and we must now wait to see what he says when he produces his discussion paper a little later on in the year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the discussion paper to which my noble friend the Minister refers include any reference to proposals to amend the statutory definition of public interest?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend can ask that question, but I am not entirely sure that I can give the answer, mainly because we must await the discussion paper from the Director General of Fair Trading, but also because, as a matter of fact, I do not know what the answer is.

Cruise Missiles: Firing Control
3.26 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I hope that the noble Lord knows the answer!.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will quote the words of President Reagan on which they rely (col. 1015, 10th May) as confirming the Prime Minister's claim to hold an effective veto over the firing of American cruise missiles located in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, The Government do not rely on any public statements to support the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 12th May last year, but upon the understanding, which, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said, had been jointly reviewed and confirmed as effective in

771
the light of the planned deployment of cruise missiles to this country. Exchanges between the two Governments on this subject are of course confidential.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord unaware that he himself in this Chamber said on 10th May that the Government preferred to rely upon the words of President Reagan rather than on mine? We are all entitled to know upon what words the Government are relying.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made clear in another place on 24th May, the understandings between the two Governments are of course reaffirmed by letter. Let me add, in the light of the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary, that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the attention of the Government been drawn to the statement by General Meyer before the United States Congress in it hearings into defence appropriations for this year, that:
"The operational concept for … the … Cruise Missile … calls for a portion of these forces to be able to launch quickly at the direction of the Theater Commander"?
If so, what is the Government's comment thereon?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have to say that we have been unable to confirm that the words reportedly said by General Meyer were in fact said at all. The United States Administration has made it absolutely clear that there is no question of the United States President relinquishing his authority over any US nuclear weapons.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am holding in my hand a copy of the United States Congressional Record which states the words as I have relayed them?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we on these Benches are grateful for his statement which corrects an earlier statement which he made to me in the House a short while ago? Is he aware that the understandings to which he refers have never been published, and will he give an assurance that they will be published? Finally, is he aware that on several occasions President Reagan has declined to acknowledge that the British Government have a veto of the firing of these weapons, and that reasonable people are bound to conclude that he does not do this because he does not want to do it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only repeat that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, the detailed communications between the two Governments on this matter are of course confidential and cannot, therefore, be revealed.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that everyone would like to believe what he says? But since the two parties concerned—the President and the Prime Minister—refuse to confirm publicly that they mean the same thing by the 1952 agreement, the public must conclude that they mean different things and that therefore, although the Prime Minister may claim a veto, she does not actually possess one?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the effect of the understandings is as described by my right honourable friend in the other place on 12th May last year, and I am content to rest on that.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, and would he agree, that the original agreement made between Prime Minister Attlee and the American Government about siting American planes in this country was never textually published?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand that the 1952 communiqué by which time of course Sir Winston Churchill was Prime Minister, was indeed published. The understandings that were set out then have been reaffirmed every time a new President or a new Prime Minister comes into office, and that of course includes Prime Ministers of the Administrations of the party opposite.
Lord Hale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there really is no dispute about what the Prime Minister says that she said? This is only one example—although perhaps the most grave of all—of an allegation being made against the credibility of the present Prime Minister, who is under investigation in industrial affairs at this moment. Is the noble Lord aware that there is grave public concern in the country about these constant contradictions?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have a feeling that the noble Lord is attempting to steer the Question on to a different topic altogether. But I can confirm again that the United States Administration has confirmed to us that the President's understanding of the arrangements is entirely consistent with that of the Prime Minister.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord, when he has time, have a look at United States Senate hearings reference 98–49, Part 2, for 25th and 28th February and 2nd March of this year, and an answer to Senator Tower as I quoted it in an earlier question, and make a Statement to the House as soon as is convenient?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be happy to look at the document to which the noble Lord refers, and write to him if I have anything to add.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the 1952 agreement does not give this country a veto and that nobody, other than the Prime Minister, in either of our two countries has ever said that it does?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I can go further than to say that the understandings have been reviewed every time a new Prime Minister or a new President comes into office. It has been found satisfactory on every occasion, and I do not think there is more that I can do to assist your Lordships.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, would the noble Lord excuse me? He had a good go earlier this afternoon. Perhaps he would excuse us from any further goes just for a short time. May we go to the next Question?

Oil Reserves
3.33 p.m.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their latest estimate of the United Kingdom's recoverable oil reserves, and what percentage of them still remain untapped.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, Table 2 of the Brown Book shows the total of proven and possible recoverable oil reserves as 1,950 million tonnes. Approximately 604 million tonnes of crude oil and natural gas liquids have been recovered, leaving 69 per cent. of reserves untapped.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. Can he confirm that the total share of the business which United Kingdom companies have is 72 per cent. of a total order book amounting to no less than £2.61 billion?
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The share was standing at about 72 per cent., worth some £1.88 billion in itself.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the noble Earl interpret the words "possible recoverable" in his reply? Does that imply that these reserves are theoretically recoverable at however great cost, or are they economically recoverable, and if so what assumptions are made about the future price of oil?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the terms used in the Brown Book at the moment are "proven, probable and possible reserves". These are reserves in existing discoveries. Most can be economically brought up at present prices.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the rising estimate of North Sea oil reserves is to be largely attributed to the effects of the Budget of last year encouraging greater exploration? Could he say whether the department are now giving any thought to recording and estimating the volume of coal reserves under the North Sea on the Continental Shelf?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend said in the first part of his supplementary.I would need notice of his second point under a separate Question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in the light of the new figures which have been issued is the noble Earl able to tell us the date to which the Government think.that we now have self-sufficiency in oil?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in relation to the figures I have been giving the House this afternoon, remaining recoverable reserves so far discovered would last ten and a half years if present production rates are maintained.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the London Regional Transport Bill will be adjourned for dinner at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period, and that during this adjournment consideration of the Commons amendment to the Somerset House Bill and the Committee stage of the Juries (Disqualification) Bill will be taken.

Business of the House
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Gowrie to advance the Committee stage of the Trade Union Bill from Tuesday the 19th June to Monday the 18th June.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Read a third time.
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
. After section 8 of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland Act 1956 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings.
8AA.—(1) For the purpose of ascertaining the gross annual value of any lands and heritages no account shall be taken of any mooring to which this section applies.
(2) This section applies to any mooring—

(a) used or intended to be used by a boat or ship; and

(b) equipped only with a buoy attached to an anchor, weight or other device—

(i) which rests on or in the bed of the sea or any river or other waters when in use; and

(ii) which is designed to be raised from that bed from time to time.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I take Amendment No. 2 with Amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2: Page 14, line 30, after ("11") insert
("(Exemption from valuation and rating of certain moorings)").
This is a simple amendment introduced for the avoidance of doubt and to prevent future cross-border anomalies arising. The Government have introduced a similar amendment to the Rates Bill to provide necessary clarification of the law in England and Wales. This makes similar provision to existing case law in Scotland, but as there may be a few cases where different treatment could arise it seems prudent to ensure parity of treatment by making parallel provision for the avoidance of doubt.
I honestly do not expect this amendment on its own to have any significant effect immediately, but it should prevent differences of treatment north and south of the Border from arising in future. Amendment No. 2 makes this substantive provision effective from 1st April 1985. I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I am highly gratified that the Government have this immense concern for the owners of moorings, buoys, and other rare objects. It is wholly in line with their attitude throughout this Bill. They are also extremely concerned about reed beds. I understand that the popularity rating of the Government among the owners of reed beds and moorings has now risen to an extent which is unprecedented since they started doing public opinion polls. I understand that they are highly gratified and that this will be quoted in the European elections as an example of the popularity of the Government.
I should like to suggest, however, if it is relevant to this amendment, that a certain amount of concern should be translated into action—we had plenty of it in theory—about the owners of small businesses who have been in grave trouble due to many of the Government's policies, and interest rates, and so on. A certain amount of exemption like that granted to industrial premises in Scotland might have been afforded by the amendments which I moved, and which were greeted with great sympathy by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who is, as we all know, a kind and nice man; but of action we have had none. I commend the noble Lord's support of the owners of moorings, reed beds, and other insignificant matters, but it might have been extended to a significant section of the population of small businessmen.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I too accept this particular amendment. In the short term it will probably have little effect on rating, but as a principle it shows what many of us have been saying all through the passage of this Bill both in another place and in this place, that Scottish rating and valuation needs a complete overhaul. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said, the Government have given a very little on reed beds and a little on things such as the mooring of buoys. Altogether we are finding as we go through the Bill with this Government that what seems to be happening all the time is that we have
776
occasional little adaptations made in rating valuation in Scotland. We had a very important one some time ago on oil and outside plant, and now we have had another two or three minor ones in this particular Bill. All the time the base of Scottish rating is being reduced, and therefore the householder, the small businessman and to some extent—although they are derated—industry are all carrying more and more on this narrower base. It may be very little in this instance; but put together, the base is getting narrower and narrower all the time.
We may be able to say something when we come to the question of whether the Bill shall pass, on the matter of whether the Government have really been honest, and whether the Party opposite have been honest, in the way they have tackled rates. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, spoke on this rather momentous amendment—and again it draws parallels with the English legislation with which we had a great deal of difficulty in persuading the Government that it was occasionally a reasonable thing to do—and we were speaking of course of sports stadia, and things like that. Having said that, I do not think there is anything any of us would be willing to stand out very strongly against in this innocuous and perhaps ultimately clearing up amendment.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies perhaps he could clarify my mind on one point. I think he said in his opening remarks about this amendment that it in no way changed the law, it merely clarified it. May I take it therefore that it will not affect the rating values of Orkney and Shetland to any extent? As he will be aware, there are some very large moorings for Sullom Voe and Flotta. Am I to understand that there will be no change so far as they are concerned in the rating position?
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I am rather intrigued to know what is so much holier about moorings than about grouse moors, that they should be brought into line with the situation in England. I cannot help wondering whether it is not a question of the Government's popularity.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I welcome the remarks of all noble Lords opposite who have given such enthusiastic approval to the amendment which I have proposed. It is good to know that they are grateful even for small mercies, and of course we welcome their approval. I should just very briefly say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I think I would weary the House if I were to reiterate what I said the last time that we discussed this matter, when I listed I think 10 very substantial contributions which the Government made towards the wellbeing of small businesses. I was sorry that I was not able to meet him on the amendments which he proposed in this Bill; but I think there were ample reasons for not doing so.
I welcome also what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said. He too recognises that we have tried to be helpful in this amendment, and I should also be in danger of wearying the House if I went into arguments again which I used when I answered the amendment proposed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I think that I enunciated some very sound

777
reasons why I could not accept her amendment, much as I should like to have done so. The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, raised the question about the effect on Sullom Voe. The moorings there are too big to be raised and remain subject to rating, so there is no difference as far as the law is concerned there. This amendment, as I indicated when I introduced it, essentially codifies existing Scottish case law and excludes from valuations moorings which are moveable rather than heritable.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 2: [Printed earlier.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Relief of rates in respect of lands and heritages partly occupied for a short time]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 3:
Transpose Clause 14 to after Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment to Clause 14. This, along with the amendments to Clauses 16 and 17, is minor. They are minor drafting amendments to place clauses of the Bill in the most appropriate position and order. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I ask this? On Amendment No. 5, is Clause 17 to go after Clause 14 in its new place or its old place?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, this clause will go in its new place.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Relief of rates in respect of non-domestic lands and heritages not in active use]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 4:
Transpose Clause 16 to after Clause 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemption of reed beds from rates]:
Lord Gray of Contin Lord Gray of Contin moved Amendment No. 5.
Transpose Clause 17 to after Clause 14.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
Lord Grimond: My Lords, before we part with this Bill can I enter a small protest against the drafting of it? It was almost entirely drafted by references to other Bills. It is a matter of very great importance to every ratepayer in Scotland and it is really rather intolerable that legislation should be put out from Parliament
778
which is quite unintelligible to ordinary people and will involve the whole library of a lawyer's office to interpret it. There have been protests about this, notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—who, after all, is a retired Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and speaks with some authority on these matters—in the recent debate in your Lordships' House. We have seen in a Bill proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that it is possible to draft Bills positively so that they are intelligible and ordinary people can understand what they mean. This Bill, candidly, to my mind is a disgrace to Parliamentary draftsman and I hope very much that the Minister will take it to heart and when in future he is producing Bills of the greatest importance to the ordinary people of this country he will produce them in an intelligible form.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think also that something should be said before this Bill is finally passed. I must apologise that my noble friend Lord Ross, who has done so much work on the Bill, is not able to be with us today; but the House will perhaps be glad to know that he is recovering from his disability. We have taken a great deal of time discussing this Bill, not only in this House but in another place, and I am afraid we had very little flexibility from the Government. It seemed to me that the Minister was under orders to concede absolutely nothing, although it is a very, very important Bill for the people of Scotland.
One of the points my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock was continually trying to make was that there should be an inquiry into the Scottish rating system. I will not bore the House too long with this argument except to say that it was a very well argued case that he put. It was also a very well argued case for the necessity to look at the Scottish rating system which was put to the noble Lord's own Party conference in Perth a few weeks ago. It was also a very forceful argument put by his Party before the General Election of 1979 and subsequent to that by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place.
I should emphasise that the question of the examination of the Scottish rating system was a technical argument, not a political one. The politics of rates is about the level and impact on the ratepayers and the level of services, not the method by which the rates are raised. There was a suggestion that we should consider the technical basis of financing Scottish local government. It is no use pursuing the matter after the arguments put up by the Minister about the total unacceptability of all our very persuasive arguments. The system envisaged by the last amendment is becoming extremely higgledy-piggledy and we need a full consideration of it.
This is an extremely important Bill for the people of Scotland. Unprecedented powers have been given to the Secretary of State and might be the basis of great friction between the Government and local authorities. Now the Secretary of State can use these powers without even consulting the local authorities affected. All he needs to do is to consult associations of local authorities that he believes may be concerned, not the individual local authorities. If one couples the

779
power in Clause 3 with the great powers in Clause 2, when orders were going through in the other place that could affect a local authority which would not even be mentioned in the short debate. Since more than one order could be taken at one time, a local authority might have all these powers used against it without having been mentioned in the debate in another place.
A local authority that was previously represented by the Minister might be one of those authorities concerned. I can see the words he used in the debate being quoted back at him. It is an extremely heavy-handed way of handling local authorities in Scotland. I can see a great deal of trouble from now on with local authorities. In the other place my honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was a Bill that he would wholeheartedly give his approval and binding promise to rescind.
There is only one small point of principle with which I should like the Minister to go slightly further. When a decision is made there is still a feeling among many people in Scotland that the Association of Valuers tends to wait for court decisions before it makes an interpretation. In other words, at the last stage of this Bill, which was Report, there was the feeling that there is a tendency among valuers to use the courts as an area of first appeal instead of an area of final appeal. Although the Minister wrote to me on the point I raised about the valuation of accommodation in Scotland—and the order was passed in 1983—the assessors nevertheless have not yet got round to making their own valuations on this.
Because of the complication of the present Scottish rating system it is possible that the assessors have no time to analyse the problem. On the other hand, as has been suggested, the assessors may not be receiving enough guidance from the Government and therefore are afraid to go ahead until they have a court decision. The Minister was kind enough to write to me on 6th June; he promised he would give me more information and write to me later. I wonder whether, as this order has been on the statute book for 14 months, the Minister can give me any examples of when the assessors have made a revaluation of the type of accommodation included in this order. It strikes me as being rather more important than the removal of moorings and buoys from the valuation rolls of Scotland.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I wish this Bill well from the bottom of my heart. I only hope that it does all that the noble Lords the Ministers have told us that it will, but I am afraid that I have grave misgivings. Both at Committee and at Report stages, as the House well knows, I moved amendments concerning the rating of shootings. While we had the pleasantest possible debates at both times, I must confess that I was rather disappointed by the somewhat wooden attitude of the Government, particularly in view of the strong support which was shown for the amendments in both Houses and which can have left the Government in no doubt that the present situation is causing great concern.
I hope to be proved wrong, but I have limited faith in the efficacy of Clause 19, as I think it has now become. Until now, assessors have considered that
780
there was material change of circumstances only if a substantial area of hill has been destroyed by fire or part has been sold or afforested. They are not given to coming out and tramping the hills to see for themselves that there is no game. If they did, I am afraid that they would quite likely think that the occupier had rounded up the grouse and locked them up in a shed, out of sight. It has been quite impossible to persuade them that there are no birds and that therefore it is not possible to let. I know of a moor in Perthshire where for seven years there have been no grouse, yet the assessors have refused to agree material change and the occupier still has to pay rates and cannot let.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, told us a similar story at Report stage. I hope that the Government will seriously consider issuing the assessors with guidelines; for without guidelines I am not persuaded that there are any grounds for believing that the Government's optimism will be justified.
I can only express a forlorn hope that the Government's hopes and intentions do not fail and that, if they do, the Government will take steps themselves to remedy the situation. Those of us who have concerned ourselves with this matter will have to see how things work out over the next couple of years, but if we are disappointed we shall have to raise the matter again.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, we have been concerned with small matters, though not terribly small, as the noble Baroness raises a real point. We have been talking about the method of valuation and so on, but on the Question, That the Bill do now pass, it is relevant to say that the Government have been enormously disappointing, not only to the Opposition but to their own supporters, because there is a real problem in local government. It is and has been exemplified by many of the Labour councils in the West and elsewhere who have driven rates to a point where they have scared away business and they have also raised the art of manipulating the grants for the benefit of a section to a fine art. Obviously local government in Scotland and elsewhere has fallen into disrepute. It has gone away from its base of responsibility to the people; it has gone away from the base of getting the best people to stand, because they will have real things to do and local councillors have become the agents of central government. The whole matter has been politicised, and local government in Scotland has deteriorated in the last 50 years. Some good things have been done, but on the whole it has deteriorated. The Conservative Party saw this; they talked about it in their manifesto and they saw the evil of the rating system as it is. Yet they have even refused to hold an inquiry into the rating system after this Bill has gone through.
In the Bill all they have done is to top up a series of measures which are designed to stop certain evils happening, but in fact can only need further measures and, ultimately, further deterioration of local government must lead to complete central control. It is very disappointing. In fact, I could say that it is wholly wrong in principle, wholly regrettable, and a thing that no responsible Government should have

781
done. If you really believe in democracy, then you must try to see that the people who represent local government are responsible. This Bill totally fails to do that. I think it is a disaster, and I think it was a disgrace for the Government to introduce it after the promises in their manifesto.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, as has been enunciated all the way through, is to help ratepayers by protecting them against local authorities planning high expenditure and setting high rates, and by resolving valuation anomalies. These are familiar words. Every member of the Government speaking on this subject has been at pains to make clear the central intent of the Bill. It is not—I repeat: it is not—about ending local government in Scotland, as claimed by some of its more histrionic critics.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, normally a very moderate man if I may say so, this afternoon used language not of his usual character. I would disagree with him about some of his suggestions as to why there has been perhaps a change in those who participate in local government. He suggested reasons. I would not necessarily agree that those are the correct reasons. I think that over the years there have been changes in the type of person who has involved himself or herself in local government; but I think that the diagnosis which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has suggested is certainly not the correct one.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, as he invariably does, made some very relevant points, and he criticised the drafting of the Bill. I suppose that this is not unusual in this House or in another place. There are few Bills which go through Parliament without some criticism of the drafting here or there. May I say to the noble Lord that, for example, in Schedule 1 of this Bill there is a Keeling schedule which virtually consolidates local government finance provisions in accordance with the report of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As well as being in accordance with Lord Renton's report, The Preparation of Legislation, the Bill contains a variety of largely separate reforms. Nearly all are separately stated as new sections, and would not be in a materially different form even if expressed in the pre-Renton way. So there has been a genuine attempt so far as the drafting of the Bill is concerned to attain a greater simplification.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was critical of the Bill and was critical of the Government for not accepting the amendment which he moved at an earlier stage—or which his noble friend, who we are all pleased to hear is making a satisfactory recovery, moved at an earlier stage of the Bill—to the effect that we should have a general review of the rating system in Scotland. But, as I explained during the earlier stages, we looked at the whole question of review before we introduced the Bill at all. I explained that there had already been the sitting of the Layfield Committee, which was a committee composed of many very distinguished people as far as local government was concerned, and their knowledge was not disputed in any way.
We made the decision ultimately that the system which we had could not be bettered at this time; in other words, that we could not find anything with which we could replace it which would not create more
782
anomalies and more difficulties. Therefore, we decided that the best way to proceed was to make improvements. We believe that we have introduced a number of very real improvements into this Bill. I do not think that it would be for the benefit of the House for us to become too involved in the arguments which we went into in very great detail at earlier stages; I merely reply to the perfectly legitimate point that the noble Lord made. That is the view of his party, and we agree to differ on that point.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, again made her plea as far as the moors are concerned. I would thank her now, as I did on two previous occasions, for the very reasonable way in which she presented her case and invited us to accept her amendment. At earlier sittings I went into details as to why I could not accept the amendment. The only point that I would make to her is that, when she referred to the question of material changes having taken place, material changes will be taken into account in a revaluation. I would suggest, as far as the Bill is concerned, that this is helpful. I cannot really add further to the comments which I made in replying to her amendments previously.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would draw your thoughts together by suggesting that your Lordships' House has rightly directed—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Your thoughts, not ours!
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. We have directed a good deal of attention to the valuation and rating relief measures in this Bill. We believe that these will make useful changes to a system which, although basically sound, has thrown up a number of areas where reform is merited. In 1985, there will be an all-Scotland revaluation. Difficult or contentious appeals may now, by virtue of Clauses 11 and 12, go straight to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, which will ease the burden of valuation appeals committees. In other clauses we have removed some of the anomalies which have given rise to problems; for example, caravans, shopping malls, reed beds and swinging moorings. We have had thorough debates about the valuation of sports grounds and similar subjects.
I know that there still linger some doubts, but it is our firm belief that Clause 18 will do the job where anomalies exist north and south of the Border; and, where circumstances change, Clause 19 will enable the benefits of new court decisions and changing rents, for example, to be felt. This Bill will be of real benefit to ratepayers as a whole through the measures in Part I, and to individuals and groups of ratepayers through the measures in Part II.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

London Regional Transport Bill
4.7 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Provision of passenger transport services for Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 7, after ("of") insert ("integrated").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a similar amendment was brought forward at Committee, and on this occasion I am grateful for the cross-party support given to this first amendment. The principal criticism by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, at the Committee stage was about the meaning of the word "integrated". He said that it had not been explained by anybody, and means different things to different people. As I said that I would, I have consulted the Oxford English Dictionary and I find that it says:
"To combine or form parts into a whole".
The concept of this is so simple that it should not be confusing to anyone.
An integrated transport system is one which passengers can readily recognise and use as a whole, and not a collection of separate elements, separate fares, separate tickets and separate stopping arrangements, or with other various artificial barriers. In Greater London the aim must surely be an efficient and effective public transport system which is totally integrated—and I make no apology for using the word "integrated"; I think we know what it means. That is, that bus, Underground and British Rail services should be complementary to each other in a totally unified system. As far as the passenger is concerned, it should be one coherent system with quick and pleasant interchanges and with the avoidance of complex, time-consuming ticketing.
But the Bill as drafted is deficient in various ways. LRT and British Rail will each report to the Secretary of State, but each will have different objectives. There will be no inbuilt incentive for LRT and BR to cooperate; in fact, there are various provisions in the Bill which may act to the very contrary. There has been no commitment by the Government that sufficient funds will be made available to provide for the physical interchange facilities which up to now have been generously funded by the Greater London Council. The idea of an integrated service will be endangered by the encouragement for more private independent operators, each naturally out to maximise profits, because that is why they will be trying to run an independent service. The proposals are little different from the present unsatisfactory arrangements—merely the setting up of a committee to see what can be achieved in co-operation.
There is a considerable difference between cooperation and integration. I quoted in Committee the position of Tyne and Wear's Metro system, with its complete integration of rail and bus services. I think it will be agreed that the Tyne and Wear Metro system is something far more than just co-operation. The GLC has made strides in various directions. The travel cards on London Transport buses and Tubes represent a fully integrated system with common ticketing. As I have already mentioned, the GLC has invested heavily in interchange developments. I think it will be agreed that the provision of good facilities at important interchanges is an encouragement for the greater public use of public transport. Various examples could be given, but may I mention just one to show what can be achieved? At Finsbury Park an interchange is under construction. There will be a joint Under-ground/British Rail ticket office to replace the two
784
separate offices, and a new London Transport bus station is to be built. The three operators are involved. The siting involves three London boroughs, and the GLC, as the highway authority, is providing the necessary finance and is co-ordinating the project.
London Regional Transport will not have these same wide powers, and without some provision for integration a scheme such as this could well not get off the ground. My noble friends and I cannot accept that it is wrong, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, to put this in the Bill as a duty to be placed on London Regional Transport. To paraphrase what will be the effect if the amendment is approved, as I hope it will be, Clause 2(1) will mean that the general duty of LRT shall be,
"in accordance with principles from time to time approved by the Secretary of State …to provide or secure the provision of integrated public passenger transport services".
Parliament should make it absolutely clear that this is what it wants, and the Secretary of State shall then keep to this when determining the principles on which LRT shall carry out its duties. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I should like briefly to support this amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Attlee and myself as well as of the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I do not wish to make another Second Reading speech, but I think that this word "integration" goes to the heart of a lot of what we on this side of the House feel about London Transport for the future. We are, after all, trying to produce a system of public passenger transport in London which will be attractive to the consumer. It will not be attractive to the consumer if it goes down the road of disintegration, as I described it at an earlier stage.
The ability to travel by public transport in this strange maze which is Greater London and to know that, if you have to change from bus to Tube to train, facilities will be readily available and ticketing systems will be comprehensible as well as comprehensive, is an important factor, I believe, in improving people's trust in the public transport system and in getting them out of their motor cars and on to the buses and trains. For that reason I believe this word "integrated" is extremely important when we are describing the sort of public transport system that we want to see for our capital city. I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we had a lengthy exchange on this very same amendment at Committee stage, when I thought I made the Government's position quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, indicated that he would go away and seek further advice on the meaning of the word "integration". He has today given us the benefit of his inquiries.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said during the Committee stage, if I remember correctly, that when Ministers do not have a very good reason they resort to semantics. I do not want to do that this afternoon, because that is exactly how our discussion could end—in a rather fruitless discussion on the use of this word. I have given this a very good deal of consideration, and have talked with colleagues on it.

785
My view remains that we would achieve nothing useful by inserting the word "integrated" into Clause 2.
Perhaps it would be helpful if we spent just a moment or two looking more positively at what the Bill already provides. Then, I think, we would probably agree—I hope we would—that there is really very little between us. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that there is no incentive in the Bill for London Regional Transport to (I use his word) integrate; but London Regional Transport has a clear statutory duty under Clause 2(3) to co-operate with British Rail, and in Clause 3(3) we make it clear that the duty still applies even if LRT makes Clause 3(2) agreements with private operators. LRT has a duty under Clause 8 to determine the general level of fares and services and the general structure of routes throughout its operations, including those being carried out under the Clause 3(2) agreements. So there will be co-ordination of all the services under LRT's control. In addition, there are to be the new liaison arrangements which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will himself oversee. This is to promote specific measures to co-ordinate LRT's services with those of British Rail.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned travel cards. There is no reason at all why LRT should not continue the travel card scheme. It has obviously been very successful and has brought great benefits to travellers and London Transport alike. There is nothing in the Bill that disturbs that kind of arrangement. I say again that there is no reason why the managerial separation of bus and Underground operations should affect this in any way, or even hinder co-ordination between their respective services. I might perhaps make the point that London Transport was never itself under a statutory duty to provide integrated services. It was in fact the GLC, with its wider responsibilities, which was charged with that duty. It really would make no sense to require LRT to integrate services outside its control. For example, it has no control over roads and no control over traffic management systems, and so how, indeed, could it integrate these in its own systems?
I have tried very hard to explain it, and I see integration meaning co-ordination, which is already required under Clause 8 for the services which LRT does control. We come later, of course, to an amendment to discuss LRT's relationship with matters such as the town planning and traffic and parking policies.
We set a good deal of importance on the liaison arrangements which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be setting up. We believe that they will enable much progress to be made in getting British Rail and LRT working closely together for the benefit of the travelling public. As the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, so correctly reminded us, it is the travelling public with whom we are concerned here, not with either the subsidiary companies of LRT or, indeed, with LRT as a corporate entity itself. I said during the Committee stage that we expect LRT to give early consideration to better co-ordination of time-tabling, improved through-ticketing schemes and better interchange facilities between the two systems. We have provided additional enabling powers in Schedule 2 to assist LRT in this.
786
I hesitate, as we start today's proceedings on the Bill, to use an expression such as "absurd", but I think I could fairly say that, in my view anyway, it really is absurd, in view of all that I have reminded your Lordships of, to suggest that the Bill will lead to a break-up of LRT or to disintegration or fragmentation, as some noble Lords have suggested. I do not believe that this amendment is at all necessary to avert a danger which I do not see and which I do not see emerging. I hope that noble Lords opposite will aceept the reality of the situation and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, it is certainly my intention to recognise the reality of the situation and to stand firm by this amendment because of that. The noble Lord says that nothing useful can be achieved by putting this clause into the Bill. I should like to echo what was said and I am certain it is echoed by my noble friends who have supported the amendment: the whole purpose of this amendment is to protect the interest of the travelling public. That is what we want an integrated service for: we want it not because of a bureaucratic idea but in the interests of the travelling public. And it is not sufficient to say that efforts will be made to co-operate with British Rail in the new liaison arrangements.
There is a difference—and I think the Oxford Dictionary definition makes this quite clear—between co-operation and integration. That is why I deferred any action at Committee stage in order to get a check upon that position. It is true, as the noble Lord the Minister says, that the GLC was charged with the duty of integration, and not London Transport. It is just because of that position that we want the Secretary of State to have to observe that the duty of London Regional Transport is to carry out integration and that in determining his principles from time to time, as the Act will lay down, he will observe that duty and therefore his principles will be based upon that.
For the life of me—and I am certain that other noble Lords will agree—I just cannot understand why the Government are so troubled about putting in the word "integrated". It shows a frame of mind and it is a frame of mind about London's transport that we want to put right. I ask the House to declare its view upon it.
4.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
There Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 113.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Amherst,E.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ardwick, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Attlee, E. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Aylestone, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Banks, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Beswick, L.

David, B.

Birk, B.

Denington, B.

Brockway, L.

Diamond, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Caradon, L.

Ennals, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Milford, L.

Falkland, V.

Mulley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

Hale, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Roberthall. L.

Hooson, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hunt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Serota, B.

Jacobson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jacques, L.

Soper, L.

Jeger, B.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Listowel, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

White, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

McNair, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Mayhew, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Alport, L.

Ampthill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Auckland, L.

Hayter, L.

Avon, E.

Hemphill, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Bellwin, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Berkeley, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Caccia, L.

Kitchener, E.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Lawrence, L.

Cayzer, L.

Long, V.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore. L.

Marsh, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Daventry, V.

Merrivale, L.

De La Wan, E.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Eden of Winton. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Munster, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Northchurch, B.

Elton, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Ferrier, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Fortescue, E.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Gainford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Renton, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Rodney, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Rugby, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Terrington, L.

St. Davids, V.

Teviot, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Sandys, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Trenchard, V.

Stamp, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vickers. B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ward of Whitley, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Suffield, L.

Wise, L.

Swansea, L.

Young, B.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

4.31 p.m.
Lord Somershad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert ("and this general duty shall include the duty to meet the needs of those with disabilities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have four amendments down for this stage which all deal with the same point. But I see that that point is dealt with in other amendments and therefore I shall not move mine. I shall not waste the time of the House by moving mine and will speak to the other amendments when they are called.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("; and
( ) all the benefits (financial and otherwise) accruing from the provision of public passenger transport services.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment contains a very important principle. At the Committee stage there was one amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and another amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Carmichael and myself; both of them sought to insert into the Bill a provision of the 1969 Transport (London) Act:
"the provision of such … transport services as best meets the needs for the time being".
I am grateful that on this occasion there is again cross-party support for this amendment.
There was at the Committee stage what I and other noble Lords regarded as a rather pointless argument about the meaning of the words "for the time being". Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, repeated the Secretary of State's comment that to include a duty to meet needs would mean that LRT would have to meet every single need. We thought at the time that that was hardly a wise statement to make, and that the Government's attitude was—to use the noble Lord's own phrase—very much removed from reality.
The present amendment does not refer at all to "the time being" or to "needs". It does not seek to interfere at all with the wording of the Bill. What it seeks is to add a further sub-paragraph to the two matters in the Bill to which LRT shall have due regard in carrying out their duty. The present drafting of this entire clause makes meeting transport needs a secondary requirement, being subject to the Secretary of State's

789
financial requirements. Ministers have emphasised that LRT will be under the control of the Secretary of State and, therefore, subject to considerable Treasury control and, without some legal restraints being written into the Bill, the tendency will be to meet only minimum requirements.
The amendment will mean that LRT must have due regard to all benefits—not merely financial—and it also introduces the principle of social cost benefit to the provision of transport services. As stressed in Committee, we must of course pay attention to the financial aspects, but if the sole criteria are to be the financial objectives it must inevitably follow that there will be a minimum service. A department analysis has shown that with adequate revenue support this could be justified in lower fares, a better service with increased users and journeys, less traffic, some relief from congestion, less demand for parking and fewer accidents.
I should like to quote just four short extracts from the report of London Transport—not the GLC—for 1983, which reads:
"The Executive has adopted the technique of Social Cost Benefit Analysis to measure the achievement of the overall objective and has received support for this approach from the Greater London Council".
It goes on:
"Social Cost Benefit Analysis takes account of the effects on both users and non-users of public transport—such as road congestion, accidents, waiting and journey times and car and lorry running costs—as well as the direct financial impact on London Transport".
It continues:
"The results strongly suggest that higher levels of financial support would be justified. The Executive uses Social Cost Benefit Analysis for the evaluation of all major strategic decisions, such as the overall fares and service levels".
The report goes on to say, dealing with fares and marketing:
"In social cost benefit terms, for every £1 lost through a fares reduction it is estimated that the benefits, in terms of lower fares, extra travel and reduced road congestion, were worth £2.30".
The amendment will help to define what we want from a public transport service for London, and we should take into consideration not only the financial aspects but also the social cost benefits. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I must say that I was happier with the amendments that we had down on the Committee stage. It seems to me that a proper interpretation of those amendments would have come nearer to saying what needed to be said, as against what this will perhaps achieve. Nevertheless, it is an honest attempt to try to achieve in the Bill a proper balance between needs and finance. When one says that, the Government tend to say, "You are exaggerating needs. You are trying to get money out of a bottomless pit", and on this side there is a suspicion that, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, if the Bill is left as it is, finance will be so powerful and the Treasury will have such a big stick that the genuine needs of London Transport will be seriously undermined.
So I hope that the Government will accept that this amendment tries to achieve a better balance between the two, as it were, extreme views, which I think are not held on either side of the House. In fact, I believe
790
that there is on all sides a desire to have a proper balance. It is merely that we do not believe that the Bill as it is at present written really achieves that balance. Therefore, I support this amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I was tempted when I first saw the amendment to think that this was one of the few unfamiliar amendments on the Marshalled List, but in fact we are really treading some rather well-trodden ground. We have had discussions about planning and other requirements that are to be placed on London Regional Transport, and the extent to which they should be required to estimate the benefits to users of their services.
If I understood the noble Lord correctly, one of his concerns is that London Regional Transport should seek to obtain the greatest possible benefit for the travelling public within the resources available to them. If that is what he said, then I do not think there is anything between us. LRT exist in order to provide public passenger transport services for Greater London. They must meet any financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. However, subject to those objectives, their aim will be to put their resources to the best use. The Secretary of State's operating guidelines to the new chairman and hoard will undoubtedly follow those guidelines.
We do not need to include a provision of this kind in the Bill. There is no doubt that London Regional Transport will employ, as we said at the earlier stages of the Bill, some kind of cost benefit analysis when assessing the value that they can expect from grants or any other expenditure. We discussed whether we should include the words "social cost benefit" or any other wording in front of "cost benefit analysis". The use of such techniques is normally more appropriate for obtaining comparative information. London Regional Transport will certainly be bound to consider the other benefits of providing particular services in particular ways, because that is exactly their business.
Frankly, I wonder whether we need to include in the Bill a provision of this kind. However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has received support from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. The noble Lord said that he is not very happy about this amendment; he preferred the earlier versions. The best I could do—I say this without entering into any commitment but in order to help noble Lords—would be to take the matter away to see whether it would be possible to include in the clause a reference to benefits. If we think that we can, we shall discuss with both noble Lords how this might be achieved, and will bring forward at Third Reading an appropriate amendment.
However, I am very uneasy about an amendment of this nature. Whichever way we wrote it, it could be interpreted as requiring LRT to act outside their terms of reference; for example, as the strategic planning authority. They cannot be expected to do that. There is a limit, therefore, to what benefits they may be able to take into account. If we wrote something into the Bill, we might be giving to LRT terms of reference which would be right outside their original role, for the purpose of which this Bill is before your Lordships. Therefore, I have to say that it is entirely up to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as to whether he accepts the offer, which is made totally without commitment

791
and, perhaps I should say, with a certain marked reserve.
Baroness Denington: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has said. He is quite right: this amendment has been put down because we are most concerned that the terms of reference of London Regional Transport will debar it from considering the needs of London as a whole in the way that any transport authority ought to be allowed to consider those needs. London Regional Transport will be a transport authority. It will have to concentrate upon that job. That is the purpose of the Bill.
But London Transport, as it now is, is under the GLC. It is under the regional authority, all of whose members are elected and appointed with the duty of considering the needs of London as a whole. Some of them are also members of the transport committee. Although. therefore, transport matters are considered by them in the transport committee, they also sit as members representing the planning and social needs of London as a whole. It is this kind of situation with which the amendment is trying to deal. It is trying to enable the Minister to enable London Regional Transport to have this included in their terms of reference so that they do not consider financially only what is good for London Regional Transport but what is necessary in order to provide for the wider transport needs of London as the capital city of this country.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I never look a gift horse in the mouth. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and to my noble friend Lady Denington for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, wonders whether there is any need for a provision of this kind to be included in the Bill. I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the relevant subsection. It reads:
"(2) In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to—

(a) the transport needs for the time being of Greater London; and

(b) efficiency, economy and safety of operation".

The amendment would add:
"(c) all the benefits (financial and otherwise) accruing from the provision of public passenger transport services".
The amendment would therefore add a very important additional matter to which regard would have to be paid by LRT when carrying out their duties.
The noble Lord has very kindly offered to have a look, without commitment, at this point. However, he said that he is very uneasy about it. Perhaps I ought to point out to him that many other Members of this House will be very uneasy about the Bill if something of this kind is not included. The next stage will be Third Reading, our last opportunity to put into the Bill something which is absolutely essential. If the noble Lord is prepared to have a look, without any commitment, at whether the Bill should contain something about benefits other than financial benefits, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment and put my faith in his persuasion of his honourable friends that it is necessary to put something of this kind in the Bill.
792
I do not want to go over all the debates at the Committee stage. However, some of us recall the great amount of time that was spent upon trying to get consideration of social benefits included in the 1983 Act. Our attempts were resisted every time by the Government. We believe it to be essential that something of this kind should be included in this Bill. If I can take it that, without commitment, the Minister is saying that he is prepared to have a look at whether or not it will be possible to include something relating to benefits other than financial benefits, I shall be prepared to withdraw the amendment. The Minister is not indicating that he is prepared to do so. As this is such a vital issue and a matter of principle, I must therefore ask the House to divide.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Attlee, E.

Listowel, E.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Banks, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brockway, L.

Mayhew, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Monson, L.

Caradon, L.

Mulley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Denington, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Diamond, L.

Roberthall, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ennals, L.

Rochester, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Falkland, V.

Seear, L.

Fisher of Rednal. B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Foot, L.

Serota, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Shackleton, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hale, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hampton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stone, L.

Hooson, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Tordoff, L.[Teller.]

Hunt, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacobson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wigoder, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Ampthill, L.

Belstead, L.

Auckland, L.

Berkeley, B.

Avon, E.

Caccia, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Caithness, E.

793

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Merrivale, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mersey, V.

Cayzer, L.

Molson, L.

Chesham, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Morris, L.

Cockfield, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Northchurch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Crathorne, L.

Onslow, E.

Cullen of Ash bourne, L.

On-Ewing, L.

Daventry, V.

Pender, L.

Davidson, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

De La Warr, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Drumalbyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Rodney, L.

Eccles, V.

Romney, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rugby, L.

Ellenborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Saint Brides, L.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Ferrier, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Sandys, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Seebohm, L.

Gainford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Gowrie, E.

Somers, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stamp, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hemphill, L.

Suffield, L.

Henley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hives, L.

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Hood, V.

Terrington, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Teviot, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Kitchener, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trenchard, V.

Long, V.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Vickers, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Mancroft, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Margadale, L.

Young, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 3A:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("; and
( ) the particular needs of members of the public who are disabled.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that it is with the agreement of and will be to the advantage of the House that we should discuss Amendment No. 3A together with Amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
Amendment No. 6: Page 2, line 40, at end insert—
(" (7) The reference in subsection (2)(a) above to the transport needs of Greater London is a reference to the needs of Greater London with respect to public passenger transport services for persons travelling within, to or from Greater London, including persons who are disabled.").
As amendments to Amendment No. 6:
Amendment No. 7: At end insert ("and, where necessary, the provision of special transport for those persons.").
Amendment No. 8: At end insert ("and, where necessary, including the provision of special transport facilities for people with particular disabilities.")
It is perfectly clear from the debate at Committee stage and from the number of amendments tabled today that there is a great deal of concern felt that the new authority to be established shall meet the needs of disabled people properly, fully and effectively. Concern is felt that there should be no question of disabled people in the area covered by the London Regional Transport Authority being disenfranchised from the point of view of transport. There has been a great deal of interest among noble Lords, and many amendments have been tabled for today's debate.
Secondly, it is clear that there is a great deal of concern felt by disabled people themselves. Their organisations have no doubt been in touch with many of your Lordships, as they have been in touch with me, the Joint Committee for the Disabled has rendered an invaluable service in bringing together many of the organisations representing particular groups of disabled people. They include those suffering from spina bifida, polio, rheumatism and arthritis, and multiple sclerosis, and limbless ex-servicemen. One can see from the list how many organisations have been brought together in order to examine this particular set of proposals.
The encouraging point is that the Government themselves are concerned. I want to say how pleased I am that the Government decided to table Amendment No. 6. I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that he was prepared to table Amendment No. 6—at least, it stands in his name, although I have no doubt that it was negotiated by the noble Earl, Lord Avon.
He said on the last stage—and it was for that reason I withdrew the amendment—that he would look very carefully at this question. I must say how much I appreciate the fact that this has been done and that Amendment No. 6 has been tabled. One has to say—I suppose this is a little unfair—that although it is a step forward it is a step that is not far enough forward. That is why there are other amendments which appear to it. I refer especially to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—no doubt she will be speaking to it together with other noble Lords who support her—and to the amendment which I tabled separately and which is virtually the same. It was purely a matter of timing that mine appeared separately.
The argument that I put forward—and do so very strongly—for taking this a stage further is that it is simply not enough to "have due regard to". Clause 2(2) states:
"In carrying out that duty London Regional Transport shall have due regard to".
Amendment No. 6 adds what LRT shall have regard to and this includes persons who are disabled. It is perfectly possible that the authority we are setting up—and nobody here is a member of that authority; nor can anyone speak for it because it does not exist—may well say that other factors such as efficiency, economy, and others, which are set out in subsection (2)(b) are overriding factors and that although it has looked most carefully it has not been

795
able to come forward with particular proposals that will meet the needs of disabled people in London.
We are probably talking about a quarter of a million people who are affected in the London Regional Transport area. It is important not only that the transport authority should be able itself to take these matters into consideration, but that it should be able to take action to provide special transport facilities, as I propose in Amendment No. 8, for people with particular disabilities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, there should be provision of special transport for these people.
It is important to recognise that there is a need for special transport, and there is already, but although it is heavily financed by the Greater London Council it is not provided by London Transport. Door-to-door travel for most severely disabled people who certainly cannot travel on the bus or Underground services is a service which must be London-wide. If it is not, it will not meet the needs of disabled people; nor, for that matter, will it be cost effective. One has to ask: who will fund dial-a-ride when the GLC disappears? We are told that local authorities now finance only 5 per cent. of the cost of dial-a-ride schemes and that the GLC finances approximately 95 per cent. A GLC report in November 1983 stated:
"The financial support for the eleven dial-a-ride services … agreed so far by the Council for 1983–84 is £74,965 on capital and £454,178 on revenue".
I understand that for this next year the GLC expect to spend a total of f 1.5 million on capital expenditure on the expansion of the dial-a-ride schemes with the aim that eventually they will cover the whole of the Greater London area. I believe that is what most people want to see happen. The question of how it is financed is absolutely crucial. What now remains is to ensure that London Regional Transport is explicitly given the duty to provide for the special needs of people with particular disabilities; not just to take these into consideration, but to provide services.
I recognise, of course, that it would be impracticable to make all buses and the whole of the existing Underground system accessible to people in wheelchairs, much as one would like to do that; the financial demands would be heavy. That is why it is so important to support special services such as dial-a-ride schemes and subsidised taxi services. But that is not enough, if I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Avon. He very kindly sent me a copy of the letter that he wrote on 1st June to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, who will no doubt be speaking later, in which he said:
"The amendment which we now propose"—
I refer to Amendment No. 6—
"will make explicit that LRT's general duty extends to disabled people, and will treat disabled people in the same way as other people".
If that is all that the Government are doing—I do not believe it is, and I feel certain that the noble Earl will explain that it is not—it certainly would not be satisfactory.
What I very much hope will come out of this debate is the acceptance by the Government of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. If that is accepted I can assure Ministers and your
796
Lordships that I will withdraw Amendment No. 3A, standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Underhill and myself, and will also withdraw Amendment No. 8. Therefore, I very much hope that with the persuasion which was very effectively shown by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in Committee, and which I am sure she will show today, the Minister will decide to accept the amendment tabled in her name. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, the House will no doubt recall that in Committee I moved an amendment which was in the precise terms of Amendment No. 2 in the Marshalled List today in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. The difficulty of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when faced with this amendment was that the duty placed on London Regional Transport in the Bill is to provide transport services and,
"have due regard to… the transport needs… of Greater London; and efficiency, economy and safety of operation".
It is not a commitment to meet all transport needs. Therefore, to say that the needs of disabled people must be met while those of able-bodied people need not be met but should only be given "due regard" would perhaps be seen as not quite fair.
We may or may not agree with the terms of the duty laid upon London Regional Transport that it should merely give "due regard" to transport needs, but I am sure we are right to seek to make it clear that the needs to be given "due regard" include those of disabled people. The Minister offered to discuss the possibility of agreement on an amendment with that purpose and so I withdrew my amendment. In the event, there was no discussion. I think the Recess and the postal strike put paid to that. However, the Minister tabled Amendment No. 6 and he circulated it beforehand. I welcome this recognition by the Government that the needs to be given "due regard" by London Regional Transport in providing transport service:, should include the needs of disabled persons. That was the point we wanted to establish and I am grateful to the noble Earl for his co-operation in achieving it.
I would have preferred a specific commitment to meet the needs of disabled persons; but, as I have explained, I see the difficulty of including that without including a specific commitment to meet the needs of the able-bodied. Through this amendment we are making sure that the needs of the disabled are to be given "due regard" equally with those of everyone else. Of course, the needs of the disabled are not the same as the needs of everyone else. Therefore, it might well be that in giving due regard to those needs one would have to do more than one would expect to do for the ordinary traveller. That, I think, is implicit in what we now have. So I think that this is an important point again.
But we are left with one very important concern, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has referred. That is the position of special transport for the disabled, such as the dial-a-ride and subsidised taxi services, which we discussed in Committee and to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, has referred this afternoon. I share the concern that these are not specifically covered by the new clause. We want to make it clear that LRT should be involved in this field in the same way as the GLC now is. For that reason, while

797
welcoming this Government amendment, I support Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I hope the Government will be prepared to accept it and/or to introduce a further amendment to achieve the end which that amendment seeks.
So far as Amendment No. 3A is concerned, I think that that is really another way of achieving the same result as Amendment No. 6, but perhaps it is a better and neater way of doing so. However, I do not suppose that the Government will move beyond Amendment No. 6.
To sum up, I think that Amendment No. 3A is probably a better way of expressing what is in Amendment No. 6. Nevertheless, I welcome Amendment No. 6 as a step forward. I support Amendment No. 7, and I hope that it, or something very like it, will be accepted by the Government.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. I think that possibly some of us who are perfectly able to transport ourselves from one place to another are a little bit apt to forget what it is like to be entirely at the mercy of other people if one wants to move about. There is no public transport at the moment that is suitable for wheelchairs. Buses are not suitable, and even trains are not suitable, as the height of the platform very often varies. The Underground is quite impossible. One cannot imagine a wheelchair getting down the escalator.
What are we to do if we are in a wheelchair? The only hope is the service mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, of dial-a-ride. It seems to me that that is an essential service to keep going. One may say that the number of disabled in comparison with those who are not is very small—they are a small minority—but that does not reduce the need to give them full consideration.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have to be careful as this is the Report stage, but I think that now I shall in a way be speaking to my Amendment No. 6 and explaining what it is about, which I think will ease the discussion of the House when we come to Amendment No. 7. I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said about the Government's amendment.
I undertook at Committee stage to look again at the very real concern that disabled people should be referred to explicitly in the Bill. I was greatly impressed by the debate on that occasion, and we have considered very carefully the points which were made. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I was abroad last week, and it was not possible to have a discussion on the timings of draftsmanship. The amendment would not have been technically compatible with the rest of Clause 2, but we believe that we have been able to propose our own amendment, and I hope that the House will accept it. It makes it absolutely clear that LRT's general duty extends to disabled people, and this point is important in relation to some of the other amendments which we are discussing today.
I should like to say something first about the meaning of the term "public passenger transport
798
services". LRT will have a duty under Clause 2(1) to provide them or secure their provision. In addition to covering those people who can use the buses and the Underground with difficulty in the normal way, it covers those people who are slightly disabled or who have some difficulty in using the buses and the Underground. But—and I think this is a key point—I would like to make it clear to your Lordships that the term also applies to those who need wheelchairs and ramps in order to travel; in other words those who cannot use the usual public transport services at all. So LRT will have a general duty to have due regard to the needs of all those people, including those who depend on special services such as dial-a-ride.
I hope I have made that point clearly. I can then assure the House that I believe that amendments like Amendments Nos. 3A, 7 and 8 are unnecessary if our amendment is agreed to. The Government are quite satisfied—and I hope I may convince the House to be, too—that Amendment No. 6, backed up by provisions of Clause 34, which requires LRT to include in its annual report to the Secretary of State a specific statement of the action it has taken in relation to public transport provision for disabled people, will ensure not only that needs of disabled people are not overlooked but, much more positively, that LRT will have a clear remit to work towards developing and improving those services.
I can well understand that noble Lords who spoke on this point in Committee were concerned not only that public transport in London should be made more generally and readily available to as many disabled people as possible, but that there should be some undertaking beyond that to ensure provision for more severely disabled people who need special provision like such as dial-a-ride services. The Government's intention is clearly that both of these aims should be pursued. We have made it clear that the Government amendment as drafted will cover those services like dial-a-ride which are specifically provided for disabled people, as well as the general run of public transport provision. We believe that it is right that these are seen as complementary parts of transport provision for severely disabled people who need service—literally—from door to door.
As the House is aware, firm undertakings have already been given in another place that in addition to specific references to disabled people not in the Bill, LRT will, as well, be given clear and specific directions by the Secretary of State to work to improve the provision of transport services for disabled people.
My amendment, which may perhaps have looked slightly innocuous, I believe the House will agree with me after that, is fairly wide-sweeping. I hope, therefore, that I have satisfied the movers of Amendments Nos. 3A, 7 and 8—if not, I am sure they will let me know—that the Government consider that they have met, and are reading now clearly on to the record of Hansard, the points which have been mentioned.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for what we have just heard. This explanation goes very much further than I had been led to believe from his original amendment. However, I would say this. Many people

799
in the Federation of Dial-a-Ride are concerned and feel extremely sensitive in that many of the organisations have just started. They have the vehicles: they do not want the volunteer committees or the vehicles to get rusted up by lack of provision now. They wish to see written clearly in the Bill, or somewhere, the actual fact that the provision of special vehicles will not be overlooked by the Government in exactly the way that my noble friend explained. I suggest at the moment it is not spelt out clearly enough for them to be satisfied.
I am wondering whether, with his flexible and clever way of getting round these difficulties, my noble friend can think of a way, for instance, to satisfy Sir Peter Baldwin, the late Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport. He spoke to me this very morning. He was in office while such strides began to be made by the department in absorbing the full portent of our transport needs. At present he is chairman of dial-a-ride at Westminster, which is one of his many jobs in his retirement. He tells me that he considers this amendment to be vital to the practical future of the scheme. I know that my noble friend will realise how practically he deals with such subjects, and I am wondering whether those weighty words will have any effect on what he has just told me. I should be very grateful if he would reply to me on that.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is Report stage, and I should not really be popping up and down. However, with the leave of the House, I should like to make some points. If it is the case that Sir Peter Baldwin has said this, all I can do is to ask his successor whether he agrees. To be more serious, I have tried to say that I thought this matter was covered. If my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox, on reading my words, feels that it is not, I shall go back myself to make sure that it is. If it is not, I shall return with something at the next stage.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I should like to support what has been stated by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. I doubt whether those in your Lordships' 'House and elsewhere who are able bodied have any idea of the number of people unable for many years to get anywhere around our capital city. Being housebound, they cannot savour all the delights enjoyed by many people in our capital city. I have not been able to travel by Underground or bus for 30 years. I do not think that I have missed anything because I drive a fast car, or I drive a car fast, which is a different thing. In my view, these people will suddenly have a new lease of life. By putting forward this one amendment, the Government have brought forward a wonderfully imaginative proposal. I should like them to know to what extent the lives of many people will be enhanced by it.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I wish to brief. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Avon, for explaining his Amendment No. 6. It may interest the House to know that we have recently started in Barnet a Dial-a-Ride service. We have been promised a grant by the GLC to cover the adaptation of two vehicles, the appointment of two full-time drivers and co-ordinator.
800
Unfortunately, we have now heard that it is likely that we shall only be allowed to lease vehicles, and when the GLC is no more, we do not know what will happen. Our worry is that unless something specific goes into the Bill, the hard work of dedicated volunteers will come to nothing. There is a need for something, not specifically related to Dial-a-Ride or the black cab scheme, which shows that the new organisation will support and help Dial-a-Ride and other systems.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like to add a few brief words to support what has already been stated. There is, in fact, little that I can say. To be realistic, I believe, like the noble Lord, Lord Banks, that the Government amendment gives us as much as we can possibly expect from public transport. I was delighted to hear the explanation of the noble Earl, Lord Avon. I welcome it most warmly and thank him for producing it.
I appreciate what he said about it including the special services. However, if they are to be included, I do not see why this cannot be spelt out in the Bill. They are so vital for those who cannot use public transport but who would be able to use properly adapted public transport systems. As we know, however, public transport is not door to door. Those who have difficulty walking or propelling themselves any considerable distance may not live near this ideally, we hope, accessible metro. There is a need therefore to provide special services at either end just as the able bodied Londoner needs a mix of the Underground and the bus perhaps to reach a destination. This is why I welcome Amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I find Amendment No. 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, particularly attractive in view of its impressive all-party support.
I should like to ask the Minister a question which he may not be able to answer now. I would, however, be grateful if he could write to me with the answer. What arrangements are being made by the Government to secure the funding of the existing Dial-a-Ride scheme in London? I understand that the GLC is unable to permit any funding after 31st March. I should be grateful to hear the answer to that question at some stage. I warmly welcome the Government amendment but I feel that it is essential also to have Amendment No. 7. If, by any chance, the services did founder one day, then disabled people, who have escaped from the four walls of their homes, would be once more left stranded, and this would be a very severe step backwards.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, having been the mover of the original amendment, may I say, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I welcome enormously the statement that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when he said that Dial-a-Ride schemes, and I presume that this also means the black cab schemes, could be financed under the terms of the proposed amendment and also under Amendment No. 6, which will obviously be approved. Clause 34(3)(b) states:
"for the purpose of securing, provision for disabled persons in the public transport services and facilities provided for Greater London (whether by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs or by any other person)".

801
What I find difficult to understand is why, if the noble Earl is able to give the confident assurance as a Minister that an authority which has yet to be established will, in fact, do what Amendment No. 7 asks should be done, he cannot accept the amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and also with the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. If it is the case, reassuring as it is to all of us, that a ministerial statement says that the Bill and this amendment will ensure Dial-a-Ride schemes, which have still to be developed across the whole of London, then why cannot the amendment be accepted? If the amendment was accepted, this would affect not only Dial-a-Ride but also the people whom Dial-a-Ride serves and also those served by the black cab scheme, who sometimes will pay £ I for what may be a £6 journey.
The noble Earl, despite all his generosity, skill and kindness, did not say why he was not accepting the noble Baroness's amendment. If he was able to to do that, or to say that the wording was not entirely satisfactory, as he did last time, and that he would come back at the next stage to see if something similar could be written into the Bill, that would be one thing. I feel, however, that ministerial assurances, whether given by one party in government or another, do not cover other ministers following elections. When it has not happened, it is not good enough to say that the Minister stated this five years ago. If it is to happen—the whole purpose of the amendment and the debate is to see that it does happen—then we have to write in the provision that it should happen. I hope that the noble Earl, when he replies to what has been a short but positive debate, will give that sort of assurance, so that we do not need to divide the House.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, I believe that I have now spoken to Amendments Nos. 3A, 6, 7 and 8. The point that I tried to make in my opening remarks was that we actually cover in this amendment what the noble Baroness wants in Amendment No. 7. I was hoping that she would study what I have stated to see whether she agrees that this covers what she wants, in which case she would be happy. Alternatively, if I find that I have not covered everything that she stated in her remarks, I shall have another word with her to see what we can produce by the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, under those circumstances, if there are to be these further discussions to try to improve and, I hope, perfect the Government's amendment, then it would be churlish of me to press my amendment. But I must give the noble Earl warning that if at Third Reading we have not reached a satisfactory situation it may be that the matter must be taken again. I hope that that will not be the case. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 3B:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the provision of transport services for Greater London for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or underground railway.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this amendment with great rapidity. It follows from what I have just said in relation to the earlier amendment. We are stating here, or seeking to state, that,
"It shall be the duty of London Regional Transport to submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the provision of transport services for Greater London for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or underground railway."
That means two things. It means that it places upon the London Regional Transport Authority a responsibility to work out the best ways in which they think the needs of disabled people unable to travel by bus and underground railway can be met, and that they should submit them to the Secretary of State. It seems right that the Secretary of State should be involved in satisfying himself that the needs of disabled people are met.
This follows on naturally from the previous amendment. It may be that, in looking at Amendment No. 7, which we have proceeded beyond, the noble Earl will think that this one could be looked at as well, because the natural consequence of anything that says that London Regional Transport shall do something is that they should submit a proposal as to how they are going to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Banks: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to support the idea behind this amendment—namely, that there should be some obligation on London Regional Transport to give specific consideration to, and to produce proposals in relation to, transport services for those who are unable to use buses and the underground railway. Something which would make certain that there will be some step forward is important.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I think this is a slightly more particular amendment than the one we have just had. As the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, said, at Committee stage we discussed the general question to which this amendment relates—that is, whether it is right for LRT to be under a statutory duty to provide services for severely disabled people, those who are not able to use the normal bus and Underground services. I might point out that this amendment would not actually require LRT to provide the services; it would merely require them to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for their provision. However, I have no doubt of the noble Lord's intention in tabling the amendment.
I hope I made it clear in Committee that we did not believe it appropriate to impose a duty on LRT either to prepare proposals or, in point of fact, to give effect to them. As I said on that occasion, it is the local authorities who should have the responsibility for identifying the need for such services and for organising and financing them as part of a more general provision which they make to help severely disabled people. It is not a duty which the Government believe we should place on a body charged with providing public transport services for the capital.
I fully accept that LRT may be able to assist with technical and other expertise; indeed, I hope they will do so. We have already given an assurance that LRT's vehicles and infrastructure will he developed with the

803
needs of disabled people in mind. That would help to extend the access which disabled people will have to LRT services, but we believe it to be another matter entirely to place LRT under a statutory duty to prepare, and submit to the Secretary of State, written proposals for the provision of special transport facilities for severely disabled people. We believe that services such as Dial-a-Ride, which, as the House well knows, we welcome, fall properly within the responsibility of local authorities in a general context; and we believe that that is where they should remain.
My Lords, I apologise if I have been rather in and out of this amendment, but my speaking note arrived only about three minutes ago. I should welcome the noble Lord's comments on my remarks.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I ask the permission of the House to enable the noble Earl to find his notes. The point that is really difficult—it will be touched on in two other amendments, which no doubt we will discuss briefly—is that, if the London Transport Authority do not have upon them any obligation (I believe that is what the noble Earl said) I do not know how we can be satisfied that the needs will be met. This is why at a later stage I shall propose that there should be a company which will help to deal with the fact that often people cross local boundaries. That comes under Amendment No. 12A.
The noble Earl said that local authorities would finance these things. But in their journeys people move from one borough to another and criss-cross London to visit their relatives or go wherever their journeys take them. As I indicated when I spoke on the last amendment, at present only 5 per cent. of Dial-a-Ride is paid for by borough authorities. It is paid for as to 95 per cent. by the GLC, which will not exist if the Government have their way. Many of those boroughs will not be able to raise extra money if the Government have their way on rate capping. So we are still creating a position of uncertainty.
I honestly think the noble Earl has to go further and give an assurance which will really satisfy people who are dependent on Dial-a-Ride that the resources will be found. It is not good enough for him simply to say that the local authorities will be able to pay the money. If they cannot pay the money and do not pay the money, then Dial-a-Ride does not continue and does not expand. It is this point I am trying to get over to the noble Earl.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I just say that I hope that when the noble Lord reads what I said about the previous amendment he will find it more reassuring than what he has just said.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I shall not proceed with the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 34 and insert ("In carrying out their duty under subsection (1) London Regional Transport shall have due regard").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this is in a somewhat different context, the arguments will cover much of the ground which we dealt with in referring to social cost benefits. After discussion with my colleagues who kindly put their names to the amendment, I beg leave not to move it.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 6:
[Printed earlier: col. 793.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, there are two amendments to this amendment, and before this amendment is discussed we must take the two amendments. The first is Amendment No. 7.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, Amendment No. 6 is as it stands.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [General Powers]:
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 15, at end insert ("provided always that the financial consideration attaching to any transfer of property shall in no case be less than the greater of market value and modern equivalent asset replacement cost.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am conscious of the desire of your Lordships' House that we should not repeat arguments which have already been gone into at some length in Committee. This amendment attacks the same problem as Amendments Nos. 28, 44, 79 and 80 which were moved in Committee. But I venture to suggest to the Government and to the House that this amendment meets the principal objections put forward by the Government to the previous amendments and is, at the very least, a step forward towards something which I believe that most Members of your Lordships' House would wish to achieve.
The issue which we are considering here arises in Clause 3 and concerns the power given to London Regional Transport to enter into agreements with companies or persons:
"for the purpose of carrying on any activities which London Regional Transport have power to carry on".
As part of that possibility, Clause 3(5) provides that:
"London Regional Transport may…enter into arrangements…for the transfer…of any property, rights or liabilities of London Regional Transport".
The issue that we discussed in Committee was: how are we to secure that when property is transferred the benefits of the property are secured in the public interest? I am not raising here the issue as between taxpayers and ratepayers. I believe that that led to a good deal of sterile argument in Committee which ought not to be repeated now. But I suggest that the amendment which I am now moving secures, first, that there should be a proper value placed upon the

805
property which is being transferred. We suggest that this proper value should be:
"no…less than the greater of market value and modern equivalent asset replacement cost".
In Amendment No. 23—which we are not considering now but to which I do need to refer in order to complete my argument—it is proposed that the benefit of that payment should be retained by London Regional Transport as a central reserve and the balance should only be used:
"to defray gross charges to capital account".
I think that the intention is fairly obvious. We are trying to overcome the argument which was put forward by the Government in Committee about windfall benefits being frittered away. We need not repeat the "oil in Osterley" argument which took place then.
But the intention here is to secure first, that there is a proper price—that is the purport of Amendment No. 10—and secondly, that that proper price is only used so that the benefit defrays capital costs and therefore remains for the benefit of London Regional Transport and of course the travelling public who use it.
I hope that the Government will feel that there is something new in this amendment to which they ought to give serious consideration and which does the best that can be done—within the possibilities of the framing of amendments other than by Parliamentary draftsmen—to solve the problems which were raised by Government Ministers in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's fears that Clause 3(5), without the protection of the amendment, would permit LRT to dispose of assets too cheaply, with a resulting loss to the public purse. Critics of this part of the Bill—although the noble Lord did not use these words today—have described it in terms of asset-stripping for the benefit of LRT's competitors, and have talked of hidden subsidies to the private sector.
Such criticisms overlook a salient feature of the way in which LRT will work—indeed, in which any public company works. LRT's assets will, for the great part, be vested in their subsidiaries. These assets will form part of the capital structure of the subsidiaries, and if the assets are sold for less than they are worth, the subsidiaries will incur liabilities unmatched by income. They would quickly go bankrupt under such circumstances and I can assure your Lordships that we have no intention of seeing that happen.
We do not envisage that Clause 3(2) agreements will normally involve disposals of LRT property. The agreements are not necessarily long-term in relation to a particular operator, and LRT will need to be able to recover their property if they wished to resume providing the service themselves, or to enter an agreement with a different operator. Using property is an obvious possibility, but buying it is a different matter entirely.
Nevertheless, the amendment is unduly restrictive. There may be circumstances where it will actually benefit the taxpayer, the ratepayer and the traveller for some assets to be transferred at less than book value. Suppose, for example, that a contractor came along
806
who offered to run all the services in a particular area for less subsidy than LRT's subsidiaries required themselves. And suppose that that contractor made it a condition of the deal that some assets—say a bus garage or some buses—were transferred to him at below the market rate. The calculation of advantage for LRT would be a complex one, but there might just be cases in which the capital losses were more than offset by the savings on LRT's revenue account. This amendment would prevent such flexibility to no one's benefit and I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not wish to proceed with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, to an extent, in the opening of his speech the noble Lord the Minister put up an Aunt Sally. I did not use the words "asset-stripping" and I did not use the words "asset-stripping" quite deliberately because I was not so foolish as to think that London Regional Transport would deliberately engage in any transfer of property which would cause its subsidiaries to go bankrupt. I do not think that that was at all the issue in the amendment and it was certainly not my intention that it should be the issue.
The problem here is that the word "transfer" itself is imprecise. If we were using the words, "sale of properties" we would all know what that meant and we would all know that proper compensation ought to be paid for the sale of properties. But if the word "transfer" also means a licence for the use of a bus garage—as the noble Lord suggested—then I quite see that a deal which balances the benefits of a lower cost transport system against the disbenefits of a less than economic rental or purchase price for the particular property, might require something other than the full modern replacement asset cost as the appropriate payment for the property.
It is a complicated issue and I shall have to read the noble Lord's words carefully before considering what my position may be at Third Reading. In the meantime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Duty to establish companies to run London bus and Underground services]:
5.49 p.m.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("submit") in line 11 and insert ("London Regional Transport may").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11, and it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if we also deal with Amendment No. 12, because both amendments cover the same principle.
Amendment No. 12: Page 5, line 15, leave out from beginning to ("submit") in line 17, and insert ("London Regional Transport may").
These amendments are similar to the amendments proposed at the Committee stage and I must briefly explain their purpose and then deal with the arguments which were put up against them at the Committee stage. Clause 4 requires that LRT must submit proposals to the Secretary of State for the formation of separate subsidiaries to run the bus and

807
Underground services. The effect of these amendments is to remove the compulsion on LRT to submit the proposals.
The amendments will still leave power to LRT to set up the separate companies if they should so desire. In other words, the amendments propose that these decisions should be left to management. It is a commercial type of decision and should not he a matter for direction by the Secretary of State. Surely this is the type of decision for the board which will be established to run LRT.
Looking at the arguments put against the amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Avon, he said that separate companies would, as Companies Act companies, remain under LRT control, LRT would appoint the board, and LRT would be able to control all major decisions. But the noble Earl did not deal with the point that I made. The Minister of State said in Standing Committee that LRT would have a majority shareholding in both organisations. I said at the Committee stage that if there is to be a majority shareholding, there must surely be minority shareholders. That is logical. I asked who would they be, and I ask again who will they be, because the explanation was not given to me. If there are minority shareholders this must indicate that it is envisaged that at some stage there will be some disposal of either the subsidiaries or parts of the subsidiaries to the private sector.
Is the basic reason for the separation not just to secure efficient accounting but to be a prelude to disposal? It is true that the noble Earl said on 14th May, at column 1242:
"It is true that once the bus and Underground subsidiaries are established under Clause 4 it will be possible for LRT to sell an interest in them, or to sell parts of them. But that is not the object of setting up these subsidiaries".
I must remind the House of what my noble friend Lord Ennals said on an amendment with which he was concerned. He said that statements of Ministers can be accepted today, but statements of Ministers may not apply to another Secretary of State. Therefore, it could be that setting up the separate subsidiaries could be used as a prelude to disposal.
I would ask the noble Earl what is meant by what he said at column 1242:
"We regard Clause 4 as an essential element in our restructuring of London Transport, and we expect to see the operating subsidiaries established next year".
Why is the establishment of separate subsidiary companies considered to be so vital? Surely it is possible to achieve proper accounting without that.
I find it difficult to believe that it is not possible to obtain the required information without actual physical separation. The noble Earl made the statement that London Transport has already created six bus districts and four railway divisions, but that is very different from actual separation by forming separate subsidiary companies.
We reached this item at about 10 o'clock at night at Committee stage. There was strong feeling in the Committee on this matter, but in view of that late hour we did not divide the Committee; but I intimated that possibly we would come back to this matter on
808
Report. I would leave the House and the noble Earl, who I presume will reply again, with this question: why is it not to be left to a managerial decision of this board? We are told that the Secretary of State will appoint the board partly because of their managerial capacity. Why not leave this matter to them?
The amendments, if your Lordships approve them, are not taking away the power to have separate subsidiaries if the board considers that desirable on managerial or commercial common sense grounds. What we criticise is that in advance of even setting up the board the Secretary of State, by this clause of the Bill, has given a mandatory direction to the board that they must set up these separate companies within a certain period. That seems to be taking away from a competent board a decision which ought to be theirs. I hope that the Government will see that aspect and will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: Again, my Lords, I added my name to this amendment, along with my noble friend Lord Attlee. I cannot embellish much on what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. It seems to me that the Government have made a management decision here. They have pre-empted the decision of London Regional Transport. What we do not know are the bases on which that management decision has been made. The Government have given no clear indication as to why this decision should be made at this stage of the game, before London Regional Transport has been set up. They are saying to London Regional Transport before it is created, "You must split the bus and the other undertakings".
Surely the time to do that is after the new transport authority has had a chance to look at what it has within its bailiwick and to come to some sensible decision. If it is necessary to split up this amalgam there may be other ways of cutting the cake; but the Government have given no clear indication of the criteria on which this decision has been made by them which, as I say, preempts London Regional Transport's management decision. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, may I try to answer some of the questions and set the noble Lords' minds at rest. The effect of these amendments would be to relieve LRT of the duty to bring forward proposals for setting up operating subsidiaries for their bus and Underground services. LRT would simply be left with a discretion to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has suggested that we should rely on LRT's managerial judgment in this matter. May I first confirm that we shall be anxious to back LRT's managerial judgment wherever we can. But I hope he will recognise that the Government must be able to provide for what they regard as the best initial structure, and then allow LRT to develop it.
I explained at Committee stage that the Government made their intentions quite clear in this respect when they said in the White Paper published last July that the London Transport Executive would be,
"reconstituted on the pattern of a small holding company, with its bus and underground operations established as separate subsidiaries".

809
We proposed that LRT should,
"be responsible for the strategic control of their operating subsidiaries and for securing the cost-effective provision of bus and underground services from these and other operators".
This is our firm policy.
I explained at Committee stage the view of my honourable friend the Minister of State that there was no way in which realistic targets could be set for the different parts of LRT unless the information was to hand from the subsidiary parts. In subsections (1) and (2) of this clause we seek to ensure that bus and Underground subsidiaries have separately identifiable costs and income. We believe that it is good commercial practice that their performance should be accountable in that way.
The creation of subsidiary companies under this clause would surely be a logical development of what is already taking place in London Transport's organization, They have already created separate businesses for their bus and railway operations, and as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, mentioned they have gone on further to create bus districts and railway divisions. All we are trying to do is to take this process a step further.
I recognise the force of the point which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, made, but we have a difficult course to steer between devolution and integration. But we are confident that we have successfully done so. The separate subsidiaries will, as Companies Act companies, remain under LRT's control. LRT will have the power of appointment to the boards of the subsidiaries and will be able to control all major decisions. At the same time, LRT's general duty will continue to apply to the services which LRT in effect provide through their subsidiaries. We regard Clause 4 as an essential element in our restructuring of London Transport, and we hope to see the operating subsidiaries established on 1st April next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked specifically about the minority shareholders. At the moment we would envisage this company at the outset being probably with the LRT as the sole shareholder, but if there were one, there could perhaps be local authorities and/or perhaps joint users and perhaps owners of, say, a garage or other facilities. But, my Lords, we are not anticipating that any more than we are anticipating—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, did give me credit for rejecting the previous time—any form of privatisation of the subsidiaries. I do not think the noble Lord and I are going to agree on this, but that is our position.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, we have to keep in mind that the respective subsections of this clause start with the words,
"Before the end of such period as the Secretary of State may specify".
He will give the directive for a separate company to be set up for buses and a separate company to be set up for the Underground. It does seem amazing, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, endorsed, that in advance of setting up the board this important managerial decision is taken. The noble Lord referred to this being made clear in the White Paper, but was there not made clear to the Government the sound criticism of the
810
proposal in the White Paper? But the Government just went ahead as if nobody had criticised it.
To take a decision of this kind, a whole restructuring—because that is what it means—in advance of a board being set up seems to be taking a decision out of the hands of a competent board which the Secretary of State himself will appoint. We have debated this in the Committee stage. He will appoint all the members of the board, yet he is not prepared to trust them as to whether or not they should have this decision. He said that the targets will require information. As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot believe that with the structure which London Transport Executive has now it is not possible to get the information. The board of LRT will be in authority and the information can be obtained.
The noble Earl had to admit at the Committee stage that with the travel card now there would have to be a certain estimation of revenue because with it you can travel by bus, you can travel by rail, and it is a further step away from what I think the House wants—a move towards integration.
We did not divide the House at ten o'clock last time, but there is a principle here. I do not want to keep dividing the House, but I would like the House to make its view clear as to whether noble Lords believe it is a decision that ought to be taken away from the board or whether we should leave it to the managerial competence of the board to make this very important decision.
6.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hampton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth. V.

Attlee, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hayter, L.

Barnett, L.

Hooson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bernstein. L.

Hughes, L.

Beswick, L.

Hunt, L.

Birk, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Jacobson, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Caradon, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

David, B.

Lawrence, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Denington, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Diamond, L.

Lockwood, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Longford, E.

Ennals, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Molloy, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mulley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nathan, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Oram, L.

Grimond, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hale, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

811

Prys-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Seear, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Underhill, L.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Stallard, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Stone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Avon, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bauer, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Bellwin, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Belstead, L.

Boothby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Molson, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Morris, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Cockfield, L.

Norwich, Bp.

Coleraine, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Craigavon, V.

Pender, L.

Crathorne, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Daventry, V.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

De La Warr, E.

Renton, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Romney, E.

Eccles, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Fortescue, E.

Shannon, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gowrie, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Taylor of Hadfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Teviot, L.

Hanson, L.

Teynham, L.

Hemphill, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Henley, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Hives, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trenchard, V.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vickers, B.

Kitchener, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Westbury, L.

Long, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
6.12 p.m.
Lord Ennals Lord Ennals moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Before the end of such period as the Secretary of State may specify for the purposes of this subsection, London Regional Transport shall submit to the Secretary of State for his approval written proposals for the formation by them of a company for the
812
purpose of providing passenger transport for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, following the last speech of the noble Earl and the Division that took place, I shall have no difficulty in securing the passage of the first of these two amendments. He was taking a very strong line indeed in answer to my noble friend Lord Underhill that it was his objective that the Government should set out the structure that they wanted to see; they were not prepared to leave the discretion to the London Transport authority and the decision would be taken in advance. Therefore it follows naturally and logically from this that he will accept Amendment No. 12A. We are back to the problem of those disabled people who are unable to travel by bus or by Underground railway.
I should have said that it has been agreed through the usual channels that Amendment No. 18A should be taken at the same time, since it covers issues that are similar.
Amendment No. 18A: Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("; or
(c) in making payments to any other person or company providing services for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway.").
Amendment No. 12A would require London Regional Transport to submit written proposals to the Secretary of State for the formation by it of a company to provide transport services for disabled members of the public. Once again this would allow for the provision of a service similar to that provided by the Dial-a-Ride scheme, though it would no doubt embrace the whole area covered by London Regional Transport. The example I give from my own experience of the organisation that might be established is that of Motability. When it was decided some years ago to phase out the tricycles for the disabled, the decision was taken to establish an organisation called Motability which, with the sponsorship and backing of the Government and some financial assistance, provides vehicles linked with the mobility allowance. It seems to me that that was a good pattern for an organisation and it has done marvels for disabled people. This is a clear way in which London Regional Transport could carry out its obligations.
Amendment No. 18A concerns the making of payments. The wording is:
"to any other person or company providing services for disabled members of the public who are unable to travel by bus or by underground railway".
This amendment would enable London Regional Transport to give grants to people providing services for disabled members of the public. Naturally we are concerned about the status, as I mentioned earlier, of the GLC black cab scheme, following the introduction of the new transport board. I welcome the involvement of the Department of Transport in the development of the new CR6 taxi and we look forward to its arrival on the market.
However, for the vast majority of disabled people the cost of a taxi is way out of their financial reach and at present the GLC black cab scheme enables disabled people who are members of the scheme to travel at a cost of 1 for a journey that may be worth up to £6; but the taxi-driver is refunded with the difference. Once

813
again it is important that such a scheme is continued and organised centrally. Taxi drivers may understandably feel very disinclined to take disabled passengers if they have to apply for a refund from individual local authorities, if there is no one central authority in existence. I hope that there will be a central authority; that is the purpose of Amendment No. 12A. But if there is no central authority, the London Regional Transport authority should be given the powers to make payments for these people who are unable to use the normal facilities provided by London Transport.
I hope that as a result of these two amendments the Minister will give his thinking on how he sees both Dial-a-Ride and the GLC black cab scheme being organised and financed. As I said, the Minister was so very clear on the last amendment that it was the job of the Government to set the pattern clearly, so much so that he determined to insist it remained in the Bill in spite of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Underhill. I should like the Minister to explain his thinking about how the organisation and financing will be set up for disabled people unable to use the normal facilities of London Transport.
Lord Somers: My Lords, I should like to support this. I do not want to go through once again all the various difficulties that lie before the disabled, but I should like to remind the noble Earl—though I do not think he needs it—that disabled people literally have no alternative. If they do not have these special services, then they are fixed and stay at home. That is all there is to it. I sincerely hope that the noble Earl may see fit to accept this.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, when he introduced his amendment. I can see that he is drawing on an impeccable precedent, and I rather expected to have my leg pulled in that way. Perhaps he would not be altogether surprised if I said that I still cannot recommend it to the House.
In this case the amendment would anticipate decisions yet to be taken on the organisations concerning services for severely disabled people. It would commit LRT to a form of organisation which might, in the event, prove not to be the most useful.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said and I hope he will take some comfort from the words that I shall give him. It is not necessary to take firm decisions at this stage on this issue. I can assure the House that the Bill contains all the powers that are needed for LRT to co-operate in providing services for the severely disabled. LRT's general power under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to carry passengers applies to carrying severely disabled people, and its power under Clause 3(1) to establish companies also applies to the organisation of services for them. Moreover, the Secretary of State has power in Clause 32(7) to require LRT to set up a company for the purpose. I do not dispute in any way the value which attaches to services such as Dial-a-Ride, and I believe that I made this evident in my earlier remarks.
As far as concerns the second amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, spoke—and I am grateful to him for explaining it—our view is simply that the
814
amendment is not required. As I have said on earlier amendments, the effect of our amendment to Clause 2 is to confirm that the LRT's general duty extends to disabled people. It will be for the LRT to determine what provision they consider they ought to secure for disabled people, including the severely disabled, having due regard to their needs.
Any such provision is likely to be secured as a result of LRT entering into a Clause 3(2) agreement with another operator or company., It will therefore be covered by the provision already made in Clause 12(2)(h), which enables LRT to apply grant for the purpose. Indeed, they are required to apply grant in so far as it appears appropriate to do so in discharging their general duty. I believe that LRT will therefore already have the powers to do what the amendment would require. For instance, they would be able to support such schemes as the GLC Taxicard scheme for the disabled which the GLC has recently extended London-wide.
I hope that with those explanations of these two amendments (which the noble Lord will appreciate we have not had very much time to look at) he will feel that to some extent we cover what he is asking for.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the extent to which he accepted the arguments that I put forward. I, myself, feel that to set up a very clear pattern in advance would not be wise. I will therefore stop pulling his leg and now come back to agreeing with my noble friend Lord Underhill, whose support I always wish to have and always will have. I think it still remains to be seen what is the best method. I think that by now, if the noble Earl did not realise before, he does perceive that there are some major problems of financing and of organisation; and I think that as a result of this brief exchange, even, and of the reply that he gave—and, if I may say so with a little more leg pulling, I think the chap who writes his briefs on this subject is certainly better than the chap who writes his briefs on some of the other subjects—there will be a greater understanding by the London Transport Authority when it comes into existence that it has got to tackle these problems very seriously. With the assurance that has been given by the noble Earl, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Obligation to invite tenders]:
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 25, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (I) above "other persons" shall include the present employees of London Regional Transport.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, whenever words such as those in the amendment are inserted—words which suggest that "other persons" should include the present employees of London Regional Transport—there is a tendency, particularly in your Lordships' House, in another place and perhaps even wider, towards a polarisation of attitudes. Immediately, direct works are looked upon either with starry eyes or with very deep suspicion. I think that both these attitudes are quite doctrinaire. There is a place within such an organisation, or within a

815
subsidiary of it, particulary an organisation as vast and as long-established as London Transport and with the experience of London Transport for having groups of people who carry out specialised work for them.
This was the historic origin of many of the direct works organisations; but it is actually more than that now. Because of modern accounting systems, London Transport Builders—just to instance one group of London Transport employees who work for the organisation—have been set up and have constituted one of the so-called profit centres within London Transport. It is now required to tender in the face of private competition for a range of work which would previously have been allocated to it internally and administratively.
I understand that a considerable amount of basic work has been done on this profit centre. A schedule of rates for work for London Transport Builders has been established, and a basis of pricing for outside tendering has also been established along with a sophisticated accounting system. These are things that we should surely welcome and recognise as safeguards for the taxpayer and the ratepayer within the organisation of London Transport Builders. A fully independent trading account system has not yet been established; but this is coming. I know that there has been a number of instances where they have tendered higher than the lowest tender, and in some cases a fair amount higher. These are teething troubles. I would think that gradually, as more experience is gained—not in their work but in their pricing and in costings—London Transport Builders will be able to compete very successfully (not exclusively, but very successfully) with outside bodies.
What I am concerned about is that in a large and complicated organisation like London Transport there should be, in addition to the purely administrative and organisational arms of the business, a technical and practical arm to enable it to keep pace with the rest of the world. The House may allow me to make a slight amendment to something I said earlier on the same subject, in column 1596 of the Official Report of 17th May, when I said that,
"people will tell you that they [London Transport] sell 150 yews of mistakes all over the world".
I should say that it is actually London Transport themselves who are proud of the fact that, having been in business for so long, and having made so many mistakes, they can tell the rest of the world about these mistakes. Until fairly recently, until their capitalisation was cut back, and until the rest of the world began to spend many more millions on public transport than is the case in this country, London Transport were way ahead of the world. As they put it jocularly, but very truly, they said that they sold mistakes and said, "Please, do not do this!"
I should hate to think that they would not be able to continue to benefit the rest of the world, not from their mistakes (because the mistakes were a small part of it) but through the very great work that they have done in the past and hopefully will continue to do in the future. For instance, I should like to see London Transport being allowed to maintain a small tunnelling force all the time; a constant tunnelling force which could be easily built up and perhaps augmented when
816
necessary, but learning all the time and using the new techniques all the time.
I think that this amendment would be an improvement to the Bill. With all the safeguards in it that I have tried to indicate to the Minister, I hope that he will feel that an amendment such as this, or approximately such as this, with the intention behind it that I have tried to explain, is acceptable. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for his further explanation, and indeed for his little talk on how to sell our mistakes. We debated this (admittedly at rather a late hour) the other day. I am sorry if my answer on that occasion did not wholly satisfy the noble Lord. I am afraid that, even with his further remarks, I remain in some doubt. Let me try to explain why. We fully accept that any LRT employees should be able to tender in response to invitations made by LRT; but the fact is that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from doing so. Indeed, it has already become accepted practice for employees to be invited to tender in addition to outside companies. It is, we believe, in LRT's interest to act this way since it allows them to compare the cost of having a job done in-house against the cost of contracting out. This seems a basic principle which does not need to be given statutory force.
If the noble Lord had cited examples of where the absence of the statutory requirement had given rise to practical difficulties, we might wish to reconsider but we are not aware of any such problems. Clause 6 of the Bill as drafted follows Section 8 of the Transport Act 1983, which currently applies to passenger transport executives as well as to London Transport. We see no need to depart from the tendering arrangements as they have already applied under the 1983 Act.
I do not know whether that will satisfy the noble Lord, but perhaps I could also say that we have worries in that to accept the amendment would only cast doubt on the position which applies to passenger transport executives or indeed in other spheres where no specific requirement of this kind is made. As the noble Lord will understand, we agree that what he suggests should happen but do not think that his amendment is necessary.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation. There was just the possibility that, by including the amendment as I moved it, it would have given encouragement to employees of London Transport. However, I am very glad that the Minister has made the position so clear and that it is on record. I am very pleased to be able to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 44, at end insert ("provided that such tender would be carried out in accordance with recognised wages and other conditions of service.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. It is vital that if there is to be

817
proper competition, as the Government wish within the tendering process, the basis of the competition should be correct and equal. It is well known that the direct labour organizations—or those which are the offspring of London Transport—provide training, good and reasonable employment and working conditions, and, perhaps rather importantly, they keep people for a fairly long time within their organisation. They tend to have fewer people moving in and out of the organisation and therefore they have a greater stability.
Sometimes, because of the better conditions they offer compared with many private concerns—not all, by any means, but many of the private contractors —they are hampered by the costs involved when competing with these outside contractors who do little training. This, of course, is true of private industry as well; some seem to do all the training and take on all the apprentices while others come along and cream them off.
As well as the training aspect and the better conditions, many outside groups use "labour only" contracts. They have the very minimum health and safety provisions for their employees; there is no necessity for them to guarantee the payment of national insurance for their employees, and there have been many instances in which firms have collapsed owing a great deal of money in national insurance contributions, which of course reverted back to their employees who found themselves short of the necessary qualifications, perhaps for unemployment benefit and ultimately for a pension. In addition, personal accident insurance was not taken out by the employers for their employees and frequently the standard of work was not as high as it would be now.
I emphasise that I am not by any means saying that this applies to all private employers or even to the majority; I am concerned about a rather small number of private employers who periodically manage to acquire contracts with public bodies. I feel it is vitally important that the minimum on which we should insist from these organisations, as I have suggested in the amendment, is fair conditions for their employees so that direct labour or direct works can compete on the same basis.
I believe that the fairly innocuous words,
"provided that such tender would be carried out in accordance with recognised wages and other conditions of service".
will not at all harm the vast number of good employers but would be a great safeguard for the employees of some of the much less scrupulous ones. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, although I have not got my name on this amendment I do support it. The problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, has alluded are ones which worry a great many people as privatisation becomes more and more a fact of life these days. A concern that one hears raised on many occasions, when local authorities are privatising their dustbin service, when health authorities are privatising laundry services and so on, is that this should not be a charter for the cowboys. I am sure that the Government would not wish that to be the case, but I do think that something needs to be written into the Bill.
818
I am not sure that the Government will not say that the phrase "recognised wages" is perhaps too widely drawn, but if they are not happy with the wording perhaps they could give some assurance that they themselves will come up with some appropriate wording. I am sure that it is not in the Government's interests to give the impression that they want these situations to arise other than with the greatest care not only on wages, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, has said, but in matters of health, safety, training and all the other general conditions of work. This is a very genuine worry for people even if they are on neither side of the dogmatic divide.
As noble Lords will be aware, on these Benches we do not take a dogmatic view on privatisation or nationalisation; we try to take a more pragmatic view than is taken in other parties, particularly in another place. Nevertheless, it is necessary to ensure in those cases where parts of enterprises are being privatised that the competition is fair and that the cowboys are not allowed to undermine the sensible practices of people who may be forced to tender at a higher level because they are doing the sort of things that are good industrial practice and are providing reasonable wages.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciated a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, and indeed I appreciated what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said. I should like to try to allay their worries and say that we do indeed agree with fair competition and would not wish the kind of cowboy operations which the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, described to come into operation.
First, perhaps I should emphasise to the House that, as I said on an earlier occasion, Clause 6 is not a blanket provision. It already provides a discretion for LRT to decide when it is appropriate to invite tenders. Having done so, LRT are not then required simply to accept the lowest tender. The two tests provided in the clause are that acceptance of a tender should result in the relevant activity being carried out satisfactorily and more cheaply—in other words, LRT are required to satisfy themselves that accepting a particular tender will fully present value for money and will not result in handing over to a cowboy operator, as the two noble Lords feared.
It would make for unnecessary complexity, believe, to require LRT to take account of recognised wages and conditions of service. Indeed, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for his explanation of what it did actually mean because I think it is a fairly wide-drawn phrase and his explanation was very useful.
However, I am not at all convinced that it would be helpful and our main objection is that we believe the amendment would tend to frustrate rather than encourage competition. For that reason we would prefer the noble Lord not to press it. I fully appreciate the worry behind the speeches of both noble Lords, and I should like to assure them that the Government in no way wish to encourage cowboy operators. We believe that Clause 6 is drawn in such a way that LRT would be able to prevent this.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I can understand what the Minister has said in explanation and I have great personal faith in his good intentions, but I am not sure that, as time goes on such intentions are always interpreted in quite the way that was intended when put forward by a Minister at such a time as this. It is perfectly possible for a job to be done satisfactorily and more cheaply by "cowboys". I am not saying they are incompetent but all the other things I have suggested such as health and safety, and so on, may not perhaps be carried out and therefore that would be unfair competition, although the standard of work might he perfectly reasonable. In fact, it could very well be that, because they do not pay all those expenses there is something in an envelope on a Friday night for the workers—as happened not very far away from this Palace some years ago. That became quite a notorious case. Therefore it is perfectly possible to get a good job and a cheap job and, hence, unfair competition, because all the basic things are not done.
I feel rather unhappy about this and I hope that the Minister, before the next stage, will look at this again and perhaps at the next stage will be able to tell us if there is any way in which the wording can be tightened up to allow the intention to be shown in the Bill. I know that it is a terribly difficult thing to write intentions into a Bill but I am sure that the Minister has sufficient ingenuity to be able to do that. In that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Planning of passenger transport services for Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("; and
( ) any agreements which London Regional Transport have made or propose to make with the Railways Board under any section of this Act with respect to the provision of integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route planning by London Regional Transport and the Board for public passenger transport services provided by them both within Greater London and other arrangements.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it would be helpful if I dealt with Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 together.
Amendment No. 16: Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("; and
( ) arrangements London Regional Transport have made or propose to make with the local authorites in the area to which the statement relates so as to integrate their services with the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the local authority concerned.")
I would point out that Clause 7 imposes a duty on LRT to prepare from time to time statements setting out their policies and the action taken or proposed to be taken to implement those policies. I think there is general agreement that these statements could be extremely helpful. Subsection (2), to which these amendments relate, lists three matters with which in particular the statement shall deal. If I may paraphrase, these are the policies and plans of LRT's subsidiaries and any major changes or developments and arrangements made between London Regional
820
Transport and the Railways Board to secure co-operation. Also included are details of arrangments made with BR or other persons in the provision of transport services.
In the two amendments which I am putting forward are other matters with which any statement should deal. Amendment No. 15 seeks to include details of agreements made with BR with respect to the integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route planning. Your Lordships will recall that on a previous amendment all these were considered to be desirable things. They are important, and they are matters which ought to be included in the statement of policy so that we can see what progress is being made and what plans are proposed for the future.
Amendment No. 16 proposes to include in the statement details of arrangements made or proposed to be made with local authorities in the area so that LRT shall integrate their services—I am sorry to use the word "integrate" but I think we have proved that it is really the only word that can be used—with the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the particular local authority. I think it will be agreed that these are very important matters of public policy.
It will be recalled that at the Committee stage I also submitted a third amendment, which proposed that the statement should set out the financial position of LRT, together with its financial prospects and a summary of the financial position. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, expressed some sympathy at the time with the aims of the amendment and asked for a withdrawal so that consideration could be given to bringing forward an amendment at Report stage. That was most encouraging and I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because he will be proposing his Amendment No. 17, which carries out that promise which he made at Committee stage.
However, the arguments put forward against the other two amendments were rather strange. With regard to what is now Amendment No. 15 the noble Lord said that it was better to avoid putting in a statute provision,
"for details which ought to be matters either for common sense of the parties concerned or for specific directions to the LRT Board, if necessary".—[Official Report, 14/5/84; col. 1257.]
If one worked on the basis of leaving out things that are "common sense", I think it might make rather a mess of a lot of legislation which we feel we have to have. I note the different attitude taken on these directions to the direction being given, in advance of the Bill being passed, to set up subsidiaries. That is the very thing we discussed on the previous amendment.
The second objection which was put forward by the Minister was to the effect that the amendments proposed matters which were not defined in the Bill. I find it very difficult to appreciate that the questions we had in mind are not defined anywhere in the Bill. The integrated level and structure of fares, common ticketing facilities and co-ordinated route-planning seem to be fairly obvious things which do not require interpretation, but if they are considered proper to be put into the statement, I cannot believe it is beyond the wit of the parliamentary draftsmen to put in an interpretation clause, saying exactly what these items refer to. These are all important questions.
The argument against Amendment No. 16 which was put forward on Committee stage, frankly, I found even less understandable. The noble Lord said at col. 1258:
"We do not believe that it would be sensible to impose this requirement on LRT when they are formulating their Clause 7 statement."
The Minister argued that the Bill contains provisions that the LRT shall consult with local authorities and others during the preparation of the statement, but he claimed that it was unrealistic to set out in that statement the ways in which planned services may have to take account of their knowledge of local authorities' development plans.
It must be stressed that, if London Transport were to continue under GLC general policy, those matters would be considered by the GLC; they would be generally available to the public and also open to public scrutiny. But then the Minister said a rather amazing thing. He said that this would entail weighing down the statement—and I give his words—
"with a great deal of detail, of interest to a very few,".
I cannot believe that matters dealing with the integration of services, town planning and the traffic and parking policies of a particular local authority are of interest to a very few. I should like to feel that the Minister, having been so kind in taking back the amendments I proposed last time and bringing forward a new amendment this time, would see the point and would either accept the two amendments I am now proposing, or bring those forward in a different form at the Third Reading stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for taking these two amendments together. I have to say at the outset that, while I have some sympathy with the spirit of the first, hake not been able to find in what he has said to your Lordships just now, anything different from what he said during our earlier consideration of this matter, apart from his critical comments upon the arguments I advanced during that stage. I fear that I have no new arguments to offer, so I will reiterate with a few embellishments those which I advanced before.
This Bill provides for close co-ordination between both LRT and British Rail. One purpose of requiring this close co-operation is to improve-just the kind of things that form the subject matter of both amendments—such things as common ticketing facilities and the avoidance of costly duplication of services. It is this sort of issue which my right honourable friend the Secretary' of State has in mind as among some of the first matters to be discussed through the liaison arrangements which he himself is to oversee.
Nevertheless, as I said when we discussed these matters before, we do not feel able to accept the amendments. We have serious doubts about the drafting. If I said that it is difficult to frame in legislation some of the concepts mentioned in the amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would say—I think he did say—that it cannot be beyond the imagination of the parliamentary draftsmen. But for example what does "integrated level of fares" mean? It does not seem to make perfect or readily
822
understandable sense. In any case, do we really want that? Surely, "common ticketing facilities" is easier to understand and appreciate; and it is this itself which implies the need for co-ordination of fares structure. It does not necessarily imply the need for an integrated level of fares. Again, the phrase "co-ordinated route planning" offers similar difficulties and problems. I think that this would lead to argument about the precise meaning, as I said on an earlier occasion.
I made the further point in Committee that the more we try to mention specific matters in Clause 7, or indeed anywhere, the more uncertain it becomes whether the matters which are not mentioned are still relevant for inclusion. This is a constant difficulty. It is for this reason that I do not believe it would be helpful to add to the matters that we have already referred to in the clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was kind enough to comment—perhaps a little in advance of our consideration of Amendment No. l7, which I shall move quite shortly—that we have made that concession. We have, I believe, met the undertaking that we gave. As regards the second amendment in this small group, I thought that, when we discussed it before, I had made it fairly clear that we had some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment. We agreed, for example, that in formulating their policies and their longer term plans London Regional Transport should be aware of the plans of the local authorities concerned. That is why this clause requires consultation with local authorities.
It was also agreed in another place that London Regional Transport should have regard to the development plans of the local authorities, and the Bill has been amended to take this into account. We further provide in Clause 43 for LRT to consult with local authorities over changes in bus services. As I said before, if we burden the Clause 7 statement with a good deal of detail, it will not be helpful. The Clause 7 statement is essentially a broad statement of strategy and policy objectives. It is not a detailed account of all LRT's actions over the period in question. I invite your Lordships to recall that we have spent a long time discussing those clauses which deal with planning. The more detailed matters of which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke this evening will be in the annual business plan under Clause 29 of the Bill. This provides for an annual progress report on all LRT's business and on the extent to which they are on course for their longer-term strategy.
Finally, there is a more specific objection on our part to the terms of these amendments, particularly in so far as they refer to arrangements to integrate LRT's services with the policies of local authorities. We have already discussed the general question of integration earlier this afternoon and I explained then some of our reservations. But in this case Amendment No. 16 refers to the town planning, traffic and parking policies of the local authorities. It will be for the Secretary of State to ensure that a co-ordinated transport policy will be developed for Greater London, in which the boroughs and the transport operators will be free to carry out their activities within clearly established guidelines.
I do not believe that it would be right to give London Regional Transport that role. They will have to take

823
account, as necessary, of the individual plans of the local authorities. But, as I have said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will lay down the strategic guidelines to ensure that roads, traffic management and public transport in London are developed within a common framework. I have added slightly to what I said at the earlier stage. That is the explanation of why we feel, first, that these amendments are unnecessary and, secondly, that they will do nothing to advance the objectives of London Regional Transport. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw both amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lord, I am sorry that the Minister takes that general view on these amendments, but I shall not argue the point. I could explain exactly what is meant by "integrated level and structure of fares". Such a simple explanation could easily be put into the Bill. The only comment I would make, before begging leave to withdraw, is that when I listened to the Minister it occurred to me that the Secretary of State will be a very busy man. He will take the place of all the authorities, he will take over all the consideration given by the Greater London Council committees, and he will be in the hands of the department, and of the Treasury, as to what he is to do. I am sorry that the Minister takes that view, because these are commonsense proposals. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
6.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 7, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) Any statement prepared under this section shall deal with the financial prospects of London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives determined for them by the Secretary of State under section 16 of this Act which, at the time when that statement is prepared. apply in relation to that period or any part of it.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be fairly brief here, because we have mentioned this amendment earlier. It is our response to the amendment which the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, moved at Committee stage. I said at that time that we had no objection to the spirit of his amendment and we agreed that the Clause 7 statement should contain some financial information. Indeed, we would think it strange if it did not do so.
This amendment requires London Regional Transport's statement to deal with the financial prospects of LRT and any of their subsidiaries for the period to which the statement relates, having regard to any financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. It is true that the wording of our amendment differs somewhat from the noble Lord's earlier amendment. We refer to London Regional Transport's financial prospects, rather than their financial position, and I suggest that our amendment is more in keeping with the nature of the Clause 7 statement which is, as I have just said, intended as a strategy document. LRT's financial position will of course be set out each year in
824
their annual report and statement of accounts. I do not think there is any difference of substance between us and I hope that the noble Lord will find that this amendment fully meets his points. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, does the noble Lord rise?
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I refrained from rising because, having jumped the gun. I had already thanked the Minister for this amendment. But I readily do so again and I think that this is a very helpful amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) the National Bus Company and its appropriate subsidiaries;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage I moved a number of amendments specifically to incorporate into the Bill the National Bus Company. At this stage I have not repeated all those amendments but have tried to focus on what I believe to be the most important aspects of the relationship between the National Bus Company and London Regional Transport.
The reason why I withdrew the amendments is that at that time we had not gone into the long argument about integration and planning. During the Committee stage (at col. 1175 of Hansard) the noble Lord, Lord Plummer, was good enough to refer to the difficulties he had encountered throughout his long experience of this matter, with, as he said, Green Line buses criss-crossing London, and lacking coordination with the remainder of the transportation system. The noble Lord was good enough to suggest that this matter ought to be referred to specifically in the Bill.
As I have already said, I have restricted myself to mentioning the National Bus Company only in relation to Clause 7, which refers to the duty of London Regional Transport to prepare statements of the policies they intend to pursue and the actions they propose to take in carrying out those policies. Subsection (3) states:
"In preparing any statement under this section London Regional Transport shall consult with—(a) the railways board; (b) the local authorities concerned; (c) the Passengers' Committee; and (d) such other persons (if any) as London Regional Transport may think fit".
It seems to me that the National Bus Company, in particular the London Country services of that company, do not come under just any other category. They are a very substantial and specific part of the total transport system of Greater London and the hinterland of Greater London. There should be integration with London Transport (I shall withdraw the word "integration" because I see a frown on the noble Lord the Minister's face and instead will say "co-ordinated") and proper consultation between these two large organizations. The Minister referred at the Committee stage to the size of the NBC undertaking, to the very large number of bus miles that it undertakes and to the fact that it carries a very large number of passengers—not so many, by a factor of five

825
or so, compared with London Transport but nevertheless a very substantial slice of the total passenger movements in the south-east of England and across the borders of the Greater London area. I believe it to be important that the National Bus Company should be mentioned in this context. There should be a definite obligation for the NBC to be consulted before these plans are drawn up, otherwise, as sure as night follows day, there will be a mismatch.
Now that I have restricted myself to this specific point, I hope the Minister will be able to give an undertaking. I suggested at the Committee stage that the National Bus Company would be somewhat shaken by some of the things which were said then. It is my impression, from discussions that I have had with the NBC, that they were somewhat shaken—"alarmed" is perhaps too strong a word— by the way in which these amendments were dealt with at the Committee stage. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we discussed at the Committee stage a very large group of amendments relating to the National Bus Company. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his opening remarks on this point. I appreciate that he feels fairly strongly about the matter—hence this amendment. I shall try again to reassure the noble Lord that the omission of a specific reference to the National Bus Company from the Bill implied no adverse comment on the company or their operations or, indeed, their management. The noble Lord knows better than anybody else in your Lordships' House that I, too, know the chief executive and the chairman. The noble Lord has, I feel, slightly exaggerated the feelings of the management of the NBC about this matter. Our view is that the NBC should not be singled out for special reference from among other operators who may be either providing services on LRT's behalf, under agreement, or independently of LRT under road service licences.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said in Committee, that the NBC is a public operator for which the Secretary of State has responsibility. Nevertheless, we believe that it is right that the NBC should compete on equal terms with other private operators for services in the Greater London area, whether or not these are under LRT's control. We cannot accept that this arrangement would provide the mismatch which the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, seems to feel would follow. In practice, LRT will have as many powers under the Bill to enter into agreements with the NBC, and specifically with the London Country subsidiary, as London Transport have at present. I have no doubt in my mind that they will use these powers to the full. I have no doubt in my mind, either, that the NBC will co-operate over providing services for LRT.
Turning specifically to the amendment, I must say that, given the remarks I have just made about our general approach in the Bill, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to add the NBC or their subsidiaries to the list of bodies which LRT are required to consult, particularly over their strategy statements. They really do not come into the same kind of category as local authorities, or the passengers' committee, or British Rail. I am sure that LRT will be
826
in close contact with them, in so far as they have operating agreements with each other.
Clause 7 provides for LRT to consult other people, as appropriate. It must be virtually certain that in practice the NBC will be consulted. But we do not believe that a statutory requirement for the NBC to be consulted would sit at all happily with the general principles which I have outlined. I do not think I can add anything further in terms of setting out the general and specific objections to this amendment, which I invite the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, to withdraw.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, the Minister said he felt sure that the London Transport Executive and all those involved would be in full agreement with and would have full cognisance of what the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, had said and what the amendment calls for. Since that is the case, one would have hoped that the Government would incorporate it in the Bill. That would have been the sensible course to take. Clause 7 is vital, since it relates to the planning of passenger transport services for Greater London. One sees immediately the need to consult British Rail. British Rail trains pour into the great London railway terminals. However, those of us who have lived in London for the majority of our lives know that there are other great termini. The bus termini are just as important. Therefore it seems to me to be right and proper that, as the Bill states, London Regional Transport should consult the Railways Board. Of course, it should consult also with local authorities and with the passengers' committee, and with such other persons as London Regional Transport may think fit.
I believe that it was in that particular respect that the noble Lord the Minister endorsed everything that the amendment said and expressed the hope that, because of the good sense of the amendment, London Regional Transport will have such consultations. This is surely not a massively destructive amendment. It ought to be accepted by the Minister on the same grounds and for the same sensible reasons as those which the Government have incorporated in the Bill, in saying that London Regional Transport should consult with British Rail. That would make it a neat, good and tidy job. I ask the Government most sincerely to include the amendment in this clause.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I support fully what my noble friend Lord Tordoff has said, but I should like to add one suggestion. The new organisation has to discuss matters with various bodies, including British Rail. Does not the Minister feel that there is a chance that LRT will discount the importance of the National Bus Company because the Government have persistently refused to include them? I feel also that the general public may well say, "The National Bus Company and all its subsidiaries cannot be very much, because the Government have not included them in the Bill".
Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I say from these Benches that we support the amendment as being common sense. Although this is Report stage, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does he see no difference between the position of a nationalised

827
industry, which is what LRT will be, and a nationalised public undertaking such as the National Bus Company? Surely we ought to look at that point. The Secretary of State is responsible for both. Are the Government not ignoring completely the position of the network of the National Bus Company? Surely it is common sense that they must be consulted. I hope that the Minister will see the logic of this.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 73.

DIVISION NO. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kaldor, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bernstein, L.

Meston, L.

Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Brockway, L.

Molloy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L

Mulley, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos. L.

Nicol, B.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Denington, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Ennals, L.

Stallard, L.

Ewart-Biggs. B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Falkland, V.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Stone, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Jacques, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Wigoder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Abinger, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Avon, E.

Halsbury, E.

Bauer, L.

Hanson, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hayter, L.

Bellwin, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Holderness, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hood, V.

Birdwood, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Broadhridge, L.

Kitchener, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Lawrence, L.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Craigavon, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davidson, V.

Mersey, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Morris, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

828

Pender, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Teviot, L.

Renton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rodney, L.

Trenchard, V.

Romney, E.

Trumpington, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Sandford, L.

Vickers, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wards of Willey, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Westbury, L.

Suffield, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.19 p.m.
[Amendment No. 18A not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it has been agreed through the usual channels that we should discontinue consideration of this Bill now. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned, and that we should not return to this Bill until ten minutes past eight. I beg to move.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Somerset House Bill [H.L.]
7.20 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bellwin, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Skelmersdale
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to (Bill 90) as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 1, page 1, line 15, leave out ("desirability of preserving") and insert ("preservation or).
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment. Since the Somerset House Bill was last considered by this House one amendment has been made in another place. I therefore seek your Lordships' approval to the Bill as amended. Rather than read out the amendment, I hope it will be helpful if I rephrase Clause 1(3) with the amendment included. It reads:
"In determining whether, and on what terms. to lease any part of Somerset House the Secretary of State shall have regard to the architectural importance of the building and to the preservation of public access to its courtyard";
rather than the words on the face of the Bill, which refer to,
"the desirability of preserving public access to its courtyard.".
The one amendment proposed to the Bill by another place concerns, as will now be obvious, public access to the courtyard. Your Lordships may recall that Clause 1(3) as originally drafted required the Secretary of State to have regard to the desirability of preserving public access to the courtyard. The word "desirability" was originally included in the Bill to show that although the Government wish to preserve public access to the courtyard, there could well be circumstances in which it would not be practicable to

829
maintain such access; for example, major stuctural work might be needed on one or more of the wings of the building and to the surface of the courtyard itself. In such cases the Secretary of State has a duty to protect the public from danger, and it might therefore be necessary to restrict access or prevent it altogether for a period. The amendment does not endanger that point of principle.
A number of most useful points have been raised during the various debates on this Bill, both here and in another place. I believe it offers us the opportunity to enhance the protection of our national heritage in the widest sense. I therefore commend the Bill, as amended, to the House and beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Lord Skeltnersdale.)
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I do not intend to oppose the amendment, but it is more cosmetic than substantial. Given the choice I would have preferred the words "desirability of preserving" public access. On my reading of it, "desirability" is more positive and would also allow for the hazards which the Minister has pointed out. Nobody would think, in those circumstances, that access had to be given. This has been precedented in other places and other Acts.
However, it is not worth arguing about. I thank the Minister for his help and co-operation throughout the somewhat lengthy proceedings we have had on the Bill in this House. The promises that he made, which are not on the face of the Bill, have been recorded in Hansard. I hope that in the future a note will be taken of them.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the Commons amendment seems to be baffling, if nothing else, because the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, seems to think that it slightly weakens the situation and I think that, if anything, it slightly strengthens the situation. I like it my way. I think we are all reasonably contented. I should have thought that, on the whole, it is a good amendment, and the Bill certainly is a very good Bill. We welcome it.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I certainly support the Motion moved by the noble Lord the Minister, but he will forgive me for saying that I have never heard such a spurious explanation in justification of an amendment. I do not recall hearing at any time during the various stages of this Bill about access to the quadrangle at Somerset House being temporarily interfered with by works and reconstruction.
We had considerable debate about this question of the courtyard at Somerset Houe, especially in relation to the war memorial in it. Various amendments were attempted to fortify the claim to access to the courtyard, and especially to the war memorial. I suspected that the reason for the word "desirability" was to avoid a commitment on the part of the Government to keep it for access by the public. I have not had an opportunity of refreshing my mind, but it is pretty clear on this matter. I was worried because I thought that the Government had at the back of their minds the possibility that they might want to erect
830
something different altogether on the site of Somerset House, especially on the Strand side of the building, which might interfere with access to the courtyard. After all, it is a very valuable site. Did I not say that, with a Government who are privatising anything they can lay their hands on, Somerset House was in peril, and that I wished that the Bill should make the safety of Somerset House much more certain?
Of course I support this amendment, because the words inserted in the Bill in another place are stronger than the words in the Bill as it left this House. Therefore, after all the debates we had on this in this House—and they were not inconsiderable having regard to the size, length and in some respects the importance of the Bill—we come back to where we were. When will Ministers learn to have minds of their own and not follow the guidance given on these matters by the staff behind them who want the maximum elbow room for future Ministers to do anything they want on matters which are the subject of legislation? Flexibility is the keynote of all the advice that is given to Ministers on legislation. I have had it; I have been there. It requires firm determination on the part of Ministers to insist on what they want. If this aim of preserving the access to the courtyard at Somerset House was not in the Government's mind, it should have been. They have no ideas, no convictions, and certainly are anxious to avoid any commitment on this matter altogether. I am sorry that, after so much scolding that I had to indulge in during the night, I have to repeat it again this afternoon.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this short debate exactly proves the difficulty. We have one idea on the wording from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, another from the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and yet a third from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who does not trust either them or me. I thought this might happen, and I took the trouble to take legal advice on this point. I am advised by lawyers that in law the words make absolutely no difference as amended now from when they were originally on the face of the Bill and as discussed by your Lordships' House. However, the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, feels that it is stronger and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, feels that it is more in keeping with his way of thinking means to me that the public relations value (if one may be allowed to have a public relations value on the face of an Act of Parliament) has made this operation well worth while.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Juries (Disqualification) Bill
7.29 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee,—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AYLESTONE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Disqualification for jury service of persons who have served or had imposed on them certain sentences]:
Lard Mishcon Lard Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, leave out from ("detention") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will remember that this Bill has as a background the existing position where, if someone is sentenced to a term of imprisonment—and I am talking in broad terms—for five years or more, he is disqualified from jury service for life: and if he be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of between three months and five years, he is disqualified for a period of 10 years. Very sensibly, your Lordships may feel—and that was the general view on Second Reading—that has been regarded, on the one hand, as being too severe, and therefore there are amendments down with regard to life disqualification: and, on the other hand, it has been thought that categories of those who have offended against the criminal law should be included within the disqualification not at present included in our law.
The first respectful submission that I make to the Committee is this—and I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and would have been very ably supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones: indeed, I would be in the position of supporting him. While some of the categories can be defended, there are two categories—and this amendment deals with one of them—where it is wrong to have any period of disqualification, save in the second one which I shall be dealing with in a moment and that should be merely for a certain period.
We are dealing now with the category of those who have against them community service orders. Whereas it may be said academically—and I assure the Committee that this is academic—that community service orders are made by our courts only as an alternative to a term of imprisonment (in other words, were the community service order not available as a penalty, there would be a term of imprisonment), that is not the practical situation. The only statistics that I have been able to get hold of—and it may very well be that the noble and learned Lord can give the Committee later or amended statistics—are the Home Office probation statistics for the year 1981. Those statistics show that 10 per cent. of community service orders were made against those who had not had any previous conviction whatsoever. Your Lordships will realise from that statement and that percentage that community service is really used as an alternative to a non-custodial sentence, because one cannot envisage that in regard to 10 per cent. of first offenders there would have been a custodial sentence.
Indeed, examples of community service orders being made include possession of cannabis. There is certainly one case of a pensioner who was guilty of shoplifting goods not worth more than £20. It seems wrong in those circumstances that there should be any disqualification from jury service made against somebody who merely has a community service order from a court.
I am going to take in advance, if I may—and I know he will forgive me for it, and it will save some time—an
832
argument a ced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at Second Reading. His arguments are always treated with the respect that they undoubtedly deserve. With that characteristic smile, which indeed was accompanied, as it normally is, by something quite vocal in regard to his merriment, he talked in terms of the people who would be relieved if they did not have to serve on juries. Therefore, to pretend that people would mind being subjected to disqualification from jury service was somewhat risible. I venture to suggest—and as he knows, I always do this with respect—that that ought not to be a line of argument which he should pursue with the Committee on this or on the next amendment.
One finds terribly often that we have rights, and we are not terribly proud of them, and nor do we value them, until somebody tries to take a right away from us. Then we realise that we are a special sort of citizen, and either we are aggrieved because it has been taken away unjustly, or we feel that the penalty that has been imposed in withdrawing that right, however much we may not have valued it at the time we had it, puts us into a wrong category. I think that that is the position in regard to community service orders. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I take considerable umbrage at the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in which he indicated that I might be able to offer some support to his argument, whereas the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, had he been here, would have been able to offer very able support!
I support this amendment, although I say at once that I think that this amendment, unlike the other one we are about to come to, raises an issue which is really rather marginal. I imagine that your Lordships will agree without difficulty that in general terms people who have been sent to prison ought not to serve on juries, partly because they are unlikely to approach cases with a sufficient degree of fairness and partly because they are rather more susceptible, perhaps, to jury nobbling than their colleagues who have not been in previous troubles. I can of course see the force of the argument that, as new forms of punishment have developed which are regarded as alternatives to imprisonment, so the provisions for disqualification now in force should be amended to cover those new forms of penalty. Therefore, I would agree that we are right to include in this Bill—which I very much welcome in general terms—suspended sentences.
The real issue that arises on this amendment is whether community service orders are in practice imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. If that is the fact, I think that it is logical to include them in this Bill. I accept that it ought to be the practice. I accept—and it has been made fairly clear in various ways—that community service orders should only be imposed as an alternative to imprisonment. Those of us who have experience of the courts know that this is not what happens. In fact, community service orders have developed in such a way that they are regarded by the tribunal, certainly in most cases, as being a very much less severe form of penalty than the deprivation of liberty, particularly when, as often happens, a comparatively small number of hours of community service is ordered. It is therefore not regarded by the

833
courts as being an alternative to imprisonment. It is not regarded as being a severe sentence. It is regarded as being a sort of half-way house between a custodial sentence and a fine or conditional or absolute discharge. It is not appropriate in those circumstances to treat it as an alternative to imprisonment and therefore to bring it into the Bill.
I believe that the consideration on this amendment is marginal. The general attitude that we should take towards the Bill is that, where there are marginal areas, people should not be included, should not be disqualified and should be left free to serve on juries. I therefore support the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Renton: This amendment would have the result that a person subject to a community service order would be required to serve on a jury if summoned to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his usual kindness, ability and, I dare even say, charm, has tried to persuade your Lordships that this amendment should be accepted. I fear that I must put forward a contrary view to the Committee.
There are, I think, two main arguments against the amendment. I shall deal with those and then come back to what has been said by the two noble Lords. First, in answer to both noble Lords, I should point out that the advice that I have received from the Home Office is that there is no demand on the part of people who have been previously sentenced to community service orders or in any other way to be given the right to be summoned to sit on juries. Indeed, the evidence, so far as it is obtainable, is to the contrary.
There are two main arguments; first, there is the argument of principle. As conceded by both noble Lords, a community service order is an alternative to prison. It is not something that is awarded merely for trivial offences, but can be awarded for fairly serious offences. That being so, it would not be right or sensible, in my view, for people who have committed those offences to sit on juries while doing the tough work involved in a community service order, or, indeed, for a good many years thereafter. I say that because—and I hope that I may be allowed to repeat the argument that I put forward on Second Reading—they would not be likely to be impartial or objective in their decisions as jurors. Indeed, having them as jurors could bring our system of justice into disrepute just at a time when we should be strengthening it.
Then there is a practical argument which I concede applies only while the community service order is running. It is this. Jury service, especially for those living in rural places, nearly always means travelling some miles each way each day. A community service order will also often involve a good deal of travelling. I invite your Lordships to consider the hypothetical case of a young man who has been out of work but who has managed to find a job, perhaps involving night shift work. He has committed an offence before or after finding the job, and he comes before the court. The court might have sent him to prison, we may assume. But they want him to keep his job, and therefore they make a community service order requiring him to attend, where directed, for work for some hours a week for some weeks. Let us assume that he can just about fit that in with his night shift work,
834
although perhaps with difficulty. Perhaps I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because I am anxious to convince him.
Lord Mishcon: I immediately rise only so that the noble Lord shall never think me discourteous. My noble friend was merely asking me to expatiate on something that the noble Lord had said. I therefore did so in order to help him. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will forgive me if he thought me discourteous.
Lord Renton: Most certainly. I am grateful for that apology. We assume that this young man in that position suddenly gets summoned to serve on a jury in a different town from that where he lives and a different place from that where he is doing the community service order. The mind boggles at the chaotic position in which he would find himself. It is no answer to say that he could apply to the court to be exempt from jury service. I say that he should not be placed in that difficult position.
So much for the practical difficulty, which I concede arises only during the currency of the CSO. But then there are the several problems to which the speeches we have heard draw attention. It would be right, I think, for me to quote some more recent Home Office statistics, although with a slightly different purpose from those that I mentioned earlier. Dated 6th October 1983, a Home Office statistical bulletin was headed "Reconvictions of those given community service orders". This is particularly relevant to the position that arises when the orders have been completed. We find that of those given community service orders in January and February 1979, about half were found to have committed an indictable offence within two years of starting the community service orders. It is estimated that a further 8 per cent. were reconvicted in the third year, making an overall reconviction rate within three years of nearly 60 per cent. Surely it does not need to be argued—it must be common sense—that we would be taking a risk with the system if we said that those who have been sentenced to community service orders should be free to serve on juries as soon as the community service orders are finished or, indeed, as the amendment would mean, during their currency.
I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider that it would be an upsetting alteration of the Bill if this amendment was accepted. The only other point that I have to mention is one in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who suggested that this really is something in the nature of a soft option for less serious offences—a halfway house between prison and perhaps probation. To those noble Lords who may hold that view, I would just give this reminder—that the prisons have been overcrowded for years, that Parliament introduced community service orders as a way of relieving that overcrowding, that magistrates have had it brought to their notice that the prisons are overcrowded, that there are alternative ways of dealing with offenders, and that therefore for the most part community service orders are not the soft option. Generally they are awarded for pretty serious offences. In those circumstances I hope that your Lordships will not accept the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose this amendment, and by leave of the Committee I should like to make a brief intervention in the debate. Surely it is of consequence to the due administration of justice that persons who have committed crimes of sufficient gravity not to warrant a fine or a discharge should not man juries within 10 years of the commission of such offences. The quality of disposal as between youth custody, as it is now, or borstal, as it was, detention, suspended sentence and the community service order, as such affords no guide to the gravity of the offence but is a guide to the mitigating circumstances such as age, employment considerations and so forth, even medical and psychological considerations—a point made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
It is the commission of the criminal offence, not the method of disposal, other than the fine or absolute or conditional discharge disposal, which is relevant to the spirit of disqualification—a point not only well made by my noble friend Lord Renton but wholly supported by the Home Office statistics which he quoted.
Lord Mishcon: I look round this Chamber and I find that in number we are little more than one jury. In those circumstances, it seems to me wrong, if I may be allowed to say so, that a matter of this importance should be decided at this moment. It is for that reason that I propose to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the amendment and to raise this matter again, when I hope that it will be discussed rather more fully, although I appreciate the attention which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, paid to the arguments that were advanced.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out from ("who") to ("has").
The noble Lord said: I need not advance to the Committee—and the Committee will be relieved to know it—all the preliminary remarks and submissions that I made when I was addressing it on the last amendment. We are dealing now with the question of probation and those put upon probation, which under the provisions of the Bill as it stands would mean a disqualification for a period of five years from the date of the probation order.
This amendment (I hope your Lordships will think sensibly) acknowledges the fact that it would be difficult to have serving upon a jury somebody who was actually under probation. In the way in which we have presented this amendment we deal with the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in regard to the person serving a community service order and the difficulties that might apply in that connection during the period of service. I submit that it would be quite wrong to prevent from serving on a jury for five years somebody who was subjected to a probation order.
Again, I cannot present the Committee with very up-to-date statistics, but I have done my best. The best that I have been able to procure are the Home Office probation statistics for 1981. From these I culled the fact that 40 per cent. of probation orders are made in regard to those between the ages of 17 and 20 and 50
836
per cent. in respect of those under the age of 29. So we are dealing with young people who may have committed one offence, for which it was thought suitable that they should be put on probation.
Those of us who are interested in the young, especially the young delinquent, know of a great many examples of where a youngster has been pulled up on commission of the first criminal offence that he has committed and has never come before the courts again. Again, I say that it would be so wrong to put—I almost said the category of second-class citizen upon a young person of that kind by making a disqualification subsequent to the probation period.
I venture to say—I am tempted to do so because of the noble and learned Lord's reaction to my last remark—that again it is not a question—the noble Lord. Lord Renton, mentioned this point in his own remarks of listening, if one likes, to somebody who laughingly regards jury service or even would wish normally to be exempt from it. I repeat to your Lordships with great respect that there is a great deal of difference, a great weight of difference, between somebody who has a right and values it little, it may be, until that person is put in the special category of not being entitled to exercise that right at all. I beg to move.
Lord Wigoder: I doubt if it is helpful to talk about the rights of people to serve on juries, because, frankly, 90 per cent. of the community would disclaim the opportunity if they had the chance of doing so. What it is I think is a duty, and this is relevant to this amendment for this reason. It is an arduous duty. It is time-consuming. Particularly with women jurors, it may impose a considerable strain on their family life, on the way they look after their children. Very often it gives rise to real financial hardship.
Therefore, recognising that it is an arduous duty, surely it is sensible to try to arrange it that members of the community have to serve on juries as infrequently as possible. That means that the pool of potential jurors must be as large as possible. One of my concerns about this amendment is that, on what seems to me to be a wholly arbitrary basis, one is removing many thousands of people from service in that potential pool of jurors.
Probation has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria we talked about on the preceding amendment. I have no doubt we are all agreed that where people have committed serious offences or where they have long criminal records there is a strong case to be made, one way or another, for excluding them from jury service. We do not need to go into that argument. But probation is not a way of judging whether or not a person comes into that category. Sometimes he does. We are all familiar with the old lag's chance—the man with a vast array of criminal convictions for very serious offences and with whom a merciful court takes a risk and puts him on probation. I can well see it being said that perhaps it is not sensible that that sort of person should serve on a jury.
Equally, very frequently people are put on probation for the most trivial of offences which no one in their right mind would say ought automatically to exclude them from jury service. The problem with this Bill is that by going by the sentence that is passed by

837
the court it makes it a little difficult to see whether the offender necessarily comes within the category of people who ought to be excluded from jury service.
I suppose that many of the noble Lords who are present at the moment have experience in a legal capacity of the courts and of the making of probation orders. In general terms I ask your Lordships to consider why probation orders are made. They are made (are they not?) very, very frequently—one cannot say invariably, because one must not seek to generalise—totally irrespective of the offence that has been committed and its gravity or triviality. They are made totally irrespective of whether the defendant happens to be a person with a long criminal record or a person of good character. They are made because of a recommendation in a social inquiry report that, for one reason or another, help is required by a particular defendant. It may be his domestic circumstances; it may he his housing difficulties; it may be a whole series of problems such as those which detemine a court to make a probation order rather than to grant an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge, or a £5 fine. Nobody has suggested that people who have had those type of penalities imposed upon them should be disqualified from jury service.
Because the making of a probation order does not in itself reflect in any way upon the gravity of the offence or the criminal record of the offender, because it reflects upon something quite outside what we are considering in this Bill—and that is, an offender's domestic or social circumstances—it seems to me that it is totally inappropriate to include this form of disqualification in the Bill. It is quite unnecessary to narrow the pool—if that is the right expression—of potential jurors in this way.
I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, may perhaps in due course take the same view about how to proceed with this amendment as he did on the previous one. However, I hope that before the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might reflect upon the position and might consider whether including the recipients of probation orders in this Bill is not going to bring the whole concept of the Bill into disrepute.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I oppose the amendment. Surely a crime of sufficient minimal gravity which warrants probation, in all the circumstances should exclude people from jury service for five years? I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there is a problem with the young on the commission of the trivial offence. But probation is also awarded for some very, very serious offences. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that this is no way in which to judge. That is certainly true. Disposal affords no yardstick to gravity. This however is a reasonable—and indeed requisite—safeguard. For those reasons, I support the Bill in its present form.
Lord Renton: First, let me say that it has been extremely helpful to have had this amendment moved. The effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 combined is that a person placed on probation could be summoned for jury service as soon as the probation order had been served or discharged, as sometimes happens. But
838
I must say, having listened very carefully to the arguments that are being used by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this change in the Bill.
I should point out that, not only has the Bill been through another place with some discussion, but a vast amount of thought and expertise has gone into its preparation. Those of us responsible for the Bill, including Home Office Ministers, feel—as with other items in the Bill—that those people who have been on probation cannot be relied upon to make good, unbiased jurors as soon as probation ends. There needs to be an interval of some years, as the Bill envisages, in order to see whether the offender has truly reformed. Alas! too often offenders have not truly reformed after being put on probation.
I do not have precise or recent figures for "the success rate", but I have clearly in my mind and I am advised that over a number of years there has been only a 40 per cent.-plus success rate. In other words, nearly 60 per cent. of those on probation have committed other offences within a few years.
1 should point out—especially in view of what has been said by both noble Lords—that we are in some difficulty because we have to legislate in fairly general terms in a matter of this kind although we are dealing with circumstances which vary greatly, as has been pointed out so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The noble Lord pointed, on the one hand, to the case where the court gives an opportunity to an old lag with a string of convictions. On the other hand, as both noble Lords have pointed out, the court may think that the right thing to do with a young first offender is to place him on probation perhaps for a serious offence or perhaps for a less serious offence. In any event, he is placed on probation.
I should also point out that a very high proportion of probation orders are made for serious offences, and in this connection I can give some fairly recent and accurate statistics. For example, in 1982 17 per cent. of probation orders were for burglaries—breaking into people's homes at night—and 58 per cent. (in addition to the burglaries) were for theft or fraudulent handling. In all those cases guilt rested upon dishonest intent, and that is a bad quality in a juror.
Surely we in Parliament have a duty to strengthen the administration of justice. In my view this amendment would weaken it. But the Bill is surely not stringent on this point. We do not say that being placed on probation should disqualify anyone from jury service for 10 years but only for five years, of which two years will have been taken up with the serving of the probation order. So in effect this could be said to be a moderate provision and I think that it would cause some dismay among the informed public if we were to alter it.
So, while having listened with great concern and sympathetically to what has been said, I hope that the noble Lords who have put forward the amendment will feel that their case has been answered.
Lord Wigoder: I should like briefly to make two observations. First, I should have indicated that the old lag case where a person is put on probation will

839
almost certainly be caught by the other provisions in the Bill or in the present Act and will therefore be disqualified in any event. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, attempted to raise the question of the reconviction rate for people put on probation. I wonder whether that is really any more relevant to our considerations than the reconviction rate of people who are fined, which is no doubt just as high, but nobody is suggesting that a person who has been fined should be disqualified from jury service. Therefore, the reconviction rate in itself is not an argument (is it?) unless you are dealing with a person who it can be shown has committed a serious offence.
Lord Renton: Superficially, I think that the noble Lord has put his finger on quite an interesting point. It is true that the Bill does not deal with those who have been fined, although it might well have done so; but the logic of what the noble Lord is saying is that at the Report stage I should consider moving an amendment to include those who have been fined! I am sure that that is the last thing the noble Lord would wish me to do.
Lord Mishcon: May I put something right, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for his very able support on this amendment, as indeed on the last one? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would not wish to attach too much seriousness to the last observation that he made. It is a relevant consideration not to include those who have had fines administered by the court against them. He would be in a grave difficulty to fix the amount of the fine that would be caught.
But, really, it is totally unreasonable to talk in these terms about the average youngster who is put on probation, and to find that exempted from this disqualification provision are those who might have fines of £100,000 awarded against them. I think I am right in saying—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that if the sentence imposed was £100,000, or in the alternative in the event of non-payment imprisonment for six months or 12 months, that would not amount to a sentence if the fine were paid. That obviously registers for everybody a very serious offence indeed. In many cases of fraud, involving the very persons that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said he would not want to have on a jury, substantial fines are imposed and not a custodial sentence.
I am going to follow the same procedure that I thought I ought to adopt in regard to the last amendment. Having regard, obviously, to the quantity of your Lordships' attendance but not the quality, I think it proper for me to ask leave to withdraw the amendment and to bring the matter up at a later stage of this Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to move that the Report be now received.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received,— (Lord Renton.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would permit me to raise a point of order and ask for his assistance. What he has just asked the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to move would not exclude the Report stage of this Bill, would it?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it does, actually.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, did not intend to have that effect, because one would not take that step in the case of a Bill in which there was anything controversial still to be debated.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I certainly did not intend it to have that effect. I was bowing, as I always do, to the superior wisdom of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I was reading my brief. My brief says that in these circumstances Lord Renton may move that the Report be received, after which I should put that Question. Perhaps the noble Lord will not move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

London Regional Transport Bill
8.15 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 13 [Contribution from London ratepayers to expenditure on grants under section 12]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 12, line 10, leave out ("two-thirds") and insert ("55 per cent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that to assist the House it is considered desirable to take Amendments 19 and 20 in the same debate.
Amendment No. 20: Page 12. line 21, after ("such") insert ("lower").
Both these amendments deal with the maximum levy of two-thirds on the local authorities towards the cost of LRT. A similar amendment to reduce the two-thirds to 55 per cent, was put forward at the Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was unable to accept that amendment and he gave some figures to explain why he could not do so. I had avoided giving figures. I think I said there were few people in the Chamber who would understand what I was talking about. That makes it even more difficult to deal with it at this stage.
Local authorities are having all authority for the policy of the LRT taken away from them. The view

841
could be held that far from paying two-thirds it is open to question whether they should pay anything at all. I know it is argued that that would put them in a different situation from other parts of the country, but of course that does not apply because other parts of the country have not had transport taken away from local authority control.
It is worth setting out the present position. The GLC meets the operating deficit by revenue grants. The Government pay transport supplementary grant on the revenue support accepted in the annual transport policy and programme, and the net cost, after deducting TSG, forms part of a council's net revenue expenditure for that year. London Transport's capital investment is almost wholly funded by capital grants from the Greater London Council. The Government again pay TSG based on the amount accepted in the TPP, and the net cost is met from the council's capital fund. The revenue costs of capital are met through debt charges on the council's transport programme budget.
Normally the Council would be entitled to rate support in the form of block grant on the net revenue expenditure after the transport supplementary grant and on debt servicing costs of capital grants. But because of penalties the Greater London Council received no block grant in 1983–84 and I understand they will receive none in 1984–85. A few figures are important. The Minister claimed that the two-thirds levy maximum proposed in the Bill will be lower than the proportion currently paid by ratepayers in London. I am advised that for a number of reasons that is incorrect.
First. the Secretary of State used the estimated figure for revenue support in 1983–84, which was £235 million, and not the actual expenditure, which was £183 million. The Minister said that the GLC cannot ignore the £25 million deficit carried over from the previous year. But I must make the point that the figures are being used to justify the actual year's expenditure and revenue support in order to fix on the two-thirds maximum ratepayers' contribution in the Bill.
Also the council currently incurs penalties that would not apply under LRT because the Secretary of State will not penalise himself; that is obvious. If allowance is made for all these factors, then the percentage for total support actually met by ratepayers in 1983–84 was 55 per cent. I am advised that if the GLC had provided revenue support in line with the Government's plans for that year, it would have been only 41 per cent. The Secretary of State refers to the position expected in 1983–84 and it is agreed that this could be a two-thirds contribution. But we ought to take 1983–84 as a base year because 1984–85 is a transitional year and the figures are only estimates. Further, the point I made at the Committee stage is that the TSG for 1984–85 has been reduced from 70 per cent. to 55 per cent. and that resulted in a substantial reduction in TSG for the Greater London Council.
The Government is changing the procedure on capital investment to a self-financing basis, as I understand it. If, say, a new bus is required, the cost will fall on one year with no spread over a period, as at present, on which the GLC pays interest. I am
842
informed that the GLC officers have met department officials on a number of occasions to discuss the matter. It has been difficult for each to convince the other, but the point must be emphasised that the GLC would have to be wrong on every single point to arrive at the figure of two-thirds, and that cannot be accepted.
I would hope that the least the Government can do is to look carefully at 1983–84 as a base, not 1984–85 which is only estimates. They should look at 1983–84, see exactly what took place, and if they cannot accept the suggestion for 55 per cent., they will at least take that as a base year and make their decision accordingly.
On the other amendment, No. 20, we are still dealing with the levy on the rating authorities and the amendment refers to subsection (8). I would remind the House that this empowers the Secretary of State to substitute the maximum of two-thirds contribution to ratepayers with any other maximum contribution, as he thinks fit. I did make the point that this can only be a variation upwards, it cannot be downwards because the Bill provides a maximum of two-thirds. The purpose of subsection (8) can only be to give the Secretary of State power to increase the proportion upwards, if he should so desire—in fact, as the Bill says "as he thinks fit".
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will I am sure not mind my saying that he came to the Dispatch Box on three occasions, but made no reference to the principle of this amendment except in his final words, which are in column 1528:
"I am afraid I have to take a similar line with respect to No. 85 as I do with Amendment No. 84. I do not think it would enhance this Bill at all. We certainly want to keep the option open for my right honourable friend, but as he has made clear in the other place, he hopes very much indeed that he will not have to use it."—
[Official Report, 17/5/84; col. 1528.]
In other words, there is no argument against the principle of the amendment which was trying to ensure that while the Minister has powers he will have power to amend the levy; he should only do it downwards; he should not have any power to limit it upwards.
I believe that if there is any suggestion by the Government that they want to go beyond the two-thirds, bearing in mind that the authorities are having no policy control whatsoever over the LRT, there ought to be new primary legislation for that purpose, and it should not be done by means of an order. I do hope the Minister will see that point, because I know there will be emphasis concerning the affirmative procedure. The order has to be accepted or rejected, and in this House, of course, we never reject an order which has gone through the other House. Therefore, the scrutiny by Parliament is extremely limited, and I hope the Minister will be able to take the view I have advanced on the first one.
At least, if he cannot accept the amendment he should agree to look at the base 1983–84 again to determine the figure which I think you will find will be below two-thirds. On the question of the lower figure, I hope they will accept the amendment here. If the Minister has the power, if the Government have the power and if the Secretary of State will have the power

843
to alter the figure, it should be downwards; it should never have the power to go beyond two-thirds.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, rising, as I do, to the deafening silence from behind me, may I say that, as I explained to your Lordships during our discussion of an identical amendment at Committee stage, the Government's starting point is that the ratepayer contribution is necessary to ensure that London's ratepayers should not be differently treated from those in the rest of the country. Ratepayers elsewhere will continue to subsidise their local transport and there is no good reason why they should not continue to do so in London.
The Government's objective has always been first to establish a system for the ratepayers' contribution which is simple in principle and easy to understand in practice; second, to set the ratepayers' contribution at a level which recognises that recently London's ratepayers have suffered because the spending policies of the GLC have resulted in there being no central Government grant.
We also wished to set a contribution which recognised the national importance of London's transport system. As I explained in our previous debate, the ratepayer contribution in 1983–84 was about 70 per cent. of the total subsidy to London Transport. This year we expect the ratepayer contribution to be even higher. It was on this basis that we set the maximum ratepayer contribution in this clause at the level of two-thirds. The noble Lord's amendment suggests that the figure should be 55 per cent. This is a figure which I believe emanates from the GLC.
We simply do not agree with the basis of the GLC's calculation. As I explained before, the GLC arrived at a figure of 55 per cent. on the basis of a revenue support figure for 1983–84 which the Government do not accept represents the facts. It also overlooked the fact that the proportion of the Government's transport supplementary grant is provided for expenditure by the boroughs and not the GLC. The Government believe that the two-thirds contribution by the ratepayer is reasonable and fair. Furthermore, the Bill prescribed that this is to be the maximum contribution by ratepayers. In fact, we hope this proportion will come down as LRT is able to bring its costs, and hence its subsidy requirements, under control. Undertakings to this effect have been given repeatedly during the passage of this Bill, both here in your Lordships' House and in the other place.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, pointed out, that the Bill does in principle allow this maximum currently set at the two-thirds to be increased, but this could only be done by order, subject to the affirmative resolution in Parliament. I confess that I can see no reason at this particular moment why the Government should want to do this. But circumstances change in ways that we cannot always foresee. It may be, for example, that under some different regime ratepayers in other parts of the country might one day pay a far greater proportion of the costs of their local transport than they do at present. In these circumstances, one might wish to look again at the maximum of two-thirds set in this Bill.
844
I repeat that we cannot envisage such circumstances at the moment, but we should not tie our hands needlessly in this legislation. The more inflexible we are, the more we invite the need for further legislation when circumstances change. I believe that it is better to leave the Bill as it is in this respect, knowing that if ever there were a case for the Government to bring forward proposals to increase the maximum proportion of two-thirds, then it can be done by the will of Parliament.
On the earlier amendment, I have a whole sheaf of figures in front of me which show that what I said earlier about the difficulties of the GLC calculations is the case. But it may be unduly wearying for your Lordships if I read them all out. Nevertheless I hope that I have said enough to persuade the noble Lord that the Government's proposal is the right one and I hope he will see fit not to press his amendments.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the only thing that the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, has done is to convince me that it is not much good to try to pursue the matter further. With all the hordes outside he would not have heard a single figure that I have quoted and, undoubtedly, if he quoted them we would not hear his figures.
Also there is the fact that if the officials of the GLC and the officials of the department cannot convince each other then I have grave doubt whether the Minister and I can convince one another. However, I am hoping that there will be some common sense in both departments to ascertain agreement on figures because it is desirable that there should be an agreement—even though there may be disagreement about the principle—that this is the right basis of assessment. The GLC says "No" and advances figures and the department advances figures which the GLC contradicts and says are based on the expectations of the forthcoming year and not what happened in the previous year.
On the second amendment the Minister said that we must be ready for any eventuality, but is the situation visualised that the Government with the Secretary of State acting, as the Bill says, "as he thinks fit" can levy a figure of 70, 80 or 90 per cent. (he has the authority) without any local authority input at all, without any local authority control? If the Government were to accept representations to the board from nominations made by the authorities, most probably I should not be arguing this because there would be a certain amount of authority. But the Minister says that there should be more flexibility. I only wish the Government were a little more flexible. It is clear that we shall not see eye to eye on this aspect. I can only withdraw the amendment; but the figures I have given are on the record and so is the Minister's reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 21:
("After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Levies outside Greater London.
.—(1) The Secretary of State may in any year make a levy on rating authorities for rating areas outside Greater London in which there are transport services and facilities provided by London Regional Transport for the purpose of recovering a

845
contribution from the ratepayers of those areas towards his estimated expenditure under section 12 of this Act to the extent that such expenditure is intended to benefit those areas.
(2) The provisions of subsections (2), (3), (4), (7), (9) and (10) of section 13 shall apply to this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this proposes a new clause and it is a principle that has not been debated in the Committee stage. Therefore it is entirely new.
The Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall, by order, make a levy on the local authorities up to a contribution of two-thirds as we have already said. The rating authorities as described in the Bill are those in the present administrative area of Greater London. But as noble Lords are only too well aware, London Transport operates services in the Home Counties beyond the boundaries of Greater London. London's Underground services, as well as the bus services, operate outside the area of Greater London. The purpose of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should be empowered to impose a levy on those rating authorities outside Greater London in which London Regional Transport will provide services.
The principle of this cannot possibly be wrong. In proposing the amendment, I appreciate that I may not be popular in my area because I am a ratepayer in the area affected. But I can see the common sense principle of what is advocated in this amendment. I reside in the Epping Forest district of the Essex County Council. There are many London Transport bus services in the area. In addition there is the Central London line which has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. It has been difficult to persuade Essex Councy Council to contribute towards the cost under the present voluntary scheme of the Central London line and it has been threatened with closure a number of times at the point where it reaches the Greater London boundary.
For the current year the district council stepped in and for "once only" decided to make a grant towards the cost of the Central line. It is essential that the services should continue and it must surely be wrong that Greater London ratepayers are expected to subsidise transport services provided for the out-county residents for whom these transport services are absolutely essential. It would be an impossible situation if the Central London line to Epping was closed down, never mind the difficulty between Epping and ongar which is a subject of controversy.
I appreciate that this will be an added justification for the claims made both by my district council and by the Essex County Council. If they are to pay, they ought to have representation or at least be consulted about representation. But that issue was settled by the House: it was rejected. I hope that the Government will see the common sense, the fairness and the justice of what I propose even though as a ratepayer I may be penalised as a result.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I merely want to say that the necessity for this amendment underlines a point that was made by several of us at Second Reading which is that the area being considered is too small. The fact is that London Regional Transport should be part of a metropolitan transport authority which goes outside the present bounds of the Greater London Council. But in the absence of that, and the absence of
846
the Government recognising the fact that Greater London is larger than "Greater London", it seems that this is a matter of equity and I support the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend's arguments are impeccable and his altruism in advocating something from which he would financially suffer is admirable. I wonder whether he also realises how much this has been a bone of contention in recent years between the various administrations in the GLC: those of Sir Reg Goodwin and Sir Horace Cutler, but possibly not that of the noble Lord, Lord Plummer of St. Marylebone—I would yield to his knowledge of it—as well as the present administration.
Every single year when the GLC transport budget comes up for consideration it is pointed out by London Transport Executive that the services outside the Greater London area are being provided on a basis which, if they were provided within the Greater London area, would be supported and subsidised by the ratepayers. There is a constant battle (which is usually in the end won) with the county authorities in the Home Counties, to make some sort of contribution towards the transport facilities in their area provided by London Transport. It is won because in the end the counties recognise that this is the right thing to do. It is recognised that it is necessary to provide those services even when they are not making a profit, and it is right that the ratepayers outside Greater London should be treated on the same basis as the ratepayers inside Greater London. I hope with that practical experience, which comes from 10 years' service on the GLC, that the Government will feel that the amendment of my noble friend ought to be considered seriously.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I recall in our earlier debates that noble Lords opposite were strongly opposed to the idea of a levy on rating authorities in Greater London towards the cost of LRT. But they are now asking that we extend the concept to non-London ratepayers as well. Having said that, I understand why this amendment has been tabled. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said, it is to ensure that the ratepayers in the Home Counties will pay towards LRT services in their area just as ratepayers will do within Greater London. I hope that the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that we support that view in principle, but we see no need to amend the machinery of the ratepayers' levy to achieve that end.
Regarding the Underground, my honourable friend the Minister of State made the position clear in a Written Answer on 21st December last, replying to a question about how Underground services outside Greater London would be financed under LRT. She said that LRT would be responsible for the whole Underground network both inside and outside Greater London and that her grants to LRT from the beginning of the financial year after enactment would take this into account.
But I am bound to agree that the arrangements for financing the outer sections of the Underground have not worked happily in the past and we believe that it is sensible to treat the network as a whole for the

847
purposes of financial support. Of course, the taxpayer will be meeting at least one-third of the subsidy costs for LRT so that there will be effectively a contribution from ratepayers or, at least, those living outside Greater London. On the buses, the position remains unchanged. Bus services outside Greater London receive out-county support at present and they will continue to do so, so that no change is needed in the Bill.
Noble Lords may feel that the approach which we have taken in this Bill offers fairly rough justice; but it is not always easy to determine precisely where the benefits lie. We must remember that London ratepayers themselves will benefit from services which extend beyond the boundary, so that it would be wrong to think of these purely in local terms. We do not believe that the machinery in Clause 13 for the ratepayer levy could be applied fairly to rating authorities outside Greater London, some of whom are scarcely served by LRT. We believe that we have struck a resonable balance to ensure that, while the main burden will fall, quite rightly, on the ratepayers of Greater London, a contribution will be made by ratepayers elsewhere either directly, in the case of LRT bus services, or indirectly, through the contributions made by the taxpayer.
Your Lordships may be anxious about the possible financial effects of bringing into effect the reserve powers of Part II of the Bill. I should remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave an assurance in Committee in another place that the percentage of the ratepayer contribution in that event would be adjusted accordingly. There is no intention to impose an additional burden of extra expenditure on the ratepayers if LRT became responsible for the allocation of subsidy to British Rail under Part II of the Bill. I hope that, in the light of these explanations and clarifications, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I do not know where he lives but he may have the same porblem as I have. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the ratepayers outside will be indirectly assisted by the taxpayer. The ratepayers in Greater London will have the problems of the taxpayers of helping to pay for the one-third as well as of the ratepayers in helping to pay for the two-thirds; so they are being charged both ways. I always find that when I try to move anything, the talk is about rough justice. But when we talk about rough justice, we find that that never operates from the Government side. It is rough justice. We should not, in a Bill of this kind, have rough justice. There ought to be principle, equality, commercialism and fairness about the whole principle.
There is a problem, too, as I know to my cost, living where I do; that once you get over the Greater London boundary the tendency is for the fares to be higher. I quoted previously what is happening to the pensioners. One must remember that the pensioners' area covers only inside the Greater London area. I am fortunate in that I have a British Rail pensioners' card
848
which allows me to travel at child's fare on the London Underground. People who do not have that card and who decide to have a trip out on the London Underground going to Essex, will find that their charges are fairly heavy. It is very, very rough justice.
While I understand that the Government cannot accept my amendment as it is, I hope that they will keep this matter in mind. The trouble is that, once we pass the Bill, it will require other legislation. I hope that there may be a possibility of looking at this before Third Reading, because we should not rely on rough justice; we ought to rely on what is fair to the people outside London and fair to the people inside London—which is not the case at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Financial duty
8.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 15, line 3, leave out from ("account,") to end of subsection (7) and insert ("any such surplus shall be taken to a reserve to be applied in the following year").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I started to refer to Amendment No. 23 in moving Amendment No. 10; but they are logically separate and it is necessary to make the argument for Amendment No. 23 separately. The House will recall that Amendment No. 10 would have provided (if it had been persisted with and agreed) that a proper price was paid for any property transferred under the powers of Clause 7. Amendment No. 23 does something slightly different. It seeks to ensure that any receipts, whatever they may be (whether they are the kind of proper payment that I should have thought ought to be made or possibly a lesser payment which the Government would be prepared to accept) are for the benefit of London Regional Transport itself and restricted to its capital expenditure. It is important, in view of the argument that has taken place on the possibility of windfall profits and of their being used improperly to reduce revenue expenditure for a short time. to insist that it is only a capital reserve which is being proposed in the amendment and that there is no way in which the money could be used for revenue expenditure in the short term.
The amendment is therefore much more restrictive than anything which was moved in Committee. But it does not, I believe, fall foul of the arguments used by the Government at the Committee stage amendment. I do not believe that it has the same technical defect as was pointed out by the Government at that stage. I hope that the Government will feel that this is something in accordance with the long-term interests as well as the shot-term interests of London Regional Transport: that capital receipts should be ploughed back into the business over such a period of time as may be appropriate; that this is in accordance with good business principles as applied whether in the private sector or the public sector; and that it is appropriate to signify some measure of assent at least with the objectives of the amendment in order that we may perhaps find agreement about it by the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, although I understand the noble Lord's point in moving this amendment, I am afraid that the amendment is founded on a misconception. The assumption is that there will be gross charges to the capital account which will be offset by the proceeds of any disposal of assets to contractors. I have to remind your Lordships that LRT themselves will not have a conventional capital structure. There will be no shares in LRT, they will not have any commencing capital debt which generates an interest charge and their only capital costs will arise where they borrow for a profitable investment. But in such circumstances the investment should pay for itself and should not benefit from a cross-subsidy from the sales of other assets. Therefore, there are no gross charges to capital account to be offset. Indeed, there will be no capital account in the usual commercial sense of the term. I should also like to return to the point which I made when we discussed Amendment No. 10 on Clause 3. We do not envisage that they will normally wish to sell assets to private operators in connection with Clause 3(2) agreements.
We just do not share the opposite forecast of a rush to dispose of LRT's assets but if LRT do sell or lease any assets (whether to contractors or to anyone else) the proceeds will be available to fund further investments, provided of course that there is further and justifiable investment needed. This amendment would prevent that. It would require the proceeds of asset sales or leases or rents to be used to reduce these non-existent gross charges to the capital account. I hope therefore that, in the light of the difficulties I have described, the noble Lord will not wish to proceed with his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge immediately that the Minister has identified a defect in the drafting of my amendment. I accept that I have misinterpreted the capital structure of London Regional Transport and that the use of the phrase "gross charges" is inappropriate for the purposes of the amendment. Therefore I shall have no alternative in due course but to withdraw the amendment.
However, in doing so, I must say that I think the Minister is significantly over-confident if he thinks there is likely to be no rush to dispose of assets. The experience of other nationalised industries—that is what London Regional Transport will in effect become—and the experience in particular of British Rail is that they do seek very much to dispose of capital assets and they go to the extent even of arousing considerable controversy, for example, among the users of Marylebone Station. In that case, British Rail seek to dispose of a capital asset such as Marylebone Station even at the expense of the interests of the commuters using those lines. I am not saying that that argument applies entirely to London Regional Transport, because I appreciate that the Clause 3 provision for the transfer of property is designed for agreements about the continued services to be provided by London Transport in conjunction with other companies or persons. I may misunderstand some things but I think I understand that reasonably well.
I do think that the Minister is being somewhat sanguine in his assumption that there will not be a
850
temptation to dispose of capital assets. But, in view of the undoubted defects which the Minister has kindly pointed out, I do not think I have any alternative but to withdraw the amendment in its present form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Control by Secretary of State of objectives.]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Accounts.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 20, line 31, at end insert ("subject to their accounts being no less informative than they would be if the Companies Acts applied to London Regional Transport or than in the former accounts of the Executive.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I would seek also to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 27.
Amendment No. 26: Page 20, line 35, at end insert—>
("( ) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1) to (4) above, the appointed auditor or auditors appointed under subsection (5) above shall each year conduct an extended audit of London Regional Transport dealing with such matters as the Secretary of State shall from time to time determine but including—

(i) compliance with their statutory duties under this Act and directions made by the Secretary of State,

(ii) effectiveness of internal management and financial controls;

(iii) methods of appraising capital investment, including priority assessment;

(iv) control of contracts and tendering procedures;

(v) periodic monitoring of expenditure;

(vi) unit costs and other efficiency and productivity measures;

(vii) forward financial and service planning;

(viii) revenue and cash flow control:

(ix) manpower control and planning;

(x) internal audit arrangements;

(xi) control of debtors, creditors, stocks investments and borrowing.")

Amendment No. 27: Page 21, line 19, at end insert—
("(9) At each audit by an auditor under this Part of this Act any persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and all books, deeds contracts, bills, vouchers and receipts relating to them and make copies of all or any part of the accounts and those other documents subject only to protecting the commercial interests of London Regional Transport.
(10) At the request of a local government elector in Greater London, the auditor shall give the elector, or any representative of his, an opportunity to question the auditor about the accounts.
(11) Subject to subsection (12) below, any local government elector in the Greater London area, or any representative of his, may attend before the auditor and make objections on any matter relating to the activities of London Regional Transport which come within the auditors' remit to report.
(12) No objection may be made under subsection (11) above by or on behalf of a local government elector unless the auditor has previously received written notice of the proposed objection and of the grounds on which it is to be made.")
Amendment No. 27 is really the most important of the three amendments. The only reason for reinstating in the Marshalled List for Report Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 in their original form from Committee is because they lead up to, and provide for, Amendment No. 27. I still think that Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are correct, and I think in particular that the detailed setting out of the requirements for an annual report by the auditors, which is in Amendment No. 26, is a very useful and necessary safeguard not only for London Regional Transport itself but for the Government and the general public. I confess that I still do not

851
understand the arguments that were used in Committee against the inclusion in the statute of provisions which the Government themselves agreed were not irrelevant or unsuitable conditions. The only disagreement was that it was considered not appropriate for them to be included in the Bill.
I am bound to say that the arguments used by the Government against what was then Amendment No. 97 and is now Amendment No. 27 struck me as quite peculiarly weak. Here we have a business enterprise which it is commonly recognised will not make real profits. It may have an excess of income over expenditure after grant in a given year, but it will be a substantial draw on the resources of the taxpayer and, above all, on the ratepayers of Greater London.
In all other circumstances where it is envisaged right from the outset that an enterprise will not make profits and will draw on the taxpayer and the ratepayer—I talk in particular of local government services because they, after all, have income and expenditure but have inevitably an excess of expenditure over income—it has been universally agreed that there should be a proper audit procedure and that that audit procedure should be open to the public. Indeed, the objections to the office of district auditor have come more often from my side of the political spectrum than from that of the Government. It has been the Government who have defended the position of the district auditor: the right of the district auditor to ask detailed questions about local authority expenditure, and the right of individual ratepayers to raise matters with the district auditor and to have a detailed answer and access through the district auditor to the books of the local authority. If that is right for one part of public sector activity which is paid for in part by the ratepayer and by the taxpayer, why should it not be right for London Regional Transport?
There is here no possibility of the efficiency of London Regional Transport being diminished. There is no threat to the confidence which the Government say they wish to place in the business acumen of the board of London Regional Transport; it will presumabley still do its business best to run an effective undertaking. But, surely, under these circumstances the people who are paying for it—the taxpayers and the ratepayers of Greater London—have the right to inspect the books through the auditor. It must be so that the auditor sees that the books are available and that persons interested may inspect the accounts to be audited and may question the auditor about the accounts, as is provided for in subsection (10) of the proposed amendment.
This amendment has not been as adequately argued as it should have been. I do not believe that the Committee stage discussion of it was as good as it should have been, partly because I myself, in moving the amendment en bloc with other amendments, did not appreciate its full significance. I take responsibility for that myself, but I believe that on this particular point the House deserves a better answer than it received at Committee stage. I believe that the principle of open access to audit ought to be more fully recognised, and I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said, we discussed identical amendments at Committee stage. Before I turn to the substance of the amendments, it may be helpful if I repeat briefly the description which I gave of the arrangements for auditing LRT's accounts in the future. The basic system is set out in the early part of this clause. LRT's auditors will undertake annually an audit of LRT's books. This audit will follow standard and up-to-date accounting practice. The auditors will examine samples of LRT's records, look at the accuracy of their documents and investigate LRT's cost and cash control system, to see how far they secure value for money. We, like any commercial sponsors, place great weight on these procedures, and I should like to emphasise them to your Lordships. Modern accountancy is much more than just a matter of adding up figures. These days, it goes a long way to embrace the type of special audit that the GLC have just commissioned.
Noble Lords opposite have said how essential it is to make sure that LRT publish as much information as possible; and that this would enable Parliament to carry out as effective a scrutiny of LRT as the GLC did of London Transport. We on the Government side have a lot of sympathy with that point of view. It is in the Government's own interests, since they must account to Parliament for LRT's grant, to see that they are kept fully in the picture about LRT's management practices. But we do not wish to be tied to the detailed terms of the special efficiency audit set out in these amendments. While we agree with the idea of greater information being published, we want to reserve the right to choose to ask the auditors to look at different issues from those chosen by the GLC, to employ different auditors and. if necessary, to set a different pattern for audit examinations if the annual cycle required by the GLC means wasteful re-examination of issues such as investment appraisal techniques, which will probably not alter at all from, one year to another.
Generally, there should be no reduction in the amount of information available, but what is published may well be different from what is available now. I can assure your Lordships, however, that it will certainly be relevant to their task of watching over LRT and calling it to account for its public expenditure.
I agree with noble Lords opposite that we are not very far apart over the substance here. As I explained at the Committee stage, it is a question of how we achieve our aims. Noble Lords have presssed for the continuation of the present right of challenge that ratepayers can exercise in relation to the LTE's accounts. That has been urged in the name of accountability, but it is important to be clear that in future LRT will be accountable, through the Secretary of State, to Parliament. It will no longer have anything to do with local government finance. The machinery of accountability must therefore reflect parliamentary standards, and indeed there will be many new opportunities for investigating LRT's finances. For example, there will be an annual debate on the ratepayer levy order. The National Audit Office will be able to investigate the Secretary of State's payment of grant to the LRT, and the Monopolies and Mergers

853
Commission will continue to be able to look at LRT's efficiency. Obviously, there will be the full range of normal parliamentary occasions, such as Questions, debates and Statements. In fact the machinery for ensuring accountability will be more comprehensive than it is now. But LRT cannot serve two masters, and the present arrangements for ratepayer challenge cannot therefore be part of the new system. I hope, in the light of these considerations, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not constitutionally very much in favour of moving the same amendments on Report as I moved in Committee and I have, on the whole, tried to avoid it. But one does so in the hope that the Government, in the light of a debate in Committee, might move some small way towards a closer identity of view with those of us who move amendments: that is what we are here to do.
I have to say that the degree to which the Government have moved towards the intention behind these amendments, despite the Minister's protestations of almost identity of view, is very small indeed—so small as to be virtually unnoticeable. I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I think he misunderstood the amendment and I do not think he clearly saw that the amendment says that the extended audit should deal with
"such matters as the Secretary of State shall from time to time determine".
I do not think that his point about wishing to have the freedom to introduce new matters into the extended audit would have been made if he had fully appreciated that aspect of the wording. I accept that the wording does include the possibility of having different auditors for an extended audit, but that is really a very minor point and could have been put right if the Government had really had a greater identity of view.
Above all, I do not think that the Minister in his reply has made any significant move towards the principle, which is proposed in the amendment, of having a wider degree of inspection of the books. I certainly do not think that the kind of parliamentary scrutiny which he proposes is going to be anything like as effective as the scrutiny by the ratepayers and the taxpayers who do indeed exercise that scrutiny now over London Transport, as ratepayers do over local government expenditure, where necessary through the district auditor. As I said, these amendments were intended to see whether we could make any progress. Clearly, the degree to which we have made progress is extremely limited and I have no option in the circumstances but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 not moved
9.5 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 6, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to section 46 of this Act and subject to subsection (2B) below, a transfer scheme may provide that any
854
functions of the transferor under any statutory provision shall be transferred with the property, rights and liabilities affected by the scheme, if and so far as that statutory provision—

(a) relates to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme; or

(b) authorises the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works.

(2B) Subsection (2A) above does not apply to any function of London Regional Transport, or of London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs, under any provision of this Act or any other statutory provision specifically amended by any provision of this Act.
(2C) A transfer scheme may define any functions of the transferor to be transferred by the scheme in accordance with subsection (2A) above—

(a) by specifying the statutory provisions in question;

(b) by referring to all the statutory provisions (except those mentioned in subsection (2B) above) which relate to the part of the transferor's undertaking, or to property, to be transferred by the scheme or authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with that part of the transferor's undertaking or the acquisition of land for the purpose of carrying out such works;

(c) by referring to all the statutory provisions within paragraph (b) above, but specifying certain excepted provisions.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, may I first apologise to your Lordships because my explanation is rather long; but your Lordships will note that the amendment itself is rather long. This is a technical amendment and it applies to the transfer schemes under which property can be transferred from London Regional Transport to any subsidiary or from one subsidiary to another. It would make it possible to transfer with property certain very limited powers and duties which LRT have under statute. The powers and the duties which can be transferred are those which relate to the part of the transferror's undertaking or to property transferred or which authorise the carrying out of works designed to be used in connection with the part of the undertaking transferred. The types of statutory powers and duties which can be transferred are limited by the important qualification contained in subsection (2)(b), and I shall return to that in a moment.
The reason for the amendment is to put beyond doubt that any subsidiary of LRT can take over any necessary statutory powers and duties which LRT have. This is particularly important in the case of the Underground. I believe it is true to say that the power has been obtained in the past under a local Act when every part of the Underground was built. So there are in fact a very large number of local Acts and they range, for example, from the Metropolitan Railway Act of 1873 to the London Docklands Railway Act of 1984.
These Acts between them have authorised the contruction and working of the Underground, and they form the statutory basis on which it is now operated. This statutory basis may still be important in that it gives protection from legal actions for nuisance, which might otherwise be brought merely because the railways run.
It may also be important in that the local Acts, under which the Underground was constructed, imposed on the railway company certain obligations, some of which—for example, the obligation to fence railways—may still be important today. The second half of the amendment would enable a subsidiary—in practice, the Underground subsidiary—to take over

855
any works powers which have been taken by LRT under any local Act and to complete the works themselves. I hope your Lordships will readily agree that the amendment is sensible. If property is transferred from LRT to any subsidiary, it makes sense for the subsidiary to have the statutory powers and duties which go with the property.
I think that this is the right point to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2B). This specifies that functions of LRT or of LRT and any of their subsidiaries under the Bill itself, or any statutory provision specifically amended by the Bill, cannot be transferred under a scheme. As an important example, the general duty of LRT under Clause 2 of the Bill cannot be transferred.
Your Lordships will see that Schedules 4 and 6 contain a very large number of Acts which have been specifically amended so as to refer either to London Regional Transport alone or to London Regional Transport and any subsidiary of theirs. None of the powers and duties conferred by these Acts can be transferred by a scheme. In fact, it will almost certainly only be powers and duties under local Acts which can be transferred.
This is a detailed amendment and I felt that it was important to describe the details as accurately as I could. If I may suggest it to your Lordships, it is a sensible tidying-up of the powers which will govern the structural relationship between LRT and their subsidiaries. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, one can only express gratitude to the noble Lord for his lucid explanation of what is undoubtedly a complicated business. But if the necessity for such an amendment is so obvious now—and I can see that it must be—it makes one wonder whether the Government were as far-sighted, as has been claimed earlier in this debate, in their intention to have London Regional Transport purely as a holding company, with all the effective administration being carried out by the subsidiaries: in particular, the bus and Underground subsidiaries. Surely, if that had really been the intention from the outset, somebody in Government would have thought about the implications for the various Acts under which the Underground system, in particular, was constructed.
But that does not, of course, affect the necessity for the amendment. It is simply a lack of judgment by the Government to leave it to this very late stage to produce it. I only express a slight regret, in that my rapid perusal of Schedules 4 and 6 did not reveal any reference to my favourite among these Acts—the Military Tramways Act 1887. I am sure that some excuse could have been found to introduce it into the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Provision of extra transport services and facilities]:
9.12 p.m.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert ("but this power shall not be exercised until consideration has been given to any representations received from the Passengers' Committee.'').
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I am slightly ambivalent as to whether this amendment should be applied to subsections (1) or (2), but if the Government are in agreement perhaps we can consider at a later stage precisely where it should go. On balance, I think that it should be where I put it. Under Clause 28, agreements can be made between local authorities and London Regional Transport for the provision and financing of services and facilities,
"which would not be available apart from any such agreement".
When we look at Clause 40, which is the clause dealing with the passengers' committee, we see that these special services are not covered by that clause, since it refers only to the services and facilities provided either by London Regional Transport or any subsidiary, or by any other person in pursuance of an agreement under Section 3(2) or by the Railways Board or their subsidiary. But it does not cover the special cases of agreements with local authorities under Clause 28. Therefore, there is no obligation on local authorities to consider the views of the passengers' committee at any stage.
There has been some correspondence between the current London Passenger Transport Committee and the London Borough of Hillingdon, on a specific instance of a service where the London Passenger Transport Committee sought to make representations. They were given a very firm brush-off and were told by the chairman of the works committee:
"We have no other purpose than to satisfy the user's need within the obvious budgetary constraints which exist. I would hope that we would be responsive to suggestions for improvements to the service but do not consider that meetings could take place within the statutory framework of your constitution".
This was subsequently taken up with the honourable lady the Minister of State. In a letter to the secretary of the London Transport Passengers' Committee, she said she hoped that, however much it might be argued that there is less need for their involvement in the service financed by local authorities, authorities would be receptive to constructive suggestions made in the spirit which accepts that it is for the authority to decide how to spend its money.
It seems to me that that is not good enough and that local authority agreements operating under Clause 28 should be brought within the remit of the passengers' committee. However, rather than put it into Clause 40, it seems to me to be appropriate to put it into Clause 28. It is with that in mind that I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for his explanation of the amendment. He referred in particular to the London Transport Passengers' Committee having been in correspendence with my honourable friend the Minister of State on the matter in connection with the discussions they were seeking on the No. 128 bus route, which is supported by the London Borough of Hillingdon.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, referred to my honourable friend's response. I hope he does not think that that response was any kind of a brush-off. Indeed, I cannot think that he would. My honourable friend made quite clear the Government's position. There is no existing statutory requirement for such discussions,

857
nor does the LRT Bill include such a provision. It is important to recognise that entering into agreements with LRT under Clause 28 would mirror the arrangements under which the service now in question is being financed by Hillingdon. However, under Clause 28 local authorities will be providing services which would not be available, apart from any such agreement.
In deciding to make resources available to buy in the extra services from London Regional Transport, a local authority will be making a judgment about the special needs of travellers in its area for which it is clearly answerable. We do not believe it would be appropriate to place local authorities under a new obligation to consult the consumer body on services which they themselves have elected to provide and which do not form part of LRT's general provision.
It is also true that any service provided by LRT, their subsidiaries or other operators under Clause 3(2) agreements, however financed, will fall to be considered by the passengers' committee under Clause 40. This can then be the subject of recommendations to LRT, either at the committee's discretion or following representations. There is no reason why the committee should not make their views known at the same time to a local authority, where that is appropriate. So it would be wrong to suggest that the passengers' committee will be unable to offer their views on such matters.
In addition, under subsection (9) of Clause 40, London Regional Transport will be obliged to let the committee know about the decisions they have reached on any representations made to them. As I have already said, however, the passengers' committee must recognise that under Clause 28 LRT will be providing extra services at the request of the local authority and in order to meet a specific request from them. These services will not be part of LRT's normal services provided in fulfilment of their general duty under Clause 2. Clearly the sphere of influence of the passengers' committee must be rather different in those circumstances. We do not believe that they should be given a special function in relation to Clause 28, as the amendment suggests. I apologise to all noble Lords for that rather lengthy response which I hope will enable the noble Lord not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I accept what he said about it being a different case from the Clause 40 case. That is why I sought to move the amendment in relation to Clause 28 specifically. The Minister might like to think at some later moment about what this amendment actually says—that the power,
"shall not be exercised until consideration has been given to any representations received".
The Hillingdon case is perhaps a slight distraction—I merely raised it to show the tone of the relationship at the moment. But it seems to me that there are matters concerning the interface between the special cases of local authority services under Clause 28 and the generality of London Transport services, where the Passengers' Committee might wish to make a comment in the initial stages. The amendment only suggests that the powers to make the agreement should
858
not be exercised until such considerations, if any, have been given. If such representations have not been received, then the question does not arise.
I was interested by the point which the noble Lord made regarding Clause 40(9), which does go some way to offering a reassurance. I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said, and I am most grateful for his full answer. I hope that the Government will look at what could be a point of friction between the passengers' committee, London Regional Transport and the local authorities in future and will themselves consider whether the clause should not go a little deeper than has been suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Annual business plans]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 25, line 8, leave out from ("proposals") to end of line 16 and insert ("for the next three years (hereinafter referred to in this section as "the relevant period") with respect to:—

(a) the general level of transport services and facilities to be provided by them or, by agreement with them, by other persons; and

(b) the general level and structure of the fares to be charged for those services, and the general level of charges to be made for those facilities, so far as they are to be charged, made or otherwise determined by the Executive.

(c) the extent to which the plan is in compliance with the statements prepared and published under section 7(1) of the Act.

(2) The proposals shall be such as to enable the Executive to discharge their duty under section 2 above in the relevant period; and the plan shall contain particulars of the Executive's financial position and their financial prospects for that period together with an estimate of what would be their annual revenue and expenditure if the proposals were implemented.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe it might be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 32: Page 25, line 19, leave out from ("plan") to end of subsection (3).
Amendment No. 33: Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The plan shall be accompanied by estimates of—

(a) the cost to the Executive of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;

(b) the level of demand for those services and facilities; and

(c) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities.

(5) Where the Secretary of State gives London Regional Transport any guidance under subsection (3) above he shall cause any such advice to be published in such a manner as appears to him to be appropriate for informing persons appearing to him to be likely to be concerned.
(6) London Regional Transport shall, in preparation of a plan under section 29(1) above, consult with the local authorities concerned and with persons or bodies appearing to them to be representative of industrial and commercial ratepayers in Greater London on the contents of that plan.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above, the local authorities concerned are—

(a) the Greater London Council;

(b) the councils of the London boroughs;

(c) the Common Council; and

(d) the council of any county or district any part of whose area appears to London Regional Transport to be affected to a significant degree by the plans mentioned in that subsection.").

These amendments all relate to Clause 29, which requires LRT to prepare an annual business plan. Noble Lords will recall that this clause was inserted on

859
Report in another place because it was appreciated that the strategy statement was not a regular business plan. At Committee stage, I brought forward four related amendments, but in the light of consideration they were withdrawn. Your Lordships are asked to consider the limited amendments now before you as Amendments Nos. 31, 32, and 33.
The main criticism of this whole clause as drafted is its vagueness as to the contents of the annual business plan. Reference to the clause will show what I mean. It refers to
"a plan containing their proposals with respect to the conduct of their undertaking",
and to the fact that,
"the plan shall give such information relevant to their proposals, and deal with such other matters, as London Regional Transport consider appropriate".
It states also:
"In preparing the plan London Regional Transport shall have regard to any guidance given by the Secretary of State".
Amendment No. 31 sets out that the proposals should cover a period of the next three years. I would remind your Lordships that that was exactly the period determined in the Transport Act 1983—which, I will also remind your Lordships, we spent a considerable number of hours in debating that it should cover a period of three years. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the amendment list the subjects which must be dealt with in such a plan. These are highly desirable subjects for consideration and amplify the position and what is required far more than do the limited and vague provisions of Clause 29.
Amendment No. 33 seeks to provide that the plan shall be accompanied by estimates of:

"(a) the cost to the Executive of providing, or arranging the provision of, the services and facilities described in the proposals;

(b) the level of demand for those services and facilities; and

(c) the benefits to potential users of those services and facilities".

The actual words of Amendment No. 33 are, word for word, those set out in the 1983 Act for the annual plan, which was considered so essential. Therefore, I hope the Minister will accept that those requirements should be included in the annual business plan for LRT.
Another important point is that it is proposed in subsections (6) and (7) of these amendments that in preparation of a plan LRT shall consult,
"the local authorities concerned and the bodies representative of industrial and commercial ratepayers".
In Committee the main objection of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to that point was that it would be implanting provisions of the 1983 Act where really they do not work in the context of a nationalised industry. What I hope the Government will appreciate (but they do not seem to from that comment) is that we are not dealing with a normal nationalised industry. We are dealing with a nationalised industry in which the Government will levy up to two-thirds on the ratepayers without their authorities having any consideration whatever in the policy of LRT. That is why it is so essential that in the annual business plan the local authorities and commercial and industrial representative bodies should be brought into consultation.
It will be seen that in the light of consideration in Committee we have considerably changed the scope, size and length of the amendments. I hope this is taken by the Government as being helpful and that they will at least accept the general principle of the points advanced in these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for his explanation of this series of amendments and I am also grateful to him for taking them together. I explained at some length in Committee why we do not think it appropriate to superimpose on London Regional Transport the planning process laid down in the Transport Act 1983. The noble Lord was good enough to acknowledge that. From what he said I do not think it is necessary to go over that ground again except perhaps to remind your Lordships that the 1983 Act dealt with very different circumstances in which the Secretary of State was obliged to assess the subsidy needs of London Transport alongside those of the passenger transport executives. It was clearly necessary in those circumstances to provide for a rather more elaborate system to ensure that they could be examined on a common basis.
I have noted—and again I am grateful—that the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments have shortened them by removing in particular the provisions dealing with the Secretary of State's function of approving the plan and determining the level of grant. Of course, LRT will have to submit corporate plans to the Secretary of State just as the other nationalised industries do. He will determine their grant largely on the basis of that plan: but it is not customary for such plans to be published or available publicly. Whichever way the noble Lord cares to describe LRT—as a nationalised industry or as a different or particular nationalised industry—that fact still applies.
There are three main aspects which are the focus of the amendments. The first, in Amendment No. 31, requires the annual plan to cover a three-year period. It introduces a specific list of matters which shall be contained. I said in Committee—and I can only repeat it—that we can see no merit at all in fixing a period to be covered by the plan. I would imagine the plan will normally concentrate on the year ahead, but it certainly is intended that LRT shall present its proposals. Subsection (2) provides for that in the context of their past and present performance and that of their subsidiaries. Equally, I have no doubt that there will be aspects on which LRT may wish to look much further ahead—in some cases more than three years.
I simply do not believe that it would be helpful to introduce a rigid period into the Bill: nor indeed—and we have talked before on related matters—of specifying those matters which should be referred to in the report, because it implies almost automatically the exclusion of others. We certainly want the annual plan to include as much as is relevant to the business.
Both Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 would prescribe a good deal of detail. As I have suggested, I think that it is probably a matter of judgment. If one spells various details out at length, one implies the absence of others. I think that LRT can be relied upon to interpret

861
the spirit of Clause 29 and produce the plan which, as we have said all along, will provide a regular up-dating on the progress that it is making towards its long-term objectives. I am sure that your Lordships will recall that the Secretary of State has powers to give guidance on the form and content of the plan, and indeed the period to be covered, if that is needed. I do not believe that that is necessary in this case.
Lastly, we come to the question of consultation. I made it clear when we discussed this last time that we have sought to provide in the Bill for consultation with the local authorities where we think it is appropriate. I am afraid that I must refer again to Clause 7 on the strategy statement and Clause 43 on the variation of bus services. Consultation with local authorities on LRT's annual plans would be very difficult to fit in in the very tight timetable which LRT will have for its annual planning processes. I recall that I spelt that out the last time that we debated the matter. We have to strike a balance between the need for LRT to plan and manage the business as it thinks best, and, on the other hand, the requirements for consultation. We believe that the Bill provides the right balance. We do not believe that it would be right to add a requirement for consultation in Clause 29.
That is a very full explanation. The way we felt when we last discussed the matter has not changed materially. I hope that it has helped the noble Lord to understand the reasons why I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I agree that the Government have not changed the reasoning that they put forward at Committee stage. We on this side of the House are the ones who listened to the reasoning and greatly changed the scope of the amendments we submitted.
The noble Lord referred to the supply of information. I wonder whether our amendment has been read carefully. It states that:
"the Secretary of State…shall cause any such advice to be published in such a manner as appears to him to be appropriate for informing persons appearing to him to be likely to be concerned".
Therefore, he will decide for whom he is publishing the information. It is not suggested that it should be published and issued to all and sundry. The power is with him. It would appear that the Government have not appreciated that point in subsection (5) in the amendment.
The noble Lord has suggested that there is no merit in fixing a period for the plan. I can only repeat what I said last time, and I think that other noble Lords supported this view. It was good enough for London Transport and the metropolitan county areas to have a period of three years laid down for their plans. That was insisted on and debated in the House. The Ministers were emphatic, and we spent time on it. LRT covers the same area as London Transport, yet it is now not considered helpful to bring in a rigid period. It appears that the Government want to be flexible whenever they feel like it and that we wasted our time in debating the 1983 Act in that way.
It is suggested that there should be no provision for consultation. This is an annual business plan and it
862
will cover the points which I read out in the two subsections of Clause 29.
One would have thought that it would be helpful for them to consult these bodies. Some of the bodies are paying two-thirds of the cost. They would like to have some idea of what proposals are going into the annual business plan which the noble Lord says could cover a period even beyond three years. I do not accept that a great business institution could not find it possible to fit into a timetable consultation of this kind. I just cannot accept it. Where there is a will, it could be done. We have endeavoured to be flexible, but the Government have not moved. I can only beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Information and publicity with respect to plans as to services and fares]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 25, line 27, after ("Act") insert (", and the general structure of routes of those services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am more than delighted to come to the Dispatch Box particularly at this time of the evening to demonstrate to noble Lords opposite that they have not been wasting their time in debate, and that indeed we are flexible. This amendment meets an undertaking I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when we discussed the clause in Committee. The amendment would add to the matters about which LRT must provide information to local authorities and the London Regional Passengers' Committee each year.
At present, the requirement applies to LRT's current plans for the general level and structure of fares and charges. The effect of the amendment is that LRT will be required to give information on the general structure of routes as well as on the general level of services. I should make clear that the amendment applies to routes to be provided for London Regional Transport by private operators as well as those to be provided by their own subsidiaries.
I am more than grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for pointing out this gap in the Bill. The amendment fills the gap. I am sure that the local authorities and the passengers' committee will find the clause all the more helpful as a result of his debating and arguing powers, which have led to the amendment that I move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 [Annual report]:
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 28, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) include a statement of any action taken during that year by London Regional Transport and any subsidiaries of theirs for the purpose of co-ordinating the public passenger transport services provided by, or by any subsidiary of, the Railways Board and those provided by London Regional Transport, any subsidiary of London Regional Transport, or any other person under an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall not preface my remarks quite as lengthily on this amendment, but again it meets an undertaking that I gave to my noble friend Lord Teviot at Committee stage. I am pleased to move it. Noble Lords on all sides have agreed with the importance that the Government attach to cooperation and co-ordination between LRT and British Rail. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will, as I have said before, be establishing liaison arrangements between them as soon as LRT are operational.
Once the institutional barriers to full co-operation and co-ordination are removed, LRT and British Rail are under the same policy and financial direction and we shall be able to make progress towards service and fares co-ordination. We have, as I think I have made clear, a strong preference to rely mainly on non-statutory efforts, at least to start with. I am sure that there will be a great commitment on all sides to make the most of the new opportunities.
The Bill contains a small number of vital general provisions to underpin the liaison arrangements. The main one is contained in Clause 2(3) which refers to co-operation and co-ordination. Our amendment relates directly back to that key subsection. I mentioned in Committee that an amendment is not strictly necessary because LRT would in any case be required by the more general wording in Clause 34(1) to report on their co-operation and co-ordination with British Rail. However, I think that the whole Committee was impressed with the welcome that my noble friend's amendment received at that stage from noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. It is right therefore that we should underline the importance that we attach to this duty by referring to it specifically in Clause 34, which this amendment does. I beg to move.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for moving this amendment. I thought that the amendment I produced at Committee stage was very good, but his is much superior because it takes in not only British Rail but all the other people, including the National Bus Company, who might come into this situation. The amendment is particularly important to give teeth to the Bill. One could look at it as a sort of individual in the annual report, but it proves accountability. I am very pleased that my noble friend thought fit to amend this part of the Bill and I am quite sure the amendment will be useful. I am very grateful and I should like to thank my noble friend.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Clause 40 [The London Regional Passengers' Committee]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 34, line 25, at end insert—
("; or
(d) by any other person operating a London Bus service as defined by section 43(6) of this Act under a road service licence granted under the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, as amended by section 44 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with Clause 40, which deals with the establishment of the passengers' committee. Subsection (4) of this clause details the services and facilities which it is the duty of the committee to consider and on which it will make representations. These are given as any representations made by LRT or any of its subsidiaries, other persons with whom LRT have made agreements, and the Railways Board or any of its subsidiaries.
Other operators providing a bus service will be neither a subsidiary of LRT nor operating under agreement with LRT. These are the operators to whom the traffic commissioners may have granted road service licences. The amendment seeks to add these services to those which the passengers' committee is empowered to consider under the Bill.
When a similar amendment was before a Committee of your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Avon, said that the consumer council system was not intended to apply to private sector operators who supplied services independently of LRT. He said it would be open to the passengers' committee to make objections or other representations to the traffic commissioners about any application for a road service licence to operate in competition with LRT's bus services. The noble Earl said he would look into the detailed arguments and would let me have a note on the matter. In view of that kind offer I withdrew the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for the very detailed letter he sent subsequently, but I must say that in no way does this justify the refusal to accept that particular amendment, which is now resubmitted this evening. If I may, I should like to quote one part of the noble Earl's letter. It said:
"If operators, whether large or small, are willing to take the risks involved in running bus services in competition with those of LRT they will be subject to the disciplines of market forces. They will not, like LRT, be providing services in fulfilment of a statutory duty but rather in response to what they believe the public want and are willing to pay for. To the extent that public transport services are operating in a fully competitive market the public have a genuine choice and there is no need to provide for user representation through a consumer body."
That assumes, and the debate assumed, that independent operators would be private sector operators and therefore not properly within the realm of consideration by a consumer council. But experience is that this is not the case. Half the commuter coach services are provided by National Bus Company subsidiaries and there is no reason why a similar trend should not emerge within London.
Why should not the passengers' committee consider complaints about all the transport services being provided in the area? It is not a question of these independent operators being subject to the discipline of market forces. Are the services adequate? Are they failing to provide a satisfactory service in a particular area? These are matters at which the passengers' committee should be entitled to look. They will not be in a position to look into representations about London's public transport service if these operators are to be excluded.
In no way am I asking that the passengers' committee should become involved in what some may

865
feel are political issues. The committee must, however, be empowered to give consideration to all services by whoever they may be provided, and not exclude one section which, if certain provisions of the Bill are carried into effect, could be an increasing section. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, we did of course discuss an amendment on these lines at the Committee stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has said. I think that the noble Lord managed to read out the letter which I sent to him, which I thought was extraordinarily dry, in a manner which I found more interesting.
It will certainly be open to the passengers' committee to make objections or recommendations to the Traffic Commissioners on any application by a private operator for a road service licence to operate in competition with LRT, in accordance with Clause 43 (not with Clause 42 as, I think, the amendment has it). At a more general level, the passengers' committee will be entirely free to comment on the effect of competing services on LRT's own operations. They can do so in the annual report which they will make to the Secretary of State. Or they can comment on such matters if they arise in connection with more specific matters being considered by them.
But we do not believe that the passengers' committee should be given a statutory remit to examine and make recommendations on bus services provided independently of LRT's own operations. The consumer council system is designed to provide a consumer voice in relation to services provided by public sector industries, often in something of a monopoly position. In most cases LRT's passengers will not have a genuine choice. And it is right in those circumstances for them to be able to air their grievances and make representations to the passengers' committee. We do not believe that it is appropriate to carry this over to the private sector, where the full force of the commercial market operates. I hope that the noble Lord took my point that they can make recommendations on bus services provided independently, if they so wish.
Finally, we must not forget that the role of the passengers' committee is essentially to represent the views of users of LRT's services. I am sure we should be wrong to encourage them to stray beyond this to the point where they begin to offer judgments to the Secretary of State on what are basically political matters. I believe that they do have enough freedom. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will agree that they have enough freedom to comment where they so wish.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am very disappointed in the noble Earl's reply. As I have already mentioned, he did carry out his promise and wrote me a letter which I still do not think meets the arguments put forward in Committee. I agree that representations can be made—as the noble Earl rightly said—to the commissioners if an application is made for a licence. But that is not what we are asking for: we are asking that the passengers' committee should have the right to consider the operations of any transport services within the LRT area whether they are supplied by
866
LRT: supplied in agreement with LRT, or supplied by the independent operators.
As the noble Earl says, it is the users with whom we are concerned. If the users think that there is an unsatisfactory service, then the passengers' committee ought to have the right to consider it. The Government are apparently inflexible. I will read carefully what the noble Earl has said, but it would appear that we are completely at cross-purposes as regards what should be the voice of the consumers as expressed by the body of the passengers' committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 35, line I, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the pooling together of a group of amendments that were moved on the last day of the Committee stage. It suggests the removal of the whole of the subsection which takes away the powers of the London Regional Passengers' Committee to look at fares, and services as regards the railways. The Minister in his replies last time admitted that it was rather important that there should be at some future date a role for the consumer bodies. In fact the noble Earl quoted his honourable friend the Minister of State in another place by saying that she accepted that there was a role for the consumer bodies in relation to the structure and relativities of fares, and that the Government intended to deal with the matter for the country as a whole when a suitable legislative opportunity permitted.
I think we are entitled to ask whether there is any idea when a suitable opportunity is likely to arise. But in the meantime while dealing with this Bill for London—and it was said in the earlier part of the discussions on the Bill that London is a special case—why not at least attempt to get some way of allowing the consumer to have a voice in both the fares and the level of services generally in the London area as perhaps a pilot scheme for the rest of the country?
The noble Earl said the last time he spoke that it would not be helpful in this particular Bill whose scope is limited to London. But London is such a big place, and transport is so vital, important and all pervading in London, that it would be a perfect place to have a pilot scheme. There is no possibility that the Regional Passengers' Committee, whether officially or unofficially, will not discuss any changes in fares in London. It is too vital a part of the make-up of London transport and of the economy of most of the people who use London Transport. Although the fares may not relatively be much different from the rest of the country, because of the much larger distances on average that people in London travel, fares are a much bigger item than in most other parts of the country.
Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Regional Passengers' Committee will not, officially or unofficially, deal with, or discuss, fares. As the noble Earl said, the chairman of British Rail had agreed that his board would consult both the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee about fares. Why not make it

867
official? The Consumers' Council are quite anxious about it. They believe that the fares and charges for all public transport services and British Rail services should be discussed and should be included in the remit of the Passengers' Committees.
The Minister may be aware of the fact that the Department of Trade's paper, The Nationalised Industry Consumer Councils, in an article called "A Strategory for Reform" identified the main functions of the nationalised industry consumer councils as,
"monitoring the industries' standards of service and pressing for improvements; providing a consumer input in decisions on costs and prices; and pursuing individual consumers' complaints which have not been satisfactorily resolved by the industries themselves."
These are the minimum demands that the travelling public would expect of a consumer or passenger committee.
I hope that the Minister will give it serious thought and tell us whether there is any possibility in the fairly near future of getting legislation countrywide. If that were the case, it would perhaps be all right to withdraw this amendment. If it were not the case and it was going to be a long time, then I suggest that it would be sensible to look on London as a test area to see how the legislation could ultimately be framed.
If it was going to be a couple of years or more before a slot for legislation could be found, or the draftsmen could be found for it, perhaps it would be a good idea to take this out in London and let the London Regional Passengers' Committee be given their head and see how it works, so that when the time comes to prepare the countrywide legislation there would be some background, some knowledge, and some experience of how the consumers could be represented. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said, we discussed at Committee stage the question whether the passengers' committtee should be able to consider fares and charges, and at that time I was trying to satisfy the noble Lord when I said that the Government intend to deal with this matter for the country as a whole when a suitable legislative opportunity permits. The noble Lord has tried to tempt me out of this by saying, "Why can we not have a period with London, if it is going to take a long time?" I wish I could tell him when it was going to start, but I am afraid I cannot because that is one of the things that is not in my remit; and, anyway, I have made a lot of promises about things starting which I have had to chase up and which never seem to happen.
We are reluctant to disturb the present statutory position and put the new passengers' committee for the London area out of step with the consultative committees for the rest of the country; but we have obtained the agreement of the chairman of British Rail that his board will for the time being consult both the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the London Regional Passengers' Committee about fares and charges on an informal basis.
While I am on my feet I should also like to say that the question was asked why the passengers' committee should be prevented from considering the discontinuance of LRT or British Rail service. Here,
868
the answer is that they are not prevented, but since the Bill applies the separate statutory porcedure on rail closures by virtue of Clause 41, it is necessary to avoid a confusing duplication of powers in Clause 40. As the noble Lord will see, subsection (6) of Clause 40 is said to be without prejudice to Clause 41; and if I may direct the attention of the House to subsection (2)(c) of Clause 41 it will be seen that the passengers' committee are to be treated as an area transport users' consultative committee for the purpose of the rail closure provisions in Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962. Clause 42 makes a number of detailed consequential changes, and I can assure the House that the new committee will have the same powers as the present London TUCC to consider railway closures, whether by LRT or by British Rail.
I think I might explain before I sit down why the committee are not able to deal with reductions in British Rail Services. I accept that we have a slight untidiness here, because the present London Transport passengers' committee are able to consider reductions in London Transport services, whereas the London TUCC are not able to consider reductions in British Rail services. Again, in order not to put the new committee out of step with the other TUCCs we have concluded that it would be better for the moment simply to perpetuate the existing difference and put the matter right in the national legislation. I am sure this will not make the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, much happier, as he would like us to act now; but I hope that with this rather lengthy response he will at least realise why we should like to wait a little while now.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I have listened with interest, and I am grateful for part of the statement by the Minister, particularly when he quite correctly pointed out the reference to Clause 41 of the Bill. However, I do feel that he has perhaps missed a great opportunity to gain some experience. Obviously he is not going to grasp the opportunity, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 35, line 22, leave out ("under subsection (7) above") and insert ("from the Passengers' Committee")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to explain that under the existing legislation in Section 14 of the London Transport Act 1969 the GLC may give directions to London Transport with respect to matters dealt with in any recommendations received from the London Passengers' Transport Committee. The recommendations which the passengers' committee can make to the GLC can cover any matter falling within their remit which, firstly, has been the subject of representations to the committee by or on behalf of users; or, secondly, has been referred to the committee by the GLC or London Transport; or, thirdly, appears to the committee to be a matter to which consideration ought to be given. It is this third category which I would emphasise in this amendment.
Under Clause 40(7) and (8) of the London Regional Transport Bill the Secretary of State, who replaces the

869
GLC as the political authority responsible for public transport in London, may give directions to London Regional Transport or British Rail concerning recommendations of the passengers' committee only if the matters dealt with in the recommendations were referred to the committee by the Secretary of State in the first place, which seems to be a strange little complication. In other words the passengers' committee cannot request the Secretary of State to issue directions on matters which have been the subject of representations from users or matters which the passengers' committee itself considers to be important. They can only act in this way if the Secretary of State has initiated the matter by referring it to them. This would mean a considerable weakening in the positon of the passengers' committee compared with its present position. It also creates an anomaly in the powers of the passengers' committee in relation to London Regional transport compared with its powers in relation to British Rail.
Clause 56 of the Transport Act 1962 sets out the framework under which the Central Transport Consultative Committee and the areas transport users' consultative committees, which represent British Rail's passengers, operate. Under this clause the Central Transport Consultative Committee may request the Secretary of State to give direction to British Rail on any matter which falls within its remit and it is open for the area transport users consultative committee to make representations to the Central Transport Consultative Committee.
So while existing legislation allows both the London Transport Passengers' Committee and the transport users consultative committee for London to seek directions on any matter within their remits, this new LRT Bill only provides this power for a new passengers committee in relation to British Rail's services, not in relation to the Regional Transport Authority.
This reduction in the powers of the passengers' committee is not, in my opinion, acceptable. The London Transport Passengers' Committee has found this power useful in the past in discussions with London Transport. A recent example is the success it had in persuading LT to restore the peak hour Bakerloo Line service north of Stonebridge to Harrow and Wealdstone which was to have been withdrawn late in 1982. This was the instance where the passengers' committee was convinced that this part of the Bakerloo Line was dealing with a large number of passengers and was an essential to retain. But LT was convinced that the British Rail services covered the area and there was no need for the LT services to continue.
When the threat, not the actual giving of the direction, but the warning or the pressure put on by it saying it would seek a direction in this matter spurred LT into action to institute research immediately, that proved what the passengers' committee had said was quite right. As a result it was not necessary to seek a direction, but simply to use this as a warning and in that way it produced the desired effect.
The amendment I am proposing is simply designed to restore the status quo. I hope that the Government will be persuaded to accept the amendment. During the passage of this Bill through the House of
870
Commons the Minister introduced an amendment to Clause 40(6) to correct an error in drafting to ensure that the new passengers' committee had no lesser powers than the two existing committees. I hope that that point will be taken into consideration by the Minister when he replies. I beg to move.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the remarks of my noble friend in moving her amendment, and I know that the London Transport Passengers' Committee has written to my honourable friend the Minister of State on the matter. I am sure that my noble friend will be aware that the clause has been deliberately drafted in a way which requires the passengers' committee to send copies of its minutes, conclusions and recommendations to the operators, that is LRT and British Rail as appropriate.
An exception is made, in subsection (7)(c), where they are responding to the Secretary of State on a matter which he has himself referred to them for advice. This follows common practice on the nationalised industry consumer councils. Our firm view is that the consumer bodies should normally deal direct with the industry concerned on the range of matters which they consider. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to become involved in the wide range of detailed management and operational matters which the consumer councils consider. It would be inconsistent with the relationship which all Ministers try to maintain with the industries which they sponsor, and of which I know my noble friend would be well aware.
Naturally, it is appropriate for the committee to send him directly any conclusions and recommendations on matters on which he has specifically sought their advice—which, of course, he can do. But that exception is already provided for in subsection (7)(c) of Clause 40. Equally it is appropriate for him, when he receives any such recommendations, to be able to direct LRT in respect of these matters, if after consultation with them he believes it to be right to do so. But I must stress that we regard that power as very much a reserve power; and it is likely to be used only rarely.
Indeed, such is the case at present. The fact is that, at present, the arrangements for London Transport differ from those for British Rail. The GLC have had a wider power to give directions to London Transport following a recommendation of the London Transport consumer body than the Secretary of State has had in relation to British Rail following a recommendation of the London TUCC. Indeed, the Secretary of State can only become involved in following up a recommendation about British Rail if the Central Transport Consultative Committee were to take up a matter on behalf of the TUCC and use their right of access to the Secretary of State to make a recommendation to him on the subject. This would indeed be a tortuous process and I doubt whether it is likely to be appropriate to use this process in practice. But even where London Transport are concerned, I understand that only on very few occasions have the London Transport Passengers' Committee sought the GLC's agreement to direct the London Transport Executive on matters dealt with as a recommendation of that Committee.

871
And on no occasion have the GLC ever issued such a direction to London Transport.
I have no doubt that both LRT and British Rail will continue to discuss willingly and constructively with the new passengers' committee. If for any reason they consider that they are not getting the satisfactory service they feel entitled to expect, I have no doubt that they will draw this to the Secretary of State's attention in their annual report. That report must of course be laid before Parliament in accordance with subsection (10) of this clause.
We are amalgamating two consumer councils which have had slightly different functions. Our aim has been, as far as possible, to create a consumer body on the lines of the other nationalised industry consumer councils without diminishing its powers. I am confident that the new passengers' committee will have enhanced powers compared with those of the consumer councils which they will replace. Apart from the power to make an annual report to the Secretary of State, which will be laid before Parliament, the passengers' committee will be involved in consultation on LRT's strategy statements under Clause 7. in the annual provision of information under Clause 30 and, if a later amendment is accepted, in considering the withdrawal of LRT bus services. We take pride in the strengthening of the consumer arrangements which are provided for in the Bill, and we are confident that the passengers' committee will have sufficient status to make their representations forcefully and persuasively to LRT and British Rail.
I shall read the details of what my noble friend has said and perhaps she will do me the same courtesy. If we feel at the end of that that there is something we can do, by all means I hope that we can get together about it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and would confirm that in the 131/2 years of existence of the London Transport Passengers' Committee they have only 10 times sought a direction from the GLC and the GLC, I might add, have never acceded to that request. So it is rather a case of having a big stick to wave rather than actually being able to beat anyone with it. Nevertheless, I think it is worth considering and I am very grateful to the Minister for saying that he will read this matter later and consider it in great detail.
I think the passengers' committee would be very pleased to feel that their powers were enhanced and would be very sorry to see them weakened. That was the reason for my putting down this amendment. If, when the Minister has read all this, he finds that there is something in what I am saying, I should be very grateful if he could look into it and see what could be done about this at a later stage. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 [Exemption of London bus services under control of London Regional Transport from requirement of road service licence]:
10.10 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) Where—

(a) London Regional Transport or any subsidiary of theirs propose to discontinue a bus service currently provided by them which is being operated wholly or in part as a London bus service; or

(b) London Regional Transport propose to discontinue, or to agree to the discontinuance of, a bus service currently provided by any other person in pursuance of an agreement entered into by London Regional Transport by virtue of section 3(2) of this Act which is being so operated;

then, before deciding to discontinue, or to agree to the discontinuance of, that service London Regional Transport shall, so far as the service is provided in Greater London, consult with the Greater London Council, with any of the following councils, that is to say, the councils of the London boroughs and the Common Council, in whose area any part of the route of the service is situated, with the Passengers' Committee and with any other person they think fit.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, perhaps I should explain that it may not immediately be obvious from the text that this Government amendment to Clause 43 seeks to honour an undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, when we discussed Clause 30 in Committee. The noble Lord moved an amendment on that occasion which would have required LRT to consult local authorities before major variations of routes or withdrawals of public passenger transport services. I explained to your Lordships on that occasion that it derived from a direction by the Greater London Council to London Transport. I did point out some difficulties in the amendment but undertook to see what we could do to meet the spirit of it.
I will not dwell on the previous amendment because I do not think there is really any difference on this topic between the Government and the noble Lord opposite. What we have done is to consider what requirements proposed in the previous amendment are in practice absent from the Bill. The only point which the Bill did not cover was consultation over withdrawals of bus services. That is what we now seek to deal with by this amendment.
The amendment builds on the existing arrangements in Clause 43, which already provide that LRT must consult local authorities, including the GLC, about proposals to provide new bus services in Greater London and about proposals to vary the route of an existing bus service. The requirement applies whether LRT operate the service directly or do so under a Clause 3(2) agreement with a private operator. The amendment provides that, where a bus service controlled by LRT Greater London is proposed to be withdrawn, LRT must consult the GLC and any of the London boroughs in whose areas the route runs. Once again, this requirement will apply whether LRT propose to discontinue a route which they have been operating themselves, or whether the service to be discontinued is one which has been provided by a private operator under a Clause 3(2) agreement.
In one important respect our amendment goes further than the proposal that was discussed at the Committee stage.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords—
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Perhaps it may be helpful if I speak a little more slowly, my Lords. In one important respect this amendment goes a little further than the proposal which was discussed at Committee stage. Under our amendment, LRT will be required to consult the passengers' committee as well as the local authorities about withdrawals of bus services. This will be a further enhancement of the committee's powers as a result of the Bill. The amendment does not provide for any period of notice but in this respect it follows the arrangements already in Clause 43. In practice, withdrawals of services are not proposed at short notice or in isolation, and any withdrawal will normally he part of a package of proposals. By their very nature, changes of this sort do require some months of detailed preparation and they will in addition be foreshadowed in general terms in the information to be provided under Clause 30.
With that explanation, which, as I say, is a further enhancement of the committee's powers, I invite your Lordships to accept the amendment.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for putting down this amendment. I must apologise to him for my slight inattention. Even lowland people like myself are occasionally momentarily swept into the current of the normal channels of communication in this place. There was a slight distraction. I will, however, read with great care the very full explanation the Minister gave. In the meantime I thank him very much for having given attention to the amendment which I moved on an earlier occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Application of Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in relation to services in Greater London]:
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 40, line 24, at end insert—
(" ( ) In subsection (2) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added before paragraph (a):
"(aa) shall, in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service as defined by section 43(6) of the London Regional Transport Act 1984, send copies of that application and supporting information to the London Regional Passengers' Committee;"
( ) In subsection (3) of section 31 (grant of road service licences) the following sub-paragraph shall be added after paragraph (c): "and
(d) in respect of any application for a licence to operate a London bus service any representations made by the London Regional Passengers' Committee." ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a completely new amendment which has not been before the House previously. It relates to the application to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 in relation to services in Greater London. It might be to the advantage of the House if I say that this amendment has the support of the National Consumer Council. They hold the view that the passengers' committee should be able to
874
represent the interests of all public transport users in London. We debated the previous amendment, which I moved, which urged that the passengers' committee should consider all transport operations, including those of independent operators who were functioning under road service licences.
As we have heard, the passengers' committee is precluded from considering bus services licensed by Traffic Commissioners. The consumers' council were in support of the previous amendment, but the Government did not accept that. At the very least the consumers' council take the view—and we on these Benches support it—that the passengers' committee should have a statutory right to be consulted by the Traffic Commissioners when applications to provide stage carriage services are being considered. That is the purpose of the two subsections in this new clause. They propose amendments to the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to ensure that the passengers' committee will be consulted by the Traffic Commissioners when they are receiving applications. This seems to be a very good channel for the use of the passengers' committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has explained, this amendment really would give preferential treatment to the passengers' committee in respect of applications made to the Traffic Commissioners by independent operators for road service licences to operate London bus services. The amendment would require copies of the application to be sent to the passengers' committee, and it would require the Traffic Commissioners to have regard in particular to representations received from the passengers' committee.
I think it was made clear to the noble Lord when we responded to Amendment No. 37, and also in a letter which my noble friend wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, following discussions in Committee, that we saw no grounds for giving the passengers' committee a particular role in relation to independent operators. The committee's role is to represent the interests of the users of services provided by a nationalised industry. It is not meant as a national consumer watchdog to comment on passenger transport provision at large.
I explained that the committee will be free to make objections or representations to the Traffic Commissioners in the normal way. They can, like local authorities or any other interested bodies, subscribe to the publication, Notices and Proceedings. This is the standard means of publicising applications received by the Traffic Commissioners.
We believe it would be quite wrong to put the committee in a special or privileged position, both in terms of receiving copies of applications and of requiring the Traffic Commissioners to have particular regard to any representations which they may make. The Traffic Commissioners are required under Section 31 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 to have regard to any objections or representations made in the prescribed manner which in their opinion are relevant. So if the passengers' committee representations are considered to be relevant, regard must be had to them. We do not believe that there is any case

875
for requiring more than that. I hope that the noble Lord will agree and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made that suggestion he realised that it was rather optimistic. I will withdraw the amendment because of the lateness of the hour, but not for the reasons which the noble Lord has advanced. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind that this is not just the view of the Opposition; it is the view fully accepted and advanced by the National Consumer Council, which is a very important body acting on behalf of consumers.
The noble Lord said that they can make representations in the normal way. If the passengers' committee are to represent—as we all know they will—the users of public transport, they are not being put in a privileged position. They will have information from the Traffic Commissioners, so that they can see whether or not the applications are ones on which they on behalf of the users, should pass views. We shall be in the situation that, if the proposals in the Bill are carried to their logical conclusion, then, as the years go by, with more independent operators coming into being and being given road service licences, the passengers' committee will find themselves in a weaker position to represent the users.
876
This is a new approach which has not been before the Committee, and therefore what I shall do is to read very carefully the report of what the noble Lord the Minister has said. I will seek further advice on this, but I shall not be surprised if on Third Reading we come back in some form with this very important principle, which is in the interests of transport users. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I understand it has been agreed that we should go no further this evening. Accordingly, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past ten o'clock.