Sitting of 4 December 1989

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orders of the Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Division No. 7]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brazier, Julian

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Allason, Rupert

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

  Alton, David

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Amos, Alan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Ashby, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Butcher, John

  Atkins, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Butterfill, John

  Baldry, Tony

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Carrington, Matthew

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carttiss, Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Bendall, Vivian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Chope, Christopher

  Benyon, W.

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

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Cran, James

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

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

  109

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Knapman, Roger

  Day, Stephen

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Devlin, Tim

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Knowles, Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Knox, David

  Dover, Den

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Dykes, Hugh

  Lang, Ian

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Evennett, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Fallon, Michael

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Favell, Tony

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fearn, Ronald

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lilley, Peter

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Forman, Nigel

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Forth, Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Maclean, David

  Franks, Cecil

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Freeman, Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, David

  Gale, Roger

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gardiner, George

  Mans, Keith

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Marland, Paul

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Marlow, Tony

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gow, Ian

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

  Mates, Michael

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gregory, Conal

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Mellor, David

  Grist, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Grylls, Michael

  Mills, Iain

  Hague, William

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moate, Roger

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Hannam, John

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

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

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Harris, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Hayward, Robert

  Mudd, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Heddle, John

  Nelson, Anthony

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Michael

  Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hind, Kenneth

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Norris, Steve

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Michael

  Page, Richard

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

  Paice, James

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patten, John (Oxford W)

  Howells, Geraint

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Pawsey, James

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hunter, Andrew

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Irvine, Michael

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Irving, Charles

  Price, Sir David

  Jack, Michael

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Janman, Tim

  Redwood, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles

  Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kilfedder, James

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shersby, Michael

  110

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Squire, Robin

  Wallace, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Waller, Gary

  Stern, Michael

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Watts, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wells, Bowen

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wheeler, John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Whitney, Ray

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Wilshire, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Thorne, Neil

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Thurnham, Peter

  Wood, Timothy

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Woodcock, Dr. Mike

  Tracey, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Trippier, David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Trotter, Neville

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Viggers, Peter

  Mr. Tom Sackville.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Doran, Frank

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

  Anderson, Donald

  Eadie, Alexander

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ashton, Joe

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

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

  Barron, Kevin

  Fisher, Mark

  Battle, John

  Flannery, Martin

  Beckett, Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Bell, Stuart

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fraser, John

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blair, Tony

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Blunkett, David

  Gordon, Mildred

  Boateng, Paul

  Gould, Bryan

  Boyes, Roland

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

  Hardy, Peter

  Buchan, Norman

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Buckley, George J.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Caborn, Richard

  Haynes, Frank

  Callaghan, Jim

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Campbell-Savours, D N.

  Henderson, Doug

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Home Robertson, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clay, Bob

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clelland, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Adam

  Crowther, Stan

  Janner, Greville

  Cryer, Bob

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Darling, Alistair

  Lamond, James

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Lewis, Terry

  Dixon, Don

  Livingstone, Ken

  Dobson, Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  111

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L.

  McAllion, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prescott, John

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  McFall, John

  Radice, Giles

  McGrady, Eddie

  Randall, Stuart

  McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  McLeish, Henry

  Reid, Dr John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Richardson, Jo

  McWilliam, John

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Madden, Max

  Robertson, George

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Marek, Dr John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Michael

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Meale, Alan

  Short, Clare

  Michael, Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

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

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Gavin

  Murphy, Paul

  Straw, Jack

  Nellist, Dave

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Turner, Dennis

  O'Brien, William

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wall, Pat

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

  Patchett, Terry

  Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

  Pendry, Tom

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  112

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Winnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Robert N. Wareing and

  Wray, Jimmy

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

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

  Coal Industry Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PETITION

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

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

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

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

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Golden Shares
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will outline Government policy concerning golden shares held by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  Policy in respect of each special share is a matter for the Secretary of State holding that share, consulting colleagues as necessary.

  In the case of the special shares held by my right hon. Friend, decisions on the rights attached to these shares will depend on the particular circumstances of each company.

  Financial Services Act
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been taken to ensure that the Financial Services Act is being operated to the benefit of the investor.

  Mr. Redwood
  I believe that the Financial Services Act has already brought benefits for investors, not least the SIB compensation scheme. However, investors also benefit financially when regulation of the firms with which they deal is least burdensome, and the amendments introduced in the new Companies Act should make the system of investor protection more flexible and cost-effective.

  Regional Infrastructure Investment
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about regional infrastructure investment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of the concern in the regions about the quality of regional infrastructure, particularly in relation to transport links with the single market and the Channel tunnel. These are matters on which we make our views known to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, and colleagues at the Department of Transport.

  CBI
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the prospects for British business.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department maintains regular and frequent contacts with the Confederation of British Industry at all levels on a wide range of business matters.

  Cheshire Business and Innovation Centre
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the funding of the Cheshire business and innovation centre; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have received representations from my hon. Friend and others who have asked far money from the European regional development fund to be made available for the Cheshire business and innovation centre.

  The eligibility of Cheshire business and innovation centre for support from the European regional development fund will be decided in the light of a Community support framework which will determine the level of overall funding for an area and the priorities for support. Discussions on this are currently taking place.

  Uranium
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantity of uranium has been imported to Britain from Africa since 1979; and what were the national sources of these materials.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is confidential and cannot be published.

  Coffins
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ask the Director-General of Fair Trading to investigate the price of coffins.

  Mr. Redwood
  If the hon. Member has any evidence of monopoly abuse or anti-competitive or restrictive trade practices which may be affecting the price of such goods he should draw it to the attention of the Director-General of Fair Trading direct.

  Footwear Industry
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement regarding the present state of the British footwear industry.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department is fully aware of the difficulties facing United Kingdom footwear manufacturers and of their continuing concern over low-cost imports, particularly from the Far East. The findings and recommendations of the Commission's Community-wide investigation into imports of footwear from Taiwan and South Korea have been circulated to member states. Those recommendations are now being urgently examined and we will reach a decision on appropriate action for the United Kingdom as soon as possible.

  Industrial Assistance
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the aid given by his Department to firms in Tameside and Stockport.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Aid to firms in Tameside and Stockport, available from the Department of Trade and Industry under the Enterprise Initiative, is as follows:

  The Consultancy Initiative
  Encourages small and medium sized firms to develop their key management activities by making use of private sector

  3
  consultancy. In Stockport (a non-assisted area) and Tameside (an assisted area), the DTI will pay half and two thirds, respectively, of the costs of consultancy;

  The Regional Initiative
  Provides selective assistance for investment projects undertaken by firms located in assisted areas, such as Tameside. The regional initiative does not apply in Stockport or other non-assisted areas;

  The Export Initiative
  Offers a comprehensive range of support and advisory services to help firms and businesses develop their markets overseas;

  The Research and Technology Initiative
  Seeks to support and encourage collaborative research partnerships between business and centres of academic excellence. Additionally, through the annual small firms merit award for research and technology provides financial help to assist with the costs of developing new and novel business ideas.

  The Enterprise and Education Initiative
  Aims to strengthen and develop at the local level the interface between business employers and schools.
  Additionally, firms in Tameside and Stockport can benefit from a broad range of support and technical services available from the DTI either to complement action taken under the Enterprise Initiative, or separately.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy on publishing the House of Fraser report(a) once legal proceedings arising out of it are completed and (b) after the serious fraud squad indicates that no prosecutions are appropriate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has made it clear that it is his intention to publish the report at the earliest possible moment consistent with the even-handed administration of justice.

  Hi-tech Industries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives he plans for the improvement of hi-tech British industries.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government's major initiative for helping United Kingdom hi-tech companies is LINK which supports collaborative projects of strategic research involving companies and science base institutions. There are now 21 LINK programmes in various fields with a total value of almost £300 million, of which Government will contribute 50 per cent. Within these programmes, over 500 projects are in the pipeline. Further programmes will be announced in due course.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, for each investigation by his Department since May 1979 into United Kingdom companies, he will list(a) the name of the company investigated, (b) the date inspectors were appointed, (c) the date the inspectors reported to his Department, (d) whether prosecution was recommended, (e) the amount of fraud involved, (f) whether and when prosecution followed, (g) the outcome of the prosecution, (h) the date the inspectors' report was made public, (i) whether it was published in full or only in part, (j) the costs of the investigation and (k) the costs of the prosecution.
  4
  Mr. Redwood
  This information in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Information about Companies Act investigations is contained in the annual report prepared in accordance with the provisions of section 729 of the Companies Act 1985. Copies of the report are placed in the Library. Further information will be available in my Department's memorandum on DTI investigations provided to the Trade and Industry Select Committee which will be published by the Committee in due course. There have been 56 inspections under sections 432 and 442 since 1979.

  Output Statistics
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the increases in real total output, as expressed in index numbers, for the following sectors between the latest available figures and the same period or periods in 1973: steel, heavy and light, bricks, cement, passenger cars, commercial vehicles, construction, textiles and engineering.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Percentage changes in output for the sectors concerned (or, in some cases, the nearest approximation for which figures are available) are given in the following table. The periods of comparison, unless otherwise stated, are the first three quarters of 1973 and 1989 respectively.

  Percentage change

  Crude steel

  1-27

  Bricks

  -31

  Cement

  -15

  Motor vehicles and parts

  -36

  Construction

  2+3

  Textiles

  -35

  Mechanical engineering

  -10

  Electrical, electronic and instrument engineering

  +69

  1 1989 quarter 1 and 2 compared with 1973 quarter 1 and 2.

  2 1988 compared with 1973.

  Enterprise Initiative
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish(a) tables showing the number of projects and total expenditure in each standard region under the enterprise initiative in each case expressed also as a percentage of the national total of expenditure and projects approved and (b) similar tables for each programme within the enterprise initiative.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The Enterprise Initiative is a comprehensive package of DTI services, including the consultancy initiatives, regional selective assistance (RSA), regional enterprise grants (REG), collaborative research programmes, the small firms merit award for research and technology (SMART), the enterprise and education initiative, the managing into the '90s programme and the export initiative.

  The information requested for project based programmes is as follows:

  5

  Number of Consultancy Initiative Projects Approved and Total Actual Expenditure from 13 January 1988 to 31 October 1989

  DTI Region/Country

  Approved Projects

  Per cent.

  Actual expenditure (£'000)

  Per cent.

  Total

  26,453

  57,887

  NE

  1,370

  5·2

  2,891

  5·0

  NW

  4,126

  15·6

  10,859

  18·8

  YH

  2,506

  9·5

  5,974

  10·3

  WM

  2,741

  10·4

  6,803

  11·8

  EM

  1,693

  6·4

  3,511

  6·1

  SW

  2,153

  8·1

  4,074

  7·0

  SE

  8,326

  31·5

  14,642

  25·3

  SDA

  2,115

  8·0

  5,680

  9·8

  WDA

  1,423

  5·4

  3,453

  6·0

  Notes:

  1. A similar breakdown is not applicable to the Enterprise and Education Initiative, the Managing into the '90s programme or the Export Initiative, as these programmes do not offer individual project assistance to firms.

  2. Information is provided by DTI Region and for Scotland and Wales as it is not available by standard economic region.

  Number of regional selective assistance projects approved and total actual expenditure from 13 January 1988 to 31 October 1989

  DTI Region/Country

  Approved Projects

  Per cent.

  Actual expenditure (£'000)

  Per cent.

  Total

  2,836

  36,467

  North East

  382

  13·5

  6,177

  16·9

  North West

  551

  19·4

  5,092

  14·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  251

  8·9

  3,436

  9·4

  West Midlands

  799

  28·2

  6,037

  16·6

  East Midlands

  38

  1·3

  211

  0·6

  South West

  104

  3·7

  1,107

  3·0

  South East

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Scottish Development Agency

  386

  13·6

  8,045

  22·1

  Welsh Development Agency

  325

  11·5

  6,362

  17·4

  Number of regional enterprise grants projects approved and total actual expenditure from 1 April 1988 to 31 October 1989

  DTI Region/Country

  Approved Projects

  Per cent.

  Actual expenditure (£'000)

  Per cent.

  Total

  2,713

  5,264

  North East

  738

  27·2

  1,286

  24·4

  North West

  528

  19·5

  1,108

  21·0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  344

  12·7

  788

  15·0

  West Midlands1

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  East Midlands

  59

  2·2

  145

  2·8

  South West

  212

  7·8

  272

  5·2

  South East

  0

  0·0

  0

  0·0

  Scottish Development Agency

  476

  17·5

  1,036

  19·7

  Welsh Development Agency

  356

  13·1

  629

  11·9

  1No assisted areas in the West Midlands.

  Number of Small Firms Merit Awards for research and technology projects approved and total actual expenditure from 13 January 1988 to 31 October 1989

  DTI Region/Country

  Approved Projects

  Per cent.

  Actual expenditure (£'000)

  Per cent.

  Total

  347

  —

  13,502

  —

  North East

  27

  7·8

  1,024

  7·6

  North West

  34

  9·8

  1,335

  9·9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23

  6·6

  896

  6·6

  West Midlands

  37

  10·7

  1,471

  10·9

  East Midlands

  30

  8·6

  1,164

  8·6

  South West

  38

  11·0

  1,453

  10·8

  South East

  96

  27·7

  3,773

  27·9

  Scottish Development Association

  27

  7·8

  1,024

  7·6

  Welsh Development Association

  35

  10·1

  1,362

  10·1

  67

  Number of Collaborative Research Projects approved and total actual expenditure from 13 January 1988 to 31 October 1989

  DTI Region/Country

  Approved Projects

  Per cent.

  Actual expenditure (£'000)

  Per cent.

  Total

  396

  —

  97,416

  —

  North East

  3

  0·8

  683

  0·7

  North West

  34

  8·6

  9,476

  9·7

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21

  5·3

  3,977

  4·1

  West Midlands

  55

  13·9

  13,250

  13·6

  East Midlands

  45

  11·4

  4,700

  4·8

  South West

  18

  4·5

  5,526

  5·7

  Eastern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South East

  212

  53·5

  59,127

  60·7

  Scottish Development Association

  8

  2·0

  677

  0·7

  Welsh Development Association

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Research and Development
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the size of the research and development budget for each year since 1979 and the proportion of this budget spent in developing defence technology.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 30 November 1989] : Department of Trade and Industry spend on science and technology since 1979 is as follows:

  £ million

  1979–80

  245

  1980–81

  252

  1981–82

  286

  1982–83

  283

  1983–84

  400

  1984–85

  436

  1985–86

  458

  1986–87

  462

  1987–88

  418

  11988–89

  407

  1 Estimated.

  Notes

  (1) Before June 1983 figures relate to Department of Industry.

  (2) Source of figures: Cabinet Office annual review of Government funded research and development.

  There is no proportion of the budget spent in developing defence technology. Some limited support of research at Ministry of Defence establishments is carried out to promote civil applications of defence technology.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration his Department has given to the future deregulation of telecommunications; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The regulatory framework for telecommunications is established by the Telecommunications Act 1984 and certain policy statements made at that time. I have no current plans to make significant changes to this framework. I shall, however, continue to look for further opportunities within the framework for increasing competition.

  Footwear
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has any plans to investigate the dumping and subsidisation of imports of ladies footwear from various far eastern countries.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: No. Under the Community's anti-dumping and anti-subsidy legislation it is the European Commission that carries out investigations in response to complaints from the Community industries affected. The Commission has recently completed an investigation into safeguard action against certain footwear imports from Taiwan and South Korea and has invited the views of member states.

  Korea (Treatment of Animals)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will raise with the President of Korea during his visit to the United Kingdom for trade talks his country's treatment of dogs and cats intended for human consumption and the need to end such practices before stronger trade links are developed.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 1 December 1989]: While I share the hon. Member's concern about cruelty to animals, wherever it may occur, it is not an appropriate subject for trade talks. I am sure that the President of Korea will have noted the strong and justified views of the British public which were publicised extensively during his visit.

  Information Engineering Technology Programme
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement as to the reason for the delays in the allocation of funds to projects in the information engineering advanced technology programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 1 December 1989]: About 80 per cent. of the offers under the first round of this programme have now been made. I am very conscious of the need to get the outstanding projects under way as soon as possible.

  A major reason why offers have been delayed is that many companies have been slow to provide supporting information to explain the basis of their costs or to demonstrate their viability. Furthermore, many research consortia have needed reorganisation, following decisions by individual partners not to pursue the project as

  9
  originally proposed. The Department tries to be helpful in such cases and allow a reasonable time for a revised proposal to be submitted.

  Liability Insurance
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to require all building surveyors to show proof of adequate liability insurance prior to any property surveying work being undertaken for members of the public.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have been asked to reply. This proposal, which reflects a recommendation in the Government's recent report on professional liability, will be examined as legislative opportunities become available.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of British aid to Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988 British gross bilateral aid to Zimbabwe amounted to more than £24 million, including assistance by the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in the light of reports of famine in rebel-held areas of Ethiopia, how Her Majesty's Government will ensure that food supplies they provide will get through to those who need them.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The food that we have supplied to rebel-held areas has been channelled through British non-governmental organisations with proven capacity to deliver it to those in need. We propose to continue using these channels.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he intends to take to alleviate the famine in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 4 December.

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what food aid is provided by Britain to the Tigre area of Ethiopia; and what steps are being taken to make sure supplies reach their destination.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on emergency food supplies provided from British Government funds to Tigre and the surrounding area.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The food that we have supplied to rebel-held areas has been channelled through British non-governmental organisations with proven capacity to deliver it to those in need. We propose to continue using these channels. It is not the practice to reveal more precise details of such operations.

  Amazonian Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made an assessment of the results of the visit to Brazil of the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to discuss Amazonian rain-forest issues with the Brazilian Government.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Its main purpose was to sign a memorandum of understanding on technical co-operation on environmental matters, which provides the framework for our proposed assistance programme with Brazil in this area. I wrote to the hon. Member on 3 November giving details of progress on the first projects.

  Poland
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic aid is currently given to Poland.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a know-how fund for Poland during General Jaruzelski's visit in June; and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 29 November that it would be doubled. The fund, in effect a technical co-operation programme, will total £50 million over five years. We expect to spend £3 million in the current financial year. My right hon. Friend also announced a contribution of $100 million to a stabilisation fund for Poland, and finance for an agricultural project costing some £15 million.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to restore overseas aid to Vietnam.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last reviewed Her Majesty's Government's aid and development embargo on Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Government's policy on Vietnam is kept under constant review. The announced withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia is one consideration in resuming an aid programme to Vietnam. In his speech on 31 July to the international conference on Cambodia in Paris the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said that Britain also expected the Vietnamese Government to fulfil their responsibilities towards their own people and to their neighbours before we would be prepared to consider contributing to a programme of assistance for Vietnam.

  Non-governmental Organisations
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about increases planned in the Overseas Development Agency joint funding scheme and other schemes benefiting United Kingdom non-governmental organisations operating in developing countries.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to
  11
  channel further aid funds through United Kingdom non-governmental organisations for projects in developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have recently decided to increase our joint funding scheme, under which we support non-governmental organisations' agreed long-term development projects by 25 per cent. next year to £20 million. I am also increasing support for the United Kingdom volunteer recruiting agencies—most notably VSO—by 10 per cent. to £14·3 million. We will, of course, also consider sympathetically requests for assistance from non-governmental organisations for disaster and emergency relief measures if the need arises.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the principal categories of Overseas Development Administration grants to non-governmental organisations in 1988–89 under the heading "Others" in his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 16 November,Official Report, columns 467–70; and what sum was paid to each non-governmental organisation within each of these categories of grant.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Grants to non-governmental organisations under the heading of "Others" as contained in my reply on 16 November encompass a wide range of activity which cannot readily be categorised. The principal elements are the volunteer programme and certain development projects implemented by non-governmental organisations but financed from bilateral country programmes. The volunteer programme accounts for 52 per cent. of the "Others" figure and consists of:

  Grant 1980 to 1989

  £

  British Executive Service Overseas

  300,006

  Catholic Institute for International Relations

  945,000

  International Voluntary Service

  760,000

  United Nation Association International Service

  490,000

  Voluntary Service Overseas

  8,681,533

  TOTAL

  11,176,539

  Cambodia
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being given to the people of Cambodia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 23 November at column 17.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the diplomat and the Overseas Development Administration official who will be visiting Phnom Penh shortly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have nothing to add to the statement that I made in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) on 23 November at column 17. It is not the practice to name officials in these circumstances.

  Namibia
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to assist in infrastructure development in Namibia.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid Her Majesty's Government propose to make available as a priority to Namibia.

  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much and what type of economic and development aid Her Majesty's Government gave in 1988, and are proposing to give in the current year, to Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  British aid for Namibians in 1988 was just over £2 million. It focused on the development of English language teaching skills and scholarships for Namibians both inside and outside the country. This programme has continued in 1989. In addition we have contributed £1·15 million towards the refugee repatriation programme.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 26 October at col. 1046 that we would provide assistance to Namibia after independence. The priorities for a future programme will be agreed with the new Government.

  The Caribbean
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on overseas aid to the Caribbean.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Our bilateral aid programme to the Commonwealth Caribbean has been running at over £30 million a year for some time. Last year (1988–89) it reached £51 million, mainly because of a substantial increase in investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. This year expenditure is expected to remain at a high level.

  A new feature is the capital aid programme for Guyana (plus increased technical co-operation) to support that country's economic recovery programme; we expect to spend some £12 million in loans, grants and technical co-operation in Guyana this financial year.

  Hurricane damage has required an exceptional response. Last year we gave Jamaica a grant of £3 million after Hurricane Gilbert struck. This year, in the wake of Hurricane Hugo, we have assisted Antigua, St. Kitts and the British Virgin Islands and particularly Montserrat, where we have already spent or committed around £4·5 million in relief and reconstruction aid.

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will hold discussions with other Governments and non-governmental organisations on the situation in the Horn of Africa.

  Mrs. Chalker
  At the European Community Development Council on 21 November I drew attention to the serious threat of famine in northern Ethiopia and
  13
  urged that all possible diplomatic channels be used to exert pressure on the parties to the conflict to secure free access for food supplies. We are also liaising closely with other donor Governments and international agencies. Similar co-ordination takes place on the situation in Sudan. I meet regularly with the British non-governmental organisations working in the Horn of Africa.

  Tropical Hardwood Forests
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the European Community's effort to select the most practical and internationally economically viable options to conserve the tropical hardwood forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom is playing a full part in the Community's discussion of these issues, which were raised both at the Council of Development Ministers on 21 November and at the Council of Environment Ministers on 28 November. We have provided the only expert on tropical forestry in the development directorate of the Commission.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Local Education Authority Inspectors
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received a copy of the Audit Commission report on the role of local education authority inspectors and advisers; and what response he will be making.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend received a copy of the report on 3 October. My right hon. Friend and I agree with much of the analysis and believe that local authorities will find the report thought-provoking and helpful. We shall be discussing with them how best to follow it up.

  School Numbers
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his estimates of the numbers of(a) primary school children and teachers and (b) secondary school children and teachers for each year of the 1990s.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The projected numbers of pupils in maintained primary and secondary schools in England and of teachers overall are given in the table. The numbers of teachers in future years will depend upon many factors. The projection is based on an illustrative assumption that the current overall pupil teacher ratio of 17:1 will be maintained in future years. Further assumptions would be needed to disaggregate the overall figure between the nursery, primary and secondary sectors, and no attempt has been made to do this in the figures shown.

  Thousands

  At January of each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Teachers overall

  1990

  3,967

  2,851

  397

  1991

  4,011

  2,818

  396

  1992

  4,046

  2,833

  399

  1993

  4,093

  2,866

  404

  1994

  4,164

  2,912

  410

  14

  At January of each year

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Teachers overall

  1995

  4,236

  2,967

  418

  1996

  4,316

  2,999

  424

  1997

  4,385

  3,031

  430

  1998

  4,452

  3,063

  436

  1999

  4,512

  3,106

  442

  Notes:

  1. Pupils in maintained nursery and special schools are excluded, as are those in independent schools.

  2. The projections take account of the mid-1988 population projection provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Pupils of all ages are included. For primary schools, part-time pupils under the age of five are each counted as one.

  4. The overall number of teachers employed for service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England is given. Teachers in nursery schools are included, to be consistent with the usual coverage of the overall aggregate employed for public expenditure planning. All full-time equivalent teachers are counted, including student teachers, instructors, occasional teachers and secondments.

  International Student Conference, Buenos Aires
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if there was any United Kingdom representative present at the third international student conference on youth building the future in Buenos Aires on 11 to 18 August; and whether he has received any report on decisions taken at the forum.

  Mr. Jackson
  So far as I have been able to establish, the United Kingdom was not represented. I have received no report of this conference.

  Records of Achievement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that all school children have an individual record of achievement; what resources he is putting into securing this specific objective; and what advice he is offering to local education authorities on the need for records of achievement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Draft regulations and an accompanying circular on information to parents on their child's achievements are to be issued for consultation shortly. I will arrange for copies to be placed in the Library as soon as they are available.

  Teacher Appraisal
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements have been made by his Department for the report on the evaluation of the school teacher appraisal pilot study, undertaken by the Cambridge Institute of Education, to be made available to those interested bodies who have been invited by his Department to comment on the report of the national steering group; what priority he attaches to such evaluation of school teacher appraisal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Cambridge Institute of Education report on the evaluation of the school teacher appraisal pilot study was presented to the national steering group (NSG) responsible for overseeing the study in July this year, and was taken into account in the report to the Secretary of State by that group. My right hon. Friend did
  15
  not send copies of the evaluation report, in addition to the reports of the NSG and Her Majesty's inspectors, to all those consulted on the NSG's recommendations, because he wished to limit the amount of reading required of them. Copies were, however, sent to the local authority and teacher associations and to all local education authorities and grant maintained schools.

  My right hon. Friend attaches considerable priority to the evaluation of pilot projects such as those in school teacher appraisal. The Cambridge Institute of Education as evaluators of the pilot projects made an important contribution to the work of the national steering group.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the amount of his Department's expenditure on the evaluation of teacher appraisal pilot projects, including expenditure for work undertaken by the Cambridge Institute of Education; and if he will make a statement on the main findings of this evaluation.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  A total of £248,843 was spent on external evaluation of the school teacher appraisal pilot study by the Cambridge Institute of Education. The findings of this evaluation are set out in a report by the Cambridge institute, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Child Care Courses
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to make practical child care courses part of the school curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Guidance on the place and content of health education in the curriculum as a whole is to be issued to all schools in England in 1990 by the National Curriculum Council. This is likely to include guidance on education about child care.

  Barnstaple Schools
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the present and the forecast figure for pupils at the primary schools in Barnstaple Roundswell, Barnstaple Whiddon Valley and Barnstaple Landkey; and what additional funding he will provide for new schools in this area.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  According to Devon local education authority, the figures are as follows:

  1989

  1993

  Barnstaple, Roundswell

  371

  501

  Barnstaple, Whiddon Valley

  887

  1,140

  Barnstaple, Landkey

  205

  218

  No proposals for new schools are currently before my right hon. Friend for decision. Priority is given in the distribution of annual capital guidelines for new school places needed as a result of population growth.

  New School Buildings
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the guidance his Department gives to local education 16
  authorities on planning space and facilities to cater for first aid and sickness of pupils and staff in new school buildings.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Local education authorities are under a duty to provide medical accomodation in both new and existing schools in accordance with the requirements of regulation 12 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981.

  The Department has not published any separate guidance on planning space and facilities in school buildings for these purposes. Its professional staff are, however, available to offer advice on aspects of the design and planning of school buildings where this is required.

  CBI Skills Report
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the Confederation of British Industry report "Towards a Skills Revolution—A Youth Charter"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has discussed the work of the Confederation of British Industry's task force on vocational education and training with its chairman, Sir Bryan Nicholson, and with the confederation's director general, Mr. John Banham. The Government have welcomed the final report "Towards a Skills Revolution" and are giving serious consideration to its proposals.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking and on what timetable to give greater independence to local authority maintained further education colleges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Under the Education Reform Act all local education authorities are required to draw up schemes for the planning and funding of their further education colleges, and to delegate substantial authority to reformed college governing bodies. LEAs outside inner London were required to submit proposed schemes, together with articles of government for their colleges, by September 1989 for implementation from April 1990. Those proposed schemes and articles are currently under consideration.

  Inner London boroughs will be required to submit proposed schemes and articles of government by September 1991 for implementation from April 1992.

  London Museums Education Initiative
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage London education authorities to work with the London museums education unit's new initiative for education in the capital.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The London Museums Service has had discussions with the Office of Arts and Libraries about the establishment of the unit and its programme of work. I welcome the steps the unit has taken to establish contact with individual boroughs and local authority associations.

  Vocational Education and Training
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to encourage the involvement of employers with further education colleges in the development of vocational education and training.
  17
  Mr. Jackson
  The reconstitution of college governing bodies required by the Education Reform Act will ensure that governors representing employment interests have no fewer than half of the available places on each new governing body. The Government have taken a number of steps to encourage employers to take up this opportunity to become involved in the development of vocational education and training. The then Secretary of State's speech to the 1988 CBI conference encouraged people from business to get involved and a leaflet "College Governors from the Business Community" was distributed. Earlier this year, an information pack "New Governors for Further Education" was produced by Industry Matters and also a promotional video. Employers can become involved in the work of colleges in many other ways. Through its Pickup initiative the Department has been encouraging colleges to work with employers to develop tailor-made training and updating provision. The changes required by the Education Reform Act will give employers greater oportunity to participate in the planning of such work.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what targets he is setting for vocational education and training among young people.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend recognises the need for considerable improvement in both the number and the level of vocational qualifications gained by young people. He believes that:Every young person should either be in full-time education or in a job with time off for good quality training.
  Every young person should achieve a recognised vocational qualification or its equivalent, with greater numbers achieving higher levels of qualification.

  Bradford and Wiley (Colleges)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) how many times since 1979 Her Majesty's inspectors of education have visited Bradford and Ilkley community college; how many times their reports have drawn attention to inadequate accommodation; and what action has been taken;

  (2) what location for new accommodation for Bradford college is identified in the bid submitted by Bradford local education authority to replace accommodation lost to Bradford college by vacating the Alexandra hotel building; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what representations he has received from students and others about inadequate accommodation at Bradford college.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Bradford and Ilkley community college has been visited by HMI on many occasions since it was created in 1982 but most of those visits will not have resulted in a report. There have, however, been four inspections of parts of the college's provision since HMI reports were published in 1983. As is usual all include an assessment of the adequacy and sufficiency of the teaching and other accommodation. Copies of the reports are sent to the authority for its consideration.

  The bid from Bradford LEA for a major building project to start in 1990–91 proposes to replace the Alexandra hotel building by converting the Westbrook building on the same site. The bid will be considered on its merits along with those from other education authorities, and allocations will be announced later this month.
  18
  The hon. Member recently wrote to my right hon. Friend enclosing a press release and representations from students in respect of accommodation at Bradford and Ilkley community college. My right hon. Friend has not received any other representations this year on this matter.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the Government's policy on maintaining and improving the standards of British scientific research.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the speech at the first plenary meeting of the Academia Europaea on 26 June by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science in what way the proposed student loan scheme will apply to students from other European Economic Community countries attending centres of education in the United Kingdom; what arrangements will be made to recover the loans from such students after they have returned to their home countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The rules governing the eligibility of students from the European Community will follow the provisions of the Mandatory Awards Regulations. Students from other member states will be eligible for top-up loans if they are attending relevant courses and satisfy the requirements for ordinary residence within the British Islands. Loans will also be available to students who are British citizens and who do not satisfy the ordinary residence requirements, if their absence resulted from employment, or their parents' employment, elsewhere in the European Community. European Community nationals not meeting the residence requirements will also be eligible if they, or their parents or spouses, can establish worker status under the relevant provisions in EC law. Arrangements will be made for the recovery of outstanding repayments from graduates living overseas. It will be in the interests of all borrowers to repay their loans.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement of progress to date on approving local education authorities' schemes of local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  LEAs were required to submit their schemes by the end of September, and all did so. It is a great tribute to LEAs that they have got their schemes in on time. I have been impressed by the quality of what I have seen and the hard work that has been put into schemes by authorities, head teachers and governors.

  We have now announced our approval decisions on 24 schemes. In each case we have proposed minor modifications, all designed to ensure that our three key objectives of local management are met. These are: the maximum delegation of resources to schools; the funding of schools through a clear, open and objective formula; and the minimum constraints on governors' use of their new powers.
  19
  The first 24 LEAs whose schemes we have announced our intention to approve from next April are;

  Barking and Dagenham

  Bedfordshire

  Calderdale

  Cambridgeshire

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Essex

  Harrow

  Havering

  Kent

  Lincolnshire

  Newcastle

  Norfolk

  Northamptonshire

  Oxfordshire

  Rotherham

  Sandwell

  Solihull

  Suffolk

  Sunderland

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Westminster

  Wiltshire

  Survey of Parental Awareness
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to publish the survey of parental awareness of school education commissioned by his Department.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Copies of the interpretative report of the survey of parental awareness of school education are being sent to each chief education officer and to various national education bodies today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Investment
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the investment figure for United Kingdom business for the last year for which figures are available; if he will express the figure as a percentage of gross domestic product; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The level of business investment in 1988 is estimated to have been £58 billion. This was 14·7 per cent. of GDP at factor cost. Total business investment was forecast in the Autumn Statement to increase in real terms by 9¼ per cent. in 1989. As a share of GDP this year it is likely to be the highest ever.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution the increase in investment in manufacturing industry made to the increase in the trade deficit in 1988 and in 1989 to date.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  It is not possible to make a precise estimate of the contribution of the increase in manufacturing investment to the increase in the trade deficit. However, with the Autumn Statement forecast of a 9¼ per cent. rise in 1989, business investment will have increased by over 40 per cent. in the three years to 1989—the largest increase over a three-year period since the war.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the inward and outward investment 20
  flows for each of the last five years between the United Kingdom and (a) the United States of America, (b) Japan, (c) West Germany and (d) France.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The available information relates to net outward and net inward direct investment flows and is published in tables 1·4 and 2·4 of Business Monitor MA4 1987—"Overseas Transactions". Information on portfolio investment, by country, is not available.

  Manufactured Goods
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (i) in terms of volume and of value at 1985 prices United Kingdom sales in 1973, 1979 and 1988 of the industries wholly or mainly engaged in manufacturing importable and exportable goods, (ii) imports and exports of such goods and (iii) the annual rate of increase in United Kingdom output in the 15 years prior to 1973 and in the period since.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Most manufactured goods can be imported and exported and therefore the question can be considered only in terms of manufacturing as a whole.

  (i) United Kingdom sales data are not collected in volume terms, nor at 1985 prices, but the "Report of the Census of Production" summary volume contains current price data for sales and work done. However, a preferred indicator is gross output—that is, sales and work done adjusted for work in progress and goods on hand for sale. No figures are available yet for 1988.

  (ii)—Data at 1985 prices are not published for imports and exports, but current price data and volume indices are contained in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics".

  (iii) Index numbers of output for manufacturing industries at 1985 prices are available in "Economic Trends" and its associated annual supplement.

  The above publications are available from the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing in terms of 1985 prices the balance of trade in manufacturing less erratics on a BOP basis in each year from 1970 to 1973, in 1977, and from 1985 to 1988 and this year to date at an annual rate together with the annual increase/decrease in terms of 1985 prices in (i) gross and net investment in manufacturing industry, (ii) savings, (iii) consumer expenditure, (iv) United Kingdom output of capital and consumer goods, (v) imports of consumer and capital goods and (vi) exports of consumer and capital goods; and if he will publish corrective co-efficients with the trade deficit in each case.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information at constant prices, as is available, from which the balance of trade and percentage changes may be derived, can be found in Government statistical service publications, available from the Library of the House, or on the Central Statistical Office databank, which may be accessed through the Library.

  It is not clear what the hon. Member means by "corrective coefficients".

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the trade deficit in manufactures less erratics on a BOP basis in 1988 and this year to date; and what is his estimate of the contribution
  21
  made in each case by the increase in investment in manufacturing industry and the fall in personal saving, respectively.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The figures requested can be found on the CSO's computer databank, which can be accessed in the House of Commons Library. It is not possible to make precise estimates of the contribution to the manufacturing trade deficit of the rise in investment and fall in personal saving.

  Employment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the growth in employment over the last five years.

  Mr. Lamont
  Total employment increased by 2,117,000 in the five years to June 1989.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the value to the Government's spending plans arising from lower interest costs on the national debt.

  Mr. Lamont
  General Government gross debt interest as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 5 per cent. in 1981–82 to an estimated 31/2 per cent. this year and is projected to fall to 21/4 per cent. in 1992–93. The fall in the burden of debt interest costs makes room within the medium-term plans for higher spending on priority programmes.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has commissioned any research into the Swedish method of taxation for unmarried couples.

  Mr. Lilley
  No.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to enable co-habitants to be taxed on the same basis as married couples where the couples are:(a) male/female, (b) male/male, and (c) female/female.

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government have no plans to allow unmarried couples to be taxed on the same basis as married couples. An unmarried couple who have a child living with them may qualify for an additional personal allowance, which will bring their total tax allowances to the same level as those available to a married couple.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the delay to the introduction of independent taxation which a revised policy allowing married couples to share the marriage allowance equally would entail.

  Mr. Lilley
  A change in the rules for giving the married couple's allowance, so that couples could share the allowance equally between them, would delay the introduction of independent taxation for up to two years.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any surplus from a husband's marriage allowance will be automatically transferred to his wife in the new arrangements for married couple's allowance which are to be introduced in April 1990.
  22
  Mr. Lilley
  Transfer of surplus married couple's allowance to the wife will normally require her husband to give notice to the tax office. Without such a notice, the tax office will not necessarily know that the husband has, or may have, any surplus allowance.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the reasons for the United Kingdom's deficit on trade in invisibles with the European Economic Community and its surplus with the rest of the world.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The deficit on invisibles transactions with European Community countries and institutions reflects deficits on services, including foreign travel, and transfers. Surpluses on interest profits arid dividends and on financial and other services make important contributions to the non-European Community invisibles surplus.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the increase since January 1987 in both the nominal and real exchange rates against the D-mark has had on manufacturing capacity and on the future rate of growth in terms of the balance of payments constraint; and whether this has led him to revise the Treasury model of the economy.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The level of manufacturing investment (including leased assets) in 1989 quarter 3 is provisionally estimated to be about 38 per cent. higher than in 1987 quarter 1; and its cumulative growth over this period has added substantially to manufacturing capacity. The Treasury model is updated when necessary in the light of latest data.

  Investment and Consumption
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what projections of net United Kingdom transactions in external liabilities for (i) direct investment, (ii) portfolio investment and (iii) total transactions, underlie the economic prospects for 1990 in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury does not publish forecasts of overseas sector capital flows.

  Payroll Giving
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in England and Wales now participate in payroll giving schemes.

  Mr. Lilley
  At 5 October 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, the total number of employees throughout the United Kingdom participating in payroll giving schemes was 162,526. Separate figures are not available for England and Wales.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of British exports is attributable to services, as opposed to manufactures, for the years 1979, 1984, 1988 and 1989; and what was total investment during the same years in these two sectors of the economy.
  23
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The most recent estimates of exports of services and manufactured goods in 1979, 1984 and 1988 are contained in the 1989 edition of CSO's "United Kingdom Balance of Payments". The available estimates for investment in these years are contained in the 1989 edition for CSO's "United Kingdom National Accounts". Copies of both publications are available in the Library. They are also on the CSO Databank, which is accessible through the Library. Estimates of exports and manufacturing investment for the first half of 1989 are available from the Library in various CSO publications and from the databank.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the principal differences between the definitions of consumer intermediate and capital goods, for United Kingdom production and for imports, in the national statistics.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: The principal difference is that the import classification applies only to finished manufactures (defined as Sections 7 and 8 of the Standard Industrial Classification, excluding ships, North Sea oil installations and aircraft), whereas the production classification applies to all industrial output. Further information may be obtained from "Industry Statistics: Occasional Paper No. 22" published by the Central Statistical Office in April 1989 and "Classification by broad economic categories" published by the United Nations in 1986, both of which may be found in the House of Commons Library.

  Statistics (Social Science)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the report, "Accessibility and other problems relating to statistics used by social scientists", prepared by Professor Benjamin for the Economic and Social Research Council.

  Mr. Lilley
  I understand that the Economic and Social Research Council has placed a copy of the report in the Library. Officials have prepared a detailed response, which has been sent to the commissioning bodies. This concludes that many of Professor Benjamin's criticisms are unfounded and based on factual inaccuracies and have been made without knowledge of the full range of publications and outputs. A copy of the full response has been placed in the Library.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  High Technology Trading
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions concerning trade in high technology with eastern Europe with his European Community counterparts at the Paris summit.

  Mr. Maude
  No such discussions took place.

  Nepal
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Nepalese Government concerning abuses of human rights.
  24
  Mr. Maude
  Her Majesty's embassy in Kathmandu has on a number of occasions, most recently on 12 November this year, made known to the Nepalese Government the concern felt in this country at the treatment of Christians in Nepal.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make to the Nepalese Government concerning article 18 of the United Nations convention on human rights; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We have made and will continue to make known to the Nepalese Government our concern for the proper respect of religious liberties.

  Bir Zeit University
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Israeli Government concerning the continued closure of Bir Zeit university; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have called regularly on the Israeli authorities, most recently in the EC statement on 6 October, to allow the schools and universities in the Occupied Territories to function normally.

  Romania
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the Romanian Government in respect of the demolition of agricultural villages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We will continue to protest strongly to the Romanian Government on every appropriate occasion about abuses of human rights in Romania, including those involved in President Ceausescu's policy of "systematisation".

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Turkish Government; whether the question of Cyprus was raised; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  I met Mr. Ozceri, under-secretary at the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in London on 17 October. We discussed the Cyprus dispute and agreed on the need for early progress.

  Israel
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to pay a visit to the territories occupied by Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has at present no plans to do so.

  Korea
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is planned to be discussed when the President of Korea visits the United Kingdom in
  25
  the coming week; whether he will ensure that the issue of that country's animal welfare record is included on the agenda; and what representations he has received concerning possible trade sanctions related to this issue.

  Mr. Maude
  President Roh's visit provided the opportunity for a review of Anglo-Korean relations and current international issues. The Koreans are well aware of the strength of feeling in Britain about cruelty to animals. Trade sanctions, as advocated by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, would do nothing to help the situation.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding trade union rights in Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We share the concern expressed by many hon. Members about abuses of human rights in Sri Lanka, but trade unions continue to operate normally there.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to afford citizenship rights in the United Kingdom to the Indian population now resident in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is considering with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a package of measures to maintain confidence in Hong Kong and hopes to make an announcement around the turn of the year.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any steps have been taken to enable the Indian population now living in Hong Kong to become Chinese citizens after 1997.

  Mr. Maude
  Chinese nationality is a matter for the Chinese Government. However it is our understanding that under Chinese nationality law aliens lawfully resident in China are eligible to apply for Chinese nationality. Those members of the Indian population who have resided in Hong Kong for at least seven years and who have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence will continue to enjoy permanent resident status in the Hong Kong special administrative region after 1997, in line with the Sino-British joint declaration on the question of Hong Kong of 1984.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will test the acceptability of the basic law in Hong Kong by a referendum of all citizens.

  Mr. Maude
  The Basic Law will be a Chinese law to be promulgated by the National People's Congress. It is being drafted by the Chinese authorities in consultation with Hong Kong people. A referendum would be neither appropriate nor useful.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many orphans there are at present in the camps in Hong Kong; how they are to be repatriated, and what measures he will take to ensure a satisfactory result.
  26
  Mr. Maude
  We are seeking information from Hong Kong. I shall reply to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  EC Council of Ministers
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report a statement of forthcoming business in the European Community Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Maude
  At the Transport Council on 4 and 5 December, Ministers will further consider the Commission's proposals on stage II of the EC common shipping policy and a report on the present state of discussions with certain west and central African states concerning their cargo allocation policies. A number of road transport items will be discussed including a proposal for a Council regulation on road haulage cabotage; training for drivers of dangerous goods by road; vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road; negotiations between the EC and third countries on transit routes; road safety and a note from the presidency on social regulations concerning road transport. It is expected that the Transport Commissioner will make an oral presentation on Commission proposals on railways policy in the Community. A number of matters concerning the development of civil aviation in the Community are to be considered including proposals for Council regulations on fares for scheduled air services and access for air-carriers to scheduled intra-Community air service routes and the sharing of passenger capacity on scheduled services between member states. Ministers will discuss a presidency note on problems relating to the capacity of air traffic systems and aspects of Community transport infrastructure.

  The Telecommunications Council will meet on 7 December. Ministers will discuss the opening up to competition of the Community's telecommunications services markets by a Commission directive, and a related proposal for a Council directive on open network provision (ONP) to define the conditions on which telecommunications operators make available monopoly services. A common position on the proposed Council measure is unlikely to be achieved on 7 December. A proposed Council declaration on the establishment of a Commission working group to consider research and development in the field of broad-band technology will also be discussed.

  The European Council will meet in Strasbourg on 8 and 9 December. Heads of Government will discuss developments in eastern Europe and the EC response to them, and will discuss economic and monetary union. They will consider a proposal for a charter of fundamental social rights and a number of issues relevant to the completion of the single market. There will also be discussions on audiovisual matters and the free movement of people.

  The Agriculture Council will meet on 11 and 12 December to discuss veterinary checks, compound feedingstuffs, pesticide residues, pig semen, monitoring of export refunds and the scrutiny of EACFF accounts. Ministers will be asked to agree on the Commission submission to GATT on long term agricultural reform. The Council may also discuss the sluice gate price for pigmeat.
  27
  At the Education Council on 14 December Ministers will be invited to agree the terms of a mixed resolution on measures to combat failure at school, mixed conclusions on technical and vocational education and initial training and on European Schools, and a decision amending the ERASMUS programme. There may also be discussion on the possibility of opening up Community programmes in the education and training fields to eastern European countries.

  At the Research Council on 15 December there will be further discussion of a new framework programme of Community activities in research and technological development. The agenda also anticipates the adoption of a common position on a two year programme on human genome analysis.

  The Economic and Financial Council will meet on 15 December to consider the economic situation in the Community, including the Commission's annual economic report. The revised financial regulation will be taken at the Council with the aim of reaching agreement by the end of the year. The discussion on taxation of savings will concentrate on mutual assistance. Common position was reached at ECOFIN on 13 November on the proposed revised Council decisions which will replace the 1964 decision on co-ordination between central banks and the 1974 decision on encouraging the convergence of economic policies and performance. Subject to the opinions of the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee it is hoped that the decisions will be adopted at the forthcoming meeting. The Solvency Ratio Directive and Second Banking Co-ordination Directive have received second reading opinions by the European Parliament and now also return to the Council for final adoption. ECOFIN is expected to discuss progress on the Commission's indirect tax proposals and a progress report on key issues of Takeover Directive negotiations in the Council working party.

  The Fisheries Council will meet on 18 December to discuss 1990 TACS and quotas, EC/Greenland, EC/ Norway, EC/Sweden, EC/Norway/Sweden, EC/Faroes, NAFO, 1990 opportunities in Spanish, Portuguese and member states' waters (Accession Treaties) and 1990 fisheries opportunities in waters off French Guyana. It may also discuss tariff quotas and EC/USSR, EC/GDR, EC/Poland and EC/Latin America.

  At the Foreign Affairs Council on 19 December Ministers will be asked to agree to the terms of the EC-USSR agreement. Ministers will consider developments in Eastern Europe and EC-EFTA co-operation. A Ministerial meeting on EC-EFTA matters is expected to take place in the margins of the FAC. The Council will consider the Commission's draft negotiating mandate for a second stage EC-GCC agreement and Ministers will be asked to agree on the Commission's submission to GATT on long term agricultural reform. The FAC is expected to discuss proposals from the Commission on European Community policy on Japanese car imports, including the issue of import restraints. Ministers will also need to discuss the implications of the finding of the GATT panel on the dispute between EC and United States over the EC oilseeds regime. They may also reach agreement on POSEIDOM (special programme for French overseas departments).

  The Internal Market Council on 21 and 22 December will discuss a number of measures relevant to the completion of the single market.

  Partial Test Ban Treaty
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many preparatory committee meetings are planned by the depository states for the partial test ban treaty amendment conference; and what decisions have been taken by the first committee of the United Nations on the amendment conference;

  (2) if he will make a statement on current progress in arrangements for the planned amendment conference for the 1963 partial test ban treaty; how the amendment conference will be funded; what states have been invited, and by whom, to the conference; and what administrative facilities will be provided by the United Nations in support of the amendment conference.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  On 2 November the depositary Governments of the partial test ban treaty announced that they had arranged to convene the amendment conference on 8 January 1991 for a period of up to two weeks. They subsequently issued invitations to all states parties to the treaty. Although not a United Nations conference, the amendment conference is expected to be held on United Nations premises, and using United Nations facilities. No decisions have yet been reached by the participating states parties on funding the conference. On 17 November the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly adopted by majority vote a resolution recommending a preparatory commitee in May 1990 followed by a session of the amendment conference, with a second substantive session in January 1991.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with representatives of the United States Government regarding tightening of the missile technology control regime; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on 6 November. The United Kingdom will act as host for a meeting of the partners in the missile technology control regime in London on 5–6 December.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received any representations from the Gibraltar Government regarding the colony's direct participation in elections for the European Parliament.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 28 November, whether the Gibraltar Government assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the Governor's residence gardens by agreement with the United Kingdom Government.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the last elections to be held on St. Helena and list the number of contested seats, the number of votes cast and the percentage turn-out in each case.

  Mr. Maude
  The most recent general election in St. Helena was held on 10 May 1989. Twelve councillors were elected from eight constituencies. The number of votes cast in each constituency was as follows:

  Number

  Jamestown

  823

  St. Paul's

  669

  Longwood

  447

  Half Tree Hollow

  431

  Blue Hill

  123

  Levelwood

  76

  Alarm Forest

  157

  Sandy Bay1

  —

  1 Candidate elected unopposed.

  The overall percentage turn-out was 72 per cent.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the gross national product per capita for St. Helena for the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Maude
  It is not possible to enumerate these statistics because no system of national accounting as yet exists in St. Helena. However, such a system is now being developed.

  Airport Agreement
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to re-negotiate the 1987 airport agreement for Gibraltar with Spain in order to take account of the views of the Gibraltar Government.

  Mr. Maude
  We believe that the agreement set out in the 2 December 1987 joint declaration represents a good deal for Gibraltar. We do not see that any useful purpose would be served by attempting to re-open negotiations on the text of that joint declaration.

  Islamabad High Commission
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the migration and visa correspondence unit to supply to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland the Islamabad High Commission reference number requested by the hon. Member by telephone on Monday 27 November.

  Mr. Maude
  The information requested was supplied to the hon. Member's office by telephone on 30 November 1989.

  E1 Salvador
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how may officers of the armed forces of E1 Salvador have been trained at United Kingdom military academies and training establishments in each of the past five years.
  30
  Mr. Maude
  One cadet attended RMA Sandhurst from May 1986 to August 1987.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much military aid Britain provides to the Government of E1 Salvador.

  Mr. Maude
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will discuss with his European Community counterparts a ban on all military aid and advice to the Government of President Cristiani, in El Salvador until death squad activity has ceased.

  Mr. Maude
  No.

  Cambodia
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the plea of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, head of the Khmer Coalition Government o r Kampuchea, that the country be placed under United Nations trusteeship.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome all constructive proposals for restoring peace and stability to Cambodia, including the Australian proposal, now supported by Prince Sihanouk, for an interim authority under United Nations control.

ENERGY

  Wind Energy
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will be presenting a paper to the European Community wind energy conference in Madrid before the deadline in January 1990.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  My Department, in association with its energy technology support unit, will be submitting a paper and subsequently presenting it to the Madrid wind energy conference.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the contract between NORWEB and Lakeland Power.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The terms of the electricity purchase contract between NORWEB and Lakeland Power are a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the current level of sales of energy conservation equipment and the comparable figures for 1988; and what is his policy on the stimulation of the market for energy efficiency goods and services.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: An important task of the energy efficiency office is to bring together in a variety of ways the energy efficiency industry and its potential customers.
  31
  Our regional energy efficiency officers sponsor seminars and meetings, and co-operate with trade association such as the Energy Systems Trade Association and the Association for the Conservation of Energy to promote the use of energy efficient equipment. Our technology support units similarly promote particular energy efficient techniques and equipment, under the best practice programme. I myself regularly speak at conferences, as indeed I did at national energy managers exhibition at Birmingham on November 21, to stimulate and challenge the market for energy efficiency.

  On Wednesday 29 November, I similarly spoke in Cambridge at a conference entitled "The Greenhouse Effect and Energy Conservation". On 1 November I spoke on the occasion of Northern Electric's PEP and BETA awards, on 11 October at MANWEB's PEP and BETA awards and on 26 September at South Eastern Electricity's BETA awards; on each occasion taking particular pains to challenge managers to purchase and use more energy efficient equipment.

  On sales figures, I understand that sales of building energy management systems have increased by about 10 per cent. on 1988 figures to an estimated £89 million in 1989. Information on other types of energy efficiency equipment such as Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant is not readily available, although the CHP industry has claimed "greatly increased interest and sales" in 1989. The Building Energy Efficiency Confederation inform me that in line with the general market for domestic goods, sales of different types of domestic insulation and heating control equipment are down by 6 per cent. and 20 per cent. in 1989 compared with 1988.

THE ARTS

  Museums
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what representations he has received about the London museums education unit's new initiative for education in the capital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  My Office has received details of the London Museums Education Unit's initiative for education in the capital. Officials have met members of the unit to discuss the proposals and are currently considering further information which has been received.

PRIME MINISTER

  French President
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to meet the French President.

  The Prime Minister
  My next meeting with President Mitterrand will be at the NATO Heads of Government meeting in Brussels on 4 December.

  Salary
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is(a) her official salary entitlement as Prime Minister and (b) the official salary she draws as Prime Minister; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My salary entitlement, as Prime Minister, payable under the Ministerial and other Salaries 32
  Order 1988, is £46,109. However, I choose to accept the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons, namely £34,479.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bills
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what considerations underlie a decision on which House of Parliament a Government Bill is to be introduced into; and how these considerations were applied in the case of the Food Bill.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  [holding answer 28 November 1989]: Various considerations may underlie the decision, including the need to balance the weight of business before the two Houses. I do not propose to go into the detailed factors in a particular case.

ENVIRONMENT

  Public Sector Pay
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what pay awards in the public sector he has approved in the current year.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The pay of chairmen and board members of non-departmental public bodies and nationalised industries sponsored by my Department and of the staff of such controlled non-departmental public bodies requires my approval.

  I have approved pay increases for the chairmen and board members of non-departmental public bodies in line with the Government's decisions on the 28th report of the Top Salaries Review Body. I have also approved pay increases for the chairman and board members of the British Waterways Board and for the chairmen and the board members sponsored by my Department of the former English regional water authorities.

  In practice the pay of most of the staff of sponsored NDPBs is linked to public sector pay negotiated nationally. The application of national settlements to staff of the bodies in the following lists has been approved as they arose during the year. In addition I have approved pay increases for the junior staff of new town development corporations (negotiated in the Whitley Council for new town staff in line with the local authority 'white collar' settlement), for the wardens and deerstalker of the Nature Conservancy Council and a new package of pay and terms and conditions of service for the industrial staff of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, constrained by the overall increase in the pay bill for similar staff in the Civil Service.

  Civil Service Pay Links

  British Board of Agrement

  Countryside Commission

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage)—(non-industrial staff)

  Housing Corporation (Senior Staff)

  National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Nature Conservancy Council (except as noted above)

  New Town Development Corporations (Senior Staff)

  Rent Officers

  Royal Armouries

  Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  Royal Fine Art Commission

  Rural Development Commission

  33

  Sports Council (non-industrial staff)

  Local Government Pay Links

  Merseyside Development Corporation

  Sports Council (industrial staff)

  New Town Development Corporations (manual and craft workers)

  Valuation & Community Charge Tribunals

  New Town Pay Links

  Housing Corporation (junior staff)

  As regards the urban development corporations, other than the Merseyside Development Corporation, and the National Rivers Authority, I have approved the pay levels of senior staff and the overall increases in the pay bill for the rest of the staff by reference to the levels of public sector settlements generally.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what provision he has made to protect tenants from landlords who do not remove the rate element from their rent following the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what guidelines his Department issued to landlords on adjusting rents following the introduction of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Where a fair rent is registered a landlord will not, after 1 April 1990, be able to recover an amount for rates in addition to that fair rent. Where no fair rent is registered landlords will not be able to demand from tenants any sum specifically included in rents as payable towards the domestic rates of the landlord. Since this is already the legal position further special provision is not necessary, nor would it be workable. The Department will shortly be issuing a leaflet for both landlords and tenants explaining the position.

  Housing Capital Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list at 1988–89 prices local authorities housing capital investment on(a) new building, (b) renovation of local authority dwellings, (c) renovation grants, (d) lending to housing associations and (e) other housing capital programmes, in (1) inner London, (2) outer London, (3) metropolitan areas, (4) the south-east outside London, (5) other non-metropolitan areas and (6) England as a whole for (i) 1980–81, (ii) 1982–83, (iii) 1984–85, (iv) 1986–87 and (v) 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  I have today placed tables giving the relevant information in the Library. 1988–89 data have not yet been fully analysed.

  Energy Savings (Palace of Westminster)
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what potential energy savings at the Palace of Westminster were indicated in the feasibility study commissioned by his Department; what was the recommended required investment; what was the indicated payback period; when he proposes to undertake the investment; and if he will release the study to the Library.
  34
  Mr. Chope
  An energy audit of the Palace of Westminster was commissioned by the Parliamentary Works Office in 1988 as part of the normal process of ensuring that its planned programme for the care and maintenance of the Palace takes proper account of needs and priorities.

  The report contain 130 recommendations. It identified the scope for savings of £217,000 pa. In the nine months since the report was received work has been completed which will achieve savings of over £70,000 pa. Further work is dependent on other developments, particularly the upgrading of the power supply. £0·6 million has been spent on this work in the current year and further major work will be carried out next year.

  In other cases major design work and or capital expenditure would be required to implement the recommendations. The saving from these, in aggregate, would be less than £50,000 pa for an investment of over £300,000 with pay-back periods mainly greater than four years. The timing of these schemes will be considered with the appropriate House Committees against other demands for the capital works programme.

  Tenants Rights
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider amending the current legislation to provide statutory protection of the tenant's right to renewal of a lease after application has been made to the court in order to avoid the present need to register an application on a land charge.

  Mr. Chope
  No. Legislation already exists covering this area. No changes are necessary.

  Community Charge (Prisoners)
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether guidance will be issued to local authorities on the amount of community charge to be levied on prisoners who lived alone before entering prison.

  Mr. Chope
  Charging authorities have discretion to specify classes of property for the purposes of the standard charge. In doing so they may have regard to a number of factors, including the circumstances of the person subject to the charge. If they wish, they may therefore specify a class of property to include property unoccupied because the owner is in prison. Guidance explaining this has been sent to charging authorities, but it is for individual authorities to decide whether to specify such a class, and, if they do, what rate of standard charge to levy.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much in cash terms has been paid to(a) Langbaurgh, (b) Stockton and (c) Middlesbrough councils by way of central Government grants to support rates income in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:
  35

  Central Government grants1

  £ million

  Langbaurgh

  Stockton

  Middlesbrough

  1984–85

  6·4

  6·9

  14·0

  1985–86

  6·9

  6·0

  14·7

  1986–87

  7·9

  6·7

  16·3

  1987–88

  6·1

  6·9

  16·3

  1988–89

  5·8

  6·5

  19·0

  1 Rate Support Grant and specific grants paid to authorities' Rate Fund Revenue Accounts.

  Cleveland County Council
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to regulate the spending of Cleveland county council.

  Mr. Chope
  Decisions about spending are for each local authority but if any authority insists on excessive spending plans we shall consider using our powers to cap.

  Common Land
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to introduce legislation for the protection of common land; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 November 1989 to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) at column 89.

  World Student Games
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what support the Government are giving to the next World Student Games to be held in Sheffield.

  Mr. Moynihan
  £9·5 million has been provided for games-related projects in the form of urban programme funding, derelict land grant and city grant. In addition the Sports Council has set aside £3 million in its spending programme over the next three years to go towards the revenue costs of the games.

  Greenham Common
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether those people encamped outside the air base of Greenham common will be liable for the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  All adults unless exempt are liable to pay the personal community charge to the local council in whose area they are mainly resident. Persons may be exempt if they have no fixed abode. It is for the community charges registration officer of Newbury district council to determine whether some residents near Greenham common are permanently there, have another main residence elsewhere, or are genuinely of no fixed abode.

  House Prices
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in house prices in France, West Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom since 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Chope
  Based on the building societies quarterly mix-adjusted index house prices in the United Kingdom increased by 247 per cent. between the third quarter of 1979 and the third quarter of 1989.
  36
  My Department does not have comparable information for the other countries listed.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how the sum of £250 million, recently allocated by his Department to tackle homelessness, will be distributed to provide accommodation for the households accepted as homeless by local authorities.

  Mr. Chope
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 15 November, over the next two years we are making an extra £177 million available to local authorities, and an extra £73 million to the Housing Corporation (for distribution to housing associations), for homelessness projects in the "pressure areas" of London and the south-east. The aim is to secure extra lettings for homeless families currently in bed and breakfast accommodation. We have invited bids from local authorities in London and the south-east. Similarly, the Housing Corporation has invited bids from housing associations.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on his plans to reduce homelessness.

  Mr. Howard
  On 15 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a substantial package of measures to relieve and reduce homelessness, following our thorough review of the legislation. Since then, I have invited bids from local authorities in the pressure areas of London and the south-east for projects under the £250 million of extra resources available (and the Housing Corporation has invited bids from housing associations). I have announced that councils will be able to continue existing leasing schemes for a further period of three years, without affecting their capital allocations, to ensure that homeless families are not returned to bed and breakfast accommodations; and I have visited various voluntary organisations to discuss the enhanced role we would like them to play, with increased Government funding.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to make housing benefit a landlord function for private tenants in the same manner as responsibility of local authorities for their tenants.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Environmental Policy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to delay any decision to merge the Nature Conservancy Council with
  37
  the Countryside Commission until he has presented the Government's white paper on environmental policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government have no plans to delay the reorganisation of the conservation agencies announced in July. Postponement would increase uncertainty among the staff of the existing agencies, and would not be in the interests of conservation.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many Nature Conservancy Council staff will be available per site of special scientific interest, to monitor, control and protect these sites in England, Scotland and Wales and how many personnel are employed in the field per hectare of existing site of special scientific interest.

  Mr. Trippier
  The NCC has estimated that the equivalent of the following numbers of staff (both permanent and non-permanent) are currently available per SSSI to monitor, control and protect such sites:

  Equivalent persons

  England

  0·045

  Scotland

  0·069

  Wales

  0·043

  The equivalent of 0.0003 persons (including permanent and non-permanent staff) per hectare of existing SSSI are currently employed in the field by NCC's three country directorates.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has any information on further plans affecting Selby common site of special scientific interest;

  (2) if he has received representations about the damage caused by agricultural operations to Sherburn Willows site of special scientific interest, near Selby; and what action he proposes to take to assist the restoration of this site;

  (3) what action he will take to preserve remaining habitat of importance to rare aquatic flora at Hatfield Chase, near Doncaster;

  (4) what action he is taking to safeguard Hollywell wood, near Castleford;

  (5) if he will take steps to prevent felling of ancient woodland at Bog wood, Thorp Underwood, north Yorkshire and of the resulting loss of a heronry in this location; and what action he will take to prevent such habitat loss in the future;

  (6) what action he is taking to preserve habitat at Cawood meadows:

  (7) what action he is taking to protect the Wressel-Breighton hedgerow within the Derwent Ings site of special scientific interest, SPA and Ramsar site;

  (8) what action he will take to protect North Ferriby Ings, Humberside, from further destruction; and if he will ensure that surviving species and habitat are properly managed and protected;

  (9) what action he will take to safeguard Snaith and Cowick moors, near Goole in Humberside from peat digging;
  38
  (10)what representations he has received regarding the effect of the infilling at Great Heck quarry, near Selby., on an albino form of the rosebay willowherb;

  (11) what representations he received following operations at Shepherds wood, Allerton Mauleverer, north Yorkshire, concerning loss of habitat to the herb Paris;

  (12) what steps he will take to monitor pollution threats and the laying of electricity cables at Maltby Low Common site of special scientific interest;

  (13) what urgent action he will take to preserve the Hatfield Moors site, near Doncaster.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the Nature Conservancy Council has assembled the information requested.

  Wildlife Sites
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake an immediate national audit of remaining prime sites for wildlife.

  Mr. Trippier
  My Department is considering the scope and methodology of a national survey aimed at improving our knowledge of the natural heritage. The Government's scientific advisors, the NCC, is planning a complementary exercise on a census of wildlife. The Government hope that these works will contribute to the White Paper on the Environment which we intend to publish in 1990.

  Habitat Census
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what action has been taken to implement phase 2 of the Nature Conservancy Council, field by field habitat census/survey;

  (2) what is the annual budget allocated to (a) phase 1 and (b) phase 2 of the Nature Conservancy Council field by field habitat census/survey, from 1979 to the last year in which figures are available;

  (3) what is the percentage area of each individual county within England, Scotland, and Wales which has been covered by phase 2 of the Nature Conservancy Council field by field habitat census/survey;

  (4) what is the percentage area of each individual county within England, Scotland and Wales which has been covered by phase 1 of the Nature Conservancy Council field by field habitat census/survey;

  (5) what is the proportion of (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland covered by phase 1 of the Nature Conservancy Council field by field habitat census/survey;

  (6) what is the proportion of (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland, covered by phase 2 of the Nature Conservancy Council field by field habitat census/survey;

  (7) what progress has been made with the Nature Conservancy Council phase 1, field by field survey.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Environmental Consultation
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation took place with voluntary environmental agencies, prior to the decision to merge the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission in Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  Proposals to reorganise the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission
  39
  were announced in July following a thorough internal review by the Government. These have since been the subject of detailed discussions both with the existing conservation agencies and with voluntary bodies and individuals. The Government will be taking account of these discussions in framing legislation, which will then be debated and decided in Parliament.

  Footpaths
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Government have spent in footpath renovation and upkeep during the past five years; and what future action he intends to take to tackle this problem.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The maintenance of highways, including footpaths and bridleways, is the responsibility of the highway authority. The allocation of resources between their various statutory responsibilities is a matter for the authorities themselves to determine. However, the Countryside Commission has been seeking, with some success, to raise the profile of rights of way work, and to encourage the better management of these recreational assets. The Government have strongly supported its initiative.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has met representatives of the Countryside Commission to discuss the quality of footpaths.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Sir Derek Barber, Chairman of the Countryside Commission on 26 September when a number of issues were discussed. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside visited the Commission's offices on 4 October for a presentation on various aspects of its work.

  National Parks
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to introduce legislation to offer extra protection to the landscapes of national parks.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We see no need for further legislation about this subject at present.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in detail what the new rules governing councils' expenditure from capital receipts will be from 1 April 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 59 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 provides that any capital receipt realised by a local authority on or after 1 April 1990, other than a receipt received by them as trustee of a charitable fund, must be divided into a reserved part, which must be set aside as provision for credit liabilities, and a usable balance which the authority may apply to expenditure for capital purposes or as voluntary provision for credit liabilities. The usable balance of capital receipts may be applied in the financial year in which they are received or later, at the authority's discretion. Expenditure for capital purposes is defined in section 40 of the 1989 Act. The reserved part is calculated by reference to the amount of 40
  the receipt reduced by the amounts (if any) which out of the receipt are paid to the Exchequer by way of clawback of Exchequer grant or assistance or (in the case of certain receipts from housing disposals) are applied to meet the administrative costs of disposal. Except insofar as is otherwise provided by regulations made by the Secretary of State or, in cases where receipts arise from disposals which required his consent, by directions given by him, the amount of the reserved part is a percentage of the amount of the receipt thus reduced. The percentage specified in the Act is 75 per cent. in the case of disposals of dwelling-houses held for the purposes of Part II of the Housing Act 1985 and 50 per cent. in other cases. It has already been announced that it is the intention to make regulations which would provide for a percentage of 75 per cent. for receipts from the disposal of share and loan capital (other than certain holdings in public transport and airport companies) and from disposals of property held in connection with the police, probation, magistrates courts, and civil defence services. My Department is currently consulting the local authority associations on proposals for regulations which would (a) specify percentages other than 50 per cent. for certain other categories of receipts, (b) provide that in certain cases the reserved part would be calculated by references to the authority's net receipt rather than the gross amount realised, and (c) specify a percentage of 0 per cent. for most receipts realised by authorities who had paid off all their captial borrowings and had made full provision for their other credit liabilities.

  A credit received by a local authority as trustee of a charitable trust fund must be applied in accordance with any directions given by the Charity Commissioners or, in the absence of such directions, for the purposes of the charity concerned.

  Tin Compounds
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what date tributyltin and organotin compounds were added to his Department's red list; and from what external sources advice or evidence was received on this decision.

  Mr. Trippier
  Tributyltin and tryphenyltin compounds were included on the initial red list of priority substances liable to pose a threat to the aquatic environment, which was announced on 10 April 1989 following the issue of a consultation paper. There were, in total, 80 responses to the consultation exercise, of which seven specially commented on the inclusion of these substances on the list. Copies of these responses were placed in the Library of the House on 10 April, with the exception of one respondent who asked for their comments to be treated in confidence.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research has been completed or is in process on the toxicity of tributyltin and organotin compounds.

  Mr. Trippier
  Much of the research which led to the existing controls on triorganotins is referred to in DOE pollution paper 25 (Organotin in anti-fouling paints: environmental considerations). This was published in 1986 and a copy has already been placed in the Library of the House. Twenty seven scientific papers and reports produced subsequently under DOE funding are listed in the DOE report on research and development 1986–1988.
  41
  Current research funded by the Department of the Environment at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Burnham laboratory and at the Plymouth marine laboratory is mainly concerned with monitoring recovery since the ban imposed in 1987 and assessing the implications of tributyltin use on vessels over 25 metres.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he proposes to commission an environment impact statement on the use of tributyltin or organotin compounds in anti-fouling paints and on alternative anti-fouling systems.

  Mr. Trippier
  No. All antifouling preparations have to be notified under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. Approvals are granted or withheld following an assessment of possible impact on human health and the environment. Tributyltin compounds have not been approved for use on small boats or in fish farming; other uses are being kept under review by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

  Tenants Incentive Scheme
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the introduction of the tenants incentive scheme for the tenants of charitable housing associations.

  Mr. Chope
  The tenants incentive scheme will be introduced by the Housing Corporation in 1990–91. It will enable registered housing associations, including charitable housing associations, to give cash grants to help their tenants buy homes of their own.

  In addition to the major increase in resources being made available for the Housing Corporation's main programme, the Government are making available through the corporation an extra £73 million over the next two years to help housing associations provide more homes for homeless people by various means including securing vacancies by giving additional grants under the tenants incentive scheme. These extra resources will be targeted on London and the south-east where homelessness pressures are greatest.

  Shire counties' spending compared to grant related expenditure assessments

  1987–88 Overspend

  1987–88 Percentage overspend

  1988–89 Overspend

  1988–89 Percentage overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  Avon

  27·7

  7·6

  34·4

  8·7

  Bedfordshire

  17·6

  8·2

  15·7

  6·7

  Buckinghamshire

  11·8

  4·6

  11·3

  4·0

  Cambridgeshire

  -14·9

  -5·9

  5·4

  2·0

  Cheshire

  31·0

  7·7

  31·6

  7·2

  Cleveland

  25·5

  9·3

  27·1

  9·2

  Cumbria

  21·3

  10·5

  21·8

  10·0

  Derbyshire

  33·3

  8·7

  36·1

  8·7

  Durham

  6·5

  2·6

  7·8

  2·9

  Essex

  -1·5

  -0·3

  20·3

  3·1

  Gloucestershire

  0·1

  0·1

  3·5

  1·5

  Hertfordshire

  -19·3

  -5·0

  91·8

  22·3

  Humberside

  21·7

  5·6

  25·3

  6·1

  Isle of Wight

  2·7

  5·6

  2·6

  4·8

  Lancashire

  0·3

  0·1

  17·8

  2·7

  Leicestershire

  5·2

  1·4

  10·9

  2·6

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will increase resources to allow the designation of special sites to be undertaken more speedily and effectively;

  (2) if he will make resources available to identify species decline in the British Isles; and if he will strengthen legislation protecting endangered species habitat.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government's grant-in-aid to the Nature Conservancy Council in the financial year 1990–91 will be £44·069 million, an increase over this year of almost £4 million. The council has indicated that this amount will allow it to carry forward its statutory work and to deliver additional benefits for nature conservation. Within the framework of the corporate plan, it is for the council to decide the priorities of the calls on its resources, and site safeguard is regarded as being of the highest priority. The Government have no plans to amend the legislative provisions for protecting the habitats of endangered species.

  Countryside Work Force
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to create a countryside work force, to monitor, identify, protect and manage environmentally important sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A large number of organisations are active in various aspects of the environmental protection and enhancement work to which the hon. Member refers, including particularly the Government's statutory agencies, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission, the Groundwork Trusts and numerous voluntary conservation bodies, many of which receive financial assistance from public funds.

  Overspent Targets (Shires)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those shire counties in England which overspent the targets or other assessments set by Government in each of the last two years for which figures are available, with the amount of overspending and the proportion this formed of the total spending in each case.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is as follows:
  43

  1987–88 Overspend

  1987–88 Percentage overspend

  1988–89 Overspend

  1988–89 Percentage overspend

  £ million

  £ million

  Northamptonshire

  0·5

  0·2

  4·9

  1·9

  Northumberland

  6·3

  5·2

  10·3

  7·9

  Nottinghamshire

  25·0

  5·9

  47·9

  10·5

  Oxfordshire

  3·5

  1·8

  11·8

  5·5

  Somerset

  1·4

  0·8

  4·3

  2·2

  Warwickshire

  -2·5

  -1·3

  7·6

  3·6

  West Sussex

  17·7

  6·9

  -15·9

  -5·7

  Wiltshire

  -2·6

  -1·2

  7·1

  3·0

  Habitats Directive
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will support a European Community habitats directive, providing protection for special features of value to wildlife.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on 30 November at column 370.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement following the Council of Environmental Ministers on 28 and 29 November concerning discussions held on the proposed European Community habitats directive; and if he will indicate what funding will be made available to enable the effective implementation of the directive in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) on 30 November at column 370.

  Registered Funding Co-operatives
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give urgent consideration to exempting registered funding co-operatives from the requirements set out in his Department's circular 31/88; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Housing Corporation circular HC31/88 sets out the financial viability tests the corporation applies where registered housing associations seek consent for private loans. The criteria in the circular are of a general nature and the corporation is prepared to relax them in appropriate circumstances.

  Water Shares
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that service personnel who own, but are unable to be resident at a United Kingdom home, are in no way disadvantaged in obtaining access to special terms offered by water authorities for the purchase of shares by their customers.

  Mr. Howard
  It was open to absent servicemen qualifying as customers under the terms of the water share offers to make arrangements to be registered with the Water Share Information Office by the last date for registration of 15 November, and to make arrangements for their personalised customer application forms to be completed and returned by representatives in the United 44
  Kingdom before the closing date and time which is 10 am on 6 December. No applications may, however, be made which are in breach of the local securities laws of the country in which they are serving.

  Litter
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legislative proposals he intends to introduce to reduce litter.

  Mr. Trippier
  The proposals we intend to introduce in the forthcoming environment Bill, to improve the appearance and standards of cleanliness of public places were published in a consultation paper 'Action on Litter', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  These proposals include a new duty on local authorities, statutory undertakers and owners of some other land to keep their land clear of litter. In carrying out this duty, these bodies will have to have regard to a code of practice issued by my right hon. Friend. If they fail to carry out the duty, an aggrieved person will be able to apply to the magistrates court for a litter abatement order compelling them to do so. We will also bring in tougher penalties for litterers: we intend to raise the maximum fine for littering from £400 to £1,000; and give local authorities powers to introduce a fixed penalty scheme for litter offences, similar to that already operating in Westminster.

  Dust Emission Limits
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to place individual SO2 and dust emission limits on large industrial plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  Large industrial plants which have the potential for significant emissions of SO2 and dust are subject to control by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution. Operators of these plants are required to fit such equipment and to operate in such a way as to minimise air pollution and its effects. The specification of the requirements may include emission limits. Under proposed changes to air pollution legislation to be introduced this Session, control requirements, including any relevant emission limits, will be set in legally binding authorisations which will be open to public inspection. I have written to my hon. Friend about the control of dust and SO2 emissions from the Fiddlers Ferry power station, which is among the plants covered by proposals in the Department's recent consultation paper on implementation of the EC large combustion plants directive.

  Poll Tax Publicity
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish details of his planned poll tax publicity campaign showing(a) the cost of television advertising, (b) the cost of newspaper advertising, (c) the cost of radio advertising and (d) the planned start and end dates of the campaign; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  We are not planning a poll tax publicity campaign. We are, however, preparing an

  General rates—Highest annual increases since 1983–84

  Year of increase

  Percentage of increase

  Poundages in pence

  from

  to

  1. Ealing

  1987–88

  57·4

  160·5

  252·5

  2. Waltham Forest

  1987–88

  56·6

  205·0

  321·0

  3. Haringey

  1989–90

  55·7

  245·3

  381·9

  4. Hammersmith and Fulham

  1987–88

  44·1

  165·5

  238·4

  5. Calderdale

  1986–87

  37·3

  208·2

  286·0

  6. Eden

  1986–87

  35·0

  194·3

  262·2

  7. Leicester

  1986–87

  34·7

  174·7

  235·3

  8. Allerdale

  1986–87

  34·1

  198·5

  266·1

  9. Barrow-in-Furness

  1986–87

  33·7

  202·0

  270·0

  10. South Lakeland

  1986–87

  33·2

  192·9

  256·8

  Docklands
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total projected cost of transport, environmental and infrastructure improvements financed by the Exchequer and designed to serve London Docklands between 1985 and 1995; and if he will itemise all such improvements.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: Past expenditure, current commitments and proposals by the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) and the Department of Transport (DTp) on transport, environmental and infrastructure improvements to serve docklands exceed £2 billion. A full list of all such schemes is not available, but transport projects by DTp and LDDC are summarised in DTp's publication "Transport in Docklands" (June 1989), copies of which are in the Library.

  Water Companies
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his answer of 27 November to the hon. Member for Copeland,Official Report, column 86, he will list the individuals serving on each water holding company trust scheme.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer Thursday 30 November 1989]: The Companies Act 1985 requires the filing of names and addresses of directors at Companies House and for these to be made available to the public on request.

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will be introducing any new measures to assist or encourage local authorities to provide additional child care facilities in order to enable more women with pre-school age children to seek employment.
  46
  information campaign to ensure that those eligible are aware of entitlement to community charge benefit and transitional relief.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the 10 highest annual rate increases reported among English local authorities since 1983, giving the year of increase, the amount and the appropriate local authority.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 29 November 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is for local authorities to decide what priority they give to provision of services for pre-school children. We would expect local authority provision to be targeted on children from families with particular health or social difficulties rather than specifically designed to enable mothers to seek employment. Under the Children Act local authorities will be expected to review the availability of services and to publish information not only about what they provide themselves but also the provision of others and in particular voluntary organisations who make a valuable contribution in this area. The Department of Education and Science wrote in October to encourage local education authorities to allow the use of school premises for child care provision out of school hours.

WALES

  A487 (Tourist Signposting)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when his Department received a letter from Inigo Jones and Co. Ltd., Groeslon, Caernarfon, dated 17 August, concerning information signposting for tourists on the A487 trunk road; on what date a reply was sent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The letter from Inigo Jones and Co. Ltd., dated 17 August and addressed to the county surveyor of Gwynedd was received in the Welsh Office on 18 September. A full reply was sent to the company on 30 November. This set out the criteria used in considering the signing of tourist attractions from trunk roads in Wales.

  Rates
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each charging authority area, attributing business rate income received by precepting authorities under the current system to each area in proportion to the
  47
  aggregate of rateable values in that area (a) the estimated revenue from non-domestic rates in 1989–90, (b) the estimated amount which would have been raised in revenue by the national non-domestic rate in 1989–90 after the end of transitional arrangements and assuming rateable values at current levels, (c) the amount which would have been paid from the national non-domestic

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  (f)

  Charging authority

  Revenue from non-domestic rates

  Amount to each district/area from national non-domestic rate

  Amount from national non-domestic rating pool1

  Difference (a)-(b)

  Difference (b)-(c)

  Difference (a)-(c)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  Alyn and Deeside

  12·787

  12·198

  10·420

  0·589

  1·778

  2·366

  Colwyn

  5·828

  5·611

  8·215

  0·218

  -2·604

  -2·386

  Delyn

  6·847

  6·546

  9·413

  0·301

  -2·866

  -2·565

  Glyndwr

  4·480

  4·255

  6·123

  0·226

  -1·868

  -1·643

  Rhuddlan

  7·977

  7·899

  8·424

  0·078

  -0·525

  -0·446

  Wrexham Maelor

  18·120

  16·613

  16·829

  1·507

  -0·215

  1·292

  Carmarthen

  5·744

  5·717

  8·291

  0·026

  -2·574

  -2·547

  Ceredigion

  6·454

  6·576

  9·926

  -0·122

  -3·350

  -3·472

  Dinefwr

  2·847

  2·873

  5·781

  -0·026

  -2·908

  -2·933

  Llanelli

  8·761

  8·275

  11·048

  0·486

  -2·773

  -2·287

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  9·988

  10·601

  10·268

  -0·613

  0·332

  -0·280

  South Pembrokeshire

  14·325

  14·344

  6·104

  -0·019

  8·240

  8·221

  Blaenau Gwent

  7·575

  7·881

  11·314

  -0·306

  -3·433

  -3·740

  Islwyn

  5·278

  5·377

  9·679

  -0·099

  -4·302

  -4·401

  Monmouth

  10·175

  10·097

  11·923

  0·079

  -1·826

  -1·747

  Newport

  30·605

  31·261

  18·483

  -0·656

  12·778

  12·122

  Torfaen

  12·903

  12·787

  13·349

  0·116

  -0·562

  -0·445

  Aberconwy

  6·888

  6·950

  8·158

  -0·062

  -1·207

  -1·269

  Arfon

  11·604

  11·821

  7·967

  -0·217

  3·854

  3·637

  Dwyfor

  3·284

  3·315

  4·069

  -0·031

  -0·754

  -0·785

  Meirionnydd

  6·341

  6·523

  4·754

  -0·182

  1-769

  1·587

  Ynys Mon

  10·938

  11·076

  10·154

  -0·138

  0·922

  0·784

  Cynon Valley

  6·432

  6·317

  9·375

  0·114

  -3·057

  -2·943

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7·447

  7·056

  8·424

  0·392

  -1·368

  -0·976

  Ogwr

  14·872

  14·026

  19·985

  0·846

  -5·959

  -5·113

  Rhondda

  5·202

  4·924

  11·143

  0·278

  -6·219

  -5·942

  Rhymney Valley

  10·147

  9·477

  14·775

  0·669

  -5·298

  -4·628

  Taff Ely

  15·287

  14·099

  13·596

  1·188

  0·503

  1·691

  Brecknock

  4·440

  4·788

  6·104

  -0·348

  -1·316

  -1·664

  Montgomeryshire

  5·659

  6·290

  7·568

  -0·631

  -1·278

  -1·909

  Radnorshire

  3·078

  3·496

  3·366

  -0·418

  0·130

  -0·288

  Cardiff

  51·673

  59·038

  41·054

  -7·365

  17·984

  10·619

  Vale of Glamorgan

  17·756

  20·535

  17·285

  -2·780

  3·250

  0·471

  Port Talbot

  17·119

  16·751

  7·226

  0·368

  9·525

  9·893

  Lliw Valley

  6·392

  5·842

  9·108

  0·550

  -3·266

  -2·716

  Neath

  9·631

  9·050

  9·546

  0·581

  -0·496

  0·085

  Swansea

  31·762

  26·361

  27·401

  5·401

  -1·040

  4·361

  All Welsh charging authorities

  416·647

  416·647

  416·647

  0

  0

  0

  1 Distributed using the Registrar General's mid year estimates (1988) of population aged 18 and over.

  Craft Industry
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will publish the full cost of the review of the Welsh craft industry that took place in February 1988;

  (2) if he will publish the full costs of the design and development fees for the "Wales—Land of Quality" promotion and logo;

  (3) what information he has on the current position of the finances and on the number of jobs created by the craft incentive of the Welsh Arts Council which began on 1 April 1988;
  48
  rating pool to each area in 1989–90, (d) the difference between (a) and (b), (e) the difference between (b) and (c), and (f) the difference between (a) and (c), showing aggregates for each figure for each class of charging authority.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The estimates requested are shown in the following table:

  (4) what information he has on the figures on the current expenditure on and value of sales achieved by the Welsh Craft Council's (a) Buyers' Guide 1988–89, (b) Wales fair, October 1988 and (c) direct sales events;

  (5) what information he has on the full expenditure on, and income received from, the Welsh Development Agency's (a) publication of the Buyers' Guide 1989 and the South Wales Business Adviser, (b) research and promotion of retail sales, (c) craft shops in museums and (d) grant to Wales Craft Council.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the numbers of hospital beds available in Ceredigion for geriatric cases; how many patients there are on the waiting list; and what steps he is taking to increase the number of beds in the area.

  Mr. Grist
  106 NHS hospital beds are currently designated for geriatric medicine in Ceredigion. At 31 March 1989 there was one person on the in-patient waiting list for admission to those beds.

  The planning of bed numbers for particular specialties is an operational matter for the relevant district health authority in the first instance.

  Trunk Roads (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total traffic flow on the Cardigan to Machynlleth trunk road and the A44 Aberystwyth to Ponterwyd road; and what proportion of this traffic is heavy goods vehicles.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In 1988, the annual average daily traffic flows on the A487 between Cardigan and Machynlleth ranged from about 3,000 vehicles per day on stretches between Cardigan and the outskirts of Aberystwyth to up to 11,000 vehicles per day through Aberystwyth itself. The heavy goods vehicle content ranged between about 2 per cent. and 8 per cent.

  Annual average daily traffic flows on the A44 between Aberystwyth and Ponterwyd, in 1988 ranged from 2,500 vehicles per day between Ponterwyd and the A4159 junction to almost 8,000 vehicles per day at Llanbadarn with a heavy goods vehicle content of between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent.

  Welsh Language Teaching
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average number of hours spent teaching Welsh in schools in Wales in(a) primary and (b) secondary sectors; and if he will give a county by county breakdown.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The latest information about the time spent on teaching Welsh is derived from the primary school staffing survey 1987. The information is shown in the following table:

  Percentage of class time spent learning Welsh

  Percentage

  Clwyd

  9

  Dyfed

  14

  Gwent

  1

  Gwynedd

  19

  Mid Glamorgan

  n/a

  Powys

  9

  South Glamorgan

  3

  West Glamorgan

  5

  Wales

  28

  1 Less than 1.

  2 Includes an estimate for Mid Glamorgan.

  No comparable information is currently available for secondary schools. The results of the recent secondary schools staffing survey will be published during 1990.

  East Glamorgan Hospital
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether funds have been allocated to the Mid Glamorgan health authority sufficient to ensure an immediate start to the repair programme to the fabric of East Glamorgan general hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  Mid Glamorgan health authority has received revenue allocation of £149 million and a capital allocation of over £7 million in the current financial year. These allocations represent cash increases by comparison with 1988–89 provision of 7 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively. It is for the authority to determine how these resources should be deployed.

  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether funds have been allocated to the Mid Glamorgan health authority sufficient to ensure a speedy start to the construction of a replacement district general hospital for the existing East Glamorgan general hospital.

  Mr. Grist
  It is for Mid Glamorgan health authority o decide how best to deploy the capital and revenue resources allocated to it. We are, however, currently considering a number of bids under the programme for the valleys for health schemes starting in 1990–91, including a bid from Mid Glamorgan health authority in respect of preliminary works associated with the proposed new district general hospital. We shall announce decisions on the programme early in the new year.

  Water Pollution
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many reservoirs and lakes in Wales have been affected by poisonous algal blooms during 1989; how much dredging has taken place to get rid of such blooms; and what action he will take to ensure that algal blooms are effectively eliminated in future.

  Mr. Grist
  Monitoring carried out during 1989 revealed no significant algal blooms in Welsh reservoirs and therefore no dredging has been carried out. It is for the National Rivers Authority, in conjunction with Dwr Cymru, to consider what future action may be necessary in areas potentially affected by algal blooms.

  Deprivation Survey
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends publishing his Department's survey of 100 towns facing deprivation in Wales; and if he will include information on how the survey was conducted and the action he is taking in reaction to the survey's findings.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to some work undertaken by my Department to devise a mechanism for the distribution of one of the new allowances payable to general medical practitioners under the new GP contract to take effect on 1 April 1990. The work was undertaken for this specific purpose and is not considered to have any wider application. Discussions continue with representatives of GPs.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has yet received a new submission from the Clwyd health authority for the funding of renal services at Wrexham Maelor hospital.
  51
  Mr. Grist
  We understand that the health authority is presently preparing its submission in respect of a regional subsidiary renal unit in the context of its response to consultation on the report of the evaluation of renal services in Wales.

  Cancer
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what investigations he will institute to consider the rates for cancer in North Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what measures he will take to investigate(a) the rate of stomach cancer in North Wales, (b) breast cancer rates in Merioneth, Aberconway, Rhondda and Colwyn, (c) rates of cancer of the cervix in Clwyd and Anglesey and (d) incidences of leukaemia in women in Colwyn, Merioneth and Wales generally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  It has been known for some time that there was a slight elevation of cancer incidence rates for north Wales in comparison with the average for Wales as a whole. In order to establish if any particular factor could be held responsible it was announced in 1987 that Professor Hubert Campbell, Emeritus Professor of Medical Statistics of the University of Wales. College of Medicine had been appointed to consider the available data relating to the incidence of cancers in north Wales since 1974.

  Professor Campbell's report was published in July 1988. In introducing his findings Professor Campbell emphasised there was nothing new in the elevation of cancer incidence rates in north Wales; records demonstrate this situation has existed for at least 70 years and it would not be possible to identify any aetiological agent as being responsible. It was however suggested that some further investigation might be undertaken into the question of whether some genetic factor might play a contributory role in the excess of leukemia registration identified in the report and also into the possible reasons for an excess in thyroid cancer registration in women over the age of 25 between 1974 amd 1978.

  The feasibility and potential value of such further investigation is being considered in conjunction with the small areas health statistics unit.

  The Wales Cancer Registry records incidence rates for all types of cancer and detailed summaries are published periodically. The third report "Cancer Registration Wales 1974–84" was published in May 1988.

  It must be appreciated in considering such reports that at district level or below the number of annual registrations for certain types of malignancy can be very small. As such, considerable care must be exercised in the interpretation of the derived incidence rates.

  Domestic Rates Bills
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many households in the area of the Merthyr borough council are paying an annual rates bill of less than £350;

  (2) how many households in the communities of Rhymney, Brithdir, Tydfil and New Tredegar are at present paying an annual rates bill of less than £350.
  52
  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Sheltered Accommodation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the number of sheltered schemes for the elderly, units in those sheltered schemes and other purpose-built dwellings for the elderly operated by (a) local authorities and (b) housing associations.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: In April 1989 there were 16,219 Local Authority sheltered dwellings and 23,111 other local authority dwellings designed for the elderly. Housing association data held centrally do not distinguish between sheltered and other purpose-built dwellings, and are not yet available for April 1989. However, in April 1988 there were 4,313 Housing Association dwellings designed for the elderly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Trespass
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans the Government have to review the application of the law of trespass.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have no plans to review the application of the law of trespass.

  Birmingham Pub Bombings
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham pub bombings case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  It was mentioned briefly last Thursday when considering today's questions with him.

  Bradford Law Centre
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will visit Bradford law centre.

  The Attorney-General
  I do not have any plans to visit Bradford law centre.

  Nazi War Criminals
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received in the last year urging him to introduce legislation to try Nazi war criminals from eastern Europe in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Any representations addressed to me on this topic would have been transferred immediately to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, and I have no records of their number.

  Confessions
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will arrange for statistics to be placed in the Library showing the number of convictions in England and Wales founded upon uncorroborated confessions obtained by the police for each of the years 1980 to date.
  53
  The Attorney-General
  No. The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Such evidence is considered by the Crown prosecution service in the course of its review of each such case in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors.

  Trials
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Attorney-General how many cases are awaiting trial in the east midlands; and what is the average length of waiting time in each category for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  As at end October, there were 1,031 committals for trial awaiting disposal in the group of Crown court centres comprising Derby, Grimsby, Leicester, Lincoln and Nottingham.

  The average waiting times for the group for the period April to October 1989 are 8·4 weeks for those defendants in custody and 9·7 weeks for those on bail.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he is satisfied with the working of the Crown prosecution service; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes. A record of the substantial achievements and progress of the Crown prosecution service for the year ending in July, upon which the service deserves congratulations is contained in the Director of Public Prosecutions' annual report, a copy of Which is in the Library. I commend it to hon. Members. I welcome this opportunity to record my full confidence in the Crown prosecution service and my support for its continuing progress.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss the operation of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  On 30 November 1989.

  Planning Covenants
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will ask the Law Reform Committee to consider the effectiveness of planning covenants; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  There are no plans to refer any aspect of planning law to the Law Reform Committee.

  Legal Profession
  Mr. Stanbrook
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will propose the ending of the monopoly whereby only members of the legal profession are allowed to represent defendants before courts.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government's proposals for widening choice in the provision of advocacy services were set out in the White Paper published on 19 July 1989.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the serious fraud office.

  The Attorney-General
  I frequently meet the director of the serious fraud office to discuss matters of departmental interest.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received on the current litigation brought by haemophilia patients against health authorities and other Government agencies.

  The Attorney-General
  Apart from those made by the hon. Member, no representations have been made to Inc on the current litigation.

  Duty Solicitors
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many duty solicitors' schemes have been established in England and Wales for each year over the last 10 years; how many have ceased to exist; how many are still in operation; and if he will list the areas concerned.

  The Attorney-General
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Legal aid legislation has provided for duty solicitors at magistrates' courts since 1983 and at police stations since 1986. Cover has been established at 488 magistrates' courts and 1,780 police stations. Where cover ceases the Legal Aid Board seeks to restore it as soon as possible. Duty solicitor cover has ceased, but has not yet been restored, at four police stations: Hatfield, St. Albans, Welwyn Garden City and Sevenoaks.

  Consolidation Measure
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he will give consideration to introducing a consolidation measure to incorporate the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, part 2, and the Law of Property Act 1969.

  Mr. Chope
  I have been asked to reply.

  No, given that these Acts are generally working well as they stand.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Gaelic Football (Loughry College)
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether students at Loughry college, who may be part-time members of the security forces, will be permitted to play Gaelic games under the auspices of the Gaelic Club at Loughry; and whether the Irish Republic's tricolour will be permitted to be flown at Gaelic games being played at Loughry.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Loughry college strongly encourages all students to organise and participate in those sports or recreational activities in which they are interested. Gaelic football is a popular choice among students.

  The college expects each club or society to be student-led and to manage its own affairs. This may include affiliation with the governing body for a particular sport such as the Gaelic Athletic Association or the Irish Rugby Football Association (Ulster Branch).

  I congratulate the college club on its success in the all-Ireland agricultural colleges competitions.

  We are unaware of any student being refused permission to play Gaelic games because he or she is a part-time member of the security forces.
  55
  The flag which may be flown at Loughry college is the Union flag. It is flown from the official flag pole on appointed days.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Medical Board Hearings
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will give the reasons for the delay in the hearing by the medical board of the claim by Mrs. D. Lowe; and when he now expects the hearing to take place.

  Mr. Scott
  The medical board, which took place on 19 October, was arranged as soon as it was practicable following receipt of all the evidence which the board required.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much housing benefit spending has been reduced in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Housing benefit expenditure has not been reduced over the past year; in fact, estimated spending in 1989–90 (including community charge rebates) is 17 per cent. higher than in 1988–89.

  Food Vouchers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number and value of food vouchers issued by the Newcastle (Saxon house) and Newcastle (Bentinck road) offices of his Department during the period April to October.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of food vouchers issued by the Newcastle (Saxon house) office between 1 April and 31 October 1989 is four at a value of .£100·30. The Newcastle (Bentinck road) office issued no vouchers in that period.

  Young Offenders
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment his Department has made of the special needs of young offenders on probation and at risk of custody, particularly with reference to any delay in processing a claim.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government continue to monitor the effects of the recent changes in social security provision. As part of this monitoring the Department of Social Security maintains close liaison with the Home Office's probation services. We are also looking carefully at the findings of the recent research carried out for the Association of Chief Officers of Probation by the University of Lancaster, which indicates that offenders and their families have problems in getting the social security benefits to which they are entitled.

  Income support claims are dealt with on average within five days, with urgent claims being processed well within that period. Moreover, as a result of our monitoring I announced on 27 November a number of procedural improvements designed to ensure that claims from young people, including those from young offenders, are dealt with as effectively and sympathetically as possible. These changes demonstrate the Government's willingness to act when areas of genuine difficulty are identified.

  Disability
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for consultation with disabled people and their families following the publication of the changes in social security benefits for disabled people.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on 23 October at columns 341–42.

DEFENCE

  Married Quarters
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total amount of money gained from the sale of surplus married quarters since 1981.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The amount of money gained from the sale of surplus married quarters before 1 April 1987 is not identifiable without disproportionate effort. Receipts since then are as follows:

  Financial year

  Receipts

  £ million

  11989–90

  15·721

  1988–89

  55·627

  1987–88

  27·010

  1 To 30 September 1989.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the maintenance backlog at 1 April for each year since 1979 for(a) unavoidable and essential repairs, and (b) urgent repairs for married quarters.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The backlog of unavoidable repairs at 1 April 1989 was estimated at £323 million, although it cannot be guaranteed that this is precisely accurate in every respect, given that assessments of this kind are a matter of professional judgment. Figures for previous years were either not collated at all or, where they were, not in such a way as to permit comparison between one year and another, as the definition and interpretation of what constitutes backlog has been progressively revised from year to year. At no time has the backlog of maintenance of married quarters been separately identified. Consequently the information requested could not be obtained at all or without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any surplus married quarters have been sold or leased to housing associations since 1981.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. There have been several occasions since 1981 when surplus married quarters have been sold to housing associations. However, records are not kept in a way which makes specific purchasers readily identifiable, and to give details of all such transactions would entail disproportionate effort. Properties which were temporarily surplus to MOD requirements have been leased to a housing association in recent years but there are no such leases at present.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any surplus married quarters have been sold or leased to local authorities since 1981.
  57
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. There have been several occasions since 1981 when surplus married quarters have been sold to local authorities. However, records are not kept in a way which makes specific purchasers readily identifiable and to give details of all such transactions would entail disproportionate effort. Properties which are temporarily surplus to MOD requirements may be offered for leasing to local authorities when circumstances permit. There are currently over 500 such properties leased to local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arms and equipment supplied to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are manufactured in Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I am not able to supply this information on behalf of our NATO partners. The amount of such equipment procured by the United Kingdom is extremely small.

  Harrier Public House
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what heights Harrier aircraft overflew the Harrier public house at Bowerhill, Wiltshire and surrounding area on 9 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Harrier aircraft flew at a height of between 250 and 500 ft above ground level.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours' flight time was used by the Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft to travel between their base and the Harrier public house on 9 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Harrier aircraft flew a routine training mission of 50 minutes' duration. The overflight of the public house required no additional flying time.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total cost of the overflight of the Harrier public house at Bowerhill, Melksham, Wiltshire on Thursday 9 November;

  (2) whether any of the costs to the Royal Air Force of the overflight of the Harrier public house by Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft on 9 November were reimbursed by the brewery or the licensee.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The overflight of the Harrier public house was undertaken as part of a routine training sortie. It is not our practice to give information on the costs of individual sorties. However, no additional costs were incurred as a result of the overflight, and there was therefore no requirement for reimbursement.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether those Royal Air Force personnel present at the Harrier public house, Bowerhill, Wiltshire on 9 November were on official duty; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Air Force personnel attended the Harrier public house on 9 November in a private capacity and were off duty at the time.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who instigated the overflight of the Harrier public house by Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft on 9 November; and whether ministerial approval was given before the flypast.
  58
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The overflight took place in response to a request from the publican of the Harrier public house at Bowerhill, Melksham. It was approved by a senior RAF commander as part of a routine training sortie, at no extra cost to public funds.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what heights Sea Harrier aircraft overflew the Thames and surrounding area on 11 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The flypast over the Thames was at approximately 1,000ft.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hours' flight time were used by the Sea Harrier aircraft to travel between their base and the Thames on 11 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The aircraft took off from Yeovilton at 13.24 and landed there again at 14.21.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the overflight of the Thames by Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft on 11 November.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give information on the costs of individual flights.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any of the costs to the Royal Navy of the overflight of the Thames by Sea Harrier aircraft on 11 November were reimbursed by the organisers of the Lord Mayor's show.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The flight was regarded as having training value.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who instigated the overflight of the Thames by Royal Navy Sea Harrier aircraft on 11 November; and whether ministerial approval was given before the flypast.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The flypast was at the request of the pageantmaster of the Lord Mayor's show, and was approved at the appropriate level within the Ministry of Defence.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (i) Ministry of Defence sites not used by United States forces and (ii) Ministry of Defence sites used by United States forces are currently being guarded by private security firms.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Private security firms are currently used at 45 Ministry of Defence establishments, including one which is made available to United States forces.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many new posts will be required for the Ministry of Defence police under the proposed scheme to upgrade the perimeter fence at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston; and what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of the provision of these posts;
  59
  (2) if he has recently reviewed security at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston;

  (3) if he will make a statement regarding the proposed upgrading of the perimeter fence at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston, including the expected total cost of the scheme;

  (4) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of building a new 7·5 km weld mesh fence around the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston;

  (5) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of laying a patrol track between the present outer and proposed inner fences under the proposed scheme to upgrade the perimeter fence at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston; and what is the proposed surface material for this track;

  (6) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of realigning the existing perimeter fence at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston to accommodate proposed improvements;

  (7) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of the proposed new perimeter lighting system at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston;

  (8) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of the proposed remote controlled closed circuit television system and its associated control room to be installed at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston;

  (9) what is the cost, as estimated by his Department, of the proposed intruder detection system to be mounted on the inner fence at the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston;

  Mr. Neubert
  Security at AWE is subject to regular review and it is not our policy to give details of operational security measures.

  We have decided to upgrade the perimeter fence system at Aldermaston and are seeking proposals from industry for the following elements:

  1. Realignment of the existing chain link fence where necessary.

  2. A new inner fence around the 7·5km perimeter of weldmesh construction.

  3. An intruder detection system mounted on the inner fence.

  4. A new perimeter lighting system.

  5. A CCTV surveillance system with remote control and monitoring room.

  6. All associated services.

  7. Steam main alterations and diversions.

  8. Roadwork extensions and alterations.

  9. A patrol track between the inner and outer fences.

  10. Entrance gate modifications.

  11. Modification of existing and provision of new MDP posts.

  12. Undergrounding of SEB overhead 33KV line and diversion of 11KV underground cable.

  It is not appropriate to disclose our cost estimates while tenders are being sought and any subsequently agreed price will, of course, be commercially confidential.

  Public Houses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many openings of public houses, or similar establishments, Royal Air Force aircraft or aircrew have attended in an official capacity in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have no records of official RAF participation in, or attendance at, such events.

  Perimeter Fences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many other bases or facilities owned, operated or under the contol of his Department have had new perimeter fences of weld mesh construction provided for them in the last 10 years; and what was the total cost of construction for each of these weld mesh fences.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  S10 Respirators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many S10 respirator facepieces have been purchased by his Department in the three years to the end of the financial year 1989–90; how many are to be purchased over the next three financial years; and what is his Department's total requirement of these items.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I regret that, in the interests of national security, the Department's total requirement for this item cannot be revealed. I can confirm that the current requirement is under contract and the bulk of it should be delivered by the end of the financial year 1989–90. Future requirements remain subject to review.

  Air Electronics Operators
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the proposed wage reductions for Royal Air Force air electronics operators; whether he will reconsider this decision; and if he will ensure that no serving operator has any reduction in his pay.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  From 1 October 1989 air electronics operators in the ranks of master aircrew and flight sergeant have been placed in a lower pay band in accordance with the job evaluation results for their trade. This decision was taken after three full evaluations, and is currently the subject of internal appeal procedures. Existing regulations ensure that none of the personnel affected will suffer any reduction in pay.

  Project Brinton
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding Project Brinton.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Project Brinton provides secure fixed communications in Northern Ireland. For security reasons I am unable to give details.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the awarding of compensation to Mr. Paul Adorian of Kirklinton for the death of a llama caused by low-flying fast jet aircraft.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Mr. Adorian submitted a claim for compensation to the Ministry of Defence for the death of one of his llamas as a result of military low-flying aircraft activity. Following a thorough investigation of the circumstances, this claim was accepted and an appropriate award of compensation for the loss was made.

  Triaminotrinitrobenzene
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the procurement of triaminotrinitrobenzene by the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment Aldermaston; and for what purpose this material is procured.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A notice has been placed in the MOD contracts bulletin of a tender for the procurement of quantities of triaminotrinitrobenzene. For security reasons I am not prepared to identify the applications for which this material is procured.

  War Widows
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the present level of pension paid to war widows of service men who died before 31 March 1973 with a view to bringing them into line with pensions paid to war widows of service men who died on or after 31 March 1973.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Under the rules of the armed forces pension scheme the level of pensions paid to the widows of service men depends upon the terms and conditions in force at the date on which their husbands completed their service, or died in service. Changes in the rules, which became operative on 31 March 1973, applied only to personnel giving service on or after that date. In accordance with normal principles and practice for occupational pension schemes, the revised rules did not apply retrospectively, and there are no plans to change that position.

  EH 101 Helicopter
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will describe any current problems involved in developing the utility EH 101 helicopter project; what is the latest estimate of any cost over-runs; and if he will make a statement on the progress of this programme item.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The RAF utility EH 101 helicopter programme is currently in the project definition phase, the first stage of which will be completed by April 1990. This involves a detailed examination of the RAF's foreseen requirement against a range of options, and establishing the costs and risks associated with each. The results of this work will provide the basis for decisions on the next stage of the programme.

  NATO
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has had any discussions with other members of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding possible British troop reductions in the Federal Republic of Germany, following an agreement on the reduction of conventional forces in Europe.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has frequent discussions with his NATO counterparts on a wide range of arms control issues. The NATO proposals on manpower at the negotiations on conventional forces in Europe are limited to forces stationed by the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he has had any discussions with 62
  representatives of the Netherlands Government regarding the creation of a multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation maritime patrol airforce in the north Atlantic; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his policy towards the creation of a multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation maritime patrol airforce in the north Atlantic: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. I am not aware of any proposals to create such a force.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards co-operation with other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries regarding the use of flight simulators; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is our policy to co-operate with other NATO countries in making most cost-effective use of available flight simulators. For example, the RAF is currently hiring time on equipment owned by the United States and Spanish air forces, which simulates the Harrier GR5, while German forces are trained on simulators belonging to the Royal Navy.

  Submarines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to submarine commanders regarding their conduct when their submarines become entangled in fishing nets.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The guidance given to a submarine commander in the event of his vessel becoming entangled with the nets of a trawler is designed to ensure that the safety of human life is given paramount consideration.

  The instructions require:

  (a) the submarine to come to periscope depth to check visually for any vessels in distress and establish communications where circumstances permit:

  (b) the naval authorities to be immediately informed of the incident and, if appropriate, the coastguard contacted;

  (c) that, if fishing nets are still attached to the submarine, every effort is to be made to recover them—if this is not possible a note of the position in which the gear was lost is to be taken; and

  (d) the submarine not to leave the area until it has been established beyond all reasonable doubt that no danger to human life exists as a result of the incident.

  Sram-T Missiles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the possiblle deployment of Sram-T missiles on United States F1–11E aircraft based in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  As part of NATO's force restructuring and modernisation measures, designed to sustain its strategy of flexible response in the post-INF era, a number of options are under consideration. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

  Butt of Lewis Incident
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish the resuls of the inquiry into the incident involving a Royal Navy submarine and the fishing vessel Scotia on 14 November off the Butt of Lewis; and if he will make a statement.
  63
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A preliminary on-board investigation has already been conducted into the incident, which took place on the 13 November. The conclusions of this will not be fully known until the submarine returns to port. A decision will then be made whether there are sufficient grounds for convening a full board of inquiry. For operational reasons it is not our practice to release details of the findings of inquiries of this nature.

  Fijian Training
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fijian military personnel are being given training by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At present, three Fijian military officers are attending military training courses in the United Kingdom. In addition, a Royal Navy officer is serving on loan to the Fiji hydrographic unit.

  Battle of Britain Stamps
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the chairman of the Post Office to discuss the issue of commemorative stamps to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the Battle of Britain.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We are discussing this matter with the Post Office.

  Death Compensation
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what considerations underlie the decision on the amount of compensation payable(a) in respect of the death of a llama, attributable to a low flying incident, and (b) to the family of a single soldier murdered by the IRA; and if he will take immediate steps to introduce a scheme to provide minimum compensation equivalent to at least one year's salary in the case of services personnel killed in the course of their duty;

  (2) what has been the average compensation paid by Her Majesty's Government to the families of single service personnel murdered in the course of their duty by the Irish Republican Army in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The amount of compensation paid by my Department recently in respect of the death of a llama was based on substantial evidence provided by the claimant and verified by professional advisers in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I cannot answer for claims arising from the death of single soldiers killed by the IRA in the United Kingdom, since these are considered under the criminal injury compensation schemes for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My Department operates a corresponding scheme for service men overseas, although we have not received any claims arising from the death of single service personnel as a result of IRA attacks under this scheme. The amount of criminal injuries compensation payable to the family of a single soldier murdered by the IRA is assessed in the same way as claims for damages under common law and reflect the degree of financial dependency. I see no requirement for any additional scheme along the lines proposed.

HEALTH

  Flexible Working
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and encouragement he has given to the National Health Service as an employer to provide more flexible working arrangements and child care facilities for National Health Service staff with children; and if any new advice is to be issued with regard to the reduced number of young people available for midwifery and nursing in the 1990s.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We fully recognise that staff with domestic responsibilities have a major contribution to make to the staffing of the National Health Service, especially in view of forecast reductions in the numbers of suitably qualified school leavers available for employment in the 1990s. This year we have commended to health authorities the NHS training authority's resource package on implementing an equal opportunities strategy and the report of the national steering group on equal opportunities for women in the NHS which include advice on the organisation of work-break schemes, flexible working arrangements and child care facilities. The NHS training authority is now looking at the training implications of "return and retain" schemes for staff wishing to take career breaks.

  In March this year, the Department wrote to all health authorities commending to them a joint collaborative scheme agreed with the Midland bank for the sharing of workplace nursing facilities between NHS and bank staff. The first nursery under the joint scheme is due to open early in the new year at the royal Berkshire hospital. I understand that similar plans at the royal Infirmary in Derby are well advanced, while a number of others in different parts of the country are under discussion. Some health authorities are entering into sharing arrangements with other local employers.

  While decisions about the implementation of work-break schemes, including flexible working and the provision of child care facilities must remain a matter for the individual employing authorities, we will continue to emphasise that there must be improvements in working practices and recruitment and retention policies so that authorities may be in a sound position to attract and retain the services of all staff who wish to combine employment in the NHS with domestic responsibilities.

  North Western Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful claims for compensation have been made against the North Western regional health authority during each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from North Western regional health authority that the number of claims for alleged medical negligence made against health authorities in that region were as follows:

  Year ended

  Claims

  March 1987

  822

  March 1988

  774

  March 1989

  758

  65
  Information on successful or unsuccessful claims is not readily available, and could only be produced at disproportionate cost.

  Infertility
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many men and women have received medical help for infertility in the last year for which figures are available;

  (2) what is the average time between requesting help with fertility problems and receiving treatment in the National Health Service;

  (3) which district health authorities provide (a) ovarian scanning, (b) radio-immune assay service, (c) artificial insemination by donor or husband, (d) in vitro fertilisation and (e) counselling for infertile people; and whether any charge for the services.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally. The provision of infertility services is a matter for individual health authorities to decide in the light of local needs and priorities.

  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government are currently funding into the causes of human infertility; and when the results of this research are expected to be available.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on 30 October at columns 11–13.

  Results arising from this extensive and continuing programme of research are published as they become available, in appropriate medical and scientific journals.

  IUD
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on what proportion of pelvic inflammatory disease has been associated with the intra-uterine contraceptive device in the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not held centrally.

  Haemophiliacs (AIDS)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the recent award to haemophiliacs to be paid to individuals.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give an assurance that the ex-gratia payments of £20,000 to people with haemophilia who have been infected with the AIDS virus in the course of National Health Service treatment will be made to them before Christmas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We are urgently considering with the Macfarlane Trust the best method of implementing these payments and we intend that they should be made as soon as possible.

  Haemophiliacs (HIV)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received subsequent to the recent statement on additional aid to haemophiliac 66
  sufferers who have contacted the HIV virus arising from blood transfusions; of these how many have pressed for a more substantial settlement for such sufferers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: We have received three representations to date seeking additional financial help. As my right hon. and Learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced on 23 November, our objectives are to give £20,000 lump sum payments to those affected, on an ex-gratia basis, and to enable the Macfarlane Trust to continue on a more generous scale their help to families in particular need. However, compensation is a matter for the courts.

  Health Service Reform
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings he has had with representatives of the medical profession to discuss his plans for reforming the NHS.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Since the White Paper "Working for Patients" was published in January this year my colleagues, senior officials and I have met representative bodies, other groups and leaders of the medical profession on some 100 separate occasions. These have included for instance, meetings with the presidents of the Royal Colleges, the Joint Consultants Committee, the British Medical Association, the General Medical Council, the General Medical Services Committee and the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association.

  We have been able to listen carefully to the views of the profession and have taken their points into account in developing the Government's proposals. I and my colleagues are always willing to enter into further constructive dialogue with the profession about how best to implement our plans.

  Schools Health Service
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on preventive health education measures in terms of the schools health visitor service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Health education will be a cross-curricula theme in the national curriculum and the responsibility for its teaching in any school lies ultimately with the head teacher and governors. School nurses however can make a very useful contribution to the development of teaching programmes and also, in the course of their regular duties, they use their contacts with individual pupils to promote health education and encourage healthy life styles.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of the schools health service once local management of schools is in place as(a) medical support to staff and pupils and (b) health education support to staff.

  Mr. Freeman
  Legislation has been amended so that district health authorities will have a responsibility to continue to provide a school health service for pupils al both schools maintained by local education authorities and at grant maintained schools. The range and organisation of services will still be determined by individual health authorities in consultation with local education authorities.
  67
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of the schools health visitor service in all age schools.

  Mr. Freeman
  School health services make a very useful contribution to preventive medicine through child health surveillance and health promotion among school children. We have recently carried out a brief fact finding survey of a sample of school health services and will be considering if further guidance on the management of the service is appropriate.

  Homeless People
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is his estimate of the numbers and proportion of homeless people currently not registered with any general practitioner;

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that homeless people are accepted on to general practitioners' lists under the terms of the new general practitioner's contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is not possible to make reliable estimates of the numbers involved. Everyone entitled to NHS treatment has the right to be registered with a doctor in their locality. In cases where people, such as the homeless, are unable to find a doctor to accept them, the local family practitioner committee has power to assign them to a particular doctor's list. In addition two pilot projects have been undertaken in London to improve access by homeless people to primary health care services. We are establishing permanent arrangements in these areas and considering ways to extend them to other inner city FPCs.

  Hospital Services (Tendering)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give details of all contracts awarded in the first and second round of National Health Service competitive tendering by each district health authority, by hospital, for(a) cleaning, (b) catering, (c) laundry, (d) portering, (e) other ancillary services and (f) other National Health Service services;

  (2) if he will give the latest figures as a percentage of services put out to tender by each district health authority for (a) cleaning, (b) catering, (c) laundry, (d) portering, (e) other ancillary services and (f) other National Health Service services; and if he will give estimated annual savings.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information collected centrally in the form requested relates to the national initiative on domestic, catering and laundry services and for the first round only. A table giving information on tender exercises in this round in the period October 1988 to 30 September 1989 has been placed in the Library to update earlier published information. We do not propose to collect similar information centrally for these services in the next round of tendering, or for other services, ancillary or otherwise on the basis that the choice of new services to be tendered is a matter for local determination based on value for money and local circumstances. Many health authorities, as a matter of routine, and of their own accord, are looking to combine ancillary services in various packages before tendering and also extending the 68
  process to other services. We encourage such developments and to maximise flexibility will only collect aggregate information on progress as part of the cost improvement programme.

  Savings to date achieved by health authorities in England for the three services covered by the national initiative are £110 million. For 1989–90 authorities plan new additional cost improvement savings through competitive tendering for services, of almost £10 million.

  Physiotherapy
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on the impact that the Health Service Bill is likely to have on the provision of physiotherapy services in hospitals and in the community; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a number of written representations about the impact of physiotherapy services of the proposals in "Working for Patients" now included in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy also made representations at a meeting to my predecessor on 25 September. The proposals in the Bill are intended to improve the provision of physiotherapy services in hospitals and in the community.

  Embryo Research
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representation he has had from Sir George Porter PRS on behalf of the scientific community about(a) the effect on the pursuit of knowledge of any ban on pre-14 day embryo research, (b) the effect on British industry of any ban on pre-14 day embryo research and (c) the effect on those suffering from degenerative disease and infertility of any restriction on pre-14 day embryo research.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received representations from Sir George Porter PRS on the possible impact of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill on the scientific community. He pointed out the benefits which the Royal Society anticipates from research on embryos up to 14 days old for those suffering from genetic disorders and infertility, and the pursuit of knowledge generally. I understand he is also concerned about the effect which any ban on embryo research might have on British industry through a possible emigration of United Kingdom researchers.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism he proposes to employ for determining the future levels of bursaries to students pursuing Project 2000 courses of nursing education.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In determining bursary levels for Project 2000 students, the Government's objective was to reflect the need to recruit sufficient candidates to nurse training, having regard to the current earning power of existing nurse students. Bursary levels will be kept under review in the light of that objective.

  Leicestershire Health Authority
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many in-patients were treated in Leicestershire health authority area in(a) 1978 and (b) 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the calendar year 1978, there were 73,521 in-patient cases in Leicestershire health authority. In the financial year 1988–89 the figure was 102,964.

  Christie Hospital, Manchester
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure access for patients from Denton and Reddish to Christie hospital, Manchester, if it goes ahead with plans to opt out.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  NHS trusts will not opt out, but will remain firmly part of the NHS. It will be for district health authorities to determine, in the light of local circumstances, what services are required to meet the health care needs of their resident population and to secure provision of those services through contracts. As part of this process, health authorities will identify those services which must be provided locally. Where a unit which applies for NHS trust status is the only sensible option for providing such services, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will approve arrangements for their continued provision on establishment of the NHS trust. Any later changes will be subject to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's further approval if they cannot be agreed locally.

  Disability
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill and services for disabled patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The purpose of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill is to make the changes in the law needed to implement the proposals set out in our White Papers "Working for Patients' (Cmnd 555) and "Caring for People" (Cmnd 849). Under the proposals for NHS services, district health authorities will be responsible for seeing that the needs of all their resident population, including people with disabilities, are met and that patients have access to a comprehensive range of high quality value for money services. The new arrangements for community care will improve opportunities for independent living for people with disabilities by improving coordination between agencies providing care, providing for multi-disciplinary assessment of need, whether for residential care or support at home, involving the individual more closely in decisions affecting him, and taking more account of the needs of carers.

  Pulse Oximeters
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will call for a report on the supply to medical staff at Killingbeck hospital, Leeds, of pulse oximeters;

  (2) if he will take immediate steps to ensure that medical staff at Killingbeck hospital, Leeds, are equipped with pulse oximeters.
  70
  Mr. Freeman
  The supply of medical equipment is a local matter for the management of the health authority concerned. The hon. Member may therefore wish to contact the chairman of Leeds Eastern health authority, Mrs. Solk.

  Eye Examinations
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the figures for the number of eye examinations before and after the introduction of charges.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of sight tests under the general ophthalmic services over the past five years is given in the table. Information is currently not available as to number of general ophthalmic services sight tests carried out since April 1989.

  Sight tests for England and Wales

  Financial year

  Total sight tests

  1984–85

  10,453,014

  1985–86

  10,846,497

  1986–87

  11,241,789

  1987–88

  12,392,076

  1988–89

  13,226,297

  Natural Medicines
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many experts in natural medicine he proposes to appoint to the Medicines Commission and the section 4 committees in his current review of nominations; and if any such appointment will come from the nominations proposed to him by the medicines advisory research committee of the Natural Medicines Society.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 November 1989]: Appointments and re-appointments to the Medicines Commission have been made by United Kingdom health and agriculture Ministers and by United Kingdom health Ministers to the Committees on Safety of Medicines, on Review of Medicines and on Dental and Surgical Materials. Details have been placed in the Library.

  A member of the Medicines Commission has a special interest in holistic medicine. His term of office continues until December 1991. We understand the Natural Medicines Society to be interested in herbal and homoeopathic medicine. No practitioners in these fields have been added to the advisory bodies either on the instance of the society or of any other organisation consulted.

  We are aware of public expectations of access to such remedies with, of course, adequate assurances as to their safety and quality and as to the basis of any curative claims. Their safety and quality can be determined in the normal way. Criteria for assessing the efficacy of herbal preparations are set out in the published 1985 information sheet which was accepted by the herbal industry. There is therefore no general need for herbalists on the advisory bodies. Homoeopathic products are not currently subject to European Community pharmaceutical directives. A directive is, however, expected to be submitted to the Council of Ministers early in the new year. It would have been inappropriate to have anticipated this directive in decisions about United Kingdom statutory bodies.

  71
  However, officials are in touch with the Natural Medicines Group and similar organisations to prepare for the directive.

EMPLOYMENT

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to improve the flow of information from his Department to those local authorities preparing operational programmes for European social fund-supported projects.

  Mr. Eggar
  My Department has published two guides on the new regulations and procedures for the European social fund. These were distributed to all interested applicants on 11 April 1989 and 21 June 1989 respectively in good time for the submission of operational programmes to the European Commission by its deadline of 31 August. My Department will continue to update applicants through European social fund working group meetings, arranged in accordance with the partnership requirements of the fund regulations, and through bulletins.

  Unemployment (Forecasts)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now make it his policy to issue forecasts of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Macro-economic forecasts are the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, it has not been the practice of this or previous Governments to publish forecasts of unemployment.

  Footwear and Textiles
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the numbers of jobs in the(a) footwear industry and (b) textile industry for each year since 1979; and how many have been lost in each industry so far in 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number and change in employees in employment in the footwear and textile industries is shown in the following table:

  Employees in the Footwear and Textile Industries (SIC 80)

  Great Britain

  (Thousands)

  Footwear SIC Group 451

  Textiles SIC Class 43

  June 1979

  68·8

  371·4

  June 1980

  65·3

  324·8

  June 1981

  58·8

  273·0

  June 1982

  53·5

  256·2

  June 1983

  51·4

  238·8

  June 1984

  52·8

  233·5

  June 1985

  51·1

  234·5

  June 1986

  51·9

  238·2

  June 1987

  50·8

  229·0

  June 1988

  49·5

  231·0

  September 1988

  49·3

  229·4

  December 1988

  48·9

  225·9

  March 1989

  47·7

  218·6

  June 1989

  45·6

  217·8

  September 1989

  45·3

  218·1

  72

  Footwear SIC Group 451

  Textiles SIC Class 43

  Changes:

  September 1988—September 1989

  -40

  -11·3

  (-8·1%)

  (-4·9%)

  December 1988—September 1989

  -3·6

  -7·7

  (-7·4%)

  (-3·4%)

  Professional And Executive Register
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the names of the companies which bid for the purchase of the professional and executive register before it was privatised; and if he will give the dates on which the applications to acquire this service were first received, the criteria upon which the decision was made and the date upon which the choice of purchaser was reached.

  Mr. Eggar
  On the recommendation of our financial advisers, Lloyds Merchant bank, Professional and Executive Recruitment was sold by private tender. This form of sale meant that companies were invited to bid on the understanding that their interest would remain confidential. I am accordingly unable to give the names of the companies which bid for PER.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the sale of PER for £6,000,000 to Pergamon Professional and Financial Services PLC on 8 September 1988 after considering the bids and presentations of interested parties on 5 September 1988. Legal completion took place on 6 September 1988.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how training and enterprise councils will be monitored for performance and quality.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will operate under a contract with my Department. The contract will cover a TEC's business plan which will set out a strategy for ensuring and improving quality. Performance will be monitored against specific targets agreed annually as part of a TEC's business plan.

  Wages Council
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the future of the Wages Council.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The future of the councils remains under consideration.

  Excessive Wage Claims
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what criteria are used to determine what is an excessive wage claim.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Businesses themselves must judge what is or is not "excessive" in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Excessive wage claims are irresponsible and, if conceded, would erode competitiveness and destroy jobs.

  VDUs (Radiation)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will launch a survey into the possible emission of low levels of radiation from visual display units and whether pregnant women are affected by working on visual display units.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Radiation from visual display units (VDUs) is very low and is not considered to be in any way hazardous. Surveys in other countries have not shown any risks to pregnancy attributable to VDUs. The Health and Safety Executive has commissioned an epidemiological study of possible reproductive effects from VDUs in order to obtain additional reliable data based on British VDU operators.

  Disability
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what priority is given within the employment service to work with disabled people.

  Mr. Eggar
  People with disabilities are one of the main priority groups for assistance from the Employment Department. A comprehensive network of services is available to help people with disabilities find and retain jobs through advice, assessment, rehabilitation and training; and in the case of people with severe disabilities, support in the form of sheltered employment.

  My Department is currently reviewing the full range of services for people with disabilities, and a consultative document covering the conclusions of the review will be published as soon as possible.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action his Department takes, if, for whatever reason, an unemployed claimant finishes employment training and continues to be unemployed but fails to inform the unemployment benefit office or sign on and continues to receive their full training allowance.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Entitlement to training allowance ceases when an individual leaves ET and training managers are expected to inform the UBO accordingly. At the same time they should tell the individual concerned that allowances will cease to be paid and advise them, should they be unemployed, to return to the UBO to claim benefits.

  Where, for whatever reason, the situation described in the question does arise, the question would be referred to the training agency and trainees could be asked to make a repayment.

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Prosecutions for sale of tobacco to persons under 16

  45

  28

  17

  18

  29

  Prosecutions for sale of alcohol to persons under 18

  314

  274

  296

  333

  673

  The enforcement of the law is a matter for chief officers of police, who decide what action to take against particular types of crime in the light of other priorities. However, last year several measures were agreed with the police to make the law on the sale of alcohol more effective; this is reflected in the increased number of prosecutions for 1988. The Government are currently considering what additional steps might be taken to improve the enforcement of the law regarding the illegal sale of tobacco to children.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Young Offenders
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation his Department has had to ensure that young offenders on probation and at risk of custody have their individual needs assessed without any delay.

  Mr. John Patten
  In the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community" and in "Tackling Offending: An Action Plan" the Home Office emphasised the need for individual assessment of offenders at risk of custody. The action plan suggests that social inquiry reports should include comprehensive individualised programmes for young adult offenders. The action plan also asks the probation service to improve co-ordination and co-operation with other agencies, to help provide coherent and effective programmes of supervision under probation orders. Every probation area was asked to draw up a local action plan for putting these ideas into effect. The Home Office is currently consulting the probation service on further guidelines for promoting inter-agency work under the action plan.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability)
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the number of passengers who were the subject of a notice of liability under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and (b) the countries at which they had embarked.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From the introduction of the Act until 31 October 1989, 16,091 notices of liability had been served on carriers. Information on the countries from which the passengers embarked is not readily available.

  Tobacco and Alcohol (Sales to Children)
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have taken place in respect of illegal sales to children of(a) tobacco and (b) alcohol in each of the past five years for which figures are available; and what steps he proposes to improve enforcement of the law.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The figures are as follows:

  Guildford Pub Bombings
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Surrey police have reopened their inquiries into the Guildford pub bombings; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The reopening of the investigation is an operational decision for the chief constable of the Surrey police. I understand that he proposes to review the
  75
  facts of the case and to give careful consideration to whether any further inquiries can usefully be made. Such action will, however, have to await the conclusion of the criminal investigation being conducted by the Avon and Somerset police and the return of the papers on the original investigation, currently held by that force.

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many countries he has instituted proceedings against under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987; and what is the value of these claims.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Any such action under the Act would be civil proceedings against the carrier concerned, but none has yet been instituted.

  Prisoners (Visits)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what entitlement a prisoner has to receive a discretionary visit from persons not on their approved list of visitors.

  Mr. Mellor
  The approved visitors scheme applies only to category A prisoners. Discretionary visits may be authorised by the governor to enable close relatives to visit such prisoners during the period before the vetting process is completed. Such visits may also be granted for relatives and close friends who live abroad and whose stay in the United Kingdom is short.

  Separate arrangements apply to legal advisers visiting in a professional capacity, Members of Parliament and peers, bishops of the diocese, justices of the peace, public officials visiting in the course of their duties, children of the prisoner (or of a visitor) and other persons with specific Home Office approval.

SCOTLAND

  Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigations he has conducted into the illegal poisoning of birds on Islay; and if he will take steps to draw the attention of estate owners where poisoning has occured to the requirements of the law.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Scottish Office officials have engaged in scientific analysis and field investigations of poisoning incidents and co-operate with the police in their inquiries with a view to possible prosecution if sufficient evidence can be obtained.

  It is the policy of the Scottish Office that estate owners and others with an interest in the land should in every case be made aware of incidents which have occurred on their property and of the requirements of the law.

  Sporting Rights
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Government intend to receive the rating of sporting rights in Scotland; whether he intends to reform the rating of shooting rights in Scotland; what representations he has received regarding this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We have received representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation 76
  and from individuals about the differences which exist in the rating of sporting rights in Scotland and in England and Wales. It will not be possible to remove all these differences for the 1990 revaluation, which takes effect from April next year, but it is the Government's intention to move towards a common approach to the rating of sporting rights throughout Great Britain thereafter.

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many members appointed to the Greater Glasgow health board reside in the area of the city covered by the Eastern district local health council; and if he will make it his policy to appoint east end residents to the board.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  None. No one is appointed to a health board as a representative of a particular area or interest and that will continue to be our policy.

  Roads
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the future of the A1 road in response to his Department's consultation paper on routes south of Edinburgh.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am very pleased with the level of interest that has been shown in this study which has resulted in around 200 responses to date. It is, of course, too early to have a detailed analysis of these but I estimate that between half and two thirds of the respondents have commented on our proposals for the Al. Almost all of these support our proposed upgrading of the route although many have suggested that the proposals be extended. I intend to make a statement on the findings of the whole consultation in due course.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many posts will be transferred from the Nature Conservancy Council headquarters in Peterborough to Scotland as a result of merger.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions will be taken after discussions involving the Scottish Development Department, Department of the Environment, Welsh Office and the NCC. Any relocation of posts will be determined when the NCC is reorganised. This reorganisation will take place in advance of the proposed merger of the new NCC for Scotland with the existing Countryside Commission for Scotland.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any staff currently employed by either the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland or the CCS will lose their jobs as a result of merger.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All staff in both bodies have been given assurances about job security. They will be offered employment on terms and conditions not less favourable than they have at present.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the Nature Conservancy Council's budget is spent in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For the current financial year, £6·5 million has been allocated by the
  77
  council for direct spend in Scotland. The proportion of the council's total budget spent in Scotland is not readily available and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available sufficient funds to enable drinking water quality throughout Strathclyde to meet European standards by 1996 at the latest.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The quality of drinking water supply is the responsibility of regional and islands councils. The needs of Strathclyde, and other authorities, will be taken into account in setting capital expenditure allocations for 1990–91 and subsequent years.

  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the water supplies in Scotland which have derogations for aluminium under article 20 of the drinking water directive which will expire in each of the years: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995–96.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The water supplies concerned, which were the subject of delay applications under article 20 of the drinking water directive, are as follows and the delays expire in the years indicated:

  1990

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Killylour

  New Abbey

  Winterhope

  Grampian

  Herricks

  Rochomie

  Strathclyde

  Port Charlotte

  1991

  Borders

  Alemoor

  Wanton Walls

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Areeming

  Strathclyde

  Carradale

  Tighnabruaich

  1992

  Central

  Longhill

  Sauchie

  Residents in homes for the elderly by district/region at 31 March 1988

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  Berwickshire

  51

  —

  18

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  103

  29

  20

  Roxburgh

  105

  36

  42

  Tweeddale

  74

  —

  34

  Borders region

  333

  65

  114

  Clackmannan

  40

  37

  —

  Falkirk

  200

  17

  23

  Stirling

  189

  121

  52

  Central region

  429

  175

  75

  Annandale and Eskdale

  43

  56

  80

  Nithsdale

  99

  30

  20

  Stewartry

  92

  —

  20

  Wigtown

  87

  27

  5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  321

  113

  125

  78

  Woodburn

  Highland

  Wick

  Strathclyde

  Afton

  Dhu Loch

  Inveraray

  Muasdale

  Muirdykes

  Pundeavon

  Tarbert

  1993

  Strathclyde

  Bradan

  Clachan

  Crosbie

  Furnace

  Spallander

  Tobermory

  Torra

  Whinhill

  1994

  Strathclyde

  Penwhapple

  Staneley

  1995–96

  Strathclyde

  Amlaird

  Ardrishaig

  Dougliehill

  Garshake

  Greenhead

  Kelly

  Larkfield

  Maukinhill

  Overton

  Prospecthill

  Skelmorlie

  South Moorhouse

  Old People's Homes
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by(a) region and (b) district the number of old people in homes in Scotland (i) in the private sector, (ii) in the voluntary sector and (iii) run by local authorities.

  Mr. Lang
  Information for 1988, the latest year available, is set out in the following table:
  79

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  Dunfermline

  235

  —

  102

  Kirkcaldy

  300

  60

  91

  North East Fife

  92

  129

  28

  Fife region

  627

  189

  221

  Aberdeen city

  400

  400

  49

  Banff and Buchan

  170

  —

  77

  Gordon

  97

  71

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside

  80

  77

  67

  Moray

  180

  69

  54

  Grampian region

  927

  617

  247

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  24

  —

  13

  Caithness

  85

  25

  —

  Inverness

  83

  26

  47

  Lochaber

  58

  —

  24

  Nairn

  33

  33

  18

  Ross and Cromarty

  117

  34

  72

  Skye and Lochalsh

  —

  36

  4

  Sutherland

  33

  19

  —

  Highland region

  433

  173

  178

  East Lothian

  202

  97

  42

  Edinburgh

  630

  589

  214

  Midlothian

  156

  80

  30

  West Lothian

  202

  —

  —

  Lothian region

  1,190

  766

  286

  Argyll and Bute

  175

  106

  194

  Dumbarton

  169

  55

  105

  Glasgow

  1,486

  494

  134

  Clydebank

  103

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  40

  —

  Strathkelvin

  78

  27

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  59

  —

  —

  Monklands

  182

  —

  40

  Motherwell

  192

  —

  44

  Hamilton

  243

  39

  —

  East Kilbride

  68

  5

  —

  Eastwood

  42

  100

  —

  Clydesdale

  58

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  348

  83

  8

  Inverclyde

  79

  148

  53

  Cunninghame

  128

  91

  139

  Kilmarnock and Louden

  155

  91

  42

  Kyle and Carrick

  164

  55

  74

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  26

  —

  —

  Strathclyde region

  3,755

  1,334

  833

  Angus

  247

  44

  213

  Dundee city

  510

  234

  154

  Perth and Kinross

  229

  316

  258

  Tayside region

  986

  594

  625

  Orkney Islands

  69

  —

  17

  Shetland Islands

  68

  16

  —

  Western Isles

  186

  —

  10

  Islands councils

  323

  16

  27

  SCOTLAND

  9,324

  2,731

  4,042

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by(a) region and (b) district the number of old people's homes in private ownership in Scotland in (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1987 and (iv) 1989.
  80
  Mr. Lang
  Information in the form requested is not held for 1980 and no information after 1988 is available yet. Figures for that year and for 1985 and 1987 are given in the following table:
  81

  Number of Private Homes for the Elderly by District/ Region

  1985

  1987

  1988

  Berwickshire

  —

  —

  1

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  1

  1

  2

  Roxburgh

  —

  1

  3

  Tweeddale

  1

  1

  1

  Borders Region

  2

  3

  7

  Clackmannan

  —

  —

  —

  Falkirk

  2

  2

  2

  Stirling

  3

  3

  4

  Central Region

  5

  5

  6

  Annandale and Eskdale

  1

  4

  6

  Nithsdale

  1

  —

  2

  Stewartry

  1

  1

  2

  Wigtown

  —

  1

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  6

  11

  Dunfermline

  3

  4

  6

  Kirkcaldy

  2

  6

  6

  North East Fife

  3

  4

  4

  Fife Region

  8

  14

  16

  Aberdeen City

  1

  1

  2

  Banff and Buchan

  —

  2

  4

  Gordon

  —

  —

  —

  Kincardine and Deeside

  2

  4

  5

  Moray

  2

  3

  4

  Grampian Region

  5

  10

  15

  Badenoch and/Strathspey

  1

  1

  1

  Caithness

  —

  —

  —

  Inverness

  1

  2

  3

  Lochaber

  —

  1

  2

  Nairn

  —

  —

  2

  Ross and Cromarty

  —

  2

  5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  —

  —

  1

  Sutherland

  —

  —

  —

  Highland Region

  2

  6

  14

  East Lothian

  1

  3

  4

  Edinburgh

  8

  13

  14

  Midlothian

  —

  2

  2

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  Lothian Region

  9

  18

  20

  Argyll and Bute

  3

  7

  14

  Dumbarton

  2

  6

  7

  Glasgow

  2

  6

  8

  Clydebank

  —

  —

  —

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  —

  —

  —

  Strathkelvin

  —

  —

  —

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  —

  —

  —

  Monklands

  —

  —

  4

  Motherwell

  —

  3

  3

  Hamilton

  1

  3

  —

  East Kilbride

  —

  —

  —

  Eastwood

  —

  —

  —

  Clydesdale

  —

  —

  —

  Renfrew

  —

  —

  2

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  3

  Cunninghame

  5

  7

  10

  Kilmarnock and Louden

  —

  1

  3

  Kyle and Carrick

  1

  3

  5

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  —

  —

  —

  Strathclyde

  14

  37

  59

  Angus

  4

  13

  16

  Dundee City

  —

  5

  7

  Perth and Kinross

  8

  14

  17

  82

  1985

  1987

  1988

  Tayside Region

  12

  32

  40

  Orkney Islands

  —

  2

  3

  Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  Western Isles

  —

  1

  1

  Islands Councils

  —

  3

  4

  Scotland

  60

  134

  192

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the charities currently subsidising old people in private sector homes in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  No information is collected on this, which is a wholly private matter for the residents themselves.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the investment made by international companies in old people's homes in Scotland; and what were the comparable figures in(a) 1985 and (b)

  Mr. Lang
  No information on this subject is held centrally. Financial arrangements for private developments of this kind are a matter of the proprietors themselves.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the weekly average cost for (i) a single room and (ii) shared accommodation in old people's homes in the private sector in Scotland in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1986, (d) 1987, (e) 1988 and (f)

  Mr. Lang
  Information in the form requested is not held centrally. The weekly average charge for residents in private homes was £149 in 1987 and £158 in 1988.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding old people's homes in private ownership in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  I have received 12 representations in the last three years. They covered specific issues, such as standards and charges, as well as more general issues. Responsibility for the registration and inspection of residential homes rests with regional and islands councils.

  Airports
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has submitted evidence to the review of Scottish lowland airports policy.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No. However, before any decision is taken on the future shape of Government policy for Scottish lowland airports my right hon. and learned Friend will be fully involved in considering all the written comments submitted in response to the Department of Transport consultation document.

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to repeal or amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 insofar as it relates to Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No substantive amendments are planned for the Wildlife and Countryside Act
  83
  1981 so far as it affects Scotland, though some technical and consequential amendments will be needed for the creation of a separate Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.

  Scottish Arts
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much of the fundings of Scottish Arts in 1990–91 is for(a) provisions for maintenance, repair and refurbishment of galleries and museums and (b) an increase in real terms of provision for activities of art groups and institutions.

  Mr. Lang
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Natural Heritage Agency
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he estimates that a single natural heritage agency will be established in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Environmental Protection Bill which will shortly come before Parliament provides inter alia for the establishment of a Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland. It is our intention to establish the proposed natural heritage agency by subsequent legislation.

  Health Service (Information Requirements)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to support information and information technology requirements arising out of the proposals in "Working for Patients" and "Promoting Better Health".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Advice to health boards on priorities will be issued as appropriate. In addition to their normal financial allocations health boards will be able to bid for centrally held resources.

  Adoption
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many babies were adopted in Scotland, for any convenient periods in the period of 1980 to 1989.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 November 1989]: The numbers of children under 12 months old adopted in Scotland in the years 1980 to 1988 are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1980

  379

  1981

  321

  1982

  326

  1983

  291

  1984

  229

  1985

  199

  1986

  160

  1987

  156

  1988

  132

  Corresponding figures for 1989 (to date) are not yet available.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many parents have to take part in by-elections for school boards in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools.
  84
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: All parents in schools where by-elections take place are entitled to take part. There is no compulsion to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Toll Roads
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is with regard to the use of tolls on the road infrastructure network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Tolls have been levied to finance certain costly estuarial crossings which provide exceptional benefits for users. In addition, tolls will be a means of paying for privately-financed roads.

  Channel Tunnel (Freight Terminal)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from British Rail concerning a freight terminal for Channel tunnel trade in the north-west of England.

  Mr. Parkinson
  British Rail is required by law to publish a plan setting out its proposals for passenger and freight services from the Channel tunnel to each region of the country. I have no doubt that this plan will have something concrete to say about a freight terminal in the north-west.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if there has been any reduction in illegal parking on double yellow lines following the introduction of wheel clamping as a method of parking enforcement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The level of illegal parking on double yellow lines is not separately recorded. Studies since 1983 in central London have shown that illegal parking on yellow lines generally has halved since the introduction of wheel clamping.

  Speed Limit
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the 70 mph speed limit.

  Mr. Atkins
  The representations I get are divided between setting lower speed limits and setting higher ones. I see no reason to change the present 70 mph on motorways and high speed roads.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to alter the maximum speed limit on motorways and other non-residential roads.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no such plans. The representations I get are divided between setting lower speed limits and setting higher ones. I see no reason to change the present limits on motorways and other non-residential roads.

  Second Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage the building of a second Channel tunnel.
  85
  Mr. Parkinson
  Eurotunnel is required by the concession agreement to put forward by the year 2000 plans for a drive-through link to be constructed when technical and economic conditions permit.

  Border Routes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the further provision of dual carriageway cross-border routes in the north-east as they connect with the Scottish road networks south of Edinburgh.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to make the A1 a dual carriageway up to the Scottish border.

  Mr. Atkins
  An improvement scheme for dualling a section of the A1 at Cawledge, south of Alnwick, was recently completed and opened to traffic.

  Other dual carriageway proposals in the road programme for the A1 north of Morpeth are the Brownieside improvement and Marshall Meadows to the Scottish border improvement. On current planning the start of works on these schemes is scheduled for the spring of 1991.

  One-man Bridge Operation
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the Department's one-man bridge operation at night project; and if he will make a statement about the origin of the funding for this scheme.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The first phase of the project has been completed and a second phase is being considered. It has been funded from the Department's marine directorate research budget.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to announce a public inquiry into the Lockerbie air disaster and related events; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  My right hon., noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has stated that there can be no question of an inquiry in public while the police investigation continues, as a public inquiry would interfere with that investigation and perhaps prejudice its outcome. I explained this to the representatives of the victims' families when I met them in September, and I believe they understood the position.

  "Road Users and the Law"
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the Government's White Paper, "Road Users and the Law"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  As I told the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) on 23 November, preparation of the legislative changes is well advanced. We have issued consultation papers on driver re-testing, vehicle prohibition and the use of technology for enforcement. This legislation will be brought forward as soon as time is available.
  86
  We have already taken powers to extend the high risk offenders scheme and are consulting the police and other interested organisations on improvements to the operation of the road traffic legal system which do not require changes to the law.

  Road Speed Law
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will launch a national campaign for the strict observation of road speed law.

  Mr. Atkins
  Speed limits are set for the protection of all road users. Every driver should observe them responsibly without special campaigns: sensible drivers go at lower speeds when it is foggy, dark or raining and adopt a safe driving distance from other vehicles. In residential areas, we welcome and encourage the engineering measures that local authorities are taking to slow vehicles to safe speeds.

  Traffic-calming Measures
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take on the introduction of traffic-calming measures.

  Mr. Atkins
  We have done much to develop approaches to traffic calming in recent years. We encourage local highway authorities to consider the opportunities for traffic calming measures in their general planning of highways investment. We are looking into the possibility of earmarking funds for the implementation of local road safety schemes, some of which can include traffic calming.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he is discussing to provide rail links from the Channel tunnel to ports in the south and west of Great Britain.

  Mr. Parkinson
  There are already rail links between the site of the Channel tunnel entrance and most ports in the south and west. British rail will be setting out its current proposals for passenger and freight services in the plan which it will shortly be publishing, in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the high-speed railway line to the Channel tunnel.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the high-speed railway line to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Parkinson
  It is now for British Rail and its chosen partner, Eurorail, to take this project forward.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail over the provision of through passenger and freight services from the north of the country to Europe through the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail about plans to link the Channel tunnel with routes north of London.
  87
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rail facilities will be provided in Liverpool in preparation for the opening of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Parkinson
  It is British Rail's responsibility to set out its proposals in the plan which it will shortly be publishing, in compliance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987. I await with interest the publication of the board's proposals.

  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Government will now give financial support to British Rail to assist with the environmental costs of the strategic Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is for the joint venturers to provide in the project for the high standard on environmental protection which they think will satisfy Parliament.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received seeking regional passenger and freight rail links to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  We receive a number of representations from time to time from hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy on the construction of the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on British Rail, Eurorail and developments in the Channel tunnel high speed link.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend made an announcement on Friday 3 November.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve the road and rail links between the Channel tunnel and Yorkshire.

  Mr. Portillo
  There are a number of major schemes in the road programme which will improve access between Yorkshire and the Channel tunnel. British Rail is about to publish its plan setting out its proposals for international services to regions outside the south east.

  Mr. Aitken
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the co-chairmen of Eurotunnel plc; if the financial viability of the project was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the United Kingdom co-chairman of Eurotunnel at the ceremony to mark the breakthrough of the landward service tunnel on 9 November. Eurotunnel has announced that increasing costs will require additional funding. I understand that it is discussing the figures with its contractors and bankers.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it his policy to consider alternative routes for the Channel tunnel rail link to London in addition to proposals put forward by British Rail;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to study the viability of developing Stratford as the main London transit point of the Channel tunnel rail link in comparison with the existing British Rail proposals.
  88
  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is statutorily responsible for providing rail services in Great Britain and planning new ones. It also holds the rights to through train paths in the Channel tunnel on which it has contractual agreements with Eurotunnel and French Railways. A Channel tunnel rail link will require the participation of British Rail. Anyone is free to suggest alternatives to British Rail's proposals. However, I accept that now that BR and Eurorail have announced their preferred route through Kent and terminal in London it will not be practicable for them to devote great efforts to examining other proposals. It will be for Parliament to decide whether the route can be accepted.

  Bus Industry
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new jobs have been created in the private sector bus industry since de-regulation.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Between 1985–86 and the end of 1988–89, there was a net increase of 3,900 in the total staff employed by private bus operators, including former subsidiaries of the National Bus Company.

  Network SouthEast
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests he has received from British Rail to approve additional expenditure for(a) Network SouthEast and (b) the line from Liverpool street to Southend (Victoria).

  Mr. Parkinson
  This year I have approved five major investment schemes for Network SouthEast worth nearly £450 million. This included approval for the construction of 124 class 321 vehicles at cost of £45 million to meet the forecast growth in demand for services north of the Thames, including the Liverpool street-Southend (Victoria) line.

  British Rail (Safety)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government money is allocated to improving safety on British Rail.

  Mr. Parkinson
  British Rail's corporate plan includes some £125 million for additional safety expenditure over the next three years, which has been reflected in public expenditure provision. This expenditure will be supported by PSO grant where it falls to the subsidised sectors, Network SouthEast and provincial. British Rail is assessing the need for further expenditure following Sir Anthony Hidden's report on the Clapham junction accident.

  British Rail
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss his successor and the future of the railways under privatisation.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he expects to discuss.
  89
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have already discussed with Sir Robert Reid the objectives we propose to set for British Rail over the next three years. We expect to publish them shortly.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of plans for the denationalisation of British Rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  Work is continuing.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct British Rail to review its policy on unstaffed railway stations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The staffing of railway stations is a matter for British Rail or where appropriate the local passenger transport executive.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of British Rail concerning the electrification of the rail network; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is for British Rail to bring forward any worthwhile proposals for electrification. Since 1979 British Rail have spent £691 million in today's prices on electrification, an average of £63 million a year.

  International comparisons of road deaths: number, and rates for different road users: by selected countries: 1987

  Number of road deaths1

  Motor vehicles per 1,000 population

  Road deaths per100,000 population

  Road deaths per100,000 motor vehicles

  Car user deaths per 100 million car kilometers

  Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population

  England

  4,349

  411

  9·2

  2·2

  ..

  3·0

  Wales

  220

  386

  7·8

  2·0

  ..

  2·4

  Scotland

  556

  311

  10·9

  3·5

  ..

  3·8

  Great Britain

  5,125

  400

  9·3

  2·3

  0·9

  3·1

  Northern Ireland

  214

  308

  13·6

  4·4

  ..

  4·6

  United Kingdom

  5,339

  398

  9·4

  2·4

  ..

  3·1

  Belgium

  1,922

  443

  19·5

  4·4

  2·8

  3·3

  Denmark

  698

  400

  13·6

  3·4

  51·2

  2·7

  Federal Republic of Germany

  7,967

  531

  13·0

  2·5

  1·2

  2·8

  France

  10,742

  542

  19·4

  3·6

  52·2

  2·9

  Greece

  1,682

  230

  16·9

  7·3

  ..

  4·1

  Irish Republic

  461

  253

  13·0

  5·2

  ..

  4·0

  Italy

  7,108

  3525

  12·4

  32·5

  3 51·7

  32·2

  Luxembourg

  68

  511

  18·4

  3·6

  ..

  1·9

  Netherlands

  1,485

  429

  10·1

  2·4

  1·1

  1·2

  Portugal

  3,100

  271

  31·5

  11·2

  53·0

  8·5

  Spain

  7,615

  383

  19·6

  5·1

  6·4

  3·6

  Austria

  1,469

  522

  19·4

  3·6

  52·8

  3·3

  Czechoslovakia

  1,393

  4219

  8·9

  44·1

  ..

  3·1

  Finland

  581

  427

  11·8

  2·8

  71·

  2·8

  German Democratic Republic

  1,531

  313

  9·2

  2·9

  ..

  2·9

  Hungary

  1,571

  214

  14·8

  6·9

  ..

  5·2

  Norway

  398

  499

  9·5

  1·9

  51·0

  1·9

  Poland

  4,625

  176

  12·2

  7·0

  2 85·5

  5·5

  Sweden

  787

  461

  9·4

  2·0

  1·0

  1·7

  Switzerland

  904

  581

  13·8

  2·5

  1·2

  3·1

  Yugoslavia

  4,526

  169

  19·3

  11·4

  7·5

  5·9

  Australia

  2,771

  577

  17·1

  3·0

  ..

  3·2

  Canada

  4,280

  590

  16·6

  2·8

  ..

  2·5

  90
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the staffing of British Rail stations.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a number but staffing policy is a management matter for British Rail.

  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the appointment of the chairman of British Rail.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given earlier today to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker).

  Road Safety Statistics
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road safety figures for the last year for which figures are available for the United Kingdom and the other EC countries.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The United Kingdom has an excellent record for road safety compared with our foreign neighbours. The rate of road deaths at 9·4 per 100,000 head of population was the lowest of all the European Community countries in 1987. In 1988, the United Kingdom has achieved a further 1 per cent. reduction in fatalities, and a 1·5 per cent. reduction in serious injuries, although international comparisons for that year are not yet available. The detailed information is contained in the following table:
  91

  Number of road deaths1

  Motor vehicles per 1,000 population

  Road deaths per 100,000 population

  Road deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles

  Car user deaths per 100 million car kilometers

  Pedestrian deaths per 100,000 population

  Japan

  12,151

  563

  9·9

  1·8

  1·4

  3·0

  New Zealand

  3767

  3632

  323·1

  33·7

  ..

  33·4

  United States of America

  46,386

  784

  19·5

  2·5

  91·0

  3·4

  1 In accordance with the commonly agreed international definition, most countries define a fatality as being due to a road accident if death occurs within 30 days of the accident. The official road accident statistics of some countries however, limit the fatalities to those occurring within shorter periods after the accident. Numbers of deaths and death rates in the above table have been adjusted according to the factors used by the Economic Commission for Europe and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, to represent standardised 30-day deaths: France (6 days) +9 per cent.; Italy (7 days) +7 per cent.; Greece, Austria (3 days) +12 per cent.; Spain, Japan (24 hours) +30 per cent.; Canada, Switzerland (1 year) -5 per cent.; Portugal (at the scene) +35 per cent.

  2 1985.

  3 1986.

  4 Excluding lorries.

  5 Nationals' vehicles only.

  6 Traffic on state roads only.

  7 Including traffic on private roads.

  8 Including nationals' cars abroad.

  9 Intercity transport.

  Underground Railways
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement concerning future plans for new underground railways serving south-east London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Jubilee line extension to docklands will improve accessibility to Southwark and Bermondsey. London Regional Transport are also considering further the case for extensions of the East London line and the docklands light railway to parts of south-east London.

  Commuter Services, London
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much investment in London commuter services will increase over the next three years.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Regional Transport and BR's Network SouthEast plan to invest about £3·4 billion over the next three years (including £0·5 billion for the Jubilee line extension). That is £1·6 billion more than in the three years to April 1990, an increase of nearly 70 per cent. in real terms. Most of that investment will benefit services used by commuters.

  Bus Substitution
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will direct British Rail to cease providing services by bus substitution.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. If these services stopped the passengers who used them would be inconvenienced.

  Women Travellers
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve the safety of women travelling on their own.

  Mr. Portillo
  Public transport operators are implementing a number of measures which will improve the security of all passengers.

  British Rail: The British transport police are maintaining a higher visibility throughout the British Rail network and particularly in the Network SouthEast area. Other measures at NSE stations include better lighting and
  92
  closed circuit television (CCTV). The remaining closed compartment carriages still in use on NSE services will be replaced as soon as new rolling stock comes on stream.

  London Underground: The Government have provided £15 million for a programme of passenger security measures including passenger alarms, CCTV, mirrors and improved lighting in passageways. The number of police on the Underground has increased and their effectiveness has been improved by a new radio system and new area police stations.

  Buses: The installation of radios and video cameras will help to deter crime. Women may particularly welcome the growing use of midi-buses where passengers travel close to the driver.

  My Department has issued advice to motorists on what to do should they break down on the motorway or in remote places.

  Concessionary Fares
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the future operation of the concessionary fares scheme in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  Many such representations have been received following speculation that the present concessionary travel scheme in London might be withdrawn or curtailed. I wrote to London Members on 4 September explaining that the details of the scheme are agreed each year by the London boroughs and the City of London. If they fail to reach agreement, the reserve free travel scheme will be implemented.

  Thames Collision
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the inquiry into the collision involving the Marchioness and Bow Belle dredger on the river Thames.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The inquiry into the collision involving the Marchioness and the Bow Belle is not yet completed. It is our intention to publish the report of the chief inspector of marine accidents at the earliest practicable date.

  Air Traffic Control Centre
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much the Civil Aviation Authority's new en route air traffic control centre will increase airspace capacity.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The new en route centre is expected to increase capacity in the en route sectors over England and Wales by at least 40 per cent. when operational in 1996.

  Stockton-on-Tees
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an official visit by car to Stockton-on-Tees; and if he will notify his route in advance.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have no plans to visit Stockton-on-Tees in the near future.

  Orange Badge Scheme
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made with the proposals to modify the qualifying conditions for an orange badge and to tighten the monitoring of abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are currently drawing up detailed proposals for redefining the eligibility criteria for the orange badge scheme in the light of the plans we published earlier this year. We are also examining ways of extending the benefits of the scheme to people with severe upper limb disabilities. We shall consult widely on our proposals as soon as possible.

  Revised eligibility criteria are needed so that badges are issued only to those who genuinely need them. Our proposals for a new design of badge with space for a photograph of the holder will aid enforcement. The operation of the revised scheme will be kept under close review and discussions held with chief police officers as necessary.

  Underground Railway, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what methods he intends to adopt to assess the relative merits of proposals for new underground railway routes in central London.

  Mr. Portillo
  The costs and benefits of the various options will be assessed with the assistance of the London transportation survey model. Account will also need to be taken of any wider benefits not included in the model.

  M1, Bedfordshire
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current repairs to the M1 in Bedfordshire.

  Mr. Atkins
  The major maintenance works between junctions 12 and 13 were substantially completed on 19 November, four weeks earlier than expected. Some further minor remedial works involving closure of the northbound hardshoulder and overnight works on the outside lane are expected to be completed soon.

  Motorways, North-East
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected road life of existing motorways in the north-east of England; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the Department's standards for highway design were revised in 1985, motorways have been built to last, with appropriate maintenance, for 40 years before having to be reconstructed. Before that time bituminous roads were generally built to last on average 20 years and concrete roads 40 years. The actual life of particular motorways or sections of motorways depends upon a number of factors, notably the volume and weight of traffic using them, and may vary significantly. The condition of motorways is routinely monitored to identify deterioration and the need for major maintenance. An announcement about the 1990–91 programme of major maintenance will be made as usual around the end of March.

  Roads (Spending)
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by how much spending on national roads will be increased over the next three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  Spending on national roads over the next three years will total £5·7 billion, compared with £3·3 billion in the three years ending March 1990. This is art increase of 70 per cent. in cash terms.

  Of the £5·7 billion, £4 billion will be made available for new construction and improvement. This represents an increase of 50 per cent. in real terms, on original expenditure plans for the years 1987–88 and 1989–90, and reflects the Government's commitment to the proposals set out in the White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" for reducing congestion.

  In addition £1·7 billion will be spent on road, bridge and current maintenance. This will mean an increae of over 40 per cent., in real terms, in spending on capital maintenance compared with the three years to March 1990.

  Dalston Kingsland Station
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to visit Dalston Kingsland BR station.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, but I visited stations on the north London line on 7 October this year.

  Leeds-Bradford Airport
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received for the further extension of operating hours at the Leeds-Bradford airport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport announced on 14 August 1989 their decision on planning application by Leeds-Bradford airport for extended opening hours.

  Since the announcement, my right hon. Friend has received 12 representations favouring longer opening hours than the 11/2 hour extension granted.

  A30, Cornwall
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements are planned for the A30 in Cornwall.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following schemes are in the trunk road programme:

  Launceston-Plusha

  Plusha-Bolventor

  Shallowater Hill Improvement

  Temple-Higher Carblake Improvement

  Bodmin-Indian Queens Improvement

  Indian Queens Bypass

  Penhale-Carland Cross

  Zelah Bypass

  Zelah-Chiverton Improvement

  St. Erth-Newtown Improvement

  I shall be opening the Launceston-Plusha scheme on 7 December. Work is expected to start on Plusha-Bolventor and Penhale-Carland Cross in spring 1990 and on Zelah bypass in summer 1990. The remaining schemes are at an earlier stage of preparation.

  A38
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he hopes to announce his Department's preferred route for the A38 trunk road improvement Liskeard-Bodmin section and consulting engineers to undertake investigations for the proposed A38 Saltash-Trerulefoot section.

  Mr. Atkins
  I hope to announce a preferred route for the Liskeard-Bodmin section early in 1991 and the appointment of consulting engineers for the Saltash-Trerulefoot section very shortly.

  Civil Aviation Authority (Computers)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Civil Aviation Authority's new computers will be installed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I understand that the replacement mainframe computers for the London air traffic control centre have now been installed. After further testing they will become operational early next summer.

  Roads and Street Lighting
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the City of Newcastle upon Tyne about the maintenance of roads, and the provision of streetlighting in residential areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  I have received the city council's document entitled "Residential Roads: The Problem—The Cure". All matters and priorities relating to local roads are, of course, the responsibility of the local highways authority.

  London Underground
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much Government money is allocated to improving safety standards on the London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground estimates that by the year 2000 it will have spent more than £1 billion on improving safety. Although Government grant is not 96
  attributed to specific projects or activities, I am satisfied that the increases recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be more than sufficient to allow London Underground to secure its planned improvements in safety standards.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to reduce overcrowding on the London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock), earlier today.

  Rural Transport
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on rural transport provision.

  Mr. Portillo
  The provisions of rural transport is chiefly a matter for local transport operators and for local authorities. Under the Transport Act 1985 the operators can provide services wherever they see a commercial opportunity to do so. Local authorities may make provision for additional socially necessary services, under subsidy, after going out to competitive tender. In addition, the rural transport development fund, administered by the Rural Development Commission, receives £1 million a year from the Department of Transport to assist the provision of innovative rural transport services in England. In Wales and Scotland, the Welsh and Scottish Offices administer similar rural transport innovation grant schemes.

  London Road Assessment Studies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his Department's plans for public consultation on the London road assessment studies once these proposals have been published.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in his consideration of the west London assessment study; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make a decision on the options raised by the London road assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  Arrangements have been made for the consultants' reports to be printed and I expect them to be published later this month. An announcement will be made at that time about the arrangements for consultation and decision.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when his statement is made in early December on the London road assessment studies, he will ensure that at the same time a free copy of a summary of these studies will be made available to the general public; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Summary leaflets of the consultants' reports on each of the four London assessment studies will be available free of charge from the consultants and at libraries and other venues throughout the relevant study areas.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on negotiations concerning trans-Atlantic flights to Manchester airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Negotiations on air services between the United Kingdom and the United States were held between 29 November and 1 December. The United Kingdom's objectives include agreeing a balanced expansion of opportunities for the airlines on both sides which will allow for additional transatlantic services to be introduced to serve Manchester airport.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the vehicle mileage increase on private sector bus routes since deregulation.

  Mr. Portillo
  Between 1985–86 and 1988–89, there was an increase from 168 million to 1,241 million in the vehicle kilometres run by private operators on local services outside London.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress his Department has made towards the deregulation of buses in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have already moved some way towards deregulation by splitting London Buses Ltd. into smaller operating subsidiaries, by promoting the extension of competitive tendering on London Regional Transport bus routes and by enhancing the opportunities for private operators to introduce their own routes under the London local service licensing system. The timetable for full deregulation has yet to be set.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to support regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government encourage the maximum use of regional airports, both to meet local demand and to relieve pressure on the London airports. Over the past decade more than £300 million of capital expenditure has been facilitated through special borrowing approvals for local authority airports. I hope to announce shortly the special borrowing approvals for 1990–91. We also very much welcome the contribution to the development of local authority airports which the private sector makes through the direct investment and joint venture schemes.

  We are continuing to pursue liberalisation policies, both in the European Community and in bilateral negotiations, which increase further the scope for services from our regional airports.

  London Regional Transport
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of London Regional Transport; and what matters will be discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss a wide range of issues.

  European Aviation Package
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the second stage of the European aviation liberalisation package will be agreed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council is committed to agreement on a second stage of aviation liberalisation by June 1990. The Government have welcomed the proposals which the Commission has recently put forward, and are fighting hard to prevent them being watered down.

  A41 Bypass
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the decision on the A41 bypass inquiry will be announced.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce his decision on the A41 Hemel Hempstead and Bourne End bypass.

  Mr. Atkins
  I expect the announcement to be made by the end of the year.

  Trunk Roads, Selby
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for expediting the flow of traffic along the A19 and A63 trunk roads through the town of Selby.

  Mr. Atkins
  Detailed proposals, in the form of draft orders under the Highways Act 1980, have just been published for a bypass of Selby by my Department. The scheme is designed to aid the flow of traffic on the A19 and A63, and bring considerable relief to the town centre.

  Light Rail Projects
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many light rail projects are planned around the country.

  Mr. Portillo
  We are in touch with the promoters of light rail projects in Greater Manchester, south Yorkshire, Avon, the west midlands, Cleveland and Nottingham. We are also aware of about 30 other schemes, many at an early stage of consideration.

  A3
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when present improvements to the A3 London to Portsmouth road in the Godalming and Guildford area will be complete.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Compton-Shackleford improvement is programmed for completion by the end of January 1990 but we may be able to complete the major part of it in December. The improvement at Deerbarn bridge should be completed early in December.

  Disabled People
  Mr. David Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve the mobility of the disabled.

  Mr. Atkins
  Our active and constantly evolving programme of initiatives to promote mobility for people with disabilities is set out in our document "Transport and Disability—a statement of Aims and Priorities".
  99
  One major priority is to improve the accessibility of public transport including the development of wheelchair-accessible coaches and buses. We shall be working with vehicle designers and manufacturers to influence car design and control modifications, to increase opportunities for personal mobility for even the most severely disabled people.

  We are also developing guidelines on design for pedestrian areas to help elderly and disabled people.

  M3
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the plans to complete the M3.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of progress on the southern extension of the M3.

  Mr. Atkins
  Work to widen and upgrade the A33 between Compton, south of Winchester, and the M27, to form the southernmost section of the M3 started in August. It is scheduled for completion in late summer 1991.

  Revised proposals for the remaining section between Bar End and Compton, around Winchester, were the subject of a public inquiry in 1985 which was re-opened in 1987–88 to consider further evidence. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport are considering the reports of the independent inspectors who conducted the inquiries. They will announce their decisions as soon as they are able. Construction dates will depend on the nature of those decisions.

  "New Roads by New Means"
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to involve the private sector in road building and road repair programmes in light of the responses received to his consultation paper, entitled "New Roads by New Means."

  Mr. Atkins
  The private sector is already closely involved in the planning, design, supervision and construction of new trunk roads and in the maintenance of existing trunk roads. The response to the consultation paper "New Roads by New Means" was encouraging, and several new schemes are being taken forward actively, in England and in Scotland.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures he is taking to improve road safety.

  Mr. Atkins
  Improving road safety is one of our top priorities. That is why we have developed a comprehensive strategy to attain our target of cutting casualties by one third by the year 2000. I welcome the commitment and enthusiasm of local authorities who are now drawing up plans and targets for their own areas.

  We are working with them, the police and all others concerned to tackle the key problems: safer vehicle design, low cost local road engineering measures, concentration on making roads safer for the most vulnerable groups and above all, encouraging a sensible and responsible attitude among all road users.

  East Coast Railway Line
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on the electrification of the east coast railway line between Aberdeen and Edinburgh.

  Mr. Portillo
  It would be for British Rail to bring forward any proposals if it believes they would be worthwhile. Since 1979 BR has spent £691 million in today's prices on electrification, an average of £63 million a year.

  World Student Games
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make available a special grant to Sheffield to expand railway facilities and station alterations for the world student games in Sheffield.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that British Rail is intending to undertake extensive improvement works to Sheffield station in time for the world student games. My Department has taken full account of the funding requirements of the Sheffield transport interchange in allocating resources to the South Yorkshire passenger transport authority. In addition, I am discussing with the authority whether any resources might be made available for part of the proposed Supertram route serving the games sites.

  Submarines
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to test systems which alert submarines to the presence of fishing vessels above them; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Two proposals for acoustic devices have been received which have been sent to the Admiralty research establishment to assess their suitability as a warning to submarines of the presence of fishing vessels and their nets.

  Inner Cities (Access)
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to improve access to inner-city areas.

  Mr. Atkins
  Assisting local authority road schemes through transport supplementary grant; constructing trunk roads where appropriate; providing grant under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 for public transport investment which shows good benefits; and consolidating the regeneration of London docklands with the approval of the Jubilee line extension from Green Park via Waterloo and the Isle of Dogs to Stratford.

  Freight
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has undertaken to find out the environmental cost of transporting freight by road as compared to transport by rail.

  Mr. Portillo
  The environmental cost of transporting goods by road and rail will vary from case to case, and so no general conclusions from studies of the type suggested can be drawn.
  101
  In those cases where the transfer of goods from road to rail is shown to provide clear and worthwhile environmental benefits, section 8 of the 1974 Railways Act provides for grants to be paid.

  Traffic Lights, SE1
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department is responsible for, or was consulted about, the new traffic lights at the junction of Gaden way and St. Georges road, London SE1; what was the cost of the installation; what representations he has received about its effect on traffic flows from both directions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The traffic lighting scheme in question, costing £18,600, is the responsibility of the London borough of Southwark, as the local highway authority, and was devised in association with the traffic control systems unit.

  The Department was consulted about the proposal as St. George's road is a designated road. The Department has not received any representations about the scheme.

  Relative use of public transport by women and men Journeys and mileage per person per week

  Journeys

  Mileage

  Women

  Men

  Ratio

  Women

  Men

  Ratio

  Bus

  2·00

  1·24

  1·61

  7·0

  5·0

  1·40

  Rail

  0·34

  0·45

  0·76

  61

  9·4

  0·65

  Bus and rail

  2·34

  1·69

  1·38

  13·1

  14·4

  0·91

  Source: National Travel Survey 1985–86.

  Pilotage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which competent harbour authorities are charging vessels under the command of a master with a pilotage exemption certificate; and if he will list the highest and lowest charges.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not have this information. The Pilotage Act 1987 however provides for objections to be made to the Secretary of State by, amongst others, port users against the levels of charges levied by competent harbour authorities for the issue or use of pilotage exemption certificates.

  Vehicles (Fire Hazards)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce measures to improve the design or location of petrol tanks in motor vehicles to prevent fires in collisions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In high speed collisions it is virtually impossible to protect tanks totally. Regulations already require them to be in a position where they are reasonably secure from damage. For the future we are pressing the European Commission to adopt more stringent requirements for fuel tanks. We shall be seeking support of other Community members.

  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned or undertaken into the causes of fires in vehicles involved in collisions and into methods of reducing them.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to alter the permitted level of alcohol that a driver can consume before an offence is committed.

  Mr. Atkins
  The present limit is the level at which for most drivers the chances of being involved in an accident start to rise sharply. With some half of drink drive offenders convicted at around twice the limit, our priority is to achieve greater compliance with the law as it stands.

  Public Transport
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the ratio of women to men who use public transport.

  Mr. Portillo
  According to the 1985–86 national travel survey, women aged 16 and over made on average 38 per cent. more public transport journeys than men in that age group. They accounted for about 60 per cent. more bus journeys but 25 per cent. fewer rail journeys. In terms of passenger mileage, women generated 10 per cent. less public transport mileage per head than men, but were responsible for relatively more bus usage and less rail usage.

  Mr. Atkins
  Though relatively few people die from this cause, such cases inevitably arouse particular horror. Over the years our research and action programmes to improve vehicle safety have included work on the features most likely to cause fires. Fuel cut offs are important and we have discussed this with manufacturers. We have also just sent them an analysis of electrical causes of fire and plan further work to protect against fuel leakage following rear impacts. We have made clear to vehicle manufacturers that we expect them to pay close attention to designs that reduce fire hazards.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his Department expects to reach a decision on the case of Mr. P. Robinson, of 7 Southland road, SE18, about whom his predecessor wrote to the hon. Member for Woolwich on 28 June.

  Mr. Atkins
  Shortly. We shall write to the hon. Member when a decision has been made.

  Thames Riverbus
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Thames Riverbus service.

  Mr. Portillo
  The consortium responsible for the management of Riverbus is currently reviewing the experience of the first eight months of operations.

  A46 (Accidents)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the number of accidents which have taken place on the A46 trunk road at the Thrussington-Seagrave crossing north of Syston, Leicestershire, over the last two years; what action he intends to take to improve safety there; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  There have been six personal injury accidents at this junction in the last two years. Sadly, four of these involved fatalities.

  The Department instructed its agents, Leicestershire county council, in October this year to place improved warning signs on all approaches to the crossroads. These should be in place by Christmas. A scheme to light the crossroads will be implemented as soon as practicable. Urgent consideration is being given to the need for further modifications.

  A303/A30 (Improvements)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements have been made to the A303/A30 route west of Amesbury since 10 March 1987.

  Mr. Atkins
  Between Amesbury and Exeter bypasses of Ilminster and Sparkford have been completed in the past two years.

  Cars (Child Restraints)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evidence is available to him on the level of public support for the legislation requiring that children seated in the rear of cars are restrained where appropriate restraints exist.

  Mr. Atkins
  This valuable legislation, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) has been widely supported at all stages. It is generally recognised as making an important contribution to the reduction of unnecessary death and injury among children.

  The new law came into force on 1 September. Next spring we shall review whether further publicity about its requirements and its benefits is needed in the light of a survey of seat belt wearing being carried out by the transport and road research laboratory.

  Irish Lights
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 29 November, how many commissioners there are in Irish Lights; who appoints the members of Irish Lights from Northern Ireland; and for what period of time they serve as commissioners.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Commissioners of Irish Lights consist of 17 members (including those from Northern Ireland) who are appointed by the Irish Lights board for unlimited terms; and four ex-officio members, who are the Lord Mayor of Dublin and three nominees of Dublin city council and who hold office for the period of their nomination.

  Central London (Traffic Management)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review traffic management schemes in central London to determine their effect on traffic flows and his power to change such schemes in the public interest.

  Mr. Atkins
  We are considering a number of proposals and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Sprinter Trains
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what requests he has received for investment in replacements for 155 series Sprinter trains intended for operation out of Cardiff.

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  East London Assessment Study
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date in December he plans to publish the results of the East London Assessment Study.

  Mr. Atkins
  The consultants will publish their report as soon as possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  North Sea
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) by what date he intends to phase out the dumping of industrial wastes into the North sea; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he intends to allow the practice of dumping liquid industrial waste at sea after 31 December; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The United Kingdom is fully meeting international agreements reached unanimously by the North sea countries.

  Indeed the United Kingdom is amongst the European leaders in demanding higher standards for the North sea. We are very conscious of the need to prevent pollution of our offshore waters. Eighty per cent. of riverborne pollution entering the North sea comes from rivers of Germany, Holland and Belgium.

  Ministers at the second North sea conference agreed that disposal at sea of industrial wastes should not be prohibited if there were no practical alternative means of disposal on land and if it could be shown to the Oslo Commission that the materials caused no harm in the marine environment. The Oslo Commission in 1989 agreed the procedure by which a country would show that a waste met these criteria. The Government have initiated this procedure in respect of three wastes which have been licensed for sea disposal for some years.

  The nature of these wastes and the problems faced in identifying environmentally acceptable alternative disposal options have been discussed at length in the Oslo Commission. At no stage has evidence been produced that any of these wastes cause harm in the marine environment. Detailed scientific work in the United Kingdom has shown that no harm is caused by sea disposal. Indeed, the presence of the wastes in the sea cannot be detected by the most sensitive means of analysis a few minutes after disposal.
  105
  No deadline has been set internationally for termination of sea disposal. However, the Government are seeking to end sea disposal of these wastes at the earliest possible time. Of the 20 licences issued in 1987 for disposal of liquid industrial waste at sea, more than half will not be renewed next year. The remainder will be terminated as soon as alternative means of disposal have been identified and implemented. The companies concerned are urgently working to develop land-based methods. The Oslo Commission agreed earlier this year that even when an alternative disposal option is identified a transitional period will be needed before sea disposal can end, to give time for introduction of the alternative arrangements. At this stage the final termination date for liquid industrial waste licences cannot be precisely identified, though it is expected that most will be terminated within about two years.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) when he received an application to dump 3,000 tonnes of a curing agent in epoxy powder in the North sea; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he received an application from Sterling Organics to dump 42,000 tonnes of paracetamol waste in the North sea; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) when he received an application from Fisons Ltd. to dump in the North sea 4,000 tonnes of waste from the making of asthma medicines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  All three companies have for some years had sea disposal licences for these wastes which arise from production of medicines—which help asthma sufferers and relieve pain—and soap. These have been subject to annual renewal. Pending the completion of development and implementation of alternative means of disposal the companies have sought continued licensing as some of their products provide relief—sometimes life-saving relief

  Material

  Tonnage

  January to June

  Fisons PLC

  Wash waters from the synthesis of Intal, a treatment for asthma and allergies

  6,000

  Imperial Chemicals Industries PLC

  Waste from pharmaceutical manufacture

  6,090

  Tate & Lyle

  Filtration sludge from sugar refining

  33,000

  Sterling Organics Ltd.

  Aqueous residues from preparation of paracetamol

  42,000

  Orsynetics Ltd.

  Salt solution from the manufacture of O-tolyl biguanide, exported for use in paint and soap manufacture

  3,000

  Fisons PLC1

  Distillation waste from pharmaceutical manufacture

  1,000

  Formica Ltd.

  Phenol washings from laminate manufacture

  800

  Fine Organics Ltd.

  Effluent from pharmaceutical production

  8,000

  A. H. Marks Ltd.1

  Neutralised acetone/water mixture from formulation of organic chemicals

  999

  BP Petroleum Development1

  Used saline drilling mud

  1,000

  British Coal

  MineStOne

  150,000

  British Coal

  Minestone

  150,000

  CEGB

  Pulverised fuel ash

  36,000 (part year)

  CEGB,

  Pulverised fuel ash

  290,000 (part year)

  2—

  Solid waste from boric acid production

  200,000

  106
  —to asthma sufferers and pain relief to others. The procedures agreed for such cases by the Oslo Commission were therefore initiated for the Sterling Organics and Fisons wastes on 19 September and for the third waste on 5 October.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications he has made to the Oslo Commission for licences to dump industrial waste in the North sea in 1990; if he will list in each case the substances, quantities and companies involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Oslo Commission procedure, which is required in advance of the issue of national licences under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1935, has been initiated for three wastes, as follows:

  Material

  Tonnage

  Fisons

  Wash waters from synthesis of Intal—a treatment for asthma and allergies

  6,000

  Sterling Organics

  Aqueous residues from preparation of paracetamol

  42,000

  Orsynetics

  Salt solution from manufacture of O-tolyl-biguanide, exported for use in paint and soap manufacture

  3,000

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the licence applications he has received for dumping industrial waste in the North sea in 1989(a) from January to June and (b) from June onwards; if he will list the substances, quantities and companies involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information is as follows:
  107

  Material

  Tonnage

  July to November

  Chorley Bleaching Co. Ltd.1

  Waste from bleaching cotton

  100

  ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd.

  Acid ammonium sulphate effluent from acrylics production

  165,000

  AUied Colloids Ltd.

  Acid ammonium sulphate effluent from acrylics production.

  15,000

  Woolcombers Ltd.

  Waste from washing wool

  999

  Chlor Chem Ltd.

  Acidic effluent from production of water treatment chemicals

  1,000

  Robinson Bros1

  Caustic liquor from manufacture of pharmaceutical intermediates

  70

  British Coal

  Minestone

  1,250,000

  British Coal

  Minestone

  525,000

  British Coal

  Minestone

  525,000

  CEGB

  Pulverised fuel ash

  50,000

  CEGB

  Pulverised fuel ash

  500,000

  Jackson's Fuel Co. Ltd.

  Washed sand

  7,500

  1 Licences to expire by end of 1989.

  2 Application not approved. Information on the applicant was received in confidence.

  Lindane and Pentachlorophenol
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any new scientific or medical evidence is under consideration by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides on the link between the development of aplastic anaemia and Lindane and Pentachlorophenol.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Health and Safety Executive is evaluating available data on aplastic anaemia and Lindane. The matter is expected to come before the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in 1990–91.

  Hens
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations control the disposal of laying hens slaughtered under the salmonella control regulations.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Animal Health Act 1981 as applied by the Zoonoses Order 1989 provides that where an animal, including a bird, has been slaughtered under the Act at the Ministers discretion, the carcase of the animal shall belong to him and shall be buried, or sold, or otherwise disposed of by him, or as he directs, as the conditions of the animal or carcase and the other circumstances may require or admit.

  Food Safety Directorate
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the cost to industry and the consumer of the work of the food safety directorate.

  Mr. Maclean
  The food safety directorate will strengthen my Department's organisation for dealing with food safety issues. This reorganisation of work does not involve costs to industry or the consumer.
  108
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the interested parties he consulted before establishing the food safety directorate.

  Mr. Maclean
  I did not consult any interested parties before setting up the food safety directorate, but I did take into account the views put to me by a number of individuals and organisations that the large amount of food safety and similar regulatory work undertaken by my Department should be more clearly identified and brought together.

  High-density Baling
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has made of the use of refuse in high-density baling for coastal defence work and land reclamation.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has not carried out any studies on the use of high-density baled refuse for these purposes. We support adoption of new techniques that offer improved protection, lower costs or both. However, at first sight there seems to be some question as to the suitability of such material for coastal defence work. For example, there is a possibility of microbiological activity within the bale which could lead to voids being created and a reduction in the density of the bale, which in turn would put in question the structural integrity of the defence. Further, possible leaching of harmful substances from such bales could cause pollution in a marine environment.

  Bread Prices
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on(a) the increases in bread prices in each of the last three years and (b) the price of wheat, in real, actual and percentage terms for each of the last three years.
  109
  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is set out in the following table. The 1989 figures are based on information for the first 10 months and are not strictly comparable with those of earlier years.

  Actual price of standard white wrapped and sliced loaf (800 g)

  Weighted average price of United Kingdom wheat at point of sale1

  Actual prices

  Constant 1988 price2

  Actual prices

  Constant 1988 price2

  Pence per loaf

  Percentage change

  Pence per loaf

  Percentage change

  £ per tonne

  Percentage change

  £ per tonne

  Percentage change

  1986

  43·0

  + 7·0

  48·1

  + 3·4

  118·18

  -1·0

  124·30

  -4·3

  1987

  43·7

  + 1·6

  46·6

  -3·1

  111·00

  -0·2

  118·33

  -4·8

  1988

  46·3

  + 5·9

  46·3

  -0·6

  105·14

  -5·3

  105·14

  -11·1

  31989

  48·8

  + 5·6

  45·8

  -1·3

  104·08

  -1·0

  97·59

  -7·2

  Source: Bread prices: Employment Gazette.

  Wheat prices: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  1 The wheat prices quoted are net of co-responsibility levies.

  2 Using the GDP deflator (at market prices).

  3 Simple averages, January to October. Percentage change is compa of the GDP deflator for the first three-quarters of 1989.

  Artificial Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what information he has concerning the incidence of mastitis in dairy cows subject to artificial bovine somatotropin treatment;

  (2) what information he has concerning the effect of bovine somatotropin treatment on the fecundity of trial animals.

  Mr. Maclean
  In addition to the published material on these subjects my Department receives data provided by companies in support of their product licence applications.

  Fishing Industry
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is yet in a position to make a statement on a decommissioning scheme for the fishing industry.

  Mr. Curry
  Not yet. I shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

  Pesticide Ban
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue a ban on Alar, Tecnazene. Maneb, Mancozeb and Zineb.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. These substances are under review by the advisory committee on pesticide whose recommendations to Ministers are based on scientific evidence. The evidence to date does not indicate that approval for these substances should be withdrawn.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will launch a survey on the standard of potatoes, lettuces, blackcurrants, tomatoes, apples and pears.

  Mr. Curry
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Parents for Safe Food
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives from Parents for Safe Food.
  110
  Mr. Maclean
  I have not met representatives from Parents for Safe Food but officials from my Department specialising in pesticides met a representative from PSF on 18 October 1989.

  Habitat Sites
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture:, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made with incentives to farmers and woodland managers to maintain and enhance important habitat sites of wildlife value.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has introduced a number of grant schemes that provide incentives for the protection of existing, or creation of new, wildlife habitats.

  The introduction of the environmentally sensitive area schemes in 1987 was designed to conserve and enhance landscape and wildlife interests in areas vulnerable to changes in farming practices. The farm woodland scheme, introduced last year, has as one of its objectives the enhancement of the landscape and the creation of new wildlife habitats. The farm and conservation grant scheme (introduced in February this year) places particular emphasis on conservation and the needs of the environment. As far as woodlands are concerned, it is a requirement of the Forestry Commission's woodland grant scheme that proper account should be taken of the needs of nature conservation. In this connection, the commission will shortly be publishing comprehensive guidelines on the nature conservation aspects of woodland management.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps were taken when the: drainage system at Shirley Pool/Rushy Moor site of special scientific interest near Doncaster was installed to avoid damage to the site and habitat; and if he will make: a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Proposals were submitted to my Department by the Dun drainage commissioners in 1981 to improve the land drainage within the catchments of the Thistle Goit and Haywood pumping stations. These included works to deepen the drains running through the Shirley Pool/Rushy Moor SSSI. In order to retain the marshland and wet woodland habitats within the site, the proposals were revised by agreement with the Nature Conservancy Council and my Department, to divert the
  111
  main flow to deepened channels outside the SSSI. Drainage work within the Shirley Pool SSSI was thereby avoided.

  Lead Contamination
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many farms in England and Wales placed under restriction following the recent contamination by lead of foodstuffs were subsequently shown not to have contaminated milk or meat products; if he will estimate the financial loss involved to producers; whether he intends introducing a compensation scheme; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is his estimate of the total financial loss so far incurred by milk producers subject to restrictions, following suspected use of lead-contaminated imported feedstuffs.

  Mr. Maclean
  A total of 2,069 farms in England and Wales have at some time been subject to restrictions. Of these, 367 were able to be released in the light of further information from feed suppliers. As at 29.11.89, 1,052 dairy farms have been released from milk restrictions as a result of the milk testing programme and arrangements are now in hand to allow the orderly release of animals from slaughter and movement restrictions subject to a number of further checks, including blood testing of some animals. Reliable information on the costs to the industry are not available and there is no provision under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 for the payment of compensation.

  Food Advisory Committees
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the legislation and relevant sections under which he has power to set up advisory committees on food.

  Mr. Maclean
  There is none. Successive Governments have maintained advisory committees on food matters without the need for legislation.

  East Anglia
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from East Anglian farmers since 1 August on the state of agriculture in East Anglia.

  Mr. Gummer
  I frequently meet East Anglian farmers, both in my constituency and elsewhere, and receive numerous representations from them on agricultural matters. I have also discussed in detail these problems with hon. Members concerned—particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice).

  Global Warming
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are being taken to assess the impact of global warming on British agriculture; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  My Department is aiming to fund research to identify the sensitivity of key sectors of British agriculture to variations in climate so that when regional 112
  climate change forecasts become available, an assessment of the impact can be made. In addition my Department is involved in research to monitor sea level trends and last year about half of the budget for river and coastal engineering research was spent on projects designed to provide a better understanding of the coastal environment and add to the knowledge needed for improving coastal defences.

  Isle of Man
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what fishing limits around the Isle of Man have been agreed for the period commencing 1 January 1990.

  Mr. Curry
  The present three-mile limit around the Isle of Man will apply on 1 January 1990. Consideration, including in relation to fishing, on how the provisions for a 12 mile territorial sea around the Isle of Man contained in the Territorial Sea Act 1987 might be implemented is in hand.

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a system of licensing for carriers of live animals intended for export; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I do not intend to introduce licensing since this would add little to existing controls related to unnecessary suffering. Such a system would almost certainly contravene the Treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what provision he launched his recent investigation into the death of beagles being exported for research purposes in the pharmaceutical industry; if he has yet concluded his investigation; what action he proposes to take; and what powers he has to regulate such trade.

  Mr. Maclean
  The investigation has now concluded. Charges are being considered under the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973, as amended in 1988, and the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Under section 39 of the Animal Health Act 1981 Ministers may by order provide for regulating the export of animals from Great Britain in the interests of animal welfare.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has concerning the numbers and species of live animals being exported from the United Kingdom for use in research projects; and, in respect of both species and numbers, what is the importing country.

  Mr. Maclean
  The numbers of animals exported for research purposes are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of slaughter animals exported live by species, to each of the member states of the European Economic Community during 1988 and the current year to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Animals inspected and certified as fit for transportation prior to export from Great Britain were as follows:
  113

  1. During 1988

  For immediate slaughter

  For further fattening

  Destination

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Cattle

  Calves

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  99

  7,193

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Holland

  —

  —

  —

  108,880

  —

  —

  Italy

  —

  12,441

  —

  4,460

  —

  —

  France

  14

  238,798

  24

  120,848

  184,120

  —

  West Germany

  23

  4,215

  299

  463

  —

  —

  TOTAL EEC

  136

  262,647

  323

  234,651

  184,120

  —

  2. During the period 1 January to 30 September 1989

  For immediate slaughter

  For further fattening

  Destination

  Cattle

  Sheep

  Cattle

  Calves

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  48

  13,460

  —

  50

  —

  —

  Holland

  —

  145

  10

  77,156

  —

  —

  Italy

  35

  8,713

  199

  —

  —

  —

  France

  173

  93,237

  956

  114,563

  132,474

  24

  West Germany

  18

  10,188

  280

  28

  —

  —

  TOTAL EEC

  274

  125,743

  1,445

  191,797

  132,474

  24

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of slaughter animals, exported live, by species, to each non European Economic Community country during 1988 and the current year to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Farm livestock for slaughter are not licensed for export to countries outside the EEC.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the total number of animals of each species exported from the United Kingdom in 1988 and 1989 to date for the purposes of(a) slaughter, (b) fattening, and (c) breeding.

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics for the United Kingdom do not distinguish between animals for fattening and those for immediate slaughter. The information is as follows:114

  Breeding

  Other

  Total

  1. During 1988

  Cattle

  7,690

  259,101

  266,791

  Sheep

  11,310

  497,603

  508,913

  Pigs

  11,311

  47,692

  59,003

  2. January-September 1989

  Cattle

  4,906

  198,824

  203,730

  Sheep

  8,752

  318,820

  327,572

  Pigs

  11,946

  66,775

  78,721

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers he has to regulate the export of live puppies; and what information he has concerning the numbers and destination of such exports by country of import during 1988 and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Maclean
  Powers exist in the Animal Health Act 1981 to regulate by order the export of animals from Great Britain in the interests of animal welfare. I have no information on the numbers of exported puppies.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

Teachers: Advisory Committee
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will re-establish the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers.
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. The factors which led the Government to decide in 1985 not to reconstitute the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers still apply.
Baroness David: My Lords, that is not an unexpected reply, but is the Minister aware that when the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers was allowed to lapse by Sir Keith Joseph, as he then was, in 1985 it was suggested that it could be reconvened two years later? Since five years later the committee's projections with regard to teacher supply have come all too true would it not be sensible to establish a similar committee which could determine the facts in a professional manner to ensure that well-informed decisions were made in good time and to reconcile competing analyses about the true extent of teacher shortage?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, ACSET was established at a time when major changes in teacher education were in progress. Following the work of ACSET, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education was established to advise the Secretary of State on teacher education. If the Secretary of State requires advice on specific questions such as would previously have been provided by ACSET he appoints an ad hoc body to provide the information, as he has done in, for example, the case of information technology and appraisal. The Government see no need for a standing body for that purpose.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the outstanding service that was rendered previously? Is he also aware that a number of Secretaries of State had confidence in the committee and benefited from its advice? In view of the present situation in the teaching profession is this not the time to re-establish that body?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I have said that the Government do not consider that to be the case. The Government collect a wide range of information from local authorities. The range of data available on the teaching profession is unparalleled. There was a considerable degree of agreement between the many surveys carried out this autumn, including the
596
department's own ad hoc survey, the Labour Party survey and a survey carried out by the BBC radio "Today" programme. Only the union survey produced different figures.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am slightly surprised to hear from the noble Viscount that all the surveys showed the same result since I understood that they had reflected very different views of the present state of teacher supply. Would it not be wholly advantageous, not least to the Government, if instead of each year having a junior civil servant telephone all the local authorities to find out the position regarding the employment of teachers there was a body to provide the information in a professional manner? As well as being useful to the country, would that not also be of help to the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a very interesting suggestion. I shall take it on board and pass it on to my right honourable friend.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just a question of finding out what the position is now, but also a question of planning ahead? Does he agree that we need to be able to plan future intakes of students for initial training and that one needs to look a great many years ahead for that purpose? That is what the DES seems to have failed abysmally to do.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly what the DES is doing. In November 1988 the department produced very tentative supply and demand projections for the mid-1990s in response to a request from the Select Committee. Those figures have recently been updated in response to a further request. On the basis of those projections we expect that overall teacher demand and supply will be broadly in balance. Current initial teacher training entry targets are being met in primary education and we foresee no shortages in the future.
In secondary education, current targets are not being met in key shortage subjects. Targets are adjusted for the future to reflect that. DES projections suggest that unless action is taken there will be deficits between demand and supply in certain subjects. We have made the forward projections and are now taking action to make sure that we put the situation right in the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the department's own projections for the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions showed appalling shortages for 1995? Might that have been avoided had action been taken sooner?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly why the Government are taking the necessary action to put the matter right in 1995. I have a list of the actions which the Government are taking. I shall write to the noble Baroness with that information and place a copy in the Library.

War Widows: Pensions Differential
2.42 p.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will bring pensions of war widows of husbands killed in the First and Second World Wars into line with those of widows of servicemen killed in Northern Ireland and the Falklands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, there are no plans to do so.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that reply will grieve not only the Royal British Legion but also probably the entire nation? In 1973 when the proposals were first made the Royal British Legion was consulted. It was later discovered on implementation that war widows of servicemen killed in the 1939–45 war subsequently became worse off than widows of servicemen killed in later wars. Is the Minister aware that many of us feel that that is wrong? Is he aware that the British Legion is asking that widows of all wars in which soldiers, sailors and airmen gave their lives should be treated the same? The servicemen made no differentiation in their deaths, and the Government should not differentiate between their widows.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, first, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as I have done on several previous occasions, that the interest of the Royal British Legion concerning war widows is always kept very closely in mind and will continue to be kept closely in mind. As regards the unfairness of which the noble Lord spoke, for the third time in three weeks perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the Government are not insensitive to the case of war widows. But at the same time I must make it clear that that is why the pensions paid to war widows under the DSS scheme and the extra allowances are much more generous than the state pension for other widows.
Your Lordships are by now well aware of the position, but we cannot ignore the fact that from next April war widows will receive between 30 per cent. and 72 per cent. more than other widows receiving a state pension. In addition, all those payments are tax-free. Furthermore, some 75 per cent. of war widows of retirement age also receive a retirement pension as a result of contributions made during their own employment. I apologise if that explanation seems tedious and repetitive, but I want to make clear the Government's aim in this matter.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I express my admiration for my noble friend's robust defence of the indefensible, but will he tell your Lordships whether those in the Government who take these decisions fully understand that opinion in both Houses of Parliament appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of making that concession? In those circumstances, would it not be better for all concerned, including the Government, if they were to yield gracefully and quickly?
Earl of Arran: My Lords, once again I must say to my noble friend, who, I think, raises the same problem on behalf of all your Lordships, that other ministerial colleagues have explained clearly all along —as I hope I have done —the difficulties involved in making such a change.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I recognise that it would perhaps be invidious to distinguish between the widows of those killed in action and those who died of war wounds or, for instance, in prisoner of war camps. But will the Minister realise that constantly comparing the pensions of war widows with those of other widows does not answer the question? As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has said today and on previous occasions, the question is: why should there be an enormous anomaly between the position of those war widows entitled to a pension before 1973 and that of war widows entitled to a pension after 1973?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I have tried to point out in the past, I understand the argument put forward by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, with regard to this problem. But I hope that, as I have endeavoured to do in the past, I have pointed out the difficulties on the occupational scheme side of trying to make equal pre–1973 war widows and post–1973 war widows. I have endeavoured to point out, first, the considerable cost of £200 million. Secondly, it would be impossible to leave out the war disabled, costing a further £400 million. Obviously, there would also be the knock-on effect of taking into account all the other public services.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, did my noble friend or his advisers read the excellent article in The Times by Mrs. Parker explaining that the top-up arrangements given to pre-1973 war widows could invoke serious poverty trap problems and that all those problems would go away if the Government behaved sensibly and humanely and made all widows' pensions the same? This matter gives the Government a bad name and, as a loyal supporter of the Government, I do not want that to happen.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend I can say that there is a statutory disregard of £5 per week set against war widows where claims for income-related benefits are made. That disregard is to be increased to £10 from April next year. Furthermore, war widows are also able to receive state retirement pension in addition to their war widows' pension if they have worked and paid contributions. It is estimated that about 75 per cent. of those who are of retirement age receive extra pension. Finally, I can also say in rejoinder to my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Minister for Social Security has said in Committee in another place that he would be content to consider cases of hardship to see what further assistance might be given.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, as the noble Earl quite rightly said, the Government's arguments have been stated clearly and repeatedly by several Ministers. However, is he also aware that those arguments are

599
rejected by a large and increasing all-party body of Members of both Houses? Will he heed carefully the advice given to him by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, to withdraw now when he can do so with some dignity?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have made it clear on two previous occasions that I have informed my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. On both previous occasions I have been able to inform your Lordships that my right honourable friend pays great attention to the feelings of noble Lords and what they say in the House.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, how can the Government justify the recent huge pay rises to Members of another place when they refuse to raise the pensions of pre-1973 war widows to the level of those of post-1973 widows?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I think that that is another question for another day.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, in view of the growing support for this measure in both Houses, does the Minister think that it would be wise for the Government to be generous and consider at least a review rather than have legislation dragged out of them through a Private Member's Bill which will receive much support in both Houses?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the situation as regards war widows is always kept under review.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, did I hear the Minister aright when he said that the total cost was only £200 million and that if the disabled were added it would be £400 million? Have not the Government lately poured far bigger sums of money than that into projects much less worthy? As the noble Baroness said, do we not read every day of increases in pay and allowances and so forth throughout the public service which make this sum look like chickenfeed?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, with respect, I do not think that the noble Lord heard my previous answer correctly. It was perhaps my fault, for which I apologise. The total combination of war widows' pensions and the war disability situation would amount to some £600 million. The further point that I want to stress is that the knock-on effect would cost billions of pounds in the public services.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that not only Members of this House but those in another place too are crying out for this anomaly to be removed? The Minister accepted that there is an anomaly. He told us why things could be different and how much it would cost. But perhaps I may remind the Minister that this Government paid something like £4 billion —or was it even more than that?—into the national debt. Is the Minister telling us that the Government cannot find £400 million?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I do not think I have anything further to add to what I have already said on this particular point.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister illuminate the House on one point? He said that the immediate effect would be a cost of £200 million and that there was a further £400 million in disability which, by the token of the present Government's Autumn Statement, is chickenfeed, as one noble Lord said. The Minister then referred to knock-on effects. What are those knock-on effects and can he quantify them?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the whole point of any occupational pension scheme is that it is forward-looking and futuristic. The noble Lord knows very well that occupational pension schemes were not made to be retrospective.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if the noble Earl is really so worried about the retrospective nature of the payment —and throughout this discussion I have been waiting for him to say that —what on earth is there to prevent the Government producing a single one-clause Bill to ensure that these particular widows will be given a pension? One need not tack it on to previous legislation.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I have explained on previous occasions the problem about ring-fencing. This would be a very difficult situation in which to ring-fence.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Earl is doing his best. However, since the noble Lord the Leader of the House is not present, I wonder whether the noble Earl the Deputy Leader would care to comment on a situation wherein the whole House unites in a particular view. In my opinion the Leader of the House ought to be here to listen to this discussion. It is a matter on which this House will not let go.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, in view of the fact that my noble friend the Leader of the House is not here, the only comment I shall make is that the view of your Lordships' House is perfectly clear. This discussion has been going on for quite a long while and my noble friend has accepted the questions which have been given to him. I shall draw the views of the House to the attention of my noble friend the Leader of the House and also to that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Having said that, I think it would be appropriate for us to move on to the next Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, are the Government aware —
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, it is my Question.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, we have been discussing this Question for quite a long time. I know that it was his Question originally, but I think that it would be appropriate and for the convenience of the House for us to move on.

Sheep: Live Exports to Spain
2.55 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will prevent the export of live sheep to Spain to be slaughtered by methods not acceptable in the United Kingdom and in distressing transport conditions.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, the Government do not license the export of food animals to Spain and will not do so until that country has properly implemented the existing Community directives on welfare during international transport and on pre-slaughter stunning. Reports that sheep have been sent to Spain are being fully investigated.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware of a recent case involving about 500 sheep which appeared to be flagrantly in breach of existing United Kingdom regulations? Can more be done to enforce the law to prevent great suffering by livestock in transit, especially when the new EC regulation comes into force?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are appalled at the seeming disregard for sheep's needs, as expressed in the article to which my noble friend refers. The existing EC directive on transport requires food and water to be offered at suitable intervals, which should not exceed 24 hours, unless the journey can be completed within a reasonable period. We have gone further by requiring the use of staging points for feeding and watering where the journey exceeds 18 hours. The Community is working on a number of proposals including the transport of animals. Our objective will be to negotiate high standards of welfare and for those to be rigorously enforced. In this connection it is reassuring to see that a Commission inspectorate is proposed.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that people who make a living out of slaughtering animals in this country have described what is going on in Spain as stomach-churning? In view of that and the fact that this trade is likely to grow as far as concerns Britain because of changes in the sheepmeat regime, will she ask her right honourable friend to look at the excellent example given to this country over many years by the New Zealand Meat Board and possibly consider asking the Meat and Livestock Commission to constitute part of itself into an export board for this very purpose?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we do not in fact have firm evidence of malpractice with regard to the remark about barbaric slaughter referred to by the noble Lord. However, we are awaiting confirmation from the Commission that Spain has properly implemented EC legislation on welfare at
602
slaughter. The EC Commission is in contact with the Spanish Government over details of implementation of the EC directives which are not currently satisfied. I must tell the noble Lord that we are not free to continue our ban once the EC law is being properly implemented. I shall pass on his other suggestion to my right honourable friend.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, do I understand my noble friend rightly in saying that if these rather disturbing reports are true there has been a breach of regulations? Is so, what chances are there of successful prosecution?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are following up the matter through the RSPCA and the French authorities. We are helpless to prosecute over what has gone on outside this country.
Lord Walston: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that her department has sufficient information and power to ensure that sheep which have been consigned legitimately from this country to France are not then moved on to Spain without any authorisation from us; or is that something which it is impossible for the Ministry of Agriculture to monitor?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, once animals have crossed the Channel, enforcement of the EC transport directive is a matter for other governments. MAFF officials do not follow consignments into other member states, but there has been liaison with the French veterinary service over surveillance of our exports.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Commission has the power to prosecute where the evidence is clear? Can the noble Baroness tell us whether evidence has been submitted to the Commission and whether any steps are being taken in this matter?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, my only information has come through the article in The Sunday Times which needs reinforcement as to its truth. I am sorry but I have forgotten the other part of the noble Lord's question.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I asked whether the Commission is proposing to prosecute and, if the evidence is clear, why it is not doing so.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have withdrawn licences from those who it is believed are offending against the regulations with regard to our exports to Spain.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend said that the information was simply an article in The Sunday Times. Can she get in touch with the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which drew this case to my attention because the sheep originated in Scotland?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, under the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981 the

603
Minister shall not grant a licence unless satisfied that the arrangements for transporting the animals to their final destination protect them from unnecessary suffering. That also applies to Scotland.
Lord Morris: My Lords, do the EC standards for the transportation of live sheep bear any relationship to the standard set by British Rail for transport of live human beings?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I really do not think that I need answer that.

Tourism: Career Opportunities
3.1 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to promote the awareness of tourism as a career.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the employment department works with other government departments and the tourist boards to promote the many and varied career opportunities that exist in tourism.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Has he any information on what schools are doing to encourage young people to take up tourism as a career?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the picture is most encouraging. There is a GCSE on travel and tourism. Various degree and polytechnic courses, catering colleges, and the industry-backed initiative COMETT promote tourism and travel careers within schools.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to the responsibility for tourism which is fragmented among five government departments. Is he satisfied that this fragmented responsibility will produce the best results?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, yes. The fragmentation is acceptable so long as there are good communications. Currently there are good communications. I believe, therefore, that the various initiatives will be successful.

Capital Allowances Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to capital allowances. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

War Crimes Inquiry Report
3.3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the War Crimes Inquiry (Cmnd. 744).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it often falls to your Lordships to debate important and controversial issues, but I venture to think that it is rare for the House to have to face so difficult, emotive and indeed uncomfortable a subject as that which is before us today. It is a subject which arouses very strong feelings. Powerful arguments can be —and I have no doubt will be—arrayed on either side of the subject. And all this is in order to search for the right thing to do.
We have before us a report by two very eminent people, which says that legislation should be introduced to make it possible for some people, who are at present resident in the United Kingdom, to be liable for prosecution for atrocities which they are alleged to have committed during the war when they were not resident in the United Kingdom and when they did not come under the United Kingdom's jurisdiction. I have no hesitation in saying to your Lordships that this is a weighty decision to make, and the Government would like to have the benefit of your Lordships' views before deciding whether or not to introduce legislation.
I think that it would be right to make clear that, were the alleged atrocities to be committed now, the United Kingdom law would since 1957 permit action to be taken against those who perpetrated them, even if the atrocities had been committed by non-British citizens outside the United Kingdom. This follows the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 and the Genocide Act 1969. What we are considering therefore today is whether there is a need to alter the law in order to take action in respect of acts which particular individuals may have committed at a time—unlike now —when their actions, although contrary as they then were to international law, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts.
It might be helpful to your Lordships if I were to explain some of the background to the issue which is before us. But perhaps I may be permitted to say a few general words in which I think and I hope that I shall be reflecting the sentiments of all noble Lords.
The crimes which were committed during the Second World War and with which we are concerned today were of a magnitude and horror which it is hard to comprehend. They were not acts of war. Nor were they killings in the heat of battle. They were premeditated acts of cold-blooded mass murder which were perpetrated upon defenceless civilians.
Millions of innocent people were killed, and there are many families in Britain and the rest of the world who still suffer as a consequence. Those who continue to be directly affected in this way have the sympathy of those of us who have been fortunate enough to be spared experiencing such an ordeal. In our debate this afternoon, we must not forget the real and terrible human tragedy which forms the backcloth to our deliberations.
During the last few years a number of allegations have emerged from different sources concerning the presence in Britain of war criminals from the Second World War. It was suggested that among the many honest people from other countries who have settled in Britain after the Second World War there were a very few who had been guilty of war crimes and who had slipped through the screening process. These allegations were not only made about people who had come to live in the United Kingdom. Similar claims have led other countries to re-examine their position as well.
The United States, Australia and Canada have all concluded that it was possible that people who were guilty of war crimes could have settled within their boundaries too. Australia and Canada have each now changed their laws in order to allow action to be taken against war criminals who are now resident in their countries. In the United States, it has been decided that the proper course is to strip alleged war criminals of their American citizenship and to deport them.
The British Government have naturally taken allegations as important as these are very seriously indeed. We considered that they needed to be examined carefully. Consequently, my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary appointed Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and his Scottish counterpart, Mr. William Chalmers, to conduct an inquiry in order to see whether the allegations which had been made had any foundation attached to them.
The inquiry's remit was a broad one. It was asked to investigate whether persons who might have committed war crimes had come to the United Kingdom and had settled here after the war, and, if so, whether the available evidence against them would be sufficient to sustain a prosecution. The inquiry was also asked to weigh the legal and other issues of principle which would be raised by any proposal to create jurisdiction for the British courts to try these cases.
The inquiry's report was published on 24th July this year. My right honourable friend the former Home Secretary announced its publication with a Statement in another place, and which I repeated in your Lordships' House. In his Statement, my right honourable friend said that the Government would take no final decision on whether to implement the recommendations which were contained in the inquiry's report until both Houses of Parliament had had an opportunity to express their views. Today we have the opportunity to hear your Lordships' views. The debate in another place will take place shortly.
The report of the inquiry is, as my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary said, an impressive piece of work. It is thorough and detailed in its analysis, and it is clear in its recommendations. I should like to take this opportunity to add my thanks to Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers and their team for their efforts.
The report first considers the historical situation of the states of Eastern Europe, particularly the
606
Baltic States, which provides the background against which the actions which we are considering must be set before it goes on to consider the position of war crimes in our national law and in international law.
The report also portrays a complex piece of detective work as some 301 allegations which were received by the inquiry were investigated. Some of the allegations were detailed and specific. Others were vague, sometimes being no more than a name. Each allegation was investigated and a recommendation on each was made on whether further action was required.
By the time that they had completed their work and had presented their report, Sir Thomas and Mr. Chalmers had been able to investigate seven cases in detail. In four of those cases, one of whom has since died, they considered that the available evidence was sufficient to mount a prosecution. They recommended further work on the other three cases and they identified 75 others in which further investigation would be warranted. They also recommended that attempts should be made to trace a further 46.
Given the existence of apparently strong evidence of guilt in certain cases the inquiry then considered various possible courses of action which might be taken in order to bring the offenders to justice. Extradition to the place where the offence was committed was considered carefully but in the end rejected.
In every case which was examined in detail by the inquiry the offence was committed in part of what is now the territory of the Soviet Union. The inquiry noted the apparent progress towards greater democracy and openness which has recently been made in the Soviet Union but it concluded that, depite all the changes which have taken place recently, there must still remain doubts as to whether the legal safeguards which would be the right of anyone who is on trial in this country would be available to them in the Soviet Union should they be returned there.
The inquiry also ruled out the possibility of depriving the individuals concerned of their citizenship and of deporting them. Any attempts at deportation would be certain to be resisted strenuously through the immigration appeals system and the courts, and it would be quite possible that the outcome might result in being that deportation was prevented.
The inquiry therefore recommended that our law should be changed in order to give British courts jurisdiction over acts of murder and manslaughter which were committed as war crimes —that is to say, as violations of the laws and customs of war—during the Second World War in Germany or German-occupied territory by people who are now resident here in the United Kingdom. I know that many people —and I have no doubt that many of your Lordships too —will wonder whether this would be retrospective legislation. The inquiry considered this and was quite clear that in its view to take such a step would not amount to the creation of retrospective legislation.
Had such crimes been committed by British citizens, it argued, our courts would already have jurisdiction over them. The changes which the inquiry proposed would simply extend that jurisdiction to those who have subsequently become British citizens or British residents.
The report also points out that the Hague Convention of 1907 on the laws and customs of war —and indeed customary international law —outlawed acts of the kind which we are considering and that the offences in question were therefore clearly in breach of international law as it then stood and as it was then understood. It would not therefore be retrospective legislation, it considered, to bring to trial those who, at the time that they were alleged to have committed the acts, would have done so in breach of international law.
The inquiry also made a number of related proposals about the practical and procedural aspects of any war crimes trials which might take place. These take account of the quite exceptional nature of such cases and, in particular, of the fact that most of the witnesses in any trial would be elderly people living abroad. Because of these aspects the inquiry supported the use, in war crimes trials, of the facility for evidence to be taken by live television link, for which legislation already exists in England and Wales, and the admissibility of evidence in the form of video recording by witnesses. If the broad principle of proceeding with legislation to implement the inquiry's main recommendations was to be accepted we should clearly have to give further thought to these details.
In his Statement made in another place on 24th July my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary said that the Government were impressed by the force of the argument which led the inquiry to reach its conclusions. When people of the integrity and experience of Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. Chalmers make such firm recommendations, one has to take notice.
Nevertheless, I have no doubt that some of your Lordships may judge that a very strong case can be made against taking further action. That is not because anyone wishes to condone the atrocities which have occurred nor to try to blot out the memory of them but simply, and not unimportantly, because of the problems which are caused because of the length of time which has elapsed since they took place.
It is nearly 45 years since the Second World War ended and 50 years since it started. Time may have gone some way towards healing some of the wounds inflicted then and some may argue that it is unwise, and possibly unkind, to reopen them. Is it right, your Lordships may ask, to stir up and to rekindle the feelings of hatred and animosity which mercifully the passage of years has allowed to die down? Is it right, your Lordships may ask, to deploy the resources of the police and the full weight of the legal system in investigating and prosecuting people who, by the time that they are prosecuted, may well be 80 years of age or more? Is it right, your Lordships may ask, to do this for people who have, rightly or wrongly, been living here for the past 40 years—and living here quite legally?
Those who witnessed these terrible events are in many cases dead or very elderly. While no one would wish to belittle the imprint which these events may have made on their memory, some of your Lordships may ask whether 50 years later we can really expect witnesses to identify accurately the perpetrators of such crimes.
Some may feel that, as most possible witnesses to the alleged crimes live in what is now the Soviet Union, it would be impossible to ensure that their evidence was open to fair challenge by the defence, even if that evidence was given via a television link. Others may judge that, in all the circumstances and after the passage of such a long time, it would be impossible for suspects to gather evidence and witnesses for their defence.
It may also be argued that there is a risk that perfectly innocent people —and even whole communities —who came here at the end of the war may be tarred with the brush of war criminality. Certainly, the representatives of members of the Baltic communities who are living here have expressed their concerns very strongly about this. Let me state quite clearly that the vast majority of people from Eastern Europe who came to this country after the war are entirely free of any taint of war criminality, and since their arrival they have been model citizens who have contributed a great deal to this country. To highlight the small handful who had previously committed the most horrendous of acts should in no way be a reflection upon the rest.
But we should not ignore the concerns of those communities who feel that their position in our society may be threatened by the proposed changes to our law. There may be some among your Lordships who will feel that that is a consideration which deserves some weight. On the other hand there are, as your Lordships will be aware, very powerful arguments in support of taking action along the lines which are suggested by the inquiry.
Six million innocent people were murdered. There is evidence that certain of the people whose acts contributed to this dreadful total are living here in Britain and have never been punished. Some will therefore argue that justice demands that we take action. Time may have passed, but with crimes as terrible as these it may be argued that it is never too late to prosecute. Some may say that we even have a duty, in memory of those who suffered and those who continue to suffer from the physical and mental wounds which were inflicted upon them, to bring the guilty to justice.
Those who take this view may well acknowledge the difficulties of gathering and testing evidence in the circumstances in which war crimes trials would take place. But they may also argue that, in the end, it would be a matter for the infinite good sense of a British jury to decide whether the strength of the evidence in any individual case was such as to enable it to reach a verdict of guilty.
In all this we should not lose sight of the actions which have already been taken by other countries which have found themselves in a similar position to us and which have legislated to allow war crimes

609
prosecutions to take place. If Canada and Australia felt constrained to act in this way, having examined all the moral and practical issues, there may be those of your Lordships who would conclude that it would be right for this country to do likewise.
It can be said that, by taking action, we would demonstrate that those who perpetrate barbarity —whenever it is done and wherever it is done—cannot escape the consequences of their deeds, and that they can never hope to find a safe haven in Britain.
I have no hesitation in saying that this is the most distressing of subjects to consider. Its very consideration calls to mind actions and sentiments which offend against basic human decency and which are horrific in their awfulness. And your Lordships will be obliged, as will others, to wrestle with your consciences to try to decide which is the correct course to take.
I have tried to outline the strong arguments which exist on both sides. No doubt, during the course of our debate, we shall hear both points of view strenuously canvassed, and I know that several of your Lordships have personal experience of being present at war crimes trials, and that others have experience of that suffering which is caused by war crimes.
I think it is important that it should be common ground in our deliberations today that we recognise that those who support changing the law, in order to allow prosecutions for war crimes to take place, do not do so out of a spirit of revenge, and that those who favour taking no action must not be implicitly held to condone war crimes.
The Government have not made up their mind what to do. We seek the advice of your Lordships. I shall listen with care to all the views which will be expressed today. In the light of those views, and of the conclusions which will shortly be reached in another place, the Government will then decide whether to bring forward a Bill on the lines which are proposed by the inquiry. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the War Crimes Inquiry (Cmnd 744).—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.23 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the Minister introduced with his customary clarity and great ability this debate on a report which brings back, as he said, unforgettable and sombre memories of one of the blackest chapters in the whole of human history.
When in the midst of the last war some news of the atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis filtered through —and we did not then know the extent of the massacres of millions of innocent men, women and children, of the concentration camps and their inhumanity and of the gas chambers—Members of Parliament, uniquely in their long history, stood in a minute of silent grief and homage. Today, 45 or so years later, those days of darkness and those vile war crimes are brought back to us in this report.
610
In expressing our views on its recommendations, I understand that we do so in this House and in another place as individual Members. That must be right. This is not a party political matter and my humble contribution is from myself and myself alone.
What is the position with which we have to deal? As the House has been told, a number of persons who are alleged to have committed murder or manslaughter or to have contributed actively to genocide during the Second World War in violation of the laws and customs of war are said to be now resident in the United Kingdom or, indeed, to have become British subjects since the date of their alleged crimes.
A full investigation was ordered by the Home Secretary with the commendation of Parliament and was carried out, as the Minister said, under the expert guidance of a distinguished former Director of Public Prosecutions and an equally distinguished former Crown Agent for Scotland. They and their associates delved deeply into the available evidence. They visited, among other countries, the Soviet Union and countries previously occupied by the Germans during the war. They took statements, they collated documents and they came to the following findings as published in their report.
With your Lordships' leave, I should like to read the finding at paragraph 9.50, which states:
"In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence to support criminal proceedings for murder against some persons living in the United Kingdom … and further investigations may disclose the necessary evidence against other such persons … The cases we have investigated disclose horrific instances of mass-murders, and we do not consider that the lapse of time since the offences were committed, or the age of the offenders, provides sufficient reason for taking no action in such cases. We therefore recommend that some action should be taken in each case in which the evidence is adequate".
I need not read paragraph 9.54, which deals with the alternative of extradition, because the Minister dealt fully with that and, as one would have expected, paraphrased very clearly what the report says. I read only one sentence from paragraph 9.55, which states:
"Accordingly, we recommend prosecution in this country of those persons against whom there is adequate evidence".
Those are the main recommendations on which we and Members in another place will be concentrating with the essential prior decision that we should, by statute, give our courts jurisdiction to try those persons if they are charged, because of course they were not resident here nor were they British subjects when their alleged crimes were committed.
What we have to ask ourselves, answerable to history as we shall undoubtedly be, is whether that is consistent with our ideals of justice, and justice includes—and let us be quite clear about it —guaranteeing a fair trial for any accused. We must not be unduly influenced by emotion, for often, when emotion takes control, justice flies out of the window. Perhaps I may say that as a Jewish Member of your Lordships' House, I must be especially careful about that.
Equally, we must not shirk our historic responsibility to see that fiendish crimes against humanity do not go unpunished and that we have fulfilled honourably our duties to the past and to the

611
future. It is with those principles in mind that I have tried, as objectively as I can, to deal with some of the relevant considerations as I see them.
The first and primary consideration is that it will be the Director of Public Prosecutions, with all his experience and the traditions of his office, and his Scottish counterpart (should he be involved) who will have to be satisfied that there is sufficient available evidence on which it is likely that a conviction would be obtained, and that it is in the public interest that a prosecution should be brought. That means among other things that he must be satisfied that in the relevant circumstances the defendant will have a fair trial and will not be adversely affected in his particular case by being deprived of genuine evidence through the passage of time.
On the basis of no prospect of a fair trial, no prosecution, should we not at least be in favour of a short Act of Parliament which will enable the Director of Public Prosecutions (and if Scotland is involved the appropriate authorities there) to examine the evidence and make their decision? My submission is that we should and must. In reaching that decision, for my own part I have to consider the following pertinent points with your Lordships. Is the legislation we would have to pass truly retrospective and thus objectionable? Is it of a completely novel character?
The answer I give to both these questions is, "no". To be truly retrospective it would have to create a crime where none existed at the time the acts were done. These were crimes which were well known as such in international law when the war commenced. Neither is the legislation novel. We have recently passed similar legislation giving our courts jurisdiction in cases of hijacking, terrorism and torture. Such legislation as is envisaged is clearly permitted under European and United Nations human rights conventions.
Have other nations adopted similar legislation? As the Minister said, Australia, Canada and the United States have done so. Is it right, even if sufficient evidence is available and can be dealt with fairly under the evidentiary recommendations contained in the report, all of which are known to our procedures in England and Wales, to charge someone after 40-odd years have passed since the alleged commission of the crime? My answer is that it would be an extraordinary and indeed dangerous precedent to say that where a grave crime has been committed the perpetrator of it could regard himself as being safe from being charged merely because by deception or by hiding away he has managed to elude the authorities for any number of years. For what it may be worth, it is my considered opinion, which I respectfully place before the House, that Parliament should speedily legislate, and that the recommendations of the report should be implemented, subject to the safeguards which I have mentioned.
I cannot conclude without mentioning the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones who is prevented by serious illness from being with us today. His leading role at the Nuremberg trials as
612
prosecuting counsel is part of history. It was an experience which has made an indelible impression upon him. On a visit which I paid him a few weeks ago I told him in general terms what I proposed to say in this debate. He graciously told me that he fully agreed with the line I had taken and he authorised me to say so if he were not able to attend the House today, as most regrettably is the case.
3.34 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has set an example to all of us in the appeal he made to our sense of justice, but not in any sense to emotion or prejudice of any kind. Like him, I shall speak for myself in this debate. In the autumn of 1946 I was appointed a junior Minister at the Foreign Office and I was given some responsibilities for war crimes problems. I am sure that other speakers will talk about the legal difficulties in the recommendations of the inquiry and about the practical difficulties of bringing these people to trial. I think my best contribution will be to try to explain why in 1948 we decided to end war crimes trials, investigations and extraditions, and to show how the policy we then had differs from the policy now recommended by the inquiry. I shall also explain the reasons why, speaking for myself, we should reject those recommendations.
The report quite rightly states that there were several reasons for calling off the hunt in 1948. Unintentionally, however, the report is misleading because it gives more or less the same emphasis to each of the reasons it describes. It is true that we were worried at that time by the expenditure of money and time. It is also true that we were worried about the very long time, sometimes several years, before suspects were brought to trial or before their cases were decided. We were increasingly aware at that time that so huge was the number of war crimes suspects that it would never be practicable to deal properly with more than a tiny proportion of them.
In 1948 when the United Nations War Crimes Commission was wound up it still had 40,000 cases on its books, 20,000 of which it deemed worthy of consideration for prosecution. In the United Kingdom we had 130,000 foreigners who had entered since the war, of whom it had not been possible to screen more than a tiny proportion. There were 90,000 European voluntary workers and 20,000 in the Polish armed forces who had fought on the wrong side at the end of the war. There were 15,000 German prisoners of war who had elected to stay in this country when they could have gone back and 9,000 Ukrainians brought hurriedly to this country from Italy to avoid the possibility of mass forced repatriation to the Soviet Union which had had such disastrous results a year before with the Cossacks.
I must deny that we were influenced in any way by any wish to use war criminals for cold war purposes. I have seen this suggested. I did not know this at the time but I believe it is true that some suspected war criminals were used quite wrongly by our intelligence. However, it would be absurd to suggest that this had any bearing whatever on the decision we took to wind up the war trials procedures. The overriding reason was that we felt that retribution had gone far enough.

613
In September 1946 Churchill said:
"There must be an end to retribution. We must turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future".
In September 1946 the Labour Government, especially Mr. Attlee and Mr. Bevin, rejected that concept. But by mid-1948 they had come round to that point of view. The first proceedings to be stopped were those concerned with suspected Yugoslav war criminals. I am a little surprised that the report does not deal more fully with Yugoslavs. They came within its terms of reference and their case illustrates many of the problems we were faced with at that time with suspected war criminals of all nationalities. If the House will allow me, I shall describe in a little detail this particular case.
In 1947 there were 400 Yugoslays still in detention in Britain and in the British zone of Germany. Their extradition had been demanded by the Tito Government in full agreement with the Yalta Treaty and the Bled Agreement. Undoubtedly some had committed atrocious war crimes, but at the other extreme some were guilty of no more than fighting on the losing anti-communist side in the bitter Yugoslav civil war.
As the report itself makes clear, it was not possible to take legal proceedings against these people in this country. In those days retrospective legislation, or whatever legislation was required, would have been even more difficult and questionable than it would be today. So what was one to do with these 400 Yugoslav suspects? According to our treaties we had to send them all back. But in the light of what had happened a year earlier, when thousands of Yugoslays were forcibly repatriated, that was unthinkable. So do we let them all free? —some of them war criminals who had committed crimes which were far worse than, for example, the civilian treachery for which two British citizens had recently been hanged? It seemed quite wrong to let them all go free.
Fortunately, we were saved by the fact that in this case, unlike that of the Ukrainians, the Poles or the Baits, effective screening was practicable. This was because there were fewer of them, and in addition, we had a group of people, including notably, Sir Fitzroy Maclean, who were expert on the political and military situation in Yugoslavia at the time and who also spoke the languages. It was agreed that they should form a screening team and go through each of the 400 cases individually. I would approve extradition for those who, in the opinion of the team, would, if tried in a British court, beyond reasonable doubt be found guilty, sentenced to death and executed.
None of us, I am sure, was anything but very uneasy about this arbitrary procedure, though we could not think of anything better. I believe that when it was over we felt universally that we had done our duty and now it was time to call a halt. On 27th July 1948 I made a statement in the other place. After explaining what I have just said —though naturally not publicising the very strict criteria we had laid down for extradition —I continued:
"After careful and painstaking examination of all the charges and circumstances, we have been prepared to surrender some
614
58 persons to the Yugoslav Government. In this way we have conscientiously discharged our obligations. Now, however, that we have completed the consideration of all cases of persons whom we have found on British and British control territory, we feel that a new stage has been reached. It is now more than three years since the end of the war, and it is clearly not possible for us to continue the process of search and surrender for an indefinite period of time. Of those persons whose surrender has already been requested we are now only prepared to consider the cases of 19 persons should it so happen that they are found on territory under our control.… Against the remainder of those whose surrender has been requested, we propose to take no further action; and we will not now accept any fresh requests for surrender. We feel that it is time for this matter to be brought to an end. The Yugoslav Government have been notified accordingly". —[Official Report, Commons, 26/7/48; cols. 927–8.]
Shortly afterwards, similar decisions were taken in respect of war criminal suspects of the other nationalities. The point that I wish to make as much as any other is this: these decisions were approved by the other place and by this House. If one looks at the supplementaries to my statement in the other place, one sees that Mr. Willie Gallacher, a communist Member of Parliament, objected and said that if these men helped the Nazis they should all go back.
For the rest, the policy was approved. The only criticism was that the decision had been taken too late. For example, the late Lord Chelwood —Mr. Tufton Beamish —who was known to this House as a man of sterling character, in offering congratulations on this decision described it as, "very proper but very tardy". That was the view in your Lordships' House when these decisions were discussed on 6th May 1949. In that debate there were seven speakers (five plus the two Ministers) and not one suggested that the decisions we had taken were wrong. Such criticism as there was —and there was some —was that the decision had been taken too late.
Therefore the major difference between the policy we then established and the policy now recommended by the inquiry is that we thought that retaliation should end and the inquiry recommends that retaliation should be revived. Now those who support the inquiry's view must begin by showing —I emphasise "begin" —that we were wrong in 1948, that we gave up too soon. Perhaps they will argue that we were indifferent to the brutality of some of these crimes or that we were unaware that there must still be some war criminals in the United Kingdom. I say that those things are not true.
In my own case —perhaps I may be permitted to make a personal point —it seems that they must argue that I too was wrong; that, in the case of the Yugoslays, sending back 58 out of 400 men to their almost certain death was not enough. I should have gone on with the hunt for the remaining 19. Naturally enough, I have thought back often and hard about these matters and I can only say that I believe I was right. Indeed, I go further by saying that I believe that most, if not all, of your Lordships in my position would have done much the same.
I said that the supporters of the recommendations must begin by showing that we were wrong. But that is only the beginning, because they have to go much further. They have to show that the Government, the Commons and the Lords, and, I have no doubt,

615
the public also, were so grossly in error in 1948 that the present Government and Parliament —41 years later, when most of the suspects and witnesses are dead; when much of the documentation has been lost; when the memories of the surviving witnesses have become more fallible —must take up where we left off in 1948. My Lords, I cannot believe that is right.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, rarely, I dare say, have the walls of this Chamber listened to a debate more sombre than this, discussing as we do the continued culpability or the remission of a crime so horrendous and so unprecedented that a new term had to be invented and coined —namely, the term "genocide" —to describe it, as the Oxford English Dictionary informs us.
Let me at once declare my interest. I have an interest, but it is not as a Jew, not as a rabbi and not even as a refugee from Nazi persecution who lost numerous close relatives in the Holocaust. Rather, I move to speak simply as a member of the human race. The monstrous crimes perpetrated in our lifetime have diminished my own humanity and that of all my contemporaries.
It is a welcome new feature of the post-war period that civilised people everywhere feel involved in the ordeals —be it famine, oppression or discrimination —suffered by others many thousands of miles away. In this new spirit of collective responsibility it is now also widely acknowledged that those who allowed Nazi barbarities to happen, standing by as silent witnesses without protest, must share the guilt of the perpetrators. Silence, indifference and inaction were Hitler's principal allies. If we were, by our own default, to let his henchmen go unpunished, we would be handing the tyrant a posthumous victory. We would make it easier for the dominion of evil to assert itself once again at an incalculable cost in human suffering and degradation. The risks are not diminished by the present turmoil and uncertainties in Europe.
At the same time, I am acutely aware of the danger that, if we are not careful, this debate itself may aggravate tensions and divisions, leading to bitterness and strife within the nation, instead of strengthening our human fellowship to ward off any future threat to man's humanity on such a staggering scale. I sincerely hope that this debate will narrow differences and perhaps even promote a consensus of practical conclusions to which we can all subscribe.
I know that there are some very plausible arguments against the proposed legislation. I believe that they are all questionable and open to refutation. First, the action is seen by many as vengeful. Jews in particular are often charged with feelings of vengeance. This attitude, like many other falsifications which have led to so much persecution and bloodshed over the centuries, is attributed to the Old Testament. Let me once and for all lay the ghost of this vicious canard.
My faith abhors vengeance. The Law of Moses denounces as a grave moral offence the bearing of a
616
grudge or the taking of revenge, as will be found in the Bible in the Book of Leviticus. There is all the difference in the world between justice and vengeance. Vengeance, by definition, is when an aggrieved party takes the law into his own hands, circumventing the due process of the law. Justice is when guilt and punishment of a transgressor are determined by an independent agency; by a judiciary. That is what the recommended legislation seeks.
Again, it is argued that after all these years the trials of Nazi criminals cannot be fair, that the witnesses may not be reliable and that there is therefore likely to be a miscarriage of justice. I have enough confidence in British justice and in the judiciary to dismiss these fears as groundless. Whether witnesses and their evidence are acceptable and trustworthy is for the DPP, or in Scotland the Crown Agent, and then for the courts to judge, not for the legislators. Our charge is to establish that the arm of the law is neither withered nor too short to apprehend and punish some of history's worst offenders if there are sufficient grounds to arraign them, as has been established in the Hetherington inquiry.
For my part, I am less interested in securing criminal convictions than in demonstrating our moral convictions. It would be a devastating travesty of justice if the legislation itself were to exonerate such arch-criminals and expunge their guilt. Indeed it is a cruel irony that the Nazi mass-murderers were much more successful in hunting down their innocent victims than were the allied powers in rounding up the major perpetrators of these crimes. I am reliably informed that the Nazis succeeded in herding together, transporting and eventually liquidating 90 per cent. of all Jews in occupied Europe, whereas the allies managed to bring to trial only some 35 per cent. of Nazis suspected of war crimes or crimes against humanity. That is a shocking indictment of the civilised world.
Of course, it is urged that after all these years we ought to forget and forgive. I believe that that would be a supreme betrayal both of the past and of the future. We have no mandate from the victims to pardon the crimes committed against them. And as for the passage of time, that in itself can surely neither condone nor expiate these offences. But worse still, we would betray the future were we to allow potential arch-offenders against humanity to believe that they will eventually be forgiven and forgotten. In fact, far from these crimes being mitigated by the passage of time, they are in a sense worse today than they were 40 years ago. For added to their heinous offences at the time is the further guilt of having escaped from justice all these years: hiding from the law and evading justice is itself an unconscionable crime.
Finally, it seems fallacious, as has been so impressively argued by both the opening speakers to the debate, to call this retroactive legislation, and therefore alien to British law and perhaps even without a relevant precedent. After all, the conduct was criminal in international and in British law at the time of its perpetration. Moreover, the crimes under discussion were infinitely more

617
unprecedented and rather more alien to the British tradition than the proposed legislation.
I see in The Times today that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who regrettably cannot be with us this afternoon, argues, as he has done before, against the proposed legislation on the grounds —to quote him —that the major trials at Nuremberg seem, alas, to have done nothing to deter the odious crimes of Idi Amin, of Pol Pot, of the Khmer Rouge and so on. I would reach the opposite conclusion. The fact that they no longer had to fear that the civilised world would not tolerate them getting away with such crimes and that they were no longer convinced that we would one day apprehend them, try them and punish them in itself encouraged them and made their crimes possible. Who knows how many innocent lives—thousands of innocent lives —might have been spared had they known that the law would always hunt them down wherever they were.
Until the perpetrators of crimes against humanity know that they will never be allowed to find a safe refuge from justice, humanity will not be safe, and justice will never be vindicated. We now have an historic opportunity to affirm the ceaseless fight against evil, by the unrelenting pursuit of mass-murderers, so as to ensure the triumph of justice, as both a warning to potential criminals and as a reassurance to future generations that never again will rivers of innocent blood be allowed to pollute the world with impunity. The more unsafe the world becomes for the guilty, the safer it will become for the guiltless.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as in the case of other noble Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister not only for introducing the debate but also for his even-handed approach to the matter so that on this "take note" Motion, without in any way imposing any strain upon convention or comity between the two Houses, one may take another view from that expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Jakobovits. In my view, to introduce legislation to put these men on trial would be imprudent, unwelcome, unacceptable, counter-productive and not in the public interest as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It would also not be requisite to restoring the status of humanity and to strengthening human fellowship as we stand at the crossroads of the new evolutionary era in Europe, as just suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. Such is the burden of this speech.
Of course the industry and integrity of the authors of the report is acknowledged; but it is the rectitude of the recommendations, and of the reasoning in support, which is open to serious question. My contribution only presumes to criticise in order to seek to persuade lest by hubris one should unwittingly cause offence on an emotive and sensitive subject.
Let us face the fact that we must look back at an insane and shameful episode in European history, unprecedented in its systematic and calculated brutality to establish, breed and maintain "the master race" and eliminate all elements of
618
opposition —I stress the word "all". But retrospective legislation is anathema: whether to create a criminal offence which did not exist when the act was committed —let us not mince words because that is what this proposed legislation would do —or to assume a jurisdiction, which did not exist when the offence was committed, to put a person on trial.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but in view of his usual courtesy I am sure that he will not mind. To enable some of us to understand his argument, will he say whether he will tell the House that the homicide, murder and genocide were not criminal acts at the time when they were committed?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should tell him that the subject is covered on the next page of my speaking notes. Therefore I hope, with his leave, that I may deal with the matter during the course of my speech.
Therefore the whole concept of extending jurisdiction as advocated by my noble friend the Minister in both those respects is simply not understood. It is in effect retrospective legislation.
In chapter 5 of the report the authors considered public international law as it stood in 1939 which laid down broad rules for the conduct of war. It is agreed that violations of those laws and customs of war can constitute war crimes. But these mass murders were not committed as violations of laws and customs of war; they were committed as genocide —that is, crimes against humanity which were not then recognised as such in public international law.
Therefore the reasoning contained in paragraph 9.27 of the report which seeks to dispose of the objection to retrospective legislation by maintaining that these murders were committed in violation of the laws and customs of war, is erected on a totally false premise which predicates a false conclusion and which, with due respect, is elliptical and defective.
In taking the legal objection, (which if there is time I propose to develop a little further towards the end of my speech) it is assuredly not the intention to evince any hint of callous indifference to the agonised sufferings of the victims of the final solution or of their families or in any way to minimise, mitigate or forget the obscenity and horror of that act of state from which the dread decision was taken or, indeed, to forgive. Nor is it the intention to question the motives or the sincerity of purpose of anyone who takes another view.
Therefore, let us start on common ground. There is evidence upon which a handful of men could be arraigned with some reasonable prospect of success for mass murders committed in furtherance of an act of state if we were to alter our laws and procedures to enable such trials to ensue. Your Lordships will remember that as an act of state the fate of 6 miliion Jews was sealed at the Wannsee Conference in 1942. The conference was attended by Reinhard Heydrich, 13 other SS representatives, the Gestapo and members of the Nazi Party who were in absolute control of the affairs of state at that time. The

619
decision was taken to purport to legalise all past exterminations of Jews since 1941 when Germany attacked the Soviet Union, and all future exterminations. Your Lordships may well think that as none of those who attended the Wannsee Conference can be impleaded, the trial of a handful of accomplices stretches the fabric of the trappings of justice.
Further, why prosecute? I have with me a booklet which arrived on my desk. It is called Questions of Justice. In paragraph 17 of the document it says, "Why Prosecute?" That booklet comes from an all-party parliamentary group in another place. It gives two reasons: one that individuals who committed crimes should be held accountable; and, secondly, that the defence of superior orders is no defence. Your Lordships may well think that neither of those would warrant the trial of those men in those circumstances.
That decision at the Wannsee conference —let us not forget it —not only sealed the fate of the Jews but that of the gypsies, those of all creeds, or none, some of my friends who worked in the Resistance, Germans who opposed the regime, both civilians and those serving in the armed forces, and even some British POWs caught on the homeward run if surrendered to those not so tender mercies of Himmler.
At the last Colditz reunion of 13th November I asked around on the subject of the debate. The reactions were instantaneous, "We would have lined up everyone involved in the running of these death camps when we entered the camps and shot them out of hand. If we had been ordered not to do so, well, with reluctance, they could have gone on trial with a mandatory sentence of death on conviction, but to put those men on trial today so that on conviction they just spend the rest of their days in prison is not appropriate". That was the unanimous view.
On the subject of retrospective legislation, in the early days of Colditz, 16 Czech pilots serving in the Royal Air Force when shot down were taken prisoner and were tried for treason. Pending judgment and sentence, they were brought to Colditz. Within a matter of days they were served with a notice that they had been convicted of treason by a military court of first instance and sentenced to death. That was under a law, with retrospective effect, which claimed their allegiance to the Third German Reich as from the date of annexation. The supreme appellate military court of Leipzig accepted my main submission that the national law was invalid as it was in contravention of the universally accepted principle, adopted by the constitution of the Third German Reich, that laws should not have retrospective effect.
My only case record of those proceedings is now in the Imperial War Museum, but the Swiss Government have the official file and I have informed my noble friend the Minister of the matter, having regard to its relevance in the debate to the question of retrospective legislation.
Perhaps we may clear away the Barbie problem. In that context it is relevant to point out that the
620
Barbie trial was not conducted on the basis of retrospective legislation: the relevant conduct was committed on French soil, within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of France, and when committed was contrary to the provisions of the French criminal code.
The preferred options in the report —the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has seized the main part, as he would —are at paragraphs 9.27 to 9.30. It is that the indictment should be drawn to charge murder committed in violation of the laws and customs of war; but that indictment is open to serious objection on the grounds that when those acts were committed they were not war crimes, as my noble friend the Minister at one stage in his address conceded. He said that they were not war crimes.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, they are not war crimes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, they are not war crimes, as I gratefully accept from my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. If they are not war crimes, one cannot erect them into war crimes in order to try them. As we shall see later, at that time genocide and crimes against humanity were not recognised in public international law. One cannot try something which was not then recognised, without retrospective legislation which says that what was not a crime then is because one says that it is, and then one tries the man. That is not appropriate. If the Germans had adopted such an argument at Leipzig, those 16 Czech pilots would have died. Shot! Firing squad!
Retrospective legislation is a dangerous path. A series of questions arises for your Lordships' consideration. After a lapse of some 45 years, if those men were to be put on trial, might that not appear —I underline the word "appear" —as a step along the path of vengeance, a concept with which justice has no countenance, as the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, accepts? As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, asked in, if I may say so with respect, a powerful and informative speech: must there not be an end to retribution?
The second matter that your Lordships may wish to consider is whether justice can be done, in the sense in which we understand it, after so many years, when recollections have faded to crystallise in reconstruction; when the report acknowledges the serious problems of mistaken identities; when the evidence for the prosecution cannot be tested under cross-examination in the presence of the accused; when the witnesses for the defence may be dead or unavailable; and when, as I understand it, the law of Scotland does not admit video evidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, says that he has confidence in our system, and so indeed have I; but with respect to the noble Lord, confidence in the system cannot meet any of the objections which I have raised. Another matter which your Lordships may wish to consider is: to what purpose are those men to be tried when there is no condign punishment? If they could be hanged, may be, but they cannot on conviction; and there is no extant threat to destabilise society. The deterrence point is

621
not relevant in our new phase of European evolution to which I have referred.
Furthermore, should we introduce legislation to confer jurisdiction on our courts in England and Scotland over persons who owed no allegiance to the Crown at the time when those alleged offences were committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of our courts? Was a crime against humanity such as genocide, defined in the terms of reference as a war crime, at the time when it was committed a war crime merely because it was committed at the behest of government as an act of state after and before the end of declared hostilities?
Another matter for your Lordships is whether at the time when the alleged mass murders were committed, genocide when committed at the behest of government was regarded as criminal by international standards and, if so, what were those international standards? Lastly, why, if crimes against humanity are to be treated as war crimes, should torture, medical experiment also committed at the behest of that government, be excluded? Why should crimes against humanity committed by the Japanese and Italians also be excluded? Why should only death within the magic year and a day be murder and why should not this equally apply to disfigurement or disablement of those who did not die and some who lived?
There is not time to go into the legal analysis which supports what I have been saying to your Lordships about this simply not being a war crime and the fact that according to public international law genocide, when committed by the Germans, was not governed by public international law any more than were, for example, the allied bombings, both nuclear and non-nuclear, of civilians. That is a form of genocide. Some of these actions are taken, as they say in public international law, in the necessity of war. But remember, if your Lordships will, that at the Wannsee conference the decision of that act of state was in terms that these exterminations were part of the war effort. Perhaps I may hand my notes to my noble friend the Minister and perhaps your Lordships will forgive me for shortening my speech.
Lord Annan: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps he could enlighten me. I do not think that I followed the ingenuity of his legal argument. Is he saying that because genocide was not a crime in 1945 and that it was not a war crime, therefore it was wrong to shoot and hang the guards at Belsen? Is he saying that the British officers who undertook those distasteful duties were guilty themselves of murder?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: No, my Lords, I did not say so. I do not say so and I hesitate to take more of the time of the House. I only regret that I have been misunderstood.
4.23 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St. Albans: My Lords, this is a painful debate and it is good for us that we are experiencing the pain of it. In our pain we must be grateful for the opportunity to reflect on the report
622
of the War Crimes Inquiry. I should like to express from these Benches our indebtedness to the authors of the report for their detailed historical survey and their sensitive weighing up of the issues involved in this incredibly difficult dilemma.
Perhaps I may couple with that my personal indebtedness to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the way in which he introduced this debate, the tone of which still remains and I trust will continue. I wish to say also how thankful I am that I have been allowed to speak after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi, with whom I found myself resonating on many occasions.
It goes without saying, I trust, that in this issue of all issues there is no high moral ground that can be claimed conclusively by anyone. Moral principles can be assembled on both sides and they have to be examined and weighed carefully. They are of course not the only factors because here it is a delicate matter of international law. I for one shall look forward to listening to the guidance that will be given to us by the noble and learned Lords who have had a lifetime's experience in such matters.
However, this is too serious a matter to be dealt with on purely juridical grounds. There are also a host of political factors which some noble Lords and many spokesmen in another place will wish to weigh up. How will Her Majesty's Government's decision on this issue affect our status in the eyes of the world? It is an important factor. How will our decision be seen in Soviet eyes, at a time when coldness in Anglo-Soviet relationships is turning to near warmth? Should the political climate dictate the conclusion we come to? Or again, how will our decision be seen by the Jewish community in our midst? How far should the Government be influenced by such considerations? All these are political factors of immense importance and they cannot be ignored.
However, I believe that the question is too important to be answered on purely political grounds. As a bishop, my only right to speak is in relation to the moral considerations this report and its recommendations set before us. The fundamental tenet of moral philosophy to which this inquiry relates is all to do with the nature of justice; not revenge, nor, I think, retaliation, but justice as applied to the most appalling crimes against humanity that the modern world has known. It is not a matter of personal morality, where justice can often be tempered with mercy. We are here dealing with the impersonal application of justice, pure and simple. Forgiveness is not the issue today.
Peter Berger expresses the Christian view in these words:
"A refusal to condemn in absolute terms would appear to offer prima facie evidence not only of a profound failure in the understanding of justice, but more profoundly a fatal impairment of humanitas",
our very humanness.
As long ago as 1945 that was expressed trenchantly in this House by Cyril Garbett, Archbishop of York. On 20th March that year he said, on the relationship between justice and mercy:
Whenever I speak of war criminals, however moderately I may frame my words, I receive afterwards a number of letters from

623
people telling me that it is unchristian and wrong to demand the punishment of these people. It would, of course, be much more pleasant for me or for anyone on these Benches to plead for mercy, but sometimes justice has to take precedence of mercy, just in the same way as righteousness has to take precedence of peace. And it is for the sake of justice, for the vindication of that underlying sense of the difference between right and wrong, that we demand that these criminals should receive their punishment, so that mankind may know that civilised nations will never tolerate this kind of crime, and that sooner or later punishment is bound to follow on their heels".
Those are strong words, but they stand today because they typify the right response of justice to those hideous crimes.
Another Prelate, Bishop Bell of Chichester, when speaking here two years later criticised the justice of the Nuremburg Trials on two counts: first, that the law under which the accused persons were charged was a law enacted long after many of the acts specified in the indictment were committed, as none would then dispute; and, secondly, on the principle of impartiality, that all the judges were drawn from the ranks of the allies and that none from neutral countries were involved. The Bishop concluded:
"I do not want the guilty to go scot-free, but I maintain that a time limit should be fixed for dealing with war criminals of every category".
As the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, has so helpfully explained, his was not a lone voice. Few wanted war trials to continue and many argued loudly for their cessation. Enough was enough.
In giving those two quotations, I should like to make it clear, especially to those who are always looking for evidence that the Church is split down the middle, that York and Chichester were not at odds in the late 1940s. Both were giving due prominence to the principle of justice: Garbett in relation to the victims of man's brutality and Bell in relation to the proper rights of the accused to a fair trail. The same absolutes apply today.
The Government have every moral right to follow the example of Australia and Canada and introduce legislation to ensure that those who, however long ago, committed crimes of unparalleled awfulness are given their just deserts. However, the same justice must be accorded to the accused.
I wonder where the justice is in making special laws to permit changes in the law of evidence for only these cases. I wonder whether juries, after all the publicity surrounding the promotion through Parliament of the necessary enabling legislation, will be able to discount the time, energy and expense that the state will have put into the exercise, and come to an entirely impartial verdict. Will the result of such an extensive operation in the end add up, not to feelings of just retribution for long-past misdeeds but to feeling of sympathy for sad old men who may have spent the last 40 years not priding themselves on having avoided capture but trying to make silent reparation for their sins —for even criminals have consciences? Their memories of those far-off days may have been erased so completely from their guilty minds that they are no longer capable of producing the evidence that can show themselves to be perhaps less guilty than public opinion or the public prosecutor may judge them to be.
624
I fear for the Jewish community in our midst. As far as any Gentile can, I think that I can understand and feel their justified sense of outrage at the unspeakable sufferings that they have endured at our Gentile hands.
One of the few distinctions that I have enjoyed in my life was the privilege of being a research fellow of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I cannot thank my Israeli friends enough for the poignant memorial to the Holocaust in the Yad Vashem memorial, which should be compulsory visiting for every Gentile, man, woman and child. Whenever I visit that memorial, it leaves me numb and in tears of shame at being a member of such a depraved human race. The Jewish memory can still be the conscience of the Gentile world.
However, I am becoming conscious of a revival of anti-Semitism in this country. I have seen it in my diocese. A school chaplain spoke of it to me a few days ago. It makes me fearful, and I pledge myself to do all that I can to stamp it out. However, I fear lest the proposal to pursue the last remaining war criminals may be turned by the enemies of Judaism into yet more hostility, not against the criminals but against the victims and those who seek justice on their behalf. They may be seen to be the driving force behind this legislation. I believe that they are not.
I speak only for myself—we are all ambivalent —but I wonder whether our righteous concern for justice and that of the War Crimes Inquiry may not turn out to be injustice for the very people whose sympathies engage us and whose rights we are all so anxious to uphold —not injustice in the courts but injustice at the very fickle bar of public opinion.
Are we then to do nothing? No. I am not advocating whether to prosecute or not to prosecute. I am thankful that the decision is not mine. I am merely contributing to the debate. I offer, as an alternative, the suggestion that the Government should look a little harder at the possibility of extradition, which was considered by the inquiry but dismissed perhaps a little too summarily. It would need cast-iron guarantees that trials would be fair and that the death penalty was not an option, but it could be preferable and more just than doing it ourselves, far from the scene of the crime and availability of witnesses. I hope that that point can be looked at again.
If the end result is that nothing satisfactory can be done, that nothing truly just can be achieved and that no attempt to right wrongs can now be made, we cannot be unmindful that these aging criminals will before long stand, as most of them have stood already, before a judge who is justice personified and whose far-seeing eye no one can avoid. We can safely leave the issue in His hands. As we read in our opening prayers, the ungodly shall not be able to stand in that judgment.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of the right reverend Prelate when he expressed his gratitude to my noble friend Lord

625
Ferrers for the understanding way in which he opened this debate. His speech was of the greatest help to us all. Further, I should like to say how grateful I was for the objectivity of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. We have been given a good start to this testing and difficult debate.
It is of course right that we should recall the horrible crimes committed by the Nazis, which the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, rightly described as nothing less than degrading of humanity. However, I should like to follow the right reverend Prelate in saying that this debate has everything to do with the question of justice. That is what really matters.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is peculiarly qualified to speak on this matter. As your Lordships will know, he was a prisoner in Colditz and is therefore very well able to understand the emotions involved for many people, particularly the Jews, in this matter which we are debating. My noble friend always speaks from a background of profound knowledge of the law, on which no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and others will comment later. I am rather relieved therefore that although by a different route I arrived at the same conclusion as my noble friend.
My concern is solely —and therefore I shall be very brief—whether after this lapse of time justice is likely to be done or can be seen to be done.
Your Lordships will recall reading in the admirable Hetherington Chalmers analysis of the problem that we are debating and history of this matter the War Cabinet decision of October 1942. It was decided, first, that justice must be rapid (as page 17 of the report refers); and, secondly, that trials should not be so long delayed as to injure the process of healing the political differences in Europe. Those conditions seem to me to have been sensible and wise.
Had such a Bill as that proposed been introduced when witnesses could have been asked to testify to events which had taken place some 10 or 12 years previously, I could probably have voted for it. However, today witnesses will be asked to testify to events which took place 40 and more years ago. Old men forget.
During the past few years there have been a number of anniversaries. I have often been asked publicly to give my opinion of what took place. I have been constantly reminded that old men do forget. It is dangerous to rely upon their memory of events of so long ago. Therefore I ask myself whether after so long an interval justice is likely to be done and to be seen to be done.
I take the point that those who interpret the evidence will be very able people. But I have very grave doubts as to whether the evidence can be adequate for even such people to judge. Therefore I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord who spoke from the Liberal Benches, Lord Mayhew, that it is too late to reopen these issues. I say so with some regret, but that is my conclusion. Therefore I must record my vote against the proposed Bill.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, perhaps I may start with an apology to your Lordships for taking part in the debate at all. I have no qualifications whatsoever for doing so, and I have very great difficulty in coming to a decision as to what the right course should be. Therefore, my main reasons for addressing your Lordships have been the hope that it would force me to clarify my own thinking and to listen to the wisdom and view expressed by your Lordships in the course of the debate.
Having said that, I should like to add my thanks to the authors of the remarkable report not only for the clarity with which they have expressed their views, but above all for the enormously valuable historical background to the events. The report is well written, concise and, if I may say so in the presence of so many distinguished lawyers, in no way redolent of the normal verbiage which one has come to expect from legal documents. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the clear and objective manner in which he introduced this serious problem for debate. I still do not know on which side he has or will come down, which is a tribute to his objectivity.
As I have thought about the matter for some considerable time I have come to the conclusion that the main arguments in favour of proceeding with some form of legal process against those who might be accused of complicity in those appalling crimes fall under four main headings. The first is the appalling nature of the crimes themselves.
Perhaps I may add a personal recollection. In October 1946 I was in Poland. I was taken to the extermination camp at Majdanek where I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of Jews, and also gypsies and others, were sent for extermination. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home, that old men forget; but that visit is something I remember now as clearly as the night after I had visited that place.
I remember the extermination gas chambers and the gruesome detail that by raising the body temperature less gas was needed and therefore those to be exterminated were made to march through hot showers before going into the gas chambers because it was more economical; the pits which had been dug by the people before they were shot to save others the trouble of burying them, the orderly arrangements of the shoes, which could be used for some other people in due course —the little childrens' slippers, the high-heeled dancing shoes, the workers' heavy-soled shoes —all arranged with true Teutonic method. Those remain now clearly in my mind. I met, in prison, some of those who had been responsible for that. They were hardly human beings, but they were human beings.
The impact of those appalling crimes is as great today as it was 45 years ago. That is obviously one strong argument in favour of proceeding against people suspected of such crimes if that is at all possible.
There is then the subsidiary, but not unimportant, argument of the impact on world opinion. We do not want to appear to be a country which shelters

627
criminals, however long ago their crimes were committed. If we were to take no action now, we should undoubtedly appear to many countries to be sheltering those people. There is also the impact on future, potential perpetrators of such crimes, as has been mentioned by earlier speakers. However, I must say that there is great force in the letter in The Times today from my noble and learned friend Lord Shawcross, in which he suggests that such an argument is of no great significance.
Finally, on the "pro" side —if I may so describe it —there is the reminder that such trials would provide for a younger generation which has no conception of the bestialities that were committed long before they were born. That argument must carry some weight.
However, against that, there are other arguments. Surely it is inhumane to subject old men, whatever they may have done 50 years ago, to the long, arduous and painful ordeal of investigation and subsequent trial. There is also the problem already mentioned of the unreliability of witnesses after so many years. Can one remember the face of a man as he appeared in very different circumstances 50 years ago? Not only has he changed and one's memory changed and faded, but the circumstances today are so different that one must ask whether one can be certain of identification and of recollection of the true facts. Looking back 50 years, let us ask ourselves how much we can remember about the facts relating even to ordinary circumstances and particularly to extraordinary circumstances which have been coloured by so much emotion.
The third argument against taking any action concerns retrospective legislation. I cannot enter into the arguments of lawyers as to whether this is technically retrospective legislation. Sir Thomas and his colleagues concluded that it was not, but as a non-lawyer I cannot help thinking that, if legislation is needed to bring to trial people who without that legislation could not be brought to trial, there must be an element of retrospective legislation in it.
So those are the delicately balanced arguments —far too delicately balanced to be able to come to any positive conclusion. On the one hand, retribution cries out for trial; vengeance —and that should not be entirely ignored —cries out for trial; and, as the right reverend Prelate said, justice cries out for trial. Why should justice turn a blind eye simply because time has elapsed?
However, in spite of all that, humanity surely pleads to allow the past to bury the past and not to subject a handful of old men —who, so far as we know, have for the past 30 or 40 years led decent, respectable and perhaps useful and blameless lives —to suffer in the last years of their life the horrifying experience of investigation, of trial and very possibly of imprisonment. I shall listen to the other arguments and may well change my view, but at this stage, to my mind, humanity wins over justice.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, like others of your Lordships I should like to express gratitude to the compilers of the report, who were notably sober
628
even when they used strong, justified language stigmatising the crimes as monstrous, and who were always balanced. Nevertheless, I cannot go with them to their conclusion. I have a number of reasons for that, several of which are to my mind conclusive, but overriding all is the fact that I cannot find that what is proposed is consistent with the moral basis of our penal law.
I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walston. We cannot guarantee that there will be a satisfactory trial of those people. One has only to think of the recent trial in Israel of the man known as Ivan the Terrible. That aroused considerable criticism both in Israel and outside, but the witnesses there at least came face to face with the accused when identifying him. Identification will be a crucial issue in most of the proposed trials, if they take place. If they take place, the identification difficulties will be infinitely greater. It is proposed that satellite television and videos will be used. It is perfectly true that your Lordships agreed that those methods should be available in a criminal trial in this country, although there were some misgivings. However, what we all had in mind was the protection primarily of children and other victims of assault. No one had in mind the idea that those specifics might be used in the way that is now contemplated.
The second reason —the first being that I do not believe that we can guarantee a satisfactory trial even allowing for the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Scottish equivalent —is the quite inordinate cost. The report states that:
"Financial constraints should not be allowed to obstruct the course of justice in relation to such serious charges".
Leaving aside the fact that "justice" there begs a number of the questions that are being canvassed before your Lordships today, can we disregard financial constraints? Naturally, as a lawyer, I put justice high on my list of social goods, but it is not the only social good and the others too will cost money.
Moreover, within the field of justice itself there are other things which require doing. Specific injustices have been identified. For example, in the Legal Aid Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor resisted on the grounds of expense that they should be tackled, but the expense would be infinitesimal compared with the expense of a trial such as is proposed. I do not know whether the noble Earl, when he speaks at the end of the debate, can give us any idea of the estimated cost of one of those trials. It must be very large indeed.
Before coming to my main consideration, I should like to say something about the issue of retrospective legislation. If I may say so, I can see the juridical arguments on each side, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Walston, it seems to me that the realities point in the direction of stigmatising as retrospective what is proposed. Surely the reality is that changing the law which can make an accused penally amenable for crimes committed before the change in the law must in essence be retrospective. That is the reality however much the juridical consideration may be canvassed.
In the end, what weighs with me most is, as I ventured to suggest, that it is incompatible with the

629
moral foundation of our penal law. That was stated most effectively by a great moral theologian, the then Archbishop of York, who became the Archbishop of Canterbury, in a notable lecture which was subsequently published under the title The Ethics of Penal Action. He said that the only moral foundation of our penal law was that it should be retributive. It should be society's emphatic rejection of infringements of its legal code.
He did not stand alone. The late Lord Goddard and my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, in their evidence to the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, took the same standpoint. It has recently been reiterated by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which is considering the crime of murder and its punishment. That committee drew a clear distinction between what it called the penal element, retributive and deterrent, and the guarding against risk. So there is a consistent line that the prime object of penal action should be society's emphatic rejection of infringements of its legal code.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, to a great extent that depends on timing. In fact, in paragraph 9.6 of the report it is said:
"Justice delayed has the appearance of revenge".
Revenge has no place in our penal law. But that comment in the report was apropos what happened in 1948 to 1950. Since then there has been a further delay of 39 years. It seems to me to be impossible to say that action taken now will not have the appearance of revenge or be seen to be in fact an act of revenge.
Moreover, I venture to agree with the right reverend Prelate that there is a real danger here of backlash. We have already seen it in this connection. When a meeting was called just across the road in support of the report, a number of extremist mischief-makers were stirring up animosity and anti-Semitism. If that continues, not only will our penal procedure not be retributive but it will recoil on itself. It will do far more harm than good.
As did the right reverend Prelate, I ask myself whether that means that we should do nothing. Not so; there are certain things that we definitely can do and which it is our duty to do. The bitter fruit of Nazism would not have grown if there had not been a propitious seedbed for it, a seedbed of endemic even if subdued anti-Semitism. We should be far better employed in tackling that evil, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, than in undertaking what is recommended in this report.
5.5. p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I well remember coming back from the Middle East, undermined in health, at the end of 1942. I was then a Member of another place. At first, there were vague, uncorroborated rumours. There followed more detailed and circumstantial reports. Finally, there came upon us the horrible truth when the allied forces occupied the death factories which we are still discussing today. Last of all, we sent out a delegation to see them; I think it consisted of Members of
630
both Houses but certainly Members of the House of Commons, including my cousin, Mavis Tate, and Archie Southby from my own party.
Nobody who underwent that experience was ever the same again. Some even died as a result of what they had seen there. Only the other day I was talking to a friend who had been over 200 miles in a coach as an ordinary tourist to visit one of those places which is now in the Soviet zone. He said that on the way out for the 200 miles in the coach they were ordinary tourist sightseers. They went over that place, which is beautifully kept. On the way back, for 200 miles, no one spoke a single word. Let no one therefore think that what I am about to say is due to any degree of want of sensitivity.
Sometimes, when I look at my Jewish friends, I wonder how they can possibly regard me, as a Christian and a Gentile, with other than detestation. From Amalek to Haman, from Haman to Torquemada, from Torquemada to the pogroms in Tsarist Russia and from the pogroms to Hitler, through history the appalling sufferings of the Jewish race at the hands of the Gentiles is something for which every Gentile must necessarily feel a sense of shame in their presence. We are not really discussing only that. In my book, the more horrible the crime with which people are charged the more we must give the criminal the benefit of the doubt and insist on not only a fair trial but proof beyond reasonable doubt of his guilt. When we are asked to trust British justice, I think we must remember that it is not British justice that we are asked to administer to those who may be suspected of this crime.
I pass shortly through the question of retrospectivity. I answer the question perfectly simply. If legislation is necessary to render these trials lawful, then there is retrospectivity, whatever anyone may say. If there is no retrospectivity, then we do not need to legislate at all.
It is not only on the question of jurisdiction that we are invited to legislate retrospectively; it is also on the question of evidence. The hearsay rule is being tampered with. The other day I received a letter from the Baltic Council. It states —and this is how I read the report —that it is proposed,
"to use recorded statements of persons now deceased (without any apparent regard for the possible duress under which the statements may have been made), and by making foreign video recordings admissible in court".
I am not a particular friend of the hearsay rule in its elaboration as every law student has to learn it. Indeed, we have done away with it almost altogether in civil justice. I feel that the time is probably ripe when we should look at it again in criminal justice. But what cannot be justified by the wildest stretch of the imagination is to mess about with the hearsay rule retrospectively in respect of a particular class of accused charged with a particular class of offence —and that among the most detestable of offences of which human beings can be guilty.
However, there then occurs to me the question of the lapse of time which has been raised more than once. I went along with the Nuremberg trials. I approved of them. I approve of them now. They were highly contentious at the time. They were attacked by many including, so far as I remember, Bishop Bell

631
of Chichester (to whom reference has already been made) as being imposed by the victor on the vanquished, and their deterrent effect was thereby considerably diminished. But I went along with them because of the facts, which were already notorious, and because it seemed to me that the best way out of a very difficult situation was to stage an international trial arranged by an international court under an international statute to deal with something which had notoriously taken place. When applied to the notorious criminals, the leaders of the crimes which were committed, I felt no sense of shame that we should have inflicted penalties upon them commensurate at any rate with our detestation of what they had done.
In this report we are invited to do something wholly different. We are invited to make not an international court, not a statute of international validity, but a national piece of legislation to legislate retrospectively in respect of a selected group of accused persons. That seems to me to be wholly different and to be far more different because of the lapse of time that has taken place since the alleged offences are claimed to have been committed.
When I consider the report to which reference has been made more than once, I cannot help noting this. I refer to paragraph 9.10. There were 301 allegations which were relevant to the inquiry. Of those, it was only able to make detailed investigations in seven. Of those seven, four had a reasonable prospect of success. That is four out of 301 allegations. Of those four, one is dead and therefore cannot be tried in this world. One is either mad or ill and cannot stand his trial. One has every chance of getting off, so the report says. We are left with one criminal out of 301 cases. One is then left with 146 cases which the report says merit further investigation, whatever that may mean. That is what we are invited to legislate about.
I am bound to ask this question —and I have yet to hear an answer. Let us suppose that any one of us were charged with an offence alleged to have been committed 45 or 50 years ago. How could we charge our memories with sufficient detail to be able to put up a plausible defence, if this is the best that the investigators can do with all the resources of the Crown at their disposal? What about the criminal, or the accused person, who is supposed to make his defence and who is entitled to a fair trial? What possible chance does he have to collect witnesses from a far country to meet the case which would have been brought with the medium of the Soviet authorities where the crimes are alleged to have been committed? At the end of the day the matter has become a lottery, not a trial. It is not British justice that is being offered. It is a lottery in which out of 301 cases, it is doubtful whether one will achieve a fair trial. It seems to me that we are losing our sense of perspective when we talk about justice in this regard. It is a pure lottery.
There is this in common on which the Baltic Society makes a very strong point. It states that with the selection not merely of a particular type of crime but with a particular area of country from which the
632
alleged criminals are alleged to have committed their offences, only those beaten in war can be deterred.
The moral is that if one wins the war, one is immune. Nobody suggests that the murderers of the Katyn massacres—which were every bit as bad in their own way because they were intended to destroy the Polish middle class—should be brought to justice. It is only those who happen to be on the losing side. I do not see how that can deter anybody from anything.
I find myself wholly in support of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, said in The Times today. The deterrent argument fails. The argument based on British justice fails. The argument based on retrospectivity is wholly one way. I would echo the words of the right reverend Prelate. I was very glad that the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi made such a powerful speech. He quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures and not from the New Testament, although it happens to be quoted by Paul of Tarsus. It is written,
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord".
And you may bet your life that he will.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. With great respect, I agree with everything that he has said. I feel a little exposed on these Benches this afternoon because, although my noble friend rightly said that it is not a party political matter, the decision of government on whether to follow the recommendations of this document will become a political matter. Anything that comes into the public domain for governments to decide clearly becomes a political matter.
On my reckoning I happen to be the only Back-Bencher to speak from the Labour Benches. I cannot accept any responsibility for representing a Labour Party point of view. However, I should have thought that the Government were hoping to get from the Labour Benches some representive opinion; and they will have none. Who will help the Government to carry this responsibillity which they place upon both Houses of Parliament unless there is a representative voice from the two Chambers?
I understand that the House of Commons may vote on the issue. It is probable that there are reasons why we should not do so. Constitutionally, the House of Lords is the final Court of Appeal and appeals in these cases may come here. Therefore, I can understand that the House of Lords may not be a suitable body to give an opinion on whether there should be prosecutions. That makes our position still less satisfactory. Nevertheless, like other noble Lords I can only venture to give my reaction to the issue.
I was disappointed with the conclusions of my noble friend who spoke earlier from the Front Bench. I was acutely disappointed with the speech of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi. I thought that it was a dreadful speech; dreadful in its literal sense. It was the voice of the Old Testament as I was taught it, and Jehovah was not a kindly god —
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember the quotation from St. Paul given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I cannot help what other people may say and I do not always hear. I had hoped that a high moral line would be taken right from the beginning and a decision made as to whether, in all the circumstances, there was any justice to be gained. Justice is not a divine edict; it is man-made. Justice is within the law and the law is made by secular bodies; that is, by Parliament. Therefore, if we talk of bringing people to justice it is that conceived by Parliament to meet particular forms of crime and deliquency.
As yet no one has mentioned the kind of justice that these miserable people would receive. I thought that the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi made the kind of speech that one could expect to hear from the steps of the guillotine or the scaffold, except that he did not call for mercy upon their souls. But in these cases do we have to keep justice within the confines of our code of punishment? What can be metered out 50 years later to the remnants of an evil system that can be called justice? Is it execution? In that case are we not only to manipulate the law in order to bring them to trial but also in order to give them adequate punishment, which should be death? Do we go as far as that?
Has anyone asked whether juries will convict? We talk about a satisfactory trial but what about a satisfactory outcome? If there are acquittals, the outcome will not be satifactory to a great many people. Let us suppose, that members of juries find it extremely difficult to apply their minds to a crime committed before they were born. Surely most jury members will be of such an age that they do not recall the crimes and find them difficult to comprehend. The sheer wickedness and devilment of it all will scarcely register with them as they hear the evidence. Those considerations are of a practical nature.
I now turn to an issue which is more important. What about all the crimes of peace that have occurred during the past 40 years under the communist system? What about the Stalin regime? What about the liquidation of the kulaks? What about the genocide practised on smaller scales but with equal viciousness and effectiveness in certain parts of Asia?
No one has referred to the present situation. We are on the threshold of a new era, and reconciliation and forgiveness will be needed on a colossal scale if we are to have a new Europe and a new world in which people will feel able to go forward in harmony and peace. Let us suppose that we receive a demand from the new regimes in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Russia to bring their peace criminals to justice. What shall we do about that? I believe that many evil men will be pardoned if we are to make progress towards a peaceful settlement of a new Europe which is probably teetering already on the edge of collapse, chaos or active revolution. We should do nothing to aggravate a delicate situation.
Shall we not look ridiculous in the eyes of the world if we are pursuing a few miserable old men over the age of 70 who are probably hard of hearing, have failing sight and are ill? Shall we then send them to prison for life where they will go into hospital almost straightaway? Perhaps they will have to be
634
released because it is impossible to keep them there, or they may be unfit to plead. Perhaps jurors between the ages of 30 and 45 will say, "What is all this? These are sham trials which have been erected for the sake of the reputation of Britain for pursuing Nazi criminals to its utmost". On occasions time alone justifies letting things pass which otherwise one would do something about.
Have not we all had our worries about the Nuremberg Trials? They were held at a time when there appeared to be no other way of dealing with world opinion of the Nazi war crimes. As the noble and learned Lord said, that was an international body. If today an international body was requiring us to deliver up for a trial by an international system those within our jurisdiction, that would be different. If we were being asked to extradite these people, that would be different. But I am not aware that applications for extradition lie against any of these people.
If punishment is for reform, penitance, ultimate salvation and it produces a better spirit and a person redeemed by undergoing punishment. what do we expect from the few people who will be subject to imprisonment? They may believe that a term of imprisonment will bring relief from the torture that they have suffered in their minds for the past 50 years. Is it supposed that in their later years these men are without feelings about the situation? When one is 70 and 80 years old one is a different person from when one was 20, then caught up in the excitement, emotions and evil intent of a desperately evil system. Let us not forget that we conquered a Nazi system.
The document referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asks why we should prosecute and states that criminal trials remind us that individuals commit crimes and not nations, and that individuals are responsible for their own actions. That provided the greatest worry about the trials of some people at Nuremberg all those years ago. Who was responsible and to what extent could responsibility to a higher authority be used as a shelter or explanation of conduct in individual cases?
There has recently been a long libel action during which the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, underwent a terrible experience. His honour was impugned because he was carrying out his duties as a brigadier in the forces in a certain part of the war zone. But the judge had to tell the jury that the honour of the United Kingdom was not before the court; it was the honour of the noble Lord, Lord Aldington. That was given mighty clearance by the jury and he succeeded in his case in no uncertain terms.
However, if the honour of the United Kingdom was before the court, the jury would still be out. We all have worries about that and about what happened in the fix-up between Winston Churchill and Stalin as regards the basis of the exchange of prisoners. It all sprang from that.
What about war crimes committed in the course of the war? After the war, I took a look at the two dams broken by the Dam Buster heroes. What were the consequences? Down went the water which engulfed the valleys. Without any warning villages,

635
people, farms and cattle were washed away in the torrents. That was all part of the war effort and it was done on two occasions. We cannot feel proud of it.
The biggest war crime I know of was committed at Passchendaele. I was there at the age of 19 and I was lucky to escape. Forty thousand soldiers died in the mud and have no known grave. That was called war. What about the general who sent us there to relieve the pressure on the French? We were not engaged in an action of our own; we were relieving pressure on the French who, it was thought, were about to give way.
One becomes so confused about what is a crime and what is justified. War is the ultimate atrocity. And all acts committed in its name are atrocities. We decided years ago what to do with the principal criminals of the Nazi period. What can we do now which will replace the verdict of history on those dreadful war crimes?
It is trivial to pursue these miserable old men. One can imagine them going into the dock and trying to give evidence in their own defence. The public would become very fed up were millions of pounds to be spent mounting cases of this kind in different Crown Courts with the possibility of different juries returning different verdicts.
We should say that the crime with which we are asked to deal cannot be fitted into our judicial system. It concerns people at present in this country who committed no offence within our code of law at the time and who although part of an evil system responsible for dreadfully evil acts, committed no offence against the citizens of this country. We cannot feel satisfied about the possibility of manipulating our code of law, strict and honourable as it is, to accommodate trials which we feel have no real validity and provide no real satisfaction to anyone except to sustain our name with Australia, the United States and others. Surely we are a beacon of the perfectionist attitude towards the code of law. I sincerely hope that we shall not encourage the Government to accept the recommendations of this report.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, in making my contribution in this debate to take note of whether it might be appropriate to institute a war criminal trial in this country, I do so with no pleasure since I suffered under the Japanese Kempetai in Singapore during the occupation. I do not take part in this debate this evening out of any sense of reflected glory to myself.
I have no reason to disbelieve that the German Gestapo and the Japanese Kempetai, whose officials in the war crimes trials were convicted of crimes against humanity, differed materially in the operation of their systems. The rule of law and justice previously enjoyed was to disappear and in its place was established, in the occupied territories of Singapore the imposition of terror, cruelty and torture. For four years I was incarcerated in Changi gaol in Singapore at the time of the Japanese occupation from 1941 to 1945.
636
It would seem appropriate that we should be careful to accept what I state. As I have already said, it seems a relevant duty on my part to record my experience of Kempetai methods and their operation.
An event took place resulting in the death of many British internees and some of the local inhabitants of Malaysia of which they were totally innocent. I cannot now remember the exact date when I and others in Changi were to hear explosions which seemed to emanate from the port of Singapore, but it was either in late September or early October 1943. We were able to discover later that those explosions were due to the brave exploits of a Major Lyon, the leader of a small party of 10 Australians and four British who, hugging the coast and islands all the way, arrived in Singapore in a disguised ship, having travelled the 2,000 miles from Australia.
On arrival, which was I believe on a Sunday night (because I remember this rather vividly), the party saw a large tonnage of Japanese shipping at anchor. They brought with them collapsible rubber boats into which the men embarked with limpet mines. They attached those mines to 38,000 tonnes of Japanese shipping which they sunk to the bottom. Those brave men were never discovered or apprehended to the satisfaction of the Japanese because they managed safely to return to Australia. Major Lyon was lucky on that occasion although I regret to say that he and his companions died later in the war.
Of course, the Japanese could not understand what had happened as the people who had perpetrated the exploit had disappeared and could not be found in Singapore or any of the surrounding countries. Indeed they could not discover how all that had happened. So a Major Sumida, a commander of the Kempetai investigation in Singapore, decided to carry out a visit to the 3,000 inhabitants of Changi gaol, many of whom were former colonial civil servants of some standing who had rendered service to Malaysia in the days of peace.
It would take up too much time if I spoke in detail on an organisation which was set-up to make contact with the local people in Singapore. It was necessary for us to obtain financial assistance to alleviate the suffering and breakdown of health due to starvation and its attendant diseases. Through our outside contacts, we were able to construct three wireless sets in order to listen to the overseas broadcasts of the BBC. When Major Sumida paid his visit in 1943 he discovered those sets as well as sums of money which would be repaid at the end of the war to those who had raised the sums for us. For the information of your Lordships, that was done.
Major Sumida was therefore convinced that this must mean that we possessed wireless transmitters. His appetite was greatly whetted. He and his fellow interrogators were then convinced that an organisation within Changi had brought about the attack on Singapore and that the internees had alerted the allies to the presence of Japanese shipping in the port. That resulted in the explosions to which I have referred. He was therefore determined to carry out the investigation Kempetai style. It lasted

637
between four to five months. We never possessed transmitters.
The system of interrogation Kempetai style was the following. One was guilty when seized or arrested, when one's admission of guilt was demanded. When a confession was not forthcoming, torture commenced until the suspect was bordering on the loss of life. For obvious reasons I shall not describe the tortures involved, but that basically was what happened.
The trials of German war criminals were fully reported in a book which can be obtained from the Royal Commonwealth Society. The events in Singapore have been described in various books which have been published in the past three to four years. After the war 135 Japanese officers and men were convicted as war criminals and executed in Changi gaol, including Major Sumida who had been a thorn in our side in Changi gaol and who was the head of the Japanese Kempetai. Seventy-nine other war criminals were put to death elsewhere in Malaysia for similar reasons. Of the 58 internees removed by Colonel Sumida from Changi gaol to the headquarters of his secret police in Singapore for investigation, 11 were to die of torture and interrogation, and one was executed.
In the fetid atmosphere which prevailed in Singapore and Malaysia during the presence of the Japanese Kempetai when freedom had gone and intimidation and victimisation were rife, no man or woman was safe from intimidation and false report when placed in the hands of the Japanese Kempetai. In those cases alone how on earth would it be possible to obtain any reliable evidence to secure a defence if such a person were charged of an alleged war crime in this country?
In spite of the horrible experience of the Japanese Kempetai in 1943, I am unable to agree that any further action should be taken against the alleged German war criminals in Britain. The action would arise from alleged crimes which cannot be dissimilar to the action taken by the Japanese Kempetai. I believe we would to some extent degrade ourselves if we went down that path.
5.44 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I am no lawyer, neither civil, criminal, domestic or international, and I shall not attempt to act as a one man do-it-yourself jury when noble and learned Lords practised in law are at loggerheads with one another as regards what constitutes retrospection. I read the report on its publication and I studied it again over the weekend. I am grateful to those men of distinction who worked so hard on it in order to provide us with a brief which we can study. I was particularly interested in the historical introduction. It is a historical pig's breakfast of man's inhumanity to man over long historical perspectives stretching back to the Middle Ages. Everyone was beastly to everyone else in turn with one exception, which is that the Jews were beastly to no one but everyone was beastly to them. It constitutes advice to the nation on what offences could be prosecuted now.
638
If I understood the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, correctly, it boils down to one elderly man and further investigations which would be a race against time before all those involved are dead. How shall we act? How should we act and from what motives? One can seek advice from whom one pleases, but the reponsibility for taking it is one's own. If wreaking revenge be the object, let us be sure we do it in hot blood when our anger is fully aroused. That may be an excuse for obtaining the Mosaic injunction referred to by the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi and for the quotation from the Gospel according to the Hebrews that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, mentioned.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, it was the Romans.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, it was the Gospel according to the Hebrews. I know that as I checked it last night. Vengeance in cold blood 50 years after the beginnings of these sorry events is another matter. Every day we meet, our proceedings begin with prayer. The Lord's Prayer exhorts God to forgive us as we forgive others. I interpret that as an appeal to God to forgive me as I forgive others. I have no authority to forgive a third party for his offences against a fourth. According to my faith, only a priest in the Apostolic succession has that authority, but it is only exercised after repentance. At Matins every Sunday I listen to the utterances which give pardon and absolution to those who truly repent and believe the Holy Gospel.
I shall sketch the curriculum of an old man who will be 70 years of age in 1990. That will simplyfy the arithmetic. He was born in 1920. At the age of 13 he entered his teenage years as Hitler took power. He joined the Hitlerjugend where he was brainwashed and indoctrinated in the belief that Jews, gypsies and Poles were subhuman. He was conscripted at the age of 19 and was footloose in the cauldron of Europe at the age of 25. Heaven knows what horrors he was a party to. Has he since acknowledged his sins and repented? Heaven alone knows that, but if heaven alone knows, let us leave it to heaven. The judgment on that man in earthly time cannot be long delayed.
I again echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I chose somewhat different illustrations from his because I did not have the advantage of seeing what he was going to say. But let us agree that the Jews will never forget their enslavement in Egypt, the captivity in Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora, to which we must now add the Holocaust. I do not expect the Jews to forgive, as those who might manage forgiveness will all be dead very soon and there will be no one left to forgive. Vengeance cannot now be our duty. But let us remember when we contrast vengeance with justice that justice started as an attempt at a substitute for the blood feud illustrating vengeance. The two are inextricably intermixed.
In our nation anger has cooled off because we were the least sinned against. We were never occupied and the worst we had to put up with was some bombing. Anyone under the age of 60 or thereabouts

639
cannot remember what it was all about. That represents the majority of our nation. Let us not consign them to vengeance in cold blood because men of law say it could be done. Even if it can be done, I am not prepared to say that it should be done. For my part I note the report and am content that it be left to lie on the table. I am not sure of the procedure in this case but if the report were to be the subject of a Division, I shall certainly follow the noble Lord, Lord Home.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I believe that everyone who speaks in this debate should declare an interest because all of us are moved one way or another by the interests that we have. I begin by declaring a double interest. I am a member of the Jewish community, but in no sense do I occupy any representative position. I am also a professional historian who has had a good deal to do with the study of the events that are now under discussion.
I believe the point I now raise is very relevant. It has been assumed by every speaker in this debate that there was a crime of immeasurable proportions to which we have given the name the Holocaust. It is not, as I believe one or two noble Lords have suggested, comparable in any way with the barbarous treatment of prisoners of war or political opponents, whether in Japan or Yugoslavia. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, a deliberate attempt to exterminate two races as a part of state policy.
Many people, particularly members of the younger generation, have read this moving report. As many speakers have said, one cannot pay too high a tribute to its objectivity and thoroughness whether or not we agree with its conclusions. But to many who read it I imagine that some of the material regarding what actually happened will have come as a shock. Many of us have read a series of much more detailed accounts because, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, documentation is not what is lacking. Many people have read accounts culminating perhaps in the book The Holocaust by Winston Churchill's biographer, Martin Gilbert.
Those who have read that book will know that nothing here in this report is new. It is very important that it should not be thought to be new. I believe that people may make an occasional error because they assimilate the content of this report with what they already know. I have the greatest admiration for the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury; but his sketch of a member of the Hitlerjugend was totally irrelevant to what we are considering. The alleged criminals here were not German citizens or ethnic Germans; they were members of the populations of the occupied countries who, for one reason or another, threw in their lot with the Germans. Indeed, it is very hard to believe, whatever the difficulties of screening immigrants in the immediate post-war years were, that German war criminals could have got into this country undetected.
It was because there was immigration of people whose original status and ethnic identity might have been obscure, that it is possible, as the report
640
suggests, that some people of this kind found their way here. It has been said that the Jewish community here might suffer if it was thought that its interest in this matter was due to a wish to revenge. I believe that point has been dealt with by the noble Lord, the Chief Rabbi, and I shall not refer to it, except to say that I found the word "retaliation" used by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, quite extraordinary. I do not see how one can retaliate on an individual for the murder of scores or thousands.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Since speaking it has occurred to me that I confused the word "retaliation" with "retribution". I hope the noble Lord will forgive me.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I thought the speech of the right reverend Prelate was outstanding in our debate, but whether he was correct in worrying about the possible fuel which this issue might give to anti-Semitism, and whether it is true, in order to decide that we have to bring into account another factor which no one has mentioned. As I have said, I believe that everyone who has taken part in this debate —and no doubt those who will be taking part later —have assumed that the Holocaust is a fact. In particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has spoken about the impact that it has made on the Jewish mind.
But we have to face the fact that there is now in the world a very considerable movement which does not palliate the Holocaust but actively denies that it ever occurred. We have had propaganda that has been taken up by anti-Semitic groups in France and the United States. We are beginning to see this movement coming into our own British world.
The fact of the Holocaust was denied on BBC radio some 10 days ago by Lady Mosley. It is curious that the programme "Desert Island Discs" was thought of as an appropriate venue for an historical pronouncement. Perhaps one should not take the maunderings of an elderly female admirer of Adolf Hitler too seriously. But there are more serious issues at stake than what she may think. At one time Mr. David Irving had some claim to be a serious military historian. He has produced views —unsustained —that the Holocaust was not an act of state and that Hitler himself was entirely innocent of the matter. That view is possible because it does not affect what we now feel or think.
However, he has recently written a preface to an American publication in which he asserts in so many words that the extermination camps —Majdanek and Auschwitz which many people have visited including most recently Chancellor Kohl, to express the nation's regret —did not exist. David Irving has said that these camps never existed and that they were thought up by the British propaganda services. That publication has been printed in this country.
No doubt the impressionable young, and those for whom these events are as far off as the wars of Julius Caesar, may be disposed to believe it. There is another and perhaps more dangerous way in which the importance or the uniqueness of these events is being challenged. That is by comparison with other

641
issues of human suffering which, though very important in themselves, are not comparable in magnitude.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the enormous impression made on him by a visit to Yad Vashem which is the museum of the Holocaust in Jerusalem. A delegation from the British Council of Churches recently went to Israel and the occupied territories to look at the sufferings of the Palestinians under occupation, which I would not deny. No one regards me as Mr. Shamir's most zealous supporter. They said that Yad Vashem was all very well and it obviously meant that there had been a great deal of suffering. They also got the impression that, regarding similar suffering by other people—meaning in this case the Palestinians—sympathy was absent from their Jewish contacts.
I entirely agree. Much that has happened to the Palestinians during the five wars and since the occupation is regrettable and reprehensible. Nevertheless, most of them are alive. I do not know how many Palestinian civilians died during the course of those five wars or in the intafada since the occupation, but if one counted them in low thousands one would not be diminishing the number. That is simply not comparable to the wilful, direct and deliberate extermination of between 5 million and 6 million people. To make that comparison and to talk about similar suffering subtly downgrades the Holocaust.
Therefore we are faced with a very difficult moral problem as well as with the juridical problems that have been so fully ventilated. If the existence of possible war criminals had not been called to our attention in this way and a report written, perhaps we might all have been happier. The issue would not have arisen. We would have to regard the account as closed. But now that this has been brought to our attention, now that a report has been written which at least makes it likely that there is enough substance in these allegations for the Government to worry about, if we say that, for the various reasons outlined in the House, we cannot accept it —I know I speak in a minority on this point —we shall I fear, be playing into the hands of those who wish to downgrade the Holocaust in pursuit of their own anti-Semitic objectives and placing the Jewish community in the appalling position of believing that it is less rather than more likely to receive justice at the hands of the majority community.
I wish that this issue had never come before us. I have no feelings about the individuals concerned. I have no feelings of revenge, retribution or however one likes to style it. However, in the world in which we live, in which anti-Semitism —the right reverend Prelate was right about this —is still something which we feel and know about, to reject these proposals out of hand would perhaps be unwise and would almost certainly be cruel.
6.3 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for such a fair and impartial
642
introduction to this important debate and to the compilers of the report for its clarity and readability.
Paragraph 8 of the first chapter of the report shows that the original 17 names given to the committee by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre had been published. Who was responsible for that; and who gave a list of 34 names of suspects to Scottish Television? I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me the answer to those important questions in his winding up speech. Was it the Simon Wiesenthal Centre or the Home Office? If it was neither of them, who did so? All those on those lists will, for the rest of their lives, whether or not they are prosecuted, and even if they are found to be totally innocent, be tarred with the brush of being suspected war criminals. As we all know perfectly well, the public and the neighbours will say, "There is no smoke without fire". In at least one case, long before the report was published, exactly that was happening.
I turn now to the question of what kind of justice there can be where the quality of the evidence must be very questionable. How will witnesses recognise suspects after so long, and not even face to face, if we allow evidence to be given through television links? People's appearances can change out of all recognition in the course of 45 or 50 years. Paragraph 8.64 of the report, referring to the witnesses interviewed, says:
"Many however, were able to help with circumstantial and hearsay evidence, and some were able to identify suspects from photographs".
Circumstantial evidence is always suspect; hearsay evidence is even more so. And as for identifying from a photograph a suspect one has not seen for more than 40 years, that is ludicrous. We are told that the camera cannot lie, but we all know that it can distort out of all recognition.
The noble Lords, Lord Home and Lord Walston, said that old men forget. Worse, they remember with advantages. Most of us have had the experience of comparing notes on some long past incident with someone else who was there at the time, and finding not that we had forgotten but that our recollections of events were totally different. We had both added things that had not happened. The same applies to the evidence for the defence, in addition to which all the witnesses for the defence may be dead or impossible to find. Who will pay for searching for them? Will the Russians, who will apparently be so helpful over the evidence for the prosecution, be equally helpful over the evidence for the defence? be equally helpful over the evidence for the defence? I am not very happy about that. While there may be enough evidence to prosecute a suspect, he may be quite unable to defend himself, even though he may be innocent. Although possibly in such a case a jury might not convict, the stigma would still remain.
Then there is the question of precisely for what crime or crimes the proposed legislation will enable suspects to be prosecuted. In paragraph 9.27, the report comes down on the side of prosecutions for,
"murder and manslaughter committed as violations of the laws and customs of war".
I fear lest that suggested definition includes the killing of an enemy soldier by a prisoner of war while attempting to escape, which it was his duty to do,

643
and other killings not strictly allowed by the rules but which inevitably happen in war. If the Government were to receive requests from the West German Government to prosecute people who had killed German soldiers in such circumstances, they might find it very difficult to refuse to do so. Much more serious problems of definition are involved in the basis of the proposed changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has already pointed out. The possible effect on future prisoners of war also needs to be considered. They could well be at risk of being killed lest they should testify against their captors, or for retaliation.
The suspects, even if guilty, must have been quite young at the time, and therefore under the orders of their superiors who may well have ordered them to commit the crimes for which they are now, in their old age, under threat of prosecution. The penalty for refusing to obey an order was a heavy one. It is important to realise the pressure that young soldiers on all sides may have been under to do things which they later regretted. Young soldiers in ill-disciplined units did things which they should not have done. Young people in crowds often behave in ways in which they would not dream of behaving on their own. These are the hazards of war. To many people now, who have no experience of war, situations of this kind are unimaginable.
In chapter 9, paragraph 18, the report says that in neither the German nor the British military code are superior orders accepted as a defence against war crimes. That may be so, but circumstances which obtained in Nazi Germany at that time must be taken into account. If any of the suspects is tried in a court of law and is found guilty, what is it proposed to do with him? I am assuming that it is not proposed to reintroduce the death penalty, so I presume that the idea is to imprison him for the rest of his life at the taxpayers' expense. But is that an adequate punishment for the crimes that he is supposed to have committed? Is any penalty which civilised people can inflict anything but farcical in the circumstances? If such people are imprisoned, there is a very real danger of their turning into martyrs in the eyes of the public, as did the late Rudolf Hess—although he was as nasty a bit of work as many others. The British are sympathetic to old and possibly sick men who have been imprisoned for long periods.
Since, in all probability, the suspects will have wives, children and even grandchildren, the vengeance wreaked on them will cause at least as much, if not more, suffering to their innocent relatives who may well have been totally ignorant of their husband's, father's or grandfather's past and who will then, in addition, be at risk of persecution by their neighbours.
While I realise that consideration for the feelings of their nearest and dearest is not a good reason for failing to prosecute criminals, when such time has elapsed the damage will be much greater than in any normal case. Moreover, if one of the suspects has led an exemplary life in this country for the past 40 years and become a respected citizen, or possibly even worked for MI6 —it was alleged in an article
644
which appeared in The Times in October that some had —will it not look rather ungrateful and be rather embarrassing to cast such a person into prison for the rest of his life for what he did in, as it were, a previous incarnation? Such matters need consideration if the Government are not to risk looking very foolish.
However much the report tries to play down the retrospective element of the proposed legislation, it admits in Chapter 9.27 that there is an element of retrospectivity in the course it recommends. That element certainly exists in the proposed changes to the laws of evidence, and that is not all, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, explained.
We have a body of criminal law in England, built up over centuries, which is second to none, except Scots law. The quality of British justice has long been the envy of most of the world, and many other countries' legal systems are based on English law. We have always regarded retrospective legislation in any form as deeply undesirable and Parliament has always taken a dim view of any government who tried to introduce it. But now we are being asked to support retrospective legislation in order to bring to trial only two suspects —although, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, says that there may only be one —who may well not be convicted by the jury on account of the quality of the evidence. In short, we are to take a step which may well have effects we have not foreseen and which will create a precedent which may have effects we cannot foresee.
The Jews were not the only people to suffer during World War II; nor were the Nazis the only ones to inflict suffering or to murder people in contravention of the rules of war. What about the Katyn massacre, now known to have been the work of the Russians who are to help us try the Nazis? Moreover, what about the mass murders perpetrated by the Russians in Latvia and Lithuania? I should point out here that many Latvians and Lithuanians joined the Nazis for protection from the Russians because they had suffered so badly at the hands of the Russians.
What about the sufferings of our own prisoners of war at the hands of the Japanese? Most of them are Christians and prefer to try to forgive and forget. Some of the victims, Christian or otherwise, might have preferred to do so, but Wiesenthal did not take that fact into account when he appointed himself as their vindicator. He made this plain during an interview with Terry Wogan in October when he said that he could not forgive injuries to others. Under those circumstances, is it decent and fitting that we should take such a step in order to enable aliens to be revenged on other aliens for something done in a foreign country nearly half a century ago? In chapter 9.6 the committee says:
"Justice delayed has the appearance of revenge".
In this case it would not just have the appearance of revenge; it would be revenge.
I am sorry that I cannot accept the definition of vengeance put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I think that the law can also be vindictive. All in all your Lordships may well think that the proposed changes to the criminal law of this

645
country are not justified. For my part, as I do not sail under flags of convenience, I shall oppose such alterations in the law if the Government decide to introduce a Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Havers: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate and I suspect that little more can be said on the subject. Therefore I shall be brief. I should like first to congratulate the two Front Bench speakers on their restraint and on the lucidity of their arguments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will appreciate that I do not agree with his conclusions. However, I very much agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
Of course, this is retrospection. I do not for a moment accept the report—although it is a very good one —when it casts doubt over whether the anticipated legislation is retrospective. Retrospection is the nightmare of lawyers, and especially of Law Officers. However, it usually applies when today you do something which is legal but which subsequent legislation makes illegal even at the time you did it. That is bad enough. What is suggested today is far worse and has not been clearly pointed out during the course of the debate. What is suggested would involve giving jurisdiction to courts in respect of people over whom they previously had no jurisdiction. It is not a case of making something which is presently not a crime into a criminal offence. It is introducing an entirely new class of defendant. It is a major step of which I disapprove and therefore cannot support.
The need for this special jurisdiction is that now British subjects cannot be charged or tried for offences such as murder committed overseas. That is a provision under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The majority of the allegations concern persons who were not British at the time and thus fall outside the purview of the British courts.
The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 allows the prosecution in this country of any person for grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva conventions committed anywhere in the world. This would of course include murder and manslaughter. However, it is worth noticing that there is no provision in the Act for retrospective application, whatever paragraph 5.38 of the report says.
I shall not speak about extradition or evidence save to say that the difficulties about evidence have already been underlined very properly and most clearly by many Members of your Lordships' House. As stated in the report it will be most difficult to extradite. The difficulties over evidence will be absolutely insurmountable. Further, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, the process will prove hugely expensive.
Even if one is more optimistic about the number of suspects exceeding the single possibility mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—for example, if we reached 20—the game is simply not worth the candle. We must add the fact that we would be going against decisions taken
646
in 1948, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. The information he provided filled a gap in my knowledge. Further in 1990 or 1991 young jurors—many of them aged under 25—will be told of offences they have never heard about previously unless they have read about them by choice. Indeed, they will probably not have been taught about them at school. And they were certainly not alive when such things happened. However, they will be asked to convict these sick and tired old men of offences which would lock them up for the rest of their lives. For me that prospect is simply not on.
6.18 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should first like to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for having missed the beginning of his remarks. However, I was present in the Chamber in time to hear the greater part of his speech. I thank him for the tone and temper of what he said. It is a tone and temper which has informed the debate ever since.
I must say that on this subject my mind is deeply coloured by the works of Primo Levi, who in my view has more right to be heard and read on this subject than anyone else, except the dead, who are, according to him, the only ones in possession of the truth. They cannot speak or be heard. Primo Levi is entitled to be heard, and he approximates to the dead. He has been through the whole process of the Holocaust. He suffered and survived Auschwitz and made himself write about his experiences. I found his last work on the subject, The Drowned and the Saved, which he wrote 40 years after the event in 1986, more relevant to the debate than his earlier works, marvellous though they are: Is this a man? The Truth and The Periodic Table.
What has already been said reduces the length of my speech. I gladly adopt everything said by the distinguished lawyers about the evident injustice of the trials proposed in the review. I thank the authors for so clearly expounding the difficulties.I found paragraph 6.8 of the report, which was entitled Difficulties, most persuasive, and I cannot understand why the report's authors were not persuaded by the difficulties that they enumerated in that paragraph. I was impressed by their categorical view of the impropriety, or illegality, of proceedings in regard to crimes against humanity. I quote their words:
"To legislate now for offences of genocide committed during the second world war, in our view, constitute retrospective legislation".
That is unthinkable.
I was most impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Home, said. He encapsulated in three words what so many other speakers said: "Old men forget". There is a most moving passage in Primo Levi's last book about just that thing: how distorted and unconsciously forgotten —although no doubt there are a few who tell deliberate lies —the facts are. Most of the forgetting is not of their own making; it is part of the ageing process. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Home, said.
I agree with the view that those show trials could not and would not have a deterrent effect.

647
I am appalled by what appears to be, and would appear to the country to be, unremitting vengeance, although I heard well what the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said on that subject. I have always been appalled by the behaviour of the Dominican Order when it was founded and the way in which the Dominican hounded the heretic. The Dominican was rightly called, "The hound of the Lord" (Domini canis), but the Lord said, as we have heard in the debate, "Vengeance is mine" not that of a self-appointed hound.
Any prosecution of so-called war crimes would be bound to be a show trial. It would be a trial that would trivialise the Holocaust. I say that because it would be bound to concentrate on one man, or a few men, to the neglect of the total horror committed by humanity, when we should be asking much more relevant questions for this day. We should be asking ourselves how we should have behaved if we had been in the position of the majority of the perpetrators. The majority of the perpetrators were not the monsters at the top, fearful though their crimes were. They were not the "henchmen" of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who committed the "fiendish crimes" mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. They were not the "arch criminals".
If one reads Primo Levi one will find that he is most deeply shocked, not by the crimes of the monsters —miserable, horrific and dreadful as they were—but by the ghastly brutality of those whom one might reasonably expect to be one's friends in prison: those unhappy prisoners who were forced, for a multitude of different reasons, to collaborate with their captors. The horrors committed by them are no less, and perhaps more, terrible than those committed by the monsters.
Prosecutions should be undertaken only in the public interest. I have a strong feeling that it is not in the public interest to pursue those few war criminals in trials which would bring the judicial process into contempt. Instead, we should concentrate on how it was that so many people of all races—including the Jews—were swept up into committing so many horrors. That can best be done by giving children in school works such as those by Primo Levi instead of, as they now are given, The Lord of the Flies, which purports to explain the dark side of humanity through the perspective of prep school boys. It would be far better for them and the nation to read the tracts for the times, by Primo Levi, and indeed for all time, written by someone who underwent every indignity but death in Auschwitz and who amazingly kept his eyes open and had the courage to write about his experiences with, as near as possible, dispassion and compassion. That is where we should be directing our attention, not to a show trial.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: My Lords, I acknowledge being in a minority, but the debate is concerned with one of the most monstrous crimes against humanity in history, and for the survivors time cannot heal the pain. In his moving opening address my noble friend the Minister referred to that sad aspect of the subject. Being a member of the Jewish faith, although Sir
648
Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers are not. I feel emotionally involved, but I take as my theme the report's conclusions and the word "justice" —not vengeance —because I believe that that is what the vast majority, the millions of innocent victims, in their agony would have wanted to see done.
The learned and objective report of the War Crimes Inquiry recognised that feeling in the recommendations made in Chapter 9. The enormity of the crime that forms the background of the report was kept largely secret at the time and given the chilling code name "The final solution": the decision by Hitler and his Nazi clique to liquidate in cold blood millions of human beings, not just Jews, as has been pointed out. In that they were aided by a variety of willing and enthusiastic supporters, some of whom are referred to in Chapter 2 of the report. It was that participation, with such a diabolical cruelty, which made the programme so deadly in its effect and such an indispensable part of the mass murder machine.
The manner in which Hitler and the Nazis turned Germany into a criminal state from 1933, when the first concentration camps were inaugurated, is a matter of history, as is the reign of terror which was extended to the conquered countries.
The infamous Wannsee Conference in January 1942 lasted less than 90 minutes. That was the length of time needed to sentence the Jewish communities and other minority groups in Nazi occupied Europe to their terrible fate. For the next three tragic years millions of innocent people of all ages were murdered, or illegally experimented on in the most vile and cowardly manner. No refinement of cruelty was spared. Delivered to the charnel houses in sealed cattle trucks, the fortunate ones arrived dead, the half alive consumed by an inferno that even Dante could not have conceived.
Before this report was published, we knew all too well about the horrors of the Nazi extermination programme. We also knew that some 200,000 worthy and unfortunate men and women from Eastern Europe, displaced from their homes by the ravages of conflict, were admitted to this country soon after the war's end. But we did not know that the listing and screening processes employed when they arrived here were, to use the inquiry's description, defective and ineffectual. We had no idea that this situation might have enabled a small number of evil men to secrete themselves among those who sought refuge in the United Kingdom. The United States, Canada and Australia have all discovered, in common with ourselves, that war criminals could have entered their countries after the Second World War. They have responded by setting up legal machinery to investigate the allegations, as the inquiry recommends in its report.
The members of the inquiry are naturally concerned with the issue of retrospection. I am not a lawyer, but I quote them. They refer to international human rights conventions in paragraph 5.45. They point out that genocide was not defined by international law as a crime until 1948 and they therefore do not recommend its inclusion in any legislation presented to Parliament.

649
They explain in paragraph 9.27 of the report —which of course should be read in full —the legislation they envisage which would allow an offence to be tried in a British court. The inquiry report reminds us that the decision whether or not to proceed, the health of those concerned and the conduct of the proceedings will be for the appropriate legal authorities in England and Scotland.
Powerful and highly respected advocates —indeed, most of those speaking today —say, "These events occurred nearly 50 years ago. Let us forget the past and get on with the future". As a general proposition, particularly in the light of the current events in Eastern Europe, this must be right. However, should this apply in the case of alleged crimes against humanity? As Robert Kennedy put it:
"moral duties have no terms".
No country did more than Great Britain to exorcise the vile creed of Nazism —an overpowering evil that threatened to poison the very soul of mankind. We all realise that the dead cannot be brought back to life, their unborn children created or the permanently scarred returned to normal health. But we must never forget the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill". It is a cornerstone of our civilisation. For that reason —while respecting the experienced opinions on war crimes expressed to the contrary —I support the findings and recommendations contained in the moving report presented by Sir Thomas Hetherington and Mr. William Chalmers.
6.33 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am glad to leave it to the noble and learned Lords —notably Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Hailsham and Lord Havers —to deal tellingly, as they have done, with the question of retrospection and the proposal to bend our legal system so as to achieve specific short-term objectives, with all the alarming precedents that this could set.
Perhaps I may venture to suggest that to act in the selective fashion which this report proposes—would result in this country adopting double standards which could not be justified.
Suppose that one could prove, as one probably can, that the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, Japan and their hangers-on in the Balkans and elsewhere—committed a hundred times as many atrocities as the allied powers, excluding the Soviet Union, and 10 times as many as the allied powers, including the Soviet Union. That would not alter the fact that we are not considering collective guilt but individual guilt. We are not considering a conspiracy to commit genocide.
If I may say so, many of those who support the recommendations of the committee seem to be talking with hindsight. It seems obvious to us today and probably to most of the public today that the Nazis engaged at a certain point in a massive conspiracy to commit genocide. But it was not obvious to anyone early in the Second World War, mainly because the idea of the "final solution" had not even been conceived then. It was not obvious to
650
anybody in the middle of that war and it was not obvious to anyone, other than the most highly informed people, as late as the autumn of 1944. It certainly would not have been obvious to semi-educated Ukrainians and others in 1941 and 1942. Most of them would have looked completely blank if one had mentioned words like "genocide" to them.
One individual war crime of a given magnitude is as bad as any other individual crime of a similar magnitude, no matter where in the world it was committed, in what decade it was committed, in what conflict it was committed and on which side of any given conflict it was committed.
So it would seem self-evident that if, after an interval of almost 50 years, we are going to resuscitate some mass murders and other atrocities and initiate prosecutions against those believed to be responsible, in logic and equity one must do the same in respect of all the massacres and atrocities perpetrated over the past 50 or 60 years, wherever in the world they may have occurred.
Let us consider some of the atrocities committed in this blood-soaked 20th century, concentrating upon the last 60 years and so skimming over the massacre of the 100,000 Hereros in what is now Namibia by the Imperial German Army in 1904 to 1905; the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, and the Lenin terror, which is only insignificant when compared with the very much greater Stalinist terror that followed.
It was the 1930s —the beginning of the period which we are considering —that brought Stalin's terror, in which between 8 million and 10 million are said to have died, many of them Ukrainians some of whom were the subject of these inquiries. Most of them were deliberately starved to death but large numbers also were shot and buried in mass graves. The year 1936 brought the Spanish Civil War in which both sides indulged in frightful barbarities although, it has to be said, children as opposed to women were not in general deliberately killed in that conflict. Late autumn 1937 saw the rape of Nanking in which about 20,000 Chinese, both military prisoners and civilians of both sexes, were decapitated, bayoneted, shot and drowned by Japanese troops, an action sanctioned at the highest levels.
Earlier in that year the Italians had massacred thousands of Abyssinians, following a revolt, having previously used poison gas against Abyssinian forces.
Then of course came World War II. We think we know all about the horrors and atrocities committed in that war, but we almost certainly do not. I shall return to that point in a moment. Immediately after the end of the war in Europe, 30,000 Yugoslav royalists were murdered by Tito, as a recent court case has reminded us. About 46,000 Cossacks and some of their women-folk were murdered by Stalin.
The Indian partition massacres should not perhaps be included in this tally in so far as they appear to have been spontaneous outbreaks, not organised from above. However, I am open to correction from historians of the period. In 1947 the French —the Free French, incidentally, not the Vichy

651
French —put down a revolt in Madagascar with enormous loss of life among the indigenous population. I believe that something like 27,000 were killed. I am just taking random examples here. On a very much smaller scale, more than 200 inhabitants of the Arab village of Deir Yassin —mainly old men and women —were murdered by the Stern gang.
Numerous atrocities from 1954 onwards were perpetrated by both sides in the Algerian War and later by both sides in the war in Vietnam. Of course Western television cameras and news photographers were not present to witness the much greater number of murders perpetrated by the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese. Nor did the Chinese Communists, who were busy throughout this period murdering up to 20 million people both at home and in Tibet, allow the Western media to be present at these events.
Most Westerners know a good deal about the horrors of Uganda, Cambodia and the Lebanon. However, not as many as should be are aware of the near extinction of the Bahai's by the Iranians, the attempted genocide of the Kurds by the Iraqis by the use of poison gas, the repression of the Christian and pagan negroid tribes of the southern Sudan by the northern Moslems and the cruel oppression of almost everybody, not only minorities, by the Ethiopian Marxists.
I should like to return to the subject of the Indian sub-continent. Noble Lords may remember how the West Pakistani general in charge of trying to defeat the revolt in what was then East Pakistan, exhorted his men not only to kill men and women, but also children, on the highly practical grounds that if the children's lives were spared, there was a danger that they would grow up and seek to take revenge upon West Pakistanis.
The beautiful island of Sri Lanka is a by word for death squads at the moment, as most of Latin America has been for decades. Only last week, according to the Daily Telegraph, Amnesty International complained that the Peruvian armed forces,
"killed or tortured hundreds of babies and children".
Large-scale killings over the past 40 years have also occurred in Burma, Indonesia and above all Syria, generally speaking away from the gaze of the Western media. Even in little Cyprus children have been deliberately murdered by people on both sides.
I should like to revert briefly to World War II. Some of your Lordships may recently have seen an excellent "Timewatch" programme on BBC2 which revealed the terrible Italian atrocities committed in Yugoslavia during that war and how all the generals responsible escaped prosecution by the allies for reasons of realpolitick. Brigadier Fitzroy MacLean in his famous account of the war in the Balkans entitled Eastern Approaches published in 1949, described seeing hundreds of German prisoners shot by Russians —doubtless in retaliation for earlier killings of Russian prisoners by the Germans. Objectively speaking, that was a war crime nevertheless.
With rather less provocation the Americans also shot prisoners, not always in the heat of battle and
652
not always members of the Waffen SS. Some, from photographs I have seen were bewildered-looking youths of 16 or 17. A recent book published in Canada alleges that after the end of hostilities the Americans deliberately allowed hundreds of thousands of German prisoners of war to die of starvation, exposure and, above all, thirst. I should like to think that Britain's hands were spotless, but am aware of a couple of incidents, one in the European theatre of war and one in the Far East, which I hope are very rare exceptions to the rule.
What are the common threads that run through this unpleasant litany? They are two-fold. First, nearly all the incidents were organised, encouraged, or tolerated by people in authority. Very few were spontaneous. The second common thread is that practically nobody has been tried for such crimes, or is ever likely to be tried, as little as five years after the event, let alone 50 years afterwards. On the contrary, some of those directly or indirectly responsible have been received as honoured guests in other Western democracies —more often than not, once again, for reasons of realpolitik.
It is sometimes supposed that Stalin strangled his 8 million to 10 million victims with his bare hands. He was clearly not capable of doing so: tens of thousands of Russians assisted him in this task and many of them, after his death, remained in positions of power in the Soviet Union, and many travelled throughout the world.
I should like to enlarge the point about realpolitik. The "Timewatch" programme described how the Italian generals who were guilty of massacre in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia escaped prosecution. It also revealed that by an ironic twist of fate the only Italian general to be executed happened to be an anti-Fascist noted for his humanity, and in particular his humanity towards captured allied prisoners. However, British public opinion at the time demanded a scapegoat, so poor General Bellomo was executed on what in this instance appeared to be an almost trumped-up charge.
In a similar fashion Emperor Hirohito escaped prosecution for reasons of realpolitik—and one certainly cannot quarrel with General MacArthur's reasons for that. However, in compensation as it were, a fair number of Japanese officers were executed for war crimes. Some of them were undoubtedly guilty; others, with hindsight, were borderline cases. However, public opinion in Britain, Australia, Holland and the United States would not be content with a mere handful of executions.
Therein lies the danger of seeking to throw a sop to public opinion. It is often easier to go for the small fry and the hangers-on, particularly as the latter are unlikely to be able to afford clever defence lawyers who can root out the skeletons in other people's cupboards. Nor, in the case of the Ukrainians and the people from the Baltic states, will they have benefited from the German Nazi mafia, flush with the proceeds of looted art treasures which enabled genuine German and Austrian Nazis to lead comfortable new lives in South America.
One must ask oneself, as other noble Lords have, whether a fair trial will be possible. It has already

653
been declared in a very popular television programme, watched by millions, that the suspected war criminals living in Britain, first, conducted terrible medical experiments upon prisoners in concentration camps and, secondly, that they individually murdered hundreds of thousands of people. If that were really the case, my attitude to this matter might be different. As far as I know, it is absolute nonsense. However, the impression that these people were guilty of conspiracy to commit large-scale genocide will have been etched indelibly upon the subconscious minds of television viewers and hence potential jurors all over Britain.
This is not to argue that involvement in the killing of whole categories of people and their families merely because you have been led to believe that some of them may be sympathetic to, or partly responsible for, the communism from which you and your families may earlier have suffered, is in any way excusable. It is not excusable. But I should like to put things into perspective. The crimes that we are talking about are not unique in the history of the past one hundred years. They are comparable to many other equally horrible but equally unpunished crimes committed in various parts of the world.
Moreover, I do not think that one can overlook the fact that most of these crimes will be 50 years old by the time that cases would come to trial, if ever they do. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and my noble friend Lady Saltoun have asked, can we be certain that a man of 68 is the same person in any real sense as the callow and brutal youth of 18 that he once was? Can we be certain that a senile man of 80 is the same as the ruthless fanatic of 30 that he once was? I do not know the answer to that question, but I suspect that they are essentially not the same people.
Let us consider two final points. Would the statesmen of 40 years ago —for example, Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, the Labour Cabinet of 1949 and the Conservation Opposition Front Bench of 1949, were they still all alive today —be in favour of these men being brought to trial? On the evidence given in paragraphs 3.71 to 3.81 in the report, and the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, one suspects that they would not.
About a year ago the newspapers told a story of a Japanese ex-serviceman: I cannot remember whether he had been a private soldier or NCO. He had played a minor role in the horrible rape of Nanking in November and December 1937, and had had that on his conscience ever since. At long last he felt compelled to apologise publicly to the Chinese people for his part in the massacre, to the annoyance of some of his right-wing compatriots. In so far as such an atrocious business can have a satisfactory ending at this distance in time, surely a satisfactory ending took place. Equilibrium, in a curious way, was restored. Justice was done, in a way in which it almost certainly would not have been done if this old man had been put on trial 51 years after the terrible events in which he took part.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Blake: My Lords, I should like to pay tribute to the lucidity and clarity of the report. It is
654
admirably written and refutes the notion that a semi-legal report of this kind from government quarters has to be written in Whitehall or Inns of Court jargon. It is a cut above that and I commend it to your Lordships.
However, I differ from its recommendations. I go along with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, my noble and learned friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Havers, and my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel who, among many other noble Lords, with their great authority, are against the recommendations.
I propose to be very brief, your Lordships will be glad to hear. I should not have spoken at all, since at this stage of the evening nearly every argument that can be put has been used, were it not for the fact that no vote is to be taken on the matter. I believe that a vote should be taken and that it is wrong not to do so. However, it is too late to do so now. If there is not to be a vote, the only way in which your Lordships' House can indicate its opinion is in terms of the number of noble Lords who speak on the subject on one side or the other. That is my reason for speaking; and that is why I shall be brief.
Whether or not one calls it retrospective, it seems to me that to introduce legislation to make liable for prosecution people who would not be liable under the present law would create a very dangerous precedent. It is unjust and it is wrong. For that reason I am against the report's recommendations.
I have listened with interest to the very moving speeches of some of those who are in favour of taking action. I was very impressed by the speeches of the noble Lord the Chief Rabbi, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who made a very moving speech. Nonetheless, I believe that that is the wrong way to proceed. Of course we are agreed on the horrors that occurred; they were appalling. Those of us who are against taking steps to change the law in order to prosecute people who might have had some responsibility for those horrors must be given credit for sharing the revulsion and disgust which every Member of this House feels.
I am concerned primarily with the proposal to change the law and to do so retrospectively.
I am no less worried by the recommendation to change the laws of evidence in order to make it easier to convict people who can only be prosecuted as a result of a change in the existing law. I believe that to be a totally indefensible proposal. I am very much against it and I hope that your Lordships will share that view. Recent Acts dealing with criminal justice have changed the rules of evidence, and this question ought to have been considered when that legislation was introduced. It is quite wrong to change the rules now, when the whole question of evidence has so recently been the subject of legislation, and to apply the changes to a particular and limited class of people who might be prosecuted if the law is changed. I find that suggestion very repugnant indeed.
There is one further matter which 11 should also like to mention. I should like to pay tribute to the letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, which is in The Times today. He referred to the argument that the action proposed by the

655
report would have a deterrent effect on possible future war crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, listed —at very great length —various atrocities, evils and crimes which have been committed, many of them since the Nuremberg Trials and since those offenders were hanged for what they had done. What degree of deterrence has that had? Very little, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross said. What degree of deterrence would condemning a few miserable old men in their seventies to life imprisonment have on anyone in the future? I very much hope that your Lordships will reject the report.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I rise to make my contribution, which will be considerably shorter than it might have been earlier in the day, to this interesting debate. Perhaps I may express my own thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for calling attention to the report and giving your Lordships' House an opportunity to consider this very important topic.
At the outset, perhaps I may try to put the matter into some form of historical perspective. I should like first to refer to paragraph 3.1, which deals with the reasons why the war trials faded out. It reads:
"Consequently, as had been predicted, for a variety of reasons, public and political opinion turned against the continuation of trials and Britain's activities in this field in occupied Europe had come to an end by 1950, by which time responsibility had been handed to the emerging Federal Republic".
Then we come to a very interesting sentence in the report:
"Very little thought was given to war criminals in the United Kingdom as this was believed to be unlikely to arise".
Therefore, over a period of more than 40 years no serious thought has been given to the possibility that there might be war criminals in this country. It is only as recently as 1986 that moves towards discovering whether or not there are criminals in this country were started. They have been followed through with this report.
Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 3.6 of the report, which is important in the context of what we are considering. It deals with Cabinet policy in 1942 and reads:
"The Cabinet also approved in general terms a policy on war criminals, the general principles of which were outlined in a note sent on 6 August 1942 to Allied Governments. This stated that policy and procedures, including the nature of judicial tribunals, should be agreed between the Allied Governments. It also proposed that the punishment of war criminals should be disposed of as soon as possible after the war, in order:
(a) to secure rapid justice".
However one looks upon the terms of the report, and whatever is done to follow it through in the form of prosecutions, there can certainly be no rapid justice for the individuals involved.
The paragraph continues:
"to prevent so far as possible wronged individuals from taking the law into their own hands".
The likelihood of that happening is now perhaps more remote than it was in the 1940s.
The final reason was:
"to prevent trials from dragging on for years and so delaying the return to a peaceful atmosphere in Europe".
656
Other Members of your Lordships' House have already raised the issue of the effect of setting out on what was described as a show trial on a return to a peaceful atmosphere in Europe, which is now gathering pace with recent events. The theory of retribution and summary execution on identification has no part in modern Europe, whatever part it played in history.
The third part of the report to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is the concluding paragraph, 9.56. That paragraph sets the parameters for action and sets out the difficulties in which the Government is placed, and indeed which we all face. It reads:
"Given the ages of the suspects and witnesses we consider that any proposed legislation should be introduced and brought into force as quickly as possible".
Hasty law has a habit of being bad law. If we are pressurised into making bad law we shall pay for it in the future.
The report, compiled by an inquiry team which was obviously working under great pressure, is a fascinating and comprehensive review of the sad events of many years ago which are still with us. They will remain with us for as long as people who were and are affected by those terrible events and who were responsible for them survive. The emotion evoked by phrases such as "war crimes", "crimes against humanity" and "genocide" is such that to deal with the issues involved requires a considerable degree of objectivity. It requires objectivity in facing the reality of obtaining a conviction, or perhaps not proceeding, against the alleged perpetrators of war crimes and balancing that against the natural and continued desire of those affected by the crimes to ensure that justice is done not only to the living but to the dead. In one way, the living may be called the lucky ones —the survivors of the conflict —while the families of the dead are the continuing victims of the brutality that war breeds and the resentment that goes with it for all time. However, those humane considerations must not allow us to twist our normal standards of prosecution to achieve a result. Once the laws of evidence are changed, they will be incorporated into the law of the country for all time or at least until they are further changed.
The inquiry has faced those problems with a realistic approach and, subject to the restraints under which it worked, has produced a report which is of considerable importance even if no one is convicted of any war crime at the end of the day. The historical analysis contained in the report is a cogent reminder to today's generations of how things can go so badly wrong in the heat of conflict when reason and judgment are left behind and acts are committed, purportedly on behalf of the nation state, which leave the mind numbed and chilled in the retrospective review of it all and in the calmer and cooler time of peace.
That being the case, we must treat the matter very calmly. I was somewhat perturbed at the composition of the inquiry team. It had the look —I say this with great respect to the two members of the team —of a prosecution oriented inquiry. On the face of it, it lacked any lay or judicial balance of

657
input. That has been sharply focused by our interesting discussion about whether the legislation is retrospective. Time is against us, but perhaps the report should be submitted to a panel of judges for a considered judicial view as to whether it is retrospective legislation. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, if it is not retrospective legislation, why not get on with the trials if that is what is wanted?
In fairness to the members of the team, both are distinguished members of the prosecuting systems of Scotland and England. It may be for the very reason that I indicated —the haste with which this is being done —that they were chosen as experienced prosecutors so that a report could be produced as quickly as possible. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the report for the balance which it has tried to maintain in the difficult matters that were investigated. It deals with all the difficulties for prosecution and defence of an investigation into events of considerable antiquity in relation to which the evidence, where not recorded accurately and fairly at the time or closely after the event, must be looked at with considerable care to prevent any injustice being done to anyone against whom proceedings may be taken. It is plain that it has faced up to those difficulties. It is now up to Parliament to decide what, if anything, is to be done about those cases referred to in the report.
In reading the report and taking opinions from others —most of whom, although having heard about it, have had no opportunity to read the report —I must confess that I have swithered and changed my mind one way and another from time to time. The arguments are well set out in the report and I do not intend to rehearse them in detail. They have been gone over more than once. The basic question is whether we, as a country, should pursue persons reaching the end of their lives about events which happened 50 years ago, or whether, with the new Europe on the scene in 1992 and with the extraordinary events now happening throughout Europe, particularly in Russia and East Germany, we should adopt a charitable view that no good purpose will be served by any such prosecution and, indeed, considerable harm might be done. The report is not a political document in any way, but it would be interesting to know what the team view would have been in the light of the political developments in Europe. It may well have been the same.
It is plain that those who dealt in death and destruction of other human beings deserve to be punished severely, and the earlier the better, but that objective can no longer be achieved 50 years on. We are therefore dealing with a unique matter, historically, legally and evidentially. We are being forced into corners and are cutting corners about evidence with the hope that perhaps two people will be brought not to justice, but to trial.
There are great problems —I do not want to rehearse them again —about video taping, taking statements from people abroad and so on. Perhaps I may put it briefly. The essential feature of trials in Britain —I do not distinguish between north and south of the border—is the presence of the accused. The system being suggested here means that the
658
accused will be further and further away from the evidence and will therefore not be in a position to instruct his counsel or solicitor, assuming that they are present when the evidence is taken. Common sense dictates that, if some of the accused were brought before the court here and there were any truth in the allegations against them, they would probably not dare to enter the country where the evidence was being taken for fear of reprisal. There is a danger in going in for artificial evidence. That is what is being created here. We must move with the times and make use of cameras and all the rest of it in the proper circumstances, but not with the sole objective of obtaining a desired result.
There have been varying reactions in various places as to how to deal with that problem. And we are now faced with our problem. One difficulty is that we do not know from the report what the weight of evidence is. We are told that it is sufficient evidence, but we are not told its sufficiency. When the report refers in paragraph 9.50 to horrific mass murder in the cases that have been investigated, it does not tie this down to the three cases that it wishes to see carried through. I do not know—perhaps noble Lords know better than I do from reading it —whether the observation, namely, that there are three cases of horrific mass murder almost ready to be set in motion, is true.
For obvious reasons, we cannot see the evidence. That raises a difficult problem because, as was said earlier, we must test the quality of the evidence. On the face of it, there may be a legal sufficiency of it according to a variety of sources, some unreliable and some perhaps reliable. But we must have quality of evidence before we start out on this road which will cause a furore whichever way it goes. If we do nothing, there will be a furore in some quarters; if we do something, there will be a furore in other quarters. We do not know what sufficiency means. I do not make a nationalistic point. Is it sufficiency by the standard of Scottish law with corroboration which has figured so sharply in the recent events concerning the Guildford Four? Or is there a different standard of sufficiency? Until Parliament knows the weight and quality of the evidence and what is meant by sufficiency, how on earth can Parliament launch the country into the prosecutions, if indeed any are to take place?
Perhaps I may demonstrate the new problem in this case about evidence. Paragraph 9.41 deals with Scotland and with taking evidence about a person who is proved now to be dead. It deals with the matter in some detail and then recommends that statements taken from such persons should be admitted. However, it does not give that admission the qualifications which it has in our law. Certain conditions must be fulfilled to make sure that it is a genuine statement from the person. Perhaps the most revealing evidential sentence in the report is the last one in that paragraph. It refers to statements given by witnesses and states:
"Questions might be raised regarding the impartiality of the Soviet investigators".
Let us take an instance where the person who has since died was interrogated in whatever year —1942, 1945 or 1950 —by investigators with certain

659
objectives in mind, and that part and parcel of the statement is a reported indentification. How can the defence test whether it is a genuine identification? The problem is that it is that statement which will have brought the person into court. Even if the judge excludes it at that point and no prosecution succeeds, terrible damage is done to a person who may well be innocent in the whole matter.
There are many other interesting elements in this debate but I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' House any further at this hour of night. There are other speakers who no doubt have much to say. Having changed my mind first one way and then the other, I have still not made it up completely. I have found this debate very interesting as part of a learning process. My initial reaction was to say that we should forget it and let bygones be bygones; we should look to the new Europe, be that constructive or otherwise. In fairness to generations of sufferers, I am no longer entirely convinced that that is the correct approach. I want to read what has been said in this debate before I come to a final conclusion. Whatever happens, something must be done quickly before any more harm is done to the nation's morale in this very emotive area of public life.
7.10 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, once again I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for having interrupted his speech. I am very glad that I listened to him, though he ended up in the same state as the Government —not knowing quite what to do and seeking the advice of the House.
Throughout the whole of this debate I have been deeply moved. There has not been one dissenting voice to the horror of what happened in those terrible years. I was particularly moved by the words of the former Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. I usually find myself expressing similar views on the horrors of that time because in the autumn of 1945 I visited Auschwitz. I saw rooms full of human hair that had been shaved off before people went to the gas chamber. I saw a room full of false teeth and another room full of shoes, including those of little children.
It is easy to stir emotions on this subject but it seems to me that there is a generation that does not know how low humankind can sink, as it did at that time. At Nuremberg I sat and listened to a great deal of debate. In my heart I am sorry not only that my good friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is ill but that he is not able to stand here now. We know his views. They were expressed clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his opening address tonight. We know also the views of the learned Sir Thomas Hetherington and William Chalmers, who are very distinguished lawyers. I am sure that no one in this House would dispute that fact. We find that the lawyers themselves do not agree upon the course that should be pursued. If their legal voices had been here to strengthen the argument advanced by others in this House in favour of the proposals, there might now be a different feeling in this Chamber.
660
By chance, I am the first Gentile to speak in support of these proposals. It is purely a matter of chance because of my place in the list. There may well be other noble Lords who will follow my lead. I listened to some of the arguments that we did not know the evidence; but how can we know the evidence? That is for the court to examine. The principle remains: are we to stand out as different from all the other nations in Europe, different from Canada, different from Australia and different from the USA in saying that it is too late, however great the horror?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting, but it has been said more than once that the USA is pursuing a course similar to these proposals. It is not; it is against the bill of rights. It is deporting those who are charged.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble and learned Lord. However, in stripping of their Ameican citizenship those who are charged, the USA is taking very serious steps against the people concerned. If they are then sent back to the country whence they came, they may well be put on trial. So the United States is not taking the line which says, "Send for the bowl of water. We shall wash our hands and say that this is not for us. We are above it. We shall forget what happened".
I know very well that we are not asked to decide whether the individuals are guilty. Sir Thomas Hetherington, the former public prosecutor, and Mr. Chalmers are satisfied, having seen the evidence that we have not seen, that there is a case for a charge. I am a Christian believer, and when people say to me, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord" I reply —and not only in this instance—"In that case you can close down the law courts". If one says in any difficult case, "Vengeance is mine saith the Lord", one must do that.
Man's inhumanity to man is accepted by all. However, tonight we and Her Majesty's Government should remember that France, Holland and West Germany continue to mount both investigations and prosecutions. Added to that, we should remember Canada and Australia. To think that the little United Kingdom, which played such a part in the name of the dignity of man and the freedom of the human race, should say, "Not me; leave them alone" and say it only because they succeeded in bamboozling the Home Office into letting them have British citizenship, which they would never have enjoyed had that evidence been available; it is only because their dishonesty has been successful!
If Sir Thomas Hetherington is right, are we now to say, "Let us have pity on them. They are old"? I am old. I am old enough to know that if we close our eyes to an issue of this kind we shall not be in harmony with the heritage of our people. I believe that we shall be side-stepping a difficult and painful issue because it is easier for us to turn our back on it. We have been told that the good name of Britain is at stake. I believe that it is. The good name of this land is at stake among free men everywhere. Are they to learn that the people of Britain who had such

661
a different spirit when the terror rained down upon us now say, "Well, it is a long time ago"?
We are not going to have an army on trial. We say, in the words of Sir Thomas Hetherington, that if there is sufficient evidence that murder has been committed then they shall be charged. As the whole House knows, I am not a lawyer. But I understand that today in this land, if evidence emerges of a murder committed many years ago, there will be a prosecution and the person involved will be charged. In this case the only difference is that these people were not British citizens when it happened but have become so since.
The debate has been conducted in a wonderful way, with restraint, dignity and compassion on both sides. But I agree with the recommendation in the report. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise that in this land of ours there are millions who share my opinion.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, how can we deport people who have not been convicted of a crime in a court of law?
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, we are not asked to do that, as I understand it. All that we are asked to do when there is sufficient evidence is to ensure that there is a prosecution. As I understand it, that is all that we are asked to do. I thought that above all this House stood for law and order.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, we have just listened to a very impressive and moving speech of the highest standard of debate in your Lordships' House. My only regret is that while I normally wholeheartedly agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, I cannot entirely agree with him on this occasion.
When the noble Lord, Lord Walston, opened his very excellent speech, he apologised for addressing your Lordships. I feel therefore that it might be necessary for me to do the same and to give a reason for taking part in the debate, apart from the fact that I am a Member of your Lordships' House and a human being.
My wife is a Polish lady whose father, mother and family suffered in the terrible times of the Second World War. They suffered not only from the German occupation but, in the case of my wife's mother, equally from the Soviets when she was driven from her home and had to take refuge in the German occupied area. Therefore what I say to your Lordships is coloured and informed to a considerable extent by the views that I have heard expressed to me by these very good Polish people, and through an interpreter.
In paying tribute to those who drew up the report, I should like to compliment them on their very clear and fair setting out of the historical background in Chapter 2. Indeed, the report so far as I could understand it —although some of the legal arguments are a little beyond a layman —is very well put together. I am therefore left a little puzzled by the recommendations with which I cannot agree.
662
The historical background in its essence has not been very much dealt with this evening. It is well known. It is one of the great tragedies of our time. It originated with the infamous Ribbentrop-Molotov pact which is only now being mentioned in the popular press in Eastern Europe although the people knew about it long before. This signalled the start of the Second World War.
Briefly, to sum up what happened, as a result of this pact, Poland —which was desperately defending itself, as those of us who were alive at that time remember, and which was also an ally of this country —was treacherously attacked without warning or pretext on 17th September 1939 by the Soviet Union. Furthermore, as an integral part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact the three Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were occupied by Soviet troops. As I read the report, by July 1940 those countries ceased to be independent.
Those to whom I have spoken who directly experienced these times nearly all agree that the Soviet regime in Eastern Poland and the Baltic Republics was every bit as brutal and oppressive as the Nazi regime in Western Poland.
The report is quite clear on these facts. But I think it is true to say that we usually have only one side of the story: the German atrocities, concentration camps, death camps and so on. God knows, that is bad enough. But I believe that even now our Foreign Office does not accept that Soviet troops carried out the murder of Polish officers at Katyn, although this is well known to everyone else, so far as I know. Perhaps the Minister might care to comment on what the Foreign Office view is now of the Katyn massacre, because I believe that any day now the Soviet Union will admit that it was responsible. I therefore think that it is about time our Foreign Office did so. At that time on both sides of the dividing line in Poland and in the Baltic states, deportations, imprisonment, torture and murder were the order of the day in the Soviet occupied areas just as much as they were in the German occupied areas.
We have heard a lot from very eminent and honourable Jewish noble Lords in the debate. I hope that they will take what I say in good part. It is not supposed to be in any way an attack on Jewish people for whom I have the very greatest respect, although it might be an attack on a very few of them.
I understand that the pressure behind the drawing up of this report and it recommendations was, and still is, the Weisenthal Centre. It is natural that the Jewish people should concentrate almost wholly on crimes against Jewish people and thus to them the only villain is Nazi Germany. Atrocities against other nationalities are possibly not in their province. That is to a large extent understandable, particularly in view of the appalling atrocities that were committed against them. However, as the report also makes clear, there was another side to the story. Not only gentiles sinned in those days. I draw your Lordships' attention to page 9 of the report, paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18, where it is made clear that Jews were prominent if not dominant in the Soviet repression of the Baltic republics that preceded the

663
German invasion. No one has yet suggested that those who were engaged in the Soviet repression, whether Jew or gentile, should be hunted down and brought to justice. Yet the one was as bad as the other. So what is this all about? As one noble Lord asked: are atrocities all right so long as they are committed by the winning side?
I agree with the people who have spoken in favour of the report, that these people should have been brought to justice. But the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in an excellent speech, pointed out to us the difficulties of doing it at the time. However, if we are dealing with humanity, the Soviet criminals should have been brought to justice as well, but they were supposed to be our allies, so I do not know what we do about that.
It should all have happened 40 years ago. The trail is cold and most of the witnesses are dead. These people who are being pursued now have been living so far as we know blameless lives in this country for many years. They have families, children and grandchildren, none of whom is in any way to blame for what happened, but all of whom will suffer if this matter is taken any further.
We know how the families and close friends of people in these circumstances suffer very often more than the people who are accused, in particular when the people who are accused are old men at the end of their lives. I do not think that we ought to visit the sins of the fathers on the children who will suffer most at this stage. So far as I have heard, there is only one father involved. The father is now so old and the process of law so slow that he might be dead before any conclusion is brought to this matter. But the children will remember it. They are British citizens. They will live, and the bitterness will go forward through the generations.
Other noble Lords have dealt with the difficulty of procuring witnesses. I cannot believe that it is part of the duty of a British Government to hound innocent old men to their graves. But if we continue with this business, it is probable that we shall. I say "innocent" emphatically because we do not yet know whether or not they are guilty. It is quite possible that even this one man may be proved to be completely innocent.
In spite of certain comments that have been made in your Lordships' House today, I do not believe that such action will stop those incidents from happening again. I believe that the contrary may be the case because hatred breeds hatred and revenge breeds revenge. In monetary terms the cost of bringing such cases ought to put us off. However, the cost in moral terms and the perpetuation of hatred best forgotten may be incalculable. I beg Her Majesty's Government not to proceed further in the matter.
The terrible emotions felt during the 1930s and '40s are still just beneath the surface in Eastern and Central Europe. I know that from my experience of speaking to those people. I ask the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, "Do you really want to stir it all up again?" because that is what you would be doing. An outbreak of anti-Jewish feeling across half of Europe would be a tragedy in this otherwise hopeful era.
664
I say to your Lordships, and particularly to those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the report, let God judge the wicked. The past is beyond recall and nothing that happened can be changed. We have our children and our children's children to think of. We must not go back to those evil times. I hope that the report will signal the end of the matter.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am not sure that after 23 speakers your Lordships wish to hear another lawyer's speech so I shall be brief. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said, and said better than I could have done, by my noble and learned friends, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The non-legal aspects have been put by the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Home, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans.
I thought that I should join in the debate and trespass for a few minutes on your Lordships' time only because more than any Member of your Lordships' House —except for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, who unfortunately are not present —I was closely associated with the process of bringing the war criminals to justice at the end of the war. I was the senior legal officer on the British side in occupied Germany. I was first with the supreme allied headquarters and then the allied control commission. We were responsible for passing the necessary legislation, among which was the Allied Control Council Law No. 10 mentioned in the report. Part of that law was directed towards the administration of setting up the war crimes trials. Therefore, to some extent I was involved with the international military tribunal at Nuremberg and with tribunals set up in the various zones in Germany.
I visited, but did not take part in, the trial at Nuremberg. I also visited the trial of the managers of the Belsen concentration camp. Therefore, I came close to the appalling facts revealed at those trials. I was directly concerned in setting up the new purified Germany courts after the war to which it was British policy to transfer war criminal trials. I was also concerned with the preparation of the registers —the CROWCASS —of which mention is made in the report. When I was part of the Civil Service I was also concerned not only in Germany but later in this country with the policy as regards the hundreds of thousands of people from the Baltic states —the Ukraine, Poland and White Russia —who were then leaving Europe in order to start new lives in the West, either in North America or this country. That is a situation which is liable to be forgotten in this debate.
When that huge movement was occurring, it was perfectly plain to everyone that among those people there may be some who had participated to some degree in war crimes. There was no doubt about that. Some elementary screening was carried out but obviously not much. I believe that in full consciousness the decision was taken not to embark on a policy which would have been quite

665
impracticable; that of screening each person to see whether they had been involved in war crime activities.
To some extent I was involved in the formation of the policy of the British Government, although not so directly as was the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is set out most clearly in the report. Indeed, it is set out so clearly and convincingly that I find it difficult to understand how the inquiry arrived at its conclusion. Notwithstanding the policy of the British Government clearly stated and followed, it decided that we should now embark on a different course. The argument appears at paragraph 9.6 of the report. I am a great admirer of the report. It is splendid, well-researched and argued and most fair. However, some of its conclusions are a little weak. I believe that that conclusion does not begin to follow from the presentation which is made in Chapter 3 regarding the policy of the British Government.
We have heard described Mr. Churchill's policy of quick, direct action —that of shoot the criminals —through to the War Cabinet deciding that there must be trials on the basis of existing law. We acted on that in our zone and in the Government of Germany with complete willingness. The British Government played a full part in the international military tribunal in Nuremberg. Perhaps it is fair to say that we played a leading part. We played a full part in the trials in our zone in the military courts and in the military government courts.
The report makes a comparison between what we did at Belsen and what the Americans were able to do at Dachau and it is unfavourable towards us. However, it must be remembered that we had not one-tenth of the resources that the Americans had at that time. We had to make do with a number of military lawyers and a few who could be persuaded to come from this country. On the other hand, the Americans were equipped with full teams of splendid lawyers, many who were Jewish refugees from Germany. They were also fully equipped with logistics and secretarial assistance. It is not to be surprised or regretted and no apology should be made for the fact that we were unable to do so much.
I am sure that our part in those activities was honourable and complete, and one for which we need offer no apology. In view of that considerable justification and argument is required to persuade us that we should take a different course from that clearly decided. Namely, it was decided in 1949–50 to carry out no more war crimes trials. Noble Lords may remember that the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, wanted to terminate them in 1946. He was overruled by Mr. Attlee and Mr.Bevin. Nevertheless, the policy was carried out and completed by 1950. It was supported by public opinion in the country, by both Houses of Parliament and by the 1949 debate in which not a single dissentient speech was made.
What has happened since then to justify a reversal and a reverter to the policy of war crimes trials? Have there been any changes of fact and situation? Has new information been revealed? At the most it can be said that we were in a sense of security and not paying as much attention as we could have paid
666
to everyone living in the country. However, 40 years later no great revelation has been made which would justify the reversal of a thoroughly well-considered and just policy. On the whole, the British are not vengeful. It is in accordance with the British spirit that we should be severe when necessary but not pursue matters beyond what is best in the interests of peace and peaceful living together.
I turn to the decision urged upon us by the report —now to pass legislation —and I shall deal with the retrospective issue. The matter has been well argued on both sides. I shall not do so but one could develop a subtle legal argument about whether or not it is retrospective.
However, there are two points which I believe noble Lords might like to bear in mind which have not been fully put. The first point has just been referred to in another context by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. He raised the matter of what the Americans did. It was suggested to them that they should pass legislation enabling trials to take place in their country. They said that that was contrary to Article 9 of the constitution which says that no ex post facto legislation may be passed. That was made absolutely clear. Therefore, the Americans have not passed legislation, which we are now asked to pass, making it possible to try war criminals resident in America in American courts. They have taken a different line. Should we depart from that? Are we wiser than that? Surely we should pay considerable attention to that.
The other point worth bearing in mind is the existence of two important Acts which have been passed since the Second World War which might have covered this case. The Geneva Conventions Act 1957 enables trials to take place in this country of severe war crimes contrary to the Geneva Conventions 1949. The Genocide Act 1969 enables trials to take place in this country of acts of genocide contrary to the Genocide Convention. However, in paragraphs which your Lordships have seen, the report says that those Acts cannot be used because to use them would be retrospective. They cannot be used retrospectively. Therefore, what does the report do? It suggests achieving the same result by the back door and passing legislation on the basis of murder, manslaughter and, most extraordinarily, on the basis of residence in this country which has never been a basis in criminal law.
I believe that one should not rely on legal technicalities but on the deeply felt sense, not only among lawers but among ordinary people, that what looks like retrospective legislation should not be adopted. That is based on a moral feeling, as referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisale, that that is wrong and also on the consciousness that when there is retrospective legislation, there are liable to be very great difficulties as regards the method of trial and evidence.
That brings me very briefly to the third aspect of the case; namely, the preparation of the trial. It is no good thinking here in terms of a short quick trial of one person, whether or not it is a show trial. Once the process is started, it must be completed. Legislation must be passed in the first place. That is

667
not very easy. One must also cater for the situation of evidence in Scotland. The process may well take a year. That having been passed and the decision to prosecute having been made, some of these wretched people will have to be arrested, held in custody and added to the 1,200 people in remand prisons awaiting trial. There will be a preparation for trial which I would guess could not take less than two years having regard to the material which has to be gone through.
Let us just consider the material which the report discloses to us. There are three separate sets of archives in Berlin alone and archives in Bonn, Munich, Ludwigsburg, Coblenz, Potsdam, Vienna and Jerusalem. Anyone who has been through the Yad Vashem can only be conscious of the very great difference in the quality of evidence lying there. There is masses of it but how much of it would be useful in a legal case is very much open to doubt. Washington has a great amount of evidence and there is a great deal in Soviet hands. Much of that has not been gone through at all. The report tells us that the Soviet authorities are quite incapable of coping with the mass of evidence there in such a way as to meet Western demands. All of the archive evidence would have to be sifted. I know much has been done already but the defence would need an opportunity to go through that evidence if the defence is to be properly conducted.
There is then the problem of witnesses. We are told that 40 witnesses have been interviewed by the Commission in relation to one case. Again, some may be useful and some not, but the defence would have to have an opportunity of looking at them, interviewing them and finding witnesses of their own.
We then come to the evidence. I am not so troubled about the problem of a TV link and changing the law of evidence, as perhaps some of your Lordships are, although I agree that one must not change the rules to meet this particular case. I believe that the use of modern methods is quite impracticable in relation to this type of trial. It just is not on. A trial cannot be conducted with 40 people scattered all over Europe speaking different languages with interpreters and so on, and being cross-examined through a video link. That is simply not possible. I do not believe we should worry very much about that, although, I would dislike it if it were recommended to your Lordships, because for the purposes of a trial the witnesses must be here and the accused must have a proper opportunity of being confronted by the witnesses.
There is then the trial itself. The trial of Demjenjuk in Israel took 14 months. Perhaps we can be a bit quicker than that, but let nobody suppose that it will be an easy trial. It will be a prolonged and painful trial. It will not give satisfaction to the public and will cause a great deal of distress to the people involved. It will cost a lot of money.
If one links that with the retrospective argument —and one really follows from the other —it seems to me that we should not go down that path.
668
I should like to answer the point on the position of other countries. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, urged on us that we should not stand alone and that we should be conscious of what is being done in other countries. I agree with that up to a point but it should not be overstated. The report gives the evidence as to what other countries are doing and they are acting differently. I believe that I am right in saying that no one has embarked on the path of retrospective legislation. Indeed, in the Federal Republic, the Basic Law prohibits it as does the American Constitution so that that door has not been opened.
Belgium is not trying anybody. Sweden has been asked to pass retrospective legislation and has not done so. America has refused to pass retrospective legislation and is deporting or depriving people of citizenship. Therefore, one is left with Canada and Australia. I agree that those are important countries with which we should very much like to be in line. However, they do not give us a very useful precedent. Canada passed an Act in 1987 which gives a very wide definition of what can be tried there —a trial to be based on presence in Canada and not citizenship or residence. The definition given is as wide as the Nuremberg definition of crimes against humanity. In any event, we are not going to go down that path. It is only recommended that we should try murder or manslaughter amounting to a war crime. Therefore, we shall not follow Canada.
Australia passed an Act in 1989. Again, that is a very wide test based in that case on residence but that has not been tested in the courts. That is a very wide definition which includes wounding, rape and a whole lot of other offences. Again, we are not going down that path. In any case, no prosecution has yet been launched in Australia and I do not believe that one has been launched either in Canada. There is no valuable precedent.
We should take our own course based on our own convictions and record. Our record is perfectly honourable. I cannot believe that the name of this country would be in any way in jeopardy if we adhered to our policy which was carefully thought out and adopted by the British people and both Houses of Parliament in 1949. I very much hope that we shall not go down the road advocated by the report.
7.49 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. I believe that I have listened to every speech. I shall be brief because so much has been said and I am not a lawyer and cannot compete with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, whose speech I found absolutely fascinating. I learnt an enormous amount from it.
At the outset I should like to say how sorry I am that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is not with us this evening. He is the one person who would have been able to tell us so much from his own experience and I hope that messages will be sent to him to say how much we regret his absence.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Jakobovits, Lord Wolfson, and my noble friend Lord Beloff. I am on that side because I have spent a great

669
deal of my adult life working with the Israelis and I have friends in the Israeli world. We should do anything we can to justify and protect the Israelis. We in the United Kingdom have always supported the principles which are involved in the report. Crime should be reported, trials should be just and fair and the people to be tried should be British citizens. In the cases described in the Hetherington Report, the people concerned were not born in Britain but have been granted British nationality. If the crimes they committed are of the appalling nature of the Nazi Holocaust, they should be tried despite the length of time which has elapsed since the end of the war. At the trial they should be allowed all the defence they ask for. Every fairness should be allotted to them.
The crimes that have been committed are recognised by several European countries. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, described them to us just now. In our country all the rights of the accused will be recognised. The verdict on any person brought to trial will be decided by the jury, as it is today in all criminal trials. I understand that the principles covering all trials will be allowed to all the accused. The Hetherington Report stresses that if the accused are British citizens by birth there will be no question that they should stand trial. I am concerned, as we all are, with the matter of the age of the accused. That is of great importance, but according to the report the jury will judge whether the accused is too old or frail to be brought to trial. That is another safeguard.
According to the report, the United Kingdom is the last of the great powers involved in the last war to bring war criminals to justice. On principle alone our law should cover these criminals as it does all other criminal offences. I am no lawyer, but I have been associated with the Jewish community and the state of Israel for all my adult life. I feel that in spite of the problems and the changes that would need to be brought about, justice should be done. I support the report.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope I may be allowed to put the record straight. With the greatest respect, the report does not put it in the charge of the jury to decide whether the accused is too old or too sick to stand trial. That is always a matter for the High Court judge.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I apologise if I made that mistake.
7.52 p.m
Lord Hankey: My Lords, this is a remarkably well written and instructive report and I have learnt a lot from it. However, I disagree with its conclusions. I think the time really has passed for starting more prosecutions for war crimes. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew, who was Minister of State in the Foreign Office at the time, that we consciously and deliberately stopped prosecutions in 1948 or 1949. I think it was 1949. I was head of the northern department in the Foreign Office at the time. I dealt with Russia and Eastern Europe and I agreed with
670
the decision. I honestly think it is too late to go back on that.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I stress that I am not soft about the Nazis. I propose to explain why that is. When I went back to Poland in July 1945, the city of Warsaw was largely destroyed. One heard appalling stories of its destruction, especially of the ghetto where several dearly loved Jewish friends of mine perished. I found it hard to believe how a nation like Germany with a thousand years of Christian civilisation behind it could conceivably have committed such crimes. I went to two extermination camps in September 1945 —Maidanek and Auschwitz —to see whether there was really proof of the awful stories one heard. I warmly support what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said. We should never believe what the neo-Fascists say about the stories being fabrications by vengeful allies. That is total bunkum. The real facts are ghastly. At Maidanek I went first to the gas chamber. The Nazis were punctilious. A receipt was given with a general breakdown by a prisoner every time he or she filled a gas chamber. I handled personally a huge file of receipts and was able to analyse their contents. The language was no problem to me. I knew German well as I had attended a German university. A typical receipt would state, for example:
"Received at the gas chamber at Maidanek at 11.20 a.m. on 3rd February 1942".
Then a list of about 35 people would follow. The following list would be fairly typical:
"12 Polish Jews with 3 children, 5 Poles, 2 Austrian Jews, 7 Ukrainian women with 3 children, 6 Belorussians, 1 Norwegian".
That is the kind of thing one saw. There was a huge pile of receipts. About 40 per cent. of those executed were Jews. There were plenty of others, especially people from Eastern Europe and Western Russia. Two of my polish friends who had been deported to Western Russia told me that the local populations, Belorussian and Ukrainian, were at first quite prepared to be liberated by the Germans. This can be seen in the report. However, much against the wishes of the German army officers, who were generally speaking respectable people, the SS men insisted on carrying out the Nazi policy to exterminate the races of Eastern Europe. This of course turned the population against the Germans. I certainly saw strong evidence of this at Maidanek.
We should never forget the old Latin tag:
"Quos Deus vult perdere prius dementat" —
he whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make crazy. If that does not apply to Hitler and those of his ilk, I do not know what does.
The bodies from the gas chamber, which was refilled with prisoners approximately every 20 minutes or half hour for about two years, were put into a row of ovens and burnt. The people in Lublin told me they always knew when a new batch of prisoners came in because the smoke went up very black. When the poor wretches who had been starved for months were fed into the ovens, apparently there was not very much smoke. The final white powder was distributed for use as bone meal. Everything was used. The prisoners were shaved before they entered the gas chambers. I saw a receipt for a consignment

671
of 1,200 kilograms of human hair. That is about one and a quarter tonnes. There must have been a lot of people to generate that.
I saw tins of gas labelled:
"Zyklon, poison gas, danger to life, only to be opened by trained personnel".
It was made by a firm in Hamburg. The highly coloured tins were marked, red, white and black.
I have also seen the shoes of the dead in a truly vast collection piled up on two sides of an army type hut. The shoes were piled four feet deep. There were smart shoes, workers' shoes, agricultural shoes, the kinds of shoes old French women wear when they go shopping, tiny children's shoes, Austrian shoes, Norwegian shoes and Polish shoes in quantity. There was every kind of shoe imaginable. There were said to be 800 pairs in the hut I saw and I was told it was the last of a number of collections.
The gas chambers could not always cope with the numbers involved. The SS men forced prisoners to push carts of bodies up a long hill and tip them into huge mass graves. That of course exhausted the prisoners further. Later, live prisoners were machine-gunned into the graves. The wounded were buried with the others. That was less trouble. I saw the huge pits.
At Auschwitz the gas chamber operation was mechanised, but I shall not weary your Lordships with more horrors. One has to try consciously not to let such memories poison one's thinking and ruin one's life. But noble Lords will easily see why I have never been soft about the Nazis, especially the SS. I swore never to shake hands with another SS man. I hope that I have not done so.
All the same, I cannot accept the conclusions of this otherwise excellent report that we should now, nearly half a century after the terrible events of the 1940s, change our law in order to start prosecuting alleged war criminals from those awful times. I have many reasons for saying that. First, it is much too long after the events to start again to prosecute, especially in the case of people who have become British subjects and who have lived among us respectably for so many years. I think it would greatly upset our people if we did that. We do not want our people to sympathise with those who are alleged to have committed atrocities, even 45 years ago or more. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made a magnificent case about that.
Secondly, this most interesting report shows clearly that most countries have stopped prosecutions of this sort partly because of valid statutes of limitation. I do not think that we are going to suffer from doing nothing. In fact, I believe it will be the other way about. Thirdly, I do not quite know why, but I did not at all enjoy the BBC accounts of the Barbie trial in Lyon or that equally famous trial in Israel which went on for months and months. I did not sympathise with Barbie, but, for good or ill, it left rather a bad taste in my mouth.
Fourthly, I understand only too well, after what I saw in Poland, the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" philosophy behind such prosecutions. The
672
same idea arises instinctively in one's breast when one thinks about what one has seen, but for good or ill I instinctively recoil from it. I do not think that our countrymen enjoy that approach. It is entirely against our good Christian upbringing and philosophy.
Fifthly, no one can think that we have been soft with the Nazis. German cities have been laid waste in a terrible way. I think of Dresden, Hamburg and Berlin. They were really incredible just after the war. The Nazis and their whole philosophy with them have been trodden into the ground and rejected world-wide. Their leaders have all died or been tried at Nuremberg or elsewhere, and they have been punished. Nazism is dead and we should do nothing to tempt some people to sympathise with it.
Sixthly, and very important, is this. It really is time to think forward and to generate positive support for the new Europe we absolutely must create. Not for half a century have we had such a magnificent opportunity to create a continent of co-operation, prosperity and peace. This is no time to waste brain power, resources or parliamentary and judicial time and genius digging up sterile cases from the past. For God's sake let us look around; let us look up and forward and not back. We have some formidable problems to solve —real, current human problems —and the whole world is in flux.
Finally, I wish to remind noble Lords of a very old, very wise, very British and very Christian motto: the noblest vengeance is to forgive.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I rise to wind up from these Benches, but on on my own behalf. I echo my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who opened up from these Benches. This is a subject for individual judgment and not for party line. That is the position of my party and I wind up on that basis.
The issue we have been debating is whether Parliament should pass legislation to enable the prosecution of a very few people—probably of great age —for war crimes, the mass murder of Jews, allegedly committed in what are now parts of Soviet Russia nearly half a century ago. My generation, which grew up in the war and whose fathers fought in it, knows that it was a just war. The Hetherington-Chalmers report describes psychopathic evil on a vast scale. Having just heard the horrors that the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, described, I have to say that the report is about the atrocities that are at the sinus of man's inhumanity to man.
I too have respect both for the detailed quality of the report and the good conscience of its authors. But as I read it not once but twice, and as I listened with care to views on all sides of this debate, I became more convinced that there is, in its reasoning, a central gap; a gap that cannot be filled and one which tells compellingly against the legislation proposed. Certainly the authors of this report, as former heads of criminal prosecution respectively in England and in Scotland, not unnaturally asked themselves the question which a responsible prosecutor must ask himself: is there evidence to give a realistic prospect of conviction? They conclude that in some cases there is.

673
That would be a sufficient question if this was an ordinary domestic case, but that is precisely what these cases are not. They concern events 40 or 50 years ago in unique conditions and largely in the Baltic states where most of the witnesses, whether for the prosecution or for the defence —I emphasise "for the defence" —are old or very old and now live in the Soviet Union. To my mind the question that this report poses is incomplete. It is not sufficient in these very special circumstances to ask only whether there is sufficient evidence available to the prosecution in some cases to give a realistic prospect of conviction. That is the only question that the report asks.
It is also necessary to ask: will the defendants to these charges in practice enjoy the same facilities as the prosecution from within the Soviet Union to enable them to bring evidence in their defence before British juries? If the answer to that question is that we cannot be satisfied that they will, then for my part what is proposed is a legislative adventure with which I would want nothing to do. One of the values for which we fought and for which so many died during the last war was freedom under the law. I would not devalue our standards for fair prosecution and trial to prosecute alleged war criminals, however horrific the crimes alleged.
I would not be so much deterred as other noble Lords by concerns about passing legislation which would give us a jurisdiction retrospectively over these offences. I would not, to prosecute alleged war criminals, permit our system of criminal prosecution and trial to apply standards of justice lower than those which we traditionally apply. These standards are not for compromise even where the allegation is that the defendant was a butcher in a death camp. We must remember that what is proposed is the assumption of an exorbitant jurisdiction over war crimes said to have been committed nearly half a century ago in Eastern Europe by persons who only subsequently became citizens of this country.
Therefore it is necessary to consider all the inherent and inescapable circumstances of these cases to decide whether prosecutions for which there is sufficient evidence could be brought, after the passage of legislation, in a way that would not compromise the standards of justice that we invariably apply in the conduct of criminal prosecutions and trials. If it cannot be done without compromising these standards, I submit that it should not be done at all.
I do not say that the delay of nearly half a century necessarily means that our standards of justice cannot be met. Delay is for me a potent factor, but not the most potent. Delay has a general tendency to turn justice sour; it always tends to prejudice the fairness of the trial of any issue. Delay means witnesses who cannot be traced, who die or disappear, forget or imagine. As the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, so wisely observed, old men forget. The greater the delay the greater the risk that justice cannot be done. The promise of Magna Carta was that to no one will we deny or delay right or justice.
Delay is by no means at an end. If legislation were to be decided upon it would take time to pass. The
674
report recommends further investigation into no fewer than 75 cases by the prosecuting authorities. That would take place after the legislation. Defendants would be well entitled to ask the judge at trial for a substantial adjournment to enable investigations to be made in Russia to prove innocence. The reality is that years of further delay lie ahead on top of the inordinate delay already.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that there is more to the case against this report than the fact of delay, which, as he rightly says, would not necessarily prevent a prosecution for murder committed in this country many years ago. It is not just the fact of delay that should influence us. It is the fact of delay in conjunction with the nature of the defence, which realistically will be the defence of the great majority, if not all, of these cases if they materialise. The defence will not be that the alleged butcher in the death camp did not exist; it will be that he did, but that the defendant was not the butcher. So the issue will be one of identification or of alibi nearly half a century after the events. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, drew attention to that point.
The typical direction by the judge to the jury in this country where the issue is identification is along the lines, "I must warn you of the special need for caution before convicting in reliance on the correctness of the identification. The reason for this is that it is quite possible for an honest witness to make a mistaken identification, and notorious miscarriages of justice have occurred as a result. A mistaken witness can be a convincing one, and even a number of apparently convincing witnesses can all be mistaken." Of course that warning would be given to juries if the prosecution, which the authors of the report contemplate, were to take place. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, expressed his confidence in our system of justice —the judge and the jury. But I ask myself whether justice is capable of being done. That question is not answered by applauding a system which has never before been asked to work and seek to do justice in such extraordinary circumstances. So the question I ask myself is whether we can be satisfied that the defendants would have any reasonable opportunity to track down in Russia and call at trial the evidence of witnesses they might require to support the defence that they were not the persons alleged.
The report itself concluded that at least one of the 17 names provided by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was plainly a case of mistaken identity. It also recorded that another name on the centre's list was withdrawn because the person said to have come to the United Kingdom was merely the namesake of a war criminal who had actually been tried in the Soviet Union. The report explains that, given the length of time that has passed since the crimes were allegedly committed, the difficulties of transliteration of names and the scanty information about the present whereabouts of these criminals, even the tracing of suspects was not an easy task. Elsewhere it recorded that, as more than 40 years have elapsed since the alleged crimes were committed, both eye witness testimony and documentary evidence have proved difficult to obtain. Some allegations were found to be completely

675
unsubstantiated or to be grounded on personal animosity rather than on fact. Manifestly, after almost half a century, the problem of the quality of identification evidence is acute.
Perhaps I may now draw the attention of the House to a key feature of our system of prosecution and trial —the duty of the prosecution to assist the defence. The prosecutor in this country, if he knows of a credible witness who can speak to material facts which tend to show the prisoner to be innocent, must either call that witness himself or make his statement available to the defence. The same rule is reflected in the Attorney-General's guidelines on the disclosure of information to the defence. I ask myself, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, asked himself in his speech, how these standards can be made to apply to prosecutions where most of the relevant evidence from individuals and documents, or a great deal of it, will be within the Soviet Union and concerns events which occurred nearly half a century ago.
The Government and the authors of the report have come down decisively against extradition of the suspects to stand their trials in Russia. The report puts it in rather less diplomatic language when it says:
"We could not be confident that a person extradited to the Soviet Union would necessarily receive the fair trial to which we consider he is entitled, and we consider that this view would be shared by the great majority of the British public".
The further question which this opinion prompts concerns the fairness of the trials that we are capable of securing when the principal evidence must come from the Soviet Union, to which we are unwilling to assign these suspects for trial. What assistance will defendants here be given to find evidence to assist them in the Soviet Union? I noted from the acknowledgements written by the authors of the report that on all their evidence-gathering visits they were accompanied by representatives of the Office of the Procurator General in Moscow, that it was not possible to visit the Soviet archives and that such material as was obtained was requested on the inquiry's behalf by representatives of the Moscow office. I noted that the Soviet authorities appeared to have insufficient resources —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, mentioned this point —to cope with the renewed interest in war criminals in the West. The report says:
"As a result, we were not always able to travel to the Soviet Union when we wished, nor did we receive promised materials as quickly as we might have liked".
The pressure on the United Kingdom from the Soviet Union was made very explicit. Both the Soviet Union and Soviet public opinion consider it important that the United Kingdom should be seen at last to be bringing war criminals to justice.
The inquiry, as the noble Earl indicated in opening the debate, found that in the cases of four individuals —one has since died and another two may be medically unfit to stand trial —there was a realistic prospect of conviction for murder. There are therefore two cases that are fit apparently for prosecution. The inquiry has already recommended further investigations into as many as 75 other cases.
676
The political background is that many of the possible defendants will have been anti-communist: whether they were fascist will be in issue. Many of them, as the report records, will have fought for the Germans against the Russians. Whether out of choice or necessity will be imponderable. Certainly they will have been classed as collaborators or traitors by the Soviet Union which would have regarded them as Soviet citizens because of the two-year Soviet occupation of those territories.
Against that background the true question is not merely the question put in the report:
"Is there sufficient evidence out of Russia to justify a prosecution against anyone in this country?".
It is also: can we be satisfied that a defendant would now have a reasonable opportunity to obtain out of Russia evidence to support a defence of mistaken identity? The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who opened the debate in so eminently balanced a way, pointed out several relevant questions. I recall what the noble Earl said. Can one expect witnesses accurately to identify offenders 50 years later? Will the prosecution evidence be open to fair challenge by the defence? Will it be possible for the defence to gather evidence? Because of the long passage of time and the inherent and inescapable circumstances, I would answer "no" to all these questions. Therefore we should say "no" to this legislative adventure, not so much for the reason given by Mr. Churchill at Zurich in 1946, which was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew,
"There must be an end to retribution. We must turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and we must look to the future",
as for reasons connected with justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, asserted that there was all the difference between justice and vengeance. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, correctly said that the issue concerned the nature of justice in these very special circumstances. Perfect justice would require the punishment of war criminals, however belated. But perfect justice cannot be secured in an imperfect world. If the inherent and inescapable circumstances are such that we cannot accord justice by our standards in our courts, I say that we do not embark on this legislative adventure. Justice, in a different sense from politics, is the art of the possible. If it cannot, after nearly 50 years, with confidence be secured, I would say enough is enough, and we should look with hope to the Europe of tomorrow.
8.19 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had a debate on a most sombre subject. If I may say so, the concluding words of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, are most important: when considering all these difficulties, we must look to the future. It is a fact that every speaker has spoken for himself in the matter. Moreover, as one may expect, the conclusions have not been unanimous. However, in my view it is a good thing that it has been so because there is a substantial diversity —a perfectly justified one —as to what is the right course of action to take, if there is such a thing.

677
At the outset I should like to say how sorry I am, as indeed are all noble Lords, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is not here in his place. Not only are his contributions to our debates always an asset, but in this subject above all he is a great expert and his contribution would have been most valuable to your Lordships. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be able to convey to the noble and learned Lord not only how sorry we are that he could not be with us evening, but also that we hope he will enjoy a speedy recovery.
I think that the debate has been characterised, in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, by restraint, dignity and compassion. Those words sum the matter up very well. The only word I would add is respect —that is, respect for the views which are held, quite justifiably and understandably, by those who take a different view from the one which any other noble Lord may take. That is a difficult situation when we are talking about the degredation of humanity, as the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, said. We have had to discuss some terrible happenings. Many awful deeds were carried out. Somehow we must try to ascertain the best way to deal with the problem.
We have had the advantage of a quiet and what one may call a sober debate, especially as it concerns such a difficult subject. It is the kind of debate which your Lordships undertake very well. Further, the debate has been void of the enhanced eagerness and the increased tensions which inevitably arise if there is to be a vote at the end of the proceedings. That fact has enabled your Lordships to discuss the matter in a much more relaxed way. I am grateful to noble Lords for the remarks which have been made. I can assure all speakers that Her Majesty's Government will study all that has been said with great care. As I explained, we have not yet made up our minds what to do in the matter, and we are glad to have had the opportunity of hearing your Lordships' views before any action is taken.
If I may, I shall refrain from answering the debate in the way which one normally answers such a debate; namely, to try to encapsulate all that every speaker has said. Frankly, I think that that would be an exceedingly dangerous course of action. It would almost certainly end up by causing irritations to everyone because one would probably get the emphasis wrong. Moreover, I do not propose to determine the slant of the debate. Noble Lords will be able to come to their own conclusions as to which way the discussions have gone and what emphasis should be placed thereon. If I refer to any noble Lord, it should not be interpreted that I, still less the Government, give more weight to his views that to those of any other speaker.
We have had to wrestle with history, justice, compassion, the law, the past and, indeed, the future. We have also had to consider the passage of time and the enormity of the offences. The whole purpose of the debate was to have the benefit of your Lordships' views on the matter.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said at the beginning of his remarks that he found it somewhat
678
difficult to come to a conclusion when the lawyers themselves could not arrive at a unanimous view. I did not find that that was a particularly novel aspect. Indeed, it always seems to me that when you have three lawyers speaking together you often receive four views. But brevity is of course the most telling of points. My noble friend Lord Home made the remark which has been referred to on more than one occasion. It consists of three words, "old men forget". I think that that phrase encapsulates many of the problems which would affect anyone who takes a decision as to what should be done in the future. However, if it is any consolation to my noble friend, I should tell him that you do not have to be old to forget; this also happens to those who have not yet reached such a ripe age.
I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, for his most interesting speech about his own experiences when he was Minister of State at the Foreign Office in 1948. He had the awesome responsibility of deciding which Yugoslays should be returned and which of them should remain, together with the awful accompanying decisions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked what a war crimes trial would cost. I think it would be quite wrong to allow the consideration of costs to be an overriding or determining factor in deciding whether the recommendations of the inquiry should be implemented. I can only tell him that the experience of those carrying out the investigations in Australia and Canada has shown that it would be a mistake if we failed to acknowledge the fact that the cost of such investigation and prosecution of war criminals is significant. I think that that is an important point.
I was especially grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans when he said that we should remember that the defendants must also have justice. He is quite right in that respect. He brought to our attention the fact that some people may have been making silent reparation for their sins for the past 40 years. I think that that factor was of great help to our deliberations.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, mentioned the fact that we should not forget the effect that such prosecutions could have on children, grandchildren and wives. There is also the risk of what the neighbours may say. If they are brought about, none of these prosecutions are prosecutions which refer to just one person. They spread out and the effect spreads to other people in the vicinity. That does not mean to say that it is not right that such prosecutions should be brought; it means that we must remember that other people are affected by them
The noble Lady also asked who gave the names of the people mentioned in the report. As the report says at the beginning, Rabbi Marvin of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles wrote to the Prime Minister enclosing a list of 17 alleged war criminals who were said to be living in Britain. This list was leaked, but apparently not from government sources. It was then published in a number of national newspapers. As a result, a photocopy of the list came into the possession of Scottish Television and it was decided to make a programme about

679
one of the people named. When approached by the programme makers for assistance, the embassy of the Soviet Union in London gave them a further list of 34 suspects. It is that list with those names that has become known as "the Scottish Television list".
When the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, said that those who came here must have come here as a result of bamboozling the Home Office in order to obtain citizenship, I felt an overwhelming desire to leap to the defence of my department. I am sure that they did not bamboozle the Home Office. However, in any event, I was not there at the time to defend the Home Office or to prevent the department from being bamboozled. All I can say to the noble Viscount is that if the department was bamboozled, then it was not the only department to be so affected.
My noble friend Lord Belhaven and Stenton referred to the Katyn massacre. The recommendations of the inquiry are confined to crimes which occurred in Germany or German occupied territory. It was not relevant to the issues of this debate to discuss responsibility for that matter, nor am I aware of allegations that perpetrators of the Katyn massacre are living in this country.
The point which has concerned many of your Lordships is that of retrospective legislaton. It is the spectre which has haunted the Chamber and has worried your Lordships. At the beginning of my opening remarks I put the report's view and what the authors felt about retrospective legislation. Many of your Lordships have taken a contrary view. We shall consider those views most carefully. I am glad that your Lordships' views today were not unanimous, because had they been they might not have reflected the genuine views of people throughout the country.
The subject is one which does not have the benefit of unanimity. I only hope that if it does anything, the continuing agonising over this awful problem will help us to ensure that everyone realises the awfulness of what happened in such a way that it might never happen again. I shall conclude by repeating, if I may, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, when he said just before he sat down that it is difficult to obtain justice because perfect justice will never be obtained in an imperfect world. The noble Lord was right, but we just have to do our best.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Electricity Industry: Privatisation
8.32 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra rose to call attention to the changed situation in the electricity industry following on the Government's decision to retain nuclear power generation in the public sector, and the implications of this on the proposed structure for the privatised sector; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing the debate I should like to give your Lordships some of the reasons for it. Many of us spent a long time on the passage of the Electricity Bill. Since that Bill
680
was enacted, a number of major changes have been introduced, the most important of which was the announcement in a Statement which was read to the House by the noble Lord the Leader of the House on 9th November that the nuclear power stations would be withdrawn from the privatisation process and retained in the public sector.
We were able to have only a limited amount of time to consider that announcement. I therefore went to see the noble Lord the Leader of the House to ask whether further time for debate could be made available before too long. He was sympathetic to that request, and I am glad to say that time has been made available this evening. I am obliged to those noble Lords who have stayed until this late hour to debate the issue.
Before I proceed further, I should like to repeat a declaration of interest which I made during the passage of the Electricity Bill: I am involved in energy companies which aim to develop electricity generating systems mainly on the basis of combined heat and power, and am also interested in the distribution and usage of various forms of energy, including electricity.
I should like to draw attention to three issues. The first is a matter of principle: the extent of the changes which have been made since the Bill was passed; secondly, I should like to consider the structural implications of the changes made; and, thirdly, I want to consider the method of operation which is now apparently emerging but about which there is still a good deal of uncertainty.
I shall turn first to the principle. The withdrawal of the nuclear plants and their retention in the public sector was something for which a number of us pressed strongly in Committee and which was at that stage resisted by the Government. In particular, there was the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, which was supported by a number of us on all sides of the House. The Government's subsequent intention to make that change after the Bill's passage prevented us from considering the further implications of the move. Furthermore, there had been a number of other substantial changes, and so the matter of principle that I should like to raise is as follows. Is it entirely desirable that through the normal legislative process both Houses should spend a great deal of time going through measures which are subsequently changed through government action?
When the noble Lord the Leader of the House read the Statement, I asked whether a constitutional issue was involved. He said that there was not, and on looking at the Bill I agree. What the Government have done is strictly in accordance with the letter of the legislation; but it goes wide of what was the apparent intent at the time we were considering the legislation. That is the issue of principle that I wish to raise. It would be an unfortunate precedent if that were to be done too often. It would mean that we could be debating on the basis of certain principles and a proposed structure, and find that after all the legislative deliberations had been concluded an entirely new situation had arisen.
Having stated that point, I should like to move on to the structural implications. The structure which the Government proposed in the White Paper, and which was subsequently carried through in the Bill, was to divide the CEGB into two parts: National Power and Power Gen, the one having 70 per cent. of the capacity and the other 30 per cent. The reason for that was clear. It was that National Power was meant to accommodate the nuclear element, and therefore it had to be sufficiently large to do that. Those of us who disagreed with the nuclear element being in the privatisation process, of course spoke against that proposal; but at least there was some logic behind it.
The question that is now raised, however, having retained nuclear power in the public sector is: is that structure still valid? I should like to quote from our debate on 18th July when we had reached the stage that the Bill do now pass when I said:
"Had there been a more rational restructuring, with at least four generating companies being the descendants of the CEGB: a separately owned nuclear company, with all its attendant problems; an independently owned grid company, and then the 12 distribution companies, I think that we would have had a basis on which real competition could have developed".—[Official Report, 18/7/89; col. 739.]
That was said sometime before the Government decided upon the changes which they made.
As regards the Act, it would be all right for the Government now to rethink the structure. Under Section 6(1), the CEGB's property can be divided into three or more companies so there is a provision for having a review. Furthermore, there was a hint, if I understood him aright, of a possible modification in the Government's attitude contained in a phrase used in another place on 9th November by the Secretary of State for Energy when he said:
"We have no intention of changing the allocation of assets at this stage". —[Offical Report, Commons, 9/11/89; col. 1178].
Does "at this stage" mean that it might be considered at some future stage or not at all? If it means at some future stage, would it not be wiser to do it now? There is a strong case for reconsidering the structure of the privatised sector of the industry.
The Government should bear in mind what happened in the gas industry where, within a relatively short period of its privatisation, as it stood, it was referred to the MMC and various major changes had to be made. That was an unsatisfactory state of affairs and should be avoided in any future legislation.
One of the consequences of the duopoly which the splitting of the CEGB into two parts has created is the introduction of what are known as contracting limits. These are limits which the Government have agreed should be introduced in competition. As your Lordships well know, for the first four years of privatisation there will be a limit on the amount of competition to those companies taking one megawatt or more. As far as the two generating companies are concerned, they are limited to 15 per cent. of the market. Those proportions are then altered in the next four years and finally removed after eight years. I suggest that these contracting limits, which will impinge on the amount of competition, would not have been necessary had
682
there been a larger number of generating companies from the start.
Finally, I wish to come to the question of how the system is to operate. We have a grid company which will be owned by the 12 distribution companies, itself a bit of an anomaly. I agreed with the removal of the grid company from the generating companies, but on the same grounds I disagreed with it being passed over to the distribution companies. During the Committee stage, after much questioning the Government made it clear that, although it was technically owned by the distribution companies, the grid company would operate pretty independently. If so, perhaps that could have been recognised from the start.
However, I wish to ask how the use of the grid will function under the latest proposals. There have been many ideas about various "pools", as they are called, into which the electricity supplied would fall and then be redistributed. The present arrangement is that there should be what is known as a "unified pool". According to that, the generators will sell at one price and the suppliers will buy at another. It seems to be complex set of arrangements in order to come to the prices. There will also be a factor known as "LOLP", which stands for loss of low probability. As I understand it, that could involve substantial penalties for generators who fail to provide all they offer at periods of strong demand.
I think it is important that we all understand the proposed system. I hope that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us about it. This is not only important for everybody who uses electricity, but it is particularly important for those who want to enter the market. I have already declared my interest; I am one of those who would like to come in to the market. But unless we know how the system will operate, that will be difficult.
In this context when the noble Viscount tells us how the pool arrangement will work, perhaps he will say how the pricing under the pool arrangements can be reconciled with any contracts which are made between generators and their customers. Will there have to be a settling up after the end of each month of the discrepancy between the payments made under the pool system and the contract system or will they be linked together in some other way? To what extent will there be scope for smaller generating companies to set up under the system? Will there not be a temptation on the part of the distribution companies to chance their arm on the pool system and just hope that they can get the best deal on a short-term basis, without any forward contractual obligation? I think that these questions need to be answered.
As regards contracts, I wish to inject a positive note which I feel pleased about in view of my past association with the coal industry. It is that I understand that British Coal has just announced that it has made a three-year supply contract with National Power and Power Gen. That is a desirable situation and I am pleased that it has been achieved even though so much else seems to remain a bit uncertain.
Under the heading of operational functioning of the system I turn to the question of where the obligation to supply will rest. At present it rests with the CEGB. We were told in the White Paper that this obligation to supply would be transferred to the distribution companies. But there have been reports in the technical press to the effect that that has now been modified. I presume it has been modified because, as the market is opened up, the distribution companies would well ask how they can be made responsible for supplying electricity to people who are no longer their customers. If that is the position, I think that we ought to know where we stand on that important issue.
I wish to summarise my remarks and say that much has changed since we debated the Bill. Unfortunately much still remains unclear, or perhaps it is just that it is imperfectly understood. I hope that the noble Viscount will feel that this debate will give him the opportunity of clarifying a number of issues. The electricity industry is one of the most important and basic in the country. It is vital that we should all be clear how it will operate under the new circumstances. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I feel sure that your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for having given us the opportunity to look again at the problems of this important industry. I find it impossible to disagree in any way with his concluding comment that much has changed since we debated the Bill and much still remains unclear. I hope that my noble friend will consult his right honourable friend after this debate and ponder over what has been said.
The new Secretary of State is heir to a measure of which the benefits seem exceedingly uncertain and the hazards very real. At one stage during our debates, his predecessor referred to one of the amendments passed by your Lordships' House as "a bit of a dog's breakfast". I very much doubt whether any dog —however keen on its food —would descend to making a meal of the Bill which my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State wished upon the industry.
My right honourable friend the new Secretary of State has —I think wisely—followed the advice contained in the amendment moved from the Cross Benches by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and supported by many of us, as the noble Lord said, on both sides of the House. It made no sense and it was not practical politics in any way to include the nuclear stations in the measure. At the time the Government refused to listen to that argument. Since then, however, my right honourable friend has decided that it is right.
I understand that the measure has left the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, somewhat disturbed and unhappy. I do not wish to make too much of the point, but I cannot help feeling sad that at no stage did your Lordships have the advantage of the counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, whose
684
knowledge of the industry is consummate and possibly unrivalled. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, did not stick to the opposition which he expressed to the measure. He did not oppose the principle of privatisation but the way in which it was done. If he had opposed it it would have been very difficult, if not impossible, for the Government to proceed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, my right honourable friend has dealt one very sharp blow to the rickety structure set up by the Act. That gives my right honourable friend a very real chance to take another long and serious look at what remains.
There are two principal concerns which I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention. The first is that of cheaper electricity and the second concerns security of supply. The impact of the new entrants from whom competition will flow is likely to be delayed for many years. When those new entrants appear, they will most surely demand an assured return upon their investment. That will involve a share in the base load. I am of the opinion that they are likely to resile from the costs of building very large stations. Therefore, they will forfeit possible economies of scale. If they succeed in achieving cost reductions, then I cannot see any incentive for them to pass on the benefit of those reductions to the consumer. For those reasons I believe that it is wrong to hope for too much from the impact of new arrivals into the industry for many years ahead.
I also believe that the severance of generation and transmission will carry with it very serious risks. Some time ago the Central Electricity Generating Board estimated the cost to be between £500 million and £1 billion. The then Secretary of State would have nothing of that. However, no serious attempt has yet been made by the Government to assess the additional cost which would arise. This is a serious point on which I hope that in due course my noble friend will be able to help.
It is certain that in the new arrangement complexity of regulation, of contract and of relationships will replace the simplicity of the present system. As if that was not enough, the Act lays down that the Secretary of State and the director general of the supply industry will have many shared duties. It would have been sensible to have placed those duties upon the shoulders of the director general and made him answerable to the Secretary of State for their proper performance. However, for these duties to be performed jointly between the two makes no sense at all.
I turn briefly to the question of security of supply, which is all important. The effects on severance, the complexity of the new arrangements and the shared duties to which I have referred are additional hazards in the way of security of supply. There are other powerful arguments. In the past when there has been a crisis, due to weather or some other cause, the present system has afforded the advantage that all resources have been under one central control. They have been mustered and used in the best possible way at times of great pressure. It is difficult to imagine that being repeated under the new system.

685
I have been discussing the short-term situation. In the long term one must be concerned about the adequacy of capacity. Who will be able to plan and ensure that it happens? With the present system there has always been the danger of the need for more capacity being forgotten until the arrival of a very cold winter when everyone becomes conscious of the need to increase capacity. This has been done, as is our way in this country, after the need has passed. I hope that the Government will give their attention to the question of whether the new system, which has been wished upon the industry, is able to ensure a margin of capacity sufficient to meet the needs of emergencies as well as expanding use.
I turn to the duty of supply. I have always thought it very strange to impose a duty of supply upon those who have no capacity to produce and who are unlikely in the indefinite future to possess such a capacity. The Act places the duty upon the distributing companies. I am not sure where that duty lies now. I am not sure that it has any real meaning. I hope that the Government will in due course be able to give us some guidance upon that matter.
The national grid is in a central position. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I do not understand how the unified pool system will work; nor do I understand how the system of payment will work with promptness or efficiency, or how anybody can rely upon it, I have no confidence, despite the assurances which we have received, that the merit order will survive. I fear that it could degenerate into a system not much higher than Buggin's turn.
The Government are fortunate to have available at this turn the people who are currently serving on the board of the national grid company, particularly Mr. David Jeffries. I am sure that such people will do their utmost to make the system work. However, I still believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to avoid putting any unnecessary obstacles in their way.
I turn now briefly to the position of the Director General of Electricity Supply, who has been appointed to shoulder very heavy responsibilities. I very much doubt whether either his knowledge of the industry or his powers will match up to his responsibilities and duties.
There will inevitably be those involved with the industry or in the Government who will consider that it is now their duty to make the best of a bad job and to make the present arrangement work somehow. My plea to my right honourable friend and my noble friend on the Front Bench, as well as to those engaged in the industry, is to take a careful look now, while there is time and before irreparable damage has been done, to see whether in their judgment the system can really be made to work. If, after that reflection, they conclude that the risks are too great, I hope that they will face that fact now and not leave it and hope for the best. I hope that they will take effective and courageous action now, as they did over the nuclear content of the industry, and make sure that other defects are cured in a similar way while there is time.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for bringing forward this matter tonight. When a spokesman from the Liberal Benches, a spokesman for the Conservative Benches and a spokesman for the Labour Benches are in broad agreement on a matter, then it is incumbent upon the Government to take very serious notice of what is said.
We are all saying that the industry is a hotchpotch; it is a mess and cannot work effectively and efficiently in its present form. That is why we want the Government to take further action and have another look at the way in which the industry has been privatised to ensure that it operates to the good of the customer.
It is incumbent upon the Government to do so bearing in mind that they have broken up an integrated electricity supply industry which has served this country well for 38 or 39 years, which has given the country security of supply, a generating capacity and a secure system which is the envy of the whole world. In those circumstances the Government should consider very seriously whether the organisation which they have now imposed upon the industry will work.
None of the components of the industry believes that it will. Indeed many of the components do not understand what they are to do. We have just heard that the new grid organisation does not know what it has to do. We have heard that it will be difficult for it to operate in the same efficient way as previously when the merit order list was used to give the consumer the cheapest possible electricity at any given time. Therefore it is incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their attitude. Our charge from these Benches is that if the Government had only thought about the matter, if they had only considered all the implications and if they had only studied the costings in the first place they probably would not have embarked upon privatisation at all.
Let us consider the nuclear problem. It is the removal of the nuclear component from the privatisation programme which has given rise to this debate tonight. If the Government had listened not only to this House but also to experts in the nuclear and generating fields, they would have known that there would be great difficulty in privatising the industry with its nuclear component. They only had to look across the water to the United. States to see what has happened to the nuclear industry in that country to realise that no private organisation could possibly undertake a nuclear programme and make it profitable. If they have not been able to do so in the United States over the past 10 years it is certain that we could not do so in this country. That was experience that the Government chose to ignore.
At a late hour, after ignoring the advice of this House, after the Bill had become an Act, the Government decided that they had to take the advice of this House after all. Having listened to the arguments of the nuclear lobby over a long period or time, having listened in the Select Committee on Energy in another place to the justification for providing even more nuclear energy based on figures

687
which could at best be described as unrealistic, having in this House on numerous occasions been told that nuclear energy is competitive with energy from fossil fuels and in particular coal, I feel rather aggrieved. I feel aggrieved that the country and people in this House and in another place —the electricity consumer —have been misled over a long period of time as to the beneficial effects of nuclear energy which are now proved to be so illusory.
When the Secretary of State made his announcement in the House of Commons on 9th November, he told the House:
"the state-owned nuclear power company's successor for the nuclear element of the CEGB will be a cash-positive company and will earn profits, not make losses. As both sides of the House must recognise, we have made a substantial investment in nuclear power. It is producing returns, and it should finance the cost of the Sizewell B project, with which we wish to continue because we believe it to be an essential part of maintaining the nuclear option". —[Official Report, Commons; 9/11/89, col 1181.]
So, even at that stage, when private industry had said, "We do not want any of this because it will not make profits", the Secretary of State was still telling the House of Commons and the nation that the nuclear industry would be profitable. Yet we know from a leaked report that the cost of nuclear generation will be between 6.25p and 7p per unit as compared with 2.8p per unit for coal-generated power. We are still being told that nuclear power is competitive. It will be competitive only because of the fossil fuel levy. In other words, the coal-producing stations will subsidise the nuclear power stations and the electricity consumer will pay for those extra costs. I hope that the noble Viscount will confirm that point when he replies tonight.
However, the position is even worse than that. We now know that the nuclear industry has misled this House, the House of Commons and the nation and has not been under the proper control of the department or of Ministers. We know all that, yet, in spite of what has happened, the Hinkley Point inquiry is still to go ahead. We learn from Mr. Collier, who is chairman of the new nuclear board, that he wants even more of this nuclear power which is so inefficient and has not served the country well. An article in The Times of 1st December stated:
"Mr. Collier in effect rejected the arguments about the financial risks of nuclear power that led the Government to withdraw the Magnox and AGR reactors from privatisation when the Central Electricity Generating Board is split into National Power and PowerGen".
Mr. Collier rejects the arguments. He does not agree with anything that the Government have said. He went on to say that:
"He regretted the government action to defer a decision for five years on the possibility of building the second PWR-type pressurised water reactor at Hinkley Point, Somerset. He said he was determined that the construction and commissioning of the first PWR, at Sizewell B, in Suffolk, would be completed on schedule and at its present cost estimates".
I should like to know what the present cost estimates are. Are they the original £1,200 million or the £2,000 million as reported in the press? Mr. Collier went on to say:
"Make no mistake about it, it is my ambition to build more nuclear stations".
688
In spite of all that has been said, Mr. Collier is determined to build more and more nuclear power stations at whatever cost to the consumer.
We are entitled to know exactly what the Government's attitude is on this matter. It is unthinkable that electricity consumers should be even more burdened with the costs of generating electricity by nuclear power which is wasteful of manpower resources and not competitive with coal. I think we are entitled to hear from the Government exactly who will be in charge of this nuclear component. Will it be those who have so misled the nation in the past or will it be the Government themselves who will ensure that no further nuclear power stations are built until it can be shown in hard commercial terms —I repeat, in hard commercial terms —that they will be beneficial to the community and will provide electricity at at least the same cost or, even better, at a lower cost than coal produced from fossil fuels.
9.14 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, the time is now past when we can usefully attack the Government's folly over the privatisation of this great industry. In previous speeches I have mentioned the undeclared reasons why they decided on that policy. I shall now say only that cheaper electricity for the consumer is nothing more than a smokescreen and is almost certainly unachievable.
When the Government decided on the privatisation policy they swept aside all difficulties and disadvantages by saying that they would be resolved. Consequently there have been many areas in which problems were not faced at all and where compromises and last-minute changes have had to be made. This is particularly obvious in the nuclear field where sincere warnings from many responsible quarters went unheeded. For years it was said that nuclear generation was cheaper than coal and until very recently the economics of PWRs looked very promising.
What has happened to upset that rosy picture is largely because of the increased cost estimates for decommissioning reactors at the end of their life. Partly it is due to the use of different accounting methods. But the major reason is British Nuclear Fuels' increased cost for processing the fuel elements. That has been caused by expensive measures required to improve radioactive discharges at Sellafield. When a Magnox reactor is decommissioned, roughly eight times as many fuel elements have to be processed as is the annual requirement for a working reactor. Thus, the charges for doing so become very significant. Maybe all that should have been foreseen earlier, but the failure to realise it is not quite as bad as may appear at first sight. Taking our nuclear generation programme as a whole, it should have been clear that any group of private investors would be unwilling to put up a large amount of capital involved in a new nuclear station and to accept the political risks of nuclear power.
What should the Government now do? I have always been a supporter of nuclear power as at least

689
an alternative method of generation which does not have carbon dioxide emissions; but frankly I do not know. I have a very real fear that our generating capacity may be insufficient and that the lights will go out before private generation can meet the demand. When one looks into our past experience in this field I am doubtful whether it is wise to think about the allegedly smaller, safer, new designs of PWR —SIR being one of them. Perhaps after all the debate on cost and performance we might even go back to the proved design of the AGR, which is so successful in Torness in Scotland. But if there is to be a change of government in the next two or three years, we do not want to see again any reversal of policy leaving idle possibly half-built reactors, as happened in America.
With those considerations in mind I think that we should not at present go beyond building the new PWR reactor at Sizewell and the proposed one at Hinkley Point. Instead, the Government should put the capital that they would otherwise have to spend into energy conservation. Of this, although Friends of the Earth may say that more than 50 per cent. is theoretically possible, at least 20 per cent. is practicable, given government help and encouragement.
I do not think that in this debate I should state the ways in which the saving is possible, but, believe me, it does not lie in just improving the thermal insulation of existing houses. Such a policy would have the most potent effect on the carbon dioxide problem. I cannot understand why the civil servants in the Ministry are so half-hearted and apparently antagonistic to this approach, saying, as they did recently, that all gains resulting from better insulation of houses will be taken for increased comfort. Some would be taken in this way, but a vast gain is possible.
Returning now to some of the areas of privatisation that seem to deserve comment, few of us can accept —as has already been said in this debate —that the merit order of bringing power stations into use will work out as well as the old CEGB system. For one thing, there is the added complication of agreed contracts to supply. It must be recognised that shipping large quantities of power any appreciable distance—perhaps as far as 100 miles —is uneconomic because of the losses and destabilisation of the grid. Competition in generation in any big way is largely a chimera, put about as one of the justifications of privatisation.
Finally, we must not forget the all-important effect of these changes upon staff and the need for retention of our trained and skilled people working in the nuclear field. They are far more important than bricks and mortar, both now and in the future. Once again the Government have pressed ahead without considering this aspect. Marchwood may be the tip of the iceberg.
9.22 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this debate. We ought also to say a word of welcome to my noble
690
friend Lord Ullswater, who sits on the Front Bench to take a barrage of questions, and in effect attacks, on matters of which he is not guilty and to which he comes as a neophyte. Having said that, I am quite sure that we should congratulate the Government on at least seeing the light and agreeing at last that the nuclear element must be kept in the public sector. However, the statements that we have had explaining the decision are not altogether clear. I hope at the end of the debate to be able to do more than congratulate my noble friend on the clarity of the Governments' evasions.
For example, there is a puzzling piece of evasion about the CEGB which has to be cleared up. The Secretary of State is on record as saying:
"It was only on 11th October that I finally managed to obtain the figures that I needed to make this decision, having pressed very hard from the moment that I took up office". —[Official Report, Commons; 9/11/89, col. 1181.]
That was after all more than two months earlier. He had to press very hard indeed to obtain the figures which enabled him to take that decision. How is it that he had to treat the CEGB like a dentist, extracting a wisdom tooth without an anaesthetic?
More than 10 parliamentary days after the disclosure that all the reactors are now to be kept together in the public sector, one is entitled to ask certain questions. And it simply will not do to say, as was said in a Written Answer in another place:
"Costs of electricity generation are a matter for the CEGB".
The CEGB is going out of business and this whole matter turns on the costs and prices.
It is even more important to be frank and clear about that when we read, also in a Written Answer in another place, on 1st December at col. 451 of Hansard:
"The Government seek to ensure that the UK has adequate, diverse and secure supplies of energy in the forms that people want at the lowest realistic prices. They aim to achieve this wherever possible by ensuring that energy prices reflect their true economic costs".
It goes on to deal with competition.
What are the relevant figures that caused the Government to take the decision? What were the figures that were grave enough to cause the Government to take the Magnox stations back into the public sector and to do so almost before the Royal Assent was dry on the parchment? We have not been given the figures but we have been faced with a gigantic U-turn. We must also know what the corresponding levy will amount to, which we have always been promised will take care of the extra cost of nuclear.
In July we understood that the reason for keeping the Magnox stations in the private sector was the early incidence of decommissioning costs. We now understand that they can last longer. What has happened? How is it that in July the decommissioning costs were a death blow and now decommissioning can be postponed? We do not know what has been changed, and we are entitled to know. How much longer will the Magnox stations be kept in being? What provision is now being made for their decommissioning costs?

691
We are entitled to ask, what is the Government's nuclear policy? We are told that there is concern about the price of nuclear power because the capital charges and return on investment have emerged as a serious factor. We are told that provision for future decommissioning is a serious factor. We are told that as a result there will be a five-year pause before the commissioning of new stations. At the same time we are told that we are to keep the nuclear option open. Those are mere phrases. The nuclear option is not kept open simply by having a pause of five years and having one new station. Many other issues are involved in a nuclear policy, not merely keeping one station going.
If, as we are told, nuclear power is uneconomic —for that is the implication —at what price would it be economic? For example, what do the Government say to figures that would not commend themselves to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, but are produced by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency in collaboration with the International Energy Agency and UNIPGDE, the International Organisation of Producers and Distributors? They put the base load nuclear power cost for Western Europe as a whole at about 2.3p per kilowatt hour as against 2.4p for electricity from coal.
One must ask whether, in regarding nuclear power as uneconomic, the Government are counting decommissioning costs. If they are counting the costs, what are they? If they are not, why do they say that they are uneconomic? What about the provision of capacity? Is private enterprise expected to keep the lights on? At the moment it does not look like that. Over the past six years noble Lords from all parts of the House have issued warning after warning that we are heading for a shortage of generating capacity at the end of the century. That has been said a dozen times from all parts of the House.
Those warnings were scoffed at, ridiculed and laughed out of court by the Government. What happened when the last Secretary of State took
692
office? The first thing that he did was to tell Members in another place that, unless we do something about it quickly, there will indeed be a shortage of 13 gigawatts by the year 2000.
My Lords, is that still so? If that is so, why suspend the project for another three nuclear power stations? That will make the situation worse. Are we to rely still further on electricity imports from France? If so, at what price? Are we really expected to buy electricity from France cheaper than we can make it ourselves? The French will have us over a barrel and we shall not be in a position to do other than pay whatever price that the French ask.
Another obscurity has emerged regarding the merit order. The privatisation plan was to switch the grid merit order from cost to price. My noble friend the Leader of the House told us on 9th November:
"The stations with the lowest operating costs will be run first".—[Official Report, 9/11/89; col. 972].
That may have been a slip, and if it was, we shall let that go. However, I wonder, as has been the implication of other speeches this evening, whether the merit order may not now come to be based on some new combination of price and cost. For example, will the electricity from nuclear stations be taken by the grid at price or at cost? We are entitled to know.
I sincerely wish my noble friend Lord Ullswater an enjoyable and useful tenure in his exposed office. It is an exposed office. His head is above the parapet and will be so for a long time. All of us have been impressed by his performance at Question Time and wish him the best of British luck. However, one thing is absolutely clear —and he must have learnt this himself, although he is perhaps not in a position to admit it —the project to privatise the electricity industry is already in a perfectly hopeless mess. We really need the Government to stand back and take a very serious look at the whole question before going any further.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, like other speakers, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his pertinacity in pursuing this debate. He and other noble Lords on this side of the House fought many battles side by side during the course of the Electricity Bill. I do not accept all that he has said this evening because, like my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, I am diametrically opposed to the privatisation of the electricity industry. I am not concerned about the question of how competition can be promoted within it.
There is another issue which the noble Lord raised with which I am in at least partial disagreement. When he looked into the constitutional side of what has happened to the Act, he said that the Government had kept to the letter of the law and Constitution but he at least suggested that they had broken the spirit. I am not so sure that they have kept to the letter and it seems to me that there is at least a case to answer as to whether or not this has now become a hybrid Act as a result of the removal of the nuclear element from the Act as we debated it in this House and as it was debated in another place.
I refer briefly to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I believe that the Government should make their position on this absolutely clear this evening. The noble Earl seemed to wonder whether nuclear generated electricity would be accepted or rejected according to its cost. My understanding of the legislation is that nuclear generated electricity will have to be accepted in any case, whatever its cost. That is written into the 20 per cent. allocated to nuclear-produced electricity. If that is the case, it is quite obvious from all the figures that have been given that the cost of electricity will go up severely under privatisation. We are entitled to an answer from the Government as to whether or not that is the case.
The Government's whole philosophy of privatisation has surely been totally shattered by their experience of the past few months and the U-turns that they were forced to make by their own standards of market forces. They talk about privatisation in order to increase competition and yet in the legislation, as it was originally debated here, the Government fenced off nuclear energy and drew an economic ring fence around it. What kind of competition is it in which one protects one part of an industry, the most expensive part, and then adds on to that a provision that non-fossil fuel energy shall have the right to provide 20 per cent. of generating power, and that in addition there will then be a levy on fossil fuel? Is that competition, market forces and the free play of the market that the Government believe in? In fact it is taxing one part of the industry and the consumer in order to subsidise nuclear-generated electricity. That is surely quite contrary to any normal business practice in this or any other country. It was therefore quite naturally and inevitably rejected by the City investors. Now I understand that this practice is about to be investigated by the EC as breaching its regulations on competition. Are the Government
694
happy to be at least accused of breaching the EC regulations on competition?
The whole of this story is one of pig-headed protection of the nuclear industry while ignoring the facts. Ministers have said that they only obtained the figures on 11th October. In fact they had the figures in this Chamber and in another place long before 11th October but they just brushed them aside and refused to consider them. If they had paid attention to the figures then, they would have known that what they were arguing for was economic fantasy.
Further, after abandoning three of their proposed PWRs, the Government declared that they would continue with Sizewell B. Why is that? Is it the case, as has been widely reported, that the costs of Sizewell B had by last September risen by 10 per cent? I do not state these figures; I am asking the Minister to give us the figures. What is the present Government estimate or the present CEGB estimate of the increased cost of the building of Sizewell B? It has been estimated that the continuation of Sizewell B will cost £1 million a day for each of its planned 35 years of life. Those are not just idle figures. Are those figures correct and, if not, what are they? As the noble Earl has said, we are entitled to know.
During the course of the debates on the Bill we were told that the figures we were giving were not accepted by the Government. They have now had new costings done. We are entitled to know what they are. This debate affords the Government the opportunity to tell noble Lords and the country the figures on which they base the future of their energy policy and in particular the future of their nuclear energy policy.
As regards Hinkley Point C, what on earth is the purpose of continuing the inquiry? Is it not clear from the Government's own Statement that nothing should be done at Hinkley Point until 1994? Why are they continuing to spend public money on a public inquiry? As a result they are greatly undermining the confidence of the local people, particularly in the village of Combwich and its surrounding area.
It is widely believed in that area that already installations are being prepared for Hinkley Point C; that there is generating machinery on the high seas at this moment. I wish to know from the Government whether or not that is correct. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed at the public inquiry, which has cost a great deal of money. Will the Government pay the costs of the objectors as the Hinkley Point C inquiry continues?
It is quite obvious to anyone with common sense that the nuclear option is closed. Is it not time to cut our losses rather than to go on adding more rising costs, exponentially and not just arithmetically? Above all, is it not more than time that the Government reassessed their whole attitude to energy efficiency? Increasing numbers of scientists are trying to tell the Government and the public that the only safe way of producing energy without increasing the greenhouse effect is by energy efficiency.

695
This is the third time that I have faced the noble Viscount on this issue. I have sympathy for him. As the noble Earl said, he has inherited an impossible task. But it is not good enough to say that the budget of the Energy Efficiency Office has been cut because it has been successful. Has it been successful? Who thinks it has been successful? It has not been successful. There is a great deal more work to be done in energy efficiency over many years and yet the Government are cutting its budget.
Why do the Government ignore or repudiate the Select Committee on Energy of another place when it says that market forces will never reduce those gases that are creating the greenhouse effect and that pollution can be stopped only by a mixture of incentives and penalties? Why do the Government reject that philosophy, and what do they have to put in its place? Surely they know from their experience in the electricity industry that market forces do not work. Market mechanisms will not work. The profit motive will not clean up the atmosphere.
I should like to ask the Minister another direct question. I told him last week that, according to our understanding of government figures, if emissions of carbon dioxide continue at the present rate, they will increase by 73 per cent. over the next 30 years. If that figure is wrong, will the noble Viscount give the House and the country the Government's estimate of the increase in emissions of carbon dioxide over the next 30 years, both from coal-fired power stations and from the automobile? Will they desulphurise; and if so what will be the cost?
Finally, what is the Government's attitude, having learned a bitter lesson from nuclear energy, to renewable forms of energy? Did the noble Viscount read the letter in yesterday's Sunday Correspondent by Mr. Sharpe from the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of London? He stated categorically that energy from wind and wave power could be enough to supply all current United Kingdom electricity needs, and much more than enough if energy conservation were pursued seriously. He said that it would produce cheap electricity —electricity at about 2·5p to 3p per unit. Can the Minister confirm or deny Mr. Sharpe's estimate? What resources are the Government now planning to put into the development of renewable forms of energy? Can the Government not see that if they decided to put into the research and development of renewable energy the same resources as they have put into nuclear energy, and if in addition they gave the resources to energy efficiency, they would be doing something constructive both for safe and cheap electricity generation in this country and for the preservation of global cleanliness on which our planet depends.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Nelson of Stafford: My Lords, I add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for initiating this extremely timely debate. Many important issues have been raised by previous speakers. I shall confine myself to one,
696
which has already been touched upon by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. My question is this: does the decision to retain nuclear power stations in the public sector mean a change of government policy towards nuclear power? If that is so, it has very serious implications for the long term security of supply. It also affects not only the supply industry but also the nuclear construction industry and the many thousands of people employed therein.
As noble Lords will be aware, on many occasions the Government have made it clear that they support the maintenance of the nuclear option as an alternative source of energy for future generations against all eventualities and also as a possible defence against excessive contamination by CO2 —in other words, the greenhouse effect —maintaining what is now becoming known as the no regrets policy.
As recently as 8th November, at the United Nations General Assembly, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred to the fact that nuclear power was the most environmentally safe form of energy.
Government policy in this respect was supported first by an ongoing programme of nuclear stations beginning with Sizewell B, to which reference has been made, with subsequent stations to follow thus ensuring the advantages of replication and a move towards the type of cheap nuclear power which is now readily available from France. Government policy also reserved 25 per cent. of the generating capacity to non-fossil fuel and that was supported by a long term collaboration agreement with our friends on the continent in support of work going ahead on fast reactor technology.
However, it now seems that all this may be changing. Well, is it? That is the question which is in my mind. As I understand it, there are now no ongoing power stations beyond Sizewell B; in other words, no replication, no continuing work for people there employed. Moreover, there are reservations about the amount of non-fossil fuel sources which will be reserved in the power programme —that is a doubtful element. The head of the AEA, the research centre of our nuclear power programme, has been transferred to a new post where he will run the nuclear power stations. So far as I am aware, no new appointment has yet been announced in this respect.
I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench whether the Government are aware that a feeling is spreading throughout the nuclear power industry that government policy has changed and that the long term commitment to nuclear power has been abandoned. This is a very unhealthy state of affairs. Is my noble friend also aware that there is a growing feeling of uncertainty in the industry that there is no future therein? Again, this is a most disturbing factor in an industry which employs many very highly qualified and skilled people, most of whom are essential for the maintenance of the existing stations, not to mention the construction of future stations.
If the Government have changed their policy, they should say so. Then we shall all know where we stand in the matter. All can then make their investments accordingly, plan their careers and make

697
adjustments to suit their particular interests whatever they may be. If, on the other hand, the policy has not changed —I hope that that is the case, because I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that we should abandon nuclear power; I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that we should retain the nuclear option —let us be clear about what we are doing. Are we in or are we out? I hope that we are in. The Government should say so as quickly, loudly and as clearly as possible so that everyone knows where they stand.
I should like to ask my noble friend on the Front Bench to convey that message to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and even to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because the matter is so important that the country should know where it stands. Only in that way can irreparable damage be avoided to one of the most technically advanced industries of our country.
9.55 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, the common theme running through every speech so far, and I have listened to every one, from all sides of the House, has been the anxiety and uncertainty which speakers, all of them extremely well informed have expressed not just about nuclear generation but about the electricity industry as a whole. In particular, however, they have expressed concern about what is going to happen as a result of the Government's change of plan with regard to nuclear generation.
I wish to make my position clear, in case anything I say should be slightly critical of the Government. I warmly welcome their change of heart in accepting what was the basis of my speech on Second Reading of the Electricity Bill —the exclusion of nuclear generation from the scope of the Bill. As a result of recent statements and the debate, I was compelled to read once more what I had said. Perhaps I may confide to your Lordships that I found the arguments there expressed persuasive.
The point is that the Government did not. They rejected, on that and every subsequent occasion, proposals for the exclusion of nuclear generation. They did not want to accept the validity of the arguments. What they have done is to accept the fact that they cannot get rid of that part of the industry in the ordinary way of privatisation, and for that reason it is to be excluded from the privatisation proposals. It was only when faced with the alternatives of financial guarantees or the withdrawal of nuclear generation that they chose the latter.
It is clear that had the Bill excluded the privatisation of nuclear generation from the word go every clause would have been considered by both Houses on that basis. But that was not the situation. The Bill provided for the privatisation of the whole of the electricity industry, not part of it. Moreover, the Government—I believe it was the Prime Minister herself—have recently made clear that nuclear generation is here to stay, for a variety of good reasons. So it follows that for the foreseeable future the structure of the electricity industry is to be substantially different from that on the statute book.
698
The new proposals have enormous implications for the running of the privatised sector. My first reaction when the Statement was made on 9th November concerned pricing and consumer protection. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra —to whom I repeat my gratitude for making this debate possible —has described many more implications this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has put down a series of Questions for Written Answer, again asking a good deal more about what is to happen to the industry by virtue of these changes.
Then there is Schedule 12. If the Government examine it, it makes virtual nonsense in the light of the new circumstances. There are other parts of the Act which an amateur like myself, merely glancing at it, finds impossible to construe in the light of the new circumstances. Therefore, we have to examine the matter all over again. The Economist makes its view doubly clear. I should like to read two short quotations from a relevant issue of that journal. First, it says:
"The privatisation plans should now go back to the drawing board".
Later it says:
"the privatisation plans now need a complete rethink".
I agree entirely. What method do the Government propose for putting forward amendments to the existing legislation consequent upon these new proposals and obtaining parliamentary approval? Apparently they do not propose to consult Parliament at all. I do not call this evening's debate a consultation; I call it a listening by the Government to the anxieties expressed all around. But they will dismiss them and carry on just the same with their proposals. They have made that absolutely clear. This is not an opportunity where issues can be thoroughly debated on all sides of the House and, if necessary, each issue decided upon the votes in this House. Parliament is not to be consulted at all.
Instead the Government will rely on what I call the pure technicality that, by accident, in their view no primary legislation is required. That must be quite fortuitous, must it not? If asked the Government when they introduced this Bill to privatise the whole of the electrical industry, did they instruct Parliamentary Counsel and say to them, "Would you please draw this Bill to enable us to do that very thing or to change our minds if we want to?" When the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, introduced the Bill on Second Reading, did she mean what she said about this being a Bill to privatise the whole of the electricity industry? Or did she mean that we might do something different later on?
When the Government spoke —as presumably they did —to Her Majesty's secretary and asked him whether he would be good enough to obtain Royal Assent to the Bill, did they say, "Of course, this is a Bill which looks as though it is a Bill for privatising the whole of the electrical industry, but between you and me it is not. We have something else in mind"? Of course not. Such duplicity and dishonesty in misleading people would not be contemplated by this or any other government. So I repeat that it was not the Government's intention that there should be

699
the power in the Act to do what they are now doing or purporting to do. It was pure accident. The Government cannot rely upon pure accident to avoid the duties of a democratic government in a democratic parliament.
The Government, as usual, have been rushing to realise yet a further chunk of the family silver. In the course of so doing they have achieved the unprecedented marvel of piloting the wrong Bill through Parliament. Had they given themselves the time to examine thoroughly the costs of nuclear generation and nuclear decommissioning, as the City subsequently did, that cock up could have been avoided. The plain fact is that the Government did not do their homework, whereas the professionals in the City did.
If I may say so, with due modesty, it is no use trying to tell a chartered accountant like myself that the basic material from which these professionals extracted the answers that they needed was not available earlier when the Government decided first to privatise the whole of nuclear generation and later to privatise only part of it.
I am concerned about the opportunity that will be given to Parliament to consider, and revise if necessary, every relevant clause of the Act which is affected by the new proposals of the Government.
To makes matters worse, the Government are proposing this affront to Parliament in their panic to complete privatisation during the lifetime of this Parliament. I wonder why that is. I wonder why the Government are so anxious about the next general election. Can the Government say hand on heart that had they intended to privatise only part of the industry, they would have introduced a Bill word for word the same as the present Act, which provides for a different purpose? Of course they cannot.
There is not much doubt about the question of hybridity to which the noble Lord has referred and about which I spoke at some little length when the Statement was made. I raised the matter then and the Leader of the House was good enough to say that he would consider the matter. He has written to me about it and I accept what he says completely. He concludes that nobody can say whether or not the Public Bill Office—which is the way in which this thing is triggered off—would have referred the Electricity Bill to the Examiners who would have decided whether or not it is a hybrid Bill. That is the position regarding hybridity. One cannot discuss it in abstract and say what would have happened had a Bill to provide for the privatisation of part of the industry been put before the Public Bill Office.
However, one can say what the attitude of the official Tory Party is on this issue. If my recollection is correct, there was a time when the Labour Government wished to carry through this House a Bill which had passed the other place. It comprised a series of proposals affecting shipbuilding or ship repairing which the Conservatives regarded as appropriate for treatment as a hybrid Bill. What did the Tory Opposition do, on the advice of its leadership? It decided to deny that Bill to the Labour Government on those grounds. I suggest that there
700
is a good deal more in the point of hybridity than the Government have so far been willing to accept.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord that the Tory Opposition did its duty in pointing out that the Bill was hybrid so that it was possible to remain within the rules of order and terms of reference.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I hope that he will accept that I have been carrying out my duty on a very similar strain.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for giving way. Further to the intervention by the noble Lord on the Government Bench, is it not also a fact that in another place the Speaker had already ruled that the Bill was not hybrid and that it was this House which overturned that ruling?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am sure that the witness of the noble Lord, who was in the other place at that time, is more reliable than mine. I do not recollect whether that was so. But I know that the Public Bill Office had not put the matter to the examiners, who in turn had not said that the ship repair Bill was a hybrid Bill; otherwise it would not have started its passage through the other place before reaching this House.
I remind the Government of the attitude taken by the leadership of the Tory Opposition in this House with regard to Bills which it might have seemed appropriate to treat as hybrid Bills. I go further and remind the Government of what they have done previously when new proposals have come forward which affect a privatisation proposal. It happened in the case of water, when the Government decided that certain functions were no longer appropriate for privatisation. What did they do? They took back all their proposals and came forward with a new Bill. That is what the Government did on that occasion, and I invite them to do the same on this occasion.
10.13 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may also express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for bringing the subject before the House. It is a very important subject and goes beyond the privatisation of electricity.
I speak as an engineer who used to work on the shop floor manufacturing parts for the first atomic power station in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Nelson, spoke of employment within the nuclear industry. My figures, which are nearly two years old, show that more than 137,000 people are now employed directly and indirectly in the nuclear industry—more than are employed in the mines in this country. I may be wrong, but the figure certainly equates or is even greater. That is the type of dimension about which we are talking.
Noble Lords will forgive me if I relate my remarks to what I think is first for the future. I talk not only about the 130,000-plus, which are mainly a workforce, but also about the design teams involved in an advanced and valuable technology. I do not

701
talk in terms of market cost. I talk in terms of a valued commodity and of expertise that will serve us well in the future. Some of the finest nuclear technicians and scientists in the world are employed in this country. If we take a retrograde step and disband those teams, they may never come together again. All the expertise that has been gathered will be lost for all time.
I take issue with some of my colleagues on these Benches on their approach to the matter. I accept that the costs indicate that, as a commercial entity, nuclear energy in this country fares badly at present. My noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon used a factor of about six to two against nuclear energy at the present time, but I do not know where the costs start and end in both the nuclear and the coal industries which we are discussing as the two major alternatives before us.
I have heard noble Lords cavil tonight at the massive government investment in the nuclear industry. From my experience in the last Labour Government, I know that they invested billions of pounds in the coal industry, as have done the present Conservative Government, with all their faults. What is taken into account in the costs? Are the costs of early retirement in the mining industry included? Are the total costs of subsidies with regard to coal included in the costs? I do not know. It may be so, but I do not have sufficient knowledge to understand what a tonne of coal costs. We know what it costs at the pithead, but is that the real cost? If the total costs were loaded on, I suspect that one might find a much higher factor than we are talking about.
I should like to return to some remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hatch during the debate on the environment. He repeated the same argument tonight. Commenting on the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations, he said:
"I do not believe that the nuclear option is an option at all".
He implied tonight that there is a report which states that the whole of our present power requirements could be met by wind and water. I believe that that is what he said, though perhaps I misheard him. To my knowledge, no one else in the world has made any such claim. However, in his speech the other evening he said that the population of the world has trebled within the century. He said:
"The world's population has trebled during this century, but will double again in the next 30 years with all the consequences for energy use and all the dangers from the use and the burning of fossil fuels".—[Official Report, 27/11/89; col. 278–9.]
If we do not have nuclear energy or fossil fuels and if the population of the world doubles, surely demand for energy will also double. One does not need to be a genius to assume that people will need energy. Are we all to die of hypothermia during a cold winter with no energy provided by coal or nuclear means? At least we would be pure in our going.
The whole idea is complete nonsense. If my information is correct, over half the world has little or no fuels of its own on which to count. For instance, Japan, which is the most bustling and thriving industrial unit in the world, has very little
702
fossil energy of its own. What will happen there if no nuclear power is available? We know why they went to Pearl Harbour. It was for the oil and coal in the South Pacific. That happened when America started the blockade. I predict that one of the most valuable commodities in the near future—not the distant future but the not so far future—will be energy, its availability and all that that entails.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way —
Lord Dean of Beswick: I shall, my Lords, although I am reluctant to do so. The noble Lord spoke for a long time the other night—about 20 minutes—and has spoken at length tonight. I shall give way provided his intervention is short.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am reluctant to interrupt the noble Lord's flow, but as he addressed the specific conclusion from the speech that I made last week, I should like just to point out that the fact that the world's population doubles does not necessarily mean that the demand for energy doubles. That is exactly the case for the conservation of energy—to use less energy than is used today.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the noble Lord is trying to convince me that when the population of the world doubles in the next 30 years, wind and water will solve all the energy problems., he is talking of cloud-cuckoo-land because there is no possibility of that happening. I have to remind the noble Lord—and I am assured of the thoroughness with which he goes into these things—that there was a report published last week by a Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the greenhouse effect. In that report there is a brief paragraph on this point. However, I read the evidence submitted to the Committee and there were 66 or 67 organisations dealing in depth with the greenhouse problem, what causes it and what may eliminate it. On page 62, paragraph 13.44 the report states that:
"Nuclear power is the only proven adequate alternative to fossil fuel energy generation. Abandonment of research into the fast reactor technology is short sighted. Under section 3 of the Electricity Act the Secretary of State should exercise his duty to promote R&D into new techniques for generation and reconsider the future of…Dounreay".
I agree with that statement. It is the part that is worrying me. Britain is an island but we cannot live as one. We talk about helping the third world which has no resources. Who will help them if we adopt a Luddite approach and an almost inward-looking policy of saying, "We shall not export anything"?
Let me make it quite clear. There are areas of the world which want power and power stations but where there is no coal—and that is what we are talking about now. If substantial amounts of fuel cannot be brought quickly to where those power stations are, then that is a non-starter. There is no way in which those countries will be able to opt for coal-fired power stations, even with all the desulphurisation plans. There is no way in which they can do that. I take the view that if there is the technology, there is no question but that the French will continue to use it. I do not know whether their

703
costs are any different from ours because I do not have the French figures, but they must think that it is a success. It may have to be subsidised but we must think of the rate at which the population of the world is increasing. We have to deal with that situation and consider the rate of extraction that would be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, also mentioned that the Chinese want to double their coal extraction in the next 10 years. If we talk in terms of a country of nearly 1,000 million people intending to double its coal extraction in 10 years, then, by God!, the finite deposits of coal throughout the world will certainly become exhausted more quickly than was thought possible even 10 years ago.
What shall we turn to? I take the view that the Government have handled the privatisation of electricity badly. They should have left the matter completely alone. If, as my noble friend Lord Stoddart, says—and I accept his case—the electricity consumer (and I am one like anyone else) is paying for research and development in the nuclear energy field, perhaps that should have been considered. The Government would have been wise to be more frank than they were. However, I am of the opinion that the nuclear energy programme, and research into it, must continue.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is more familiar than I am with an expanding programme of increasing our coal production dramatically by sinking new pits. There is no question of opening old ones, as I understand it. Once a pit is declared redundant and is closed, it is finished, unless there are very exceptional circumstances. If one therefore talks of a programme of sinking new pits, what is the cost of the coal? Is it the cost at the pithead or the cost of the investment before one starts to sink the pit? Many questions have to be asked.
I come from an area of Manchester known as Bradford which had the only large pit in the area. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, knows the area. Just after the war the Labour Government spent £4 million —a large sum of money in those days—improving and modernising that pit. It contained high quality coal but, like other pits in Lancashire, it was a deep pit. It was overtaken by the availability of cheap oil. The pit closed with the loss of nearly 4,000 jobs. The area started to die. It is now an industrial desert. Much of Lancashire is the same.
I am asking colleagues in this Chamber to be a little careful before accepting evidence that wind and water will cater for our energy resources. That is little more than wishful thinking. The noble Lord keeps nodding his head. No one can produce any reason why that facility for providing energy is a substitute for present needs. It may be supplementary, but there is no way that such a facility can be a total substitute and can cater for our future needs. When speaking of our needs, I am talking globally. As I said in the debate on the environment, no man is an island; and no country is an island.
I conclude on the basis of what I have said before. If we now let our nuclear know-how and research
704
knowledge that we have acquired over the years on nuclear energy go by the board, I am convinced that our grandchildren and their children will look back on us with extreme disfavour as having let them down very badly.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it would be tempting to follow the dispute that has arisen on the other side of the House by saying that noble Lords on the Labour Benches are entitled to their domestic arguments. But I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for having thrown up one of the major questions that has to be asked and answered as a result of the Statement that was made by the Government on 9th November.
Much of the attention in the debate has been directed to one part of that Statement: namely, taking the nuclear stations out of the privatisation programme. But the other part of the Statement, to which a number of noble Lords have referred, is the decision not to proceed with the second, third and fourth pressurised water reactor power stations. It is to that issue that I should like to address my remarks and take a little further the questions which were pertinently asked by my noble friends Lord Lauderdale and Lord Nelson of Stafford.
For seven brief but inglorious weeks in 1974 I held the position of the country's first Minister for Energy. More significantly, I then became my party's spokesman on energy; I was Shadow spokesman from 1974 to 1976. During that period I faced debates on some interesting and pertinent issues which had come to a head. What was to be the next generation of nuclear power stations? There were many contenders. What was to be the future of the fast breeder reactor to which several noble Lords have referred? Would we take part and act as host to the Joint European Torus? I had already been primed in respect of the first question because I remembered the 1965 debate in another place as perhaps does the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. It launched Dungeness B and the AGR programme. Perhaps I am not the right person to say that in that debate in the other place only one speaker thought that the decision was wrong and backed the American light water reactors instead. However, modesty forbids me to say who that was.
However, by then the evidence was already clear: light water reactors would be more economic and simpler to operate and erect than what has been described as the "watchmaking on a giant scale" which has been the programme of AGRs. Most of them have never come to within miles of their design capacity. I always agreed with the late Sir Arthur Hawkins in saying that it was a disaster of the first magnitude.
I advise noble Lords to read the article which appeared on Saturday in the Financial Times written by David Fishlock. It gave the disturbing history of our nuclear industry over the past 20 or 30 years. It explained how we in this country appear to have managed to make mistake after mistake. The result is that we have now been left behind in this area by

705
the United States, France, Germany, Japan and other countries. It is most salutory and I hope Ministers will read the article. Why have we managed to make so many wrong decisions and are we in danger of making more —
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord —
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, it is late and I must be allowed to continue with my speech. As a number of speakers have recognised, the irony is that we may have to fill our energy gap by importing the product of nuclear energy from France. One must ask the question: why is it economic for the French to build nuclear power stations? Why can private industry in Germany build nuclear power stations? Why can it do so in Finland, which I visited recently? Why do we now argue that it is not possible to privatise here when those countries have done so? Why must we remove it from the programme or, more important, stop building?
We are now told that there can be no reappraisal of the policy until 1994. I understand the reasons why it is 1994. However, I beg the Government to recognise just what they are saying by stipulating that there can be no reappraisal of our nuclear strategy until 1994. As was said by my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, what will happen to the industry between now and then? We know about the awful problems which were thrown up by the energy crisis during which there was a long period of no ordering. We shall not have any nuclear capacity left by that time unless there is a prospect of building. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that that is a very formidable consequence of the decision which the Government have announced and I believe that we should be told more about it.
I turn to what I saw 15 years ago as the second issue; namely, the fast breeder reactor. Does the decision announced on 9th November lead the Government to look again at their decision to slow down the research on fast breeders? I believe that the prototype fast reactor, the PFR at Dounreay, is due to be closed down in 1994. That decision was justified in the Government's reply to the Select Committee, presided over by my noble friend Lord Nelson, by saying that fast breeders will not be needed for 30 or 40 years. However, if we cannot now afford PWRs because they are not economical, will that not call into question whether we need the breeder technology rather sooner than we might otherwise need it? Is it not rather shortsighted now to be seeking to reduce the research at Dounreay?
Of course the Government will rightly claim that they can be an effective partner in a European programme, and I very much welcome the agreement signed earlier this year. However, the Select Committee to which I have referred recommended maintaining the PFR at paragraph 3.53 which states:
"PFR is the only reactor in Europe capable of taking fuel elements of the size required for a conventional reactor".
It seems to me that if we are to preserve for the nation that part of the nuclear option, we do not do that by more or less halting research.
706
Again, France and Japan will certainly press ahead with research on fast breeders. Will that be yet another area where we built the first, but in the end we are importing the technology from other countries?
Finally, there is nuclear fusion. My noble friend Lord Ullswater answered a Question on that subject last Tuesday and some of his answers as to the Government's commitment to fusion research were not very reassuring. I have always been led to believe that in the long term fusion represents, although with enormous technological problems still to be overcome, the only credible long-term source of energy. If we are to have any hope of preserving the kind of industrial civilisation which the world has created, that must provide a substantial part of our energy resources although perhaps not until the middle of the next century.
From my noble friend's replies the other day, it seems quite unclear as to whether the United Kingdom will support the extension of the JET —the Joint European Torus —to 1996 or whether they will support what the present Secretary of State referred to in correspondence to me as the "next step device", which I understood to mean the New European Torus —the NET.
It is not as if that research has by any means run its course. Experiments have not yet started on the combination of deuterium and tritium which offers substantially longer "shots" so as to gain a great deal more experience of generating the kind of temperatures necessary to produce the action nor have experiments begun on designing in the so-called warm superconductors, which I am assured will make a very considerable difference to the economics and energy efficiency of a fusion reactor if one is ever built. Therefore, research on fusion still has new vistas to explore. This is not the time for this country to pull out from that.
The decision announced on 9th November to halt work on the PWRs has huge implications going far beyond that particular decision —implications for the nation's future energy policy running well into the next century. Combined with the earlier decision to scale down fast reactor research, to close the PFR in 1994 and a reluctance apparently to give any commitment on long-term fusion research, I have to say to my noble friend that the announcement raises all kinds of questions about the future of the United Kingdom's civil nuclear policy. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to convince his right honourable friend that the Government now owe it to Parliament and to the country to produce a definitive statement of what the Government's nuclear policy really is.
Until now the main lines of the strategy have on the whole been clear. We rely on fossil fuels but with an increasing amount of our electricity produced by nuclear energy as it is environmentally more benign, as the Prime Minister rightly told the United Nations. When uranium becomes too expensive, we shall move to fast breeder reactors and then as fusion reaction becomes feasible we shall see that as the long-term power from sea water, or, as it is sometimes called, the power from the sea. Is that still the policy of the Government? Do the Government still believe that one cannot have an

707
effective energy policy without a substantial nuclear component, as they said in their reply to the report of the Select Committee? The reply stated that there was,
"no adequate large-scale alternative to fossil fuels other than nuclear energy".
That was said only last April. I agree with that view. I should like to be reassured that the Government still hold that view and, more importantly, if that is the case, that they will do what is necessary to make that policy a reality.
10.41 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we now come to the wind-up period of this debate. I wish to comment on two of the items that have been mentioned, although I shall come to one or two others later. I was amused to hear a rather inadvertent slip by the noble Lord, Lord Nelson of Stafford, when he referred to the Prime Minister as his noble friend. I wonder whether he knows something about events in another place tomorrow that we do not know, and if so perhaps he would like to communicate that to Sir Anthony Meyer who might be quite pleased to hear it.
The subject of hybridity has been raised twice this evening and by the noble Lords, Lord Diamond and Lord Hatch of Lusby, on other occasions. I go along very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said. It seems a curious situation when the Government can come forward with a Bill which is clearly not hybrid, change it after it has become an Act to something that one suspects could be hybrid and then say, "It is too late, we have done it". That seems to me a device that governments should not be encouraged to use. One wonders perhaps whether a judicial review may not be the way of tackling the problem. Perhaps the Government should consider that they may be faced with that if they continue down this track.
Like all other noble Lords who have spoken, I certainly wish to thank my noble friend Lord Ezra for initiating this debate. It will be no secret to most people that the Government were somewhat reluctant to have the debate on the agenda tonight. I am glad that he persisted with the proposed Motion. It always struck me that an Unstarred Question was less than adequate to deal with what is a major problem. I understand the Government's difficulty in bringing forward a debate themselves as it would be frightfully difficult for them to word a Motion stating that they had made a mess of the electricity industry and asking what should be done about it. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for doing what he has done.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I am in no way critical of the Secretary of State. If he were here, which of course he is not, I would tell him that I think he has been courageous and decisive in what he has done. However, I have to say that those of us who deal with transport in this House are somewhat worried about the impact of the former Secretary of State for Energy on transport. We fear that perhaps he may do for British Rail what he has already done for the electricity industry.
708
The truth is that the new Secretary of State did not have a lot of choice. The supposedly seamless garment was already becoming unzipped by the time the Hinkley C inquiry got under way. It is greatly to the credit of the inspector, Mr. Michael Barnes, that he took the decision that he was going to listen to economic arguments in relation to Hinkley C.
I believe that the country as well as your Lordships owe a debt to the consortium of opposing local authorities which put an awful lot of time, effort and money into the opposition to Hinkley C. My friend, county councillor Humphrey Temperley, has done a remarkably good job in persisting in the objections to Hinkley C. The fact is that if that had not happened we would have reached precisely the point that we are at now, but much further down the track. These figures would have become apparent eventually, but it is doubtful whether the Government would have been aware of what the figures were at that stage while it was still possible to do something about the situation.
So the country has been saved hundreds of millions of pounds by the persistence of COLA in its opposition to Hinkley C. I echo the question that has been asked as to whether the Secretary of State is prepared to make some refund for the cost of that opposition. I declare an interest here as a ratepayer in Somerset, which is carrying about £500,000 of that cost. In justice, the Government should make some recompense to COLA.
The basic question which has come from all sides of the House tonight is: what happens next? The Government cannot pretend that nothing has happened. We cannot have some anodyne statement from the Front Bench tonight saying that all is well in all possible worlds. We do not believe that the amendments that were tabled from all sides when the Bill was going through the House were wrecking amendments. It is true that some noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber thought so, but I note that they are not here tonight.
I wish to quote one or two points in that connection. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, said on 19th June, at col. 21 of the Official Report:
"My noble friend Lord Peyton referred to a 'vast number of unknowns'. That is going a little far. There are a certain number of unknowns but I believe that they are containable. I believe that previous speakers tended to over-emphasise the difference between nuclear and conventional power stations. ֵ Separation of the two forms would result in two separate cultures: the still nationalised nuclear sector and the much larger private sector. I believe that would be particularly harmful".
Doubtless, he is due an explanation from the Government in the present circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said at col. 26:
"I know that the motives of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in moving this amendment are that he has a high regard for nuclear energy and for its future. I do not feel the same in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I think his motives are purely that he thinks that these amendments would be effective in wrecking the Bill. I believe that they would wreck the Bill and for that reason I strongly oppose them".
There is a large number of quotes coming from loyal government supporters on 19th June saying that we were putting forward wrecking amendments from this side of the Chamber if we sought to retain

709
nuclear power in a separate company. I believe that those noble Lords deserve an answer from the Government. Do they believe that the industry is wrecked because of what happened recently?
The other question that has come out clearly tonight is: how far do the Government consider that they can plug the gap, as it were? Clearly, if PWRs are at a standstill for five years, which has been mentioned on a number of occasions, there must be a gap somewhere in the Government's calculations or those that they were offering the House beforehand. I wish to quote from a letter from the Department of Energy to the Hinkley inquiry secretariat because it sets out the situation in slightly starker terms than have been referred to tonight. It states:
"The Secretary of State for Energy said inter alio in his statement" —
and we have heard that —
"that the Non Fossil Obligation would be set at a level which could be satisfied without the construction of the new nuclear stations beyond Sizewell B. The proposed Hinkley Point C station is such a station".
The letter goes on to say:
"It follows from the policy announced by the Secretary of State on 9th November that capital investment approval would not be given for new nuclear power stations beyond Sizewell B".
That seems to be fairly definitive.
"That will remain the case at least until the review of the prospects for nuclear power in 1994 announced by the Secretary of State on 9th November".
What will fill the gap? The Government have said on many occasions that nuclear power will help to reduce the amount of CO2 and will consequently reduce the greenhouse effect. We need a massive investment in renewable resources, which, I tend to agree with noble Lords, cannot fill the gap in the short term. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on the potential of renewables to meet the enormous gap. Nevertheless, we must surely increase our investment to make sure that these things come forward as fast as possible. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, agrees with that point. I am sure that there is wide agreement on these issues.
There must also be investment in conservation. We must start with the more efficient use of the energy we have. The analogy was once put to me of somebody taking a bath without using the plug. There are two ways of filling the bath. The first is to turn on the tap more and more or find another source of water to go into the bath. The other is to put in the plug. The Government singularly fail to encourage people to put in the plug. They try all the time to meet the demand by increasing the supply. That has to change.
The Government cannot pull up the ladder and say "Business as usual". Questions from all sides of the House and from outside deserve an answer. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with some genuine answers and will be able to give better ones than those he has given recently to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. I was especially struck by one Written Answer. I do not want to poach too much on the noble Lord's preserve, but he asked the Government why it took the Secretary
710
of State for Energy until 11th October to obtain the figures that he needed to make the decision. The Government replied:
"The figures in question were supplied by National Power. This information, which was of great importance to the future commercial position of that company, was not made available by them until 1lth October".—[Official Report, 30/11/89; col. 594.]
If the answer had been "Because it was the birthday of the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, on 11th October", that would have been equally factually correct but of as little use in response to the question that had been asked.
It is clear from what has been said tonight that there is a gaping hole in the Government's policy on electricity privatisation and on the future of the electricity industry. A variety of people from the whole spectrum of politics in this House have pointed clearly to the same point that the Government have to stand up and explain what they intend to do now. It is now a month since the Statement was made. The country cannot go on waiting for ever. I thought that the final remark of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, that the Government owe it to Parliament and to the country to explain themselves, both in terms of how they will fill the supposed energy gap and what they intend to do about the future of the nuclear industry, was perhaps one of the most cogent comments made tonight. I look forward to hearing the Minister's answers.
10.54 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, it is rare that a spokesman from this Front Bench rises at 10.54 p.m. to wind up a debate for the Opposition. It is very late. I do not intend to keep the House very long because other noble Lords have made the points that I intended to make. However, I cannot resist reminding the Government that the timetable for the passage of the Electricity Bill was set firmly for the end of July —the Summer Recess. On these Benches we moved a Motion at the end of the proceedings asking the Government to think again. The Government refused to do so. They have landed themselves in a mess because the Bill was not thought out properly at the outset.
We are now in a position of uncertainty such as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. Privatisation started off on one track, it then went onto a further track and now it has gone onto yet another track. If the assurances given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, when the legislation was before us in the form of a Bill are right —that is, in response to our amendment excluding nuclear power from the privatisation procedure —then the Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, said, has been wrecked.
Further, the public image of nuclear power as a result of what the Government have said has suffered. Indeed, this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stafford, and also by my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick. We are in a position where we have no clear statement of government policy about nuclear power. Are we, therefore, to assume that we are now in a United States-type of situation where no nuclear station has been commissioned in

711
the past 10 years, or are we to assume that we are in a different situation and that we can move ahead in some manner which I do not quite understand? No doubt the noble Viscount will be able to give us the answer.
Moreover, we have no idea how the grid will operate. As the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and other noble Lords remarked, the grid, although complicated to operate, has a very simple merit cost order system. It then goes on to a merit price system, as was explained to us during the passage of the Bill. However, we now find that a company called Nuclear Electric plc is providing what must be the base load because you cannot shut down nuclear stations just like that. But we do not know upon what basis the grid will operate. We do not know whether it will operate on a base load from Nuclear Electric plc with a merit price system from the rest or with a merit cost system from the rest. We simply have no idea. That is one of the reasons the people in Bankside are wholly confused about the way they are to operate.
As many noble Lords remarked, we have no idea about the security of supply. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, mentioned that he very much regretted the fact that we had not received advice from the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, during our debates. In fact, only a week ago he said:
"For well over a year the electricity industry has sought an answer which would preserve both competition and the security of supply, but for the fundamental reasons I have outlined we have finally come to the conclusion that no workable compromise is possible. This issue, which has hung over the privatisation process for the best part of 18 months, was finally put beyond further debate by Mr. John Wakeham at this meeting with the Electricity Industry in September, where he confirmed that competition was to be the guiding principle of the new arrangements. Since that was incompatible with the obligation to supply, then after an interim period the Distribution Companies would have no obligation to supply in the traditional sense used worldwide".
Therefore there is no obligation to supply, whatever the Act may say.
Many noble Lords commented upon the position as regards Nuclear Electric plc and whether, as the chairman Mr. John Collier said, the basic objective will be to regain the confidence of the public in nuclear power by demonstrating that it is not only safe and environmentally clean but that it is also economic in the UK, as it is elsewhere in the world. We have no idea what the Government's policy on that is.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House on 9th November said that he wished to preserve the PWR option. I never understood what the PWR option was. It seemed to me that it meant that we will build Sizewell B, because we have invested £1 billion in Sizewell B, and it is better to invest another £1 billion, and then scrap the rest. In the meantime we know that the Hinkley Point inquiry has continued. If after the 22,000 groups have given evidence and the CEGB has spent £10 million, the Hinkley Point inquiry says that Hinkley Point C is desirable what do we then do? Do we wait until 1994 or do we then have another inquiry? The report of the Hinkley Point inquiry is going to the Secretary of State for Energy in the spring of next year. It is not going to
712
the Secretary of State in the spring of 1994. Next year is only 1990 and so four years will elapse. We must ask the Government what they will do in the interim.
The noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, has spoken in forthright terms about the CEGB's responsibility for, as has been alleged, concealing some of the back-end costs of nuclear power stations (the decommissioning costs). He has said that fuel service charges and decommissioning costs were not their reason for the abandonment of the PWR programme. The factors which really pushed up the estimates of what prices might have to be were the realities of satisfying the financial market.
A letter from Mr. John Baker, the managing director of National Power, to Mr. John Wakeham brought about the final U-turn with the famous llth October figures. He said that the nuclear cost figures, which had been good enough for the annual reports of a public industry and for public inquiries, simply would not survive the scrutiny of accountants advising prospective private investors.
I understand that private investors may be more rigorous than governments in their scrutiny of figures, but nevertheless there are strategic options, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, will recognise, because that was the object of his intervention. There are strategic options, and either we are going in for a nuclear programme, with all the long-run costs, fusion and the other things that the noble Lord mentioned, or we shall say that those things must be viable in the short term and can be sold on the market. That is where the Government's dilemma lies. It is a dilemma that we have pointed out many times. I hate to quote myself but on Second Reading of the Electricity Bill I remember saying that I was looking forward to seeing the prospectus for National Power, including the nuclear element, all the Schedule 12 decommissioning costs, provisions and all the rest of it. The noble Viscount will remember my speech. Under Section 47 of the Financial Services Act I thought that that was an impossible prospectus to write.
Do the Government accept the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, that the nuclear programme has been dropped because electricity privatisation forced a short-term view on nuclear power rather than a long-term view? I should like the answer to that from the noble Viscount.
Also in the last few days the question of unfair subsidies has arisen. I refer to the Rover Statement. It is perfectly clear that the Community is unlikely to ratify any further state aid agreements with Britain until Ministers explain their actions over what is known as the "sweetener" payments. Are we going to have further support for Nuclear Electric or will we allow it to compete in the market place as normal? If we allow it to compete in the market place, on what basis will its assets be valued and on what return on investment will the Government sell electricity into the grid? These are questions to which we need the answers.
Finally, we need to know what on earth the Government will now produce out of the hat. Where

713
is the energy policy? The noble Lords, Lord Nelson of Stafford, Lord Jenkin of Roding and some of my noble friends wish to know where is the energy policy that the Government have in mind for the coming years. We know that nuclear power is not saleable. We know that on normal accounting costings, both on the capital cost and the back end cost, nuclear power is not profitable. What will the Government do? Where will the Government look for the energy that is required for the next 10, 20, 30 years? We very much hope that the Government will look to energy savings, energy efficiency, energy conservation. After all, in this House we passed an amendment to that effect and we hope very much that the Government will take it seriously. We also hope that, although the contribution may not be more than marginal in the short term, alternative energy sources will have a much greater emphasis from the Government.
I can only say at the moment that the privatisation started off like the Grand Old Duke of York. He had 10,000 men and he marched them up to the top of the hill. He is gradually marching them down again. He has not yet got down to the bottom of the hill, but he is halfway down. I very much hope that the noble Viscount will tell us that the Government have got to the bottom of the hill. Together with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, I urge him to look at the whole matter again and start from scratch.
11.8 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in moving the Motion and to other speeches made by noble Lords. In preparing for the debate I also looked again at the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, at the time of the Statement by the Secretary of State on nuclear power. There were three points that he made, then and now, to which I should like to respond in my speech. I shall also try to respond to many of the questions put to me during the course of the debate.
The points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, were that the decision to keep nuclear power in the public sector undermines the principle of the Electricity Act; that the CEGB should be divided into a larger number of successor generating companies now that National Power will no longer own the nuclear stations; and a description of the contractual regime.
On the first point, the noble Lord said on 9th November (at col. 966 of Hansard):
"The principle of the Bill was that the whole electricity industry would be sold to the private sector."
I must say to him with some respect that the Bill went a great deal further than that. Out of a Bill of some 113 clauses, and 18 schedules, no more than three clauses dealt specifically with flotation matters. The rest of the Bill was concerned with the establishment of a new, customer-driven regulatory framework for the electricity industry based on competition, the reorganisation of the electricity industry into a structure where competition could develop and flourish, and special provisions relating
714
to nuclear and other non-fossil generation. The entire Act continues to be relevant and necessary and it will be implemented.
The Government hold firm to the principles underlying the privatisation White Paper. Decisions will continue to be driven by the needs of customers. There will be full and open competition which will provide downward pressure on prices. There will be regulation of natural monopolies. Security and safety of supply will be maintained. Customers will gain new rights.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Viscount making a Second Reading speech about the Electricity Bill?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords. I am replying to this debate.
Those who work in the part of the industry that is to be privatised will be offered a direct stake in their future. Those who work for the nuclear company will be able to benefit from the sale of the rest of the industry. This situation is provided for in the Electricity Act. We have no intention of throwing away all of these benefits. Indeed, we are well on course to meet our aim of vesting the new structure of industry at the end of March 1990.
In this context, I am glad that the noble Lord is pleased with the news announced earlier today that National Power and PowerGen have reached agreement with British Coal on the supply of coal, following vesting. However, this is clearly not the end of the story. While vesting will introduce the new structure of the industry and a competitive contractual regime, the process will not be complete until the competitive elements have been privatised. Only when the electricity companies have shareholders to answer to will the full benefits of the reorganisation come about. While the companies remain in the public sector, they are only partially exposed to commercial reality; they do not face the scrutiny of analysts and the need to justify their performance at annual general meetings.
We cannot therefore rest on our laurels once vesting has taken place, but must press ahead as quickly as possible with the flotations. That is the reason underlying my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy's opening remarks in his Statement on 9th November at col. 1175 of Commons Hansard:
"The Government remain determined to complete electricity privatisation, with all the benefits it will bring, in the lifetime of this Parliament".
That brings me to the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra: that we should reconsider the decision to split the generating assets of the CEGB between a larger company and a smaller company.
In the time since the privatisation White Paper was published, the CEGB has accomplished a major reorganisation of its activities between its National Power and PowerGen divisions. National Power has also divided its activities between conventional and nuclear generation. Because of this latter split, the amount of further reorganisation needed to take

715
account of the nuclear decision can be kept to a minimum. However, if we were to return to the drawing board at this stage, the amount of disruption would be immense. It would jeopardise our objective of completing privatisation this Pariament. The Government are not prepared to put this objective at risk.
I should like to ask the noble Lord what this would achieve. While there is plenty of evidence that there will be intense competition between them, National Power and PowerGen will not be the only generators. The Bill provides for competition in generation, and there are a considerable number of independent proposals for new generating projects. One, between Lakeland Power and NORWEB, has already been signed.
The Electricity Act and the licences to be issued to National Power and PowerGen will ensure that the two major companies will not be able to exploit their dominant position. Thus, fair competition will be ensured and our proposals will enable that competition to be introduced soon. So far as we are all concerned, consumers and taxpayers alike, that is very good news.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also said that the Secretary of State had said that there was no intention to change the structure at this stage and asked whether that meant that it could be changed at a later stage. The answer to that question is that the Secretary of State meant that no change could be contemplated at this late stage: it is a question of emphasis on the word "this". I have already explained the reason.
On the question of hybridity, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hatch, Lord Diamond and Lord Tordoff, the Electricity Bill, which became the Electricity Act 1989, was not hybrid. It was alleged in another place when the then Secretary of State announced the withdrawal of Magnox stations from the privatisation programme that the decision made the Bill hybrid. That allegation was not correct. The Bill, and now the Act, provides in Part II for the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry from statutory corporations into Companies Act companies. The form of the reorganisation will change. The CEGB will be divided into four rather than three companies as a result of the decisions on nuclear power, but those decisions did not require any change in the terms of the Bill or the Act.
The Electricity Bill was not hybrid before the Magnox decision and that decision did not require any amendment to the Bill. It follows that the Bill did not become hybrid as a result of that decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked for a description of how the contractual and pooling regime will work. It will be appreciated that detailed discussions are still going on, but noble Lords may find this explanation helpful.
The pool which will be run by the National Grid Company will enable suppliers and generators to buy and sell electrical energy efficiently. It will be a short term or "spot market" for electrical energy based on once daily offer prices for energy from each
716
generating unit. The details of how the pooling and subsequent settlement system will operate are currently under discussion with the industry. Once those discussions are completed, a description of the pooling arrangements will be made available to independent generators and other interest parties.
In the meantime, I can explain that alongside their pool trading, pool members will be able to enter into financial contracts with each other in order to obtain terms and prices for energy which are applicable over the longer term. The bulk of electrical energy supplies are expected to be covered by such contractual arrangements.
One contractual mechanism under consideration is an "options" contract which will reduce the parties' exposure to fluctuations in pool prices and hence provide longer term stability in prices.
The new contractual and operating regime the Government have recently agreed with the industry will involve no permanent restrictions on competition but will ensure that there is an orderly transition to a completely competitive market.
Competition between public electricity suppliers, independent supply companies and generators to supply customers direct will be limited to sites taking more than 1mW for four years, and then sites taking more than 100kW for a further four years. After eight years all restrictions disappear. Sites above 1mW account for about one-third of total electricity supplied while sites above 100kW account for about half of supply.
There will also be temporary limits on the number of customers a public electricity supplier could lose to National Power and PowerGen so as to prevent those two large generators developing local monopolies.
For the first four years, National Power and PowerGen will, in aggregate, be limited to supplying no more than 15 per cent. of demand in any one area supplied by a public electricity supplier. That limit will then be raised to 25 per cent. and removed altogether after eight years. Thus, there will be no restrictions on competition between generators to supply public electricity suppliers. Suppliers will be free to contract with independent generators immediately and those contracts will be implemented through the pool.
Furthermore, independent generators already selling to customers below 1mW will be able to obtain a licence to continue that supply from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will also have discretion to consider applications for licences to supply customers below 1MW and 100kW limits. Those proposals will ensure that the benefits of the national merit order, in making sure that power is obtained from the cheapest sources, will be maintained. It will also provide for effective competition for generation from the outset, on equal terms between the existing generators and new independent generators. That will ensure downward pressure on electricity prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also asked how prices, in the pool will be reconciled with contracts. Payments in the pool will be settled on a detailed

717
basis between buyers and sellers. Contract payments will be settled initially at least on a bilateral basis and it is hoped that in time a clearing house will be established for the settlement of contract payments. It is not essential to the operation of the new system.
The noble Lord also asked how the obligation to supply will be maintained, as did other noble Lords.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves the question of price with regard to the grid, will he tell us how nuclear electricity will bid into the grid? Will it be on marginal cost or will there be some price mechanism? If so, will he explain what price mechanism that will be?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is a detailed question to which I do not have the answer at the moment. I shall undertake to discover the answer and write to the noble Lord.
I was in the middle of explaining to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, how the obligation to supply will be maintained. The obligation to supply will rest on the public electricity suppliers. They will have an obligation to supply those entitled to a tariff supply. Those customers who choose to take a contract supply will be free to contract with their local public electricity supplier or direct with a generator.
My noble friend Lord Peyton asked me the cost of taking the grid from the CEGB. The CEGB estimated the cost of taking the grid away at up to £1 billion. That was widely recognised as an alarmist figure released prior to the Government's decision. The grid company has now been established as a separate division of the CEGB and a new method for running the system is being established in detail.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for intervening. It is all very well to dismiss those allegations as alarmist. That is exactly what the previous Secretary of State did. We are entitled to ask that, if the Government dismiss those figures as eyewash or rubbish, they should put forward a definite figure as an alternative. There must be some costs involved, although the Government are at liberty to say that there will be no cost. Let us have a clear assessment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was about to tell my noble friend that there is no evidence that the CEGB's cost estimate was correct. Separating the grid is central to bringing forward competition and so to reducing costs.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount yet again. Will he respond to his noble friend and produce the figure that the Government believe is the cost of separating the grid from the present system of the CEGB?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, that is another detailed question to which I do not have the answer. I shall have to undertake to write to my noble friend. Of course I shall send a copy to the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me for interrupting him. It
718
is not in any way my purpose to attribute blame to him, but I hope that he will communicate to his right honourable friend how profoundly disturbed are some of those who sit behind him to find that many months after the CEGB put forward that very serious figure the Government still say, "That is an alarmist figure" but are quite unable to put forward one of their own. I ask my noble friend to communicate to his right honourable friend the very profound sense of unease that exists behind him because of that kind of treatment.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I shall indeed take away from this debate everything that noble Lords have said. I undertake to talk to my right honourable friend and explain to him the concerns that come not only from behind me but from opposite sides of the House. I think that, as the one replying to this debate, it is my duty to do so.
My noble friend Lord Peyton also asked about the way to ensure security of supply and should it be done by central control. The responsibility for security of supply will rest on the public electricity suppliers, as I have said. It is they who are in touch with customers' needs and can contract for new generating capacity. There is no more logic in putting the obligation on the generating companies than in putting it on British Coal which supplies fuel to the generators. Indeed, large parts of Europe are now coming to the view that central control of key resources is not the best way of meeting customers' needs. Therefore my noble friend is recommending a retrograde step.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether the CEGB had a good record of security of supply. I have to say yes. It has served the country well in maintaining security of supply. It has done that too well, at significant cost to the consumer. It has not planned accurately the need for new stations and in the main it has provided too much capacity at too great a cost because it is not in direct touch with the consumer.
Turning to nuclear power, this House has always been a firm advocate of nuclear power and a supporter of this Government's policy —
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but it does not seem to answer the question on security of supply, if I may say so. Questions are being asked on all sides as to when the lights are going to go out. Are the Government assured that in the new circumstances there will not be, as we accept, over-capacity but that there may well be under-capacity? What mechanism is there for ensuring that that happens in the new situation? That point was made by the noble Lords, Lord Peyton of Yeovil and Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that I shall be dealing with that notion in my speech. The nuclear industry has provided a lifeline to this country three times in the past 15 years.
Twice when the miners attempted to hold us to ransom, and during the oil crisis of 1973–74, the nuclear industry played a key role in keeping the lights on. We have not forgotten those events. We

719
have all learned the need for diversity in fuel supply and I can assure my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford and your Lordships tonight that the Government remain firmly committed to maintaining nuclear power in this country.
Much has been said about the costs of nuclear power in recent weeks and there have been attempts to show that nuclear is an economic disaster.
That is not the Government's view and it is not why we decided to remove the nuclear stations from the privatisation programme. The economics of nuclear power remain much the same today as they have over recent years.
The reasons for keeping the AGR and PWR stations in the public sector were different from those that had earlier led the Government to keep the Magnox stations in the public sector.
So far as the Magnox stations were concerned, our preparations for privatisation showed that earlier estimates of reprocessing and decommissioning costs were not high enough. For that reason we were unable to privatise the Magnox stations. But while those increases were important for the Magnox stations, the reprocessing and decommissioning costs per unit of output for AGRs and PWRs remain substantially lower than those for Magnox.
The simple reason the AGR and PWR stations could not be privatised was that it had become apparent that private sector institutions and the investing public have a different perception of the financial risks associated with the industry than that which can be taken by the Government. The fall in the price of oil and the increase in the cost of capital which have occurred in recent years made the cost comparison less favourable than it was earlier.
These factors mean that investors would require a much higher return from existing AGR stations than the rate currently required. They also mean that the financial institutions would not lend for the future PWR stations except at interest rates which include a high risk premium. They also required loans to be repaid over much shorter periods than in the public sector.
These requirements, placed on a highly capital-intensive industry, would have necessitated substantial increases in electricity prices. We were not prepared to accept that.
The solution proposed by National Power was for the Government to give unprecedented guarantees, which would have required taxpayers and consumers to take almost all the commercial risks associated both with output from the stations and with possible future costs increases. The Government, on behalf of the taxpayer, were not prepared to underwrite the private sector in that way. Our solution was the only one which was fair to both the consumer and the taxpayer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Viscount leaves the question, could he kindly tell us this? Now that AGRs and future PWRs, if there are any, are in the public sector, will the Government continue the process of lending at low interest rates
720
and not requiring what the institution investor in the City of London would regard as a short-term proper return?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the private sector and the public sector require different rates of return. It is therefore quite right to think that the nuclear power stations in the public sector will not have to stand the full rigours of the interest rates required by the private sector.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Viscount give way?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I feel that I have dealt with many of these problems. I have tried to help the noble Lord whenever possible, but I should like to continue with my speech.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Viscount is raising great doubts in the minds of Members opposite; I do not know about his noble friends. Surely the whole objective of the Government in privatising the industry was to induce competition and to reduce costs. I thought that that was what it was all about. Now he is telling us that that is not so, certainly in relation to the nuclear industry. But as I pointed out in my speech, the matters that he has just raised were very well known. In the United States they have known for 10 years that nuclear power through light water reactors is not viable. That is what we cannot understand and that is what we should like him to explain to us.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I think that I have dealt with the reasons the AGRs and the PWRs have not been left in the hands of the public. I should now like to continue with my speech.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale drew specific attention to OECD figures which suggest that in many countries nuclear power is either cheaper than coal-fired generation or roughly on a par with it. I certainly take some cautious encouragement from these figures. The basic economics of nuclear have not changed. However, it must be remembered that these figures are not, and do not claim to be, commercial market prices for supplies of nuclear power in the private sector. For example, it uses a 5 per cent. discount rate as its base case and at a 10 per cent. discount rate the picture looks far less rosy for nuclear. As I said, at the rates being sought by financial institutions to fund nuclear power in the private sector, it was clear that the price of nuclear electricity woud have been unacceptably high.
The OECD report is an interesting contribution to the nuclear debate but it does not reflect the commercial factors which my right honourable friend had to take into account.
My noble friend also pressed me to publish the figures provided by National Power which underlay the Government's decisions. The figures cannot be considered independently of the nature of the guarantees pressed hard for by National Power. I have already indicated the extensive nature of those guarantees. If we had been prepared to give such guarantees we would have sought an appropriate

721
reduction in National Power's prices. I cannot tell the noble Lord what would have been the outcome of this negotiation, except to say that it was clear from our knowledge of generating costs that the prices would have remained substantially higher than fossil prices.
The figures for actual supplies —as distinct from negotiating offers in respect of a situation which is now no longer relevant —will, of course, be known in due course when the accounts of the nuclear company are published and when the rate of the fossil fuel levy is announced. I hope that my noble friend will accept that that is as much as I can say.
Many noble Lords have questioned the Government's decision not to include the proposed PWR stations beyond Sizewell B in the non-fossil fuel obligation. I emphasise that we have not said that these stations or others should never be built. We have merely deferred consideration of the prospects for nuclear power until 1994. Meanwhile, these proposed stations will not be within the non-fossil obligation. The Government recognise that the obligation is a distortion of the market.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked whether the electorate will have to pay for electrcity from Hinkley Point C PWR station. The Government have stated that they intend to set the non-fossil fuel obligation at a level that can be met without the construction of further capacity beyond Sizewell B. If a forecast cost of Hinkley Point C turns out to be higher than that of fossil fuel plant, it would be necessary to set a new obligation which would have to be laid before Parliament and could be debated.
The non-fossil fuel obligation is rightly justified by the need to maintain diversity. I have already referred to the dangers of ignoring diversity but the obligation must be kept to a minimum consistent with the strategic need. My right honourable friend has therefore had to take into account the many recent changes in the energy scene affecting the need for three more PWRs on diversity grounds.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that the Secretary of State is still saying that nuclear power is competitive. My right honourable friend did not say that nuclear power is competitive now but that the existing stations and Sizewell B remain necessary for reasons of diversity.
Privatisation is already enhancing diversity of supply. The creation of two major generating companies has an immediate impact. As I have said, the fact that we have devised a structure to promote the growth of new independent generation is of crucial importance. The two main generators and the independents are planning to make use of the latest combined cycle gas turbine stations and the abundance of gas in the North Sea.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked whether market forces could play a part in reducing pollution. Market forces, in the guise of independent entrants to the generation sector, are already helping the environment. Independents —for example, Lakeland Power—intend to burn gas at higher thermal efficiency than coal and with less
722
environmentally damaging emissions. Competition will encourage more diverse and varied fuel in generation.
The United Kingdom has oil plants which could also make a greater contribution to generation. We also believe that it should be possible, subject to the requirements of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, to extend the lifetime of some of the Magnox stations.
All that I have said indicates that the Government are well aware of the energy needs in the short and medium term and that it would be wrong to criticise them for not providing the sources of supply. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale mentioned that we were told that the costs of decommissioning were the reason for the Magnox decision. He asked whether that has changed, as life extensions have been indicated. Nothing has changed since that time. Life extensions of the Magnox stations should have a negligible impact on costs and would still not have allowed it to be privatised. The impact on the company's balance sheet of providing for the liabilities would remain serious.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what provision will be made for the decommissioning costs?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, again I do not have that figure at my fingertips but I shall make inquiries and write to my noble friend.
The Magnox stations are a valuable national asset. We must use them to the full. I know that many noble Lords are strong and eloquent supporters of renewable forms of power. We are also taking very positive steps to encourage development of renewable technology which promises to make an important contribution to our energy needs in the future. That is why my noble friend Lady Hooper announced that the non-fossil fuel obligation would be extended by 600 megawatts during the 1990s, specifically for renewable projects, and the Government stand by that commitment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed to the promotion of energy efficiency, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. The Electricity Act places a duty of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Electricity Supply to promote energy efficiency and economy on the part of persons licensed to supply electricity and to promote the efficient use of electricity supplied by them.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked me what the Government are doing to support renewables. They are committed to development of economic renewable energy in addition to the sizeable budget for renewable R&D. The non-fossil fuel obligation is designed to support non-fossil fuel generation.
My noble friend Lady Hooper announced the 600 megawatt tranche and we believe that that will give a specific boost to renewable projects. It is already clear that a significant number of renewable projects are in preparation to meet that non-fossil fuel obligation.
Taken together, those factors mean that the case for extending the non-fossil fuel obligation to cover

723
early construction of three further PWRs on diversity grounds is no longer established. Therefore, we shall review the position in 1994.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale also asked what reasons we have to expect nuclear power to become economic in the longer term. In recent years fossil fuel prices have been at relatively low levels. No one expects them to stay at those levels indefinitely. All around the world people are waking up to the effect which burning fossil fuels has on the environment.
It would be a brave man who would assert today that fossil fuel prices will continue to exclude the indirect costs that are imposed on all of us. What is clear is that our understanding of the environment is improving rapidly at the moment. When the Government review the situation in 1994, as Sizewell B nears completion, we will know a great deal more about the relative economics of fossil and nuclear generation. That will be the time to take a firmer view about the future of the nuclear programme. We shall also take the opportunity of the review to look again at the longer term prospects for renewables in the light of all the factors at the time. I am sure noble Lords agree that it is sensible to look at future prospects for all non-fossil sources together.
I have been asked why we are proceeding with Sizewell B. The station is needed to counterbalance the closure of the Magnox stations in the mid-1990s. We shall also learn from its construction and keep open the option to build further stations after we have completed our review in five years' time. The PWR option must be kept open not only on diversity grounds but also so that we can call on the nuclear industry if it proves the best solution for dealing with our growing environmental problems. For these reasons we must complete Sizewell B on time and ensure that it operates successfully.
The new chairman and directors of Nuclear Electric have made clear their determination to ensure that nuclear power is established as an economic option for base load electricity and that the nuclear industry builds for itself a bright future. They have the full support of the Government in these objectives.
In conclusion I should say that I welcome the opportunity this debate has provided to explain in a little more detail the Government's privatisation proposals following the recent nuclear Statement. I have set out why the Electricity Act remains central to our proposals and have explained why we do not propose to revisit the split between National Power and PowerGen. I have explained how we shall ensure effective competition in generation. I have reiterated the Government's commitment to the nuclear option and have explained the role of the new nuclear company.
Our proposals provide the best means of providing a future for nuclear power and for ensuring the completion of electricity privatisation this Parliament. I regret that I have taken so long to explain all these points and to answer some of the many questions that have been put to me. However, I realise that I have not answered them all. I commend the Government's proposals to the House.
11.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have had a well-informed and vigorous debate on an important issue. I wish to thank those noble Lords who have taken part and also the noble Viscount for the detail in which he dealt with the questions raised. However, I wish simply to identify two issues which I believe have emerged from our lengthy discussion on this subject tonight.
In the short term I believe there is still concern about how effectively the new arrangements will work. Anything the Government can do to explain those and allay any doubts there may be would obviously be to the good. In the longer term there is the question of capacity. There is a great deal of uncertainty about what the requirements are likely to be. The 13,000 MW which was an original estimate has been mentioned. How will this extra capacity be met? What will be the role of nuclear, of renewables and indeed of increased energy efficiency in the future? These are questions to which I have no doubt we shall return many times in the future. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before midnight.

Written Answers

  CYCLING ON PAVEMENTS
  Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether it is unlawful for cyclists to ride on the pavement.
  Viscount Davidson: Cycling on a footway is illegal, and is an offence under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835, as amended by Section 85(1) of the Local Government Act 1888. It carries a maximum penalty of £100. Enforcement is a matter for the police.

  SPECTACLES: ALLEGED OVER-PRESCRIBING
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will ask the General Optical Council to investigate and report on unnecessary prescribing of spectacles, particularly for young people, as alleged in television programmes and press articles.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): We are aware of press articles and TV coverage earlier this year about alleged over-prescribing. No complaints of any substance have been received by the department and, therefore, we have no plans to ask the General Optical Council to investigate this matter. It is, of course, open to anyone who is dissatisfied following a sight test to complain to the General Optical Council or to the Consumer Complaints Section of the Association of Optometrists at Bridge House, 233/234 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NW.

  GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL: MEMBERSHIP
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will change the membership of the General Optical Council to give greater weight to the interests of consumers; and
  What is the present balance of membership of the General Optical Council as between professional and allied interests on the one hand and lay members on the other hand; and how long each of the existing members has served.
  Baroness Hooper: The General Optical Council consists of 28 members; six lay members and 22 members representing professional and allied interests. The interests represented are as follows:—

  (a) Five persons appointed by the Privy Council;

  (b) Seven persons chosen to represent registered ophthalmic opticians;

  (c) Three persons chosen to represent registered dispensing opticians;

  (d) Six persons nominated by the examining bodies;

  (e) Six medical practitioners;

  (f) One person nominated by the Privy Council to represent Northern Ireland.

  All members serve a term of five years. A breakdown of members' appointment and retirement dates is given in the table.
  We have no plans to amend the Opticians Act to alter either the constitution of the Council or the composition of its membership.

  Name

  Appointment Date

  Retirement Date

  Lay Members Appointed by the Privy Council:

  Mr David Burt (Chairman)

  1st January 1989

  31st December 1993

  Mrs Elizabeth Stanton

  1st January 1989

  31st December 1993

  Dr E. S. Page

  1st January 1989

  31st December 1993

  Miss Diana Rookledge

  1st January 1989

  31st December 1993

  Mr Douglas Boyd

  1st January 1989

  31st December 1993

  GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL: REVIEW OF OPTICAL SERVICES
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether the committee of the General Optical Council that is at present reviewing the optical services has been asked to report on the use of the autorefractor for the testing of eyesight; and
  Whether the committee of the General Optical Council that is at present reviewing the optical services is being asked to report on the pricing of spectacles by opticians and, in particular, on the practice of retailing with the reported 300 per cent. or more mark-up on the price paid to the wholesaler; and
  Whether the committee of the General Optical Council that is at present reviewing the optical services has been, or will be, asked to take evidence from the public.
  Baroness Hooper: The review of the optical services is the responsibility of the General Optical Council. Any questions in connection with the scope of the review or individual subjects under consideration are matters which need to be discussed with them. The General Optical Council issued a press statement in July 1989 explaining the aim of the Optical Services Review and invited people to submit any comments or views they may have on the optical services. I understand that to date there have been no replies from members of the public.

  GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL: STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What are the terms of reference of the disciplinary committee of the General Optical Council and what is meant by "high standards of professional conduct" in the Opticians Act when this is applied to the pricing and selling of spectacles.
  Baroness Hooper: It is up to the General Optical Council to ensure that high professional standards are maintained by its members. There are no formal terms of reference for the council's disciplinary committee, but the standards it applies are based on past precedent and peer group expectations. Responsibility for the standard of professional service provided to the public, however, rests with the British College of Optometrists for ophthalmic opticians and the Association of Dispensing Opticians for dispensing opticians.

  727
  As the sale of spectacles is a private transaction it is up to individual opticians to use their commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly. This is normal business practice. The legislation covering their commercial activity is the consumer protection law. Provided opticians comply with this legislation, they are not in breach of the standards of professional conduct required under the terms of the Opticians Act 1958.

  GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL: INVESTIGATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will ask the General Optical Council to give publicity to their role of investigating complaints against opticians for unnecessary prescribing and over-pricing in the selling of spectacles.
  Baroness Hooper: The General Optical Council is responsible for ensuring the professional standing and integrity of the ophthalmic profession. Any instances of unnecessary prescribing would be considered as a disciplinary offence and subject to investigation under the terms of the General Optical Council rules. Disciplinary hearings are open to the public and the press. A press statement is issued by the General Optical Council on the outcome of any hearing.
  The sale of spectacles is a private transaction. Allegations of over-pricing would therefore need to be made to the local trading standards officer, who would be responsible for taking action if appropriate.

  SIGHT TESTS: CONSUMER CHOICE
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they plan to reconsider their proposal to introduce freedom for the consumer to choose a simple refraction test as an alternative to the present sight tests by opticians.
  Baroness Hooper: The option for a refraction only sight test was considered carefully earlier this year prior to the laying of the Sight Testing (Prescription and Examination) Regulations 1989. It was concluded that it was right that all sight tests should include an eye examination. The General Optical Council are currently undertaking a wide ranging review of optical services and we shall consider any recommendations which relate to sight tests.

  SIGHT TEST CHARGES: INCIDENCE AND LEVELS
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  To what extent, as they expected, opticians are now making a charge for testing of eyesight; and what is the average charge being made.
  Baroness Hooper: The amount charged for a private sight test is a matter between the patient and the optician. It is up to individual opticians to use their commercial judgment and set their prices accordingly. As private sight tests fall outside the remit of the general ophthalmic services we do not collect information on the level of charges currently being set.

  SPECTACLES: COSTS TO SUPPLIER
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is the cost to the optician of a simple spectacle lens of up to four dioptres correction; and what action they propose to take against opticians who charge £30 for supply to the customer of a pair of such lenses.
  Baroness Hooper: The cost to the optician of a pair of uncut ophthalmic spherical lenses of power up to plus 4.00 dioptres manufactured within the UK to British Standards is between £4 and £22 depending upon the power of the lenses and the size of the uncut lens required. To this must be added the cost of glazing, which is between £1 and £14 depending upon the glazing requirements of the spectacle frame. This does not include the price of the spectacle frame or any dispensing fees. Cheaper lenses are available from less developed countries and other sources but these are not always manufactured to a recognised British or International Standard. We would not wish to interfere in the sale of spectacles, which is a private transaction.

  SIGHT TESTS: ENFORCEMENT OF LEGAL DEFINITIONS
  Lord Rugby Lord Rugby asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they will now enforce the terms "refraction", "defects of refraction" and "refractionist" in the place of "sight", "defects of sight" (neither of which is defined in the Opticians Act 1989) and "optometrist", "ophthalmic optician" or "optician" respectively.
  Baroness Hooper: Regulations specify that when undertaking a sight test an optician should carry out an eye examination to look for signs of injury, disease or abnormality and apply other tests appropriate to the patient. This is in addition to determining the optical prescription through refraction. The terms "sight", and "defects of sight", although not specifically defined in the Act, are well understood by those using them and convey the full meaning of sight testing and the obligations of opticians. The terms "refraction", "defects of refraction" and "refractionist" only convey part of their obligation and are therefore considered inappropriate.

  SPECTACLES: DEFINITION IN EUROPEAN LAW
  Lord Rugby Lord Rugby asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they intend to introduce legislation to amend the Optician's Act 1989 to delete references to spectacles as being "medical appliances" now that EC rulings have confirmed that they should not be so described; and
  What were the costs to the taxpayer in the European Court case regarding the description of spectacles as "medical appliances" and whether they are seeking reimbursement of these costs from the opticians.
  Baroness Hooper: The judgment given by the European Court is confined exclusively to the interpretation of Article 13A(1)(C) of the sixth (VAT) directive and does not range wider than the VAT field. We therefore do not intend to introduce legislation to amend the Opticians Act 1989.
  Disbursements from public funds, including Counsel's fees, amounted to £6,707·75p. Work carried out by Government officials was in the course of their ordinary duties at no extra cost to public funds. It is not practicable to attribute the cost of employment of officials concerned with such cases to particular cases. We will not be seeking reimbursement of the disbursements from the opticians.

  GENERAL OPTICAL COUNCIL: CONSTITUTION
  Lord Rugby Lord Rugby asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What proposals they have for reducing the size of the General Optical Council and its committees now that regulation of opticians is increasingly within the power of Ministers under recent legislation.
  Baroness Hooper: We have no current plans to amend the terms of the Opticians Act 1958 to alter the constitution or duties of the General Optical Council.

  SPECTACLES: PRESCRIBING PRACTICE
  Lord Rugby Lord Rugby asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What guidance is given to opticians regarding fractional tolerance in sight testing, so that customers are not dissuaded from purchasing the new "reading glasses" by unnecessary insistence on a very small difference of correction between two lenses in a pair of spectacles.
  Baroness Hooper: None. The writing of a prescription from the results of a sight test is a matter
  730
  for the professional judgment of the registered practitioner, who may be either a doctor or an ophthalmic optician (optometrist). Where unnecessary prescribing is reported, it is a matter for the General Medical Council or the General Optical Council to take such action deemed necessary by the severity of the offence.

  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION: FINANCIAL ADVISERS AND ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES
  Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Who were their financial advisers on the electricity privatisation programme, and what accounting principles were used to establish the costs of nuclear power for the purpose of a prospectus.
  Viscount Ullswater: The Government's financial advisers on the electricity privatisation programme are Kleinwort Benson; Touche Ross advise on general accounting matters. Prospectuses for the flotation of the electricity supply industry will be produced nearer the flotation dates. Nuclear stations have been withdrawn from the privatisation programme and so will no longer appear as assets being sold. The accounting principles followed by the CEGB are matters for the board.

  MILK LEVY: CONTAMINATED SUPPLIES
  Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether milk which is unsold because of lead contamination will be deducted from the figure for national milk production when calculating production against quota to arrive at the figure for super-levy for the year to 31st March 1990.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): EC Regulations require all milk delivered to a purchaser to be taken into account in assessing liability for supplementary levy. Milk which has been separately collected by the Milk Marketing Board under the Food and Environment Protection Act restrictions cannot be ignored for levy calculation purposes.

  ANIMAL WELFARE: PROJECTED LEGISLATION
  Lord Northfield Lord Northfield asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they plan to introduce any animal welfare legislation during the present Session.
  Baroness Trumpington: The Government plan to introduce orders on the welfare of farm livestock and horses at markets and an amendment of the transport legislation in respect of casualty animals. We are also planning new regulations on the protection of livestock on farms and at the point of slaughter in this Session.

  MINISTERIAL SALARIES
  Lord Fanshawe of Richmond Lord Fanshawe of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When they will announce their decision on Ministers' pay.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): The salaries of Members of Parliament will increase by £2,594

  MINISTERS AND OTHER PAID OFFICE HOLDERS

  Current official salary £

  January 1990 Official salary £

  Percentage increase%

  Current total salary (including reduced Parliamentary salary of £18,148)

  Total January 1990 salary (including reduced Parliamentary Salary of£20,101

  Percentage increase %

  Prime Minister1

  46,109

  46,750

  1·39

  64.257

  66,851

  4·04

  Cabinet Minister (C)

  34,479

  35,120

  1·86

  52,627

  55,221

  4·93

  Cabinet Minister (L)

  41,997

  44,591

  6·18

  Minister of State (C)

  24,209

  24,850

  2·65

  42,357

  44,951

  6·12

  Minister of State (L)

  37,047

  39,641

  7·00

  Parliamentary Secretary (C)

  18,219

  18,860

  3·52

  36,367

  38,961

  7·13

  Parliamentary Secretary (L)

  30,647

  33,241

  8·46

  Attorney General

  36,679

  37,320

  1·75

  54,827

  57,421

  4·73

  Solicitor General

  29,959

  30,600

  2·14

  48,107

  50,701

  5·39

  Lord Advocate

  42,067

  44,661

  6·17

  Solicitor-General for Scotland

  36,515

  39,109

  7·10

  House of Commons

  Mr Speaker(1)

  36,209

  36,850

  1·77

  54,557

  56,951

  4·77

  Leader of the Opposition

  31,559

  32,200

  2·03

  49,707

  32,301

  5·22

  Chief Whip

  28,589

  29,230

  2·24

  46,737

  49,331

  5·55

  Deputy Chief Whip

  24,209

  24,850

  2·65

  42,357

  44,951

  6·12

  Opposition Chief Whip

  24,209

  24,850

  2·65

  42,357

  44,951

  6·12

  Government Whips +

  Assistant Govt Whips

  15,349

  15,990

  4·18

  33,497

  36,091

  7·74

  Assistant Opposition Whip

  15,349

  15,990

  418

  33,497

  36,091

  7·74

  Chairman of Ways and Means

  24,209

  24,850

  2·65

  42,357

  44,951

  6·12

  Deputy Chairman of Ways and means

  21,199

  21,840

  3·02

  39,347

  41,941

  6·59

  House of Lords

  Chief Whip

  37,047

  39,641

  7·00

  Deputy Chief Whip

  30,647

  33,241

  8·46

  Government Whips

  27,377

  29,971

  9·48

  Opposition Leader

  30,647

  33,241

  8·46

  Opposition Chief Whip

  27,377

  29,971

  9·48

  Chairman of Committees

  37,047

  39,641

  7·00

  Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

  33,537

  36,131

  7·73

  Members of Parliament

  24,107

  26,701

  10·76

  (1) The Prime Minister and Mr Speaker have elected to receive the same salary as a Cabinet Minister in the House of Commons.

  Note: The Lord Chancellor's salary is governed by the Lord Chancellor's Salary Order 1988 and is not affected by this order. (He receives £91,500 effective from 18th April 1989).
  from 1st January 1990 in accordance with the terms of the resolution on 21st July 1987. In the light of this, the Government propose that ministerial salaries should be increased by the same cash amount, which will mean an increase in the ministerial pay bill of 6·5 per cent. The details are set out in the following table and I have today laid the draft Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1989 to implement these changes.